2004 Field Manual entries
This entry has been superceded by the 2007 version! Research on video- and audio-recordings of spontaneous naturally-occurring conversation in English has shown that conversation is a rule-guided, practice-oriented domain that can be investigated for its underlying mechanics or structure. Systematic study could yield something like a grammar for conversation. The goal of this task is to acquire a corpus of video-data, for investigating the underlying structure(s) of interaction cross-linguistically and cross-culturally., Additional info: Volume 2004, filed under Interactional Foundations of Language.
This task has two parts: (i) video-taped elicitation of the range of possibilities for referring to persons and places, and (ii) observations of (first) references to persons and places in video-taped natural interaction. The goal of this task is to establish the repertoires of referential terms (and other practices) used for referring to persons and to places in particular languages and cultures, and provide examples of situated use of these kinds of referential practices in natural conversation. This data will form the basis for cross-language comparison, and for formulating hypotheses about general principles underlying the deployment of such referential terms in natural language usage., Additional info: Volume 2004, filed under Interactional Foundations of Language, Space project. Tags: interaction, reference, How to cite this resource:, Brown, P., Levinson, S. C., & Senft, G. (2004). Initial references to persons and places. In A. Majid (Ed.), Field Manual Volume 9 (pp. 37-44). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.492929.
Landscape terms reflect the relationship between geographic reality and human cognition. Are ‘mountains’, ‘rivers, ‘lakes’ and the like universally recognised in languages as naturally salient objects to be named? The landscape subproject is concerned with the interrelation between language, cognition and geography. Specifically, it investigates issues relating to how landforms are categorised cross-linguistically as well as the characteristics of place naming., Additional info: Volume 2004, filed under Interactional Foundations of Language, Space project. Tags: lexicon, How to cite this resource:, Bohnemeyer, J., Burenhult, N., Enfield, N. J., & Levinson, S. C. (2004). Landscape terms and place names elicitation guide. In A. Majid (Ed.), Field Manual Volume 9 (pp. 75-79). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.492904.
The Pioneers project seeks to uncover relationships between the Papuan languages of Island Melanesia. One basic way to uncover linguistic relationships, either contact or genetic, is through lexical comparison. We have seen very few shared words between our Papuan languages and any other languages, either Oceanic or Papuan, but most of the words which are shared are shared because they are commonly borrowed from Oceanic languages. This task is aimed at enabling fieldworkers to collect terms for inland bird and tree species. In the past it is has proved very difficult for non-experts to identify plant and bird species, so the task consists of a booklet of colour pictures of some of the more common species, with information on the range and habits of each species, as well as some information on their cultural uses, which should enable better identification. It is intended that fieldworkers will show this book to consultants and use it as an elicitation aid. NOTE: Due to copyright restrictions additional materials are not available for distribution., Additional info: Volume 2004, filed under Pioneers of Island Melanesia. Tags: lexicon, How to cite this resource:, Dunn, M., & Terrill, A. (2004). Lexical comparison between Papuan languages: Inland bird and tree species. In A. Majid (Ed.), Field Manual Volume 9 (pp. 65-69). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.492942.
Kin terminology structure and other social and cultural traits cluster in particular ways on a global level, such that “disharmonic” features can be interpreted as retentions of earlier systems, resulting from shifts in key aspects (such as a change from descent reckoning in the male line to the female line). We want to get at ancient patterns of social organisation and culture buried deep under a thick layer of Austronesian influence of much more recent origin. This can be done because in culture, as in language, features typically bundle in particular ways, and a mixed bouquet has a tale to tell. This task is designed to pick out any deviating features in particular societies to try and wrest from them their separate story of the distant past., Additional info: Volume 2004, filed under Pioneers of Island Melanesia. Tags: ethnography, kinship, questionnaire, How to cite this resource:, Lindström, E. (2004). Melanesian kinship and culture. In A. Majid (Ed.), Field Manual Volume 9 (pp. 70-73). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.1552190.
Interaction, for all that it has an ethological base, is culturally constituted, and how new social members are enculturated into the interactional practices of the society is of critical interest to our understanding of interaction – how much is learned, how variable is it across cultures – as well as to our understanding of the role of culture in children’s social-cognitive development. The goal of this task is to document the nature of caregiver infant interaction in different cultures, especially during the critical age of 9-15 months when children come to have an understanding of others’ intentions. This is of interest to all students of interaction; it does not require specialist knowledge of children. NOTE: Before going to the field, make extra copies of coding sheets (p 62 and 63) to take with you., Additional info: Volume 2004, filed under Interactional Foundations of Language. Tags: infants, interaction, How to cite this resource:, Brown, P., Gaskins, S., Lieven, E., Striano, T., & Liszkowski, U. (2004). Multimodal multiperson interaction with infants aged 9 to 15 months. In A. Majid (Ed.), Field Manual Volume 9 (pp. 56-63). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.492925.
Human ethologists have shown that humans are both attracted to others and at the same time fear them. They refer to this kind of fear with the technical term ‘social fear’ and claim that “it is alleviated with personal acquaintance but remains a principle characteristic of interpersonal behaviour. As a result, we maintain various degrees of greater distance between ourselves and others depending on the amount of confidence we have in the other” (Eibl-Eibesfeldt 1989: 335). The goal of this task is to conduct exploratory, heuristic research to establish a new subproject that – based on a corpus of video data – will investigate various forms of human spatial behaviour cross-culturally., Additional info: Volume 2004, filed under Interactional Foundations of Language, Space project. Tags: gesture, interaction, posture, How to cite this resource:, Senft, G. (2004). Participation and posture. In A. Majid (Ed.), Field Manual Volume 9 (pp. 80-82). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.506964.
How similar are the event concepts encoded by different languages? So far, few event domains have been investigated in any detail. The PUT project extends the systematic cross-linguistic exploration of event categorisation to a new domain, that of placement events (putting things in places and removing them from places). The goal of this task is to explore cross-linguistic universality and variability in the semantic categorisation of placement events (e.g., ‘putting a cup on the table’)., Additional info: Volume 2004, filed under Event Representation, Space project. Tags: classics, grammar, lexicon, video clips, How to cite this resource:, Bowerman, M., Gullberg, M., Majid, A., & Narasimhan, B. (2004). Put project: The cross-linguistic encoding of placement events. In A. Majid (Ed.), Field Manual Volume 9 (pp. 10-24). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.492916.
When people request information, they have a variety of means for eliciting the information. In English two of the primary resources for eliciting information include asking questions, making statements about their interlocutor (thereby generating confirmation or revision). But within these types there are a variety of ways that these information elicitors can be designed. The goal of this task is to examine how different languages seek and provide information, the extent to which syntax vs prosodic resources are used (e.g., in questions), and the extent to which the design of information seeking actions and their responses display a structural preference to promote social solidarity., Additional info: Volume 2004, filed under Interactional Foundations of Language. Tags: interaction, questions, How to cite this resource:, Stivers, T. (2004). Question sequences in interaction. In A. Majid (Ed.), Field Manual Volume 9 (pp. 45-47). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.506967.
Expressions like ‘John and Mary embraced (each other)’ represent complex situations where symmetry entails that each participant plays each of the two semantic roles (John embraced Mary, and Mary embraced John). Reciprocal constructions are specialised for the description of such symmetric situation types. The goal of this task is to investigate how a range of reciprocal and reciprocal-like events are, and can be, described across a range of languages, in order to determine, for each language, how far reciprocal-coding constructions extend out to various conditions which relax one or more characteristics that canonically call for reciprocal encoding – symmetry, simultaneity, and two participants., Additional info: Volume 2004, filed under Event Representation. Tags: grammar, How to cite this resource:, Evans, N., Levinson, S. C., Enfield, N. J., Gaby, A., & Majid, A. (2004). Reciprocal constructions and situation type. In A. Majid (Ed.), Field Manual Volume 9 (pp. 25-30). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.506955.
This entry has been superceded by the 2007 version! This sub-project is concerned with analysis and cross-linguistic comparison of the mechanisms of signaling and redressing ‘trouble’ during conversation. Speakers and listeners constantly face difficulties with many different aspects of speech production and comprehension during conversation. A speaker may mispronounce a word, or may be unable to find a word, or be unable to formulate in words an idea he or she has in mind. A listener may have troubling hearing (part of) what was said, may not know who a speaker is referring to, may not be sure of the current relevance of what is being said. There may be problems in the organisation of turns at talk, for instance, two speakers’ speech may be in overlap. The goal of this task is to investigate the range of practices that a language uses to address problems of speaking, hearing and understanding in conversation., Additional info: Volume 2004, filed under Interactional Foundations of Language.
Listeners’ signals of recipiency, such as “Mm-hm” or “uh-huh” in English, are the most elementary or minimal “conversational turns” possible. Minimal, because apart from acknowledging recipiency and inviting the speaker to continue with his/her next turn, they do not add any new information to the discourse of the conversation. The goal of this project is to gather cross cultural information on listeners’ feedback behaviour during conversation. Listeners in a conversation usually provide short signals that indicate to the speaker that they are still “with the speaker”. These signals could be verbal (like for instance “mm hm” in English or “hm hm” in Dutch) or nonverbal (visual), like nodding. Often, these signals are produced in overlap with the speaker’s vocalisation. If listeners do not produce these signals, speakers often invite them explicitly (e.g. “are you still there?” in a telephone conversation). Our goal is to investigate what kind of signals are used by listeners of different languages to signal “recipiency” to the speaker., Additional info: Volume 2004, filed under Interactional Foundations of Language. Tags: interaction, How to cite this resource:, De Ruiter, J. P. (2004). Response systems and signals of recipiency. In A. Majid (Ed.), Field Manual Volume 9 (pp. 53-55). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.506961.
Citation
N.J. Enfield, Stephen C. Levinson, Asifa Majid, Gunter Senft, Jan Peter de Ruiter, Penelope Brown, Tanya Stivers, Alice Gaby, Angela Terrill, Bhuvana Narasimhan, Elena Lieven, Eva Lindström, Juergen Bohnemeyer, Marianne Gullberg, Melissa Bowerman, Michael Dunn, Nick Evans, Niclas Burenhult, Suzanne Gaskins, Tricia Striano, and Ulf Liszkowski. (2004). Item "2004 Field Manual entries" in collection "Field Manuals". The Language Archive. https://hdl.handle.net/1839/c455cc6f-791d-449a-a840-0a0b4044f792. (Accessed 2023-10-03)
Note: This citation was extracted automatically from the available metadata and may contain inaccuracies. In case of multiple authors, the ordering is arbitrary. Please contact the archive staff in case you need help on how to cite this resource.