Publications

Displaying 1001 - 1033 of 1033
  • 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.
  • Wilkins, D. P., & Hill, D. (1995). When "go" means "come": Questioning the basicness of basic motion verbs. Cognitive Linguistics, 6, 209-260. doi:10.1515/cogl.1995.6.2-3.209.

    Abstract

    The purpose of this paper is to question some of the basic assumpiions concerning motion verbs. In particular, it examines the assumption that "come" and "go" are lexical universals which manifest a universal deictic Opposition. Against the background offive working hypotheses about the nature of'come" and ''go", this study presents a comparative investigation of t wo unrelated languages—Mparntwe Arrernte (Pama-Nyungan, Australian) and Longgu (Oceanic, Austronesian). Although the pragmatic and deictic "suppositional" complexity of"come" and "go" expressions has long been recognized, we argue that in any given language the analysis of these expressions is much more semantically and systemically complex than has been assumed in the literature. Languages vary at the lexical semantic level äs t o what is entailed by these expressions, äs well äs differing äs t o what constitutes the prototype and categorial structure for such expressions. The data also strongly suggest that, ifthere is a lexical universal "go", then this cannof be an inherently deictic expression. However, due to systemic Opposition with "come", non-deictic "go" expressions often take on a deictic Interpretation through pragmatic attribution. Thus, this crosslinguistic investigation of "come" and "go" highlights the need to consider semantics and pragmatics äs modularly separate.
  • Wittek, A. (1998). Learning verb meaning via adverbial modification: Change-of-state verbs in German and the adverb "wieder" again. In A. Greenhill, M. Hughes, H. Littlefield, & H. Walsh (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 779-790). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
  • Wittenburg, P., Skiba, R., & Trilsbeek, P. (2004). Technology and Tools for Language Documentation. Language Archive Newsletter, 1(4), 3-4.
  • Wittenburg, P. (2003). The DOBES model of language documentation. Language Documentation and Description, 1, 122-139.
  • Wittenburg, P. (2004). The IMDI metadata concept. In S. F. Ferreira (Ed.), Workingmaterial on Building the LR&E Roadmap: Joint COCOSDA and ICCWLRE Meeting, (LREC2004). Paris: ELRA - European Language Resources Association.
  • Wittenburg, P., Skiba, R., & Trilsbeek, P. (2005). The language archive at the MPI: Contents, tools, and technologies. Language Archives Newsletter, 5, 7-9.
  • Wittenburg, P. (2004). Training Course in Lithuania. Language Archive Newsletter, 1(2), 6-6.
  • Wittenburg, P., Brugman, H., Broeder, D., & Russel, A. (2004). XML-based language archiving. In Workshop Proceedings on XML-based Richly Annotaded Corpora (LREC2004) (pp. 63-69). Paris: ELRA - European Language Resources Association.
  • Wittenburg, P., Gulrajani, G., Broeder, D., & Uneson, M. (2004). Cross-disciplinary integration of metadata descriptions. In M. Lino, M. Xavier, F. Ferreira, R. Costa, & R. Silva (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC2004) (pp. 113-116). Paris: ELRA - European Language Resources Association.
  • Wittenburg, P., Dirksmeyer, R., Brugman, H., & Klaas, G. (2004). Digital formats for images, audio and video. Language Archive Newsletter, 1(1), 3-6.
  • Wittenburg, P., Johnson, H., Buchhorn, M., Brugman, H., & Broeder, D. (2004). Architecture for distributed language resource management and archiving. In M. Lino, M. Xavier, F. Ferreira, R. Costa, & R. Silva (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC2004) (pp. 361-364). Paris: ELRA - European Language Resources Association.
  • Wittenburg, P. (2004). International Expert Meeting on Access Management for Distributed Language Archives. Language Archive Newsletter, 1(3), 12-12.
  • Wittenburg, P. (2004). Final review of INTERA. Language Archive Newsletter, 1(4), 11-12.
  • Wittenburg, P. (2004). LinguaPax Forum on Language Diversity, Sustainability, and Peace. Language Archive Newsletter, 1(3), 13-13.
  • Wittenburg, P. (2004). LREC conference 2004. Language Archive Newsletter, 1(3), 12-13.
  • Wittenburg, P. (2004). News from the Archive of the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. Language Archive Newsletter, 1(4), 12-12.
  • Wohlgemuth, J., & Dirksmeyer, T. (Eds.). (2005). Bedrohte Vielfalt. Aspekte des Sprach(en)tods – Aspects of language death. Berlin: Weißensee.

    Abstract

    About 5,000 languages are spoken in the world today. More than half of them have less than 10,000 speakers, a quarter of them even fewer than 1,000. The majority of these “small” languages will not live to see the end of this century; some estimates predict that no more than a dozen languages will still be spoken by the turn of the next millennium. This collection of papers approaches the subject of language extinction through five major topics: general aspects of language death, case studies, endangered subsystems, language protection and revitalization, language ecology. In 24 articles, the authors address the causes, manifestations, and consequences of language endangerment and extinction as well as the linguistic and social changes associated with it, drawing examples from a large number of languages.
  • 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., & Panda, S. (2005). Professional course in Indian sign language. Mumbai: Ali Yavar Jung National Institute for the Hearing Handicapped.
  • 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. (2004). Basic English course taught in Indian Sign Language (Ali Yavar Young National Institute for Hearing Handicapped, Ed.). National Institute for the Hearing Handicapped: Mumbai.
  • Zeshan, U. (2003). Aspects of Türk Işaret Dili (Turkish Sign Language). Sign Language and Linguistics, 6(1), 43-75. doi:10.1075/sll.6.1.04zes.

    Abstract

    This article provides a first overview of some striking grammatical structures in Türk Idotscedilaret Dili (Turkish Sign Language, TID), the sign language used by the Deaf community in Turkey. The data are described with a typological perspective in mind, focusing on aspects of TID grammar that are typologically unusual across sign languages. After giving an overview of the historical, sociolinguistic and educational background of TID and the language community using this sign language, five domains of TID grammar are investigated in detail. These include a movement derivation signalling completive aspect, three types of nonmanual negation — headshake, backward head tilt, and puffed cheeks — and their distribution, cliticization of the negator NOT to a preceding predicate host sign, an honorific whole-entity classifier used to refer to humans, and a question particle, its history and current status in the language. A final evaluation points out the significance of these data for sign language research and looks at perspectives for a deeper understanding of the language and its history.
  • Zeshan, U. (2004). Interrogative constructions in sign languages - Cross-linguistic perspectives. Language, 80(1), 7-39.

    Abstract

    This article reports on results from a broad crosslinguistic study based on data from thirty-five signed languages around the world. The study is the first of its kind, and the typological generalizations presented here cover the domain of interrogative structures as they appear across a wide range of geographically and genetically distinct signed languages. Manual and nonmanual ways of marking basic types of questions in signed languages are investigated. As a result, it becomes clear that the range of crosslinguistic variation is extensive for some subparameters, such as the structure of question-word paradigms, while other parameters, such as the use of nonmanual expressions in questions, show more similarities across signed languages. Finally, it is instructive to compare the findings from signed language typology to relevant data from spoken languages at a more abstract, crossmodality level.
  • Zeshan, U., Vasishta, M. N., & Sethna, M. (2005). Implementation of Indian Sign Language in educational settings. Asia Pacific Disability Rehabilitation Journal, 16(1), 16-40.

    Abstract

    This article reports on several sub-projects of research and development related to the use of Indian Sign Language in educational settings. In many countries around the world, sign languages are now recognised as the legitimate, full-fledged languages of the deaf communities that use them. In India, the development of sign language resources and their application in educational contexts, is still in its initial stages. The work reported on here, is the first principled and comprehensive effort of establishing educational programmes in Indian Sign Language at a national level. Programmes are of several types: a) Indian Sign Language instruction for hearing people; b) sign language teacher training programmes for deaf people; and c) educational materials for use in schools for the Deaf. The conceptual approach used in the programmes for deaf students is known as bilingual education, which emphasises the acquisition of a first language, Indian Sign Language, alongside the acquisition of spoken languages, primarily in their written form.
  • Zeshan, U. (2004). Hand, head and face - negative constructions in sign languages. Linguistic Typology, 8(1), 1-58. doi:10.1515/lity.2004.003.

    Abstract

    This article presents a typology of negative constructions across a substantial number of sign languages from around the globe. After situating the topic within the wider context of linguistic typology, the main negation strategies found across sign languages are described. Nonmanual negation includes the use of head movements and facial expressions for negation and is of great importance in sign languages as well as particularly interesting from a typological point of view. As far as manual signs are concerned, independent negative particles represent the dominant strategy, but there are also instances of irregular negation in most sign languages. Irregular negatives may take the form of suppletion, cliticisation, affixing, or internal modification of a sign. The results of the study lead to interesting generalisations about similarities and differences between negatives in signed and spoken languages.
  • 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.
  • Zhang, J., Bao, S., Furumai, R., Kucera, K. S., Ali, A., Dean, N. M., & Wang, X.-F. (2005). Protein phosphatase 5 is required for ATR-mediated checkpoint activation. Molecular and Cellular Biology, 25, 9910-9919. doi:10.1128/​MCB.25.22.9910-9919.2005.

    Abstract

    In response to DNA damage or replication stress, the protein kinase ATR is activated and subsequently transduces genotoxic signals to cell cycle control and DNA repair machinery through phosphorylation of a number of downstream substrates. Very little is known about the molecular mechanism by which ATR is activated in response to genotoxic insults. In this report, we demonstrate that protein phosphatase 5 (PP5) is required for the ATR-mediated checkpoint activation. PP5 forms a complex with ATR in a genotoxic stress-inducible manner. Interference with the expression or the activity of PP5 leads to impairment of the ATR-mediated phosphorylation of hRad17 and Chk1 after UV or hydroxyurea treatment. Similar results are obtained in ATM-deficient cells, suggesting that the observed defect in checkpoint signaling is the consequence of impaired functional interaction between ATR and PP5. In cells exposed to UV irradiation, PP5 is required to elicit an appropriate S-phase checkpoint response. In addition, loss of PP5 leads to premature mitosis after hydroxyurea treatment. Interestingly, reduced PP5 activity exerts differential effects on the formation of intranuclear foci by ATR and replication protein A, implicating a functional role for PP5 in a specific stage of the checkpoint signaling pathway. Taken together, our results suggest that PP5 plays a critical role in the ATR-mediated checkpoint activation.
  • Zwitserlood, I. (2003). Classifying hand configurations in Nederlandse Gebarentaal (Sign Language of the Netherlands). PhD Thesis, LOT, Utrecht. Retrieved from http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/dissertations/2003-0717-122837/UUindex.html.

    Abstract

    This study investigates the morphological and morphosyntactic characteristics of hand configurations in signs, particularly in Nederlandse Gebarentaal (NGT). The literature on sign languages in general acknowledges that hand configurations can function as morphemes, more specifically as classifiers , in a subset of signs: verbs expressing the motion, location, and existence of referents (VELMs). These verbs are considered the output of productive sign formation processes. In contrast, other signs in which similar hand configurations appear ( iconic or motivated signs) have been considered to be lexicalized signs, not involving productive processes. This research report shows that meaningful hand configurations have (at least) two very different functions in the grammar of NGT (and presumably in other sign languages, too). First, they are agreement markers on VELMs, and hence are functional elements. Second, they are roots in motivated signs, and thus lexical elements. The latter signs are analysed as root compounds and are formed from various roots by productive processes. The similarities in surface form and differences in morphosyntactic characteristics observed in comparison of VELMs and root compounds are attributed to their different structures and to the sign language interface between grammar and phonetic form
  • Zwitserlood, I. (2003). Word formation below and above little x: Evidence from Sign Language of the Netherlands. In Proceedings of SCL 19. Nordlyd Tromsø University Working Papers on Language and Linguistics (pp. 488-502).

    Abstract

    Although in many respects sign languages have a similar structure to that of spoken languages, the different modalities in which both types of languages are expressed cause differences in structure as well. One of the most striking differences between spoken and sign languages is the influence of the interface between grammar and PF on the surface form of utterances. Spoken language words and phrases are in general characterized by sequential strings of sounds, morphemes and words, while in sign languages we find that many phonemes, morphemes, and even words are expressed simultaneously. A linguistic model should be able to account for the structures that occur in both spoken and sign languages. In this paper, I will discuss the morphological/ morphosyntactic structure of signs in Nederlandse Gebarentaal (Sign Language of the Netherlands, henceforth NGT), with special focus on the components ‘place of articulation’ and ‘handshape’. I will focus on their multiple functions in the grammar of NGT and argue that the framework of Distributed Morphology (DM), which accounts for word formation in spoken languages, is also suited to account for the formation of structures in sign languages. First I will introduce the phonological and morphological structure of NGT signs. Then, I will briefly outline the major characteristics of the DM framework. Finally, I will account for signs that have the same surface form but have a different morphological structure by means of that framework.

Share this page