Displaying 101 - 129 of 129
-
Levinson, S. C. (1995). Three levels of meaning. In F. Palmer (
Ed. ), Grammar and meaning: Essays in honour of Sir John Lyons (pp. 90-115). Cambridge University Press. -
Levinson, S. C., & Annamalai, E. (1992). Why presuppositions aren't conventional. In R. N. Srivastava (
Ed. ), Language and text: Studies in honour of Ashok R. Kelkar (pp. 227-242). Dehli: Kalinga Publications. -
McQueen, J. M., & Cutler, A. (1997). Cognitive processes in speech perception. In W. J. Hardcastle, & J. D. Laver (
Eds. ), The handbook of phonetic sciences (pp. 556-585). Oxford: Blackwell. -
Noordman, L. G., & Vonk, W. (1997). The different functions of a conjunction in constructing a representation of the discourse. In J. Costermans, & M. Fayol (
Eds. ), Processing interclausal relationships: studies in the production and comprehension of text (pp. 75-94). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. -
Pederson, E. (1995). Questionnaire on event realization. In D. Wilkins (
Ed. ), Extensions of space and beyond: manual for field elicitation for the 1995 field season (pp. 54-60). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.3004359.Abstract
"Event realisation" refers to the normal final state of the affected entity of an activity described by a verb. For example, the sentence John killed the mosquito entails that the mosquito is afterwards dead – this is the full realisation of a killing event. By contrast, a sentence such as John hit the mosquito does not entail the mosquito’s death (even though we might assume this to be a likely result). In using a certain verb, which features of event realisation are entailed and which are just likely? This questionnaire supports cross-linguistic exploration of event realisation for a range of event types. -
Perdue, C., & Klein, W. (1992). Conclusions. In W. Klein, & C. Perdue (
Eds. ), Utterance structure: Developing grammars again (pp. 301-337). Amsterdam: Benjamins. -
Perdue, C., & Klein, W. (1992). Introduction. In W. Klein, & C. Perdue (
Eds. ), Utterance structure: Developing grammars again (pp. 1-10). Amsterdam: Benjamins. -
Senft, G., & Labov, W. (1980). Einige Prinzipien linguistischer Methodologie [transl. from English by Gunter Senft]. In N. Dittmar, & B. O. Rieck (
Eds. ), William Labov: Sprache im sozialen Kontext (pp. 1-24). Königstein: Athenäum FAT. -
Senft, G. (1995). Elicitation. In J. Blommaert, J.-O. Östman, & J. Verschueren (
Eds. ), Handbook of Pragmatics: Manual (pp. 577-581). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. -
Senft, G. (1992). As time goes by..: Changes observed in Trobriand Islanders' culture and language, Milne Bay Province, Papua New Guinea. In T. Dutton (
Ed. ), Culture change, language change: Case studies from Melanesia (pp. 67-89). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. -
Senft, G. (1995). 'Noble savages' and 'the islands of love': Trobriand Islanders in 'popular publications'. In C. Baak, M. Bakker, & D. Van der Meij (
Eds. ), Tales from a concave world: Liber amicorum Bert Voorhoeve (pp. 480-510). Leiden: Projects division, department of languages and cultures of South East Asia and Oceania, Leiden University. -
Senft, G. (1995). Fieldwork. In J. Blommaert, J.-O. Östman, & J. Verschueren (
Eds. ), Handbook of Pragmatics: Manual (pp. 595-601). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. -
Senft, G., & Labov, W. (1980). Hyperkorrektheit der unteren Mittelschicht als Faktor im Sprachwandel; [transl. from English by Gunter Senft]. In N. Dittmar, & B. O. Rieck (
Eds. ), William Labov: Sprache im sozialen Kontext (pp. 77-94). Königstein: Athneäum FAT. -
Senft, G. (1997). Magic, missionaries, and religion - Some observations from the Trobriand Islands. In T. Otto, & A. Borsboom (
Eds. ), Cultural dynamics of religious change in Oceania (pp. 45-58). Leiden: KITLV press. -
Senft, G. (1995). Mit Tinkertoy in die Tiefe(n) des Raumes: Zum räumlichen Verweisen im Kilivila - Eine Fallstudie. In R. Fiehler, & D. Metzing (
Eds. ), Untersuchungen zur Kommunikationstruktur (Bielefelder Schriften zu Linguistik und Literaturwissenschaft, pp. 139-162). Bielefeld: Aisthesis Verlag. -
Senft, G. (1997). Introduction. In G. Senft (
Ed. ), Referring to space - Studies in Austronesian and Papuan languages (pp. 1-38). Oxford: Clarendon Press. -
Seuren, P. A. M. (1983). Auxiliary system in Sranan. In F. Heny, & B. Richards (
Eds. ), Linguistic categories: Auxiliaries and related puzzles / Vol. two, The scope, order, and distribution of English auxiliary verbs (pp. 219-251). Dordrecht: Reidel. -
Seuren, P. A. M. (1980). Dreiwertige Logik und die Semantik natürlicher Sprache. In J. Ballweg, & H. Glinz (
Eds. ), Grammatik und Logik: Jahrbuch 1979 des Instituts für deutsche Sprache (pp. 72-103). Düsseldorf: Pädagogischer Verlag Schwann. -
Seuren, P. A. M. (1995). Reflections on negation. In H. C. M. De Swart, & L. J. M. Bergmans (
Eds. ), Perspectives on Negation. Essays in honour of Johan J. de Iongh on his 80th birthday (pp. 153-176). Tilburg: Tilburg University Press. -
Seuren, P. A. M. (1979). Wat is semantiek? In B. Tervoort (
Ed. ), Wetenschap en taal: Een nieuwe reeks benaderingen van het verschijnsel taal (pp. 135-162). Muiderberg: Coutinho. -
Skiba, R., & Steinmüller, U. (1995). Pragmatics of compositional word formation in technical languages. In H. Pishwa, & K. Maroldt (
Eds. ), The development of morphological systematicity: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 305-321). Tübingen: Narr. -
Stassen, H., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1979). Systems, automata, and grammars. In J. Michon, E. Eijkman, & L. De Klerk (
Eds. ), Handbook of psychonomics: Vol. 1 (pp. 187-243). Amsterdam: North Holland. -
Thomassen, A. J., & Kempen, G. (1979). Memory. In J. A. Michon, E. Eijkman, & L. Klerk (
Eds. ), Handbook of psychonomics (pp. 75-137 ). Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company. -
Trabasso, T., & Ozyurek, A. (1997). Communicating evaluation in narrative understanding. In T. Givon (
Ed. ), Conversation: Cognitive, communicative and social perspectives (pp. 268-302). Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins. -
Van Berkum, J. J. A., Hijne, H., De Jong, T., Van Joolingen, W. R., & Njoo, M. (1995). Characterizing the application of computer simulations in education: Instructional criteria. In A. Ram, & D. B. Leake (
Eds. ), Goal-driven learning (pp. 381-392). Cambridge, M: MIT Press. -
Van Valin Jr., R. D. (1995). Toward a functionalist account of so-called ‘extraction constraints’. In B. Devriendt (
Ed. ), Complex structures: A functionalist perspective (pp. 29-60). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. -
Wilkins, D. (1995). Towards a Socio-Cultural Profile of the Communities We Work With. In D. Wilkins (
Ed. ), Extensions of space and beyond: manual for field elicitation for the 1995 field season (pp. 70-79). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.3513481.Abstract
Field data are drawn from a particular speech community at a certain place and time. The intent of this survey is to enrich understanding of the various socio-cultural contexts in which linguistic and “cognitive” data may have been collected, so that we can explore the role which societal, cultural and contextual factors may play in this material. The questionnaire gives guidelines concerning types of ethnographic information that are important to cross-cultural and cross-linguistic enquiry, and will be especially useful to researchers who do not have specialised training in anthropology. -
Wilkins, D., Pederson, E., & Levinson, S. C. (1995). Background questions for the "enter"/"exit" research. In D. Wilkins (
Ed. ), Extensions of space and beyond: manual for field elicitation for the 1995 field season (pp. 14-16). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.3003935.Abstract
How do languages encode different kinds of movement, and what features do people pay attention to when describing motion events? This document outlines topics concerning the investigation of “enter” and “exit” events. It helps contextualise research tasks that examine this domain (see 'Motion Elicitation' and 'Enter/Exit animation') and gives some pointers about what other questions can be explored. -
Wilkins, D. (1995). Motion elicitation: "moving 'in(to)'" and "moving 'out (of)'". In D. Wilkins (
Ed. ), Extensions of space and beyond: manual for field elicitation for the 1995 field season (pp. 4-12). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.3003391.Abstract
How do languages encode different kinds of movement, and what features do people pay attention to when describing motion events? This task investigates the expression of “enter” and “exit” activities, that is, events involving motion in(to) and motion out (of) container-like items. The researcher first uses particular stimuli (a ball, a cup, rice, etc.) to elicit descriptions of enter/exit events from one consultant, and then asks another consultant to demonstrate the event based on these descriptions. See also the related entries Enter/Exit Animation and Background Questions for Enter/Exit Research.
Share this page