Publications

Displaying 1 - 100 of 125
  • Allen, G. L., & Haun, D. B. M. (2004). Proximity and precision in spatial memory. In G. Allen (Ed.), Human spatial memory: Remembering where (pp. 41-63). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • 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.
  • 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., Burenhult, N., Enfield, N. J., & Levinson, S. C. (2004). Landscape terms and place names elicitation guide. In A. Majid (Ed.), Field Manual Volume 9 (pp. 75-79). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.492904.

    Abstract

    Landscape terms reflect the relationship between geographic reality and human cognition. Are ‘mountains’, ‘rivers, ‘lakes’ and the like universally recognised in languages as naturally salient objects to be named? The landscape subproject is concerned with the interrelation between language, cognition and geography. Specifically, it investigates issues relating to how landforms are categorised cross-linguistically as well as the characteristics of place naming.
  • 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. (2004). From universal to language-specific in early grammatical development [Reprint]. In K. Trott, S. Dobbinson, & P. Griffiths (Eds.), The child language reader (pp. 131-146). London: Routledge.

    Abstract

    Attempts to explain children's grammatical development often assume a close initial match between units of meaning and units of form; for example, agents are said to map to sentence-subjects and actions to verbs. The meanings themselves, according to this view, are not influenced by language, but reflect children's universal non-linguistic way of understanding the world. This paper argues that, contrary to this position, meaning as it is expressed in children's early sentences is, from the beginning, organized on the basis of experience with the grammar and lexicon of a particular language. As a case in point, children learning English and Korean are shown to express meanings having to do with directed motion according to language-specific principles of semantic and grammatical structuring from the earliest stages of word combination.
  • 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., Gullberg, M., Majid, A., & Narasimhan, B. (2004). Put project: The cross-linguistic encoding of placement events. In A. Majid (Ed.), Field Manual Volume 9 (pp. 10-24). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.492916.

    Abstract

    How similar are the event concepts encoded by different languages? So far, few event domains have been investigated in any detail. The PUT project extends the systematic cross-linguistic exploration of event categorisation to a new domain, that of placement events (putting things in places and removing them from places). The goal of this task is to explore cross-linguistic universality and variability in the semantic categorisation of placement events (e.g., ‘putting a cup on the table’).

    Additional information

    2004_Put_project_video_stimuli.zip
  • Bowerman, M. (1977). The acquisition of word meaning: An investigation of some current concepts. In P. Johnson Laird, & P. Wason (Eds.), Thinking: Readings in cognitive science (pp. 239-253). 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., & Levinson, S. C. (2004). Frames of spatial reference and their acquisition in Tenejapan Tzeltal. In A. Assmann, U. Gaier, & G. Trommsdorff (Eds.), Zwischen Literatur und Anthropologie: Diskurse, Medien, Performanzen (pp. 285-314). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.

    Abstract

    This is a reprint of the Brown and Levinson 2000 article.
  • 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. (2004). Position and motion in Tzeltal frog stories: The acquisition of narrative style. In S. Strömqvist, & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Relating events in narrative: Typological and contextual perspectives (pp. 37-57). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Abstract

    How are events framed in narrative? Speakers of English (a 'satellite-framed' language), when 'reading' Mercer Mayer's wordless picture book 'Frog, Where Are You?', find the story self-evident: a boy has a dog and a pet frog; the frog escapes and runs away; the boy and dog look for it across hill and dale, through woods and over a cliff, until they find it and return home with a baby frog child of the original pet frog. In Tzeltal, as spoken in a Mayan community in southern Mexico, the story is somewhat different, because the language structures event descriptions differently. Tzeltal is in part a 'verb-framed' language with a set of Path-encoding motion verbs, so that the bare bones of the Frog story can consist of verbs translating as 'go'/'pass by'/'ascend'/ 'descend'/ 'arrive'/'return'. But Tzeltal also has satellite-framing adverbials, grammaticized from the same set of motion verbs, which encode the direction of motion or the orientation of static arrays. Furthermore, motion is not generally encoded barebones, but vivid pictorial detail is provided by positional verbs which can describe the position of the Figure as an outcome of a motion event; motion and stasis are thereby combined in a single event description. (For example: jipot jawal "he has been thrown (by the deer) lying¬_face_upwards_spread-eagled". This paper compares the use of these three linguistic resources in frog narratives from 14 Tzeltal adults and 21 children, looks at their development in the narratives of children between the ages of 4-12, and considers the results in relation to those from Berman and Slobin's (1996) comparative study of adult and child Frog stories.
  • Brown, P., Levinson, S. C., & Senft, G. (2004). Initial references to persons and places. In A. Majid (Ed.), Field Manual Volume 9 (pp. 37-44). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.492929.

    Abstract

    This task has two parts: (i) video-taped elicitation of the range of possibilities for referring to persons and places, and (ii) observations of (first) references to persons and places in video-taped natural interaction. The goal of this task is to establish the repertoires of referential terms (and other practices) used for referring to persons and to places in particular languages and cultures, and provide examples of situated use of these kinds of referential practices in natural conversation. This data will form the basis for cross-language comparison, and for formulating hypotheses about general principles underlying the deployment of such referential terms in natural language usage.
  • Brown, P., Gaskins, S., Lieven, E., Striano, T., & Liszkowski, U. (2004). Multimodal multiperson interaction with infants aged 9 to 15 months. In A. Majid (Ed.), Field Manual Volume 9 (pp. 56-63). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.492925.

    Abstract

    Interaction, for all that it has an ethological base, is culturally constituted, and how new social members are enculturated into the interactional practices of the society is of critical interest to our understanding of interaction – how much is learned, how variable is it across cultures – as well as to our understanding of the role of culture in children’s social-cognitive development. The goal of this task is to document the nature of caregiver infant interaction in different cultures, especially during the critical age of 9-15 months when children come to have an understanding of others’ intentions. This is of interest to all students of interaction; it does not require specialist knowledge of children.
  • 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., 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. (2004). Segmentation of spoken language by normal adult listeners. In R. Kent (Ed.), MIT encyclopedia of communication sciences and disorders (pp. 392-395). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Cutler, A., Mister, E., Norris, D., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2004). La perception de la parole en espagnol: Un cas particulier? In L. Ferrand, & J. Grainger (Eds.), Psycholinguistique cognitive: Essais en l'honneur de Juan Segui (pp. 57-74). Brussels: De Boeck.
  • 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., & Henton, C. G. (2004). There's many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip. In H. Quené, & V. Van Heuven (Eds.), On speech and Language: Studies for Sieb G. Nooteboom (pp. 37-45). Utrecht: Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics.

    Abstract

    The retiring academic may look back upon, inter alia, years of conference attendance. Speech error researchers are uniquely fortunate because they can collect data in any situation involving communication; accordingly, the retiring speech error researcher will have collected data at those conferences. We here address the issue of whether error data collected in situations involving conviviality (such as at conferences) is representative of error data in general. Our approach involved a comparison, across three levels of linguistic processing, between a specially constructed Conviviality Sample and the largest existing source of speech error data, the newly available Fromkin Speech Error Database. The results indicate that there are grounds for regarding the data in the Conviviality Sample as a better than average reflection of the true population of all errors committed. These findings encourage us to recommend further data collection in collaboration with like-minded colleagues.
  • Cutler, A. (2004). Twee regels voor academische vorming. In H. Procee (Ed.), Bij die wereld wil ik horen! Zesendertig columns en drie essays over de vorming tot academicus. (pp. 42-45). Amsterdam: Boom.
  • Den Os, E., & Boves, L. (2004). Natural multimodal interaction for design applications. In P. Cunningham (Ed.), Adoption and the knowledge economy (pp. 1403-1410). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
  • Dunn, M., & Terrill, A. (2004). Lexical comparison between Papuan languages: Inland bird and tree species. In A. Majid (Ed.), Field Manual Volume 9 (pp. 65-69). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.492942.

    Abstract

    The Pioneers project seeks to uncover relationships between the Papuan languages of Island Melanesia. One basic way to uncover linguistic relationships, either contact or genetic, is through lexical comparison. We have seen very few shared words between our Papuan languages and any other languages, either Oceanic or Papuan, but most of the words which are shared are shared because they are commonly borrowed from Oceanic languages. This task is aimed at enabling fieldworkers to collect terms for inland bird and tree species. In the past it is has proved very difficult for non-experts to identify plant and bird species, so the task consists of a booklet of colour pictures of some of the more common species, with information on the range and habits of each species, as well as some information on their cultural uses, which should enable better identification. It is intended that fieldworkers will show this book to consultants and use it as an elicitation aid.
  • 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.
  • Enfield, N. J. (2004). Adjectives in Lao. In R. M. W. Dixon, & A. Y. Aikhenvald (Eds.), Adjective classes: A cross-linguistic typology (pp. 323-347). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Enfield, N. J., Levinson, S. C., De Ruiter, J. P., & Stivers, T. (2004). Building a corpus of multimodal interaction in your field site. In A. Majid (Ed.), Field Manual Volume 9 (pp. 32-36). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.506951.

    Abstract

    This Field Manual entry has been superceded by the 2007 version: https://doi.org/10.17617/2.468728

    Files private

    Request files
  • Enfield, N. J. (2004). Repair sequences in interaction. In A. Majid (Ed.), Field Manual Volume 9 (pp. 48-52). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.492945.

    Abstract

    This Field Manual entry has been superceded by the 2007 version: https://doi.org/10.17617/2.468724

    Files private

    Request files
  • Evans, N., Levinson, S. C., Enfield, N. J., Gaby, A., & Majid, A. (2004). Reciprocal constructions and situation type. In A. Majid (Ed.), Field Manual Volume 9 (pp. 25-30). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.506955.
  • Fradera, A., & Sauter, D. (2004). Make yourself happy. In T. Stafford, & M. Webb (Eds.), Mind hacks: tips & tools for using your brain (pp. 325-327). Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly.

    Abstract

    Turn on your affective system by tweaking your face muscles - or getting an eyeful of someone else doing the same.
  • Fradera, A., & Sauter, D. (2004). Reminisce hot and cold. In T. Stafford, & M. Webb (Eds.), Mind hacks: tips & tools for using your brain (pp. 327-331). Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly.

    Abstract

    Find the fire that's cooking your memory systems.
  • Fradera, A., & Sauter, D. (2004). Signal emotion. In T. Stafford, & M. Webb (Eds.), Mind hacks: tips & tools for using your brain (pp. 320-324). Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly.

    Abstract

    Emotions are powerful on the inside but often displayed in subtle ways on the outside. Are these displays culturally dependent or universal?
  • 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.
  • De Haan, E., & Hagoort, P. (2004). Het brein in beeld. In B. Deelman, P. Eling, E. De Haan, & E. Van Zomeren (Eds.), Klinische neuropsychologie (pp. 82-98). Amsterdam: Boom.
  • Hagoort, P. (2004). Er is geen behoefte aan trompetten als gordijnen. In H. Procee, H. Meijer, P. Timmerman, & R. Tuinsma (Eds.), Bij die wereld wil ik horen! Zesendertig columns en drie essays over de vorming tot academicus (pp. 78-80). Amsterdam: Boom.
  • Hagoort, P. (2004). Het zwarte gat tussen brein en bewustzijn. In N. Korteweg (Ed.), De oorsprong: Over het ontstaan van het leven en alles eromheen (pp. 107-124). Amsterdam: Boom.
  • 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.
  • Holler, J., & Beattie, G. (2004). The interaction of iconic gesture and speech. In A. Cammurri, & G. Volpe (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 5th International Gesture Workshop, Genova, Italy, 2003; Selected Revised Papers (pp. 63-69). Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.
  • Huettig, F., & Altmann, G. T. M. (2004). The online processing of ambiguous and unambiguous words in context: Evidence from head-mounted eye-tracking. In M. Carreiras, & C. Clifton (Eds.), The on-line study of sentence comprehension: Eyetracking, ERP and beyond (pp. 187-207). New York: Psychology Press.
  • Indefrey, P. (2004). Hirnaktivierungen bei syntaktischer Sprachverarbeitung: Eine Meta-Analyse. In H. Müller, & G. Rickheit (Eds.), Neurokognition der Sprache (pp. 31-50). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
  • Indefrey, P., & Cutler, A. (2004). Prelexical and lexical processing in listening. In M. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The cognitive neurosciences III. (pp. 759-774). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Abstract

    This paper presents a meta-analysis of hemodynamic studies on passive auditory language processing. We assess the overlap of hemodynamic activation areas and activation maxima reported in experiments involving the presentation of sentences, words, pseudowords, or sublexical or non-linguistic auditory stimuli. Areas that have been reliably replicated are identified. The results of the meta-analysis are compared to electrophysiological, magnetencephalic (MEG), and clinical findings. It is concluded that auditory language input is processed in a left posterior frontal and bilateral temporal cortical network. Within this network, no processing leve l is related to a single cortical area. The temporal lobes seem to differ with respect to their involvement in post-lexical processing, in that the left temporal lobe has greater involvement than the right, and also in the degree of anatomical specialization for phonological, lexical, and sentence -level processing, with greater overlap on the right contrasting with a higher degree of differentiation on the left.
  • 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.
  • Jordens, P. (2004). Morphology in Second Language Acquisition. In G. Booij (Ed.), Morphologie: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung (pp. 1806-1816). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
  • 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., & Harbusch, K. (2004). A corpus study into word order variation in German subordinate clauses: Animacy affects linearization independently of grammatical function assignment. In T. Pechmann, & C. Habel (Eds.), Multidisciplinary approaches to language production (pp. 173-181). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Kempen, G. (1977). Building a psychologically plausible sentence generator. In P. A. M. Seuren (Ed.), Symposium on semantic theory: held at Nijmegen, March 14-18, 1977 / Volume 9 (pp. 107-117 ). Nijmegen: Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen.

    Abstract

    The psychological process of translating semantic into syntactic structures has dynamic properties such as the following. (1) The speaker is able to start pronouncing an utterance before having worked out the semantic content he wishes to express. Selection of semantic content and construction of syntactic form proceed partially in parallel. (2) The human sentence generator takes as input not only a specification of semantic content but also some indication of desired syntactic shape. Such indications, if present, do not complicate the generation process but make it easier. (3) Certain regularities of speech errors suggest a two-stage generation process. Stage I constructs the “syntactic skeleton” of an utterance; stage II provides the skeleton with morpho- honological information. An outline is given of the type of grammar which is used by a sentence generation system embodying these characteristics. The system is being implemented on a computer.
  • 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. (1977). Conceptualizing and formulating in sentence production. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Sentence production: Developments in research and theory (pp. 259-274). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Kempen, G., & Harbusch, K. (2004). Generating natural word orders in a semi-free word order language: Treebank-based linearization preferences for German. In A. Gelbukh (Ed.), Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing (pp. 350-354). Berlin: Springer.

    Abstract

    We outline an algorithm capable of generating varied but natural sounding sequences of argument NPs in subordinate clauses of German, a semi-free word order language. In order to attain the right level of output flexibility, the algorithm considers (1) the relevant lexical properties of the head verb (not only transitivity type but also reflexivity, thematic relations expressed by the NPs, etc.), and (2) the animacy and definiteness values of the arguments, and their length. The relevant statistical data were extracted from the NEGRA–II treebank and from hand-coded features for animacy and definiteness. The algorithm maps the relevant properties onto “primary” versus “secondary” placement options in the generator. The algorithm is restricted in that it does not take into account linear order determinants related to the sentence’s information structure and its discourse context (e.g. contrastiveness). These factors may modulate the above preferences or license “tertiary” linear orders beyond the primary and secondary options considered here.
  • Kempen, G. (1977). Man's sentence generator: Aspects of its control structure. In M. De Mey, R. Pinxten, M. Poriau, & E. Vandamme (Eds.), International workshop on the cognitive viewpoint. Ghent: University of Ghent, Communication & Cognition.
  • Kempen, G. (1998). Sentence parsing. In A. D. Friederici (Ed.), Language comprehension: A biological perspective (pp. 213-228). Berlin: Springer.
  • Kempen, G. (2004). Terug naar Wundt: Pleidooi voor integraal onderzoek van taal, taalkennis en taalgedrag. In Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen (Ed.), Gij letterdames en gij letterheren': Nieuwe mogelijkheden voor taalkundig en letterkundig onderzoek in Nederland. (pp. 174-188). Amsterdam: Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen.
  • Kempen, G. (1977). Wat is psycholinguistiek? In B. T. M. Tervoort (Ed.), Wetenschap en taal: Het verschijnsel taal van verschillende zijden benaderd (pp. 86-99 ). Muiderberg: Coutinho.
  • 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. (1977). Die Wissenschaft der Interpretation. In W. Klein (Ed.), Methoden der Textanalyse (pp. 1-23). Heidelberg: Quelle und Meyer.
  • Klein, W. (2004). Das Digitale Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache des 20. Jahrhunderts (DWDS). In J. Scharnhorst (Ed.), Sprachkultur und Lexikographie (pp. 281-311). Berlin: Peter Lang.
  • 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. (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.
  • Klein, W. (1977). Transitional grammars in the acquisition of German by Spanish and Italian workers. In J. Meisel (Ed.), Langues en contact - Pidgins - Creoles - Languages in contact (pp. 167-183). Tübingen: Narr.
  • 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., Van Gent, J., Haans, A., & Meijers, A. (1977). Grammaticality, paraphrase, and imagery. In S. Greenbaum (Ed.), Acceptability in language (pp. 87-101). The Hague: Mouton.
  • 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. (2004). Language. In G. Adelman, & B. H. Smith (Eds.), Elsevier's encyclopedia of neuroscience [CD-ROM] (3rd). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  • 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.
  • Levinson, S. C. (1998). Deixis. In J. L. Mey (Ed.), Concise encyclopedia of pragmatics (pp. 200-204). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  • Levinson, S. C. (2004). Deixis. In L. Horn (Ed.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 97-121). Oxford: Blackwell.
  • 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.
  • Lindström, E. (2004). Melanesian kinship and culture. In A. Majid (Ed.), Field Manual Volume 9 (pp. 70-73). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.1552190.
  • 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.
  • Meyer, A. S. (2004). The use of eye tracking in studies of sentence generation. In J. M. Henderson, & F. Ferreira (Eds.), The interface of language, vision, and action: Eye movements and the visual world (pp. 191-212). Hove: Psychology Press.
  • Narasimhan, B., Bowerman, M., Brown, P., Eisenbeiss, S., & Slobin, D. I. (2004). "Putting things in places": Effekte linguisticher Typologie auf die Sprachentwicklung. In G. Plehn (Ed.), Jahrbuch der Max-Planck Gesellschaft (pp. 659-663). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

    Abstract

    Effekte linguisticher Typologie auf die Sprach-entwicklung. In G. Plehn (Ed.), Jahrbuch der Max-Planck Gesellsch
  • Neijt, A., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2004). Seven years later: The effect of spelling on interpretation. In L. Cornips, & J. Doetjes (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 2004 (pp. 134-145). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • 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.
  • O'Connor, L. (2004). Going getting tired: Associated motion through space and time in Lowland Chontal. In M. Achard, & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language, culture and mind (pp. 181-199). Stanford: CSLI.
  • 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.
  • Poletiek, F. H., & Stolker, C. J. J. M. (2004). Who decides the worth of an arm and a leg? Assessing the monetary value of nonmonetary damage. In E. Kurz-Milcke, & G. Gigerenzer (Eds.), Experts in science and society (pp. 201-213). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
  • Randall, J., Van Hout, A., Weissenborn, J., & Baayen, R. H. (2004). Acquiring unaccusativity: A cross-linguistic look. In A. Alexiadou (Ed.), The unaccusativity puzzle (pp. 332-353). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Reesink, G. (2004). Interclausal relations. In G. Booij (Ed.), Morphologie / morphology (pp. 1202-1207). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Roelofs, A., & Schiller, N. (2004). Produzieren von Ein- und Mehrwortäusserungen. In G. Plehn (Ed.), Jahrbuch der Max-Planck Gesellschaft (pp. 655-658). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
  • Roelofs, A. (2004). The seduced speaker: Modeling of cognitive control. In A. Belz, R. Evans, & P. Piwek (Eds.), Natural language generation. (pp. 1-10). Berlin: Springer.

    Abstract

    Although humans are the ultimate “natural language generators”, the area of psycholinguistic modeling has been somewhat underrepresented in recent approaches to Natural Language Generation in computer science. To draw attention to the area and illustrate its potential relevance to Natural Language Generation, I provide an overview of recent work on psycholinguistic modeling of language production together with some key empirical findings, state-of-the-art experimental techniques, and their historical roots. The techniques include analyses of speech-error corpora, chronometric analyses, eyetracking, and neuroimaging. The overview is built around the issue of cognitive control in natural language generation, concentrating on the production of single words, which is an essential ingredient of the generation of larger utterances. Most of the work exploited the fact that human speakers are good but not perfect at resisting temptation, which has provided some critical clues about the nature of the underlying system.
  • De Ruiter, J. P. (2004). Response systems and signals of recipiency. In A. Majid (Ed.), Field Manual Volume 9 (pp. 53-55). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.506961.

    Abstract

    Listeners’ signals of recipiency, such as “Mm-hm” or “uh-huh” in English, are the most elementary or minimal “conversational turns” possible. Minimal, because apart from acknowledging recipiency and inviting the speaker to continue with his/her next turn, they do not add any new information to the discourse of the conversation. The goal of this project is to gather cross cultural information on listeners’ feedback behaviour during conversation. Listeners in a conversation usually provide short signals that indicate to the speaker that they are still “with the speaker”. These signals could be verbal (like for instance “mm hm” in English or “hm hm” in Dutch) or nonverbal (visual), like nodding. Often, these signals are produced in overlap with the speaker’s vocalisation. If listeners do not produce these signals, speakers often invite them explicitly (e.g. “are you still there?” in a telephone conversation). Our goal is to investigate what kind of signals are used by listeners of different languages to signal “recipiency” to the speaker.
  • Schmitt, B. M., Schiller, N. O., Rodriguez-Fornells, A., & Münte, T. F. (2004). Elektrophysiologische Studien zum Zeitverlauf von Sprachprozessen. In H. H. Müller, & G. Rickheit (Eds.), Neurokognition der Sprache (pp. 51-70). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.

Share this page