Displaying 301 - 310 of 310
-
Von Stutterheim, C., & Klein, W. (2004). Die Gesetze des Geistes sind metrisch: Hölderlin und die Sprachproduktion. In H. Schwarz (
Ed. ), Fenster zur Welt: Deutsch als Fremdsprachenphilologie (pp. 439-460). München: Iudicium. -
Von Stutterheim, C., & Klein, W. (1989). Referential movement in descriptive and narrative discourse. In R. Dietrich, & C. F. Graumann (
Eds. ), Language processing in social context (pp. 39-76). Amsterdam: Elsevier. -
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., & Cristia, A. (2018). Hemodynamic methods: fMRI and fNIRS. In A. M. B. De Groot, & P. Hagoort (
Eds. ), Research methods in psycholinguistics and the neurobiology of language: A practical guide (pp. 266-287). Hoboken: Wiley. -
Willems, R. M., & Van Gerven, M. (2018). New fMRI methods for the study of language. In S.-A. Rueschemeyer, & M. G. Gaskell (
Eds. ), The Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics (2nd ed., pp. 975-991). Oxford: Oxford University Press. -
Wittenburg, P., Trilsbeek, P., & Wittenburg, F. (2014). Corpus archiving and dissemination. In J. Durand, U. Gut, & G. Kristoffersen (
Eds. ), The Oxford Handbook of Corpus Phonology (pp. 133-149). Oxford: Oxford University Press. -
Zinken, J., Rossi, G., & Reddy, V. (2020). Doing more than expected: Thanking recognizes another's agency in providing assistance. In C. Taleghani-Nikazm, E. Betz, & P. Golato (
Eds. ), Mobilizing others: Grammar and lexis within larger activities (pp. 253-278). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Abstract
In informal interaction, speakers rarely thank a person who has complied with a request. Examining data from British English, German, Italian, Polish, and Telugu, we ask when speakers do thank after compliance. The results show that thanking treats the other’s assistance as going beyond what could be taken for granted in the circumstances. Coupled with the rareness of thanking after requests, this suggests that cooperation is to a great extent governed by expectations of helpfulness, which can be long-standing, or built over the course of a particular interaction. The higher frequency of thanking in some languages (such as English or Italian) suggests that cultures differ in the importance they place on recognizing the other’s agency in doing as requested. -
Zwitserlood, I. (2014). Meaning at the feature level in sign languages. The case of name signs in Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT). In R. Kager (
Ed. ), Where the Principles Fail. A Festschrift for Wim Zonneveld on the occasion of his 64th birthday (pp. 241-251). Utrecht: Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS.
Share this page