Publications

Displaying 1 - 100 of 103
  • Ameka, F. K. (1999). Interjections. In K. Brown, & J. Miller (Eds.), Concise encyclopedia of grammatical categories (pp. 213-216). Oxford: Elsevier.
  • Ameka, F. K., De Witte, C., & Wilkins, D. (1999). Picture series for positional verbs: Eliciting the verbal component in locative descriptions. In D. Wilkins (Ed.), Manual for the 1999 Field Season (pp. 48-54). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.2573831.

    Abstract

    How do different languages encode location and position meanings? In conjunction with the BowPed picture series and Caused Positions task, this elicitation tool is designed to help researchers (i) identify a language’s resources for encoding topological relations; (ii) delimit the pragmatics of use of such resources; and (iii) determine the semantics of select spatial terms. The task focuses on the exploration of the predicative component of topological expressions (e.g., ‘the cassavas are lying in the basket’), especially the contrastive elicitation of positional verbs. The materials consist of a set of photographs of objects (e.g., bottles, cloths, sticks) in specific configurations with various ground items (e.g., basket, table, tree).

    Additional information

    1999_Positional_verbs_stimuli.zip
  • Bauer, B. L. M. (1997). Nominal syntax in Italic: A diachronic perspective. In Language change and functional explanations (pp. 273-301). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  • Bauer, B. L. M. (1999). Impersonal HABET constructions: At the cross-roads of Indo-European innovation. In E. Polomé, & C. Justus (Eds.), Language change and typological variation. Vol II. Grammatical universals and typology (pp. 590-612). Washington: Institute for the study of man.
  • Bohnemeyer, J. (1999). Event representation and event complexity: General introduction. In D. Wilkins (Ed.), Manual for the 1999 Field Season (pp. 69-73). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.3002741.

    Abstract

    How do we decide where events begin and end? In some languages it makes sense to say something like Dan broke the plate, but in other languages it is necessary to treat this action as a complex scenario composed of separate stages (Dan dropped the plate and then the plate broke). This document introduces issues concerning the linguistic and cognitive representations of event complexity and integration, and provides an overview of tasks that are relevant to this topic, including the ECOM clips, the Questionnaire on Event integration, and the Questionnaire on motion lexicalisation and motion description.
  • Bohnemeyer, J. (1999). A questionnaire on event integration. In D. Wilkins (Ed.), Manual for the 1999 Field Season (pp. 87-95). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.3002691.

    Abstract

    How do we decide where events begin and end? Like the ECOM clips, this questionnaire is designed to investigate how a language divides and/or integrates complex scenarios into sub-events and macro-events. The questionnaire focuses on events of motion, caused state change (e.g., breaking), and transfer (e.g., giving). It provides a checklist of scenarios that give insight into where a language “draws the line” in event integration, based on known cross-linguistic differences.
  • Bohnemeyer, J., & Caelen, M. (1999). The ECOM clips: A stimulus for the linguistic coding of event complexity. In D. Wilkins (Ed.), Manual for the 1999 Field Season (pp. 74-86). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.874627.

    Abstract

    How do we decide where events begin and end? In some languages it makes sense to say something like Dan broke the plate, but in other languages it is necessary to treat this action as a complex scenario composed of separate stages (Dan dropped the plate and then the plate broke). The “Event Complexity” (ECOM) clips are designed to explore how languages differ in dividing and/or integrating complex scenarios into sub-events and macro-events. The stimuli consist of animated clips of geometric shapes that participate in different scenarios (e.g., a circle “hits” a triangle and “breaks” it). Consultants are asked to describe the scenes, and then to comment on possible alternative descriptions.

    Additional information

    1999_The_ECOM_clips.zip
  • Böttner, M. (1997). Natural Language. In C. Brink, W. Kahl, & G. Schmidt (Eds.), Relational Methods in computer science (pp. 229-249). Vienna, Austria: Springer-Verlag.
  • Bowden, J. (1997). The meanings of Directionals in Taba. In G. Senft (Ed.), Referring to Space: Studies in Austronesian and Papuan Languages (pp. 251-268). New York, NJ: Oxford University Press.
  • Bowerman, M. (1976). Le relazioni strutturali nel linguaggio infantile: sintattiche o semantiche? [Reprint]. In F. Antinucci, & C. Castelfranchi (Eds.), Psicolinguistica: Percezione, memoria e apprendimento del linguaggio (pp. 303-321). Bologna: Il Mulino.

    Abstract

    Reprinted from Bowerman, M. (1973). Structural relationships in children's utterances: Semantic or syntactic? In T. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp. 197 213). New York: Academic Press
  • Bowerman, M. (1979). The acquisition of complex sentences. In M. Garman, & P. Fletcher (Eds.), Studies in language acquisition (pp. 285-305). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Bowerman, M. (1976). Semantic factors in the acquisition of rules for word use and sentence construction. In D. Morehead, & A. Morehead (Eds.), Directions in normal and deficient language development (pp. 99-179). Baltimore: University Park Press.
  • Bowerman, M. (1980). The structure and origin of semantic categories in the language learning child. In M. Foster, & S. Brandes (Eds.), Symbol as sense (pp. 277-299). New York: Academic Press.
  • Brown, P. (1980). How and why are women more polite: Some evidence from a Mayan community. In S. McConnell-Ginet, R. Borker, & N. Furman (Eds.), Women and language in literature and society (pp. 111-136). New York: Praeger.
  • Brown, P. (1997). Isolating the CVC root in Tzeltal Mayan: A study of children's first verbs. In E. V. Clark (Ed.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Child Language Research Forum (pp. 41-52). Stanford, CA: CSLI/University of Chicago Press.

    Abstract

    How do children isolate the semantic package contained in verb roots in the Mayan language Tzeltal? One might imagine that the canonical CVC shape of roots characteristic of Mayan languages would make the job simple, but the root is normally preceded and followed by affixes which mask its identity. Pye (1983) demonstrated that, in Kiche' Mayan, prosodic salience overrides semantic salience, and children's first words in Kiche' are often composed of only the final (stressed) syllable constituted by the final consonant of the CVC root and a 'meaningless' termination suffix. Intonation thus plays a crucial role in early Kiche' morphological development. Tzeltal presents a rather different picture: The first words of children around the age of 1;6 are bare roots, children strip off all prefixes and suffixes which are obligatory in adult speech. They gradually add them, starting with the suffixes (which receive the main stress), but person prefixes are omitted in some contexts past a child's third birthday, and one obligatory aspectual prefix (x-) is systematically omitted by the four children in my longitudinal study even after they are four years old. Tzeltal children's first verbs generally show faultless isolation of the root. An account in terms of intonation or stress cannot explain this ability (the prefixes are not all syllables; the roots are not always stressed). This paper suggests that probable clues include the fact that the CVC root stays constant across contexts (with some exceptions) whereas the affixes vary, that there are some linguistic contexts where the root occurs without any prefixes (relatively frequent in the input), and that the Tzeltal discourse convention of responding by repeating with appropriate deictic alternation (e.g., "I see it." "Oh, you see it.") highlights the root.
  • Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1979). Social structure, groups and interaction. In H. Giles, & K. R. Scherer (Eds.), Social markers in speech (pp. 291-341). Cambridge University Press.
  • Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1999). Politeness: Some universals in language usage [Reprint]. In A. Jaworski, & N. Coupland (Eds.), The discourse reader (pp. 321-335). 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., & Fraser, C. (1979). Speech as a marker of situation. In H. Giles, & K. Scherer (Eds.), Social markers in speech (pp. 33-62). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Brown, C. M., & Hagoort, P. (1999). The cognitive neuroscience of language: Challenges and future directions. In C. M. Brown, & P. Hagoort (Eds.), The neurocognition of language (pp. 3-14). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Chen, H.-C., & Cutler, A. (1997). Auditory priming in spoken and printed word recognition. In H.-C. Chen (Ed.), Cognitive processing of Chinese and related Asian languages (pp. 77-81). Hong Kong: Chinese University Press.
  • Crago, M. B., Allen, S. E. M., & Hough-Eyamie, W. P. (1997). Exploring innateness through cultural and linguistic variation. In M. Gopnik (Ed.), The inheritance and innateness of grammars (pp. 70-90). New York City, NY, USA: Oxford University Press, Inc.
  • Cutler, A. (1980). Errors of stress and intonation. In V. A. Fromkin (Ed.), Errors in linguistic performance: Slips of the tongue, ear, pen and hand (pp. 67-80). New York: Academic Press.
  • Cutler, A., & Clifton, Jr., C. (1999). Comprehending spoken language: A blueprint of the listener. In C. M. Brown, & P. Hagoort (Eds.), The neurocognition of language (pp. 123-166). Oxford University Press.
  • Cutler, A. (1979). Beyond parsing and lexical look-up. In R. J. Wales, & E. C. T. Walker (Eds.), New approaches to language mechanisms: a collection of psycholinguistic studies (pp. 133-149). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
  • Cutler, A. (1999). Foreword. In Slips of the Ear: Errors in the perception of Casual Conversation (pp. xiii-xv). New York City, NY, USA: Academic Press.
  • Cutler, A., & Norris, D. (1979). Monitoring sentence comprehension. In W. E. Cooper, & E. C. T. Walker (Eds.), Sentence processing: Psycholinguistic studies presented to Merrill Garrett (pp. 113-134). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
  • Cutler, A. (1980). Syllable omission errors and isochrony. In H. W. Dechet, & M. Raupach (Eds.), Temporal variables in speech: studies in honour of Frieda Goldman-Eisler (pp. 183-190). The Hague: Mouton.
  • Cutler, A. (1999). Spoken-word recognition. In R. A. Wilson, & F. C. Keil (Eds.), MIT encyclopedia of the cognitive sciences (pp. 796-798). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Cutler, A. (1999). Prosodische Struktur und Worterkennung bei gesprochener Sprache. In A. D. Friedrici (Ed.), Enzyklopädie der Psychologie: Sprachrezeption (pp. 49-83). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
  • Cutler, A. (1999). Prosody and intonation, processing issues. In R. A. Wilson, & F. C. Keil (Eds.), MIT encyclopedia of the cognitive sciences (pp. 682-683). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Cutler, A. (1997). Prosody and the structure of the message. In Y. Sagisaka, N. Campbell, & N. Higuchi (Eds.), Computing prosody: Computational models for processing spontaneous speech (pp. 63-66). Heidelberg: Springer.
  • Cutler, A., & Isard, S. D. (1980). The production of prosody. In B. Butterworth (Ed.), Language production (pp. 245-269). London: Academic Press.
  • Dijkstra, T., & Kempen, G. (1997). Het taalgebruikersmodel. In H. Hulshof, & T. Hendrix (Eds.), De taalcentrale. Amsterdam: Bulkboek.
  • Eisenbeiss, S., McGregor, B., & Schmidt, C. M. (1999). Story book stimulus for the elicitation of external possessor constructions and dative constructions ('the circle of dirt'). In D. Wilkins (Ed.), Manual for the 1999 Field Season (pp. 140-144). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.3002750.

    Abstract

    How involved in an event is a person that possesses one of the event participants? Some languages can treat such “external possessors” as very closely involved, even marking them on the verb along with core roles such as subject and object. Other languages only allow possessors to be expressed as non-core participants. This task explores possibilities for the encoding of possessors and other related roles such as beneficiaries. The materials consist of a sequence of thirty drawings designed to elicit target construction types.

    Additional information

    1999_Story_book_booklet.pdf
  • Enfield, N. J. (1999). Lao as a national language. In G. Evans (Ed.), Laos: Culture and society (pp. 258-290). Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books.
  • Hagoort, P., & Indefrey, P. (1997). De neurale architectuur van het menselijk taalvermogen. In H. Peters (Ed.), Handboek stem-, spraak-, en taalpathologie (pp. 1-36). Houten: Bohn Stafleu Van Loghum.
  • Hagoort, P., & Wassenaar, M. (1997). Taalstoornissen: Van theorie tot therapie. In B. Deelman, P. Eling, E. De Haan, A. Jennekens, & A. Van Zomeren (Eds.), Klinische Neuropsychologie (pp. 232-248). Meppel: Boom.
  • Hagoort, P., Brown, C. M., & Osterhout, L. (1999). The neurocognition of syntactic processing. In C. M. Brown, & P. Hagoort (Eds.), The neurocognition of language (pp. 273-317). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Hagoort, P., & Van Turennout, M. (1997). The electrophysiology of speaking: Possibilities of event-related potential research for speech production. In W. Hulstijn, H. Peters, & P. Van Lieshout (Eds.), Speech motor production and fluency disorders: Brain research in speech production (pp. 351-361). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  • Hagoort, P. (1999). The uniquely human capacity for language communication: from 'pope' to [po:p] in half a second. In J. Russell, M. Murphy, T. Meyering, & M. Arbib (Eds.), Neuroscience and the person: Scientific perspectives on divine action (pp. 45-56). California: Berkeley.
  • Hagoort, P. (1997). Zonder fosfor geen gedachten: Gagarin, geest en brein. In Brain & Mind (pp. 6-14). Utrecht: Reünistenvereniging Veritas.
  • Indefrey, P. (1997). PET research in language production. In W. Hulstijn, H. F. M. Peters, & P. H. H. M. Van Lieshout (Eds.), Speech production: motor control, brain research and fluency disorders (pp. 269-278). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Abstract

    The aim of this paper is to discuss an inherent difficulty of PET (and fMRI) research in language production. On the one hand, language production presupposes some degree of freedom for the subject, on the other hand, interpretability of results presupposes restrictions of this freedom. This difficulty is reflected in the existing PET literature in some neglect of the general principle to design experiments in such a way that the results do not allow for alternative interpretations. It is argued that by narrowing down the scope of experiments a gain in interpretability can be achieved.
  • Kempen, G. (1979). A study of syntactic bookkeeping during sentence production. In H. Ueckert, & D. Rhenius (Eds.), Komplexe menschliche Informationsverarbeitung (pp. 361-368). Bern: Hans Huber.

    Abstract

    It is an important feature of the human sentence production system that semantic and syntactic processes may overlap in time and do not proceed strictly serially. That is, the process of building the syntactic form of an utterance does not always wait until the complete semantic content for that utterance has been decided upon. On the contrary, speakers will often start pronouncing the first words of a sentence while still working on further details of its semantic content. An important advantage is memory economy. Semantic and syntactic fragments do not have to occupy working memory until complete semantic and syntactic structures for an utterance have been computed. Instead, each semantic and syntactic fragment is processed as soon as possible and is kept in working memory for a minimum period of time. This raises the question of how the sentence production system can maintain syntactic coherence across syntactic fragments. Presumably there are processes of "syntactic bookkeeping" which (1) store in working memory those syntactic properties of a fragmentary sentence which are needed to eliminate ungrammatical continuations, and (2) check whether a prospective continuation is indeed compatible with the sentence constructed so far. In reaction time experiments where subjects described, under time pressure, simple static pictures of an action performed by an actor, the second aspect of syntactic bookkeeping could be demonstrated. This evidence is used for modelling bookkeeping processes as part of a computational sentence generator which aims at simulating the syntactic operations people carry out during spontaneous speech.
  • Kempen, G. (1997). Taalpsychologie week. In Wetenschappelijke Scheurkalender 1998. Beek: Natuur & Techniek.

    Abstract

    [Seven one-page psycholinguistic sketches]
  • Kempen, G. (1999). Visual Grammar: Multimedia for grammar and spelling instruction in primary education. In K. Cameron (Ed.), CALL: Media, design, and applications (pp. 223-238). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
  • Kita, S., & Ozyurek, A. (1999). Semantische Koordination zwischen Sprache und spontanen ikonischen Gesten: Eine sprachvergleichende Untersuchung. In Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (Ed.), Jahrbuch 1998 (pp. 388-391). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
  • Kita, S. (1997). Miburi to Kotoba [gesture and speech]. In H. Kobayashi, & M. Sasaki (Eds.), Kodomotachi no gengokakutoku [Child language development] (pp. 68-84). Tokyo, Japan: Taishukan.
  • Klein, W., & Musan, R. (Eds.). (1999). Das deutsche Perfekt [Special Issue]. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, (113).
  • Klein, W. (1979). Die Geschichte eines Tores. In R. Baum, F. J. Hausmann, & I. Monreal-Wickert (Eds.), Sprache in Unterricht und Forschung: Schwerpunkt Romanistik (pp. 175-194). Tübingen: Narr.
  • Klein, W. (1999). Die Lehren des Zweitspracherwerbs. In N. Dittmar, & A. Ramat (Eds.), Grammatik und Diskurs: Studien zum Erwerb des Deutschen und des Italienischen (pp. 279-290). Tübingen: Stauffenberg.
  • Klein, W. (1976). Der Prozeß des Zweitspracherwerbs und seine Beschreibung. In R. Dietrich (Ed.), Aspekte des Fremdsprachenerwerbs (pp. 100-118). Kronberg/Ts.: Athenäum.
  • Klein, W. (Ed.). (1980). Argumentation [Special Issue]. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, (38/39).
  • Klein, W. (1976). Maschinelle Analyse des Sprachwandels. In P. Eisenberg (Ed.), Maschinelle Sprachanalyse (pp. 137-166). Berlin: de Gruyter.
  • Klein, W., & Nüse, R. (1997). La complexité du simple: L'éxpression de la spatialité dans le langage humain. In M. Denis (Ed.), Langage et cognition spatiale (pp. 1-23). Paris: Masson.
  • Klein, W. (Ed.). (1997). Technologischer Wandel in den Philologien [Special Issue]. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, (106).
  • Klein, W. (Ed.). (1976). Psycholinguistik [Special Issue]. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, (23/24).
  • Klein, W. (Ed.). (1979). Sprache und Kontext [Special Issue]. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, (33).
  • Klein, W. (1997). On the "Imperfective paradox" and related problems. In M. Schwarz, C. Dürscheid, & K.-H. Ramers (Eds.), Sprache im Fokus: Festschrift für Heinz Vater (pp. 387-397). Tübingen: Niemeyer.
  • Klein, W. (1997). Und nur dieses allein haben wir. In D. Rosenstein, & A. Kreutz (Eds.), Begegnungen, Facetten eines Jahrhunderts (pp. 445-449). Siegen: Carl Boeschen Verlag.
  • Klein, W. (1980). Verbal planning in route directions. In H. Dechert, & M. Raupach (Eds.), Temporal variables in speech (pp. 159-168). Den Haag: Mouton.
  • Levelt, W. J. M. (1976). Formal grammars and the natural language user: A review. In A. Marzollo (Ed.), Topics in artificial intelligence (pp. 226-290). Vienna: Springer.
  • Levelt, W. J. M., & Kempen, G. (1979). Language. In J. A. Michon, E. G. J. Eijkman, & L. F. W. De Klerk (Eds.), Handbook of psychonomics (Vol. 2) (pp. 347-407). Amsterdam: North Holland.
  • Levelt, W. J. M. (1997). Language. In G. Adelman, & B. H. Smith (Eds.), Elsevier's encyclopedia of neuroscience (CD-ROM edition). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
  • Levelt, W. J. M. (1999). Language. In G. Adelman, & B. H. Smith (Eds.), Elsevier's encyclopedia of neuroscience (2nd enlarged and revised edition) (pp. 1005-1008). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
  • Levelt, W. J. M., & Kempen, G. (1976). Taal. In J. Michon, E. Eijkman, & L. De Klerk (Eds.), Handboek der Psychonomie (pp. 492-523). Deventer: Van Loghum Slaterus.
  • Levelt, W. J. M. (1980). On-line processing constraints on the properties of signed and spoken language. In U. Bellugi, & M. Studdert-Kennedy (Eds.), Signed and spoken language: Biological constraints on linguistic form (pp. 141-160). Weinheim: Verlag Chemie.

    Abstract

    It is argued that the dominantly successive nature of language is largely mode-independent and holds equally for sign and for spoken language. A preliminary distinction is made between what is simultaneous or successive in the signal, and what is in the process; these need not coincide, and it is the successiveness of the process that is at stake. It is then discussed extensively for the word/sign level, and in a more preliminary fashion for the clause and discourse level that online processes are parallel in that they can simultaneously draw on various sources of knowledge (syntactic, semantic, pragmatic), but successive in that they can work at the interpretation of only one unit at a time. This seems to hold for both sign and spoken language. In the final section, conjectures are made about possible evolutionary explanations for these properties of language processing.
  • Levelt, W. J. M. (1999). Producing spoken language: A blueprint of the speaker. In C. M. Brown, & P. Hagoort (Eds.), The neurocognition of language (pp. 83-122). Oxford University Press.
  • Levelt, W. J. M. (1979). The origins of language and language awareness. In M. Von Cranach, K. Foppa, W. Lepenies, & D. Ploog (Eds.), Human ethology (pp. 739-745). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Levelt, W. J. M. (1980). Toegepaste aspecten van het taal-psychologisch onderzoek: Enkele inleidende overwegingen. In J. Matter (Ed.), Toegepaste aspekten van de taalpsychologie (pp. 3-11). Amsterdam: VU Boekhandel.
  • Levinson, S. C. (1999). Deixis. In K. Brown, & J. Miller (Eds.), Concise encyclopedia of grammatical categories (pp. 132-136). Oxford: Elsevier.
  • Levinson, S. C. (1997). Deixis. In P. V. Lamarque (Ed.), Concise encyclopedia of philosophy of language (pp. 214-219). Oxford: Elsevier.
  • Levinson, S. C. (1999). Deixis and Demonstratives. In D. Wilkins (Ed.), Manual for the 1999 Field Season (pp. 29-40). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.2573810.

    Abstract

    Demonstratives are key items in understanding how a language constructs and interprets spatial relationships. They are also multi-functional, with applications to non-spatial deictic fields such as time, perception, person and discourse, and uses in anaphora and affect marking. This item consists of an overview of theoretical distinctions in demonstrative systems, followed by a set of practical queries and elicitation suggestions for demonstratives in “table top” space, wider spatial fields, and naturalistic data.
  • Levinson, S. C. (1997). Contextualizing 'contextualization cues'. In S. Eerdmans, C. Prevignano, & P. Thibault (Eds.), Discussing communication analysis 1: John J. Gumperz (pp. 24-30). Lausanne: Beta Press.
  • Levinson, S. C. (1999). General Questions About Topological Relations in Adpositions and Cases. In D. Wilkins (Ed.), Manual for the 1999 Field Season (pp. 57-68). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.2615829.

    Abstract

    The world’s languages encode a diverse range of topological relations. However, cross-linguistic investigation suggests that the relations IN, AT and ON are especially fundamental to the grammaticised expression of space. The purpose of this questionnaire is to collect information about adpositions, case markers, and spatial nominals that are involved in the expression of core IN/AT/ON meanings. The task explores the more general parts of a language’s topological system, with a view to testing certain hypotheses about the packaging of spatial concepts. The questionnaire consists of target translation sentences that focus on a number of dimensions including animacy, caused location and motion.
  • Levinson, S. C. (1999). Hypotheses concerning basic locative constructions and the verbal elements within them. In D. Wilkins (Ed.), Manual for the 1999 Field Season (pp. 55-56). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.3002711.

    Abstract

    Languages differ widely in terms of how they encode the fundamental concepts of location and position. For some languages, verbs have an important role to play in describing situations (e.g., whether a bottle is standing or lying on the table); for others, verbs are not used in describing location at all. This item outlines certain hypotheses concerning four “types” of languages: those that have verbless basic locatives; those that use a single verb; those that have several verbs available to express location; and those that use positional verbs. The document was originally published as an appendix to the 'Picture series for positional verbs' (https://doi.org/10.17617/2.2573831).
  • Levinson, S. C. (1997). From outer to inner space: Linguistic categories and non-linguistic thinking. In J. Nuyts, & E. Pederson (Eds.), Language and conceptualization (pp. 13-45). Cambridge University Press.
  • Levinson, S. C. (1999). Language and culture. In R. Wilson, & F. Keil (Eds.), MIT encyclopedia of the cognitive sciences (pp. 438-440). Cambridge: MIT press.
  • Levinson, S. C., Pederson, E., & Senft, G. (1997). Sprache und menschliche Orientierungsfähigkeiten. In Jahrbuch der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (pp. 322-327). München: Generalverwaltung der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft.
  • McQueen, J. M., & Cutler, A. (1997). Cognitive processes in speech perception. In W. J. Hardcastle, & J. D. Laver (Eds.), The handbook of phonetic sciences (pp. 556-585). Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Nijhof, S., & Zwitserlood, I. (1999). Pluralization in Sign Language of the Netherlands (NGT). In J. Don, & T. Sanders (Eds.), OTS Yearbook 1998-1999 (pp. 58-78). Utrecht: UiL OTS.
  • Noordman, L. G., & Vonk, W. (1997). The different functions of a conjunction in constructing a representation of the discourse. In J. Costermans, & M. Fayol (Eds.), Processing interclausal relationships: studies in the production and comprehension of text (pp. 75-94). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Schiller, N. O., Van Lieshout, P. H. H. M., Meyer, A. S., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1999). Does the syllable affiliation of intervocalic consonants have an articulatory basis? Evidence from electromagnetic midsagittal artculography. In B. Maassen, & P. Groenen (Eds.), Pathologies of speech and language. Advances in clinical phonetics and linguistics (pp. 342-350). London: Whurr Publishers.
  • Senft, G., & Labov, W. (1980). Einige Prinzipien linguistischer Methodologie [transl. from English by Gunter Senft]. In N. Dittmar, & B. O. Rieck (Eds.), William Labov: Sprache im sozialen Kontext (pp. 1-24). Königstein: Athenäum FAT.
  • Senft, G. (1999). Bronislaw Kasper Malinowski. In J. Verschueren, J.-O. Östman, J. Blommaert, & C. Bulcaen (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics: 1997 installment. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Senft, G., & Labov, W. (1980). Hyperkorrektheit der unteren Mittelschicht als Faktor im Sprachwandel; [transl. from English by Gunter Senft]. In N. Dittmar, & B. O. Rieck (Eds.), William Labov: Sprache im sozialen Kontext (pp. 77-94). Königstein: Athneäum FAT.
  • 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. (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.
  • Seuren, P. A. M. (1980). Dreiwertige Logik und die Semantik natürlicher Sprache. In J. Ballweg, & H. Glinz (Eds.), Grammatik und Logik: Jahrbuch 1979 des Instituts für deutsche Sprache (pp. 72-103). Düsseldorf: Pädagogischer Verlag Schwann.
  • Seuren, P. A. M. (1976). Echo, een studie in negatie. In G. Koefoed, & A. Evers (Eds.), Lijnen van taaltheoretisch onderzoek: Een bundel oorspronkelijke artikelen aangeboden aan prof. dr. H. Schultink (pp. 160-184). Groningen: Tjeenk Willink.
  • Seuren, P. A. M. (1999). The subject-predicate debate X-rayed. In D. Cram, A. Linn, & E. Nowak (Eds.), History of Linguistics 1996: Selected papers from the Seventh International Conference on the History of the Language Sciences (ICHOLS VII), Oxford, 12-17 September 1996. Volume 1: Traditions in Linguistics Worldwide (pp. 41-55). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  • Seuren, P. A. M. (1999). Topic and comment. In C. F. Justus, & E. C. Polomé (Eds.), Language Change and Typological Variation: Papers in Honor of Winfred P. Lehmann on the Occasion of His 83rd Birthday. Vol. 2: Grammatical universals and typology (pp. 348-373). Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man.
  • 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.
  • Stassen, H., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1976). Systemen, automaten en grammatica's. In J. Michon, E. Eijkman, & L. De Klerk (Eds.), Handboek der psychonomie (pp. 100-127). Deventer: Van Loghum Slaterus.
  • 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.
  • Thomassen, A., & Kempen, G. (1976). Geheugen. In J. A. Michon, E. Eijkman, & L. F. De Klerk (Eds.), Handboek der Psychonomie (pp. 354-387). Deventer: Van Loghum Slaterus.
  • 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 Valin Jr., R. D. (1999). A typology of the interaction of focus structure and syntax. In E. V. Rachilina, & J. G. Testelec (Eds.), Typology and linguistic theory from description to explanation: For the 60th birthday of Aleksandr E. Kibrik (pp. 511-524). Moscow: Languages of Russian Culture.
  • Wilkins, D. (1999). Eliciting contrastive use of demonstratives for objects within close personal space (all objects well within arm’s reach). In D. Wilkins (Ed.), Manual for the 1999 Field Season (pp. 25-28). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.2573796.

    Abstract

    Contrastive reference, where a speaker presents or identifies one item in explicit contrast to another (I like this book but that one is boring), has special communicative and information structure properties. This can be reflected in rules of demonstrative use. For example, in some languages, terms equivalent to this and that can be used for contrastive reference in almost any spatial context. But other two-term languages stick more closely to “distance rules” for demonstratives, allowing a this-like term in close space only. This task elicits data concerning one context of contrastive reference, focusing on whether (and how) non-proximal demonstratives can be used to distinguish objects within a proximal area. The task runs like a memory game, with the consultant being asked to identify the locations of two or three hidden items arranged within arm’s reach.
  • Wilkins, D. (1999). A questionnaire on motion lexicalisation and motion description. In D. Wilkins (Ed.), Manual for the 1999 Field Season (pp. 96-115). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.3002706.

    Abstract

    How do languages express ideas of movement, and how do they package features that can be part of motion, such as path and cause? This questionnaire is used to gain a picture of the lexical resources a language draws on for motion expressions. It targets issues of semantic conflation (i.e., what other semantic information besides motion may be encoded in a verb root) and patterns of semantic distribution (i.e., what types of information are encoded in the morphemes that come together to build a description of a motion event). It was originally designed for Australian languages, but has since been used around the world.

Share this page