Displaying 201 - 211 of 211
-
Van Staden, M., Senft, G., Enfield, N. J., & Bohnemeyer, J. (2001). Staged events. In S. C. Levinson, & N. J. Enfield (
Eds. ), Manual for the field season 2001 (pp. 115-125). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.874668.Abstract
The term “event” is a controversial concept, and the “same” activity or situation can be linguistically encoded in many different ways. The aim of this task is to explore features of event representation in the language of study, in particular, multi-verb constructions, event typicality, and event complexity. The task consists of a description and recollection task using film stimuli, and a subsequent re-enactment of certain scenes by other participants on the basis of these descriptions. The first part of the task collects elaborate and concise descriptions of complex events in order to examine how these are segmented into macro-events, what kind of information is expressed, and how the information is ordered. The re-enactment task is designed to examine what features of the scenes are stereotypically implied.Additional information
2001_Staged_events_1a.zip 2001_Staged_events_1b.zip 2001_Staged_events_2a.zip 2001_Staged_events_2b.zip -
Van Valin Jr., R. D. (2014). Role and Reference Grammar. In A. Carnie, Y. Sato, & D. Siddiqi (
Eds. ), Routledge handbook of syntax (pp. 579-603). London: Routledge. -
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. (2001). Eliciting contrastive use of demonstratives for objects within close personal space (all objects well within arm’s reach). In S. C. Levinson, & N. J. Enfield (
Eds. ), Manual for the field season 2001 (pp. 164-168). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. -
Wilkins, D., Kita, S., & Enfield, N. J. (2001). Ethnography of pointing questionnaire version 2. In S. C. Levinson, & N. J. Enfield (
Eds. ), Manual for the field season 2001 (pp. 136-141). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. -
Wilkins, D. (2001). The 1999 demonstrative questionnaire: “This” and “that” in comparative perspective. In S. C. Levinson, & N. J. Enfield (
Eds. ), Manual for the field season 2001 (pp. 149-163). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. -
Willems, R. M., & Cristia, A. (2018). Hemodynamic methods: fMRI and fNIRS. In A. M. B. De Groot, & P. Hagoort (
Eds. ), Research methods in psycholinguistics and the neurobiology of language: A practical guide (pp. 266-287). Hoboken: Wiley. -
Willems, R. M., & Van Gerven, M. (2018). New fMRI methods for the study of language. In S.-A. Rueschemeyer, & M. G. Gaskell (
Eds. ), The Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics (2nd ed., pp. 975-991). Oxford: Oxford University Press. -
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. -
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