Ahn, W. and Bailenson, J. 1996. ‘Mechanism-based explanations of causal attribution: An explanation of conjunction and discounting effect’, Cognitive Psychology 31: 82–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ahn, W. and Kalish, C. W. 2000. ‘The role of mechanism beliefs in causal reasoning’, in Keil, F. C. and Wilson, R. A. (eds.), Explanation and Cognition, pp. 199–225. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Ahn, W., Kalish, C. W., Medin, D. L., and Gelman, S. A. 1995. ‘The role of covariation versus mechanism information in causal attribution’, Cognition 54: 299–352.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Aikhenvald, A. Y. and Dixon, R. M. W. (eds.) 2006. Serial Verb Constructions: A Cross-linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Alibali, M. W., Kita, S., and Young, A. J. 2000. ‘Gesture and the process of speech production: We think, therefore we gesture’, Language and Cognitive Processes 15(6): 593–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Alsina, A., Bresnan, J., and Sells, P. (eds.) 1997. Complex Predicates. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Ameka, F. K. 2005a. ‘Ewe serial verb constructions in their grammatical context’, in Aikhenvald, A. Y. and Dixon, R. M. W. (eds.), Serial Verb Constructions: A Cross-linguistic Typology, pp. 124–43. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ameka, F. K. 2005b. ‘Multiverb constructions on the West African littoral: Micro-variation and areal typology’, in Vulchanova, M. and Åfarli, T. A. (eds.), Grammar and Beyond: Essays in honor of Lars Hellan, pp. 15–42. Oslo: Novus Press.Google Scholar

Ameka, F. K. and Levinson, S. C. (eds.) 2007. ‘Special issue on locative predicates’, Linguistics 45(5/6).Google Scholar

Andersen, E. S. 1978. ‘Lexical universals in body-part terminology’, in Greenberg, J. H. (ed.), Universals of Human Language, vol. 3, pp. 335–68. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Aronoff, M., Meir, I., and Sandler, W. 2005. ‘The paradox of sign language morphology’, Language 81(2): 301–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Aronoff, M., Meir, I., Padden, C., and Sandler, W. 2003. ‘Classifier constructions and morphology in two sign languages’, in Emmorey, K. (ed.), Perspectives on Classifier Constructions in Sign Languages, pp. 53–84. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Aronson, J. L. 1971. ‘On the grammar of “CAUSE”’, Synthese 22: 414–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aske, J. 1989. ‘Path predicates in English and Spanish: A closer look’, Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 1–14. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar

Bach, E. 1981. ‘On time, tense, and aspect: An essay in English metaphysics’, in Cole, P. (ed.), Radical Pragmatics, pp. 62–81. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Baldwin, D. 2005. ‘Discerning intentions: Characterizing the cognitive system at play’, in Homer, B. D. and Tamis-LeMonda, C. S. (eds.), The Development of Social Cognition and Communication, pp. 117–44. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Barbey, A. K. and Wolff, P. 2006. ‘Causal reasoning from forces’, Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 24–39. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Barbey, A. K. and Wolff, P. 2007. ‘Learning causal structure from reasoning’, Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 713–18. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Barbey, A. K. and Wolff, P. ms. ‘Composing causal relations in force dynamics’, manuscript, Emory University.

Barwise, J. and Perry, J. 1983. Situations and Attitudes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Bavelas, J. B., Kenwood, C., Johnson, T., and Phillips, B. 2002. ‘An experimental study of when and how speakers use gestures to communicate’, Gesture 2(1): 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beattie, G. and Shovelton, H. 1999a. ‘Do iconic hand gestures really contribute anything to the semantic information conveyed by speech?’ Semiotica 123(1/2): 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beattie, G. and Shovelton, H. 1999b. ‘Mapping the range of information contained in the iconic hand gestures that accompany spontaneous speech’, Journal of Language and Social Psychology 18(4): 438–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beattie, G. and Shovelton, H. 2002. ‘An experimental investigation of some properties of individual iconic gestures that mediate their communicative power’, British Journal of Psychology 93(2): 179–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Beebee, H. 2004. ‘Causing and Nothingness’, in Collins, J., Hall, N., and Paul, L. (eds.), Causation and Counterfactuals, pp. 291–308. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Berlin, B. and Kay, P. 1969. Basic Color Terms. [Paperback edition, reprinted 1999] Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Berman, R. A. and Slobin, D. I. 1994. ‘Filtering and packaging in narrative’, in Berman, R. and Slobin, D. I. (eds.), Relating Events in Narrative: A Crosslinguistic Developmental Study, pp. 515–54. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Berman, R. A. and Slobin, D. I. 1994b. Relating Events in Narrative: A Crosslinguistic Developmental Study. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Berthele, R. 2004. ‘The typology of motion and posture verbs: A variationist account’, in Kortmann, B. (ed.), Dialectology Meets Typology. Dialect Grammar from a Cross-linguistic Perspective, pp. 93–126. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Berthele, R. 2006. Ort und Weg. Die sprachlich Raumreferenz in Varietäten des Deutschen, Rätoromanischen und Französischen. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biederman, I. 1972. ‘Perceiving real world scenes’, Science 177: 77–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Biederman, I. 1987. ‘Recognition-by-components: A theory of human image understanding’, Psychological Review 94: 115–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Biederman, I., Rabinowiz, , Glass, J., , A. L., and Stacy, , Jr, E. W.. 1974. ‘On the information extracted from a glance at a scene’, Journal of Experimental Psychology 103: 597–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bock, K. and Levelt, W. J. M. 1994. ‘Language production. Grammatical encoding’, in Gernsbacher, M. A. (ed.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics, pp. 405–52. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Bock, K., Irwin, D. E., Davidson, D. J., and Levelt, W. J. M. 2003. ‘Minding the clock’, Journal of Memory and Language 48: 653–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bohnemeyer, J. 1999. ‘A questionnaire on event integration’, in Wilkins, D. P. (ed.), “Manual” for the 1999 Field Season, pp. 87–95. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar

Bohnemeyer, J. 2003. ‘The unique vector constraint’, in Zee, E. and Slack, J. (eds.), Representing Direction in Language and Space, pp. 86–110. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bohnemeyer, J. 2004. ‘Split intransitivity, linking, and lexical representation: the case of Yukatek Maya’, Linguistics 42(1): 67–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bohnemeyer, J. and Caelen, M. 1999. ‘The ECOM clips: A stimulus for the linguistic coding of event complexity’, in Wilkins, D. P. (ed.), ‘Manual’ for the 1999 Field Season, pp. 74–86. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar

Bohnemeyer, J. and Majid, A. 2002. ‘ECOM causality revisited version 4’, in Kita, S. (ed.), 2002 Supplement (Version 3) for the ‘Manual’ for the Field Season 2001, pp. 35–58. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar

Bohnemeyer, J., Eisenbeiß, S., and Narasimhan, B. 2006. ‘Ways to go: Methodological considerations in Whorfian studies on motion events’, Essex Research Reports in Linguistics 50: 1–20.

Bohnemeyer, J., Enfield, N., Essegbey, J., Ibarretxe, I., Kita, S., Lüpke, F., and Ameka, F. K. 2007. ‘Principles of event representation in language: The case of motion events’, Language 83(3): 495–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boroditsky, L. 2001. ‘Does language shape thought? English and Mandarin speakers’ conceptions of time', Cognitive Psychology 43(1): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boroditsky, L. 2003. ‘Linguistic relativity’, in Nadel, L. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science, pp. 917–21. London: Macmillan Press.Google Scholar

Bower, G. H., Black, J. B., and Turner, T. J. 1979. ‘Scripts in memory for text’, Cognitive Psychology 11: 177–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bowerman, M. 1978. ‘Systematizing semantic knowledge: Changes over time in the child's organization of word meaning’, Child Development 49(4): 987–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bowerman, M. 1982. ‘Starting to talk worse: Clues to language acquisition from children's late speech errors’, in Strauss, S. and Stavy, R. (eds.), U-shaped Behavioral Growth, pp. 101–46. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bowerman, M. 2005. ‘Why can't you “open” a nut or “break” a cooked noodle? Learning covert object categories in action word meanings’, in Gershkoff-Stowe, L. and Rakison, D. (eds.), Building Object Categories in Developmental Time, pp. 209–44. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Bowerman, M. and Choi, S. 2001. ‘Shaping meanings for language: universal and language-specific in the acquisition of spatial semantic categories’, in Bowerman, M. and Levinson, S. C. (eds.), Language Acquisition and Conceptual Development, pp. 475–511. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bowerman, M. and Pederson, E. ms. ‘Cross-linguistic perspectives on topological spatial relations’, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.

Bowerman, M., Brown, P., Eisenbeiß, S., Narasimhan, B., and Slobin, D. I. 2002. ‘Putting things in places. Developmental consequences of linguistic typology’, in Clark, E. V. (ed.), Space In Language. Location, Motion, Path, and Manner. The Proceedings of the 31st Stanford Child Language Research Forum, pp. S1–S122. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Braun, J. 2003. ‘Natural scenes upset the visual applecart’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7: 7–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Brennan, M. 1992. ‘The visual world of BSL: An introduction’, in Brien, D. (ed.), Dictionary of British Sign Language/English, pp. 1–133. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar

Bresnan, J. 1982. ‘Polyadicity’, in Bresnan, J. (ed.), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, pp. 149–72. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Brown, C. H. 1976. ‘General principles of human anatomical partonomy and speculations on the growth of partonomic nomenclature’, American Ethnologist 3: 400–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brown, P. 2006. ‘A sketch of the grammar of space in Tzeltal’, in Levinson, S. C. and Wilkins, D. P. (eds.), Grammars of Space: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity, pp. 230–72. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brown, P. 2008. ‘Verb specificity and argument realization in Tzeltal child language’, in Bowerman, M. and Brown, P. (eds.), Crosslinguistic Perspectives on Argument Structure: Implications for Language Acquisition, pp. 167–89. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Brown, P. forthcoming. ‘To “put” or to “take”? Verb semantics in Tzeltal placement and removal expressions’, in A. Kopecka and B. Narasimhan (eds.), Events of “putting” and “taking”: A Crosslinguistic Perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Brown, R. W. and Lenneberg, E. H. 1958. ‘Studies in linguistic relativity’, in Maccoby, E., Newcomb, T. H., and Hartley, E. L. (eds.), Readings in Social Psychology 3rd edn, pp. 9–18. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar

Bruce, L. 1986. The Alamblak Language of Papua New Guinea (East Sepik). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar

Bruce, L. 1988. ‘Serialization: from syntax to lexicon’, Studies in Language 12(1):19–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bruce, V., Green, P. R., and Georgson, M. A. 1996. Visual Perception: Physiology, Psychology, and Ecology, 3rd edn. Hove, UK: Psychology Press, Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Brugman, H. and Kita, S. 1995. ‘Impact of digital video technology on transcription: a case of spontaneous gesture transcription’, KODIKAS/CODE: Ars Semiotica. An International Journal of Semiotics 18: 95–112.Google Scholar

Bullock, M., Gelman, R., and Baillargeon, R. 1982. ‘The development of causal reasoning’, in Friedman, W. (ed.), The Developmental Psychology of Time, pp. 209–55. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Carlson, G. 1984. ‘Thematic roles and their role in semantic interpretation’, Linguistics 22: 259–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carroll, M. and Stutterheim, C. 2003. ‘Typology and information organization: perspective taking and language-specific effects in the construal of events’, in Ramat, A. G. (ed.), Typology and Second Language Acquisition, pp. 365–402. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Carroll, M., Murcia-Serra, J., Watorek, M., and Bendiscoli, A. 2000. ‘The relevance of information organization to second language acquisition studies: The descriptive discourse of advanced adult learners of German’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22(3): 441–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carroll, M., Rossdeutscher, A., Lambert, M., and Stutterheim, C. 2008. ‘Subordination in narratives and macrostructural planning: A comparative point of view’, in Fabricius Hansen, C. and Ramm, W. (eds.), Subordination versus Coordination in Sentence and Text – From a Crosslinguistic Perspective, pp. 161–84. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carroll, M., Rossdeutscher, A., Lambert, M., and Stutterheim, C. 1993. ‘The representation of spatial configurations in English and German and the grammatical structure of locative and anaphoric expressions’, Linguistics 31: 1011–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Casati, R. and Varzi, A. C. 1999. Parts and Places: The Structures of Spatial Representation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Casati, R. and Varzi, A. C. (eds.) 1996. Events. Brookfield, VT: Dartmouth.Google Scholar

Cassell, J., McNeill, D., and McCullough, K.-E. 1999. ‘Speech–gesture mismatches: Evidence for one underlying representation of linguistic and nonlinguistic information’, Pragmatics and Cognition 7(1): 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chafe, W. 1979. ‘The flow of thought and the flow of language’, in Givón, T. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, vol. 12: Discourse and Syntax, pp. 159–81. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Chafe, W. 1980. ‘The deployment of consciousness in the production of a narrative’, in Chafe, W. (ed.), The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar

Chafe, W. 1987. ‘Cognitive constraints on information flow’, in Tomlin, R. (ed.), Coherence and Grounding in Discourse, pp. 21–51. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chafe, W. 1994. Discourse, Consciousness and Time. The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Chaigneau, S. E. and Barbey, A. K. 2008. ‘Assessing psychological theories of causal meaning and inference’, in Love, B. C., McRae, K., and Sloutsky, V. M. (eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 1111–16. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar

Chatterjee, S. H., Freyd, J. J., and Shiffrar, M. 1996. ‘Configural processing in the perception of apparent biological motion’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 22: 916–29.Google ScholarPubMed

Cheng, P. W. 1997. ‘From covariation to causation: A causal power theory’, Psychological Review 104: 367–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cheng, P. W. and Novick, L. R. 1991. ‘Causes versus enabling conditions’, Cognition 40: 83–120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Cheng, P. W. and Novick, L. R. 1992. ‘Covariation in natural causal induction’, Psychological Review 99: 365–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Chenu, F. and Jisa, H. 2006. ‘Caused motion constructions and semantic generality in early acquisition of French’, in Clark, E. V. and Kelly, B. F. (eds.), Constructions in Acquisition, vol. 174, pp. 233–61. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Chierchia, G. 1998a. ‘Reference to kinds across languages’, Natural Language Semantics 6: 339–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chierchia, G. 1998b. ‘Plurality of mass nouns and the notion of semantic parameter’, in Rothstein, S. (ed.), Events and Grammar, pp. 53–103. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Choi, S., McDonough, M., Bowerman, M., and Mandler, J. 1999. ‘Early sensitivity to language-specific spatial categories in English and Korean’, Cognitive Development 14(2): 241–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Chung, S. and Ladusaw, W. A. 2004. Restriction and saturation. Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 42. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Clahsen, H. 1982. Spracherwerb in der Kindheit: Eine Untersuchung zur Entwicklung der Syntax bei Kleinkindern. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar

Clark, H. H. and Gerrig, R. J. 1990. ‘Quotations as demonstrations’, Language 66: 764–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clark, H. H. and Wilkes-Gibbs, D. 1986. ‘Referring as a collaborative process’, Cognition 22(1): 1–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Clark, H., H., Carpenter, P. A., and Just, M. A. 1973. ‘On the meeting of semantics and perception’, in Chase, W. G. (ed.), Visual Information Processing, pp. 311–82. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cohen, C. E. and Ebbesen, E. B. 1979. ‘Observational goals and schema activation: a theoretical framework for behavior perception’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 15: 305–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Comrie, B. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Comrie, B. 1981. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Conditt, M. A., Gandolfo, F., and Mussa-Ivaldi, F. A. 1997. ‘The motor system does not learn the dynamics of the arm by rote memorization of past experience’, Journal of Neurophysiology 78: 554–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Croft, W. 1990. ‘Possible verbs and the structure of events’, in Tsohatzidis, S. L. (ed.), Meanings and Prototypes: Studies in Linguistic Categorization, pp. 48–73. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Dahl, Ö. 1985. Tense and Aspect Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Davenport, J. L. and Potter, M. C. 2004. ‘Scene consistency in object and background perception’, Psychological Science 15: 559–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

David, C. 2003. Les “verbs of putting”: Typologie, schéma syntaxique et organisation sémantique des constructions prépositionnelles en anglais contemporain. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Université de Poitiers, Poitiers.

Davidson, D. 1967. ‘The logical form of action sentences’, in Rescher, N. (ed.), The Logic of Decision and Action, pp. 81–95. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar

Davidson, P. R. and Wolpert, D. M. 2004. ‘Internal models underlying grasp can be additively combined’, Experimental Brain Research 155: 334–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Davies, J. 1981. Kobon. Lingua Descriptiva Series 3. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar

Ruiter, J. P. 2000. ‘The production of gesture and speech’, in McNeill, D. (ed.), Language and Gesture: Window into Thought and Action, pp. 284–311. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ruiter, J. P. 2007. ‘Postcards from the mind: The relationship between speech, gesture and thought’, Gesture 7(1): 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Delorme, A., Richard, G., and Fabre-Thorpe, M. 2000. ‘Ultra-rapid categorization of natural scenes does not rely on color cues: a study in monkeys and humans’, Vision Research 40: 2187–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Deringil, S. 2002. İktidarın Sembolleri ve İdeoloji: II. Abdülhamid Dönemi (1876–1909), [The symbols of power and ideology: The era of II. Abdülhamid (1876–1909)] İstanbul: Yapi Kredi Press.Google Scholar

Deubel, H. and Schneider, W. X. 1996. ‘Saccade target selection and object recognition: Evidence for a common attentional mechanism’, Vision Research 36: 1827–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Dickinson, C. 2002. Complex predicates in Tsafiki. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Oregon.

Dixon, R. M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dobel, C. ms. ‘Interaction of vision and language in the description of action events’. Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster.

Dobel, C., Gumnior, H., Bölte, J., and Zwitserlood, P. 2007. ‘Describing scenes hardly seen’, Acta Psychologica 125: 129–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dowe, P. 2000. Physical Causation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dowe, P. 2001. ‘A counterfactual theory of prevention and “causation” by omission’, Australasian Journal of Philosophy 79: 216–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dowe, P. 2007. ‘Causal processes’, in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu.Google Scholar

Dowty, D. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Synthese Language Library. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dowty, D. 1991. ‘Thematic roles and argument selection’, Language 67: 547–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Du Bois, J. 1987. ‘The discourse basis of ergativity’, Language 63(4): 805–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Duncan, S. 1996. Grammatical form and ‘thinking-for-speaking’ in Mandarin Chinese and English: An analysis based on speech-accompanying gesture. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Chicago, Chicago.

Durie, M. 1997. ‘Grammatical structure in verb serialization’, in Alsina, A., Bresnan, J. and Sells, P. (eds.), Complex Predicates, pp. 289–354. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Emmorey, K. 2002. Language, Cognition, and the Brain: Insights from Sign Language Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Emmorey, K. (ed.) 2003. Perspectives on Classifier Constructions in Sign Languages. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Emmorey, K. and Falgier, B. 1999. ‘Talking about space with space: Describing environments in ASL’, in Winston, E. (ed.), Storytelling and Conversation: Discourse in Deaf Communities, pp. 3–26. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar

Engberg-Pedersen, E. 1993. Space in Danish Sign Language: The Semantics and Morphosyntax of the Use of Space in a Visual Language. Hamburg: Signum Press.Google Scholar

Engberg-Pedersen, E. 1995. ‘Point of view expressed through shifters’, in Emmorey, K. and Reilly, J. (eds.), Language, Gesture and Space, pp. 133–55. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Fabre-Thorpe, M., Delorme, A., Marlot, C., and Thorpe, S. 2001. ‘A limit to the speed of processing in ultra-rapid visual categorization of novel natural scenes’, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 13: 171–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Fair, D. 1979. ‘Causation and the flow of energy’, Erkenntnis 14: 219–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Farr, C. 1999. The Interface Between Syntax and Discourse in Korafe, a Papuan Language of Papua New Guinea. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar

Ferreira, F. 2000. ‘Syntax in language production: An approach using tree-adjoining grammars’, in Wheeldon, L. (ed.), Aspects of Language Production, pp. 291–330. London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Fieandt, K. and Gibson, J. J. 1959. ‘The sensitivity of the eye to two kinds of continuous transformation of a shadow pattern’, Journal of Experimental Psychology 57: 344–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fillmore, C. J. 1968. ‘The case for case’, in Bach, E. and Harms, R. T. (eds.), Universals of Linguistic Theory, pp. 1–90. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar

Fillmore, C. J. 1972. ‘Subjects, speakers and roles’, in Davidson, D. and Harman, G. (eds.), Semantics of Natural Language, pp. 1–24. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar

Finkbeiner, M., Nicol, J., Greth, D., and Nakamura, K. 2002. ‘The role of language in memory for actions’, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 31(5): 447–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Fodor, J. 1970. ‘Three reasons not to derive “kill” from “cause to die”’, Linguistic Inquiry 1: 429–438.Google Scholar

Foley, W. and Olson, M. 1985. ‘Clausehood and verb serialization’, in Nichols, J. and Woodbury, A. C. (eds.), Grammar Inside and Outside the Clause, pp. 17–60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Foley, W. and Valin Jr., R. D. 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Foot, P. 1967. ‘The problem of abortion and the doctrine of double effect’, Oxford Review 5: 5–15. Reprinted in Steinbock, B. and Norcross, A. (eds.), Killing and Letting Die, 2nd edn, pp. 266–79. New York: Fordham University Press.Google Scholar

Frey, W. 2000. ‘Über die syntaktische Position des Satztopiks im Deutschen’, Issues on Topics. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 20: 137–72.Google Scholar

Freyd, J. J., Pantzer, T. M., and Cheng, J. L. 1988. ‘Representing statics as forces in equilibrium’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 117: 395–407.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Fridman-Mintz, B. and Liddell, S. K. 1998. ‘Sequencing mental spaces in an ASL narrative’, in Koenig, J. P. (ed.), Discourse and Cognition: Bridging the Gap, pp. 255–68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Gennari, S. P., Sloman, S. A., Malt, B. C., and Fitch, W. 2002. ‘Motion events in language and cognition’, Cognition 83(1): 49–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Gernsbacher, M. A. 1997. ‘Coherence cues mapping during comprehension’, in Costermans, J. and Fayol, M. (eds.), Processing Interclausal Relationships: Studies in the Production and Comprehension of Text, pp. 3–22. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Givón, T. 1979. ‘From discourse to syntax: grammar as a processing strategy’, in Givón, T. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, vol. 12: Discourse and Syntax, pp. 81–112. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Givón, T. 1984. Syntax. A Functional-typological Introduction, vol. 1. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Givón, T. 1990. ‘Verb serialization in Tok Pisin and Kalam: a comparative study of temporal packaging’, in Verhaar, J. (ed.), Melanesian Pidgin and Tok Pisin, pp. 19–56. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Givón, T. 1991a. ‘Serial verbs and event cognition in Kalam: an empirical study of cultural relativity’, in Lefebvre, C. (ed.), Serial Verbs: Grammatical, Comparative and Universal Grammar, pp. 137–84. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Givón, T. 1991b. ‘Serial verbs and the mental reality of “event”’, in Traugott, E. C. and Heine, B. (eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization, vol. 1, pp. 81–227. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Glanemann, R., 2008. ‘To See or Not to See: Action Scenes Out of the Corner of the Eye’. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Münster, http://miami.uni-meunster.de/resolver/urn:nbn:de:hbz:6-84599565282.

Gleitman, L. R. 1990. ‘The structural sources of verb meanings’, Language Acquisition, 1(1): 3–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Godfrey-Smith, P. forthcoming. ‘Causal pluralism’, in Beebee, H., Hitchcock, C., and Menzies, P. (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Causation.

Goldberg, A. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Goldin-Meadow, S. 2003. Hearing Gesture: How Our Hands Help Us Think. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar

Goldman-Eisler, F. 1968. Psycholinguistics: Experiments in Spontaneous Speech. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Goldstein, E. B. 2002. Sensation and Perception. Wadsworth: Thomson Learning.Google Scholar

Goldvarg, E. and Johnson-Laird, P. 2001. ‘Naive causality: A mental model theory of causal meaning and reasoning’, Cognitive Science 25: 565–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gopnik, A., Glymour, C., Sobel, D., Shulz, L., Kushnir, T., and Danks, D. 2004. ‘A theory of causal learning in children: Causal maps and Bayes nets’, Psychological Review 111: 1–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Grace, G. 1981. An Essay on Language. Columbia, SC: Hornbeam Press.Google Scholar

Grace, G. 1987. The Linguistic Construction of Reality. London/New York/Sydney: Croom Helm.Google Scholar

Graham, J. A. and Argyle, M. 1975. ‘A cross-cultural study of the communication of extra-verbal meaning by gestures’, International Journal of Psychology 10(1): 56–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Green, D. W. 1998. ‘Bilingualism and thought’, Psychologica Belgica 38(3/4): 251–76.Google Scholar

Griffin, Z. M. 2001. ‘Gaze durations during speech reflect word selection and phonological encoding’, Cognition 82: B1–B14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Griffin, Z. M. 2004. ‘Why look? Reasons for eye movements related to language production’, in Henderson, J. M. and Ferreira, F. (eds.), The Interface of Language, Vision, and Action: Eye Movements and the Visual World, pp. 213–48. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Griffin, Z. M. and Bock, K. 2000. ‘What the eyes say about speaking’, Psychological Science 4: 274–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Guariglia, C. and Antonucci, G. 1992. ‘Personal and extrapersonal space: A case of neglect dissociation’, Neuropsychologia 30(11): 1001–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Gullberg, M. 1998. Gesture as a Communication Strategy in Second Language Discourse. A Study of Learners of French and Swedish. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar

Gullberg, M. 2003. ‘Gestures, referents, and anaphoric linkage in learner varieties’, in Dimroth, C. and Starren, M. (eds.), Information Structure and the Dynamics of Language Acquisition, pp. 311–28. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gullberg, M. 2006. ‘Handling discourse: Gestures, reference tracking, and communication strategies in early L2’, Language Learning 56(1): 155–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gullberg, M. 2009. ‘Why gestures are relevant to the multilingual mental lexicon’, in Pavlenko, A. (ed.), The Multilingual Mental Lexicon, pp. 161–84. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Gullberg, M. ms. ‘What learners mean. Gestures and semantic reorganisation of placement verbs in advanced second language production’.

Gullberg, M. and Burenhult, N. forthcoming. ‘Probing the linguistic encoding of placement and removal events in Swedish’, in Kopecka, A. and Narasimhan, B. (eds.), Events of “putting” and “taking”: A Crosslinguistic Perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Gullberg, M. and Narasimhan, B. 2010. ‘What gestures reveal about the development of Dutch children's placement verbs’, Cognitive Linguistics 21: 239–62.

Gumperz, J. J. and Levinson, S. C. (eds.) 1996a. Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Gumperz, J. J. and Levinson, S. C. 1996b. ‘Introduction: Linguistic relativity re-examined’, in Gumperz, J. J. and Levinson, S. C. (eds.), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity, pp. 1–18. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hall, N. 2004. ‘Two concepts of causation’, in Collins, J., Hall, N., and Paul, L. (eds.), Causation and Counterfactuals, pp. 225–76. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Hansson, K. and Bruce, B. 2002. ‘Verbs of placement in Swedish children with SLI’, International Journal of Communication Disorders 37(4): 401–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Hard, B. M., Recchia, G., and Tversky, B. ms. ‘The shape of action’.

Hard, B. M., Tversky, B., and Lang, D. S. 2006. ‘Making sense of abstract events: Building event schemas’, Memory and Cognition 34: 1221–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Hardin, C. L. and Maffi, L. (eds.) 1997. Color Categories in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hasegawa, Y. 1996. ‘A study of Japanese clause linkage: the connective TE in Japanese’, Studies in Japanese Linguistics 5. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Hayashi, A. 2003. Lexicalization of motion events in Japanese. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Oregon.

Hazout, I. 2004. ‘The syntax of existential constructions’, Linguistic Inquiry 35: 393–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heeschen, V. 2001. ‘Event-formulas: sentences as minimal narratives’, in Pawley, A., Ross, M., and Tryon, D. (eds.), The Boy from Bundaberg: Studies in Melanesian Linguistics in Honour of Tom Dutton, pp. 155–73. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar

Hegarty, M. 2004. ‘Mechanical reasoning by mental simulation’, TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences 8: 280–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Heider, F. and Simmel, M. 1944. ‘An experimental study of apparent behavior’, American Journal of Psychology 57: 243–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Henderson, J. M. and Ferreira, F. 2004a. ‘Scene perception for psycholinguists’, in Henderson, J. M. and Ferreira, F. (eds.), The Interface of Language, Vision, and Action: Eye Movements and the Visual Word, pp. 1–58. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Henderson, J. M. and Ferreira, F. (eds.) 2004b. The Interface of Language, Vision, and Action: Eye Movements and the Visual Word. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Hetzron, H. 1975. ‘The presentative movement, or why the ideal word order is V.S.O.P.’, in Li, C. N. (ed.), Word Order and Word Order Change, pp. 345–88. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

Heuer, H. and Keele, S. W. (eds.) 1996. Handbook of Perception and Action, vol. 2: Motor Skills. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Hickmann, M. 2007. ‘Static and dynamic location in French: Developmental and crosslinguistic perspectives’, in Aurnague, M., Hickmann, M., and Vieu, L. (eds.), The Categorization of Spatial Entities in Language and Cognition, pp. 205–31. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hickmann, M. and Hendriks, H. 2006. ‘Static and dynamic location in French and English’, First Language 26(1): 103–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Higginbotham, J. 2000. ‘On events in linguistic semantics’, in Higginbotham, J., Pianesi, F., and Varzi, A. C. (eds.), Speaking of Events, pp. 49–79. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Higginbotham, J., Pianesi, F., and Varzi, A. C. 2000. Speaking of Events. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hinder, M. R. and Milner, T. E. 2003. ‘The case for an internal dynamics model versus equilibrium point control in human movement’, Journal of Physiology 549: 953–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Hitchcock, C. 2001. ‘The intransitivity of causation revealed in equations and graphs’, Journal of Philosophy 98: 273–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hitchcock, C. 2002. ‘Probabilistic causation’, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-probabilistic/

Hoffman, D. D. 2000. Visual Intelligence: How We Create What We See. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.Google Scholar

Hoffman, D. D. and Richards, W. A. 1984. ‘Parts of recognition’, Cognition 18: 65–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Hoffman, J. E. and Subramaniam, B. 1995. ‘The role of visual attention in saccadic eye movements’, Perception and Psychophysics 57: 787–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Holler, J. and Beattie, G. 2003. ‘Pragmatic aspects of representational gestures. Do speakers use them to clarify verbal ambiguity for the listener?’, Gesture 3(2): 127–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hollingworth, A. and Henderson, J. 1998. ‘Does consistent scene context facilitate object perception?’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 127: 398–415.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Hume, D. 1978 (1739). A Treatise of Human Nature, ed. by L. A. Selby-Bigge, 2nd edn, revised by P. H. Nidditch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Imamizu, H., Uno, Y., and Kawato, M. 1995. ‘Internal representations of the motor apparatus: Implications from generalization in visuomotor learning’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 21: 1174–98.Google ScholarPubMed

Irwin, D. E. 1992. ‘Memory for position and identity across eye movements’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 18: 307–17.Google Scholar

Irwin, D. E. and Gordon, R. D. 1998. ‘Eye movements, attention and trans-saccadic memory’, Visual Cognition 5: 127–55.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, R. 1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, R. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Jenkins, J. J., Wald, J., and Pittenger, J. B. 1986. ‘Apprehending pictorial events’, in McCabe, V. and Balzano, G. J. (eds.), Event Cognition: An Ecological Perspective, pp. 117–33. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Jespersen, O. 1965. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, vol. VI: Morphology. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar

Johansson, G. 1973. ‘Visual perception of biological motion and a model for its analysis’, Perception and Psychophysics 14: 201–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Johansson, G. 1975. ‘Visual motion perception’, Scientific American 232(6): 76–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kamp, H. 1979. ‘Events, instants and temporal reference’, in Bauerle, R., Egli, U., and Stechow, A. (eds.), Semantics from Different Points of View, pp. 27–54. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Kamp, H. and Reyle, U. 1993. From Discourse to Logic: Introduction to Model Theoretic Semantics of Natural Language, Formal Logic and Discourse Representation Theory. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Kaufman, L. 1974. Sight and Mind. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Kawato, M. 1999. ‘Internal models for motor control and trajectory planning’, Current Opinion in Neurobiology 9: 718–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Kay, P. and Kempton, W. 1984. ‘What is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis?’, American Anthropologist 86(1): 65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kellerman, E. 1995. ‘Crosslinguistic influence: Transfer to nowhere?’, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 15: 125–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kelly, S. D., Barr, D. J., Breckinridge Church, R., and Lynch, K. 1999. ‘Offering a hand to pragmatic understanding: The role of speech and gesture in comprehension and memory’, Journal of Memory and Language 40(4): 577–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kemmer, S. and Verhagen, A. 1994. ‘The grammar of causatives and the conceptual structure of events’, Cognitive Linguistics 5: 115–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kendon, A. 1980. ‘Gesticulation and speech: Two aspects of the process of utterance’, in Key, M. R. (ed.), The Relationship of Verbal and Nonverbal Communication, pp. 207–27. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Kendon, A. 2004. Gesture. Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kita, S. 1999. ‘Japanese enter/exit verbs without motion semantics’, Studies in Language 23(2): 307–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kita, S. and Özyürek, A. 2003. ‘What does cross-linguistic variation in semantic coordination of speech and gesture reveal?: Evidence for an interface representation of spatial thinking and speaking’, Journal of Memory and Language 48(1): 16–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kita, S., Gijn, I., and Hulst, H. 1998. ‘Movement phases in signs and co-speech gestures, and their transcription by human coders’, in Wachsmuth, I. and Fröhlich, M. (eds.), Gesture and Sign Language in Human–Computer Interaction, pp. 23–35. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Klein, W. 1994. Time in Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Klein, W. 2006. ‘On finiteness’, in Geenhoven, V. (ed.), Semantics in Acquisition, pp. 245–72. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Klein, W., Li, P., and Hendricks, H. 2000. ‘Aspect and assertion in Mandarin Chinese’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 723–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kopecka, A. and Narasimhan, B. (eds.) forthcoming. Events of “putting” and “taking”: A Crosslinguistic Perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRef

Kosslyn, S. M. 1980. Image and Mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Krauss, R. K., Chen, Y., and Gottesman, R. F. 2000. ‘Lexical gestures and lexical access: a process model’, in McNeill, D. (ed.), Language and Gesture, pp. 261–83. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kreysa, H., Glanemann, R., Bölte, J., Zwitserlood, P., and Dobel, C. ms. ‘Where is the action? An eyetracking study on the description of photorealistic events’.

Krifka, M. 1998. ‘The origins of telicity’, in Rothstein, S. (ed.), Events and Grammar, pp. 197–235. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kruschke, J. K. and Fragassi, M. M. 1996. ‘The perception of causality: Feature binding in interacting objects’, in Cottrell, G. W. (ed.), Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 441–6. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Küntay, A. and Slobin, D. I. 1996. ‘Listening to a Turkish mother: Some puzzles for acquisition’, in Slobin, D. I.Gerhardt, J.Kyratzis, A., and Guo, J. (eds.), Social Interaction, Social Context, and Language: Essays in Honor of Susan Ervin-Tripp, pp. 265–86. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Kurby, C. A., Zacks, J. M., Shriver, S., Mehta, R., and Brewer, S. 2008. ‘Event memory and hierarchical segmentation in younger and older adults’, Cognitive Aging Conference, Atlanta,Georgia.Google Scholar

Kurtzer, I., Herter, T. M., and Scott, S. H. 2005. ‘Random change in cortical load representation suggests distinct control of posture and movement’, Nature Neuroscience 8: 498–504.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Heij, W. 2005. ‘Selection processes in monolingual and bilingual lexical access’, in Kroll, J. F. and Groot, A. M. (eds.), Handbook of Bilingualism. Psycholinguistic Approaches, pp. 289–307. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Labov, W. 1973. Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar

Lambrecht, K. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representation of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lane, J. 2007. Kalam Serial Verb Constructions. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar

Lascarides, A. 1992. ‘Knowledges, causality, and temporal representation’, Linguistics 30(5): 941–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lemmens, M. 2002a. ‘The semantic network of Dutch posture verbs’, in Newman, J. (ed.), The Linguistics of Sitting, Standing, and Lying, pp. 103–39. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lemmens, M. 2002b. ‘Tracing referent location in oral picture descriptions’, in Wilson, A., Rayson, P. and McEnery, T. (eds.), A Rainbow of Corpora. Corpus Linguistics and the Languages of the World, pp. 73–85. München: Lincom-Europa.Google Scholar

Lemmens, M. 2006. ‘Caused posture: experiential patterns emerging from corpus research’, in Stefanowitsch, A. and Gries, S. (eds.), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics. Corpus-based Approaches to Syntax and Lexis, pp. 263–98. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Leslie, A. M. 1984. ‘Spatiotemporal continuity and the perception of causality in infants’, Perception 13: 287–305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Leslie, A. M. and Keeble, S. 1987. ‘Do six-month-old infants perceive causality?’, Cognition 25: 265–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Lesser, H. 1977. ‘The growth of perceived causality in children’, The Journal of Genetic Psychology 130: 145–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levelt, W. J. M. 1989. Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books/MIT Press.Google Scholar

Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., and Meyer, A. S. 1999. ‘A theory of lexical access in speech production’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22: 1–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Levin, B. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Levin, B. 2007. ‘The lexical semantics of verbs I: Introduction’, 2007 Summer Institute of Linguistics at Stanford University, manuscript handout.

Levin, B. and Rappaport Hovav, M. 1994. ‘A preliminary analysis of causative verbs in English’, Lingua 92: 35–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levin, B. and Rappaport Hovav, M. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Levin, B. and Rappaport Hovav, M. 1996. ‘From lexical semantics to argument realization’, in Borer, H. (ed.), Handbook of Morphosyntax and Argument Structure. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. 1996. ‘Frames of reference and Molyneux's question: Cross-linguistic evidence’, in Bloom, P., Peterson, M. A., Nadel, L., and Garrett, M. (eds.), Space and Language, pp. 109–69. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Levinson, S. C. 2000. ‘Yélî dnye and the theory of basic color terms’, Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 10: 3–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levinson, S. C. 2003. Space in Language and Cognition: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levinson, S. C., Meira, S., and the Language and Cognition Group 2003. ‘Natural concepts’ in the spatial topological domain – adpositional meanings in cross-linguistic perspective: an exercise in semantic typology', Language 79(3): 485–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levinson, S. C. and Wilkins, D. P. 2006a. ‘The background to the study of the language of space’, in Levinson, S. C. and Wilkins, D. P. (eds.), Grammars of Space. Explorations in Cognitive Diversity, pp. 1–23. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levinson, S. C. and Wilkins, D. P. (eds.) 2006b. Grammars of Space: Towards a Semantic Typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levy, E. T. and McNeill, D. 1992. ‘Speech, gesture, and discourse’, Discourse Processes 15(3): 277–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lewis, D. 1973. ‘Causation’, Journal of Philosophy 70: 556–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lewis, D. 1986. On The Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Lewis, D. 2000. ‘Causation as influence’, Journal of Philosophy 97: 182–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Li, F. F., Rullen, R., Koch, C., and Perona, P. 2002. ‘Rapid natural scene categorization in the near absence of attention’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 99: 9596–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Liddell, S. K. 1994. ‘Tokens and surrogates’, in Ahlgren, I., Bergman, B., and Brennan, M. (eds.), Perspectives on Sign Language Structure. Papers from the 5th International Symposium on Sign Language Research held in Salamanca, Spain, May 25–30, 1992, vol. 1, pp. 105–19. Durham: Isla.Google Scholar

Liddell, S. K. 1995. ‘Real, surrogate, and token space: Grammatical consequences in ASL’, in Emmorey, K. and Reilly, J. (eds.), Language, Gesture, and Space, pp. 19–41. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Liddell, S. K. 2003. Grammar, Gesture, and Meaning in American Sign Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Liddell, S. K. and Metzger, M. 1998. ‘Gesture in sign language discourse’, Journal of Pragmatics 30: 657–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lillo-Martin, D. 1995. ‘The point of view predicate in American Sign Language’, in Emmorey, K. and Reilly, J. (eds.), Language, Gesture, and Space, pp. 155–70. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Lillo-Martin, D. and Klima, E. 1990. ‘Pointing out differences: ASL pronouns in syntactic theory’, in Fischer, S. and Siple, P. (eds.), Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research, vol. 1, pp. 191–210. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Livengood, J. and Machery, E. 2007. ‘The folk probably don't think what you think they think: Experiments on causation by absence’, Midwest Studies in Philosophy 31: 107–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Loftus, E. 1980 [1996]. Eyewitness Testimony. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Lucy, J. A. 1992. Language Diversity and Thought: A Reformulation of the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lucy, J. A. and Gaskins, S. 2001. ‘Grammatical categories and the development of classification preferences: A comparative approach’, in Levinson, S. C. and Bowerman, M. (eds.), Language Acquisition and Conceptual Development, pp. 257–83. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Luhtala, A. 2002. ‘On definitions in ancient grammar’, in Swiggers, P. and Wouters, A. (eds.), Grammatical Theory and Philosophy of Language in Antiquity, pp. 257–85. Leuven: Peeters Publishers.Google Scholar

Mackie, J. L. 1974. The Cement of the Universe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Majid, A., Staden, M., Boster, J., and Bowerman, M. 2004. ‘Event categorization: A cross-linguistic perspective’, in Forbus, K., Gentner, D., and Regier, T. (eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, pp. 885–90. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Majnep, I. S. and Bulmer, R. 1983. ‘Some food plants in our Kalam forests’, Department of Anthropology Working Papers no. 63, University of Auckland.

Majnep, I. S. and Bulmer, R. 1990. Aps basd skop kmn ak pak ñbelgpal. Kalam hunting traditions, Vols 1–6, ed. by A. Pawley. University of Auckland. Department of Anthropology Working Papers nos. 85–90.Google Scholar

Majnep, I. S. and Bulmer, R. n.d. Kalam hunting traditions. Department of Anthropology Working Papers nos. 7–12, ed. by Pawley, A.. Printout. Department of Linguistics, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University.

Majnep, I. S. and Pawley, A. n.d. Kalam plant lore. Computer printout. Department of Linguistics, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University.

Mandel, D. R. and Lehman, D. R. 1996. ‘Counterfactual thinking and ascriptions of cause and preventability’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71: 450–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Margetts, A. and Austin, P. 2007. ‘Three-participant events in the languages of the world: towards a cross-linguistic typology’, Linguistics 45: 393–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Matsumoto, Y. 2003. ‘Typologies of lexicalization patterns and event integration: Clarifications and reformulations’, in Chiba, S. (ed.), Empirical and Theoretical Investigations into Language: A Festschrift for Masaru Kajita, pp. 403–18. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar

Mayberry, R. I. and Jaques, J. 2000. ‘Gesture production during stuttered speech: insights into the nature of gesture–speech integration’, in McNeill, D. (ed.), Language and Gesture, pp. 199–214. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mayberry, R. I. and Nicoladis, E. 2000. ‘Gesture reflects language development: Evidence from bilingual children’, Current Directions in Psychological Science 9(6): 192–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mayer, M. 1969. Frog, where are you?New York: Dial Press.Google Scholar

McCabe, V. and Balzano, G. J. (eds.) 1986. Event Cognition: An Ecological Perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

McClave, E. 2001. ‘The relationship between spontaneous gestures of the hearing and American Sign Language’. Gesture 1:1, 51–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McDonald, B. H. 1982. Aspects of the American Sign Language predicate system. Unpublished PhD dissertation, State University of New York, Buffalo.

McGrath, S. 2003. ‘Causation and the making/allowing distinction’, Philosophical Studies 114: 81–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McGrath, S. 2005. ‘Causation by omission: A dilemma’, Philosophical Studies 123: 125–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McMahan, J. 1993. ‘Killing, letting die, and withdrawing aid’, Ethics 103: 250–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

McNally, L. 2009. ‘Properties, entity correlates of properties, and existentials’, in Giannakidou, A. and Rathert, M. (eds.), Quantification, Definiteness, and Nominalization, pp. 163–87. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

McNeill, D. 1985. ‘So you think gestures are nonverbal?’, Psychological Review 92(3): 271–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McNeill, D. 1992. Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

McNeill, D. 2000a. ‘Analogic/Analytic representations and cross-linguistic differences in thinking for speaking’, Cognitive Linguistics 11(1/2): 43–60.Google Scholar

McNeill, D. 2000b. ‘Growth points, catchments, and contexts’, Cognitive Studies. Bulletin of the Japanese Cognitive Science Society 7(1): 22–36.Google Scholar

McNeill, D. 2005. Gesture and Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McNeill, D. and Duncan, S. D. 2000. ‘Growth points in thinking-for-speaking’, in McNeill, D. (ed.), Language and Gesture, pp. 141–61. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McNeill, D. and Levy, E. T. 1982. ‘Conceptual representations in language activity and gesture’, in Jarvella, R. J. and Klein, W. (eds.), Speech, Place, and Action. Studies in Deixis and Related Topics, pp. 271–95. Chichester: John Wiley.Google Scholar

McNeill, D., Levy, E. T., and Cassell, J. 1993. ‘Abstract deixis’, Semiotica 95(1/2): 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Meier, R. P. 2002. ‘Why different, why the same?’, in Meier, R. P., Cormier, K., Quinto-Pozos, D. (eds.), Modality and Structure in Signed and Spoken Languages, pp. 1–25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Melinger, A. and Levelt, W. J. M. 2004. ‘Gesture and the communicative intention of the speaker’, Gesture 4(2): 119–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Menzies, P. 2004. ‘Difference-making in context’, in Collins, J., Hall, N., and Paul, L. (eds.), Causation and Counterfactuals, pp. 139–80. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Metzger, M. 1995. ‘Constructed dialogue and constructed action in American Sign Language’, in Lucas, C. (ed.), Sociolinguistics in Deaf Communities, pp. 255–71. Washington DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar

Meulen, F. F. 2001. Moving Eyes and Naming Objects. MPI series in psycholinguistics. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute.Google Scholar

Meyer, A. S. 2004. ‘The use of eye tracking in studies of sentence generation’, in Henderson, J. M. and Ferreira, F. (eds.), The Interface of Language, Vision, and Action, pp. 191–212. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Meyer, A. S. and Dobel, C. 2003. ‘Application of eye tracking in speech production research’, in Hyönä, J., Radach, R., and Deubel, H. (eds.), The Mind's Eye: Cognitive and Applied Aspects of Eye Movement Research, pp. 253–72. Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Meyer, A. S. and Meulen, F. F. 2000. ‘Phonological priming effects on speech onset latencies and viewing times in object naming’, Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 7: 314–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Meyer, A. S., Sleiderink, A. M., and Levelt, W. J. M. 1998. ‘Viewing and naming objects: eye movements during noun phrase production’, Cognition 66: B25–B33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Michotte, A. E. 1963 [1946]. The Perception of Causality. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Michotte, A. E. and Thinès, G. 1963. ‘La causalité perceptive [Perceptual causality]’, Journal de Psychologie Normale et Pathologique 60: 9–36. Reprinted [1991] in G. Thinès, A. Costall and G. Butterworth (eds.), Michotte's Experimental Phenomenology of Perception, pp. 66–87. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. (English translation by the editors.)Google Scholar

Miles, M. 2000. ‘Signing in the Seraglio: Mutes, dwarfs and gestures at the Ottoman Court 1500–1700’, Disability & Society 15(1): 115–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Milner, T. E. and Franklin, D. W. 2005. ‘Impedance control and internal model use during the initial stage of adaptation to novel dynamics in humans’, Journal of Physiology 567: 651–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Milner, T. E., Franklin, D. W., Imamizu, H., and Kawato, M. 2007. ‘Central control of grasp: Manipulation of objects with complex and simple dynamics’, Neuroimage 36: 388–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Morgan, G. 1999. ‘Event packaging in BSL discourse’, in Winston, E. (ed.), Storytelling and Conversation: Discourse in Deaf Communities, pp. 27–58. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar

Morgan, J. L. and Meyer, A. S. 2005. ‘Processing of extrafoveal objects during multiple-object naming’, Journal of Experimental Psychology 31: 428–42.Google ScholarPubMed

Morrison, J. B. and Tversky, B. 2005. ‘Bodies and their parts’, Memory and Cognition, 33: 696–709.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Müller, C. 1994. ‘Semantic structure of motional gestures and lexicalization patterns in Spanish and German descriptions of motion-events’, in Beals, K., Denton, J. M., Knippen, R., Melnar, L., Suzuki, H., and Zeinfeld, E. (eds.), Papers from the Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. The main session, vol. 30, pp. 281–95. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

Müller, C. 1998. Redebegleitende Gesten. Kulturgeschichte-Theorie-Sprachvergleich. Berlin: Berlin Verlag Arno Spitz GmbH.Google Scholar

Naigles, L. R. and Hoff-Ginsberg, E. 1998. ‘Why are some verbs learned before other verbs? Effects of input frequency and structure on children's early verb use’, Journal of Child Language 25: 95–120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Naigles, L. R. and Terrazas, P. 1998. ‘Motion-verb generalizations in English and Spanish: Influences of language and syntax’, Psychological Science 9(5): 363–9.CrossRef

Naigles, L. R., Eisenberg, A. R., Kako, E. T., Highter, M., and McGraw, N. 1998. ‘Speaking of motion: Verb use in English and Spanish’, Language & Cognitive Processes 13(5): 521–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Narasimhan, B. and Brown, P. 2008. ‘Getting the INSIDE story: Learning to talk about containment in Tzeltal and Hindi’, in Mueller Gathercole, V. C. (ed.), Routes to Language: Studies in Honor of Melissa Bowerman, pp. 97–132. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Narasimhan, B. and Gullberg, M. 2006. ‘Perspective-shifts in event descriptions in Tamil child language’, Journal of Child Language 33(1): 99–124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Narasimhan, B. and Gullberg, M. 2010. ‘The role of input frequency and semantic transparency in the acquisition of verb meaning: evidence from placement verbs in Tamil and Dutch.’ Journal of Child Language doi: 10.1017/S0305 00091 0000164.Google ScholarPubMed

Narasimhan, B., Eisenbeiß, S., and Brown, P. 2007a. ‘Two's company, more is a crowd: the linguistic encoding of multiple-participant events’, Linguistics 45(3): 383–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Narasimhan, B., Eisenbeiß, S., and Brown, P. (eds.) 2007b. ‘Special issue on the linguistic encoding of multiple-participant events’, Linguistics 45(3): 383–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Neumann, O. and Sanders, A. F. (eds.) 1996. Handbook of Perception and Action, vol. 3: Attention. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Newman, J. 2002a. ‘A cross-linguistic overview of the posture verbs “sit”, “stand”, and “lie”’, in Newman, J. (ed.), The Linguistics of Sitting, Standing, and Lying, pp. 1–24. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Newman, J. (ed.). 2002b. The Linguistics of Sitting, Standing, and Lying. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Newman, J. and Rice, S. 2004. ‘Patterns of usage for English SIT, STAND, and LIE: A cognitively inspired exploration in corpus linguistics’, Cognitive Linguistics 15(3): 351–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Newport, E. and Supalla, T. 2000. ‘Sign language research at the millennium’, in Emmorey, K. and Lane, H. (eds.), The Signs of Language Revisited. An Anthology to Honor Ursula Bellugi and Edward Klima, pp. 103–14. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Newtson, D. 1973. ‘Attribution and the unit of perception of ongoing behavior’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 28(1): 28–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Newtson, D. and Engquist, G. 1976. ‘The perceptual organization of ongoing behavior’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 12(5): 436–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nyst, V. 2004. ‘Verb series of non-agentive motion in Adamorobe Sign Language (Ghana)’, poster presented at Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research 8, held in Barcelona, Spain, Sept. 30–Oct. 2, 2004.

Nyst, V. 2007. A descriptive analysis of Adamorobe Sign Language (Ghana). Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam.

Oakes, L. M. 1994. ‘The development of infants’ use of continuity cues in their perception of causality', Developmental Psychology 30: 869–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Odlin, T. 2005. ‘Crosslinguistic influence and conceptual transfer: What are the concepts?’, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 25: 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Oh, K. J. 2003. Language, cognition, and development: motion events in English and Korean. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.

Ohta, K. and Laboissière, R. 2006. ‘Underlying principles of trajectory formation for human movement in dynamical environments’, International Congress Series 1291: 97–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Oliva, A. and Torralba, A. 2001. ‘Modeling the shape of the scene: A holistic representation of the spatial envelope’, International Journal of Computer Vision 42: 145–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Oliva, A., Wolfe, J. M., and Arsenio, H. C. 2004. ‘Panoramic search: the interaction of memory and vision in search through a familiar scene’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 30: 1132–46.Google ScholarPubMed

Özyürek, A., Kita, S., Allen, S. E. M., Furman, R., and Brown, A. 2005. ‘How does linguistic framing of events influence co-speech gestures? Insights from cross-linguistic variations and similarities’, Gesture 5(1/2): 219–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Özyürek, A., Willems, R. M., Kita, S., and Hagoort, P. 2007. ‘On-line integration of semantic information from speech and gesture: Insights from event-related brain potentials’, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 19: 605–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Palmer, S., Rosch, E., and Chase, P. 1981. ‘Canonical perspective and the perception of objects’, in Long, J. B. and Baddeley, A. D. (eds.), Attention and Performance, IX, pp. 135–51. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Papafragou, A., Massey, C., and Gleitman, L. 2002. ‘Shake, rattle, ’n' roll: The representation of motion in language and cognition', Cognition 84(2): 189–219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Papaxanthis, C., Pozzo, T., and McIntyre, J. 2005. ‘Kinematic and dynamic processes for the control of pointing movements in humans revealed by short-term exposure to microgravity’, Neuroscience 135: 371–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Parsons, P. 1990. Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Pauwels, P. 2000. Put, Set, Lay and Place: A Cognitive Linguistic Approach to Verbal Meaning. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar

Pavlenko, A. 1999. ‘New approaches to concepts in bilingual memory’, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 2(3): 209–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pawley, A. 1987. ‘Encoding events in Kalam and English: different logics for reporting experience’, in Tomlin, R. S. (ed.), Coherence and Grounding in Discourse, pp. 329–60. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pawley, A. 1993. ‘A language which defies description by ordinary means’, in Foley, W. (ed.), The Role of Theory in Language Description, pp. 87–129. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Pawley, A. 2008. ‘Compact versus narrative serial verb constructions in Kalam’, in Senft, G. (ed.), Serial Verb Constructions in Austronesian and Papuan Languages, pp. 171–202. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar

Pawley, A. and Bulmer, R. 2003. A Dictionary of Kalam with Ethnographic Notes. Printout. Department of Linguistics, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University.Google Scholar

Pawley, A. and Lane, J. 1998. ‘From event sequence to grammar: serial verb constructions in Kalam’, in Siewierska, A. and Jung, S. J. (eds.), Case, Typology and Grammar, pp. 201–27. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pawley, A. and Syder, F. 1983. ‘Two puzzles for linguistic theory: nativelike selection and nativelike fluency’, in Richards, J. and Schmidt, R. (eds.), Language and Communication, pp. 191–225. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Pawley, A. and Syder, F. 2000. ‘The one clause at a time hypothesis’, in Riggenbach, H. (ed.), Perspectives on Fluency, pp. 163–99. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar

Pederson, E. 1995. ‘Language as context, language as means: Spatial cognition and habitual language use’, Cognitive Linguistics 6(1): 33–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pederson, E., Danziger, E., Levinson, S. C., Kita, S., Senft, G., and Wilkins, D. P. 1998. ‘Semantic typology and spatial conceptualization’, Language 74(3): 557–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Penfield, W. and Rasmussen, T. 1950. The Cerebral Cortex of Man. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Perniss, P. 2007a. ‘Achieving spatial coherence in German Sign Language narratives: the use of classifiers and perspective’, Lingua 117: 1315–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Perniss, P. 2007b. ‘Locative functions of simultaneous perspective constructions in German Sign Language narratives’, in Vermeerbergen, M., Leeson, L., and Crasborn, O. (eds.), Simultaneity in Signed Languages: Form and Function, pp. 27–55. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Perniss, P. and Özyürek, A. 2004. ‘Differences in the expressions of spatial relationships in German (DGS) and Turkish (TİD) sign languages’, poster presented at Theoretical Issues in Sign Language Research 8, held in Barcelona, Spain, Sept. 30–Oct. 2, 2004.

Perniss, P. and Özyürek, A. 2008. ‘Representations of action, motion and location in sign space: A comparison of German (DGS) and Turkish (TİD) sign language narratives’, in Quer, J. (ed.), Signs of the Time: Selected Papers from TISLR8. Hamburg: Signum Press.Google Scholar

Piaget, J. and Inhelder, B. 1956. The Child's Conception of Space. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Pianesi, F. and Varzi, A. C. 2000. ‘Events and event talk: An introduction’, in Higginbotham, J., Pianesi, F., and Varzi, A. C. (eds.), Speaking of Events, pp. 3–47. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Pinker, S. 1989. Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Posner, M. I. 1980. ‘Orienting of attention’, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 32: 3–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Potter, M.C. 1975. ‘Meaning in visual search’, Science 187: 965–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Potter, M. C. and Levi, E. I. 1969. ‘Recognition memory for a rapid sequence of pictures’, Journal of Experimental Psychology 81: 10–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Prinz, W. 1997. ‘Perception and action planning’, European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 9: 129–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Prinz, W. and Bridgeman, B. (eds.) 1995. Handbook of Perception and Action, vol. 1: Perception. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Pulvermüller, F. 2005. ‘Brain mechanisms linking language and action’, Nature Reviews Neuroscience 6(7): 576–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Rayner, K. 1998. ‘Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research’, Psychological Bulletin 124: 372–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Reinhart, T. 2002. ‘The theta system: An overview’, Theoretical Linguistics 28: 229–90.Google Scholar

Reinkensmeyer, D. J., Emken, J. L., and Crammer, S. C. 2004. ‘Robotics, motor learning, and neurological recovery’, Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering 6: 497–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W., Johnson, D., and Boyes-Braem, P. 1976. ‘Basic objects in natural categories’, Cognitive Psychology 8: 382–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rothstein, S. (ed.) 1998a. Events and Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rothstein, S. 1998b. ‘Introduction’, in Rothstein, S. (ed.), Events and Grammar, pp. 1–11. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Russell, B. 1936. ‘On order in time’, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 32: 216–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Russell, B. 1948. Human Knowledge. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar

Ryle, G. 1949. The Concept of Mind. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar

Sachs, J. 1983. ‘Talking about the there and then: The emergence of displaced reference in parent–child discourse’, in Nelson, K. E. (ed.), Children's Language, vol. 4, pp. 1–28. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Sakel, J. 2004. A Grammar of Mosetén. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Salmon, W. 1994. ‘Causality without counterfactuals’, Philosophy of Science 61: 297–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Salmon, W. 1998. Causality and Explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sasse, H.-J. 2002. ‘Recent activity in the theory of aspect: Accomplishments, achievements, or just non progressive state?’, Linguistic Typology 6(2): 199–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schaffer, J. 2000. ‘Causation by disconnection’, Philosophy of Science 67: 285–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schank, R. C. and Abelson, R. P. 1977. Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding: An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Schembri, A. 2003. ‘Rethinking “classifiers” in signed languages’, in Emmorey, K. (ed.), Perspectives on Classifier Constructions in Sign Languages, pp. 3–34. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Schick, B. S. 1990. ‘Classifier predicates in American Sign Language’, International Journal of Sign Linguistics 1(1): 15–40.Google Scholar

Schlottman, A. and Anderson, N. H. 1993. ‘An information integration approach to phenomenal causality’, Memory and Cognition 21(6): 785–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Scholl, B. J. and Tremoulet, P. D. 2000. ‘Perceptual causality and animacy’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4: 299–309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Schulz, L., Kushnir, T., and Gopnik, A. 2007. ‘Learning from doing: Intervention and causal inference’, in Gopnick, A. and Schulz, L. (eds.), Causal Learning: Psychology, Philosophy, and Computation, pp. 67–85. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schwartz, D. L. 1999. ‘Physical imagery: kinematic versus dynamic models’, Cognitive Psychology 38: 433–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Schwartz, D. L. and Black, J. B. 1996. ‘Analog imagery in mental model reasoning: Depictive models’, Cognitive Psychology 30: 154–219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Serra Borneto, C. 1996. ‘Liegen and stehen in German: A study in horizontality and verticality’, in Casad, E. H. (ed.), Cognitive Linguistics in the Redwoods, pp. 459–505. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Seyfeddinipur, M. 2006. Disfluency: Interrupting speech and gesture. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Radboud University, Nijmegen.

Shadmehr, R. and Mussa-Ivaldi, F. A. 1994. ‘Adaptive representation of dynamics during learning of a motor task’, Journal of Neuroscience 14: 3208–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Shibatani, M. 1976a. The Grammar of Causative Constructions. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Shibatani, M. 1976b. ‘The grammar of causative constructions: a conspectus’, in Shibatani, M. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, vol. 6: The Grammar of Causative Constructions, pp. 1–40. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Shultz, T. R. 1982. ‘Rules of causal attribution’, Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 47: 1–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sinha, C. and Kuteva, T. 1995. ‘Distributed spatial semantics’, Nordic Journal of Linguistics 18(2): 167–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Slobin, D. I. 1987. ‘Thinking for speaking’, Berkeley Linguistic Society, BLS 13: 435–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Slobin, D. I. 1991. ‘Learning to think for speaking’, Pragmatics 1: 7–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Slobin, D. I. 1996a. ‘From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”’, in Gumperz, J. J. and Levinson, S. C. (eds.), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity, pp. 70–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Slobin, D. I. 1996b. ‘Two ways to travel: Verbs of motion in English and Spanish’, in Shibatani, M. and Thompson, S. A. (eds.), Grammatical Constructions: Their Form and Meaning, pp. 70–96. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Slobin, D. I. 2000. ‘Verbalized events: a dynamic approach to linguistic relativity and determinism’, in Niemeier, S. and Dirven, R. (eds.), Evidence for Linguistic Relativity, pp. 107–38. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Slobin, D. I. 2003. ‘Language and thought online: Cognitive consequences of linguistic relativity’, in Gentner, D. and Goldin-Meadow, S. (eds.), Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Thought, pp. 157–91. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Slobin, D. I. 2004. ‘How people move. Discourse effects of linguistic typology’, in Moder, C. L. and Martinovic-Zic, A. (eds.), Discourse Across Languages and Cultures, pp. 195–210. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Slobin, D. I. 2006. ‘What makes manner of motion salient?: Explorations of linguistic typology, discourse, and cognition’, in Hickmann, M. and Robert, S. (eds.), Space in Languages: Linguistic Systems and Cognitive Categories, pp. 59–81. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sloman, S. A. 2005. Causal Models: How People Think about the World and its Alternatives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sloman, S. A., Barbey, K. A., and Hotaling, J. M. 2009. ‘A causal model theory of the meaning of cause, enable, and prevent’, Cognitive Science 33: 21–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Smith, C. S. 1978. ‘Jespersen's “move and change” class and causative verbs in English’, in Jazayery, M. A., Palome, E. C., and Winter, W. (eds.), Linguistic and Literary Studies in Honor of Archibald A. Hill, vol. 2: Descriptive Linguistics, pp. 101–9. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Smith, C. S. 1991. The Parameter of Aspect: Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar