Displaying 1 - 9 of 9
  • Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.


    This study is about the principles for constructing polite speech. The core of it was published as Brown and Levinson (1978); here it is reissued with a new introduction which surveys the now considerable literature in linguistics, psychology and the social sciences that the original extended essay stimulated, and suggests new directions for research. We describe and account for some remarkable parallelisms in the linguistic construction of utterances with which people express themselves in different languges and cultures. A motive for these parallels is isolated - politeness, broadly defined to include both polite friendliness and polite formality - and a universal model is constructed outlining the abstract principles underlying polite usages. This is based on the detailed study of three unrelated languages and cultures: the Tamil of south India, the Tzeltal spoken by Mayan Indians in Chiapas, Mexico, and the English of the USA and England, supplemented by examples from other cultures. Of general interest is the point that underneath the apparent diversity of polite behaviour in different societies lie some general pan-human principles of social interaction, and the model of politeness provides a tool for analysing the quality of social relations in any society.
  • Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I., & Senft, G. (1987). Studienbrief Rituelle Kommunikation. Hagen: FernUniversität Gesamthochschule Hagen, Fachbereich Erziehungs- und Sozialwissenschaften, Soziologie, Kommunikation - Wissen - Kultur.
  • Flores d'Arcais, G., & Lahiri, A. (1987). Max-Planck-Institute for Psycholinguistics: Annual Report Nr.8 1987. Nijmegen: MPI for Psycholinguistics.
  • Hagoort, P. (Ed.). (2019). Human language: From genes and brains to behavior. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Kempen, G. (Ed.). (1987). Natural language generation: New results in artificial intelligence, psychology and linguistics. Dordrecht: Nijhoff.
  • Kempen, G. (Ed.). (1987). Natuurlijke taal en kunstmatige intelligentie: Taal tussen mens en machine. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.
  • Marslen-Wilsen, W., & Tyler, L. K. (Eds.). (1980). Max-Planck-Institute for Psycholinguistics: Annual Report Nr.1 1980. Nijmegen: MPI for Psycholinguistics.
  • Rösler, D., & Skiba, R. (1987). Eine Datenbank für den Sprachunterricht: Ein Lehrmaterial-Steinbruch für Deutsch als Zweitsprache. Mainz: Werkmeister.
  • Speed, L. J., O'Meara, C., San Roque, L., & Majid, A. (Eds.). (2019). Perception Metaphors. Amsterdam: Benjamins.


    Metaphor allows us to think and talk about one thing in terms of another, ratcheting up our cognitive and expressive capacity. It gives us concrete terms for abstract phenomena, for example, ideas become things we can grasp or let go of. Perceptual experience—characterised as physical and relatively concrete—should be an ideal source domain in metaphor, and a less likely target. But is this the case across diverse languages? And are some sensory modalities perhaps more concrete than others? This volume presents critical new data on perception metaphors from over 40 languages, including many which are under-studied. Aside from the wealth of data from diverse languages—modern and historical; spoken and signed—a variety of methods (e.g., natural language corpora, experimental) and theoretical approaches are brought together. This collection highlights how perception metaphor can offer both a bedrock of common experience and a source of continuing innovation in human communication

Share this page