Displaying 301 - 312 of 312
-
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., & Hagoort, P. (2010). Cortical motor contributions to language understanding. In L. Hermer (
Ed. ), Reciprocal interactions among early sensory and motor areas and higher cognitive networks (pp. 51-72). Kerala, India: Research Signpost Press.Abstract
Here we review evidence from cognitive neuroscience for a tight relation between language and action in the brain. We focus on two types of relation between language and action. First, we investigate whether the perception of speech and speech sounds leads to activation of parts of the cortical motor system also involved in speech production. Second, we evaluate whether understanding action-related language involves the activation of parts of the motor system. We conclude that whereas there is considerable evidence that understanding language can involve parts of our motor cortex, this relation is best thought of as inherently flexible. As we explain, the exact nature of the input as well as the intention with which language is perceived influences whether and how motor cortex plays a role in language processing. -
Wittenburg, P., & Trilsbeek, P. (2010). Digital archiving - a necessity in documentary linguistics. In G. Senft (
Ed. ), Endangered Austronesian and Australian Aboriginal languages: Essays on language documentation, archiving and revitalization (pp. 111-136). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. -
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. -
Zavala, R. (2000). Multiple classifier systems in Akatek (Mayan). In G. Senft (
Ed. ), Systems of nominal classification (pp. 114-146). Cambridge University Press. -
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., 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. (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. -
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