Displaying 201 - 211 of 211
-
Wilkins, D., Pederson, E., & Levinson, S. C. (1995). Background questions for the "enter"/"exit" research. In D. Wilkins (
Ed. ), Extensions of space and beyond: manual for field elicitation for the 1995 field season (pp. 14-16). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.3003935.Abstract
How do languages encode different kinds of movement, and what features do people pay attention to when describing motion events? This document outlines topics concerning the investigation of “enter” and “exit” events. It helps contextualise research tasks that examine this domain (see 'Motion Elicitation' and 'Enter/Exit animation') and gives some pointers about what other questions can be explored. -
Wilkins, D. (1995). Motion elicitation: "moving 'in(to)'" and "moving 'out (of)'". In D. Wilkins (
Ed. ), Extensions of space and beyond: manual for field elicitation for the 1995 field season (pp. 4-12). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.3003391.Abstract
How do languages encode different kinds of movement, and what features do people pay attention to when describing motion events? This task investigates the expression of “enter” and “exit” activities, that is, events involving motion in(to) and motion out (of) container-like items. The researcher first uses particular stimuli (a ball, a cup, rice, etc.) to elicit descriptions of enter/exit events from one consultant, and then asks another consultant to demonstrate the event based on these descriptions. See also the related entries Enter/Exit Animation and Background Questions for Enter/Exit Research. -
Windhouwer, M., Petro, J., Newskaya, I., Drude, S., Aristar-Dry, H., & Gippert, J. (2013). Creating a serialization of LMF: The experience of the RELISH project. In G. Francopoulo (
Ed. ), LMF - Lexical Markup Framework (pp. 215-226). London: Wiley. -
Windhouwer, M., & Wright, S. E. (2013). LMF and the Data Category Registry: Principles and application. In G. Francopoulo (
Ed. ), LMF: Lexical Markup Framework (pp. 41-50). London: Wiley. -
Wittenburg, P., & Ringersma, J. (2013). Metadata description for lexicons. In R. H. Gouws, U. Heid, W. Schweickard, & H. E. Wiegand (
Eds. ), Dictionaries: An international encyclopedia of lexicography: Supplementary volume: Recent developments with focus on electronic and computational lexicography (pp. 1329-1335). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. -
Wright, S. E., Windhouwer, M., Schuurman, I., & Kemps-Snijders, M. (2013). Community efforts around the ISOcat Data Category Registry. In I. Gurevych, & J. Kim (
Eds. ), The People's Web meets NLP: Collaboratively constructed language resources (pp. 349-374). New York: Springer.Abstract
The ISOcat Data Category Registry provides a community computing environment for creating, storing, retrieving, harmonizing and standardizing data category specifications (DCs), used to register linguistic terms used in various fields. This chapter recounts the history of DC documentation in TC 37, beginning from paper-based lists created for lexicographers and terminologists and progressing to the development of a web-based resource for a much broader range of users. While describing the considerable strides that have been made to collect a very large comprehensive collection of DCs, it also outlines difficulties that have arisen in developing a fully operative web-based computing environment for achieving consensus on data category names, definitions, and selections and describes efforts to overcome some of the present shortcomings and to establish positive working procedures designed to engage a wide range of people involved in the creation of language resources. -
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., Perniss, P. M., & Ozyurek, A. (2013). Expression of multiple entities in Turkish Sign Language (TİD). In E. Arik (
Ed. ), Current Directions in Turkish Sign Language Research (pp. 272-302). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Abstract
This paper reports on an exploration of the ways in which multiple entities are expressed in Turkish Sign Language (TİD). The (descriptive and quantitative) analyses provided are based on a corpus of both spontaneous data and specifically elicited data, in order to provide as comprehensive an account as possible. We have found several devices in TİD for expression of multiple entities, in particular localization, spatial plural predicate inflection, and a specific form used to express multiple entities that are side by side in the same configuration (not reported for any other sign language to date), as well as numerals and quantifiers. In contrast to some other signed languages, TİD does not appear to have a productive system of plural reduplication. We argue that none of the devices encountered in the TİD data is a genuine plural marking device and that the plural interpretation of multiple entity localizations and plural predicate inflections is a by-product of the use of space to indicate the existence or the involvement in an event of multiple entities.
Share this page