Displaying 301 - 318 of 318
-
Terrill, A. (2001). Warlpiri. In J. Garry, & C. Rubino (
Eds. ), Facts about the world’s languages: An encyclopedia of the world's major languages past and present (pp. 801-803). New York: H.W. Wilson Press. -
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. -
Trilsbeek, P., & Wittenburg, P. (2005). Archiving challenges. In J. Gippert, N. Himmelmann, & U. Mosel (
Eds. ), Essentials of language documentation (pp. 311-335). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. -
Van Valin Jr., R. D. (2001). Functional linguistics. In M. Aronoff, & J. Rees-Miller (
Eds. ), The handbook of Linguistics (pp. 319-336). Oxford: Blackwell. -
Van Valin Jr., R. D. (1994). Extraction restrictions, competing theories and the argument from the poverty of the stimulus. In S. D. Lima, R. Corrigan, & G. K. Iverson (
Eds. ), The reality of linguistic rules (pp. 243-259). Amsterdam: Benjamins. -
Van Geenhoven, V. (1998). On the Argument Structure of some Noun Incorporating Verbs in West Greenlandic. In M. Butt, & W. Geuder (
Eds. ), The Projection of Arguments - Lexical and Compositional Factors (pp. 225-263). Stanford, CA, USA: CSLI Publications.Files private
Request files -
Van Valin Jr., R. D. (1998). The acquisition of WH-questions and the mechanisms of language acquisition. In M. Tomasello (
Ed. ), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure (pp. 221-249). Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum. -
Van Berkum, J. J. A. (2004). Sentence comprehension in a wider discourse: Can we use ERPs to keep track of things? In M. Carreiras, Jr., & C. Clifton (
Eds. ), The on-line study of sentence comprehension: eyetracking, ERPs and beyond (pp. 229-270). New York: Psychology Press. -
Van Staden, M., Senft, G., Enfield, N. J., & Bohnemeyer, J. (2001). Staged events. In S. C. Levinson, & N. J. Enfield (
Eds. ), Manual for the field season 2001 (pp. 115-125). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.874668.Abstract
The term “event” is a controversial concept, and the “same” activity or situation can be linguistically encoded in many different ways. The aim of this task is to explore features of event representation in the language of study, in particular, multi-verb constructions, event typicality, and event complexity. The task consists of a description and recollection task using film stimuli, and a subsequent re-enactment of certain scenes by other participants on the basis of these descriptions. The first part of the task collects elaborate and concise descriptions of complex events in order to examine how these are segmented into macro-events, what kind of information is expressed, and how the information is ordered. The re-enactment task is designed to examine what features of the scenes are stereotypically implied.Additional information
2001_Staged_events_1a.zip 2001_Staged_events_1b.zip 2001_Staged_events_2a.zip 2001_Staged_events_2b.zip -
Von Stutterheim, C., & Klein, W. (2004). Die Gesetze des Geistes sind metrisch: Hölderlin und die Sprachproduktion. In H. Schwarz (
Ed. ), Fenster zur Welt: Deutsch als Fremdsprachenphilologie (pp. 439-460). München: Iudicium. -
Weissenborn, J. (1986). Learning how to become an interlocutor. The verbal negotiation of common frames of reference and actions in dyads of 7–14 year old children. In J. Cook-Gumperz, W. A. Corsaro, & J. Streeck (
Eds. ), Children's worlds and children's language (pp. 377-404). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. -
Wilkins, D. (2001). Eliciting contrastive use of demonstratives for objects within close personal space (all objects well within arm’s reach). In S. C. Levinson, & N. J. Enfield (
Eds. ), Manual for the field season 2001 (pp. 164-168). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. -
Wilkins, D., Kita, S., & Enfield, N. J. (2001). Ethnography of pointing questionnaire version 2. In S. C. Levinson, & N. J. Enfield (
Eds. ), Manual for the field season 2001 (pp. 136-141). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. -
Wilkins, D. (2001). The 1999 demonstrative questionnaire: “This” and “that” in comparative perspective. In S. C. Levinson, & N. J. Enfield (
Eds. ), Manual for the field season 2001 (pp. 149-163). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. -
Zeshan, U. (2005). Sign languages. In M. Haspelmath, M. S. Dryer, D. Gil, & B. Comrie (
Eds. ), The world atlas of language structures (pp. 558-559). Oxford: Oxford University Press. -
Zeshan, U. (2005). Question particles in sign languages. In M. Haspelmath, M. S. Dryer, D. Gil, & B. Comrie (
Eds. ), The world atlas of language structures (pp. 564-567). Oxford: Oxford University Press. -
Zeshan, U., Pfau, R., & Aboh, E. (2005). When a wh-word is not a wh-word: the case of Indian sign language. In B. Tanmoy (
Ed. ), Yearbook of South Asian languages and linguistics 2005 (pp. 11-43). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. -
Zeshan, U. (2005). Irregular negatives in sign languages. In M. Haspelmath, M. S. Dryer, D. Gil, & B. Comrie (
Eds. ), The world atlas of language structures (pp. 560-563). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Share this page