Displaying 201 - 217 of 217
-
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 Turennout, M., Schmitt, B., & Hagoort, P. (2003). When words come to mind: Electrophysiological insights on the time course of speaking and understanding words. In N. O. Schiller, & A. S. Meyer (
Eds. ), Phonetics and phonology in language comprehension and production: Differences and similarities (pp. 241-278). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. -
van Staden, M., & Majid, A. (2003). Body colouring task 2003. In N. J. Enfield (
Ed. ), Field research manual 2003, part I: Multimodal interaction, space, event representation (pp. 66-68). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.877666.Abstract
This Field Manual entry has been superceded by the published version: Van Staden, M., & Majid, A. (2006). Body colouring task. Language Sciences, 28(2-3), 158-161. doi:10.1016/j.langsci.2005.11.004.Additional information
2003_body_model_large.pdfFiles private
Request files -
Van Valin Jr., R. D. (2003). Minimalism and explanation. In J. Moore, & M. Polinsky (
Eds. ), The nature of explanation in linguistic theory (pp. 281-297). University of Chicago Press. -
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.Files private
Request files -
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 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 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. -
Von Stutterheim, C., Carroll, M., & Klein, W. (2003). Two ways of construing complex temporal structures. In F. Lenz (
Ed. ), Deictic conceptualization of space, time and person (pp. 97-133). Amsterdam: Benjamins. -
Vonk, W., & Cozijn, R. (2003). On the treatment of saccades and regressions in eye movement measures of reading time. In J. Hyönä, R. Radach, & H. Deubel (
Eds. ), The mind's eye: Cognitive and applied aspects of eye movement research (pp. 291-312). Amsterdam: Elsevier. -
Warner, N. (2003). Rapid perceptibility as a factor underlying universals of vowel inventories. In A. Carnie, H. Harley, & M. Willie (
Eds. ), Formal approaches to function in grammar, in honor of Eloise Jelinek (pp. 245-261). Amsterdam: Benjamins. -
Wender, K. F., Haun, D. B. M., Rasch, B. H., & Blümke, M. (2003). Context effects in memory for routes. In C. Freksa, W. Brauer, C. Habel, & K. F. Wender (
Eds. ), Spatial cognition III: Routes and navigation, human memory and learning, spatial representation and spatial learning (pp. 209-231). Berlin: Springer. -
Wilkins, D. (1993). Route Description Elicitation. In S. C. Levinson (
Ed. ), Cognition and space kit 1.0 (pp. 15-28). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.3513141.Abstract
When we want to describe a path through space, but do not share a common perceptual field with a conversation partner, language has to work doubly hard. This task investigates how people communicate the navigation of space in the absence of shared visual cues, as well as collecting data on motion verbs and the roles of symmetry and landmarks in route description. Two speakers (separated by a curtain or other barrier) are each given a model of a landscape, and one participant describes standard routes through this landscape for the other to match. -
Wilkins, D., & Hill, D. (1993). Preliminary 'Come' and 'Go' Questionnaire. In S. C. Levinson (
Ed. ), Cognition and space kit 1.0 (pp. 29-46). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.3513125.Abstract
The encoding of apparently ‘simple’ movement concepts such as ‘COME’ and ‘GO’ can differ widely across languages (e.g., in regard to specifying direction of motion relative to the speaker). This questionnaire is used to identify the range of use of basic motion verbs in a language, and investigate semantic parameters that are involved in high frequency ‘COME’ and ‘GO’-like terms. -
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. -
Zwitserlood, I. (2003). Word formation below and above little x: Evidence from Sign Language of the Netherlands. In Proceedings of SCL 19. Nordlyd Tromsø University Working Papers on Language and Linguistics (pp. 488-502).
Abstract
Although in many respects sign languages have a similar structure to that of spoken languages, the different modalities in which both types of languages are expressed cause differences in structure as well. One of the most striking differences between spoken and sign languages is the influence of the interface between grammar and PF on the surface form of utterances. Spoken language words and phrases are in general characterized by sequential strings of sounds, morphemes and words, while in sign languages we find that many phonemes, morphemes, and even words are expressed simultaneously. A linguistic model should be able to account for the structures that occur in both spoken and sign languages. In this paper, I will discuss the morphological/ morphosyntactic structure of signs in Nederlandse Gebarentaal (Sign Language of the Netherlands, henceforth NGT), with special focus on the components ‘place of articulation’ and ‘handshape’. I will focus on their multiple functions in the grammar of NGT and argue that the framework of Distributed Morphology (DM), which accounts for word formation in spoken languages, is also suited to account for the formation of structures in sign languages. First I will introduce the phonological and morphological structure of NGT signs. Then, I will briefly outline the major characteristics of the DM framework. Finally, I will account for signs that have the same surface form but have a different morphological structure by means of that framework.Additional information
http://www.ub.uit.no/baser/septentrio/index.php/nordlyd/article/viewFile/17/16
Share this page