Publications

Displaying 201 - 300 of 351
  • Levelt, W. J. M. (1999). Language. In G. Adelman, & B. H. Smith (Eds.), Elsevier's encyclopedia of neuroscience (2nd enlarged and revised edition) (pp. 1005-1008). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
  • Levelt, W. J. M. (2014). From Rousseau to Suppes: On diaries and probabilistic grammars. In C. E. Crangle, A. García de la Sienra, & H. E. Longino (Eds.), Foundations and methods from mathematics to neuroscience: Essays inspired by Patrick Suppes (pp. 149-156). Stanford, CA: CSLI publications.
  • Levelt, W. J. M. (1984). Geesteswetenschappelijke theorie als kompas voor de gangbare mening. In S. Dresden, & D. Van de Kaa (Eds.), Wetenschap ten goede en ten kwade (pp. 42-52). Amsterdam: North Holland.
  • Levelt, W. J. M. (1962). Motion breaking and the perception of causality. In A. Michotte (Ed.), Causalité, permanence et réalité phénoménales: Etudes de psychologie expérimentale (pp. 244-258). Louvain: Publications Universitaires.
  • Levelt, W. J. M. (1987). Hochleistung in Millisekunden - Sprechen und Sprache verstehen. In Jahrbuch der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (pp. 61-77). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
  • Levelt, W. J. M. (2000). Introduction Section VII: Language. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The new cognitive neurosciences; 2nd ed. (pp. 843-844). Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • Levelt, W. J. M. (1999). Producing spoken language: A blueprint of the speaker. In C. M. Brown, & P. Hagoort (Eds.), The neurocognition of language (pp. 83-122). Oxford University Press.
  • Levelt, W. J. M. (2000). Psychology of language. In K. Pawlik, & M. R. Rosenzweig (Eds.), International handbook of psychology (pp. 151-167). London: SAGE publications.
  • Levelt, W. J. M., & d'Arcais, F. (1987). Snelheid en uniciteit bij lexicale toegang. In H. Crombag, L. Van der Kamp, & C. Vlek (Eds.), De psychologie voorbij: Ontwikkelingen rond model, metriek en methode in de gedragswetenschappen (pp. 55-68). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
  • Levelt, W. J. M. (1984). Some perceptual limitations on talking about space. In A. J. Van Doorn, W. A. Van de Grind, & J. J. Koenderink (Eds.), Limits in perception (pp. 323-358). Utrecht: VNU Science Press.
  • Levelt, W. J. M. (2000). Speech production. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology (pp. 432-433). Oxford University Press.
  • Levelt, W. J. M., & Indefrey, P. (2000). The speaking mind/brain: Where do spoken words come from? In A. Marantz, Y. Miyashita, & W. O'Neil (Eds.), Image, language, brain: Papers from the First Mind Articulation Project Symposium (pp. 77-94). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
  • Levelt, W. J. M. (2014). Über Sprachtätigkeit - Untersuchungen zum Sprechvorgang. In Orden pour le mérite für Wissenschaft und Künste (Ed.), Reden und Gedenkworte. Band 2012-2013 (pp. 37-62). Berlin: Wallstein Verlag.
  • Levinson, S. C. (2013). Action formation and ascription. In T. Stivers, & J. Sidnell (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 103-130). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781118325001.ch6.

    Abstract

    Since the core matrix for language use is interaction, the main job of language
    is not to express propositions or abstract meanings, but to deliver actions.
    For in order to respond in interaction we have to ascribe to the prior turn
    a primary ‘action’ – variously thought of as an ‘illocution’, ‘speech act’, ‘move’,
    etc. – to which we then respond. The analysis of interaction also relies heavily
    on attributing actions to turns, so that, e.g., sequences can be characterized in
    terms of actions and responses. Yet the process of action ascription remains way
    understudied. We don’t know much about how it is done, when it is done, nor even
    what kind of inventory of possible actions might exist, or the degree to which they
    are culturally variable.
    The study of action ascription remains perhaps the primary unfulfilled task in
    the study of language use, and it needs to be tackled from conversationanalytic,
    psycholinguistic, cross-linguistic and anthropological perspectives.
    In this talk I try to take stock of what we know, and derive a set of goals for and
    constraints on an adequate theory. Such a theory is likely to employ, I will suggest,
    a top-down plus bottom-up account of action perception, and a multi-level notion
    of action which may resolve some of the puzzles that have repeatedly arisen.
  • Levinson, S. C. (2013). Cross-cultural universals and communication structures. In M. A. Arbib (Ed.), Language, music, and the brain: A mysterious relationship (pp. 67-80). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Abstract

    Given the diversity of languages, it is unlikely that the human capacity for language resides in rich universal syntactic machinery. More likely, it resides centrally in the capacity for vocal learning combined with a distinctive ethology for communicative interaction, which together (no doubt with other capacities) make diverse languages learnable. This chapter focuses on face-to-face communication, which is characterized by the mapping of sounds and multimodal signals onto speech acts and which can be deeply recursively embedded in interaction structure, suggesting an interactive origin for complex syntax. These actions are recognized through Gricean intention recognition, which is a kind of “ mirroring” or simulation distinct from the classic mirror neuron system. The multimodality of conversational interaction makes evident the involvement of body, hand, and mouth, where the burden on these can be shifted, as in the use of speech and gesture, or hands and face in sign languages. Such shifts having taken place during the course of human evolution. All this suggests a slightly different approach to the mystery of music, whose origins should also be sought in joint action, albeit with a shift from turn-taking to simultaneous expression, and with an affective quality that may tap ancient sources residual in primate vocalization. The deep connection of language to music can best be seen in the only universal form of music, namely song.
  • Levinson, S. C. (1999). Deixis. In K. Brown, & J. Miller (Eds.), Concise encyclopedia of grammatical categories (pp. 132-136). Oxford: Elsevier.
  • Levinson, S. C. (1998). Deixis. In J. L. Mey (Ed.), Concise encyclopedia of pragmatics (pp. 200-204). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  • Levinson, S. C. (2011). Deixis [Reprint]. In D. Archer, & P. Grundy (Eds.), The pragmatics reader (pp. 163-185). London: Routledge.

    Abstract

    Reproduced with permission of Blackwell Publishing from: Levinson, S. C. (2004) 'Deixis'. In: Horn, L.R. and Ward, G. (Eds.) The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 100-121
  • 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. (2011). Foreword. In D. M. Mark, A. G. Turk, N. Burenhult, & D. Stea (Eds.), Landscape in language: Transdisciplinary perspectives (pp. ix-x). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • 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. (1998). Minimization and conversational inference. In A. Kasher (Ed.), Pragmatics: Vol. 4 Presupposition, implicature and indirect speech acts (pp. 545-612). London: Routledge.
  • 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.
  • Levinson, S. C. (2014). Language evolution. In N. J. Enfield, P. Kockelman, & J. Sidnell (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of linguistic anthropology (pp. 309-324). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Levinson, S. C. (2011). Presumptive meanings [Reprint]. In D. Archer, & P. Grundy (Eds.), The pragmatics reader (pp. 86-98). London: Routledge.

    Abstract

    Reprinted with permission of The MIT Press from Levinson (2000) Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature, pp. 112-118, 116-167, 170-173, 177-180. MIT Press
  • Levinson, S. C. (2011). Reciprocals in Yélî Dnye, the Papuan language of Rossel Island. In N. Evans, A. Gaby, S. C. Levinson, & A. Majid (Eds.), Reciprocals and semantic typology (pp. 177-194). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Abstract

    Yélî Dnye has two discernable dedicated constructions for reciprocal marking. The first and main construction uses a dedicated reciprocal pronoun numo, somewhat like English each other. We can recognise two subconstructions. First, the ‘numo-construction’, where the reciprocal pronoun is a patient of the verb, and where the invariant pronoun numo is obligatorily incorporated, triggering intransitivisation (e.g. A-NPs become absolutive). This subconstruction has complexities, for example in the punctual aspect only, the verb is inflected like a transitive, but with enclitics mismatching actual person/number. In the second variant or subconstruction, the ‘noko-construction’, the same reciprocal pronoun (sometimes case-marked as noko) occurs but now in oblique positions with either transitive or intransitive verbs. The reciprocal element here has some peculiar binding properties. Finally, the second independent construction is a dedicated periphrastic (or woni…woni) construction, glossing ‘the one did X to the other, and the other did X to the one’. It is one of the rare cross-serial dependencies that show that natural languages cannot be modelled by context-free phrase-structure grammars. Finally, the usage of these two distinct constructions is discussed.
  • Levinson, S. C. (2014). Pragmatics as the origin of recursion. In F. Lowenthal, & L. Lefebvre (Eds.), Language and recursion (pp. 3-13). Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-9414-0_1.

    Abstract

    There has been a recent spate of work on recursion as a central design feature of language and specifically of syntax. This short report points out that there is little evidence that unlimited recursion, understood as centre embedding, is typical of natural language syntax. Nevertheless, embedded pragmatic construals seem available in every language. Further, much deeper centre embedding can be found in dialogue or conversation structure than can be found in syntax. Existing accounts for the ‘performance’ limitations on centre embedding are thus thrown in doubt. Dialogue materials suggest that centre embedding is perhaps a core part of the human interaction system and is for some reason much more highly restricted in syntax than in other aspects of cognition
  • Levinson, S. C., & Dediu, D. (2013). The interplay of genetic and cultural factors in ongoing language evolution. In P. J. Richerson, & M. H. Christiansen (Eds.), Cultural evolution: Society, technology, language, and religion. Strüngmann Forum Reports, vol. 12 (pp. 219-232). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
  • Levinson, S. C. (2011). Three levels of meaning: Essays in honor of Sir John Lyons [Reprint]. In A. Kasher (Ed.), Pragmatics II. London: Routledge.

    Abstract

    Reprint from Stephen C. Levinson, ‘Three Levels of Meaning’, in Frank Palmer (ed.), Grammar and Meaning: Essays in Honor of Sir John Lyons (Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp. 90–115
  • Levinson, S. C. (2011). Universals in pragmatics. In P. C. Hogan (Ed.), The Cambridge encyclopedia of the language sciences (pp. 654-657). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Abstract

    Changing Prospects for Universals in Pragmatics
    The term PRAGMATICS has come to denote the study of general principles of language use. It is usually understood to contrast with SEMANTICS, the study of encoded meaning, and also, by some authors, to contrast with SOCIOLINGUISTICS
    and the ethnography of speaking, which are more concerned with local sociocultural practices. Given that pragmaticists come from disciplines as varied as philosophy, sociology,
    linguistics, communication studies, psychology, and anthropology, it is not surprising that definitions of pragmatics vary. Nevertheless, most authors agree on a list of topics
    that come under the rubric, including DEIXIS, PRESUPPOSITION,
    implicature (see CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE), SPEECH-ACTS, and conversational organization (see CONVERSATIONAL ANALYSIS). Here, we can use this extensional definition as a starting point (Levinson 1988; Huang 2007).
  • Liszkowski, U. (2014). Pointing. In P. Brooks, & V. Kempe (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language development (Vol. 15) (pp. 471-473). London: Sage.
  • Majid, A. (2013). Psycholinguistics. In J. L. Jackson (Ed.), Oxford Bibliographies Online: Anthropology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Majid, A., Evans, N., Gaby, A., & Levinson, S. C. (2011). The semantics of reciprocal constructions across languages: An extensional approach. In N. Evans, A. Gaby, S. C. Levinson, & A. Majid (Eds.), Reciprocals and semantic typology (pp. 29-60). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Abstract

    How similar are reciprocal constructions in the semantic parameters they encode? We investigate this question by using an extensional approach, which examines similarity of meaning by examining how constructions are applied over a set of 64 videoclips depicting reciprocal events (Evans et al. 2004). We apply statistical modelling to descriptions from speakers of 20 languages elicited using the videoclips. We show that there are substantial differences in meaning between constructions of different languages.

    Files private

    Request files
  • Marcus, G., & Fisher, S. E. (2011). Genes and language. In P. Hogan (Ed.), The Cambridge encyclopedia of the language sciences (pp. 341-344). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Mark, D. M., Turk, A., Burenhult, N., & Stea, D. (2011). Landscape in language: An introduction. In D. M. Mark, A. G. Turk, N. Burenhult, & D. Stea (Eds.), Landscape in language: Transdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 1-24). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Martins, M., Raju, A., & Ravignani, A. (2014). Evaluating the role of quantitative modeling in language evolution. In L. McCrohon, B. Thompson, T. Verhoef, & H. Yamauchi (Eds.), The Past, Present and Future of Language Evolution Research: Student volume of the 9th International Conference on the Evolution of Language (pp. 84-93). Tokyo: EvoLang9 Organising Committee.

    Abstract

    Models are a flourishing and indispensable area of research in language evolution. Here we
    highlight critical issues in using and interpreting models, and suggest viable approaches. First,
    contrasting models can explain the same data and similar modelling techniques can lead to
    diverging conclusions. This should act as a reminder to use the extreme malleability of
    modelling parsimoniously when interpreting results. Second, quantitative techniques similar to
    those used in modelling language evolution have proven themselves inadequate in other
    disciplines. Cross-disciplinary fertilization is crucial to avoid mistakes which have previously
    occurred in other areas. Finally, experimental validation is necessary both to sharpen models'
    hypotheses, and to support their conclusions. Our belief is that models should be interpreted as
    quantitative demonstrations of logical possibilities, rather than as direct sources of evidence.
    Only an integration of theoretical principles, quantitative proofs and empirical validation can
    allow research in the evolution of language to progress.
  • Matic, D. (2014). Clues to information structure in field data. In D. El Zarka, & S. Heidinger (Eds.), Methodological Issues in the Study of Information Structure (pp. 25-42). Graz: Graz University Press.
  • Matić, D., Van Gijn, R., & Van Valin Jr., R. D. (2014). Information structure and reference tracking in complex sentences: An overview. In R. van Gijn, J. Hammond, D. Matić, S. van Putten, & A. Galucio (Eds.), Information structure and reference tracking in complex sentences. (pp. 1-42). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Abstract

    This volume is dedicated to exploring the crossroads where complex sentences and information management – more specifically information structure (IS) and reference tracking (RT) – come together. Complex sentences are a highly relevant but understudied domain for studying notions of IS and RT. On the one hand, a complex sentence can be studied as a mini-unit of discourse consisting of two or more elements describing events, situations, or processes, with its own internal information-structural and referential organisation. On the other hand, complex sentences can be studied as parts of larger discourse structures, such as narratives or conversations, in terms of how their information-structural characteristics relate to this wider context.We first focus on the interrelatedness of IS and RT (Section 1) and then define and discuss the notion of complex sentences and their subtypes in Section 2. Section 3 surveys issues of IS in complex sentences, while Section 4 focuses on RT in complex sentences. Sections 5 and 6 briefly consider IS and RT in a wider discourse context. Section 5 discusses the interaction between IS, RT, and other discourse factors, and Section 6 focuses on ways in which a specific RT system, switch reference, can function as an RT device beyond the sentence.
  • Matić, D. (2014). Questions and syntactic islands in Tundra Yukaghir. In R. van Gijn, J. Hammond, D. Matić, S. van Putten, & A. Galucio (Eds.), Information structure and reference tracking in complex sentences (pp. 127-162). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Abstract

    No island effects are observable in Tundra Yukaghir questions, which are possible in virtually all syntactic environments. It is argued that this feature of Tundra Yukaghir relates to its capability of explicitly marking focus domains. If a question word occurs in a syntactic island, the whole island is morphologically treated as a focus domain. In order to take scope and function as question markers, question words must remain within the focus domain, i.e. in the island clause. This syntactic configuration is reflected in the semantics of question islands, which are used to inquire about the identity of the whole island, not merely the denotation of the question word.
  • McDonough, L., Choi, S., Bowerman, M., & Mandler, J. M. (1998). The use of preferential looking as a measure of semantic development. In C. Rovee-Collier, L. P. Lipsitt, & H. Hayne (Eds.), Advances in Infancy Research. Volume 12. (pp. 336-354). Stamford, CT: Ablex Publishing.
  • McQueen, J. M., & Cutler, A. (1998). Morphology in word recognition. In A. M. Zwicky, & A. Spencer (Eds.), The handbook of morphology (pp. 406-427). Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Mickan, A., Schiefke, M., & Anatol, S. (2014). Key is a llave is a Schlüssel: A failure to replicate an experiment from Boroditsky et al. 2003. In M. Hilpert, & S. Flach (Eds.), Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association (pp. 39-50). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. doi:doi.org/10.1515/gcla-2014-0004.

    Abstract

    In this paper, we present two attempts to replicate a widely-cited but never fully published experiment in which German and Spanish speakers were asked to associate adjectives with nouns of masculine and feminine grammati-cal gender (Boroditsky et al. 2003). The researchers claim that speakers associ-ated more stereotypically female adjectives with grammatically feminine nouns and more stereotypically male adjectives with grammatically masculine nouns. We were not able to replicate the results either in a word association task or in an analogous primed lexical decision task. This suggests that the results of the original experiment were either an artifact of some non-documented aspect of the experimental procedure or a statistical fluke. The question whether speakers assign sex-based interpretations to grammatical gender categories at all cannot be answered definitively, as the results in the published literature vary consider-ably. However, our experiments show that if such an effect exists, it is not strong enough to be measured indirectly via the priming of adjectives by nouns.
  • Mishra, R. K., Olivers, C. N. L., & Huettig, F. (2013). Spoken language and the decision to move the eyes: To what extent are language-mediated eye movements automatic? In V. S. C. Pammi, & N. Srinivasan (Eds.), Progress in Brain Research: Decision making: Neural and behavioural approaches (pp. 135-149). New York: Elsevier.

    Abstract

    Recent eye-tracking research has revealed that spoken language can guide eye gaze very rapidly (and closely time-locked to the unfolding speech) toward referents in the visual world. We discuss whether, and to what extent, such language-mediated eye movements are automatic rather than subject to conscious and controlled decision-making. We consider whether language-mediated eye movements adhere to four main criteria of automatic behavior, namely, whether they are fast and efficient, unintentional, unconscious, and overlearned (i.e., arrived at through extensive practice). Current evidence indicates that language-driven oculomotor behavior is fast but not necessarily always efficient. It seems largely unintentional though there is also some evidence that participants can actively use the information in working memory to avoid distraction in search. Language-mediated eye movements appear to be for the most part unconscious and have all the hallmarks of an overlearned behavior. These data are suggestive of automatic mechanisms linking language to potentially referred-to visual objects, but more comprehensive and rigorous testing of this hypothesis is needed.
  • Moulin, C. A., Souchay, C., Bradley, R., Buchanan, S., Karadöller, D. Z., & Akan, M. (2014). Déjà vu in older adults. In B. L. Schwartz, & A. S. Brown (Eds.), Tip-of-the-tongue states and related phenomena (pp. 281-304). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Muysken, P., Hammarström, H., Birchall, J., Danielsen, S., Eriksen, L., Galucio, A. V., Van Gijn, R., Van de Kerke, S., Kolipakam, V., Krasnoukhova, O., Müller, N., & O'Connor, L. (2014). The languages of South America: Deep families, areal relationships, and language contact. In P. Muysken, & L. O'Connor (Eds.), Language contact in South America (pp. 299-323). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Nas, G., Kempen, G., & Hudson, P. (1984). De rol van spelling en klank bij woordherkenning tijdens het lezen. In A. Thomassen, L. Noordman, & P. Elling (Eds.), Het leesproces. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
  • Nijhof, S., & Zwitserlood, I. (1999). Pluralization in Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT). In J. Don, & T. Sanders (Eds.), OTS Yearbook 1998-1999 (pp. 58-78). Utrecht: UiL OTS.
  • Noordman, L. G., & Vonk, W. (1998). Discourse comprehension. In A. D. Friederici (Ed.), Language comprehension: a biological perspective (pp. 229-262). Berlin: Springer.

    Abstract

    The human language processor is conceived as a system that consists of several interrelated subsystems. Each subsystem performs a specific task in the complex process of language comprehension and production. A subsystem receives a particular input, performs certain specific operations on this input and yields a particular output. The subsystems can be characterized in terms of the transformations that relate the input representations to the output representations. An important issue in describing the language processing system is to identify the subsystems and to specify the relations between the subsystems. These relations can be conceived in two different ways. In one conception the subsystems are autonomous. They are related to each other only by the input-output channels. The operations in one subsystem are not affected by another system. The subsystems are modular, that is they are independent. In the other conception, the different subsystems influence each other. A subsystem affects the processes in another subsystem. In this conception there is an interaction between the subsystems.
  • Norcliffe, E., Enfield, N. J., Majid, A., & Levinson, S. C. (2011). The grammar of perception. In K. Kendrick, & A. Majid (Eds.), Field manual volume 14 (pp. 1-10). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.
  • Nordhoff, S., & Hammarström, H. (2014). Archiving grammatical descriptions. In P. K. Austin (Ed.), Language Documentation and Description. Vol. 12 (pp. 164-186). London: SOAS.
  • O'Connor, L., & Kolipakam, V. (2014). Human migrations, dispersals, and contacts in South America. In L. O'Connor, & P. Muysken (Eds.), The native languages of South America: Origins, development, typology (pp. 29-55). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Osswald, R., & Van Valin Jr., R. D. (2013). FrameNet, frame structure and the syntax-semantics interface. In T. Gamerschlag, D. Gerland, R. Osswald, & W. Petersen (Eds.), Frames and concept types: Applications in language and philosophy. Heidelberg: Springer.
  • Ozyurek, A. (2000). Differences in spatial conceptualization in Turkish and English discourse: Evidence from both speech and gesture. In A. Goksel, & C. Kerslake (Eds.), Studies on Turkish and Turkic languages (pp. 263-272). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
  • Ozyurek, A., & Perniss, P. M. (2011). Event representations in signed languages. In J. Bohnemeyer, & E. Pederson (Eds.), Event representations in language and cognition (pp. 84-107). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Ozyurek, A. (2000). The influence of addressee location on spatial language and representational gestures of direction. In D. McNeill (Ed.), Language and gesture (pp. 64-83). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Petersson, K. M., Forkstam, C., Inácio, F., Bramão, I., Araújo, S., Souza, A. C., Silva, S., & Castro, S. L. (2011). Artificial language learning. In A. Trevisan, & V. Wannmacher Pereira (Eds.), Alfabeltização e cognição (pp. 71-90). Porto Alegre, Brasil: Edipucrs.

    Abstract

    Neste artigo fazemos uma revisão breve de investigações actuais com técnicas comportamentais e de neuroimagem funcional sobre a aprendizagem de uma linguagem artificial em crianças e adultos. Na secção final, discutimos uma possível associação entre dislexia e aprendizagem implícita. Resultados recentes sugerem que a presença de um défice ao nível da aprendizagem implícita pode contribuir para as dificuldades de leitura e escrita observadas em indivíduos disléxicos.
  • Phillips, W., & Majid, A. (2011). Emotional sound symbolism. In K. Kendrick, & A. Majid (Eds.), Field manual volume 14 (pp. 16-18). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.1005615.
  • Rapold, C. J. (2011). Semantics of Khoekhoe reciprocal constructions. In N. Evans, A. Gaby, S. C. Levinson, & A. Majid (Eds.), Reciprocals and semantic typology (pp. 61-74). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Abstract

    This paper identifies four reciprocal construction types in Khoekhoe (Central Khoisan). After a brief description of the morphosyntax of each construction, semantic factors governing their choice are explored. Besides lexical semantics, the number of participants, timing of symmetric subevents, and symmetric conceptualisation are shown to account for the distribution of the four partially competing reciprocal constructions.
  • Reesink, G. (2014). Topic management and clause combination in the Papuan language Usan. In R. Van Gijn, J. Hammond, D. Matic, S. van Putten, & A.-V. Galucio (Eds.), Information Structure and Reference Tracking in Complex Sentences. (pp. 231-262). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Abstract

    This chapter describes topic management in the Papuan language Usan. The notion of ‘topic’ is defined by its pre-theoretical meaning ‘what someone’s speech is about’. This notion cannot be restricted to simple clausal or sentential constructions, but requires the wider context of long stretches of natural text. The tracking of a topic is examined in its relationship to clause combining mechanisms. Coordinating clause chaining with its switch reference mechanism is contrasted with subordinating strategies called ‘domain-creating’ constructions. These different strategies are identified by language-specific signals, such as intonation and morphosyntactic cues like nominalizations and scope of negation and other modalities.
  • Reis, A., Faísca, L., & Petersson, K. M. (2011). Literacia: Modelo para o estudo dos efeitos de uma aprendizagem específica na cognição e nas suas bases cerebrais. In A. Trevisan, J. J. Mouriño Mosquera, & V. Wannmacher Pereira (Eds.), Alfabeltização e cognição (pp. 23-36). Porto Alegro, Brasil: Edipucrs.

    Abstract

    A aquisição de competências de leitura e de escrita pode ser vista como um processo formal de transmissão cultural, onde interagem factores neurobiológicos e culturais. O treino sistemático exigido pela aprendizagem da leitura e da escrita poderá produzir mudanças quantitativas e qualitativas tanto a nível cognitivo como ao nível da organização do cérebro. Estudar sujeitos iletrados e letrados representa, assim, uma oportunidade para investigar efeitos de uma aprendizagem específica no desenvolvimento cognitivo e suas bases cerebrais. Neste trabalho, revemos um conjunto de investigações comportamentais e com métodos de imagem cerebral que indicam que a literacia tem um impacto nas nossas funções cognitivas e na organização cerebral. Mais especificamente, discutiremos diferenças entre letrados e iletrados para domínios cognitivos verbais e não-verbais, sugestivas de que a arquitectura cognitiva é formatada, em parte, pela aprendizagem da leitura e da escrita. Os dados de neuroimagem funcionais e estruturais são também indicadores que a aquisição de uma ortografia alfabética interfere nos processos de organização e lateralização das funções cognitivas.
  • Roberts, L. (2013). Discourse processing. In P. Robinson (Ed.), The Routledge encyclopedia of second language acquisition (pp. 190-194). New York: Routledge.
  • Roberts, S. G. (2014). Monolingual Biases in Simulations of Cultural Transmission. In V. Dignum, & F. Dignum (Eds.), Perspectives on Culture and Agent-based Simulations (pp. 111-125). Cham: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-01952-9_7.

    Abstract

    Recent research suggests that the evolution of language is affected by the inductive biases of its learners. I suggest that there is an implicit assumption that one of these biases is to expect a single linguistic system in the input. Given the prevalence of bilingual cultures, this may not be a valid abstraction. This is illustrated by demonstrating that the ‘minimal naming game’ model, in which a shared lexicon evolves in a population of agents, includes an implicit mutual exclusivity bias. Since recent research suggests that children raised in bilingual cultures do not exhibit mutual exclusivity, the individual learning algorithm of the agents is not as abstract as it appears to be. A modification of this model demonstrates that communicative success can be achieved without mutual exclusivity. It is concluded that complex cultural phenomena, such as bilingualism, do not necessarily result from complex individual learning mechanisms. Rather, the cultural process itself can bring about this complexity.
  • Roberts, S. G., & Quillinan, J. (2014). The Chimp Challenge: Working memory in chimps and humans. In L. McCrohon, B. Thompson, T. Verhoef, & H. Yamauchi (Eds.), The Past, Present and Future of Language Evolution Research: Student volume of the 9th International Conference on the Evolution of Language (pp. 31-39). Tokyo: EvoLang9 Organising Committee.

    Abstract

    Matsuzawa (2012) presented work at Evolang demonstrating the working memory abilities of chimpanzees. (Inoue & Matsuzawa, 2007) found that chimpanzees can correctly remember the location of 9 randomly arranged numerals displayed for 210ms - shorter than an average human eye saccade. Humans, however, perform poorly at this task. Matsuzawa suggests a semantic link hypothesis: while chimps have good visual, eidetic memory, humans are good at symbolic associations. The extra information in the semantic, linguistic links that humans possess increase the load on working memory and make this task difficult for them. We were interested to see if a wider search could find humans that matched the performance of the chimpanzees. We created an online version of the experiment and challenged people to play. We also attempted to run a non-semantic version of the task to see if this made the task easier. We found that, while humans can perform better than Inoue and Matsuzawa (2007) suggest, chimpanzees can perform better still. We also found no evidence to support the semantic link hypothesis.
  • Roberts, L. (2013). Sentence processing in bilinguals. In R. Van Gompel (Ed.), Sentence processing. London: Psychology Press.
  • Robinson, S. (2011). Reciprocals in Rotokas. In N. Evans, A. Gaby, S. C. Levinson, & A. Majid (Eds.), Reciprocals and semantic typology (pp. 195-211). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Abstract

    This paper describes the syntax and semantics of reciprocity in the Central dialect of Rotokas, a non-Austronesian (Papuan) language spoken in Bougainville, Papua New Guinea. In Central Rotokas, there are three main reciprocal construction types, which differ formally according to where the reflexive/reciprocal marker (ora-) occurs in the clause: on the verb, on a pronominal argument or adjunct, or on a body part noun. The choice of construction type is determined by two considerations: the valency of the verb (i.e., whether it has one or two core arguments) and whether the reciprocal action is performed on a body part. The construction types are compatible with a wide range of the logical subtypes of reciprocity (strong, melee, chaining, etc.).
  • Rossano, F. (2013). Gaze in conversation. In J. Sidnell, & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 308-329). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781118325001.ch15.

    Abstract

    This chapter contains sections titled: Introduction Background: The Gaze “Machinery” Gaze “Machinery” in Social Interaction Future Directions
  • Rossi, G. (2014). When do people not use language to make requests? In P. Drew, & E. Couper-Kuhlen (Eds.), Requesting in social interaction (pp. 301-332). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Abstract

    In everyday joint activities (e.g. playing cards, preparing potatoes, collecting empty plates), participants often request others to pass, move or otherwise deploy objects. In order to get these objects to or from the requestee, requesters need to manipulate them, for example by holding them out, reaching for them, or placing them somewhere. As they perform these manual actions, requesters may or may not accompany them with language (e.g. Take this potato and cut it or Pass me your plate). This study shows that adding or omitting language in the design of a request is influenced in the first place by a criterion of recognition. When the requested action is projectable from the advancement of an activity, presenting a relevant object to the requestee is enough for them to understand what to do; when, on the other hand, the requested action is occasioned by a contingent development of the activity, requesters use language to specify what the requestee should do. This criterion operates alongside a perceptual criterion, to do with the affordances of the visual and auditory modality. When the requested action is projectable but the requestee is not visually attending to the requester’s manual behaviour, the requester can use just enough language to attract the requestee’s attention and secure immediate recipiency. This study contributes to a line of research concerned with the organisation of verbal and nonverbal resources for requesting. Focussing on situations in which language is not – or only minimally – used, it demonstrates the role played by visible bodily behaviour and by the structure of everyday activities in the formation and understanding of requests.
  • Rowland, C. F., Noble, C. H., & Chan, A. (2014). Competition all the way down: How children learn word order cues to sentence meaning. In B. MacWhinney, A. Malchukov, & E. Moravcsik (Eds.), Competing Motivations in Grammar and Usage (pp. 125-143). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Abstract

    Most work on competing cues in language acquisition has focussed on what happens when cues compete within a certain construction. There has been far less work on what happens when constructions themselves compete. The aim of the present chapter was to explore how the acquisition mechanism copes when constructions compete in a language. We present three experimental studies, all of which focus on the acquisition of the syntactic function of word order as a marker of the Theme-Recipient relation in ditransitives (form-meaning mapping). In Study 1 we investigated how quickly English children acquire form-meaning mappings when there are two competing structures in the language. We demonstrated that English speaking 4-year- olds, but not 3-year-olds, correctly interpreted both preposition al and double object datives, assigning Theme and Recipient participant roles on the basis of word order cues. There was no advantage for the double object dative despite its greater frequency in child directed speech. In Study 2 we looked at acquisition in a language which has no dative alternation –Welsh–to investigate how quickly children acquire form-meaning mapping when there is no competing structure. We demonstrated that Welsh children (Study 2) acquired the prepositional dative at age 3 years, which was much earlier than English children. Finally, in Study 3 we examined bei2 (give) ditransitives in Cantonese, to investigate what happens when there is no dative alternation (as in Welsh), but when the child hears alternative, and possibly competing, word orders in the input. Like the English 3-year-olds, the Cantonese 3-year-olds had not yet acquired the word order marking constraints of bei2 ditransitives. We conclude that there is not only competition between cues but competition between constructions in language acquisition. We suggest an extension to the competition model (Bates & MacWhinney, 1982) whereby generalisations take place across constructions as easily as they take place within constructions, whenever there are salient similarities to form the basis of the generalisation.
  • Rumsey, A., San Roque, L., & Schieffelin, B. (2013). The acquisition of ergative marking in Kaluli, Ku Waru and Duna (Trans New Guinea). In E. L. Bavin, & S. Stoll (Eds.), The acquisition of ergativity (pp. 133-182). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Abstract

    In this chapter we present material on the acquisition of ergative marking on noun phrases in three languages of Papua New Guinea: Kaluli, Ku Waru, and Duna. The expression of ergativity in all the languages is broadly similar, but sensitive to language-specific features, and this pattern of similarity and difference is reflected in the available acquisition data. Children acquire adult-like ergative marking at about the same pace, reaching similar levels of mastery by 3;00 despite considerable differences in morphological complexity of ergative marking among the languages. What may be more important – as a factor in accounting for the relative uniformity of acquisition in this respect – are the similarities in patterns of interactional scaffolding that emerge from a comparison of the three cases.
  • Sandberg, A., Lansner, A., Petersson, K. M., & Ekeberg, Ö. (2000). A palimpsest memory based on an incremental Bayesian learning rule. In J. M. Bower (Ed.), Computational Neuroscience: Trends in Research 2000 (pp. 987-994). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  • Schepens, J., Van der Slik, F., & Van Hout, R. (2013). The effect of linguistic distance across Indo-European mother tongues on learning Dutch as a second language. In L. Borin, & A. Saxena (Eds.), Approaches to measuring linguistic differences (pp. 199-230). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Schiller, N. O., Van Lieshout, P. H. H. M., Meyer, A. S., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1999). Does the syllable affiliation of intervocalic consonants have an articulatory basis? Evidence from electromagnetic midsagittal artculography. In B. Maassen, & P. Groenen (Eds.), Pathologies of speech and language. Advances in clinical phonetics and linguistics (pp. 342-350). London: Whurr Publishers.
  • Schoffelen, J.-M., & Gross, J. (2014). Studying dynamic neural interactions with MEG. In S. Supek, & C. J. Aine (Eds.), Magnetoencephalography: From signals to dynamic cortical networks (pp. 405-427). Berlin: Springer.
  • Scott, S. K., McGettigan, C., & Eisner, F. (2013). The neural basis of links and dissociations between speech perception and production. In J. J. Bolhuis, & M. Everaert (Eds.), Birdsong, speech and language: Exploring the evolution of mind and brain (pp. 277-294). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
  • Sekine, K. (2011). The development of spatial perspective in the description of large-scale environments. In G. Stam, & M. Ishino (Eds.), Integrating Gestures: The interdisciplinary nature of gesture (pp. 175-186). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

    Abstract

    This research investigated developmental changes in children’s representations of large-scale environments as reflected in spontaneous gestures and speech produced during route descriptions Four-, five-, and six-year-olds (N = 122) described the route from their nursery school to their own homes. Analysis of the children’s gestures showed that some 5- and 6-year-olds produced gestures that represented survey mapping, and they were categorized as a survey group. Children who did not produce such gestures were categorized as a route group. A comparison of the two groups revealed no significant differences in speech indices, with the exception that the survey group showed significantly fewer right/left terms. As for gesture, the survey group produced more gestures than the route group. These results imply that an initial form of survey-map representation is acquired beginning at late preschool age.
  • Senft, G. (1999). Bronislaw Kasper Malinowski. In J. Verschueren, J.-O. Östman, J. Blommaert, & C. Bulcaen (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics: 1997 installment. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Senft, G. (1998). 'Noble Savages' and the 'Islands of Love': Trobriand Islanders in 'Popular Publications'. In J. Wassmann (Ed.), Pacific answers to Western hegemony: Cultural practices of identity construction (pp. 119-140). Oxford: Berg Publishers.
  • Senft, G. (2011). Machst Du jetzt Witze oder was? - Die Sprechweisen der Trobriand-Insulaner. In Max-Planck-Gesellschaft Jahrbuch 2011/11 Tätigkeitsberichte und Publikationen (DVD) (pp. 1-8). München: Max Planck Society for the Advancement of Science. Retrieved from http://www.mpg.de/1077403/Sprache_Trobriand-Insulaner.

    Abstract

    The Trobriand Islanders of Papua New Guinea differentiate and label in their language Kilivila genres and varieties or registers which are constituted by these genres. The documentation and analysis of these varieties and genres reveals how important it is to understand these metalinguistic differentiations. The cultural and verbal competence which is necessary to adequately interact with the Trobriander Islanders is based on the understanding of the indigenous text typology and the Trobriand Islanders' culture specific ways of speaking.
  • Senft, G. (2011). Linearisation in narratives. In K. Kendrick, & A. Majid (Eds.), Field manual volume 14 (pp. 24-28). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.1005607.
  • Senft, G. (2000). Introduction. In G. Senft (Ed.), Systems of nominal classification (pp. 1-10). Cambridge University Press.
  • Senft, G. (2013). Ethnolinguistik. In B. Beer, & H. Fischer (Eds.), Ethnologie - Einführung und Überblick. (8. Auflage, pp. 271-286). Berlin: Reimer.
  • Senft, G. (2000). What do we really know about nominal classification systems? In Conference handbook. The 18th national conference of the English Linguistic Society of Japan. 18-19 November, 2000, Konan University (pp. 225-230). Kobe: English Linguistic Society of Japan.
  • Senft, G. (2000). What do we really know about nominal classification systems? In G. Senft (Ed.), Systems of nominal classification (pp. 11-49). Cambridge University Press.
  • Senft, G. (2011). To have and have not: Kilivila reciprocals. In N. Evans, A. Gaby, S. C. Levinson, & A. Majid (Eds.), Reciprocals and semantic typology (pp. 225-232). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Abstract

    Kilivila is one of the languages of the world that lacks dedicated reciprocal forms. After a short introduction the paper briefly shows how reciprocity is either not expressed at all, is only implicated in an utterance, or expressed periphrastically.
  • Senft, G. (1998). Zeichenkonzeptionen in Ozeanien. In R. Posner, T. Robering, & T.. Sebeok (Eds.), Semiotics: A handbook on the sign-theoretic foundations of nature and culture (Vol. 2) (pp. 1971-1976). Berlin: de Gruyter.
  • Senghas, A., Ozyurek, A., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2013). Homesign as a way-station between co-speech gesture and sign language: The evolution of segmenting and sequencing. In R. Botha, & M. Everaert (Eds.), The evolutionary emergence of language: Evidence and inference (pp. 62-77). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Seuren, P. A. M. (2000). A discourse-semantic account of topic and comment. In N. Nicolov, & R. Mitkov (Eds.), Recent advances in natural language processing II. Selected papers from RANLP '97 (pp. 179-190). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Seuren, P. A. M. (2000). Pseudocomplementen. In H. Den Besten, E. Elffers, & J. Luif (Eds.), Samengevoegde woorden. Voor Wim Klooster bij zijn afscheid als hoogleraar (pp. 231-237). Amsterdam: Leerstoelgroep Nederlandse Taalkunde, Universiteit van Amsterdam.
  • Seuren, P. A. M. (1999). The subject-predicate debate X-rayed. In D. Cram, A. Linn, & E. Nowak (Eds.), History of Linguistics 1996: Selected papers from the Seventh International Conference on the History of the Language Sciences (ICHOLS VII), Oxford, 12-17 September 1996. Volume 1: Traditions in Linguistics Worldwide (pp. 41-55). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Seuren, P. A. M. (2013). The logico-philosophical tradition. In K. Allan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the history of linguistics (pp. 537-554). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Seuren, P. A. M. (2011). Western linguistics: An historical introduction [Reprint]. In D. Archer, & P. Grundy (Eds.), The pragmatics reader (pp. 55-67). London: Routledge.

    Abstract

    Reproduced with permission of Blackwell Publishing from: Seuren, P. A. M. (1998) Western linguistics, 25: pp. 426-428, 430-441. Oxford Blackwell Publishers
  • Seuren, P. A. M. (1999). Topic and comment. In C. F. Justus, & E. C. Polomé (Eds.), Language Change and Typological Variation: Papers in Honor of Winfred P. Lehmann on the Occasion of His 83rd Birthday. Vol. 2: Grammatical universals and typology (pp. 348-373). Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man.
  • Seuren, P. A. M. (1998). Towards a discourse-semantic account of donkey anaphora. In S. Botley, & T. McEnery (Eds.), New Approaches to Discourse Anaphora: Proceedings of the Second Colloquium on Discourse Anaphora and Anaphor Resolution (DAARC2) (pp. 212-220). Lancaster: Universiy Centre for Computer Corpus Research on Language, Lancaster University.
  • Seuren, P. A. M. (2014). Universe restriction in the logic of language. In J. Hoeksema, & D. Gilbers (Eds.), Black Book: A Festschrift in Honor of Frans Zwarts (pp. 282-300). Groningen: University of Groningen.
  • Sicoli, M. A. (2011). Agency and ideology in language shift and language maintenance. In T. Granadillo, & H. A. Orcutt-Gachiri (Eds.), Ethnographic contributions to the study of endangered languages (pp. 161-176). Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.
  • Sidnell, J., & Enfield, N. J. (2014). Deixis and the interactional foundations of reference. In Y. Huang (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of pragmatics.
  • Sidnell, J., Kockelman, P., & Enfield, N. J. (2014). Community and social life. In N. J. Enfield, P. Kockelman, & J. Sidnell (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of linguistic anthropology (pp. 481-483). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Sidnell, J., Enfield, N. J., & Kockelman, P. (2014). Interaction and intersubjectivity. In N. J. Enfield, P. Kockelman, & J. Sidnell (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of linguistic anthropology (pp. 343-345). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Sidnell, J., & Enfield, N. J. (2014). The ontology of action, in interaction. In N. J. Enfield, P. Kockelman, & J. Sidnell (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of linguistic anthropology (pp. 423-446). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Share this page