Displaying 1 - 10 of 10
-
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1999). Politeness: Some universals in language usage [Reprint]. In A. Jaworski, & N. Coupland (
Eds. ), The discourse reader (pp. 321-335). London: Routledge.Abstract
This article is a reprint of chapter 1, the introduction to Brown and Levinson, 1987, Politeness: Some universals in language usage (Cambridge University Press). -
Levinson, S. C. (1999). Deixis. In K. Brown, & J. Miller (
Eds. ), Concise encyclopedia of grammatical categories (pp. 132-136). Oxford: Elsevier. -
Levinson, S. C. (1999). Deixis and Demonstratives. In D. Wilkins (
Ed. ), Manual for the 1999 Field Season (pp. 29-40). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.2573810.Abstract
Demonstratives are key items in understanding how a language constructs and interprets spatial relationships. They are also multi-functional, with applications to non-spatial deictic fields such as time, perception, person and discourse, and uses in anaphora and affect marking. This item consists of an overview of theoretical distinctions in demonstrative systems, followed by a set of practical queries and elicitation suggestions for demonstratives in “table top” space, wider spatial fields, and naturalistic data. -
Levinson, S. C. (1999). General Questions About Topological Relations in Adpositions and Cases. In D. Wilkins (
Ed. ), Manual for the 1999 Field Season (pp. 57-68). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.2615829.Abstract
The world’s languages encode a diverse range of topological relations. However, cross-linguistic investigation suggests that the relations IN, AT and ON are especially fundamental to the grammaticised expression of space. The purpose of this questionnaire is to collect information about adpositions, case markers, and spatial nominals that are involved in the expression of core IN/AT/ON meanings. The task explores the more general parts of a language’s topological system, with a view to testing certain hypotheses about the packaging of spatial concepts. The questionnaire consists of target translation sentences that focus on a number of dimensions including animacy, caused location and motion. -
Levinson, S. C. (1999). Hypotheses concerning basic locative constructions and the verbal elements within them. In D. Wilkins (
Ed. ), Manual for the 1999 Field Season (pp. 55-56). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.3002711.Abstract
Languages differ widely in terms of how they encode the fundamental concepts of location and position. For some languages, verbs have an important role to play in describing situations (e.g., whether a bottle is standing or lying on the table); for others, verbs are not used in describing location at all. This item outlines certain hypotheses concerning four “types” of languages: those that have verbless basic locatives; those that use a single verb; those that have several verbs available to express location; and those that use positional verbs. The document was originally published as an appendix to the 'Picture series for positional verbs' (https://doi.org/10.17617/2.2573831). -
Levinson, S. C. (1999). Maxim. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 9, 144-147. doi:10.1525/jlin.1999.9.1-2.144.
-
Levinson, S. C. (1999). Language and culture. In R. Wilson, & F. Keil (
Eds. ), MIT encyclopedia of the cognitive sciences (pp. 438-440). Cambridge: MIT press. -
Atlas, J. D., & Levinson, S. C. (1981). It-clefts, informativeness and logical form: Radical pragmatics (revised standard version). In P. Cole (
Ed. ), Radical pragmatics (pp. 1-62). New York: Academic Press. -
Levinson, S. C. (1981). The essential inadequacies of speech act models of dialogue. In H. Parret, M. Sbisà, & J. Verscheuren (
Eds. ), Possibilities and limitations of pragmatics: Proceedings of the Conference on Pragmatics, Urbino, July 8–14, 1979 (pp. 473-492). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. -
Levinson, S. C. (1981). Some pre-observations on the modelling of dialogue. Discourse Processes, 4(2), 93-116. doi:10.1080/01638538109544510.
Abstract
Focuses on the pre-observations on the modeling of dialogue. Assumptions that underlie speech act models of dialogue; Identifiability of utterance units corresponding to unit acts; Capacity of the models to model the actual properties of natural dialogue.
Share this page