Displaying 201 - 217 of 217
-
Slobin, D. I. (2002). Cognitive and communicative consequences of linguistic diversity. In S. Strömqvist (
Ed. ), The diversity of languages and language learning (pp. 7-23). Lund, Sweden: Lund University, Centre for Languages and Literature. -
Stolker, C. J. J. M., & Poletiek, F. H. (1998). Smartengeld - Wat zijn we eigenlijk aan het doen? Naar een juridische en psychologische evaluatie. In F. Stadermann (
Ed. ), Bewijs en letselschade (pp. 71-86). Lelystad, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Vermande. -
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. -
Suppes, P., Böttner, M., & Liang, L. (1998). Machine Learning of Physics Word Problems: A Preliminary Report. In A. Aliseda, R. van Glabbeek, & D. Westerståhl (
Eds. ), Computing Natural Language (pp. 141-154). Stanford, CA, USA: CSLI Publications.Files private
Request files -
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. -
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. -
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 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 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 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 -
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. -
Wittenburg, P., Broeder, D., Offenga, F., & Willems, D. (2002). Metadata set and tools for multimedia/multimodal language resources. In M. Maybury (
Ed. ), Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2002). Workshop on Multimodel Resources and Multimodel Systems Evaluation. (pp. 9-13). Paris: European Language Resources Association. -
Zwitserlood, I. (2002). Klassifikatoren in der Niederländischen Gebärdensprache (NGT). In H. Leuniger, & K. Wempe (
Eds. ), Gebärdensprachlinguistik 2000. Theorie und Anwendung. Vorträge vom Symposium "Gebärdensprachforschung im deutschsprachigem Raum", Frankfurt a.M., 11.-13. Juni 1999 (pp. 113-126). Hamburg: Signum Verlag.
Share this page