Displaying 101 - 126 of 126
-
Pederson, E. (1995). Questionnaire on event realization. In D. Wilkins (
Ed. ), Extensions of space and beyond: manual for field elicitation for the 1995 field season (pp. 54-60). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.3004359.Abstract
"Event realisation" refers to the normal final state of the affected entity of an activity described by a verb. For example, the sentence John killed the mosquito entails that the mosquito is afterwards dead – this is the full realisation of a killing event. By contrast, a sentence such as John hit the mosquito does not entail the mosquito’s death (even though we might assume this to be a likely result). In using a certain verb, which features of event realisation are entailed and which are just likely? This questionnaire supports cross-linguistic exploration of event realisation for a range of event types. -
Senft, G. (1995). Elicitation. In J. Blommaert, J.-O. Östman, & J. Verschueren (
Eds. ), Handbook of Pragmatics: Manual (pp. 577-581). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. -
Senft, G. (1995). 'Noble savages' and 'the islands of love': Trobriand Islanders in 'popular publications'. In C. Baak, M. Bakker, & D. Van der Meij (
Eds. ), Tales from a concave world: Liber amicorum Bert Voorhoeve (pp. 480-510). Leiden: Projects division, department of languages and cultures of South East Asia and Oceania, Leiden University. -
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. (1995). Fieldwork. In J. Blommaert, J.-O. Östman, & J. Verschueren (
Eds. ), Handbook of Pragmatics: Manual (pp. 595-601). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. -
Senft, G. (1997). Magic, missionaries, and religion - Some observations from the Trobriand Islands. In T. Otto, & A. Borsboom (
Eds. ), Cultural dynamics of religious change in Oceania (pp. 45-58). Leiden: KITLV press. -
Senft, G. (1995). Mit Tinkertoy in die Tiefe(n) des Raumes: Zum räumlichen Verweisen im Kilivila - Eine Fallstudie. In R. Fiehler, & D. Metzing (
Eds. ), Untersuchungen zur Kommunikationstruktur (Bielefelder Schriften zu Linguistik und Literaturwissenschaft, pp. 139-162). Bielefeld: Aisthesis Verlag. -
Senft, G. (1997). Introduction. In G. Senft (
Ed. ), Referring to space - Studies in Austronesian and Papuan languages (pp. 1-38). Oxford: Clarendon Press. -
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. (1995). Reflections on negation. In H. C. M. De Swart, & L. J. M. Bergmans (
Eds. ), Perspectives on Negation. Essays in honour of Johan J. de Iongh on his 80th birthday (pp. 153-176). Tilburg: Tilburg University Press. -
Seuren, P. A. M. (1979). Wat is semantiek? In B. Tervoort (
Ed. ), Wetenschap en taal: Een nieuwe reeks benaderingen van het verschijnsel taal (pp. 135-162). Muiderberg: Coutinho. -
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. -
Skiba, R., & Steinmüller, U. (1995). Pragmatics of compositional word formation in technical languages. In H. Pishwa, & K. Maroldt (
Eds. ), The development of morphological systematicity: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 305-321). Tübingen: Narr. -
Stassen, H., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1979). Systems, automata, and grammars. In J. Michon, E. Eijkman, & L. De Klerk (
Eds. ), Handbook of psychonomics: Vol. 1 (pp. 187-243). Amsterdam: North Holland. -
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 -
Thomassen, A. J., & Kempen, G. (1979). Memory. In J. A. Michon, E. Eijkman, & L. Klerk (
Eds. ), Handbook of psychonomics (pp. 75-137 ). Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company. -
Trabasso, T., & Ozyurek, A. (1997). Communicating evaluation in narrative understanding. In T. Givon (
Ed. ), Conversation: Cognitive, communicative and social perspectives (pp. 268-302). Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins. -
Van Berkum, J. J. A., Hijne, H., De Jong, T., Van Joolingen, W. R., & Njoo, M. (1995). Characterizing the application of computer simulations in education: Instructional criteria. In A. Ram, & D. B. Leake (
Eds. ), Goal-driven learning (pp. 381-392). Cambridge, M: MIT Press. -
Van Wijk, C., & Kempen, G. (1982). Kost zinsbouw echt tijd? In R. Stuip, & W. Zwanenberg (
Eds. ), Handelingen van het zevenendertigste Nederlands Filologencongres (pp. 223-231). Amsterdam: APA-Holland University Press. -
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. -
Van Valin Jr., R. D. (1995). Toward a functionalist account of so-called ‘extraction constraints’. In B. Devriendt (
Ed. ), Complex structures: A functionalist perspective (pp. 29-60). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. -
Wilkins, D. (1995). Towards a Socio-Cultural Profile of the Communities We Work With. In D. Wilkins (
Ed. ), Extensions of space and beyond: manual for field elicitation for the 1995 field season (pp. 70-79). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.3513481.Abstract
Field data are drawn from a particular speech community at a certain place and time. The intent of this survey is to enrich understanding of the various socio-cultural contexts in which linguistic and “cognitive” data may have been collected, so that we can explore the role which societal, cultural and contextual factors may play in this material. The questionnaire gives guidelines concerning types of ethnographic information that are important to cross-cultural and cross-linguistic enquiry, and will be especially useful to researchers who do not have specialised training in anthropology. -
Wilkins, D., Pederson, E., & Levinson, S. C. (1995). Background questions for the "enter"/"exit" research. In D. Wilkins (
Ed. ), Extensions of space and beyond: manual for field elicitation for the 1995 field season (pp. 14-16). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.3003935.Abstract
How do languages encode different kinds of movement, and what features do people pay attention to when describing motion events? This document outlines topics concerning the investigation of “enter” and “exit” events. It helps contextualise research tasks that examine this domain (see 'Motion Elicitation' and 'Enter/Exit animation') and gives some pointers about what other questions can be explored. -
Wilkins, D. (1995). Motion elicitation: "moving 'in(to)'" and "moving 'out (of)'". In D. Wilkins (
Ed. ), Extensions of space and beyond: manual for field elicitation for the 1995 field season (pp. 4-12). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.3003391.Abstract
How do languages encode different kinds of movement, and what features do people pay attention to when describing motion events? This task investigates the expression of “enter” and “exit” activities, that is, events involving motion in(to) and motion out (of) container-like items. The researcher first uses particular stimuli (a ball, a cup, rice, etc.) to elicit descriptions of enter/exit events from one consultant, and then asks another consultant to demonstrate the event based on these descriptions. See also the related entries Enter/Exit Animation and Background Questions for Enter/Exit Research.
Share this page