Publications

Displaying 1 - 87 of 87
  • Ameka, F. K. (2002). Constituent order and grammatical relations in Ewe in typological perspective. In K. Davidse, & B. Lamiroy (Eds.), The nominative & accusative and their counterparts (pp. 319-352). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Ameka, F. K. (2002). The progressive aspect in Likpe: Its implications for aspect and word order in Kwa. In F. K. Ameka, & E. K. Osam (Eds.), New directions in Ghanaian linguistics: Essays in honor of the 3Ds (pp. 85-111). Accra: Black Mask.
  • Bock, K., & Levelt, W. J. M. (2002). Language production: Grammatical encoding. In G. T. Altmann (Ed.), Psycholinguistics: Critical concepts in psychology (pp. 405-452). London: Routledge.
  • Bohnemeyer, J., & Majid, A. (2002). ECOM causality revisited version 4. In S. Kita (Ed.), 2002 Supplement (version 3) for the “Manual” for the field season 2001 (pp. 35-38). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.
  • 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. (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
  • Bowerman, M. (2002). Mapping thematic roles onto syntactic functions: Are children helped by innate linking rules? [Reprint]. In Mouton Classics: From syntax to cognition, from phonology to text (vol.2) (pp. 495-531). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Abstract

    Reprinted from: Bowerman, M. (1990). Mapping thematic roles onto syntactic functions: Are children helped by innate linking rules? Linguistics, 28, 1253-1289.
  • Bowerman, M. (2002). Taalverwerving, cognitie en cultuur. In T. Janssen (Ed.), Taal in gebruik: Een inleiding in de taalwetenschap (pp. 27-44). The Hague: Sdu.
  • 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. (2002). Language as a model for culture: Lessons from the cognitive sciences. In R. G. Fox, & B. J. King (Eds.), Anthropology beyond culture (pp. 169-192). Oxford: Berg.

    Abstract

    This paper surveys the concept of culture as used in recent work in cognitive science, assessing the very different (and sometimes minimal) role 'culture' plays in different branches and schools of linguistics: generative approaches, descriptive/comparative linguistics, typology, cognitive linguistics, semantics, pragmatics, psycholinguistics, linguistic and cognitive anthropology. The paper then describes research on one specific topic, spatial language and conceptualization, describes a methodology for studying it cross-linguistically and cross-culturally. Finally, it considers the implications of results in this area for how we can fruitfully conceptualize 'culture', arguing for an approach which shifts back and forth between individual mind and collective representations, between universals and particulars, and ties 'culture' to our biological roots.
  • 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. (2002). Everyone has to lie in Tzeltal. In S. Blum-Kulka, & C. E. Snow (Eds.), Talking to adults: The contribution of multiparty discourse to language acquisition (pp. 241-275). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Abstract

    In a famous paper Harvey Sacks (1974) argued that the sequential properties of greeting conventions, as well as those governing the flow of information, mean that 'everyone has to lie'. In this paper I show this dictum to be equally true in the Tzeltal Mayan community of Tenejapa, in southern Mexico, but for somewhat different reasons. The phenomenon of interest is the practice of routine fearsome threats to small children. Based on a longitudinal corpus of videotaped and tape-recorded naturally-occurring interaction between caregivers and children in five Tzeltal families, the study examines sequences of Tzeltal caregivers' speech aimed at controlling the children's behaviour and analyzes the children's developing pragmatic skills in handling such controlling utterances, from prelinguistic infants to age five and over. Infants in this society are considered to be vulnerable, easily scared or shocked into losing their 'souls', and therefore at all costs to be protected and hidden from outsiders and other dangers. Nonetheless, the chief form of control (aside from physically removing a child from danger) is to threaten, saying things like "Don't do that, or I'll take you to the clinic for an injection," These overt scare-threats - rarely actually realized - lead Tzeltal children by the age of 2;6 to 3;0 to the understanding that speech does not necessarily convey true propositions, and to a sensitivity to the underlying motivations for utterances distinct from their literal meaning. By age 4;0 children perform the same role to their younger siblings;they also begin to use more subtle non-true (e.g. ironic) utterances. The caretaker practice described here is related to adult norms of social lying, to the sociocultural context of constraints on information flow, social control through gossip, and the different notion of 'truth' that arises in the context of non-verifiability characteristic of a small-scale nonliterate society.
  • Clahsen, H., Prüfert, P., Eisenbeiss, S., & Cholin, J. (2002). Strong stems in the German mental lexicon: Evidence from child language acquisition and adult processing. In I. Kaufmann, & B. Stiebels (Eds.), More than words. Festschrift for Dieter Wunderlich (pp. 91-112). Berlin: Akadamie Verlag.
  • 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. (2002). Phonological processing: Comments on Pierrehumbert, Moates et al., Kubozono, Peperkamp & Dupoux, and Bradlow. In C. Gussenhoven, & N. Warner (Eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology VII (pp. 275-296). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Cutler, A., McQueen, J. M., Norris, D., & Somejuan, A. (2002). Le rôle de la syllable. In E. Dupoux (Ed.), Les langages du cerveau: Textes en l’honneur de Jacques Mehler (pp. 185-197). Paris: Odile Jacob.
  • 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. (2002). Lexical access. In L. Nadel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of cognitive science (pp. 858-864). London: Nature Publishing Group.
  • Cutler, A., & Norris, D. (2002). The role of strong syllables in segmentation for lexical access. In G. T. Altmann (Ed.), Psycholinguistics: Critical concepts in psychology (pp. 157-177). London: Routledge.
  • Cutler, A., Mehler, J., Norris, D., & Segui, J. (2002). The syllable's differing role in the segmentation of French and English. In G. T. Altmann (Ed.), Psycholinguistics: Critical concepts in psychology (pp. 115-135). London: Routledge.

    Abstract

    Speech segmentation procedures may differ in speakers of different languages. Earlier work based on French speakers listening to French words suggested that the syllable functions as a segmentation unit in speech processing. However, while French has relatively regular and clearly bounded syllables, other languages, such as English, do not. No trace of syllabifying segmentation was found in English listeners listening to English words, French words, or nonsense words. French listeners, however, showed evidence of syllabification even when they were listening to English words. We conclude that alternative segmentation routines are available to the human language processor. In some cases speech segmentation may involve the operation of more than one procedure.
  • Drude, S. (2002). Fala masculina e feminina em Awetí. In A. D. Rodrigues, & A. S. A. C. Cabral (Eds.), Línguas indígenas Brasileiras: Fonologia, gramática e história. (Atas do I Encontro Internacional do Grupo de Trabalho sobre Línguas Indígenas da ANPOLL). vol. 1 (pp. 177-190). Belém: EDUFPA.
  • 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. (2002). “Fish trap” task. In S. Kita (Ed.), 2002 Supplement (version 3) for the “Manual” for the field season 2001 (pp. 61). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.
  • Enfield, N. J. (2002). Body 2002. In S. Kita (Ed.), 2002 Supplement (version 3) for the “Manual” for the field season 2001 (pp. 19-32). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.
  • Enfield, N. J. (2002). Combinatoric properties of natural semantic metalanguage expressions in Lao. In C. Goddard, & A. Wierzbicka (Eds.), Meaning and universal grammar: Theory and empirical findings (pp. 145-256). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Enfield, N. J. (2002). Cultural logic and syntactic productivity: Associated posture constructions in Lao. In N. Enfield (Ed.), Ethnosyntax: Explorations in culture and grammar (pp. 231-258). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Enfield, N. J. (2002). Ethnosyntax: Introduction. In N. Enfield (Ed.), Ethnosyntax: Explorations in culture and grammar (pp. 1-30). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Enfield, N. J. (2002). Functions of 'give' and 'take' in Lao complex predicates. In R. S. Bauer (Ed.), Collected papers on Southeast Asian and Pacific languages (pp. 13-36). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
  • Enfield, N. J. (2002). Semantics and combinatorics of 'sit', 'stand', and 'lie' in Lao. In J. Newman (Ed.), The linguistics of sitting, standing, and lying (pp. 25-41). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Faller, M. (2002). Remarks on evidential hierarchies. In D. I. Beaver, L. D. C. Martinez, B. Z. Clark., & S. Kaufmann (Eds.), The construction of meaning (pp. 89-111). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
  • Fisher, S. E. (2002). Isolation of the genetic factors underlying speech and language disorders. In R. Plomin, J. C. DeFries, I. W. Craig, & P. McGuffin (Eds.), Behavioral genetics in the postgenomic era (pp. 205-226). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Abstract

    This chapter highlights the research in isolating genetic factors underlying specific language impairment (SLI), or developmental dysphasia, which exploits newly developed genotyping technology, novel statistical methodology, and DNA sequence data generated by the Human Genome Project. The author begins with an overview of results from family, twin, and adoption studies supporting genetic involvement and then goes on to outline progress in a number of genetic mapping efforts that have been recently completed or are currently under way. It has been possible for genetic researchers to pinpoint the specific mutation responsible for some speech and language disorders, providing an example of how the availability of human genomic sequence data can greatly accelerate the pace of disease gene discovery. Finally, the author discusses future prospects on how molecular genetics may offer new insight into the etiology underlying speech and language disorders, leading to improvements in diagnosis and treatment.
  • Gullberg, M. (2002). Gestures, languages, and language acquisition. In S. Strömqvist (Ed.), The diversity of languages and language learning (pp. 45-56). Lund: Lund University.
  • Gullberg, M., & Holmqvist, K. (2002). Visual attention towards gestures in face-to-face interaction vs. on screen. In I. Wachsmuth, & T. Sowa (Eds.), Gesture and sign languages in human-computer interaction (pp. 206-214). Berlin: Springer.
  • Hagoort, P. (2002). Het unieke menselijke taalvermogen: Van PAUS naar [paus] in een halve seconde. In J. G. van Hell, A. de Klerk, D. E. Strauss, & T. Torremans (Eds.), Taalontwikkeling en taalstoornissen: Theorie, diagnostiek en behandeling (pp. 51-67). Leuven/Apeldoorn: Garant.
  • 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.
  • Hoiting, N., & Slobin, D. I. (2002). Transcription as a tool for understanding: The Berkeley Transcription System for sign language research (BTS). In G. Morgan, & B. Woll (Eds.), Directions in sign language acquisition (pp. 55-75). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Hoiting, N., & Slobin, D. I. (2002). What a deaf child needs to see: Advantages of a natural sign language over a sign system. In R. Schulmeister, & H. Reinitzer (Eds.), Progress in sign language research. In honor of Siegmund Prillwitz / Fortschritte in der Gebärdensprach-forschung. Festschrift für Siegmund Prillwitz (pp. 267-277). Hamburg: Signum.
  • 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.
  • Kempen, G., & Harbusch, K. (2002). Performance Grammar: A declarative definition. In A. Nijholt, M. Theune, & H. Hondorp (Eds.), Computational linguistics in the Netherlands 2001: Selected papers from the Twelfth CLIN Meeting (pp. 148-162). Amsterdam: Rodopi.

    Abstract

    In this paper we present a definition of Performance Grammar (PG), a psycholinguistically motivated syntax formalism, in declarative terms. PG aims not only at describing and explaining intuitive judgments and other data concerning the well–formedness of sentences of a language, but also at contributing to accounts of syntactic processing phenomena observable in language comprehension and language production. We highlight two general properties of human sentence generation, incrementality and late linearization,which make special demands on the design of grammar formalisms claiming psychological plausibility. In order to meet these demands, PG generates syntactic structures in a two-stage process. In the first and most important ‘hierarchical’ stage, unordered hierarchical structures (‘mobiles’) are assembled out of lexical building blocks. The key operation at work here is typed feature unification, which also delimits the positional options of the syntactic constituents in terms of so-called topological features. The second, much simpler stage takes care of arranging the branches of the mobile from left to right by ‘reading–out’ one positional option of every constituent. In this paper we concentrate on the structure assembly formalism in PG’s hierarchical component. We provide a declarative definition couched in an HPSG–style notation based on typed feature unification. Our emphasis throughout is on linear order constraints.
  • Kempen, G. (1998). Sentence parsing. In A. D. Friederici (Ed.), Language comprehension: A biological perspective (pp. 213-228). Berlin: Springer.
  • Kita, S. (2002). Preface and priorities. In S. Kita (Ed.), 2002 Supplement (version 3) for the “Manual” for the field season 2001 (pp. 3-4). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.
  • Klein, W., & Musan, R. (2002). (A)Symmetry in language: seit and bis, and others. In C. Maienborn (Ed.), (A)Symmetrien - (A)Symmetry. Beiträge zu Ehren von Ewald Lang - Papers in Honor of Ewald Lang (pp. 283-295). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
  • 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., & Von Stutterheim, C. (2002). Quaestio and L-perspectivation. In C. F. Graumann, & W. Kallmeyer (Eds.), Perspective and perspectivation in discourse (pp. 59-88). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • 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. (2002). Why case marking? In I. Kaufmann, & B. Stiebels (Eds.), More than words: Festschrift for Dieter Wunderlich (pp. 251-273). Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
  • Klein, W. (2002). The argument-time structure of recipient constructions in German. In W. Abraham, & J.-W. Zwart (Eds.), Issues in formal german(ic) typology (pp. 141-178). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Abstract

    It is generally assumed that verbs have an ‘argument structure’, which imposes various constraints on the noun phrases that can or must go with the verb, and an ‘event structure’, which characterises the particular temporal characteristics of the ‘event’ which the verb relates to: this event may be a state, a process, an activity, an ‘event in the narrow sense’, and others. In this paper, it is argued that that argument structure and event structure should be brought together. The lexical content of a verb assigns descriptive properties to one or more arguments at one or more times, hence verbs have an ‘argument time-structure’ (AT-structure). Numerous morphological and syntactical operations, such as participle formation or complex verb constructions, modify this AT-structure. This is illustrated with German recipient constructions such as ein Buch geschenkt bekommen or das Fenster geöffnet kriegen.
  • 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.
  • Krott, A., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H. (2002). Analogical hierarchy: Exemplar-based modeling of linkers in Dutch noun-noun compounds. In R. Skousen (Ed.), Analogical modeling: An exemplar-based approach to language (pp. 181-206). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • 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., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (2002). A theory of lexical access in speech production. In G. T. Altmann (Ed.), Psycholinguistics: critical concepts in psychology (pp. 278-377). London: Routledge.
  • 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. (2002). Phonological encoding in speech production: Comments on Jurafsky et al., Schiller et al., and van Heuven & Haan. In C. Gussenhoven, & N. Warner (Eds.), Laboratory phonology VII (pp. 87-99). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Levinson, S. C. (2002). Appendix to the 2002 Supplement, version 1, for the “Manual” for the field season 2001. In S. Kita (Ed.), 2002 Supplement (version 3) for the “Manual” for the field season 2001 (pp. 62-64). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.
  • 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.
  • Levinson, S. C. (2002). Landscape terms and place names in Yélî Dnye, the language of Rossel Island, PNG. In S. Kita (Ed.), 2002 Supplement (version 3) for the “Manual” for the field season 2001 (pp. 8-13). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.
  • Levinson, S. C. (1998). Deixis. In J. L. Mey (Ed.), Concise encyclopedia of pragmatics (pp. 200-204). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  • Martin, A., & Van Turennout, M. (2002). Searching for the neural correlates of object priming. In L. R. Squire, & D. L. Schacter (Eds.), The Neuropsychology of Memory (pp. 239-247). New York: Guilford Press.
  • Mauner, G., Koenig, J.-P., Melinger, A., & Bienvenue, B. (2002). The lexical source of unexpressed participants and their role in sentence and discourse understanding. In P. Merlo, & S. Stevenson (Eds.), The Lexical Basis of Sentence Processing: Formal, Computational and Experimental Issues (pp. 233-254). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • McDonough, L., Choi, S., Bowerman, M., & Mandler, J. M. (1998). The use of preferential looking as a measure of semantic development. In C. Rovee-Collier, L. P. Lipsitt, & H. Hayne (Eds.), Advances in Infancy Research. Volume 12. (pp. 336-354). Stamford, CT: Ablex Publishing.
  • McQueen, J. M., & Cutler, A. (1998). Morphology in word recognition. In A. M. Zwicky, & A. Spencer (Eds.), The handbook of morphology (pp. 406-427). Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Noordman, L. G., & Vonk, W. (1998). Discourse comprehension. In A. D. Friederici (Ed.), Language comprehension: a biological perspective (pp. 229-262). Berlin: Springer.

    Abstract

    The human language processor is conceived as a system that consists of several interrelated subsystems. Each subsystem performs a specific task in the complex process of language comprehension and production. A subsystem receives a particular input, performs certain specific operations on this input and yields a particular output. The subsystems can be characterized in terms of the transformations that relate the input representations to the output representations. An important issue in describing the language processing system is to identify the subsystems and to specify the relations between the subsystems. These relations can be conceived in two different ways. In one conception the subsystems are autonomous. They are related to each other only by the input-output channels. The operations in one subsystem are not affected by another system. The subsystems are modular, that is they are independent. In the other conception, the different subsystems influence each other. A subsystem affects the processes in another subsystem. In this conception there is an interaction between the subsystems.
  • Reesink, G. (2002). A grammar sketch of Sougb. In G. Reesink (Ed.), Languages of the Eastern Bird's Head (pp. 181-275). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
  • Reesink, G. (2002). Mansim, a lost language of the Bird's Head. In G. Reesink (Ed.), Languages of the Eastern Bird's Head (pp. 277-340). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
  • Reesink, G. (2002). The Eastern bird's head languages. In G. Reesink (Ed.), Languages of the Eastern Bird's Head (pp. 1-44). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.
  • Roelofs, A. (2002). Modeling of lexical access in speech production: A psycholinguistic perspective on the lexicon. In L. Behrens, & D. Zaefferer (Eds.), The lexicon in focus: Competition and convergence in current lexicology (pp. 75-92). Frankfurt am Main: Lang.
  • Roelofs, A. (2002). Storage and computation in spoken word production. In S. Nooteboom, F. Weerman, & F. Wijnen (Eds.), Storage and computation in the language faculty (pp. 183-216). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  • Saito, H., & Kita, S. (2002). "Jesuchaa, kooi, imi" no hennshuu ni atat te [On the occasion of editing "Jesuchaa, Kooi, imi"]. In H. Saito, & S. Kita (Eds.), Kooi, jesuchaa, imi [Action, gesture, meaning] (pp. v-xi). Tokyo: Kyooritsu Shuppan.
  • Schiller, N. O., Costa, A., & Colomé, A. (2002). Phonological encoding of single words: In search of the lost syllable. In C. Gussenhoven, & N. Warner (Eds.), Laboratory Phonology VII (pp. 35-59). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Schiller, N. O. (2002). From phonetics to cognitive psychology: Psycholinguistics has it all. In A. Braun, & H. Masthoff (Eds.), Phonetics and its Applications. Festschrift for Jens-Peter Köster on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday. [Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik; 121] (pp. 13-24). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.
  • Schriefers, H., Meyer, A. S., & Levelt, W. J. M. (2002). Exploring the time course of lexical access in language production: Picture word interference studies. In G. Altmann (Ed.), Psycholinguistics: Critical Concepts in Psychology [vol. 5] (pp. 168-191). London: Routledge.
  • Seifart, F. (2002). Shape-distinctions picture-object matching task, with 2002 supplement. In S. Kita (Ed.), 2002 Supplement (version 3) for the “Manual” for the field season 2001 (pp. 15-17). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.
  • Senft, G. (1998). 'Noble Savages' and the 'Islands of Love': Trobriand Islanders in 'Popular Publications'. In J. Wassmann (Ed.), Pacific answers to Western hegemony: Cultural practices of identity construction (pp. 119-140). Oxford: Berg Publishers.
  • Senft, G. (2002). Linguistische Feldforschung. In H. M. Müller (Ed.), Arbeitsbuch Linguistik (pp. 353-363). Paderborn: Schöningh UTB.
  • Senft, G. (2002). Feldforschung in einer deutschen Fabrik - oder: Trobriand ist überall. In H. Fischer (Ed.), Feldforschungen. Erfahrungsberichte zur Einführung (Neufassung) (pp. 207-226). Berlin: Reimer.
  • Senft, G. (1998). Zeichenkonzeptionen in Ozeanien. In R. Posner, T. Robering, & T.. Sebeok (Eds.), Semiotics: A handbook on the sign-theoretic foundations of nature and culture (Vol. 2) (pp. 1971-1976). Berlin: de Gruyter.
  • Seuren, P. A. M. (2002). Clitic clusters in French and Italian. In H. Jacobs, & L. Wetzels (Eds.), Liber Amicorum Bernard Bichakjian (pp. 217-233). Maastricht: Shaker.
  • Seuren, P. A. M. (2002). Pseudoarguments and pseudocomplements. In B. Nevin (Ed.), The legacy of Zellig Harris: Language and information into the 21st Century: 1 Philosophy of Science, Syntax, and Semantics (pp. 179-206). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Seuren, P. A. M. (1998). Towards a discourse-semantic account of donkey anaphora. In S. Botley, & T. McEnery (Eds.), New Approaches to Discourse Anaphora: Proceedings of the Second Colloquium on Discourse Anaphora and Anaphor Resolution (DAARC2) (pp. 212-220). Lancaster: Universiy Centre for Computer Corpus Research on Language, Lancaster University.
  • Slobin, D. I. (2002). Cognitive and communicative consequences of linguistic diversity. In S. Strömqvist (Ed.), The diversity of languages and language learning (pp. 7-23). Lund, Sweden: Lund University, Centre for Languages and Literature.
  • 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
  • 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.
  • Wittenburg, P., Broeder, D., Offenga, F., & Willems, D. (2002). Metadata set and tools for multimedia/multimodal language resources. In M. Maybury (Ed.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2002). Workshop on Multimodel Resources and Multimodel Systems Evaluation. (pp. 9-13). Paris: European Language Resources Association.
  • Zwitserlood, I. (2002). Klassifikatoren in der Niederländischen Gebärdensprache (NGT). In H. Leuniger, & K. Wempe (Eds.), Gebärdensprachlinguistik 2000. Theorie und Anwendung. Vorträge vom Symposium "Gebärdensprachforschung im deutschsprachigem Raum", Frankfurt a.M., 11.-13. Juni 1999 (pp. 113-126). Hamburg: Signum Verlag.

Share this page