Displaying 101 - 113 of 113
-
Skiba, R. (1988). Computerunterstützte Analyse von sprachlichen Daten mit Hilfe des Datenumwandlungsprogramms TextWolf in Kombination mit einem Datenbanksystem. In B. Spillner (
Ed. ), Angewandte Linguistik und Computer (pp. 86-88). Tübingen: Gunter Narr. -
Skiba, R. (1989). Funktionale Beschreibung von Lernervarietäten: Das Berliner Projekt P-MoLL. In N. Reiter (
Ed. ), Sprechen und Hören: Akte des 23. Linguistischen Kolloquiums, Berlin (pp. 181-191). Tübingen: Niemeyer. -
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. -
Sumer, B., Perniss, P. M., & Ozyurek, A. (2017). A first study on the development of spatial viewpoint in sign language acquisition: The case of Turkish Sign Language. In F. N. Ketrez, A. C. Kuntay, S. Ozcalıskan, & A. Ozyurek (
Eds. ), Social Environment and Cognition in Language Development: Studies in Honor of Ayhan Aksu-Koc (pp. 223-240). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/tilar.21.14sum.Abstract
The current study examines, for the first time, the viewpoint preferences of signing children in expressing spatial relations that require imposing a viewpoint (left-right, front-behind). We elicited spatial descriptions from deaf children (4–9 years of age) acquiring Turkish Sign Language (TİD) natively from their deaf parents and from adult native signers of TİD. Adults produced these spatial descriptions from their own viewpoint and from that of their addressee depending on whether the objects were located on the lateral or the sagittal axis. TİD-acquiring children, on the other hand, described all spatial configurations from their own viewpoint. Differences were also found between children and adults in the type of linguistic devices and how they are used to express such spatial relations. -
Takashima, A., & Bakker, I. (2017). Memory consolidation. In H.-J. Schmid (
Ed. ), Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning: How We Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge (pp. 177-200). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. -
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 Gijn, R., Hammarström, H., Van de Kerke, S., Krasnoukhova, O., & Muysken, P. (2017). Linguistic Areas, Linguistic Convergence and River Systems in South America. In R. Hickey (
Ed. ), The Cambridge Handbook of Areal Linguistics (pp. 964-996). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781107279872.034. -
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. -
Von Stutterheim, C., & Klein, W. (1989). Referential movement in descriptive and narrative discourse. In R. Dietrich, & C. F. Graumann (
Eds. ), Language processing in social context (pp. 39-76). Amsterdam: Elsevier. -
Weissenborn, J. (1988). Von der demonstratio ad oculos zur Deixis am Phantasma. Die Entwicklung der lokalen Referenz bei Kindern. In Karl Bühler's Theory of Language. Proceedings of the Conference held at Kirchberg, August 26, 1984 and Essen, November 21–24, 1984 (pp. 257-276). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
-
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