Displaying 201 - 209 of 209
-
Van Valin Jr., R. D. (2006). Semantic macroroles and language processing. In I. Bornkessel, M. Schlesewsky, B. Comrie, & A. Friederici (
Eds. ), Semantic role universals and argument linking: Theoretical, typological and psycho-/neurolinguistic perspectives (pp. 263-302). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. -
Van Gijn, R. (2014). Yurakaré. In M. Crevels, & P. C. Muysken (
Eds. ), Las lenguas de Bolivia. Vol. 3: Oriente (pp. 135-174). La Paz: Plural Editores. -
Verkerk, A. (2014). Where Alice fell into: Motion events from a parallel corpus. In B. Szmrecsanyi, & B. Wälchli (
Eds. ), Aggregating dialectology, typology, and register analysis: Linguistic variation in text and speech (pp. 324-354). Berlin: De Gruyter. -
Wilkins, D. (1993). Route Description Elicitation. In S. C. Levinson (
Ed. ), Cognition and space kit 1.0 (pp. 15-28). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.3513141.Abstract
When we want to describe a path through space, but do not share a common perceptual field with a conversation partner, language has to work doubly hard. This task investigates how people communicate the navigation of space in the absence of shared visual cues, as well as collecting data on motion verbs and the roles of symmetry and landmarks in route description. Two speakers (separated by a curtain or other barrier) are each given a model of a landscape, and one participant describes standard routes through this landscape for the other to match. -
Wilkins, D., & Hill, D. (1993). Preliminary 'Come' and 'Go' Questionnaire. In S. C. Levinson (
Ed. ), Cognition and space kit 1.0 (pp. 29-46). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.3513125.Abstract
The encoding of apparently ‘simple’ movement concepts such as ‘COME’ and ‘GO’ can differ widely across languages (e.g., in regard to specifying direction of motion relative to the speaker). This questionnaire is used to identify the range of use of basic motion verbs in a language, and investigate semantic parameters that are involved in high frequency ‘COME’ and ‘GO’-like terms. -
Wittenburg, P., Trilsbeek, P., & Wittenburg, F. (2014). Corpus archiving and dissemination. In J. Durand, U. Gut, & G. Kristoffersen (
Eds. ), The Oxford Handbook of Corpus Phonology (pp. 133-149). Oxford: Oxford University Press. -
Zeshan, U. (2006). Sign language of the world. In K. Brown (
Ed. ), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (vol. 11) (pp. 358-365). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Abstract
Although sign language-using communities exist in all areas of the world, few sign languages have been documented in detail. Sign languages occur in a variety of sociocultural contexts, ranging from sign languages used in closed village communities to officially recognized national sign languages. They may be grouped into language families on historical grounds or may participate in various language contact situations. Systematic cross-linguistic comparison reveals both significant structural similarities and important typological differences between sign languages. Focusing on information from non-Western countries, this article provides an overview of the sign languages of the world. -
Zwitserlood, I., & Van Gijn, I. (2006). Agreement phenomena in Sign Language of the Netherlands. In P. Ackema (
Ed. ), Arguments and Agreement (pp. 195-229). Oxford: Oxford University Press. -
Zwitserlood, I. (2014). Meaning at the feature level in sign languages. The case of name signs in Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT). In R. Kager (
Ed. ), Where the Principles Fail. A Festschrift for Wim Zonneveld on the occasion of his 64th birthday (pp. 241-251). Utrecht: Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS.
Share this page