Displaying 1 - 14 of 14
-
Bohnemeyer, J., Burenhult, N., Enfield, N. J., & Levinson, S. C. (2004). Landscape terms and place names elicitation guide. In A. Majid (
Ed. ), Field Manual Volume 9 (pp. 75-79). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.492904.Abstract
Landscape terms reflect the relationship between geographic reality and human cognition. Are ‘mountains’, ‘rivers, ‘lakes’ and the like universally recognised in languages as naturally salient objects to be named? The landscape subproject is concerned with the interrelation between language, cognition and geography. Specifically, it investigates issues relating to how landforms are categorised cross-linguistically as well as the characteristics of place naming. -
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (2004). Frames of spatial reference and their acquisition in Tenejapan Tzeltal. In A. Assmann, U. Gaier, & G. Trommsdorff (
Eds. ), Zwischen Literatur und Anthropologie: Diskurse, Medien, Performanzen (pp. 285-314). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Abstract
This is a reprint of the Brown and Levinson 2000 article. -
Brown, P., Levinson, S. C., & Senft, G. (2004). Initial references to persons and places. In A. Majid (
Ed. ), Field Manual Volume 9 (pp. 37-44). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.492929.Abstract
This task has two parts: (i) video-taped elicitation of the range of possibilities for referring to persons and places, and (ii) observations of (first) references to persons and places in video-taped natural interaction. The goal of this task is to establish the repertoires of referential terms (and other practices) used for referring to persons and to places in particular languages and cultures, and provide examples of situated use of these kinds of referential practices in natural conversation. This data will form the basis for cross-language comparison, and for formulating hypotheses about general principles underlying the deployment of such referential terms in natural language usage. -
Enfield, N. J., Levinson, S. C., De Ruiter, J. P., & Stivers, T. (2004). Building a corpus of multimodal interaction in your field site. In A. Majid (
Ed. ), Field Manual Volume 9 (pp. 32-36). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.506951.Abstract
This Field Manual entry has been superceded by the 2007 version:
https://doi.org/10.17617/2.468728Files private
Request files -
Evans, N., Levinson, S. C., Enfield, N. J., Gaby, A., & Majid, A. (2004). Reciprocal constructions and situation type. In A. Majid (
Ed. ), Field Manual Volume 9 (pp. 25-30). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.506955.Additional information
2004_Reciprocal_constructions_video_stimuli.zip -
Levinson, S. C. (2004). Significados presumibles [Spanish translation of Presumptive meanings]. Madrid: Bibliotheca Románica Hispánica.
-
Levinson, S. C. (2004). Deixis. In L. Horn (
Ed. ), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 97-121). Oxford: Blackwell. -
Majid, A., Bowerman, M., Kita, S., Haun, D. B. M., & Levinson, S. C. (2004). Can language restructure cognition? The case for space. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(3), 108-114. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.01.003.
Abstract
Frames of reference are coordinate systems used to compute and specify the location of objects with respect to other objects. These have long been thought of as innate concepts, built into our neurocognition. However, recent work shows that the use of such frames in language, cognition and gesture varies crossculturally, and that children can acquire different systems with comparable ease. We argue that language can play a significant role in structuring, or restructuring, a domain as fundamental as spatial cognition. This suggests we need to rethink the relation between the neurocognitive underpinnings of spatial cognition and the concepts we use in everyday thinking, and, more generally, to work out how to account for cross-cultural cognitive diversity in core cognitive domains. -
Levinson, S. C. (1994). Deixis. In R. E. Asher (
Ed. ), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (pp. 853-857). Oxford: Pergamon Press. -
Levinson, S. C., & Brown, P. (1994). Immanuel Kant among the Tenejapans: Anthropology as empirical philosophy. Ethos, 22(1), 3-41. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/640467.
Abstract
This paper confronts Kant’s (1768) view of human conceptions of space as fundamentally divided along the three planes of the human body with an empirical case study in the Mayan community of Tenejapa in southern Mexico, whose inhabitants do not use left/right distinctions to project regions in space. Tenejapans have names for the left hand and the right hand, and also a term for hand/arm in general, but they do not generalize the distinction to spatial regions -- there is no linguistic expression glossing as 'to the left' or 'on the left-hand side', for example. Tenejapans also show a remarkable indifference to incongruous counterparts. Nor is there any system of value associations with the left and the right. The Tenejapan evidence that speaks to these Kantian themes points in two directions: (a) Kant was wrong to think that the structure of spatial regions founded on the human frame, and in particular the distinctions based on left and right, are in some sense essential human intuitions; (b) Kant may have been right to think that the left/right opposition, the perception of enantiomorphs, clockwiseness, East-West dichotomies, etc., are intimately connected to an overall system of spatial conception. -
Levinson, S. C., & Haviland, J. B. (1994). Introduction: Spatial conceptualization in Mayan languages. Linguistics, 32(4/5), 613-622.
-
Levinson, S. C., & Haviland, J. B. (
Eds. ). (1994). Space in Mayan languages [Special Issue]. Linguistics, 32(4/5). -
Levinson, S. C., & Senft, G. (1994). Wie lösen Sprecher von Sprachen mit absoluten und relativen Systemen des räumlichen Verweisens nicht-sprachliche räumliche Aufgaben? In Jahrbuch der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft 1994 (pp. 295-299). München: Generalverwaltung der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft München.
-
Levinson, S. C. (1994). Vision, shape and linguistic description: Tzeltal body-part terminology and object description. Linguistics, 32(4/5), 791-856.
Share this page