Displaying 1 - 33 of 33
  • Baayen, R. H., & Schreuder, R. (2003). Morphological structure in language processing. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Bauer, B. L. M., & Pinault, G.-J. (Eds.). (2003). Language in time and space: A festschrift for Werner Winter on the occasion of his 80th birthday. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Coulson, S., & Lai, V. T. (Eds.). (2016). The metaphorical brain [Research topic]. Lausanne: Frontiers Media. doi:10.3389/978-2-88919-772-9.


    This Frontiers Special Issue will synthesize current findings on the cognitive neuroscience of metaphor, provide a forum for voicing novel perspectives, and promote new insights into the metaphorical brain.
  • Dimroth, C., & Starren, M. (Eds.). (2003). Information structure and the dynamics of language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.


    The papers in this volume focus on the impact of information structure on language acquisition, thereby taking different linguistic approaches into account. They start from an empirical point of view, and examine data from natural first and second language acquisition, which cover a wide range of varieties, from early learner language to native speaker production and from gesture to Creole prototypes. The central theme is the interplay between principles of information structure and linguistic structure and its impact on the functioning and development of the learner's system. The papers examine language-internal explanatory factors and in particular the communicative and structural forces that push and shape the acquisition process, and its outcome. On the theoretical level, the approach adopted appeals both to formal and communicative constraints on a learner’s language in use. Two empirical domains provide a 'testing ground' for the respective weight of grammatical versus functional determinants in the acquisition process: (1) the expression of finiteness and scope relations at the utterance level and (2) the expression of anaphoric relations at the discourse level.
  • Dunn, M., Levinson, S. C., Lindström, E., Reesink, G., & Terrill, A. (2003). Island Melanesia elicitation materials. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.885547.


    The Island Melanesia project was initiated to collect data on the little-known Papuan languages of Island Melanesia, and to explore the origins of and relationships between these languages. The project materials from the 2003 field season focus on language related to cultural domains (e.g., material culture) and on targeted grammatical description. Five tasks are included: Proto-Oceanic lexicon, Grammatical questionnaire and lexicon, Kinship questionnaire, Domains of likely pre-Austronesian terminology, and Botanical collection questionnaire.
  • Enfield, N. J. (Ed.). (2003). Field research manual 2003, part I: Multimodal interaction, space, event representation. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.
  • Enfield, N. J. (2003). Linguistic epidemiology: Semantics and grammar of language contact in mainland Southeast Asia. London: Routledge Curzon.
  • Fernandez-Vest, M. M. J., & Van Valin Jr., R. D. (Eds.). (2016). Information structure and spoken language in a cross-linguistics perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Holler, J., Kendrick, K. H., Casillas, M., & Levinson, S. C. (Eds.). (2016). Turn-Taking in Human Communicative Interaction. Lausanne: Frontiers Media. doi:10.3389/978-2-88919-825-2.


    The core use of language is in face-to-face conversation. This is characterized by rapid turn-taking. This turn-taking poses a number central puzzles for the psychology of language.

    Consider, for example, that in large corpora the gap between turns is on the order of 100 to 300 ms, but the latencies involved in language production require minimally between 600ms (for a single word) or 1500 ms (for as simple sentence). This implies that participants in conversation are predicting the ends of the incoming turn and preparing in advance. But how is this done? What aspects of this prediction are done when? What happens when the prediction is wrong? What stops participants coming in too early? If the system is running on prediction, why is there consistently a mode of 100 to 300 ms in response time?

    The timing puzzle raises further puzzles: it seems that comprehension must run parallel with the preparation for production, but it has been presumed that there are strict cognitive limitations on more than one central process running at a time. How is this bottleneck overcome? Far from being 'easy' as some psychologists have suggested, conversation may be one of the most demanding cognitive tasks in our everyday lives. Further questions naturally arise: how do children learn to master this demanding task, and what is the developmental trajectory in this domain?

    Research shows that aspects of turn-taking such as its timing are remarkably stable across languages and cultures, but the word order of languages varies enormously. How then does prediction of the incoming turn work when the verb (often the informational nugget in a clause) is at the end? Conversely, how can production work fast enough in languages that have the verb at the beginning, thereby requiring early planning of the whole clause? What happens when one changes modality, as in sign languages -- with the loss of channel constraints is turn-taking much freer? And what about face-to-face communication amongst hearing individuals -- do gestures, gaze, and other body behaviors facilitate turn-taking? One can also ask the phylogenetic question: how did such a system evolve? There seem to be parallels (analogies) in duetting bird species, and in a variety of monkey species, but there is little evidence of anything like this among the great apes.

    All this constitutes a neglected set of problems at the heart of the psychology of language and of the language sciences. This research topic welcomes contributions from right across the board, for example from psycholinguists, developmental psychologists, students of dialogue and conversation analysis, linguists interested in the use of language, phoneticians, corpus analysts and comparative ethologists or psychologists. We welcome contributions of all sorts, for example original research papers, opinion pieces, and reviews of work in subfields that may not be fully understood in other subfields.
  • Jaspers, D., Klooster, W., Putseys, Y., & Seuren, P. A. M. (Eds.). (1989). Sentential complementation and the lexicon: Studies in honour of Wim de Geest. Dordrecht: Foris.
  • Johnson, E., & Matsuo, A. (2003). Max-Planck-Institute for Psycholinguistics: Annual Report 2003. Nijmegen: MPI for Psycholinguistics.
  • Kilborn, K., & Weissenborn, J. (1989). Max-Planck-Institute for Psycholinguistics: Annual Report Nr.10 1989. Nijmegen: MPI for Psycholinguistics.
  • Kita, S. (Ed.). (2003). Pointing: Where language, culture, and cognition meet. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Klein, W., & Dittmar, N. (1979). Developing grammars. Berlin: Springer.
  • Klein, W., & Franceschini, R. (Eds.). (2003). Einfache Sprache [Special Issue]. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, 131.
  • Klein, W., & Zimmermann, H. (1971). Lemmatisierter Index zu Georg Trakl, Dichtungen. Frankfurt am Main: Athenäum.
  • Klein, W. (Ed.). (1989). Kindersprache [Special Issue]. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, (73).
  • Klein, W. (1989). L'Acquisition de langue étrangère. Paris: Armand Colin.
  • Klein, W. (1971). Parsing: Studien zur maschinellen Satzanalyse mit Abhängigkeitsgrammatiken und Transformationsgrammatiken. Frankfurt am Main: Athenäum.
  • Klein, W. (Ed.). (1979). Sprache und Kontext [Special Issue]. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, (33).
  • Kreuzer, H. (Ed.). (1971). Methodische Perspektiven [Special Issue]. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, (1/2).
  • Kuiper, K., McCann, H., Quinn, H., Aitchison, T., & Van der Veer, K. (2003). A syntactically annotated idiom dataset (SAID). Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium, University of Pennsylvania.
  • Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
  • Levinson, S. C. (1989). Pragmática [Spanish translation]. Barcelona: Teide.
  • Levinson, S. C. (2003). Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Lutte, G., Sarti, S., & Kempen, G. (1971). Le moi idéal de l'adolescent: Recherche génétique, différentielle et culturelle dans sept pays dÉurope. Bruxelles: Dessart.
  • Meyer, A. S., & Huettig, F. (Eds.). (2016). Speaking and Listening: Relationships Between Language Production and Comprehension [Special Issue]. Journal of Memory and Language, 89.
  • Nederstigt, U. (2003). Auch and noch in child and adult German. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Schiller, N. O., & Meyer, A. S. (Eds.). (2003). Phonetics and phonology in language comprehension and production. Differences and similarities. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Schmid, M. S., Berends, S. M., Bergmann, C., Brouwer, S., Meulman, N., Seton, B., Sprenger, S., & Stowe, L. A. (2016). Designing research on bilingual development: Behavioral and neurolinguistic experiments. Berlin: Springer.
  • Seuren, P. A. M. (2016). Excursies in de tijd: Episodes uit de geschiedenis van onze beschaving. Beilen: Pharos uitgevers.
  • Seuren, P. A. M., & Kempen, G. (Eds.). (2003). Verb constructions in German and Dutch. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Terrill, A. (2003). A grammar of Lavukaleve. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Share this page