2003 Field Manual entries
This task is designed to elicit virtual 3D ‘models’ created in gesture space using iconic and other representational gestures. This task has been piloted with Lao speakers, where two speakers were asked to explain the meaning of terms referring to different kinds of fish trap mechanisms. The task elicited complex performances involving a range of iconic gestures, and with especially interesting use of (a) the ‘model/diagram’ in gesture space as a virtual object, (b) the non-dominant hand as a prosodic/semiotic anchor, (c) a range of different techniques (indexical and iconic) for evoking meaning with the hand, and (d) the use of nearby objects and parts of the body as semiotic ‘props’., Additional info: Volume 2003, filed under Interactional Foundations of Language. Tags: body, gesture, How to cite this resource:, Enfield, N. J. (2003). “Fish traps” task. In N. J. Enfield (Ed.), Field research manual 2003, part I: Multimodal interaction, space, event representation (pp. 31). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.877616.
This entry has been superceded by the published version: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2005.11.004 ! This task investigates the extensional meaning of body part terms, in particular the terms for the upper and lower limbs. Two questions are addressed, namely (i) are the boundaries of these body parts universal, guided by proposed universals of object recognition? (ii) How can we compare the extensional meanings of body part terms within and across different systems of nomenclature? Consultants receive booklets with line drawings of a body and are asked to colour in specific parts of the body., SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS for this entry can be downloaded here, or from the MPG Publication Repository: https://doi.org/10.17617/2.877666, Additional info: Volume 2003, filed under Space project. Tags: body, lexicon, topology, How to cite this resource:, Van Staden, M., & Majid, A. (2006). Body colouring task. Language Sciences, 28(2-3), 158-161. doi:10.1016/j.langsci.2005.11.004.
Recent research suggests that 12-month-old infants in German cultural settings have the motive of sharing their attention to and interest in various events with a social interlocutor. To do so, these preverbal infants predominantly use the pointing gesture (in this case the extended arm with or without extended index finger) as a means to direct another person’s attention. This task systematically investigates different types of motives underlying infants’ pointing. The occurrence of a protodeclarative (as opposed to protoimperative) motive is of particular interest because it requires an understanding of the recipient’s psychological states, such as attention and interest, that can be directed and accessed., Additional info: Volume 2003, filed under Interactional Foundations of Language. Tags: gesture, infants, pointing, How to cite this resource:, Liszkowski, U., & Epps, P. (2003). Directing attention and pointing in infants: A cross-cultural approach. In N. J. Enfield (Ed.), Field research manual 2003, part I: Multimodal interaction, space, event representation (pp. 25-27). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.877649.
The basic idea behind this task is to find out how languages encode basic shape distinctions such as dimensionality, axial geometry, relative size, etc. More specifically, we want to find out (i) which formal means are used cross linguistically to encode basic shape distinctions, and (ii) which are the semantic distinctions that are made in this domain. In languages with many shape-classifiers, these distinctions are encoded (at least partially) in classifiers. In other languages, positional verbs, descriptive modifiers, such as “flat”, “round”, or nouns such as “cube”, “ball”, etc. might be the preferred means. In this context, we also want to investigate what other “grammatical work” shape-encoding expressions possibly do in a given language, e.g. unitization of mass nouns, or anaphoric uses of shape-encoding classifiers, etc. This task further seeks to determine the role of shape-related parameters which underlie the design of objects in the semantics of the system under investigation., Additional info: Volume 2003, filed under Space project. Tags: shape, How to cite this resource:, Seifart, F. (2003). Encoding shape: Formal means and semantic distinctions. In N. J. Enfield (Ed.), Field research manual 2003, part I: Multimodal interaction, space, event representation (pp. 57-59). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.877660.
Fictive Motion is the metaphoric use of path relators in the expression of spatial relations or configurations that are static, or at any rate do not in any obvious way involve physical entities moving in real space. The goal is to study the expression of such relations or configurations in the target language, with an eye particularly on whether these expressions exclusively/preferably/possibly involve motion verbs and/or path relators, i.e., Fictive Motion. Section 2 gives Talmy’s (2000: ch. 2) phenomenology of Fictive Motion construals. The researcher’s task is to “distill” the intended spatial relations/configurations from Talmy’s description of the particular Fictive Motion metaphors and elicit as many different examples of the relations/configurations as (s)he deems necessary to obtain a basic sense of whether and how much Fictive Motion the target language offers or prescribes for the encoding of the particular type of relation/configuration. As a first stab, the researcher may try to elicit natural translations of culturally appropriate adaptations of the examples Talmy provides with each type of Fictive Motion metaphor., Additional info: Volume 2003, filed under Event Representation. Tags: motion, questionnaire, How to cite this resource:, Bohnemeyer, J. (2003). Fictive motion questionnaire. In N. J. Enfield (Ed.), Field research manual 2003, part I: Multimodal interaction, space, event representation (pp. 81-85). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.877601.
There are three main strands of research which have investigated people’s intuitive knowledge of objects in motion. (1) Knowledge of the trajectories of objects in motion; (2) knowledge of the causes of motion; and (3) the categorisation of motion as to whether it has been produced by something animate or inanimate. We provide a brief introduction to each of these areas. We then point to some linguistic and cultural differences which may have consequences for people’s knowledge of objects in motion. Finally, we describe two experimental tasks and an ethnographic task that will allow us to collect data in order to establish whether, indeed, there are interesting cross-linguistic/cross-cultural differences in lay theories of objects in motion., Additional info: Volume 2003, filed under Event Representation. Tags: motion, How to cite this resource:, Majid, A., & Bödeker, K. (2003). Folk theories of objects in motion. In N. J. Enfield (Ed.), Field research manual 2003, part I: Multimodal interaction, space, event representation (pp. 72-76). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.877654.
We want to know how people think about their field of kin, on the supposition that it is quasi-spatial. To get some insights here, we need to video a discussion about kinship reckoning, the kinship system, marriage rules and so on, with a view to looking at both the linguistic expressions involved, and the gestures people use to indicate kinship groups and relations. Unlike the task in the 2001 manual, this task is a direct interview method., Additional info: Volume 2003, filed under Space project. Tags: interview, kinship, How to cite this resource:, Enfield, N. J., & Levinson, S. C. (2003). Interview on kinship. In N. J. Enfield (Ed.), Field research manual 2003, part I: Multimodal interaction, space, event representation (pp. 64-65). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.877629.
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., Additional info: Volume 2003 II, filed under Pioneers of Island Melanesia., How to cite this resource:, 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.
Kids’ Cut & Break is a task inspired by the original Cut & Break task (see MPI L&C Group Field Manual 2001), but designed for use with children as well as adults. There are fewer videoclips to be described (34 as opposed to 61), and they are “friendlier” and more interesting: the actors wear colorful clothes, smile, and act cheerfully. The first 2 items are warm-ups and 4 more items are fillers (interspersed with test items), so only 28 of the items are actually “test items”. In the original Cut & Break, each clip is in a separate file. In Kids’ Cut & Break, all 34 clips are edited into a single file, which plays the clips successively with 5 seconds of black screen between each clip., Additional info: Volume 2003, filed under Event Representation., How to cite this resource:, Bowerman, M., & Majid, A. (2003). Kids’ cut & break. In N. J. Enfield (Ed.), Field research manual 2003, part I: Multimodal interaction, space, event representation (pp. 70-71). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.877607.
This entry has been superceded by the 2004 version! 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 2003, filed under Space project. Tags: questionnaire
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 2003, filed under Interactional Foundations of Language.
This entry has been superceded by the 2004 version! 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., Additional info: Volume 2003, filed under Interactional Foundations of Language.
This project aims to investigate how speakers of various languages in indigenous cultures verbally reason about moral issues. The ways in which a solution for a moral problem is found, phrased and justified will be taken as the basis for researching reasoning processes that manifest themselves verbally in the speakers’ arguments put forward to solve a number of moral problems which will be presented to them in the form of unfinished story plots or scenarios that ask for a solution. The plots chosen attempt to present common problems in human society and human behaviour. They should function to elicit moral discussion and/or moral arguments in groups of consultants of at least three persons., Additional info: Volume 2003, filed under Interactional Foundations of Language. Tags: cognition, logic, reasoning, How to cite this resource:, Senft, G. (2003). Reasoning in language. In N. J. Enfield (Ed.), Field research manual 2003, part I: Multimodal interaction, space, event representation (pp. 28-30). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.877663.
This project is part of a collaborative project with the research group “Reciprocals across languages” led by Nick Evans. One goal of this project is to develop a typology of reciprocals. This questionnaire is designed to help field workers get an overview over the type of markers used in the expression of reciprocity in the language studied., Additional info: Volume 2003, filed under Event Representation. Tags: questionnaire, reciprocals, How to cite this resource:, Gaby, A., & Faller, M. (2003). Reciprocity questionnaire. In N. J. Enfield (Ed.), Field research manual 2003, part I: Multimodal interaction, space, event representation (pp. 77-80). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.877641.
This task is a complement to the questionnaire ‘Multimodal interaction in your field site: a preliminary investigation’. The objective of the task is to obtain high quality video data on structured and symmetrical dyadic multimodal interaction. The features of interaction we are interested in include turn organization in speech and nonverbal behavior, eye-gaze behavior, use of composite signals (i.e. communicative units of speech-combined-with-gesture), and linguistic and other resources for ‘navigating’ interaction (e.g. words like okay, now, well, and um)., Additional info: Volume 2003, filed under Interactional Foundations of Language. Tags: interaction, How to cite this resource:, Enfield, N. J., & De Ruiter, J. P. (2003). The diff-task: A symmetrical dyadic multimodal interaction task. In N. J. Enfield (Ed.), Field research manual 2003, part I: Multimodal interaction, space, event representation (pp. 17-21). Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics. doi:10.17617/2.877635.
Citation
N.J. Enfield, Stephen C. Levinson, Asifa Majid, Jan Peter de Ruiter, Juergen Bohnemeyer, Alice Gaby, Angela Terrill, Eva Lindström, Frank Seifart, Ger Reesink, Gunter Senft, Katja Bödeker, Martina Faller, Melissa Bowerman, Michael Dunn, Miriam van Staden, Niclas Burenhult, Patty Epps, Penelope Brown, Tanya Stivers, and Ulf Liszkowski. (2003). Item "2003 Field Manual entries" in collection "Field Manuals". The Language Archive. https://hdl.handle.net/1839/d8bb5019-7a9b-41e1-8eae-3b87fb96d8dc. (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.