Publications

Displaying 1 - 100 of 148
  • Ameka, F. K. (1995). Body parts in Ewe grammar. In H. Chapell, & W. McGregor (Eds.), The grammar of inalienability: A typological perspective on body part terms and the part-whole relation (pp. 783-840). Berlin: De Gruyter.
  • Ameka, F. K. (2001). Ewe. In J. Garry, & C. Rubino (Eds.), Facts about the world’s languages: An encyclopedia of the world's major languages past and present (pp. 207-213). New York: H.W. Wilson Press.
  • Ameka, F. K. (2001). Ideophones and the nature of the adjective word class in Ewe. In F. K. E. Voeltz, & C. Kilian-Hatz (Eds.), Ideophones (pp. 25-48). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Bickel, B. (1991). Der Hang zur Exzentrik - Annäherungen an das kognitive Modell der Relativkonstruktion. In W. Bisang, & P. Rinderknecht (Eds.), Von Europa bis Ozeanien - von der Antinomie zum Relativsatz (pp. 15-37). Zurich, Switzerland: Seminar für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft der Universität.
  • Bohnemeyer, J. (2001). A questionnaire on event integration. In S. C. Levinson, & N. J. Enfield (Eds.), Manual for the field season 2001 (pp. 177-184). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.
  • Bohnemeyer, J., Bowerman, M., & Brown, P. (2001). Cut and break clips. In S. C. Levinson, & N. J. Enfield (Eds.), Manual for the field season 2001 (pp. 90-96). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.874626.

    Abstract

    How do different languages treat a particular semantic domain? It has already been established that languages have widely varied words for talking about “cutting” and “breaking” things: for example, English has a very general verb break, but K’iche’ Maya has many different ‘break’ verbs that are used for different kinds of objects (e.g., brittle, flexible, long). The aim of this task is to map out cross-linguistic lexicalisation patterns in the cutting/breaking domain. The stimuli comprise 61 short video clips that show one or two actors breaking various objects (sticks, carrots, pieces of cloth or string, etc.) using various instruments (a knife, a hammer, an axe, their hands, etc.), or situations in which various kinds of objects break spontaneously. The clips are used to elicit descriptions of actors’ actions and the state changes that the objects undergo.

    Additional information

    2001_Cut_and_break_clips.zip
  • Bohnemeyer, J., Eissenbeiss, S., & Narasimham, B. (2001). Event triads. In S. C. Levinson, & N. J. Enfield (Eds.), Manual for the field season 2001 (pp. 100-114). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.874630.

    Abstract

    Judgments we make about how similar or different events are to each other can reveal the features we find useful in classifying the world. This task is designed to investigate how speakers of different languages classify events, and to examine how linguistic and gestural encoding relates to non-linguistic classification. Specifically, the task investigates whether speakers judge two events to be similar on the basis of (a) the path versus manner of motion, (b) sub-events versus larger complex events, (c) participant identity versus event identity, and (d) different participant roles. In the task, participants are asked to make similarity judgments concerning sets of 2D animation clips.
  • 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. (2001). Motionland films version 2: Referential communication task with motionland stimulus. In S. C. Levinson, & N. J. Enfield (Eds.), Manual for the field season 2001 (pp. 97-99). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.874623.

    Abstract

    How do languages express ideas of movement, and how do they package different components of moving, such as manner and path? This task supports detailed investigation of motion descriptions. The specific study goals are: (a) the coding of “via” grounds (i.e., ground objects which the figure moves along, over, around, through, past, etc.); (b) the coding of direction changes; (c) the spontaneous segmentation of complex motion scenarios; and (d) the gestural representation of motion paths. The stimulus set is 5 simple 3D animations (7-17 seconds long) that show a ball rolling through a landscape. The task is a director-matcher task for two participants. The director describes the path of the ball in each clip to the matcher, who is asked to trace the path with a pen in a 2D picture.

    Additional information

    2001_Motionland_films_v2.zip
  • 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. (2001). Toponym questionnaire. In S. C. Levinson, & N. J. Enfield (Eds.), Manual for the field season 2001 (pp. 55-61). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.874620.

    Abstract

    Place-names (toponyms) are at the intersection of spatial language, culture, and cognition. This questionnaire prepares the researcher to answer three overarching questions: how to formally identify place-names in the research language (i.e. according to morphological and syntactic criteria); what places place-names are employed to refer to (e.g. human settlements, landscape sites); and how places are semantically construed for this purpose. The questionnaire can in principle be answered using an existing database. However, additional elicitation with language consultants is recommended.
  • 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., & Choi, S. (2001). Shaping meanings for language: Universal and language-specific in the acquisition of semantic categories. In M. Bowerman, & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development (pp. 475-511). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • 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. (2001). Politeness and language. In N. Smelser, & P. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (pp. 11620-11624). Oxford: Elsevier Sciences.

    Abstract

    This is an encyclopedia entry surveying research and theoretical approaches to politeness phenomena in language usage.
  • Brown, P. (1995). Politeness strategies and the attribution of intentions: The case of Tzeltal irony. In E. Goody (Ed.), Social intelligence and interaction (pp. 153-174). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Abstract

    In this paper I take up the idea that human thinking is systematically biased in the direction of interactive thinking (E. Goody's anticipatory interactive planning), that is, that humans are peculiarly good at, and inordinately prone to, attributing intentions and goals to one other (as well as to non-humans), and that they routinely orient to presumptions about each other's intentions in what they say and do. I explore the implications of that idea for an understanding of politeness in interaction, taking as a starting point the Brown and Levinson (1987) model of politeness, which assumes interactive thinking, a notion implicit in the formulation of politeness as strategic orientation to face. Drawing on an analysis of the phenomenon of conventionalized ‘irony’ in Tzeltal, I emphasize that politeness does not inhere in linguistic form per se but is a matter of conveying a polite intention, and argue that Tzeltal irony provides a prime example of one way in which humans' highly-developed intellectual machinery for inferring alter's intentions is put to the service of social relationships.
  • 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. (2001). Repetition. In K. Duranti (Ed.), Key terms in language and culture (pp. 219-222). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Abstract

    This is a reprint of the Brown 1999 article.
  • Brown, P. (2001). Learning to talk about motion UP and DOWN in Tzeltal: Is there a language-specific bias for verb learning? In M. Bowerman, & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development (pp. 512-543). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Abstract

    The spatial vocabulary of the Mayan language Tzeltal is dominated by an Absolute system of spatial reckoning, whereby an "uphill/downhill" coordinate abstracted from the lay of the land is used to reckon spatial relationships on the horizontal in both small-scale and long distance space. This system is used in lieu of a Front/Back/Left/Right system which does not exist in this language. The spatial vocabulary dedicated to this system (which I refer to in general as the UP/DOWN vocabulary) includes intransitive motion verbs (roughly translatable as "ascend"/"descend"), their transitivized counterparts ("make it ascend/descend"), directional adverbs ("uphillwards"/"downhillwards"), and possessed relational nouns ("uphill/downhill in relation to it"). This same vocabulary applies to spatial relations on the vertical axis. Two seemingly contradictory observations about children's early meanings for the spatial verbs dedicated to this system motivate the proposal put forward in this paper. On the one hand, Tzeltal children's UP/DOWN vocabulary shows very early sensitivity to the semantic structure of the language they are learning: the meanings for these verbs are from the first usages attached to the slope of the land, and to particular places; there is no evidence of an initial preference for the vertical meaning. On the other hand, children's meanings remain for a long time too specific, and errors of interpretation/production (using the verbs to mean 'local slope of land' rather than 'overall N/S slope of land direction) are evident in verbal productions of some children as late as age 7 or 8. The proposal is made that the highly specific nature of Tzeltal verbs at the basic level influences the children's hypotheses about what kinds of meanings verbs can have.
  • Brown, P. (1991). Sind Frauen höflicher? Befunde aus einer Maya-Gemeinde. In S. Günther, & H. Kotthoff (Eds.), Von fremden Stimmen: Weibliches und männliches Sprechen im Kulturvergleich. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Abstract

    This is a German translation of Brown 1980, How and why are women more polite: Some evidence from a Mayan community.
  • 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. (2001). Entries on: Acquisition of language by non-human primates; bilingualism; compound (linguistic); development of language-specific phonology; gender (linguistic); grammar; infant speech perception; language; lexicon; morphology; motor theory of speech perception; perception of second languages; phoneme; phonological store; phonology; prosody; sign language; slips of the tongue; speech perception; speech production; stress (linguistic); syntax; word recognition; words. In P. Winn (Ed.), Dictionary of biological psychology. London: Routledge.
  • Cutler, A. (1991). Linguistic rhythm and speech segmentation. In J. Sundberg, L. Nord, & R. Carlson (Eds.), Music, language, speech and brain (pp. 157-166). London: Macmillan.
  • 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. (1995). Spoken word recognition and production. In J. L. Miller, & P. D. Eimas (Eds.), Speech, language and communication (pp. 97-136). New York: Academic Press.

    Abstract

    This chapter highlights that most language behavior consists of speaking and listening. The chapter also reveals differences and similarities between speaking and listening. The laboratory study of word production raises formidable problems; ensuring that a particular word is produced may subvert the spontaneous production process. Word production is investigated via slips and tip-of-the-tongue (TOT), primarily via instances of processing failure and via the technique of via the picture-naming task. The methodology of word production is explained in the chapter. The chapter also explains the phenomenon of interaction between various stages of word production and the process of speech recognition. In this context, it explores the difference between sound and meaning and examines whether or not the comparisons are appropriate between the processes of recognition and production of spoken words. It also describes the similarities and differences in the structure of the recognition and production systems. Finally, the chapter highlights the common issues in recognition and production research, which include the nuances of frequency of occurrence, morphological structure, and phonological structure.
  • Cutler, A. (1995). Spoken-word recognition. In G. Bloothooft, V. Hazan, D. Hubert, & J. Llisterri (Eds.), European studies in phonetics and speech communication (pp. 66-71). Utrecht: OTS.
  • Cutler, A., McQueen, J. M., Norris, D., & Somejuan, A. (2001). The roll of the silly ball. In E. Dupoux (Ed.), Language, brain and cognitive development: Essays in honor of Jacques Mehler (pp. 181-194). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Cutler, A., & McQueen, J. M. (1995). The recognition of lexical units in speech. In B. De Gelder, & J. Morais (Eds.), Speech and reading: A comparative approach (pp. 33-47). Hove, UK: Erlbaum.
  • Cutler, A. (1995). The perception of rhythm in spoken and written language. In J. Mehler, & S. Franck (Eds.), Cognition on cognition (pp. 283-288). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Danziger, E. (1995). Intransitive predicate form class survey. In D. Wilkins (Ed.), Extensions of space and beyond: manual for field elicitation for the 1995 field season (pp. 46-53). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.3004298.

    Abstract

    Different linguistic structures allow us to highlight distinct aspects of a situation. The aim of this survey is to investigate similarities and differences in the expression of situations or events as “stative” (maintaining a state), “inchoative” (adopting a state) and “agentive” (causing something to be in a state). The questionnaire focuses on the encoding of stative, inchoative and agentive possibilities for the translation equivalents of a set of English verbs.
  • Danziger, E. (1995). Posture verb survey. In D. Wilkins (Ed.), Extensions of space and beyond: manual for field elicitation for the 1995 field season (pp. 33-34). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.3004235.

    Abstract

    Expressions of human activities and states are a rich area for cross-linguistic comparison. Some languages of the world treat human posture verbs (e.g., sit, lie, kneel) as a special class of predicates, with distinct formal properties. This survey examines lexical, semantic and grammatical patterns for posture verbs, with special reference to contrasts between “stative” (maintaining a posture), “inchoative” (adopting a posture), and “agentive” (causing something to adopt a posture) constructions. The enquiry is thematically linked to the more general questionnaire 'Intransitive Predicate Form Class Survey'.
  • 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. (2001). Body. In S. C. Levinson, & N. J. Enfield (Eds.), Manual for the field season 2001 (pp. 62-77). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.874633.

    Abstract

    This task investigates the extensional meaning of body part terms, in particular the terms for the upper and lower limbs. Two questions are addressed, namely (i) are the boundaries of these body parts universal, guided by proposed universals of object recognition? (ii) How can we compare the extensional meanings of body part terms within and across different systems of nomenclature? Consultants receive booklets with line drawings of a body and are asked to colour in specific parts of the body.
  • Enfield, N. J. (2001). Linguistic evidence for a Lao perspective on facial expression of emotion. In J. Harkins, & A. Wierzbicka (Eds.), Emotions in crosslinguistic perspective (pp. 149-166). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Enfield, N. J. (2001). On genetic and areal linguistics in Mainland South-East Asia: Parallel polyfunctionality of ‘acquire’. In A. Y. Aikhenvald, & R. M. Dixon (Eds.), Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance: Problems in comparative linguistics (pp. 255-290). Oxford University Press.
  • Enfield, N. J., & Bohnemeyer, J. (2001). Hidden colour-chips task: Demonstratives, attention, and interaction. In S. C. Levinson, & N. J. Enfield (Eds.), Manual for the field season 2001 (pp. 21-28). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.874636.

    Abstract

    Demonstratives are typically described as encoding degrees of physical distance between the object referred to, and the speaker or addressee. For example, this in English is used to talk about things that are physically near the speaker, and that for things that are not. But is this how speakers really choose between these words in actual talk? This task aims to generate spontaneous language data concerning deixis, gesture, and demonstratives, and to investigate the significance of different factors (e.g., physical distance, attention) in demonstrative selection. In the presence of one consultant (the “memoriser”), sixteen colour chips are hidden under objects in a specified array. Another consultant enters the area and asks the memoriser to recount the locations of the chips. The task is designed to create a situation where the speaker genuinely attempts to manipulate the addressee’s attention on objects in the immediate physical space.
  • Enfield, N. J., Levinson, S. C., & Meria, S. (2001). Recognitional deixis. In S. C. Levinson, & N. J. Enfield (Eds.), Manual for the field season 2001 (pp. 78-81). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.874641.

    Abstract

    “Recognitional” words and constructions enshrine our systematic reliance on shared knowledge in dedicated morphological forms and usage patterns. For example, English has a large range of terms for use when a speaker cannot locate the word or name for something or someone (e.g., whatsit, what’s-his-name), but thinks that the interlocutor knows, or can easily work out, what the speaker is talking about. This task aims to identify and investigate these kinds of expressions in the research language, including their grammaticalised status, meaning, distribution, and productivity. The task consists of a questionnaire with examples of relevant hypothetical scenarios that can be used in eliciting the relevant terms. The researcher is then encouraged to pursue further questions in regard to these items.
  • Enfield, N. J., & Dunn, M. (2001). Supplements to the Wilkins 1999 demonstrative questionnaire. In S. C. Levinson, & N. J. Enfield (Eds.), Manual for the field season 2001 (pp. 82-84). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.874638.
  • Fernald, A., McRoberts, G. W., & Swingley, D. (2001). Infants' developing competence in recognizing and understanding words in fluent speech. In J. Weissenborn, & B. Höhle (Eds.), Approaches to Bootstrapping: Phonological, lexical, syntactic and neurophysiological aspects of early language acquisition. Volume 1 (pp. 97-123). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Fisher, S. E., & Smith, S. (2001). Progress towards the identification of genes influencing developmental dyslexia. In A. Fawcett (Ed.), Dyslexia: Theory and good practice (pp. 39-64). London: Whurr.
  • Gullberg, M., & Holmqvist, K. (2001). Eye tracking and the perception of gestures in face-to-face interaction vs on screen. In C. Cavé, I. Guaïtella, & S. Santi (Eds.), Oralité et gestualité (2001) (pp. 381-384). Paris, France: Editions Harmattan.
  • Hagoort, P. (2001). De verbeelding aan de macht: Hoe het menselijk taalvermogen zichtbaar wordt in de (beeld) analyse van hersenactiviteit. In J. Joosse (Ed.), Biologie en psychologie: Naar vruchtbare kruisbestuivingen (pp. 41-60). Amsterdam: Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen.
  • Hagoort, P., & Ramsey, N. (2001). De gereedschapskist van de cognitieve neurowetenschap. In F. Wijnen, & F. Verstraten (Eds.), Het brein te kijk (pp. 39-67). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
  • Hagoort, P., & Brown, C. M. (1995). Electrophysiological insights into language and speech processing. In K. Elenius, & P. Branderud (Eds.), Proceedings of the XIIIth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences: ICPhS 95: Stockholm, Sweden, 13-19 August, 1995 (pp. 172-178). Stockholm: Stockholm University.
  • Hagoort, P., & Kutas, M. (1995). Electrophysiological insights into language deficits. In F. Boller, & J. Grafman (Eds.), Handbook of neuropsychology: Vol. 10 (pp. 105-134). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  • 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.
  • Hagoort, P. (1995). Wat zijn woorden en waar vinden we ze in ons brein? In E. Marani, & J. Lanser (Eds.), Dyslexie: Foutloos spellen alleen weggelegd voor gestoorden? (pp. 37-46). Leiden: Boerhaave Commissie voor Postacademisch Onderwijs in de Geneeskunde, Rijksuniversiteit Leiden.
  • Hellwig, F. M., & Lüpke, F. (2001). Caused positions. In S. C. Levinson, & N. J. Enfield (Eds.), Manual for the field season 2001 (pp. 126-128). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.874644.

    Abstract

    What kinds of resources to languages have for describing location and position? For some languages, verbs have an important role to play in describing different kinds of situations (e.g., whether a bottle is standing or lying on the table). This task is designed to examine the use of positional verbs in locative constructions, with respect to the presence or absence of a human “positioner”. Participants are asked to describe video clips showing locative states that occur spontaneously, or because of active interference from a person. The task follows on from two earlier tools for the elicitation of static locative descriptions (BowPed and the Ameka picture book task). A number of additional variables (e.g. canonical v. non-canonical orientation of the figure) are also targeted in the stimuli set.

    Additional information

    2001_Caused_positions.zip
  • 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, E. (1995). Pilot questionnaire to investigate social uses of space, especially as related to 1) linguistic practices and 2) social organization. In D. Wilkins (Ed.), Extensions of space and beyond: manual for field elicitation for the 1995 field season (pp. 17-21). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.3004227.

    Abstract

    Day-to-day interpretations of “space” are enmeshed in specific cultural and linguistic practices. For example, many cultures have an association between vertical height and social standing; more powerful people may be placed literally higher than others at social gatherings, and be spoken of as having higher status. This questionnaire is a guide for exploring relationships between space, language, and social structure. The goal is to better understand how space is organised in the focus community, and to investigate the extent to which space is used as a model for reproducing social forms.
  • 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. (1998). Sentence parsing. In A. D. Friederici (Ed.), Language comprehension: A biological perspective (pp. 213-228). Berlin: Springer.
  • 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).
  • Kita, S. (1995). Enter/exit animation for linguistic elicitation. In D. Wilkins (Ed.), Extensions of space and beyond: manual for field elicitation for the 1995 field season (pp. 13). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.3003394.

    Abstract

    This task investigates the expression of “enter” and “exit” events, and is a supplement to the Motion Elicitation task (https://doi.org/10.17617/2.3003391). Consultants are asked to describe a series of animated clips where a man moves into or out of a house. The clips focus on contrasts to do with perspective (e.g., whether the man appears to move away or towards the viewer) and transitional movement (e.g., whether the man walks or “teleports” into his new location).

    Additional information

    1995_Enter_exit_animation_stimuli.zip
  • Kita, S. (2001). Locally-anchored spatial gestures, version 2: Historical description of the local environment as a gesture elicitation task. In S. C. Levinson, & N. J. Enfield (Eds.), Manual for the field season 2001 (pp. 132-135). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.874647.

    Abstract

    Gesture is an integral part of face-to-face communication, and provides a rich area for cross-cultural comparison. “Locally-anchored spatial gestures” are gestures that are roughly oriented to the actual geographical direction of referents. For example, such gestures may point to a location or a thing, trace the shape of a path, or indicate the direction of a particular area. The goal of this task is to elicit locally-anchored spatial gestures across different cultures. The task follows an interview format, where one participant prompts another to talk in detail about a specific area that the main speaker knows well. The data can be used for additional purposes such as the investigation of demonstratives.
  • Kita, S. (1995). Recommendations for data collection for gesture studies. In D. Wilkins (Ed.), Extensions of space and beyond: manual for field elicitation for the 1995 field season (pp. 35-45). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.3004287.

    Abstract

    Do our hands 'speak the same language' across cultures? Gesture is the silent partner of spoken languages in face-to-face interaction, but we still have a lot to learn about gesture practices in different speech communities. The primary purpose of this task is to collect data in naturalistic settings that can be used to investigate the linguistic and cultural relativity of gesture performance, especially spatially indicative gestures. It involves video-recording pairs of speakers in both free conversation and more structured communication tasks (e.g., describing film plots). Please note: the stimuli mentioned in this entry are available elsewhere: 'The Pear Story', a short film made at the University of California at Berkeley; "Frog, where are you?" from the original Mayer (1969) book, as published in the Appendix of Berman & Slobin (1994).
  • Kita, S. (2001). Recording recommendations for gesture studies. In S. C. Levinson, & N. J. Enfield (Eds.), Manual for the field season 2001 (pp. 130-131). 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., Dietrich, R., & Noyau, C. (1995). Conclusions. In R. Dietrich, W. Klein, & C. Noyau (Eds.), The acquisition of temporality in a second language (pp. 261-280). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Klein, W. (2001). Deiktische Orientierung. In M. Haspelmath, E. König, W. Oesterreicher, & W. Raible (Eds.), Sprachtypologie und sprachliche Universalien: Vol. 1/1 (pp. 575-590). Berlin: de Gruyter.
  • Klein, W. (2001). Das Ende vor Augen: Deutsch als Wissenschaftssprache. In F. Debus, F. Kollmann, & U. Pörken (Eds.), Deutsch als Wissenschaftssprache im 20. Jahrhundert (pp. 289-293). Mainz: Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur.
  • Klein, W. (2001). Die Linguistik ist anders geworden. In S. Anschütz, S. Kanngießer, & G. Rickheit (Eds.), A Festschrift for Manfred Briegel: Spektren der Linguistik (pp. 51-72). Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitätsverlag.
  • Klein, W. (2001). Elementary forms of linguistic organisation. In S. Ward, & J. Trabant (Eds.), The origins of language (pp. 81-102). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • 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. (1995). Frame of analysis. In R. Dietrich, W. Klein, & C. Noyau (Eds.), The acquisition of temporality in a second language (pp. 17-29). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Klein, W. (2001). Lexicology and lexicography. In N. Smelser, & P. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences: Vol. 13 (pp. 8764-8768). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
  • 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. (2001). Second language acquisition. In N. Smelser, & P. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences: Vol. 20 (pp. 13768-13771). Amsterdam: Elsevier science.
  • Klein, W. (1991). SLA theory: Prolegomena to a theory of language acquisition and implications for Theoretical Linguistics. In T. Huebner, & C. Ferguson (Eds.), Crosscurrents in second language acquisition and linguistic theories (pp. 169-194). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Klein, W. (1991). Seven trivia of language acquisition. In L. Eubank (Ed.), Point counterpoint: Universal grammar in the second language (pp. 49-70). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Klein, W. (1995). Sprachverhalten. In M. Amelang, & Pawlik (Eds.), Enzyklopädie der Psychologie (pp. 469-505). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
  • Klein, W., Coenen, J., Van Helvert, K., & Hendriks, H. (1995). The acquisition of Dutch. In R. Dietrich, W. Klein, & C. Noyau (Eds.), The acquisition of temporality in a second language (pp. 117-143). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Klein, W. (1995). The acquisition of English. In R. Dietrich, W. Klein, & C. Noyau (Eds.), The acquisition of temporality in a second language (pp. 31-70). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • 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. (2001). Time and again. In C. Féry, & W. Sternefeld (Eds.), Audiatur vox sapientiae: A festschrift for Arnim von Stechow (pp. 267-286). Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
  • Klein, W. (2001). Typen und Konzepte des Spracherwerbs. In L. Götze, G. Helbig, G. Henrici, & H. Krumm (Eds.), Deutsch als Fremdsprache (pp. 604-616). 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. (1995). Chapters of psychology: An interview with Wilhelm Wundt. In R. L. Solso, & D. W. Massaro (Eds.), The science of mind: 2001 and beyond (pp. 184-202). Oxford University Press.
  • Levelt, W. J. M., & Ruijssenaars, A. (1995). Levensbericht Johan Joseph Dumont. In Jaarboek Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen (pp. 31-36).
  • 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. (2001). Relations between speech production and speech perception: Some behavioral and neurological observations. In E. Dupoux (Ed.), Language, brain and cognitive development: Essays in honour of Jacques Mehler (pp. 241-256). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Levelt, W. J. M. (1995). Psycholinguistics. In C. C. French, & A. M. Colman (Eds.), Cognitive psychology (reprint, pp. 39- 57). London: Longman.
  • Levelt, W. J. M. (2001). The architecture of normal spoken language use. In G. Gupta (Ed.), Cognitive science: Issues and perspectives (pp. 457-473). New Delhi: Icon Publications.
  • Levinson, S. C., Bohnemeyer, J., & Enfield, N. J. (2001). “Time and space” questionnaire for “space in thinking” subproject. In S. C. Levinson, & N. J. Enfield (Eds.), Manual for the field season 2001 (pp. 14-20). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.

    Abstract

    This entry contains: 1. An invitation to think about to what extent the grammar of space and time share lexical and morphosyntactic resources − the suggestions here are only prompts, since it would take a long questionnaire to fully explore this; 2. A suggestion about how to collect gestural data that might show us to what extent the spatial and temporal domains, have a psychological continuity. This is really the goal − but you need to do the linguistic work first or in addition. The goal of this task is to explore the extent to which time is conceptualised on a spatial basis.
  • Levinson, S. C. (2001). Covariation between spatial language and cognition. In M. Bowerman, & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development (pp. 566-588). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Levinson, S. C. (1991). Deixis. In W. Bright (Ed.), Oxford international encyclopedia of linguistics (pp. 343-344). Oxford University Press.
  • Levinson, S. C. (1998). Deixis. In J. L. Mey (Ed.), Concise encyclopedia of pragmatics (pp. 200-204). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  • Levinson, S. C., Kita, S., & Ozyurek, A. (2001). Demonstratives in context: Comparative handicrafts. In S. C. Levinson, & N. J. Enfield (Eds.), Manual for the field season 2001 (pp. 52-54). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.874663.

    Abstract

    Demonstratives (e.g., words such as this and that in English) pivot on relationships between the item being talked about, and features of the speech act situation (e.g., where the speaker and addressee are standing or looking). However, they are only rarely investigated multi-modally, in natural language contexts. This task is designed to build a video corpus of cross-linguistically comparable discourse data for the study of “deixis in action”, while simultaneously supporting the investigation of joint attention as a factor in speaker selection of demonstratives. In the task, two or more speakers are asked to discuss and evaluate a group of similar items (e.g., examples of local handicrafts, tools, produce) that are placed within a relatively defined space (e.g., on a table). The task can additionally provide material for comparison of pointing gesture practices.
  • Levinson, S. C. (1995). Interactional biases in human thinking. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Social intelligence and interaction (pp. 221-260). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Levinson, S. C., Enfield, N. J., & Senft, G. (2001). Kinship domain for 'space in thinking' subproject. In S. C. Levinson, & N. J. Enfield (Eds.), Manual for the field season 2001 (pp. 85-88). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.874655.
  • Levinson, S. C., Kita, S., & Enfield, N. J. (2001). Locally-anchored narrative. In S. C. Levinson, & N. J. Enfield (Eds.), Manual for the field season 2001 (pp. 147). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.874660.

    Abstract

    As for 'Locally-anchored spatial gestures task, version 2', a major goal of this task is to elicit locally-anchored spatial gestures across different cultures. “Locally-anchored spatial gestures” are gestures that are roughly oriented to the actual geographical direction of referents. Rather than set up an interview situation, this task involves recording informal, animated narrative delivered to a native-speaker interlocutor. Locally-anchored gestures produced in such narrative are roughly comparable to those collected in the interview task. The data collected can also be used to investigate a wide range of other topics.
  • Levinson, S. C. (2001). Place and space in the sculpture of Anthony Gormley - An anthropological perspective. In S. D. McElroy (Ed.), Some of the facts (pp. 68-109). St Ives: Tate Gallery.
  • Levinson, S. C., & Enfield, N. J. (2001). Preface and priorities. In S. C. Levinson, & N. J. Enfield (Eds.), Manual for the field season 2001 (pp. 3). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.
  • Levinson, S. C. (2001). Pragmatics. In N. Smelser, & P. Baltes (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences: Vol. 17 (pp. 11948-11954). Oxford: Pergamon.

Share this page