Publications

Displaying 1 - 100 of 153
  • Allen, S., Ozyurek, A., Kita, S., Brown, A., Turanli, R., & Ishizuka, T. (2003). Early speech about manner and path in Turkish and English: Universal or language-specific? In B. Beachley, A. Brown, & F. Conlin (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 63-72). Somerville (MA): Cascadilla Press.
  • Ameka, F. K. (2003). 'Today is far: Situational anaphors in overlapping clause constructions in Ewe. In M. E. K. Dakubu, & E. K. Osam (Eds.), In Studies in the Languages of the Volta Baisin 1. Proceedings of the Legon-Trondheim Linguistics Project, December 4-6, 2002 (pp. 9-22). Legon: Department of Linguistics University of Ghana.
  • Ameka, F. K. (2003). Prepositions and postpositions in Ewe: Empirical and theoretical considerations. In A. Zibri-Hetz, & P. Sauzet (Eds.), Typologie des langues d'Afrique et universaux de la grammaire (pp. 43-66). Paris: L'Harmattan.
  • Baayen, R. H., McQueen, J. M., Dijkstra, T., & Schreuder, R. (2003). Frequency effects in regular inflectional morphology: Revisiting Dutch plurals. In R. H. Baayen, & R. Schreuder (Eds.), Morphological Structure in Language Processing (pp. 355-390). Berlin, Germany: Mouton De Gruyter.

    Files private

    Request files
  • Baayen, R. H., McQueen, J. M., Dijkstra, T., & Schreuder, R. (2003). Frequency effects in regular inflectional morphology: Revisiting Dutch plurals. In R. H. Baayen, & R. Schreuder (Eds.), Morphological structure in language processing (pp. 355-390). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Baayen, R. H. (2003). Probabilistic approaches to morphology. In R. Bod, J. Hay, & S. Jannedy (Eds.), Probabilistic linguistics (pp. 229-287). Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • Baayen, R. H., Moscoso del Prado Martín, F., Wurm, L., & Schreuder, R. (2003). When word frequencies do not regress towards the mean. In R. Baayen, & R. Schreuder (Eds.), Morphological structure in language processing (pp. 463-484). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Bauer, B. L. M., & Pinault, G.-J. (2003). Introduction: Werner Winter, ad multos annos. In B. L. M. Bauer, & G.-J. Pinault (Eds.), Language in time and space: A festschrift for Werner Winter on the occasion of his 80th birthday (pp. xxiii-xxv). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Files private

    Request files
  • Blumstein, S., & Cutler, A. (2003). Speech perception: Phonetic aspects. In W. Frawley (Ed.), International encyclopaedia of linguistics (pp. 151-154). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Bohnemeyer, J. (2003). Fictive motion questionnaire. In N. J. Enfield (Ed.), Field research manual 2003, part I: Multimodal interaction, space, event representation (pp. 81-85). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.877601.

    Abstract

    Fictive Motion is the metaphoric use of path relators in the expression of spatial relations or configurations that are static, or at any rate do not in any obvious way involve physical entities moving in real space. The goal is to study the expression of such relations or configurations in the target language, with an eye particularly on whether these expressions exclusively/preferably/possibly involve motion verbs and/or path relators, i.e., Fictive Motion. Section 2 gives Talmy’s (2000: ch. 2) phenomenology of Fictive Motion construals. The researcher’s task is to “distill” the intended spatial relations/configurations from Talmy’s description of the particular Fictive Motion metaphors and elicit as many different examples of the relations/configurations as (s)he deems necessary to obtain a basic sense of whether and how much Fictive Motion the target language offers or prescribes for the encoding of the particular type of relation/configuration. As a first stab, the researcher may try to elicit natural translations of culturally appropriate adaptations of the examples Talmy provides with each type of Fictive Motion metaphor.
  • 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., Levinson, S. C., & Enfield, N. J. (2003). Landscape terms and place names questionnaire. In N. J. Enfield (Ed.), Field research manual 2003, part I: Multimodal interaction, space, event representation (pp. 60-63). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.877604.

    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.
  • Bohnemeyer, J. (2003). The unique vector constraint: The impact of direction changes on the linguistic segmentation of motion events. In E. v. d. Zee, & J. Slack (Eds.), Axes and vectors in language and space (pp. 86-110). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Bowerman, M. (1985). Beyond communicative adequacy: From piecemeal knowledge to an integrated system in the child's acquisition of language. In K. Nelson (Ed.), Children's language (pp. 369-398). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Abstract

    (From the chapter) the first section considers very briefly the kinds of processes that can be inferred to underlie errors that do not set in until after a period of correct usage acquisition often seems to be a more extended process than we have envisioned summarize a currently influential model of how linguistic forms, meaning, and communication are interrelated in the acquisition of language, point out some challenging problems for this model, and suggest that the notion of "meaning" in language must be reconceptualized before we can hope to solve these problems evidence from several types of late errors is marshalled in support of these arguments (From the preface) provides many examples of new errors that children introduce at relatively advanced stages of mastery of semantics and syntax Bowerman views these seemingly backwards steps as indications of definite steps forward by the child achieving reflective, flexible and integrated systems of semantics and syntax (
  • Bowerman, M., & Majid, A. (2003). Kids’ cut & break. In N. J. Enfield (Ed.), Field research manual 2003, part I: Multimodal interaction, space, event representation (pp. 70-71). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.877607.

    Abstract

    Kids’ Cut & Break is a task inspired by the original Cut & Break task (see MPI L&C Group Field Manual 2001), but designed for use with children as well as adults. There are fewer videoclips to be described (34 as opposed to 61), and they are “friendlier” and more interesting: the actors wear colorful clothes, smile, and act cheerfully. The first 2 items are warm-ups and 4 more items are fillers (interspersed with test items), so only 28 of the items are actually “test items”. In the original Cut & Break, each clip is in a separate file. In Kids’ Cut & Break, all 34 clips are edited into a single file, which plays the clips successively with 5 seconds of black screen between each clip.

    Additional information

    2003_1_Kids_cut_and_break_films.zip
  • Bowerman, M. (2003). Rola predyspozycji kognitywnych w przyswajaniu systemu semantycznego [Reprint]. In E. Dabrowska, & W. Kubiński (Eds.), Akwizycja języka w świetle językoznawstwa kognitywnego [Language acquisition from a cognitive linguistic perspective]. Kraków: Uniwersitas.

    Abstract

    Reprinted from; Bowerman, M. (1989). Learning a semantic system: What role do cognitive predispositions play? In M.L. Rice & R.L Schiefelbusch (Ed.), The teachability of language (pp. 133-169). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
  • Bowerman, M. (1982). Reorganizational processes in lexical and syntactic development. In E. Wanner, & L. Gleitman (Eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art (pp. 319-346). New York: Academic Press.
  • Bowerman, M. (1988). Inducing the latent structure of language. In F. Kessel (Ed.), The development of language and language researchers: Essays presented to Roger Brown (pp. 23-49). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Bowerman, M., & Choi, S. (2003). Space under construction: Language-specific spatial categorization in first language acquisition. In D. Gentner, & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 387-427). Cambridge: MIT Press.
  • Bowerman, M. (1982). Starting to talk worse: Clues to language acquisition from children's late speech errors. In S. Strauss (Ed.), U shaped behavioral growth (pp. 101-145). New York: Academic Press.
  • Bowerman, M. (1988). The child's expression of meaning: Expanding relationships among lexicon, syntax, and morphology [Reprint]. In M. B. Franklin, & S. S. Barten (Eds.), Child language: A reader (pp. 106-117). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Abstract

    Reprinted from: Bowerman, M. (1981). The child's expression of meaning: Expanding relationships among lexicon, syntax, and morphology. In H. Winitz (Ed.), Native language and foreign language acquisition (pp. 172 189). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
  • Bowerman, M. (1988). The 'no negative evidence' problem: How do children avoid constructing an overly general grammar? In J. Hawkins (Ed.), Explaining language universals (pp. 73-101). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
  • Bowerman, M. (1985). What shapes children's grammars? In D. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition (pp. 1257-1319). Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • 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, 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. (2003). Multimodal multiperson interaction with infants aged 9 to 15 months. In N. J. Enfield (Ed.), Field research manual 2003, part I: Multimodal interaction, space, event representation (pp. 22-24). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.877610.

    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.
  • Caramazza, A., Miozzo, M., Costa, A., Schiller, N. O., & Alario, F.-X. (2003). Etude comparee de la production des determinants dans differentes langues. In E. Dupoux (Ed.), Les Langages du cerveau: Textes en l'honneur de Jacques Mehler (pp. 213-229). Paris: Odile Jacob.
  • 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., & Butterfield, S. (2003). Rhythmic cues to speech segmentation: Evidence from juncture misperception. In J. Field (Ed.), Psycholinguistics: A resource book for students. (pp. 185-189). London: Routledge.
  • Cutler, A. (1985). Performance measures of lexical complexity. In G. Hoppenbrouwers, P. A. Seuren, & A. Weijters (Eds.), Meaning and the lexicon (pp. 75). Dordrecht: Foris.
  • Cutler, A., & Pearson, M. (1985). On the analysis of prosodic turn-taking cues. In C. Johns-Lewis (Ed.), Intonation in discourse (pp. 139-155). London: Croom Helm.
  • 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. (1982). Prosody and sentence perception in English. In J. Mehler, E. C. Walker, & M. Garrett (Eds.), Perspectives on mental representation: Experimental and theoretical studies of cognitive processes and capacities (pp. 201-216). Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum.
  • Cutler, A. (2003). The perception of speech: Psycholinguistic aspects. In W. Frawley (Ed.), International encyclopaedia of linguistics (pp. 154-157). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Cutler, A. (1988). The perfect speech error. In L. Hyman, & C. Li (Eds.), Language, speech and mind: Studies in honor of Victoria A. Fromkin (pp. 209-223). London: Croom Helm.
  • Dimroth, C., Gretsch, P., Jordens, P., Perdue, C., & Starren, M. (2003). Finiteness in Germanic languages: A stage-model for first and second language development. In C. Dimroth, & M. Starren (Eds.), Information structure and the dynamics of language acquisition (pp. 65-94). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Dimroth, C., & Starren, M. (2003). Introduction. In C. Dimroth, & M. Starren (Eds.), Information structure and the dynamics of language acquisition (pp. 1-14). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • 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. (2003). “Fish traps” task. In N. J. Enfield (Ed.), Field research manual 2003, part I: Multimodal interaction, space, event representation (pp. 31). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.877616.

    Abstract

    This task is designed to elicit virtual 3D ‘models’ created in gesture space using iconic and other representational gestures. This task has been piloted with Lao speakers, where two speakers were asked to explain the meaning of terms referring to different kinds of fish trap mechanisms. The task elicited complex performances involving a range of iconic gestures, and with especially interesting use of (a) the ‘model/diagram’ in gesture space as a virtual object, (b) the non-dominant hand as a prosodic/semiotic anchor, (c) a range of different techniques (indexical and iconic) for evoking meaning with the hand, and (d) the use of nearby objects and parts of the body as semiotic ‘props’.
  • Enfield, N. J., & Levinson, S. C. (2003). Interview on kinship. In N. J. Enfield (Ed.), Field research manual 2003, part I: Multimodal interaction, space, event representation (pp. 64-65). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.877629.

    Abstract

    We want to know how people think about their field of kin, on the supposition that it is quasi-spatial. To get some insights here, we need to video a discussion about kinship reckoning, the kinship system, marriage rules and so on, with a view to looking at both the linguistic expressions involved, and the gestures people use to indicate kinship groups and relations. Unlike the task in the 2001 manual, this task is a direct interview method.
  • Enfield, N. J. (2003). Introduction. In N. J. Enfield, Linguistic epidemiology: Semantics and grammar of language contact in mainland Southeast Asia (pp. 2-44). London: Routledge Curzon.
  • Enfield, N. J. (2003). Preface and priorities. In N. J. Enfield (Ed.), Field research manual 2003, part I: Multimodal interaction, space, event representation (pp. 3). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.
  • Enfield, N. J., De Ruiter, J. P., Levinson, S. C., & Stivers, T. (2003). Multimodal interaction in your field site: A preliminary investigation. In N. J. Enfield (Ed.), Field research manual 2003, part I: Multimodal interaction, space, event representation (pp. 10-16). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.877638.

    Abstract

    Research on video- and audio-recordings of spontaneous naturally-occurring conversation in English has shown that conversation is a rule-guided, practice-oriented domain that can be investigated for its underlying mechanics or structure. Systematic study could yield something like a grammar for conversation. The goal of this task is to acquire a corpus of video-data, for investigating the underlying structure(s) of interaction cross-linguistically and cross-culturally
  • Enfield, N. J., & De Ruiter, J. P. (2003). The diff-task: A symmetrical dyadic multimodal interaction task. In N. J. Enfield (Ed.), Field research manual 2003, part I: Multimodal interaction, space, event representation (pp. 17-21). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.877635.

    Abstract

    This task is a complement to the questionnaire ‘Multimodal interaction in your field site: a preliminary investigation’. The objective of the task is to obtain high quality video data on structured and symmetrical dyadic multimodal interaction. The features of interaction we are interested in include turn organization in speech and nonverbal behavior, eye-gaze behavior, use of composite signals (i.e. communicative units of speech-combined-with-gesture), and linguistic and other resources for ‘navigating’ interaction (e.g. words like okay, now, well, and um).

    Additional information

    2003_1_The_diff_task_stimuli.zip
  • Ernestus, M. (2003). The role of phonology and phonetics in Dutch voice assimilation. In J. v. d. Weijer, V. J. v. Heuven, & H. v. d. Hulst (Eds.), The phonological spectrum Volume 1: Segmental structure (pp. 119-144). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Fisher, S. E. (2003). The genetic basis of a severe speech and language disorder. In J. Mallet, & Y. Christen (Eds.), Neurosciences at the postgenomic era (pp. 125-134). Heidelberg: Springer.
  • Frank, S. L., Koppen, M., Noordman, L. G. M., & Vonk, W. (2003). A model for knowledge-based pronoun resolution. In F. Detje, D. Dörner, & H. Schaub (Eds.), The logic of cognitive systems (pp. 245-246). Bamberg: Otto-Friedrich Universität.

    Abstract

    Several sources of information are used in choosing the intended referent of an ambiguous pronoun. The two sources considered in this paper are foregrounding and context. The first refers to the accessibility of discourse entities. An entity that is foregrounded is more likely to become the pronoun’s referent than an entity that is not. Context information affects pronoun resolution when world knowledge is needed to find the referent. The model presented here simulates how world knowledge invoked by context, together with foregrounding, influences pronoun resolution. It was developed as an extension to the Distributed Situation Space (DSS) model of knowledge-based inferencing in story comprehension (Frank, Koppen, Noordman, & Vonk, 2003), which shall be introduced first.
  • Friederici, A., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1988). Sprache. In K. Immelman, K. Scherer, C. Vogel, & P. Schmook (Eds.), Psychobiologie: Grundlagen des Verhaltens (pp. 648-671). Stuttgart: Fischer.
  • Gaby, A., & Faller, M. (2003). Reciprocity questionnaire. In N. J. Enfield (Ed.), Field research manual 2003, part I: Multimodal interaction, space, event representation (pp. 77-80). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.877641.

    Abstract

    This project is part of a collaborative project with the research group “Reciprocals across languages” led by Nick Evans. One goal of this project is to develop a typology of reciprocals. This questionnaire is designed to help field workers get an overview over the type of markers used in the expression of reciprocity in the language studied.
  • Gretsch, P. (2003). Omission impossible?: Topic and Focus in Focal Ellipsis. In K. Schwabe, & S. Winkler (Eds.), The Interfaces: Deriving and interpreting omitted structures (pp. 341-365). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Files private

    Request files
  • Gullberg, M., & Kita, S. (2003). Das Beachten von Gesten: Eine Studie zu Blickverhalten und Integration gestisch ausgedrückter Informationen. In Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (Ed.), Jahrbuch der Max Planck Gesellschaft 2003 (pp. 949-953). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
  • Gullberg, M. (2003). Eye movements and gestures in human face-to-face interaction. In J. Hyönä, R. Radach, & H. Deubel (Eds.), The mind's eyes: Cognitive and applied aspects of eye movements (pp. 685-703). Oxford: Elsevier.

    Abstract

    Gestures are visuospatial events, meaning carriers, and social interactional phenomena. As such they constitute a particularly favourable area for investigating visual attention in a complex everyday situation under conditions of competitive processing. This chapter discusses visual attention to spontaneous gestures in human face-to-face interaction as explored with eye-tracking. Some basic fixation patterns are described, live and video-based settings are compared, and preliminary results on the relationship between fixations and information processing are outlined.
  • Gullberg, M. (2003). Gestures, referents, and anaphoric linkage in learner varieties. In C. Dimroth, & M. Starren (Eds.), Information structure, linguistic structure and the dynamics of language acquisition. (pp. 311-328). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Abstract

    This paper discusses how the gestural modality can contribute to our understanding of anaphoric linkage in learner varieties, focusing on gestural anaphoric linkage marking the introduction, maintenance, and shift of reference in story retellings by learners of French and Swedish. The comparison of gestural anaphoric linkage in native and non-native varieties reveals what appears to be a particular learner variety of gestural cohesion, which closely reflects the characteristics of anaphoric linkage in learners' speech. Specifically, particular forms co-occur with anaphoric gestures depending on the information organisation in discourse. The typical nominal over-marking of maintained referents or topic elements in speech is mirrored by gestural (over-)marking of the same items. The paper discusses two ways in which this finding may further the understanding of anaphoric over-explicitness of learner varieties. An addressee-based communicative perspective on anaphoric linkage highlights how over-marking in gesture and speech may be related to issues of hyper-clarity and ambiguity. An alternative speaker-based perspective is also explored in which anaphoric over-marking is seen as related to L2 speech planning.
  • Hagoort, P. (2003). De verloving tussen neurowetenschap en psychologie. In K. Hilberdink (Ed.), Interdisciplinariteit in de geesteswetenschappen (pp. 73-81). Amsterdam: KNAW.
  • Hagoort, P. (2003). Die einzigartige, grösstenteils aber unbewusste Fähigkeit der Menschen zu sprachlicher Kommunikation. In G. Kaiser (Ed.), Jahrbuch 2002-2003 / Wissenschaftszentrum Nordrhein-Westfalen (pp. 33-46). Düsseldorf: Wissenschaftszentrum Nordrhein-Westfalen.
  • Hagoort, P. (2003). Functional brain imaging. In W. J. Frawley (Ed.), International encyclopedia of linguistics (pp. 142-145). New York: Oxford 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.
  • Haun, D. B. M., & Waller, D. (2003). Alignment task. In N. J. Enfield (Ed.), Field research manual 2003, part I: Multimodal interaction, space, event representation (pp. 39-48). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.
  • Haun, D. B. M. (2003). Path integration. In N. J. Enfield (Ed.), Field research manual 2003, part I: Multimodal interaction, space, event representation (pp. 33-38). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.877644.
  • Haun, D. B. M. (2003). Spatial updating. In N. J. Enfield (Ed.), Field research manual 2003, part I: Multimodal interaction, space, event representation (pp. 49-56). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.
  • Hawkins, J. A., & Cutler, A. (1988). Psycholinguistic factors in morphological asymmetry. In J. A. Hawkins (Ed.), Explaining language universals (pp. 280-317). Oxford: Blackwell.
  • De Jong, N. H., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2003). Morphological resonance in the mental lexicon. In R. Baayen, & R. Schreuder (Eds.), Morphological structure in language processing (pp. 65-88). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Jordens, P. (2003). Constraints on the shape of second language learner varieties. In G. Rickheit, T. Herrmann, & W. Deutsch (Eds.), Psycholinguistik/Psycholinguistics: Ein internationales Handbuch. [An International Handbook] (pp. 819-833). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • 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.
  • Keating, P., Cho, T., Fougeron, C., & Hsu, C.-S. (2003). Domain-initial strengthening in four languages. In J. Local, R. Ogden, & R. Temple (Eds.), Laboratory phonology VI: Phonetic interpretation (pp. 145-163). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Kempen, G. (1985). Artificiële intelligentie: Bouw, benutting, beheersing. In W. Veldkamp (Ed.), Innovatie in perspectief (pp. 42-47). Vianen: Nixdorf Computer B.V.
  • Kempen, G., & Harbusch, K. (2003). Dutch and German verb clusters in performance grammar. In P. A. Seuren, & G. Kempen (Eds.), Verb constructions in German and Dutch (pp. 185-221). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Kempen, G. (1998). Sentence parsing. In A. D. Friederici (Ed.), Language comprehension: A biological perspective (pp. 213-228). Berlin: Springer.
  • Kempen, G. (2003). Language generation. In W. Frawley (Ed.), International encyclopedia of linguistics (pp. 362-364). New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Kempen, G., Schotel, H., & Pijls, J. (1985). Taaltechnologie en taalonderwijs. In J. Heene (Ed.), Onderwijs en informatietechnologie. Den Haag: Stichting voor Onderzoek van het Onderwijs (SVO).
  • Kempen, G., & Harbusch, K. (2003). Word order scrambling as a consequence of incremental sentence production. In H. Härtl, & H. Tappe (Eds.), Mediating between concepts and grammar (pp. 141-164). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Kita, S. (2003). Interplay of gaze, hand, torso orientation and language in pointing. In S. Kita (Ed.), Pointing: Where language, culture, and cognition meet (pp. 307-328). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Kita, S. (2003). Pointing: A foundational building block in human communication. In S. Kita (Ed.), Pointing: Where language, culture, and cognition meet (pp. 1-8). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Kita, S., & Essegbey, J. (2003). Left-hand taboo on direction-indicating gestures in Ghana: When and why people still use left-hand gestures. In M. Rector, I. Poggi, & N. Trigo (Eds.), Gesture: Meaning and use (pp. 301-306). Oporto: Edições Universidade Fernando Pessoa, Fundação Fernado Pessoa.
  • Kita, S., & Enfield, N. J. (2003). Recording recommendations for video research. In N. J. Enfield (Ed.), Field research manual 2003, part I: Multimodal interaction, space, event representation (pp. 8-9). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.
  • 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. (1985). Argumentationsanalyse: Ein Begriffsrahmen und ein Beispiel. In W. Kopperschmidt, & H. Schanze (Eds.), Argumente - Argumentationen (pp. 208-260). München: Fink.
  • Klein, W., & Dimroth, C. (2003). Der ungesteuerte Zweitspracherwerb Erwachsener: Ein Überblick über den Forschungsstand. In U. Maas, & U. Mehlem (Eds.), Qualitätsanforderungen für die Sprachförderung im Rahmen der Integration von Zuwanderern (Heft 21) (pp. 127-161). Osnabrück: IMIS.
  • Klein, W. (1985). Ellipse, Fokusgliederung und thematischer Stand. In R. Meyer-Hermann, & H. Rieser (Eds.), Ellipsen und fragmentarische Ausdrücke (pp. 1-24). Tübingen: Niemeyer.
  • 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. (1982). Local deixis in route directions. In R. Jarvella, & W. Klein (Eds.), Speech, place, and action: Studies in deixis and related topics (pp. 161-182). New York: Wiley.
  • Klein, W., & Extra, G. (1982). Second language acquisition by adult immigrants: A European Science Foundation project. In R. E. V. Stuip, & W. Zwanenburg (Eds.), Handelingen van het zevenendertigste Nederlandse Filologencongres (pp. 127-136). Amsterdam: APA-Holland Universiteitspers.
  • Klein, W. (1985). Sechs Grundgrößen des Spracherwerbs. In R. Eppeneder (Ed.), Lernersprache: Thesen zum Erwerb einer Fremdsprache (pp. 67-106). München: Goethe Institut.
  • 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. (1988). The unity of a vernacular: Some remarks on "Berliner Stadtsprache". In N. Dittmar, & P. Schlobinski (Eds.), The sociolinguistics of urban vernaculars: Case studies and their evaluation (pp. 147-153). Berlin: de Gruyter.
  • Klein, W. (1988). Varietätengrammatik. In U. Ammon, N. Dittmar, & K. J. Mattheier (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: An international handbook of the science of language and society: Vol. 2 (pp. 997-1060). Berlin: de Gruyter.
  • 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. (1982). Cognitive styles in the use of spatial direction terms. In R. Jarvella, & W. Klein (Eds.), Speech, place, and action: Studies in deixis and related topics (pp. 251-268). Chichester: Wiley.
  • Levelt, W. J. M. (1982). Linearization in describing spatial networks. In S. Peters, & E. Saarinen (Eds.), Processes, beliefs, and questions (pp. 199-220). Dordrecht - Holland: D. Reidel.

    Abstract

    The topic of this paper is the way in which speakers order information in discourse. I will refer to this issue with the term "linearization", and will begin with two types of general remarks. The first one concerns the scope and relevance of the problem with reference to some existing literature. The second set of general remarks will be about the place of linearization in a theory of the speaker. The following, and main part of this paper, will be a summary report of research of linearization in a limited, but well-defined domain of discourse, namely the description of spatial networks.
  • 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. (1988). Psycholinguistics: An overview. In W. Bright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of linguistics: Vol. 3 (pp. 290-294). Oxford: Oxford University press.
  • Levinson, S. C. (2003). Contextualizing 'contextualization cues'. In S. Eerdmans, C. Prevignano, & P. Thibault (Eds.), Language and interaction: Discussions with John J. Gumperz (pp. 31-39). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Levinson, S. C. (1982). Caste rank and verbal interaction in Western Tamilnadu. In D. B. McGilvray (Ed.), Caste ideology and interaction (pp. 98-203). Cambridge University Press.
  • Levinson, S. C. (1988). Conceptual problems in the study of regional and cultural style. In N. Dittmar, & P. Schlobinski (Eds.), The sociolinguistics of urban vernaculars: Case studies and their evaluation (pp. 161-190). Berlin: De Gruyter.
  • Levinson, S. C. (1998). Deixis. In J. L. Mey (Ed.), Concise encyclopedia of pragmatics (pp. 200-204). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  • Levinson, S. C. (2003). Language and cognition. In W. Frawley (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of Linguistics (pp. 459-463). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Levinson, S. C. (2003). Language and mind: Let's get the issues straight! In D. Gentner, & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and cognition (pp. 25-46). Cambridge, MA: MIT 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.

Share this page