Publications

Displaying 201 - 227 of 227
  • Seuren, P. A. M. (2015). Taal is complexer dan je denkt - recursief. In S. Lestrade, P. De Swart, & L. Hogeweg (Eds.), Addenda. Artikelen voor Ad Foolen (pp. 393-400). Nijmegen: Radboud University.
  • Seuren, P. A. M. (1981). Taaluniversalia. In W. De Geest, R. Dirven, & Y. Putseys (Eds.), Twintig facetten van de taalwetenschap (pp. 112-126). Louvain: Acco.
  • 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.
  • Skiba, R. (2006). Computeranalyse/Computer Analysis. In U. Amon, N. Dittmar, K. Mattheier, & P. Trudgill (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: An international handbook of the science of language and society [2nd completely revised and extended edition] (pp. 1187-1197). Berlin, New York: de Gruyter.
  • De Sousa, H., Langella, F., & Enfield, N. J. (2015). Temperature terms in Lao, Southern Zhuang, Southern Pinghua and Cantonese. In M. Koptjevskaja-Tamm (Ed.), The linguistics of temperature (pp. 594-638). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Stivers, T. (2006). Treatment decisions: negotiations between doctors and parents in acute care encounters. In J. Heritage, & D. W. Maynard (Eds.), Communication in medical care: Interaction between primary care physicians and patients (pp. 279-312). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Terrill, A., & Dunn, M. (2006). Semantic transference: Two preliminary case studies from the Solomon Islands. In C. Lefebvre, L. White, & C. Jourdan (Eds.), L2 acquisition and Creole genesis: Dialogues (pp. 67-85). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Terrill, A. (2006). Central Solomon languages. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (vol. 2) (pp. 279-280). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Abstract

    The Papuan languages of the central Solomon Islands are a negatively defined areal grouping: They are those four or possibly five languages in the central Solomon Islands that do not belong to the Austronesian family. Bilua (Vella Lavella), Touo (Rendova), Lavukaleve (Russell Islands), Savosavo (Savo Island) and possibly Kazukuru (New Georgia) have been identified as non-Austronesian since the early 20th century. However, their affiliations both to each other and to other languages still remain a mystery. Heterogeneous and until recently largely undescribed, they present an interesting departure from what is known both of Austronesian languages in the region and of the Papuan languages of the mainland of New Guinea.
  • 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.
  • Udden, J., & Schoffelen, J.-M. (2015). Mother of all Unification Studies (MOUS). In A. E. Konopka (Ed.), Research Report 2013 | 2014 (pp. 21-22). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.2236748.
  • Van Staden, M., Bowerman, M., & Verhelst, M. (2006). Some properties of spatial description in Dutch. In S. C. Levinson, & D. Wilkins (Eds.), Grammars of Space (pp. 475-511). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • 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 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.
  • 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 Heugten, M., Bergmann, C., & Cristia, A. (2015). The Effects of Talker Voice and Accent on Young Children's Speech Perception. In S. Fuchs, D. Pape, C. Petrone, & P. Perrier (Eds.), Individual Differences in Speech Production and Perception (pp. 57-88). Bern: Peter Lang.

    Abstract

    Within the first few years of life, children acquire many of the building blocks of their native language. This not only involves knowledge about the linguistic structure of spoken language, but also knowledge about the way in which this linguistic structure surfaces in their speech input. In this chapter, we review how infants and toddlers cope with differences between speakers and accents. Within the context of milestones in early speech perception, we examine how voice and accent characteristics are integrated during language processing, looking closely at the advantages and disadvantages of speaker and accent familiarity, surface-level deviation between two utterances, variability in the input, and prior speaker exposure. We conclude that although deviation from the child’s standard can complicate speech perception early in life, young listeners can overcome these additional challenges. This suggests that early spoken language processing is flexible and adaptive to the listening situation at hand.
  • Van Valin Jr., R. D. (2006). Some universals of verb semantics. In R. Mairal, & J. Gil (Eds.), Linguistic universals (pp. 155-178). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • 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.
  • Van Valin Jr., R. D. (2006). Semantic macroroles and language processing. In I. Bornkessel, M. Schlesewsky, B. Comrie, & A. Friederici (Eds.), Semantic role universals and argument linking: Theoretical, typological and psycho-/neurolinguistic perspectives (pp. 263-302). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Weissenborn, J. (1981). L'acquisition des prepositions spatiales: problemes cognitifs et linguistiques. In C. Schwarze (Ed.), Analyse des prépositions: IIIme colloque franco-allemand de linguistique théorique du 2 au 4 février 1981 à Constance (pp. 251-285). Tübingen: Niemeyer.
  • 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.
  • Willems, R. M. (2015). Cognitive neuroscience of natural language use: Introduction. In Cognitive neuroscience of natural language use (pp. 1-7). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Zeshan, U. (2006). Sign language of the world. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (vol. 11) (pp. 358-365). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Abstract

    Although sign language-using communities exist in all areas of the world, few sign languages have been documented in detail. Sign languages occur in a variety of sociocultural contexts, ranging from sign languages used in closed village communities to officially recognized national sign languages. They may be grouped into language families on historical grounds or may participate in various language contact situations. Systematic cross-linguistic comparison reveals both significant structural similarities and important typological differences between sign languages. Focusing on information from non-Western countries, this article provides an overview of the sign languages of the world.
  • Zwitserlood, I., & Van Gijn, I. (2006). Agreement phenomena in Sign Language of the Netherlands. In P. Ackema (Ed.), Arguments and Agreement (pp. 195-229). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Share this page