Publications

Displaying 1 - 89 of 89
  • Ameka, F. K., & Wilkins, D. (1996). Semantics. In H. Goebl, P. H. Nelde, Z. Stary, & W. Wölck (Eds.), Contact linguistics: An international handbook of contemporary research. Volume 1 (pp. 130-137). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Bauer, B. L. M. (1996). The verb in indirect speech in Old French. In T. Janssen, & W. Van der Wurff (Eds.), Reported Speech (pp. 75-96). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Becker, A., & Klein, W. (1984). Notes on the internal organization of a learner variety. In P. Auer, & A. Di Luzio (Eds.), Interpretive sociolinguistics (pp. 215-231). Tübingen: Narr.
  • Bohnemeyer, J. (1998). Sententiale Topics im Yukatekischen. In Z. Dietmar (Ed.), Deskriptive Grammatik und allgemeiner Sprachvergleich (pp. 55-85). Tübingen, Germany: Max-Niemeyer-Verlag.

    Files private

    Request files
  • Bohnemeyer, J. (1998). Temporale Relatoren im Hispano-Yukatekischen Sprachkontakt. In A. Koechert, & T. Stolz (Eds.), Convergencia e Individualidad - Las lenguas Mayas entre hispanización e indigenismo (pp. 195-241). Hannover, Germany: Verlag für Ethnologie.
  • Bowerman, M. (1976). Semantic factors in the acquisition of rules for word use and sentence construction. In D. Morehead, & A. Morehead (Eds.), Directions in normal and deficient language development (pp. 99-179). Baltimore: University Park Press.
  • Bowerman, M. (1976). Le relazioni strutturali nel linguaggio infantile: sintattiche o semantiche? [Reprint]. In F. Antinucci, & C. Castelfranchi (Eds.), Psicolinguistica: Percezione, memoria e apprendimento del linguaggio (pp. 303-321). Bologna: Il Mulino.

    Abstract

    Reprinted from Bowerman, M. (1973). Structural relationships in children's utterances: Semantic or syntactic? In T. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp. 197 213). New York: Academic Press
  • Bowerman, M. (1996). Learning how to structure space for language: A crosslinguistic perspective. In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. F. Garrett (Eds.), Language and space (pp. 385-436). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
  • Bowerman, M. (1979). The acquisition of complex sentences. In M. Garman, & P. Fletcher (Eds.), Studies in language acquisition (pp. 285-305). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Bowerman, M. (1996). The origins of children's spatial semantic categories: Cognitive vs. linguistic determinants. In J. J. Gumperz, & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 145-176). Cambridge University Press.
  • Brown, P. (1998). Early Tzeltal verbs: Argument structure and argument representation. In E. Clark (Ed.), Proceedings of the 29th Annual Stanford Child Language Research Forum (pp. 129-140). Stanford: CSLI Publications.

    Abstract

    The surge of research activity focussing on children's acquisition of verbs (e.g., Tomasello and Merriman 1996) addresses some fundamental questions: Just how variable across languages, and across individual children, is the process of verb learning? How specific are arguments to particular verbs in early child language? How does the grammatical category 'Verb' develop? The position of Universal Grammar, that a verb category is early, contrasts with that of Tomasello (1992), Pine and Lieven and their colleagues (1996, in press), and many others, that children develop a verb category slowly, gradually building up subcategorizations of verbs around pragmatic, syntactic, and semantic properties of the language they are exposed to. On this latter view, one would expect the language which the child is learning, the cultural milieu and the nature of the interactions in which the child is engaged, to influence the process of acquiring verb argument structures. This paper explores these issues by examining the development of argument representation in the Mayan language Tzeltal, in both its lexical and verbal cross-referencing forms, and analyzing the semantic and pragmatic factors influencing the form argument representation takes. Certain facts about Tzeltal (the ergative/ absolutive marking, the semantic specificity of transitive and positional verbs) are proposed to affect the representation of arguments. The first 500 multimorpheme combinations of 3 children (aged between 1;8 and 2;4) are examined. It is argued that there is no evidence of semantically light 'pathbreaking' verbs (Ninio 1996) leading the way into word combinations. There is early productivity of cross-referencing affixes marking A, S, and O arguments (although there are systematic omissions). The paper assesses the respective contributions of three kinds of factors to these results - structural (regular morphology), semantic (verb specificity) and pragmatic (the nature of Tzeltal conversational interaction).
  • Brown, P. (1998). How and why are women more polite: Some evidence from a Mayan community. In J. Coates (Ed.), Language and gender (pp. 81-99). Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Brown, C. M., Hagoort, P., & Swaab, T. Y. (1996). Neurophysiological evidence for a temporal disorganization in aphasic patients with comprehension deficits. In W. Widdig, I. Ohlendorff, T. A. Pollow, & J. Malin (Eds.), Aphasiatherapie im Wandel (pp. 89-122). Freiburg: Hochschul Verlag.
  • Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1998). Politeness, introduction to the reissue: A review of recent work. In A. Kasher (Ed.), Pragmatics: Vol. 6 Grammar, psychology and sociology (pp. 488-554). London: Routledge.

    Abstract

    This article is a reprint of chapter 1, the introduction to Brown and Levinson, 1987, Politeness: Some universals in language usage (Cambridge University Press).
  • Brown, P., & Fraser, C. (1979). Speech as a marker of situation. In H. Giles, & K. Scherer (Eds.), Social markers in speech (pp. 33-62). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1979). Social structure, groups and interaction. In H. Giles, & K. R. Scherer (Eds.), Social markers in speech (pp. 291-341). Cambridge University Press.
  • Crago, M. B., & Allen, S. E. M. (1998). Acquiring Inuktitut. In O. L. Taylor, & L. Leonard (Eds.), Language Acquisition Across North America: Cross-Cultural And Cross-Linguistic Perspectives (pp. 245-279). San Diego, CA, USA: Singular Publishing Group, Inc.
  • Cutler, A. (1979). Beyond parsing and lexical look-up. In R. J. Wales, & E. C. T. Walker (Eds.), New approaches to language mechanisms: a collection of psycholinguistic studies (pp. 133-149). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
  • Cutler, A., Norris, D., & McQueen, J. M. (1996). Lexical access in continuous speech: Language-specific realisations of a universal model. In T. Otake, & A. Cutler (Eds.), Phonological structure and language processing: Cross-linguistic studies (pp. 227-242). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Cutler, A., & Otake, T. (1996). Phonological structure and its role in language processing. In T. Otake, & A. Cutler (Eds.), Phonological structure and language processing: Cross-linguistic studies (pp. 1-12). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Cutler, A., & Norris, D. (1979). Monitoring sentence comprehension. In W. E. Cooper, & E. C. T. Walker (Eds.), Sentence processing: Psycholinguistic studies presented to Merrill Garrett (pp. 113-134). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
  • Cutler, A. (1998). Prosodic structure and word recognition. In A. D. Friederici (Ed.), Language comprehension: A biological perspective (pp. 41-70). Heidelberg: Springer.
  • Cutler, A. (1996). Prosody and the word boundary problem. In J. L. Morgan, & K. Demuth (Eds.), Signal to syntax: Bootstrapping from speech to grammar in early acquisition (pp. 87-99). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Cutler, A. (1984). Stress and accent in language production and understanding. In D. Gibbon, & H. Richter (Eds.), Intonation, accent and rhythm: Studies in discourse phonology (pp. 77-90). Berlin: de Gruyter.
  • Cutler, A., & Clifton, Jr., C. (1984). The use of prosodic information in word recognition. In H. Bouma, & D. G. Bouwhuis (Eds.), Attention and performance X: Control of language processes (pp. 183-196). London: Erlbaum.

    Abstract

    In languages with variable stress placement, lexical stress patterns can convey information about word identity. The experiments reported here address the question of whether lexical stress information can be used in word recognition. The results allow the following conclusions: 1. Prior information as to the number of syllables and lexical stress patterns of words and nonwords does not facilitate lexical decision responses (Experiment 1). 2. The strong correspondences between grammatical category membership and stress pattern in bisyllabic English words (strong-weak stress being associated primarily with nouns, weak-strong with verbs) are not exploited in the recognition of isolated words (Experiment 2). 3. When a change in lexical stress also involves a change in vowel quality, i.e., a segmental as well as a suprasegmental alteration, effects on word recognition are greater when no segmental correlates of suprasegmental changes are involved (Experiments 2 and 3). 4. Despite the above finding, when all other factors are controlled, lexical stress information per se can indeed be shown to play a part in word-recognition process (Experiment 3).
  • Cutler, A., & Clifton Jr., C. (1984). The use of prosodic information in word recognition. In H. Bouma, & D. Bouwhuis (Eds.), Attention and Performance X: Control of Language Processes (pp. 183-196). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I., Senft, B., & Senft, G. (1998). Trobriander (Ost-Neuguinea, Trobriand Inseln, Kaile'una) Fadenspiele 'ninikula'. In Ethnologie - Humanethologische Begleitpublikationen von I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt und Mitarbeitern. Sammelband I, 1985-1987. Göttingen: Institut für den Wissenschaftlichen Film.
  • Gumperz, J. J., & Levinson, S. C. (1996). Introduction to part I. In J. J. Gumperz, & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 21-36). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Gumperz, J. J., & Levinson, S. C. (1996). Introduction to part III. In J. J. Gumperz, & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 225-231). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Gumperz, J. J., & Levinson, S. C. (1996). Introduction: Linguistic relativity re-examined. In J. J. Gumperz, & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 1-20). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Hagoort, P. (1998). The shadows of lexical meaning in patients with semantic impairments. In B. Stemmer, & H. Whitaker (Eds.), Handbook of neurolinguistics (pp. 235-248). New York: Academic Press.
  • Jordens, P. (1998). Defaultformen des Präteritums. Zum Erwerb der Vergangenheitsmorphologie im Niederlänidischen. In H. Wegener (Ed.), Eine zweite Sprache lernen (pp. 61-88). Tübingen, Germany: Verlag Gunter Narr.
  • Kempen, G. (1996). "De zwoele groei van den zinsbouw": De wonderlijke levende grammatica van Jac. van Ginneken uit De Roman van een Kleuter (1917). Bezorgd en van een nawoord voorzien door Gerard Kempen. In A. Foolen, & J. Noordegraaf (Eds.), De taal is kennis van de ziel: Opstellen over Jac. van Ginneken (1877-1945) (pp. 173-216). Münster: Nodus Publikationen.
  • Kempen, G. (1979). A study of syntactic bookkeeping during sentence production. In H. Ueckert, & D. Rhenius (Eds.), Komplexe menschliche Informationsverarbeitung (pp. 361-368). Bern: Hans Huber.

    Abstract

    It is an important feature of the human sentence production system that semantic and syntactic processes may overlap in time and do not proceed strictly serially. That is, the process of building the syntactic form of an utterance does not always wait until the complete semantic content for that utterance has been decided upon. On the contrary, speakers will often start pronouncing the first words of a sentence while still working on further details of its semantic content. An important advantage is memory economy. Semantic and syntactic fragments do not have to occupy working memory until complete semantic and syntactic structures for an utterance have been computed. Instead, each semantic and syntactic fragment is processed as soon as possible and is kept in working memory for a minimum period of time. This raises the question of how the sentence production system can maintain syntactic coherence across syntactic fragments. Presumably there are processes of "syntactic bookkeeping" which (1) store in working memory those syntactic properties of a fragmentary sentence which are needed to eliminate ungrammatical continuations, and (2) check whether a prospective continuation is indeed compatible with the sentence constructed so far. In reaction time experiments where subjects described, under time pressure, simple static pictures of an action performed by an actor, the second aspect of syntactic bookkeeping could be demonstrated. This evidence is used for modelling bookkeeping processes as part of a computational sentence generator which aims at simulating the syntactic operations people carry out during spontaneous speech.
  • Kempen, G. (1996). Computational models of syntactic processing in human language comprehension. In T. Dijkstra, & K. De Smedt (Eds.), Computational psycholinguistics: Symbolic and subsymbolic models of language processing (pp. 192-220). London: Taylor & Francis.
  • Kempen, G. (1998). Sentence parsing. In A. D. Friederici (Ed.), Language comprehension: A biological perspective (pp. 213-228). Berlin: Springer.
  • Klein, W. (1998). Assertion and finiteness. In N. Dittmar, & Z. Penner (Eds.), Issues in the theory of language acquisition: Essays in honor of Jürgen Weissenborn (pp. 225-245). Bern: Peter Lang.
  • Klein, W. (1984). Bühler Ellipse. In C. F. Graumann, & T. Herrmann (Eds.), Karl Bühlers Axiomatik: Fünfzig Jahre Axiomatik der Sprachwissenschaften (pp. 117-141). Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann.
  • Klein, W. (1976). Der Prozeß des Zweitspracherwerbs und seine Beschreibung. In R. Dietrich (Ed.), Aspekte des Fremdsprachenerwerbs (pp. 100-118). Kronberg/Ts.: Athenäum.
  • Klein, W. (1979). Die Geschichte eines Tores. In R. Baum, F. J. Hausmann, & I. Monreal-Wickert (Eds.), Sprache in Unterricht und Forschung: Schwerpunkt Romanistik (pp. 175-194). Tübingen: Narr.
  • Klein, W. (1996). Essentially social: On the origin of linguistic knowledge in the individual. In P. Baltes, & U. Staudinger (Eds.), Interactive minds (pp. 88-107). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Klein, W. (1998). Ein Blick zurück auf die Varietätengrammatik. In U. Ammon, K. Mattheier, & P. Nelde (Eds.), Sociolinguistica: Internationales Jahrbuch für europäische Soziolinguistik (pp. 22-38). Tübingen: Niemeyer.
  • Klein, W. (1976). Maschinelle Analyse des Sprachwandels. In P. Eisenberg (Ed.), Maschinelle Sprachanalyse (pp. 137-166). Berlin: de Gruyter.
  • Klein, W. (1996). Language acquisition at different ages. In D. Magnusson (Ed.), Individual development over the lifespan: Biological and psychosocial perspectives (pp. 88-108). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Klein, W., & Vater, H. (1998). The perfect in English and German. In L. Kulikov, & H. Vater (Eds.), Typology of verbal categories: Papers presented to Vladimir Nedjalkov on the occasion of his 70th birthday (pp. 215-235). Tübingen: Niemeyer.
  • Kuijpers, C. T., Coolen, R., Houston, D., & Cutler, A. (1998). Using the head-turning technique to explore cross-linguistic performance differences. In C. Rovee-Collier, L. Lipsitt, & H. Hayne (Eds.), Advances in infancy research: Vol. 12 (pp. 205-220). Stamford: Ablex.
  • Levelt, W. J. M. (1996). Foreword. In T. Dijkstra, & K. De Smedt (Eds.), Computational psycholinguistics (pp. ix-xi). London: Taylor & Francis.
  • Levelt, W. J. M. (1976). Formal grammars and the natural language user: A review. In A. Marzollo (Ed.), Topics in artificial intelligence (pp. 226-290). Vienna: Springer.
  • Levelt, W. J. M. (1984). Geesteswetenschappelijke theorie als kompas voor de gangbare mening. In S. Dresden, & D. Van de Kaa (Eds.), Wetenschap ten goede en ten kwade (pp. 42-52). Amsterdam: North Holland.
  • Levelt, W. J. M. (1996). Linguistic intuitions and beyond. In W. J. M. Levelt (Ed.), Advanced psycholinguistics: A Bressanone retrospective for Giovanni B. Floris d'Arcais (pp. 31-35). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.
  • Levelt, W. J. M., & Kempen, G. (1979). Language. In J. A. Michon, E. G. J. Eijkman, & L. F. W. De Klerk (Eds.), Handbook of psychonomics (Vol. 2) (pp. 347-407). Amsterdam: North Holland.
  • Levelt, W. J. M. (1962). Motion breaking and the perception of causality. In A. Michotte (Ed.), Causalité, permanence et réalité phénoménales: Etudes de psychologie expérimentale (pp. 244-258). Louvain: Publications Universitaires.
  • Levelt, W. J. M. (1996). Perspective taking and ellipsis in spatial descriptions. In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. F. Garrett (Eds.), Language and space (pp. 77-107). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Levelt, W. J. M., & Kempen, G. (1976). Taal. In J. Michon, E. Eijkman, & L. De Klerk (Eds.), Handboek der Psychonomie (pp. 492-523). Deventer: Van Loghum Slaterus.
  • Levelt, W. J. M. (1984). Some perceptual limitations on talking about space. In A. J. Van Doorn, W. A. Van de Grind, & J. J. Koenderink (Eds.), Limits in perception (pp. 323-358). Utrecht: VNU Science Press.
  • Levelt, W. J. M. (1979). The origins of language and language awareness. In M. Von Cranach, K. Foppa, W. Lepenies, & D. Ploog (Eds.), Human ethology (pp. 739-745). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Levinson, S. C. (1998). Deixis. In J. L. Mey (Ed.), Concise encyclopedia of pragmatics (pp. 200-204). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  • Levinson, S. C. (1996). Frames of reference and Molyneux's question: Cross-linguistic evidence. In P. Bloom, M. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. Garrett (Eds.), Language and space (pp. 109-169). Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
  • Levinson, S. C. (1996). Introduction to part II. In J. J. Gumperz, & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 133-144). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Levinson, S. C. (1996). Relativity in spatial conception and description. In J. J. Gumperz, & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 177-202). Cambridge University Press.
  • Levinson, S. C. (1998). Minimization and conversational inference. In A. Kasher (Ed.), Pragmatics: Vol. 4 Presupposition, implicature and indirect speech acts (pp. 545-612). London: Routledge.
  • Levinson, S. C., & Senft, G. (1996). Zur Semantik der Verben INTRARE und EXIRE in verschieden Sprachen. In Jahrbuch der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft 1996 (pp. 340-344). München: Generalverwaltung der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft München.
  • McDonough, L., Choi, S., Bowerman, M., & Mandler, J. M. (1998). The use of preferential looking as a measure of semantic development. In C. Rovee-Collier, L. P. Lipsitt, & H. Hayne (Eds.), Advances in Infancy Research. Volume 12. (pp. 336-354). Stamford, CT: Ablex Publishing.
  • McQueen, J. M., & Cutler, A. (1998). Morphology in word recognition. In A. M. Zwicky, & A. Spencer (Eds.), The handbook of morphology (pp. 406-427). Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Nas, G., Kempen, G., & Hudson, P. (1984). De rol van spelling en klank bij woordherkenning tijdens het lezen. In A. Thomassen, L. Noordman, & P. Elling (Eds.), Het leesproces. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
  • Noordman, L. G., & Vonk, W. (1998). Discourse comprehension. In A. D. Friederici (Ed.), Language comprehension: a biological perspective (pp. 229-262). Berlin: Springer.

    Abstract

    The human language processor is conceived as a system that consists of several interrelated subsystems. Each subsystem performs a specific task in the complex process of language comprehension and production. A subsystem receives a particular input, performs certain specific operations on this input and yields a particular output. The subsystems can be characterized in terms of the transformations that relate the input representations to the output representations. An important issue in describing the language processing system is to identify the subsystems and to specify the relations between the subsystems. These relations can be conceived in two different ways. In one conception the subsystems are autonomous. They are related to each other only by the input-output channels. The operations in one subsystem are not affected by another system. The subsystems are modular, that is they are independent. In the other conception, the different subsystems influence each other. A subsystem affects the processes in another subsystem. In this conception there is an interaction between the subsystems.
  • Pederson, E., & Wilkins, D. (1996). A cross-linguistic questionnaire on 'demonstratives'. In S. C. Levinson (Ed.), Manual for the 1996 Field Season (pp. 1-11). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.3003259.

    Abstract

    Demonstrative terms (e.g., this and that) are key items in understanding how a language constructs and interprets spatial relationships. This in-depth questionnaire explores how demonstratives (and similar spatial deixis forms) function in the research language, covering such topics as their morphology and syntax, semantic dimensions, and co-occurring gesture practices. Questionnaire responses should ideally be based on natural, situated discourse as well as elicitation with consultants.
  • Pederson, E., & Senft, G. (1996). Route descriptions: interactive games with Eric's maze task. In S. C. Levinson (Ed.), Manual for the 1996 Field Season (pp. 15-17). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.3003287.

    Abstract

    What are the preferred ways to describe spatial relationships in different linguistic and cultural groups, and how does this interact with non-linguistic spatial awareness? This game was devised as an interactive supplement to several items that collect information on the encoding and understanding of spatial relationships, especially as relevant to “route descriptions”. This is a director-matcher task, where one consultant has access to stimulus materials that shows a “target” situation, and directs another consultant (who cannot see the target) to recreate this arrangement.
  • Senft, G. (1998). 'Noble Savages' and the 'Islands of Love': Trobriand Islanders in 'Popular Publications'. In J. Wassmann (Ed.), Pacific answers to Western hegemony: Cultural practices of identity construction (pp. 119-140). Oxford: Berg Publishers.
  • Senft, G. (1996). Phatic communion. In J. Verschueren, J.-O. Östman, & J. Blommaert (Eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics (loose leaf installment) (loose leaf installment, 1995). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Senft, G. (1998). Zeichenkonzeptionen in Ozeanien. In R. Posner, T. Robering, & T.. Sebeok (Eds.), Semiotics: A handbook on the sign-theoretic foundations of nature and culture (Vol. 2) (pp. 1971-1976). Berlin: de Gruyter.
  • Seuren, P. A. M. (1976). Echo, een studie in negatie. In G. Koefoed, & A. Evers (Eds.), Lijnen van taaltheoretisch onderzoek: Een bundel oorspronkelijke artikelen aangeboden aan prof. dr. H. Schultink (pp. 160-184). Groningen: Tjeenk Willink.
  • Seuren, P. A. M. (1996). Parameters van variatie. In R. Van Hout, & J. Kruijsen (Eds.), Taalvariaties: Toonzettingen en modulaties op een thema (pp. 211-221). Dordrecht: Foris.
  • Seuren, P. A. M. (1979). Wat is semantiek? In B. Tervoort (Ed.), Wetenschap en taal: Een nieuwe reeks benaderingen van het verschijnsel taal (pp. 135-162). Muiderberg: Coutinho.
  • 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.
  • De Smedt, K., & Kempen, G. (1996). Discontinuous constituency in Segment Grammar. In H. C. Bunt, & A. Van Horck (Eds.), Discontinuous constituency (pp. 141-163). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Stassen, H., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1976). Systemen, automaten en grammatica's. In J. Michon, E. Eijkman, & L. De Klerk (Eds.), Handboek der psychonomie (pp. 100-127). Deventer: Van Loghum Slaterus.
  • Stassen, H., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1979). Systems, automata, and grammars. In J. Michon, E. Eijkman, & L. De Klerk (Eds.), Handbook of psychonomics: Vol. 1 (pp. 187-243). Amsterdam: North Holland.
  • 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.
  • Stolz, C. (1996). Bloxes: an interactive task for the elicitation of dimensional expressions. In S. C. Levinson (Ed.), Manual for the 1996 Field Season (pp. 25-31). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.3003352.

    Abstract

    “Dimensional expressions” single out and describe one symmetric axis of a 1D, 2D, or 3D object (e.g., The road is long). “Bloxes” is an interactive, object-matching task that elicits descriptions of dimensional contrasts between simple geometrical objects (rectangular blocks, rectangular boxes, and cylinders). The aim is to explore the linguistic encoding of dimensions, focusing on features of axis, orientation, flatness/solidity, size and shape. See also 'Suggestions for field research on dimensional expressions' (https://doi.org/10.17617/2.3003382).
  • Stolz, C. (1996). Suggestions for field research on dimensional expressions. In S. C. Levinson (Ed.), Manual for the 1996 Field Season (pp. 32-45). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.3003382.

    Abstract

    The aim of this task is to explore the linguistic expression of “dimensions” — e.g., the height, width or depth — of objects in the world around us. In a dimensional expression, one symmetric axis of a 1D, 2D, or 3D object is singled out and described (e.g., That man is tall). Dimensional expressions in different languages show a range of different combinatorial and extensional uses. This document guides the researcher through some spatial situations where contrastive features of dimensional expressions are likely to be observable.
  • 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.

    Files private

    Request files
  • Thomassen, A., & Kempen, G. (1976). Geheugen. In J. A. Michon, E. Eijkman, & L. F. De Klerk (Eds.), Handboek der Psychonomie (pp. 354-387). Deventer: Van Loghum Slaterus.
  • Thomassen, A. J., & Kempen, G. (1979). Memory. In J. A. Michon, E. Eijkman, & L. Klerk (Eds.), Handbook of psychonomics (pp. 75-137 ). Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.
  • 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 Berkum, J. J. A. (1996). The linguistics of gender. In The psycholinguistics of grammatical gender: Studies in language comprehension and production (pp. 14-44). Nijmegen University Press.

    Abstract

    This chapter explores grammatical gender as a linguistic phenomenon. First, I define gender in terms of agreement, and look at the parts of speech that can take gender agreement. Because it relates to assumptions underlying much psycholinguistic gender research, I also examine the reasons why gender systems are thought to emerge, change, and disappear. Then, I describe the gender system of Dutch. The frequent confusion about the number of genders in Dutch will be resolved by looking at the history of the system, and the role of pronominal reference therein. In addition, I report on three lexical- statistical analyses of the distribution of genders in the language. After having dealt with Dutch, I look at whether the genders of Dutch and other languages are more or less randomly assigned, or whether there is some system to it. In contrast to what many people think, regularities do indeed exist. Native speakers could in principle exploit such regularities to compute rather than memorize gender, at least in part. Although this should be taken into account as a possibility, I will also argue that it is by no means a necessary implication.
  • Weissenborn, J., & Stralka, R. (1984). Das Verstehen von Mißverständnissen. Eine ontogenetische Studie. In Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik (pp. 113-134). Stuttgart: Metzler.
  • Weissenborn, J. (1984). La genèse de la référence spatiale en langue maternelle et en langue seconde: similarités et différences. In G. Extra, & M. Mittner (Eds.), Studies in second language acquisition by adult immigrants (pp. 262-286). Tilburg: Tilburg University.

Share this page