Displaying 201 - 218 of 218
-
Skiba, R., & Steinmüller, U. (1995). Pragmatics of compositional word formation in technical languages. In H. Pishwa, & K. Maroldt (
Eds. ), The development of morphological systematicity: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 305-321). Tübingen: Narr. -
Stivers, T. (2004). Question sequences in interaction. In A. Majid (
Ed. ), Field Manual Volume 9 (pp. 45-47). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.506967.Abstract
When people request information, they have a variety of means for eliciting the information. In English two of the primary resources for eliciting information include asking questions, making statements about their interlocutor (thereby generating confirmation or revision). But within these types there are a variety of ways that these information elicitors can be designed. The goal of this task is to examine how different languages seek and provide information, the extent to which syntax vs prosodic resources are used (e.g., in questions), and the extent to which the design of information seeking actions and their responses display a structural preference to promote social solidarity. -
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. -
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 -
Terrill, A. (2004). Coordination in Lavukaleve. In M. Haspelmath (
Ed. ), Coordinating Constructions. (pp. 427-443). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. -
Van Berkum, J. J. A., Hijne, H., De Jong, T., Van Joolingen, W. R., & Njoo, M. (1995). Characterizing the application of computer simulations in education: Instructional criteria. In A. Ram, & D. B. Leake (
Eds. ), Goal-driven learning (pp. 381-392). Cambridge, M: MIT Press. -
Van Geenhoven, V. (1998). On the Argument Structure of some Noun Incorporating Verbs in West Greenlandic. In M. Butt, & W. Geuder (
Eds. ), The Projection of Arguments - Lexical and Compositional Factors (pp. 225-263). Stanford, CA, USA: CSLI Publications.Files private
Request files -
Van Valin Jr., R. D. (1998). The acquisition of WH-questions and the mechanisms of language acquisition. In M. Tomasello (
Ed. ), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure (pp. 221-249). Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum. -
Van Berkum, J. J. A. (2004). Sentence comprehension in a wider discourse: Can we use ERPs to keep track of things? In M. Carreiras, Jr., & C. Clifton (
Eds. ), The on-line study of sentence comprehension: eyetracking, ERPs and beyond (pp. 229-270). New York: Psychology Press. -
Van Valin Jr., R. D. (1995). Toward a functionalist account of so-called ‘extraction constraints’. In B. Devriendt (
Ed. ), Complex structures: A functionalist perspective (pp. 29-60). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. -
Von Stutterheim, C., & Klein, W. (2004). Die Gesetze des Geistes sind metrisch: Hölderlin und die Sprachproduktion. In H. Schwarz (
Ed. ), Fenster zur Welt: Deutsch als Fremdsprachenphilologie (pp. 439-460). München: Iudicium. -
Weissenborn, J. (1986). Learning how to become an interlocutor. The verbal negotiation of common frames of reference and actions in dyads of 7–14 year old children. In J. Cook-Gumperz, W. A. Corsaro, & J. Streeck (
Eds. ), Children's worlds and children's language (pp. 377-404). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. -
Weissenborn, J. (1988). Von der demonstratio ad oculos zur Deixis am Phantasma. Die Entwicklung der lokalen Referenz bei Kindern. In Karl Bühler's Theory of Language. Proceedings of the Conference held at Kirchberg, August 26, 1984 and Essen, November 21–24, 1984 (pp. 257-276). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
-
Wilkins, D. (1995). Towards a Socio-Cultural Profile of the Communities We Work With. In D. Wilkins (
Ed. ), Extensions of space and beyond: manual for field elicitation for the 1995 field season (pp. 70-79). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.3513481.Abstract
Field data are drawn from a particular speech community at a certain place and time. The intent of this survey is to enrich understanding of the various socio-cultural contexts in which linguistic and “cognitive” data may have been collected, so that we can explore the role which societal, cultural and contextual factors may play in this material. The questionnaire gives guidelines concerning types of ethnographic information that are important to cross-cultural and cross-linguistic enquiry, and will be especially useful to researchers who do not have specialised training in anthropology. -
Wilkins, D., Pederson, E., & Levinson, S. C. (1995). Background questions for the "enter"/"exit" research. In D. Wilkins (
Ed. ), Extensions of space and beyond: manual for field elicitation for the 1995 field season (pp. 14-16). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.3003935.Abstract
How do languages encode different kinds of movement, and what features do people pay attention to when describing motion events? This document outlines topics concerning the investigation of “enter” and “exit” events. It helps contextualise research tasks that examine this domain (see 'Motion Elicitation' and 'Enter/Exit animation') and gives some pointers about what other questions can be explored. -
Wilkins, D. (1995). Motion elicitation: "moving 'in(to)'" and "moving 'out (of)'". In D. Wilkins (
Ed. ), Extensions of space and beyond: manual for field elicitation for the 1995 field season (pp. 4-12). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.3003391.Abstract
How do languages encode different kinds of movement, and what features do people pay attention to when describing motion events? This task investigates the expression of “enter” and “exit” activities, that is, events involving motion in(to) and motion out (of) container-like items. The researcher first uses particular stimuli (a ball, a cup, rice, etc.) to elicit descriptions of enter/exit events from one consultant, and then asks another consultant to demonstrate the event based on these descriptions. See also the related entries Enter/Exit Animation and Background Questions for Enter/Exit Research. -
Zavala, R. (2000). Multiple classifier systems in Akatek (Mayan). In G. Senft (
Ed. ), Systems of nominal classification (pp. 114-146). Cambridge University Press. -
Zinken, J., Rossi, G., & Reddy, V. (2020). Doing more than expected: Thanking recognizes another's agency in providing assistance. In C. Taleghani-Nikazm, E. Betz, & P. Golato (
Eds. ), Mobilizing others: Grammar and lexis within larger activities (pp. 253-278). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Abstract
In informal interaction, speakers rarely thank a person who has complied with a request. Examining data from British English, German, Italian, Polish, and Telugu, we ask when speakers do thank after compliance. The results show that thanking treats the other’s assistance as going beyond what could be taken for granted in the circumstances. Coupled with the rareness of thanking after requests, this suggests that cooperation is to a great extent governed by expectations of helpfulness, which can be long-standing, or built over the course of a particular interaction. The higher frequency of thanking in some languages (such as English or Italian) suggests that cultures differ in the importance they place on recognizing the other’s agency in doing as requested.
Share this page