Aspectuality across Languages

Event construal in speech and gesture

| Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam & Moscow State Linguistic University
| Moscow State Linguistic University
| Bielefeld University, Germany
| University of Rouen-Normandy, France
| Paris Nanterre University, France
| Moscow State Linguistic University, Russia & Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| RWTH Aachen University, Germany
| Sorbonne Nouvelle University, France
| European University Viadrina, Germany
| European University Viadrina, Germany
ISBN 9789027201249 | EUR 95.00 | USD 143.00
ISBN 9789027263698 | EUR 95.00 | USD 143.00
The book provides a nuanced, multimodal perspective on how people express events via certain grammatical forms of verbs in speech and certain qualities of movement in manual gestures. The volume is the outcome of an international project that involved three teams: one each from France, Germany, and Russia, including scholars from the Netherlands and the United States.

Aspect and gesture use are studied in three Indo-European languages, i.e. French, German, and Russian. The book also summarizes the main points and arguments from French, German, and Russian works on aspect in relation to tense, bringing these historical traditions together for an English-speaking reading audience.

The work rekindles some fundamental theorizing about events and aspect, reinvigorating it in a new light with the use of recent theorizing from cognitive linguistics and cognitive psychology, as well as new research methods applied to new data from actual spoken, interactive language use. It illustrates the value of researching the variably multimodal nature of communication – as well as theoretical issues in connection with thinking for speaking and mental simulation – from an empirical point of view.

[Human Cognitive Processing, 62]  2018.  xviii, 221 pp.
Publishing status: Available
Table of Contents
Editors and contributors
List of tables and figures
Introduction: Aspect and event structure as topics in linguistic and psychological research (Cienki, Iriskhanova)
Chapter 1. Aspect through the lens of event construal
Chapter 2. Researching aspect in multimodal communication: Consequences for data and methods
Chapter 3. Speakers’ verbal expression of event construal: Quantitative and qualitative analyses
Chapter 4. Speakers’ gestural expression of event construal: Quantitative and qualitative analyses
Chapter 5. Looking ahead: Kinesiological analysis (Boutet, Morgenstern, Cienki)
Chapter 6. Comprehension of event construal from multimodal communication (Becker, Gonzalez-Marquez)
Conclusion: Aspectuality and the expression of event construal as variably multimodal (Iriskhanova, Cienki)
Appendix A. The two-part consent form used in the production study, which was translated into French, German, and Russian
Appendix B. The conversation prompts as provided in each language
Appendix C. Illustration of the categories used for controlled vocabulary in ELAN for verb coding, taking the Russian verbal data as an example
Appendix D. Transliteration conventions used for Russian (Cyrillic to Latin alphabet)
Author index
Subject index


Agrell, S.
1908Aspektänderung und Aktionsartbildung beim polnischen Zeitworte: ein Beitrag zum Studium der indogermanischen Praeverbia und ihrer Bedeutungsfunktionen. Lunds Universitets Ärsskrift n.S. I, IV.2.Google Scholar
Aksakov, K. S.
1855O russkikh glagolakh [On Russian verbs]. Moscow: Tipografija L. Stepanovoj Publ.Google Scholar
2006Metaphysics. Book Theta. Translated with an introduction and commentary by Stephen Makin. Oxford: Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
Arutjunova, N. D.
1988Tipy jazykovykh značenij. Ocenka. Sobytie. Fakt. [Types of linguistic meanings: Evaluation, events, facts]. Moskva: Nauka.Google Scholar
Bach, E.
1981On time, tense, and aspect: An essay in English metaphysics. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatic (63–81). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1986The algebra of events, Linguistics and Philosophy, 9, 5–16.Google Scholar
Badiou, A.
2000Being and event. Translated by L. Burchell. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Barlow, M. & Kemmer, S.
(Eds.) 1999 Usage-based models of language . Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Barsalou, L.
1999Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(4), 577–609.Google Scholar
Bartenieff, I., & Lewis, D.
1980 Body movement. Coping with the environment . New York: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers.Google Scholar
Bateman, J.
2008 Multimodality and genre. A foundation for the systematic analysis of multimodal documents . Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Beck, S.
2005There and back again: A semantic analysis. Journal of Semantics, 22, 3–51. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Becker, R., Cienki, A., Bennett, A., Cudina, C., Debras, C., Fleischer, Z., Haaheim, M., Müller, T., Stec, K., & Zarcone, A.
2011Aktionsarten, speech and gesture. In C. Kirchhof (Ed.), Proceedings of GESPIN2011: Gesture and speech in interaction [http://​gespin​.amu​.edu​.pl​/?page​_id​=46].
Becker, R. B., Ferretti, T. R., & Madden-Lombardi, C. J.
2013Grammatical aspect, lexical aspect, and event duration constrain the availability of events in narratives. Cognition, 129(2), 212–220. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Behaghel, O.
1924 Deutsche Syntax. Eine geschichtliche Darstellung. Bd. 2 . Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Bennett, J. F.
1988 Events and their names . Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Pub. Co.Google Scholar
Benveniste, E.
1959Les relations de temps dans le verbe français. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique, 54(1). Reprinted in E. Benveniste 1966, Problèmes de linguistique générale, Vol. 1 (237–250). Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Bergen, B., & Wheeler, K.
2010Grammatical aspect and mental simulation. Brain and Language, 112(3), 150–158. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Berthoz, A.
1997 Le sens du mouvement . Paris: O. Jacob.Google Scholar
Bierwisch, M.
1989Event nominalizations: Proposals and problems. In W. Motsch (Ed.), Linguistische Studien (1–73). Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Boas, F.
1911/1916 The mind of primitive man . New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Boldyrev, A. V.
1812Rassuždenie o glagolakh. Trudy obščestva ljubitelej rossijskoj slovesnosti, 2, 65–84.Google Scholar
Bondarko, A. V.
1971Vid i vremja russkogo glagola [Aspect and tense of Russian verbs]. Мoscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
1983Principy funkcional’noj grammatiki i voprosy aspektologii [Principles of functional grammar and aspectology]. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
Boutet, D.
2001Approche morpho-dynamique du sens dans la gestuelle conversationnelle. Université de Paris VIII, Paris.Google Scholar
2010Structuration physiologique de la gestuelle: Modèle et tests. Lidil 42: 77–96.Google Scholar
2015Conditions formelles d’une analyse de la négation gestuelle. Vestnik of Moscow State Linguistic University. Discourse as social practice: Priorities and prospects, 6(717), 116–129.Google Scholar
Brecht, R. D.
1985The form and function of aspect in Russian. In M. S. Flyer & R. D. Brecht (Eds.), Issues in Russian morphosyntax (9–34). Columbus, OH: Slavica.Google Scholar
Bres, J.
1988Temps, langage, praxis: de l’imparfait et du passé simple. L’Information Grammaticale 77: 33–37. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000Un emploi discursif qui ne manque pas de style: l’imparfait en cotexte narratif. In A. Carlier, V. Lagae & C. Benninger (Eds.), Passé et parfait (59–77). Amsterdam/Atlanta: Editions Rodopi.Google Scholar
Bressem, J., & Ladewig, S.
2011Rethinking gesture phases: Articulatory features of gestural movement? Semiotica, 184(1/4), 53–91.Google Scholar
Bressem, J., & Müller, C.
2014aThe family of away-gestures: Negation, refusal, and negative assessment. In C. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke, S. H. Ladewig, D. McNeill, & J. Bressem (Eds.), Body – language – communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction (1592–1604). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
2014bA repertoire of German recurrent gestures with pragmatic functions. In C. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke, S. Ladewig, D. McNeill, & J. Bressem. (Eds.). Body – language – communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction. Volume 2 (1575–1591). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R.
1976Reference: In memorial tribute to Eric Lenneberg. Cognition, 4, 125–153. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C.
1993“Uphill” and “downhill” in Tzeltal. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 3(1), 46–74. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bruner, J.
1991The narrative construction of reality. Critical Inquiry, 18, 1–21. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brunot, F.
1953 La pensée et la langue . Paris: Masson et Colin.Google Scholar
Bühler, K.
1933 Ausdruckstheorie. Das System an der Geschichte aufgezeigt . Jena: Gustav Fischer.Google Scholar
Bulygina, T. V.
1982K postrojeniju tipologii predikatov v russkom jazyke [Towards building a typology of predicates in Russian]. In O. N. Seliverstova (Ed.), Semantičeskie tipy predikatov (7–85). Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Bybee, J.
2010 Language, Usage, and Cognition . NY: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L.
2003Aspect. In W. J. Frawley (Ed.) International encyclopedia of linguistics. Second Edition (157–158). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Calbris, G.
1990 The semiotics of French gestures . Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Carlson, G. N.
1980 Reference to kinds in English . New York: Garland Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Carter, R. J.
1976Some linking regularities. In B. Levin & C. Tenny (Eds.), On linking: Papers by Richard Carter, Lexicon Project Working Papers 25, MIT Center for Cognitive Science (1–92). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chisholm, R. M.
1970Events and propositions, Noûs, 4, 15–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chu, M. & Kita, S.
2008Spontaneous gestures during mental rotation tasks: Insights into the microdevelopment of the motor strategy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137, 706–723. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016Co-thought and co-speech gestures are generated by the same action generation process. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 42(2), 257–270.Google Scholar
Cienki, A.
2008Why study metaphor and gesture? In A. Cienki & C. Müller (Eds.), Metaphor and gesture (5–25). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010Gesture and (cognitive) linguistic theory. In R. Caballero Rodriguez & M. J. Pinar Sanz (Eds.), Ways and modes of human communication (45–56). Cuenca: Ediciones de la Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha.Google Scholar
2013Cognitive Linguistics: Spoken language and gesture as expressions of conceptualization. In C. Müller, A. Cienki, S. Ladewig, D. McNeill, & S. Teßendorf (Eds.), Body – language – communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction. Volume 1 (182–201). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2016Cognitive Linguistics, gesture studies, and multimodal communication. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(4), 603–618.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cienki, A., & Müller, C.
2006Verbal to gestural, and gestural to verbal, metaphoric expression. Presentation at the conference “Researching and Applying Metaphor 6,” Leeds, UK, April 2006.
Clark, H.
1973Space, time, semantics, and the child. In T. E. Moore (Ed.). Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (27–63). New York: Academic Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Codman, E. A.
1934 The shoulder: rupture of the supraspinatus tendon and other lesions in or about the subacromial bursa . Boston, MA: Thomas Todd Co.Google Scholar
Cohen, D.
1989 L’aspect verbal . Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S.
2003 Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences . Mahwah, NJ: LEA Inc.Google Scholar
Coseriu, E.
1976 Das Romanische Verbalsystem . Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Comrie, B.
1976 Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1981Aspect and voice: Some reflections on perfect and passive in tense and aspect. In P. Tedeschi and A. Zaenen (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (65–78). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W.
1991 Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: The cognitive organization of information . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2012 Verbs: Aspect and causal structure . Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A.
2004 Cognitive linguistics . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Culioli, A.
1999 Pour une linguistique de l’énonciation, Formalisation et opérations de repérage, tome 2 (Collection L’Homme dans la langue, animée par Janine Bouscaren). Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Dahl, Ö.
1985 Tense and aspect systems . Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Damourette, J., & Pichon, E.
1911–1936 Des mots à la pensée . Paris: D’Artrey.Google Scholar
Davidson, D.
1967The logical form of action sentences. In N. Rescher (Ed.), The logic of decision and action (81–95). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh PressGoogle Scholar
1969The individuation of events. In N. Rescher (Ed.), Essays in honour of Carl G. Hempel (216–234). Reidel: Dordrecht. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Davydov, I. I.
1853Opyt obšesravnitel’noj grammatiki russkogo jazyka. Izd. II otd. Imp. AN [Tentative comparative Russian grammar, published by the Second department of the Imperial Academy of Sciences]. St. Petersburg, Tipografija Imperatorskoj Akademii Nauk.Google Scholar
De Boer, C.
1947 Syntaxe du français moderne . Leiden: Leiden University Press.Google Scholar
Debras, C.
2013L’expression multimodale du positionnement interactionnel : étude d’un corpus oral vidéo de discussions sur l’environnement en anglais britannique. Thèse de doctorat en linguistique anglaise, Université Sorbonne Nouvelle – Paris 3.Google Scholar
Declerck, R.
1979Aspect and the bounded/unbounded (telic/atelic) distinction. Linguistics, 17, 761–794. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Deleuze, G.
1990The logic of sense. Transl. by M. Lester with C. Stivale. NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
de Saussure, F.
1959/1916 Course in general linguistics . New York: Philosophical Library.Google Scholar
Desclés, J. -P., & Guentchéva, Z.
1996Convergences et divergences dans quelques modèles du temps et de l’aspect. In V. Koseska-Toszewa and D. Rytel-Kuc (Eds.), Semantyka a konfrontacja jezykowa, Tom I (23–42). Warsaw: Instytut Slawistyki PAN.Google Scholar
Dickey, S. M., & Kresin, S. C.
2009Verbal aspect and negation in Russian and Czech. Russian Linguistics, 33(2), 121–176. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Divjak, D.
2009Mapping between domains. The aspect-modality interaction in Russian. Russian Linguistics, 33, 249–269. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D. R.
1977Toward a semantic analysis of verb aspect and the English ‘imperfective’ progressive. Linguistics and Philosophy, 111, 45–78. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1979 Word meaning and Montague Grammar: The semantics of verbs and times in Generative Semantics and in Montague’s PTQ . Dordrecht: Reidel. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, J. W.
1985Competing motivations. In J. Haiman (Ed.), Iconicity in syntax (343–366). Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014Towards a dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 359–410. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ducrot, O.
1979Les lois de discours. Langue française, 42, 21–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dumas, R., Chèze, L., & Verriest, J. -P.
2007Adjustments to McConville et al. and Young et al. body segment inertial parameters. Journal of Biomechanics, 40(3), 543–553. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, S.
1996Grammatical form and ‘thinking-for-speaking’ in Mandarin Chinese and English: An analysis based on speech-accompanying gestures. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Chicago.Google Scholar
2002Gesture, verb aspect, and the nature of iconic imagery in natural discourse. Gesture, 2(2), 183–206. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006Co-expressivity of speech and gesture: Manner of motion in Spanish, English, and Chinese. In Proceedings of the 27th Berkeley Linguistic Society Annual Meeting (353–370). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley University Press.Google Scholar
Edwards, J. A.
1993Principles and contrasting systems of discourse transcription. In J. A. Edwards & M. D. Lampert (Eds.), Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research (3–31). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Eggins, S., & Slade, D.
1997 Analysing casual conversation . London: Cassell.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, P.
1986 Grundriß der deutschen Grammatik . Stuttgart: Metzler.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W.
1969The repertoire of nonverbal behavior: Categories, origins, usage and coding. Semiotica, 1, 49–98. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C.
1996Sequencing in SLA: phonological memory, chunking and points of order. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(1), 91–126. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Emmott, C.
1999 Narrative comprehension: A discourse perspective . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Estes, Z., Verges, M., & Barsalou, L. W.
2008Head up, foot down object words orient attention to the objects’ typical location. Psychological Science, 19(2), 93–97. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Evans, V., & Green, M.
2006 Cognitive linguistics: An introduction . Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Ferretti, T. R., Kutas, M., & McRae, K.
2007Verb aspect and the activation of event knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition, 33(1), 182–196.Google Scholar
Filimonova, E. V.
2015Funkcional’no-semantičeskaja kategorija aspektual’nosti v russkom žestovom jazyke [Functional-semantic category of aspectuality in Russian Sign Language]. Doctoral thesis. Novosibirsk: Novosibirskij gosudarstvennyj texničeskij universitet.Google Scholar
Filip, H.
1999 Aspect, eventuality types and noun phrase semantics . New York & London: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Kay, P., & O’Connor, M. C.
1988Regularity and idiomaticiy in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone . Language, 64(3), 501–538. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Firbas, J.
1971On the concept of Communicative Dynamism in the theory of Functional Sentence Perspective. Sbornik prací filosofické fakulti brnenské universiti A 19/71, 135–144.Google Scholar
Fitts, P. M.
1954The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47(6), 381. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fleischman, S.
1990 Tense and narrativity: From medieval performance to modern fiction . Austin: U. of Texas.Google Scholar
Fludernik, M.
1996 Towards anaturalnarratology . London & New York: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Folejewsky, Z.
1953Otvečat: Otvetit’ – A Point in Russian Aspectology. Word, 9(4), 377–388. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fortunatov, F. F.
1897Kritičeskij razbor soč. G. K.Ul’janova “Značenija glagol’nykh osnov v litovsko-slavjanskom jazyke” [Critique of the work “The meanings of the verbal stems in Lithuanian-Slavic language’ by Prof. G. K. Ulianov, Imperial Warsaw University Parts 1–2 (Warsaw, 1891–95)]. St. Petersburg, Tipografija Imperatorskoj Akademii Nauk.Google Scholar
Gabka, K.
(Ed.) 1985 Morphologie (Die russische Sprache der Gegenwart Bd 2) . Leipzig: Verlag Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar
Galton, A. P.
1984 The logic of aspect: An axiomatic approach . Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Gardes-Tamine, J.
1990La Grammaire, t.2: syntaxe, 4e édition [2010] (éd. 5e, Vol. II). Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Garey, H.
1957Verbal aspect in French. Language, 33(2), 91–110. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D. & Cuyckens, H.
2007Introducing cognitive linguistics. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (3–21). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Geis, M. L.
1995 Speech acts and conversational interaction . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gennette, G.
1980Narrative discourse: An essay in method. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., Jr.
2006Metaphor interpretation as embodied simulation. Mind & Language, 21(3), 434–458. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., Jr., & Colston, H. L.
1995The cognitive psychological reality of image schemas and their transformations. Cognitive Linguistics, 6, 347–378. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, R. W., Jr., & Perlman, M.
2010Language understanding is grounded in experiential simulations: A response to Weiskopf. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 41, 305–308. . CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, J. J.
1979The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Gladrow, W.
(Ed.) 1998 Russisch im Spiegel des Deutschen: Eine Einführung in den russisch-deutschen und deutsch-russischen Sprachvergleich . Leipzig: Verlag Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar
Glenberg, A. M.
1997What memory is for. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20, 1–55.Google Scholar
Glenberg, A. M., & Gallese, V.
2012Action-based language: A theory of language acquisition, comprehension, and production. Cortex, 48, 905–922. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Glenberg, A., & Kaschak, M.
2002Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(3), 558–565. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A.
1995 Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S.
1997When gestures and words speak differently. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 6(5), 138–143. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S. & Brentari, D.
2017Gesture, sign and language: The coming of age of sign language and gesture studies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40(e46), 1–30.Google Scholar
Gosselin, L.
1996 Sémantique de la temporalité en français: un modèle calculatoire et cognitif du temps et de l’aspect . Louvain-la-neuve: Duculot.Google Scholar
Greč, N. I.
1827Praktičeskaja russkaja grammatika [Russian grammar in use]. St. Petersburg: Tipografija Imperatorskogo St.-Peterburgskogo vospitatel’nogo doma Publ.Google Scholar
Grevisse, M.
1953 Le bon usage: cours de grammaire francaise et de langage francaise . Gembloux: Duculot.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J.
1990 Argument structure . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Grinsell, T. W.
2012Russian imperfective imperatives. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 16. Vol.1 (279–292). Utrecht: Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Grišina, E. A.
2016Vid russkogo glagola: žestikuljacionnyj profil’ [Russian verbal aspect and gesticulation]. Computational Linguistics and Intellectual Technologies: Proceedings of the Annual International Conference ‘Dialogue’ (2016), Issue 15, 182–199.Google Scholar
Grundzüge einer deutschen Grammatik
1981 Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Grush, R.
2004The emulation theory of representation: Motor control, imagery, and perception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 377–442. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Guillaume, G.
1964/1951 Langage et science du langage, La représentation du temps dans la langue française (184–207). Paris, Québec: Librairie A. Nizet, Presses de l’Université Laval.Google Scholar
1970/1929 Temps et verbe: théorie des aspects, des modes et des temps . Paris: Librairie Honoré Champion.Google Scholar
1971Leçons de linguistique 1948–1949, Série A, tome I, Québec: Presses de l’unviersité de Laval / Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Habets, B., Kita, S., Shao, Z., Ozyurek, A., & Hagoort, P.
2011The role of synchrony and ambiguity in speech – gesture integration during comprehension. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 1845–1854. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hacker, P. M. S.
1982Events and objects in space and time, Mind, 91, 1–19. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K.
1978 Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning . London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Harrison, S.
2009Grammar, gesture, and cognition: The case of negation in English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Université Michel de Montaigne Bordeaux, France.Google Scholar
Harrison, C., Nuttall, L., Stockwell, P., & Yuan, W.
2014 Cognitive grammar in literature . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harrower, M. R.
1936Some factors determining figure-ground articulation. British Journal of Psychology, 26, 407–424.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F.
1824/1956The philosophy of history. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M.
1969Was ist Metaphysik? Frankfurt: Klostermann.Google Scholar
Herman, D.
1999Toward a socionarratology: New ways of analyzing natural-language narratives. In D. Herman (Ed.). Narratologies: New perspectives on narrative analysis (218–46). Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Higginbotham, J.
2000On events in linguistic semantics. In J. Higginbotham, F. Pianesi, & A. C. Pianesi (Eds.), Speaking of events (49–80). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hill, J. H., & Mannheim, B.
1992Language and world view. Annual Review of Anthropology, 21, 381–406. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoekstra, T.
1986Deverbalization and inheritance. Linguistics, 24(3), 549–584. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holt, J.
1943Etudes d’aspect. (Acta Jutlandica, 15–2.) Aarhus: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J.
1979Some observations on the typology of focus and aspect in narrative. Studies in Language, 3, 37–64. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hostetter, A. B., & Alibali, M. W.
2008Visible embodiment: Gestures as simulated action. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 15(3), 495–514. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hühn, P.
2009 Handbook of narratology . Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hymes, D.
1974Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Imbs, P.
1960 L’Emploi des temps verbaux en français moderne. Essai de grammaire descriptive . Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Iriskhanova, O. K.
1996Semantika sobytijnykh imjon sušestvitel’nykh v jazyke i reči [Semantics of the nouns of events in language and speech]. Doctoral thesis. Moscow: MSLU Publ.Google Scholar
2004O lingvokreativnoj dejatel’nosti čeloveka: otglagol’nye imena [On linguistic creativity: deverbal nouns]. Moscow: VTI Publ.Google Scholar
In press. Kognitivnyj rezonans i ego verbal’nye i neverbal’nye projavlenija [Cognitive resonance and its verbal and non-verbal instantiations].
Iriskhanova, O. K. & Prokof’eva, O. N.
In press. Fokusirovanie v ustnom opisatel’nom diskurse: Analiz vizual’noj percepcii, reči i žestov [Focusing in oral descriptive discourse: An analysis of visual perception, speech, and gestures].
Isačenko, A. V.
1960Grammatičeskij stroj russkogo jazyka v sopostavlenii s slovackim. Čast’ vtoraja: morfologija [Grammatical system in Russian as opposed to Slovak. Part 2: Morphology]. Bratislava: Izdatel’stvo akademii nauk.Google Scholar
Ivanova, P.
1961Vid i vremja v sovremennom anglijskom jazyke [Aspect and tense in contemporary English]. Leningrad: LGU Publishers.Google Scholar
Jäger, G., & Blutner, R.
2000Against lexical decomposition in syntax. In Proceedings of IATL 15, 113–137. University of Haifa.Google Scholar
Janda, L.
2004A metaphor in search if a source domain: the categories of Slavic aspect. Cognitive Linguistics, 15, 471–527. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007Aspectual clusters on Russian verbs. Studies in Language, 31, 607–648. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Janda, L., & Lyashevskaya, O.
2011Grammatical profiles and the interaction of lexicon with aspect, tense, and mood in Russian. Cognitive Linguistics, 22(4), 719–763. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, O.
1924 The philosophy of grammar . London: George Allen and Anwin.Google Scholar
Johnson, M.
1987 The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kelter, S., Kaup, B., & Claus, B.
2004Representing a described sequence of events: a dynamic view of narrative comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(2), 451.Google Scholar
Kendon, A.
1988How gestures can become like words. In F. Poyatos (Ed.), Cross-cultural perspectives in nonverbal communication (131–141). Toronto: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
2004 Gesture: Visible action as utterance . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kenny, A.
1963 Action, emotion and will . London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Kerr, N. L.
1998HARKing: Hypothesizing after the results are known. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(3), 196–217. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kibrik, A. A.
2003Analiz diskursa v kognitivnoj perspektive [Discourse analysis from a cognitive point of view]. Doctoral thesis. Мoscow: Moscow State University Press.Google Scholar
Kim, J.
1993 Supervenience and mind: Selected philosophical essays . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kintsch, W., & Van Dijk, T. A.
1978Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85(5), 363–394. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kita, S.
1993Language and thought interface: a study of spontaneous gestures and Japanese mimetics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Chicago.Google Scholar
1997Two-dimensional semantic analysis of Japanese mimetics. Linguistics, 35, 379–415. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kita, S., & Özyürek, A.
2003What 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, 16–32. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Klein, W.
2000An analysis of the German perfect. Language, 76, 358–382. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009How time is encoded. In W. Klein & P. Li (Eds.), The expression of time (39–82). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Knox, J.
2007Visual-verbal communication on online newspaper home pages. Visual Communication, 6(1), 19–36.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koerner, E.
1977The Humboldtian trand in linguistics. Cahiers Linguistiques d’Ottawa, 5, 22–40.Google Scholar
Koptjevskaya-Tamm, M.
1993 Nominalizations . London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Koschmieder, E.
1928/29Studien zum slavischen Verbalaspekt. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung, 55, 208–304 (part 1) and 56, 78–105 (part II).Google Scholar
1929 Zeitbezug und Sprache. Ein Beitrag zur Aspekt- und Tempusfrage . Leipzig/Berlin: Teubner. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kress, G.
2010 Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication . London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T.
1996 Reading images: The grammar of visual design . London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Krifka, M.
1992Thematic relations as links between nominal reference and temporal constitution. In I. Sag & A. Szabolcsi (Eds.), Lexical matters (29–53). Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
1998The origins of telicity. In S. Rothstein (Ed.), Events and grammar (197–235). Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Krongauz, M. A.
1998Pristavki i glagoly v russkom jazyke: semantičeskaja grammatika [Prefixes and verbs in Russian: A semantic grammar]. Moscow: Jazyki russkoj kul’tury.Google Scholar
Laban, R., & Lawrence, F. C.
1947 Effort . London: Macdonald and Evans.Google Scholar
Labov, W.
1972The transformation of experience in narrative syntax. In W. Labov (Ed.), Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English vernacular (354–396). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
2001 Principles of linguistic change. Vol 2. Social factors . Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2010 Principles of linguistic change. Vol 3. Cognitive and cultural factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, W., & Waletzky, J.
1967Narrative analysis. In J. Helm (Ed.). Essays on the verbal and visual arts (12–44). Seattle: University of Washington.Google Scholar
Ladewig, S. H.
2010Beschreiben, auffordern und suchen – Varianten einer rekurrenten Geste. Sprache und Literatur, 41(1), 89–111.Google Scholar
2011Putting the cyclic gesture on a cognitive basis. CogniTextes 6. http://​cognitextes​.revues​.org​/406#article​-406 Crossref
2014aThe cyclic gesture. In C. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke, S. H. Ladewig, D. McNeill, & J. Bressem (Eds.), Body-language-communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction. Volume 2 (1605–1618). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
2014bRecurrent gestures. In C. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke, S. Ladewig, D. McNeill, & J. Bressem. (Eds.). Body – language – communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction. Volume 2 (1558–1574). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Ladewig, S. H. & Bressem, J.
2013A linguistic perspective on the notation of gesture phases. In C. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke, S. H. Ladewig, D. McNeill, & S. Teßendorf (Eds.), Body-language-communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction (1060–1079). Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.
1993The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought, 2nd Edition (202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
1980 Metaphors we live by . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Laleko, O.
2010The syntax-pragmatics interface in language loss: Covert restructuring of aspect in heritage Russian. Doctoral dissertation. University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
Landolf, J. P.
2006Re(de)fining language proficiency in light of the concept of ‘languaculture’. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (72–94). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Langacker, R.
1987 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites . Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1988A usage-based model. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics (127–161). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
1990 Concept, image, and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langacker, R.
1991 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. II: Descriptive application . Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2000 Grammar and conceptualization . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2001Discourse in Cognitive Grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 12(2), 143–188. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
2007Cognitive Grammar. In D. Geeraerts, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (421–462). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2008 Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction . Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langlotz, A.
2015 Creating social orientation through language . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Le Guen, O.
2011Modes of pointing to existing spaces and the use of frames of reference. Gesture, 11(3), 271–307. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, V.
2009Aspekt und Tempus im Slavsichen. In W. Kempgen, P. Kosta, T. Berger, & K. Gutschmidt (Eds.), Die slavischen Sprachen/The Slavic languages (526–556). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Leiss, E.
1992 Die Verbalkategorien des Deutschen. Ein Beitrag zur Theorie der sprachlichen Kategorisierung . Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Levin, B., & Rapoport, T. R.
1988Lexical subordination. Papers from the 24th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 275–89.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C.
1996Frames of reference and Molyneux’s question: Crosslinguistic evidence. In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. F. Garrett (Eds.), Language and space (109–169). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. K.
1986Events. Philosophical Papers, Vol. 2 (241–269). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Linde, C.
1999The transformation of narrative syntax into institutional memory. Narrative Inquiry, 9(1), 139–174. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Linell, P.
2005 The written language bias in linguistics . London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lis, M., & Navarretta, C.
2013Classifying the form of iconic hand gestures from the linguistic categorization of co-occurring verbs. In Proceedings from the 1st European Symposium on Multimodal Communication, University of Malta, Valletta, October 17–18 2013.Google Scholar
Liverence, B. M., & Scholl, B. J.
2012Observation: Discrete events as units of perceived time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(3), 549–554.Google Scholar
Lomonosov, M. V.
1951Rossijskaja grammatika [Russian grammar]. Lomonosov M. V. Polnoje sobranie sočinenii. [Lomonosov M. V. Complete collection of works]. T.7: Trudy po filologii 1739–1758 gg. [Vol. 7: Works in philology 1739–1758] (389–578). Moscow & Leningrad: Academy of Sciences of the USSR.Google Scholar
Lotman, Ju. M.
1977 The structure of the artistic text . Ann Arbor: U of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Louwerse, M. M., Hutchinson, S., Tillman, R., & Recchia, G.
2015Effect size matters: The role of language statistics and perceptual simulation in conceptual processing. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(4), 430–447. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lucy, J. A.
1992 Language diversity and thought: A reformulation of the linguistic relativity hypothesis . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J.
1977 Semantics. Vo1. 2 . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
MacConaill, M. A.
1948The movements of bones and joints. Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, British Volume, 30B(2), 322–326. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Madden, C. J., & Zwaan, R.
2003How does verb aspect constrain event representations? Memory & Cognition, 31(5), 663–672. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Magliano, J. P., & Schleich, M. C.
2000Verb aspect and situation models. Discourse Processes, 29, 83–112. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Malaia, E., & Wilbur, R. B.
2012Kinematic signatures of telic and atelic events in ASL predicates. Language and Speech, 55(3), 407–421. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marian, V., Blumenfeld, H. K., & Kaushanskaya, M.
2007The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 940–967.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Martin, R.
1971Temps et aspect. Essai sur l’emploi des temps narratifs en moyen français, Paris: Editions Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Maslov, J. S.
1959Glagol’nyj vid v sovremennom bolgarskom literaturnom jazyke [Aspect in modern standard Bulgarian]. In S. B. Bernshtein (Ed.), Voprosy grammatiki bolgarskogo literaturnogo jazyka (157–312). Moscow: Izd. AN SSSR.Google Scholar
1984Očerki po aspektologii [Essays on aspectology]. Leningrad: Leningrad State University.Google Scholar
2004Izbrannye trudy. Aspectologija. Obščee jazykoznanie [Selected works. Aspectology. General linguistics]. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul’tury.Google Scholar
Mathesius, V.
1938O konkurenci vidů v českém vyjadřování slovesném [On the competition of aspects in Czech verbal expression]. Slovo a Slovesnost, 4, 193–202.Google Scholar
Matkhanova, I. P.
2015Russkie vyskazyvanija s glagolami obraza žizni: osobennosti aspektual’noj kharakteristiki [Russian statements with lifestyle verbs: special traits of an aspectual nature]. Acta linguistica petropolitana, XI (I), 83–103.Google Scholar
McNeill, D.
1992 Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(Ed.) 2000 Language and gesture . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003Aspects of aspect. Gesture, 3(1), 1–17. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005 Gesture and thought . Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009Imagery for speaking. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
McNeill, D., & Duncan, S.
2000Growth points in thinking-for-speaking. In D. McNeill (Ed.), Language and gesture (141–161). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meillet, A., & Vendryes, J.
1924 Traité de grammaire comparée des langues classiques . Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Mikhaylova, A.
2012Aspectual knowledge of high proficiency L2 and heritage speakers of Russian. Heritage Language Journal, 9(1), 50–69.Google Scholar
Montague, R.
1969On the nature of certain philosophical entities. The Monist, 53, 159–194. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Morrow, D. G., Greenspan, S. L., & Bower, G. H.
1987Accessibility and situation models in narrative comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 26(2), 165–187. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Morrow, D. G., Bower, G. H., & Greenspan, S. L.
1989Updating situation models during narrative comprehension. Journal of Memory and language, 28(3), 292–312. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mounin, G.
1974 Dictionnaire de la linguistique . Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Mourelatos, A. P. D.
1981; Events, processes and states, In P. Tedeschi & A. Zaenen (Eds.) Syntax and semantics (191–212). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Müller, C.
1994Semantic structure of motional gestures and lexicalization patterns in Spanish and German descriptions of motion events. In K. Beals et al. (Eds.), CLS 30. Papers from the 30th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Vol 1: The main session (281–295). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
1998aBeredte Hände. Theorie und Sprachvergleich redebegleitender Gesten. In T. Noll & C. Schmauser (Eds.), Körperbewegungen und ihre Bedeutungen (21–44). Berlin: Berlin Verlag.Google Scholar
1998bIconicity and gesture. In S. Santi, I. Guaïtella, C. Cavé, & G. Konopczynski (Eds.), Oralité et gestualité: Communication multimodale et interaction (321–328). Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
1998c Redebegleitende Gesten. Kulturgeschichte – Theorie – Sprachvergleich . Berlin: Berlin Verlag Arno Spitz.Google Scholar
2000Zeit als Raum. Eine kognitiv-semantische Mikroanalyse des sprachlichen und gestischen Ausdrucks von Aktionsarten. In E. W. B. Hess-Lüttich & H. W. Schmitz (Eds.), Botschaften verstehen. Kommunikationstheorie und Zeichenpraxis. Festschrift für Helmut Richter (211–228). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2008 Metaphors dead and alive, sleeping and waking: A dynamic view . Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010Wie Gesten bedeuten. Eine kognitiv-linguistische und sequenzanalytische Perspektive. Sprache und Literatur, 41(1), 37–68.Google Scholar
2014aGestures as “deliberate expressive movement”. In M. Seyfeddinipur & M. Gullberg (Eds.), From gesture in conversation to visible action as utterance (127–152). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2014bGestural modes of representation as techniques of depiction. In C. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke, S. H. Ladewig, D. McNeill & J. Bressem (Eds.), Body-language-communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction (1687–1702). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
2015Using gestures with speech: Variable cognitive-semantic and pragmatic relations. MSLU Vestnik, 6(717), 452–466.Google Scholar
Müller, C., Bressem, J., & Ladewig, S. H.
2013bTowards a grammar of gestures: A form-based view. In C. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke, S. H. Ladewig, D. McNeill, & S. Teßendorf (Eds.), Body – language – communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction, (707–732). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Müller, C., Cienki, A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S., McNeill, D., & Teßendorf, S.
(Eds.) 2013Body – language – communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction. Volume 1. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Müller, C., Cienki, A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S., McNeill, D., & Bressem, J.
(Eds.) 2014Body – language – communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction. Volume 2. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Müller, C., Ladewig, S. H., & Bressem, J.
2013aGestures and speech from a linguistic perspective: A new field and its history. In C. Müller, A. Cienki, E. Fricke, S. H. Ladewig, D. McNeill, & S. Teßendorf (Eds.), Body – language – communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction, (29–55). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Müller, C., & Tag, S.
2010The dynamics of metaphor: Foregrounding and activating metaphoricity in conversational interaction. Cognitive Semiotics, 6, 85–120. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nedjalkov, V. P.
(Ed.) 1988 Typology of resultative constructions . Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nekrasov, N. P.
1865O značenii form russkogo glagola [On the meaning of the forms of the Russian verb]. St. Petersburg: Tipografija I. Paul’sona i Ko.Google Scholar
Norrick, N. R.
2000 Conversational narrative . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Núñez, R., & Sweetser, E.
2006With the future behind them: convergent evidence from language and gesture in the crosslinguistic comparison of spatial construals of time. Cognitive Science, 30, 1–49. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, M. B.
1997 A semantic and pragmatic model of lexical and grammatical aspect . New York: Garland Press.Google Scholar
Open Science Collaboration
2012An open, large-scale, collaborative effort to estimate the reproducibility of psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 657–660. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), [Crossref].Google Scholar
Özyürek, A.
2001What do speech-gesture mismatches reveal about language specific processing? A comparison of Turkish and English. In C. Cavé, I. Guaitella, & S. Santi (Eds.), Oralité et Gestualité: Interactions et Comportements Multimodaux dans la Communication: Actes du Colloque ORAGE 2001 (567–581). Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Özyürek, A., & Kita, S.
1999Expressing manner and path in English and Turkish: Differences in speech, gesture, and conceptualization. In J. Hahn & S. C. Stoness (Eds.), Proceedings of the twenty first annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (507–512). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Özyürek, A., Kita, S., Allen, S., Brown, A., Furman, R., & Ishizuka, T.
2008Development of cross-linguistic variation in speech and gesture: motion events in English and Turkish. Developmental Psychology, 44(4), 1040–1054. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Özyürek, A., Kita, S., Allen, S., Furman, R., & Brown, A.
2005How does linguistic framing of events influence co-speech gestures? Insights from cross-linguistic variations and similarities. Gesture, 5, 215–237. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Padučeva, E. V.
1996Semantičeskie issledovanija. Semantika vremeni v russkom jazyke. Semantika narrativa [Semantic studies. Semantics of time and aspect in Russian. Semantics of narrative]. Moscow: Jazyki russkoj kul’tury.Google Scholar
Paillard, P. J.
1974Le traitment des informations spatiales. In Symposium de l’APSLF, (Bruxelles) (7–54). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Parisse, C., & Morgenstern, A.
2012The unfolding of the verbal temporal system in French children’s speech between 18 and 36 months. Journal of French Language Studies, 22(1), 95–114. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Parrill, F.
2012Interactions between discourse status and viewpoint in co-speech gesture. In B. Dancygier & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Viewpoint in language: A multimodal perspective (97–112). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Parrill, F., Bergen, B., & Lichtenstein, P.
2013Grammatical aspect, gesture, and conceptualization: Using co-speech gesture to reveal event representations. Cognitive Linguistics, 24(1), 135–158. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Parsons, T.
1990, Events in the semantics of English: A study in subatomic semantics, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Partee, B. H.
1999Nominal and temporal semantic structure: Aspect and quantification. In E. Hajičová, T. Hoskovec, O. Leška, & P. Sgall (Eds.). Prague Linguistic Circle Papers, Vol. 3 (91–108). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pavskij, G. P.
1842Filologičeskie nabljudeniia nad sostavom russkogo jazyka. Rassuždenie III. O glagole [Philological observations on the Russian language. Contemplation III: On the verbs]. St. Petersburg, Tipografija Imperatorskoj Akademii nauk.Google Scholar
Petrukhina, E. V.
2000Osobennosti uporeblenija vidov v povestvovatel’nyh tekstakh (na materiale russkogo i zapadnoslavjanskikh tekstakh) [Specifics of aspect use in narrative texts (based on Russian and Western Slavic texts)]. In А. V. Bondarko & С. А. Šubik (Eds.). Problemy funkcional’noj grammatiki: kategorii morfologii i sintaksisa [Issues in functional grammar: morphological and syntactic categories in utterances] (52–66). Saint Petersburg: Nauka.Google Scholar
2009Russkij glagol: kategorii vida i vremeni. [Russian verb: Aspect and tense]. Moscow: MAKS Press.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S.
2004Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27(2), 169–190. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Plungjan, V. А.
1989K opredeleniju rezul’tativa (universal’na li svjaz’ rezul’tativa i predel’nosti?) [On defining resultative: Is the link between resultative and boundedness universal?]. Voprosy Jazykoznanija, 6, 55–63.Google Scholar
Plungjan, V. A.
2001Antirezul’tativ: do i posle rezul’tata [Antiresultative: Before and after the result. In V. A. Plungian (Ed.), Issledovanija po teorii grammatiki. I: Glagol’nye kategorii [Studies in the theory of grammar. Vol. I: Verbal categories] (50–88). Moscow: Russkie slovari.Google Scholar
Plungjan, V., Gusev, V., & Urmančieva, A.
(Eds.) 2008Grammatičeskie kategorii v diskurse [Grammatical categories in discourse]. Issledovanija po teorii grammatiki 4 [Studies in the theory of grammar 4]. Moscow: Gnozis.Google Scholar
Pollak, H.
1967Problematisches in der Lehre von Aktionsart und Aspekt. Zeitschrift für Deutsche Philologie, 86, 397–420.Google Scholar
Potebnja, A. A.
1874/1977Iz zapisok po russkoi grammatike [From the notes on Russian grammar]. T.IV. Vyp.II: Glagol [Vol. IV. Issue II: Verbs]. Moscow: Prosveščenie.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J.
1991The syntax of event structure. Cognition, 41, 47–81. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W. V. O.
1950Identity, ostension and hyposthasis. Journal of Philosophy, 47, 621–633. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1970 Philosophy of logic . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Quinton.Google Scholar
Quinton, A.
1979Objects and events. Mind, 88, 197–214.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ramsey, F.
1927/1990Facts and propositions. In D. H. Mellor (Ed.), Philosophical papers. F. P. Ramsey (34–51). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Referovskaja, E. A.
1948Kategorija vida vo francuzskom glagole [The category of aspect in the French verb]. Izv. Ak. Nauk, Otd. Lit. i Jaz, 7(5), 445–456.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H.
1947 Elements of symbolic logic . New York: Macmillan & Co.Google Scholar
Reid, W.
1976The quantitative validation of a grammatical hypothesis: The Passé Simple and the Imparfait. In J. A. Kegl et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the seventh annual meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, Cambridge, Massachusetts (315–333). Cambridge, MA: North East Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Reilly, J., Klima, E., & Bellugi, U.
1990Once more with feeling: Affect and language in atypical populations. Development and Psychopathology, 2(4), 367–391. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Renkewitz, F., & Müller, S.
2013 Replication of Study 1 by Estes, Z., Verges, M., & Barsalou, L. W. (Psychological Science, 2008). Retrieved from https://​osf​.io​/b7zek/ [PDF file].
Ricoeur, P.
1981 Time and narrative . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rossi, A.
1982 The architecture of the city . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rothstein, S.
2003Secondary predication and aspectual structure. In E. Lang, C. Maienborn, & C. Fabricius-Hansen (Eds.), Modifying adjuncts (553–590). Berlin & New York: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004 Structuring events: A study in the semantics of lexical aspect . Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rozental’, D. E., & Telenkova, M. A.
1976Slovar’-spravočnik linguističeskikh terminov [Dictionary of linguistic terms]. Moscow: Prosveščenie.Google Scholar
Rozwadowska, B.
1997 Towards a unified theory of nominalizations: External and internal eventualities . Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Universytetu Wrocławskiego.Google Scholar
Rubin, E.
1921 Visuell wahrgenommene Figuren. Studien in psychologischer Analyse . Copenhagen: Gyldendalske Boghandel.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E.
1977Understanding and summarizing brief stories. In D. LaBerge & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), Basic processes in reading: Perception and comprehension (265–303). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Russell, B.
1914 Our knowledge of the external world . London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Russkaya grammatika
[Russian Grammar] 1980 Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Ryle, G.
1949 The concept of mind . London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Sacks, H.
1995Lectures on Conversation: Volumes 1 & 2. (One volume ed.). Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sandström, G.
1993When-clauses and the temporal interpretation of narrative discourse. Ph.D. thesis, University of Umeå.Google Scholar
Sapir, E.
1921/1949 Language: An introduction to the study of speech . New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Company.Google Scholar
Sasse, H. -J.
(Ed.) 1991aAspektsysteme. Arbeitspapier Nr.14 NF. Köln: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
1991bAspect and Aktionsart: A reconciliation. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 6, 31–45. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001Recent activity in the theory of aspect: Accomplishments, Achievements, or just Non-progressive State? Arbeitspapier Nr.40 NF. Köln: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D.
1996Narrative as self-portrait: Sociolinguistic constructions of identity. Language in Society, 25, 167–203. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schogt, H. G.
1964L’aspect verbal en français et l’élimination du passé simple. Word, 20(1), 1–17. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Searle, J.
1969 Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W.
1949 The mathematical theory of communication . Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, L.
(Ed.) 2014 The Routledge handbook of embodied cognition . London: Routledge.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shklovsky, V.
1921/1965Sterne’s Tristram Shandy: Stylistic Commentary. In L. T. Lemon & M. J. Reis (ed. and trans.), Russian formalist criticism: Four essays (25–57). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Silva-Corvalan, C.
1983Tense and aspect in oral Spanish narrative: Context and meaning. Language, 59(4), 760–780. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U.
2011False-positive psychology undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359–1366. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Slavin, S.
2003–2017PsyScript (Version 2.3.0) [Computer software]. Lancaster University. Retrieved March 15, 2013. Available from http://​www​.psych​.lancs​.ac​.uk​/research​/research​-software
Slobin, D.
1987Thinking for speaking. In J. Aske, N. Beery, L. Michaelis, & H. Filip (Eds.), Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (435–445). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
1996From “thought to language” to “thinking for speaking”. In J. Gumperz & E. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (70–96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I.
2003Language and thought online: Cognitive consequences of linguistic relativity. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (157–191). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sloetjes, H., & Wittenburg, P.
2008Annotation by category – ELAN and ISO DCR. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2008) http://​www​.lrec​-conf​.org​/proceedings​/lrec2008/.
Smith, C.
1991/1997 The parameter of aspect . Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Smotritskij, M. G.
1619Grammatiki slavenskija pravilnoje sintagma [Slavonic grammar with correct syntax]. Jevje.Google Scholar
Stelma, J. H., & Cameron, L. J.
2007Intonation units in spoken interaction: Developing transcription skills. Text & Talk, 27(3), 361–393. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Streeck, J.
2009 Gesturecraft: The manu-facture of meaning . Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Swallow, K. M., Zacks, J. M., & Abrams, R. A.
2009Event boundaries in perception affect memory encoding and updating. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(2), 236–257. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Šabes, V. Ja
1989Sobytie i tekst [Event and text]. Moscow: Vysšaja škola.Google Scholar
Šafranov, S. N.
1852O vidakh russkikh glagolov v sintaksičeskom otnošenii [On the aspects of Russian verbs from a syntactic point of view]. Moscow: Universitetskaja tipografija.Google Scholar
Šakhmatov, A. A.
1941Sintaksis russkogo jazyka [Russian syntax]. Leningrad. Učpedgiz.Google Scholar
Talmy, L.
1975Figure and ground in complex sentences. In Proceedings of the first annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (419–430). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
1978Figure and ground in complex sentences. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of human language, vol. 4, Syntax (625–49). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1985aForce dynamics in language and thought. In Papers from the twenty-first regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (293–337). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
1985bLexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, vol. 3 (57–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1988aForce dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12, 49–100. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1988bThe relation of grammar to cognition. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in cognitive linguistics (165–205). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1996Fictive motion in language and “ception”. In P. Bloom, M. A. Peterson, L. Nadel, & M. F. Garrett (Eds.), Language and space (211–276). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2000aFigure and ground in language. In L. Talmy, Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. 1, Concept structuring systems (311–344). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2000bThe relation of grammar to cognition. In L. Talmy, Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. 1, Concept structuring systems (21–96). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2000c Toward a cognitive semantics. Volume I: Concept structuring systems . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tannen, D.
1989 Talking voices. Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tesnière, L.
1976/1959 Les éléments de syntaxe structurale . Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Timberlake, A.
2004 A reference grammar of Russian . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Treisman, M.
1963Temporal discrimination and the indifference interval: Implications for a model of the “internal clock.” Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 77(13), 1–31. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trudy Aspektologičeskogo Seminara filologičeskogo fakul’teta MGU
[Proceedings from the Workshop on Aspectology of the Department of Phiology, MGU] 1997 MGU: Izd. Moskovskogo universiteta.Google Scholar
Uljanov, G. K.
1895Značenia glagol’nykh osnov v litovsko-slavjanskom jazyke [The meanings of verb roots in the Lithuanian-Slavic language]. Warsaw: Tipografija Imperatorskoj Akademii Nauk.Google Scholar
Ungerer, F.
2007Iconic text strategies: Path, sorting and weighting, kaleidoscope. In E. Tabakowska, C. Ljungberg, & O. Fischer (Eds.), Insistent images (229–246). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, T. A.
1980Macrostructures. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. A.
2009 Society and discourse: How social contexts influence text and talk . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van ’t Veer, A. E., & Giner-Sorolla, R.
2016Pre-registration in social psychology – A discussion and suggested template. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 67, 2–12.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Z.
1957Verbs and times. Philosophical Review, 66, 143–60. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1967 Linguistics in philosophy . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Verhagen, A.
2007Construal and perspectivization. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (48–81). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Verkuyl, H.
1972On the compositional nature of the aspects. Volume 15, Foundations of Language Supplementary Series. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1993 A theory of aspectuality: The interaction between temporal and atemporal structure . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vet, C.
1980 Temps, aspect et adverbes de temps en français contemporain . Genève: Librairie Droz.Google Scholar
Vinogradov, V. V.
1938/1972Sovremennyj russkij jazyk. Grammatičeskoe učenie o slove [Modern Russian. Grammatical theory of the word]. Moscow: Učpedgiz/Vysšaja Škola.Google Scholar
Viviani, P., & Flash, T.
1995Minimum-jerk, two-thirds power law, and isochrony: converging approaches to movement planning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21(1), 32.Google Scholar
von Humboldt, W.
1820Über das vergleichende Sprachstudium in Beziehung auf die verschiedenen Epochen der Sprachentwicklung. In W. von Humboldt 1963, Schriften zur Sprachphilosophie, Werke Bd. 3, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
von Stechow, A.
1996The different readings of wieder ‘again’: A structural account. Journal of Semantics, 13, 87–138. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
von Stutterheim, C., Andermann, M., Carroll, M., Flecken, M., & Schmiedtová, B.
2012How grammaticized concepts shape event conceptualization in language production: Insights from linguistic analysis, eye tracking data, and memory performance. Linguistics, 50(4), 833–867. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
von Stutterheim, C., Carroll, M. & Klein, W.
2009New perspectives in analyzing aspectual distinctions across languages. In W. Klein & P. Li (Eds.), The expression of time (195–216). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Vostokov, A.
1867Kh. Russkaja grammatika [Russian grammar]. 2nd ed. Moscow: D. F.Fedorov.Google Scholar
Vygotskij, L.
1934/1996Myšlenie i rech’ [Thinking and speech]. Moscow: Labirint. Published in 1962 as Thought and language. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wagemans, J., Elder, J. H., Kubovy, M., Palmer, S. E., Peterson, M. A., Singh, M., & von der Heydt, R.
2012A century of Gestalt psychology in visual perception: I. Perceptual grouping and figure-ground organization. Psychological Bulletin, 138(6), 1172–1217. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Walker, J. A.
2010Affairs of state: Defining and coding stativity in English and English-based creole. In J. A. Walker (Ed.), Aspect in grammatical variation (95–110). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, S.
1982Figure and ground: The interrelationships of linguistic categories. In P. J. Hopper (Ed.), Tense-Aspect: Between semantics and pragmatics (201–223). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Weinrich, H.
1964/1973 Tempus: besprochene und erzählte Welt . Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. French translation : Le Temps. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Wertheimer, M.
1923Untersuchungen zur Lehre von der Gestalt, II. Psychologische Forschung, 4, 301–350. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Whitehead, A. N.
1921 An enquiry into the principles of natural knowledge . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1929 Process and reality: An essay in cosmology . New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Whorf, B. L.
1956Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf (J. B. Carroll, Ed.). Cambridge, MA: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
Wilmet, M.
1970Le système de l’indicatif en moyen français. Etude des « tiroirs » de l’indicatif dans les farces, sotties et moralités françaises des XVe et XVIe siècles, Genève: Droz.Google Scholar
2003Grammaire critique du français, 3e éd. Bruxelles: Duculot.Google Scholar
Wolfson, N.
1978A feature of performed narrative: The conversational historical present. Language and Society, 7, 215–237. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1979The conversational historical present alternation. Language, 55(1), 168–182. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wu, S.
In preparation. Transitivity, multimodality, and gesture. PhD dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Yap, D. F., & Casasanto, D.
2016Semantics of beat gestures. Paper presented at the 7th annual conference of the International Society for Gesture Studies, Paris.
Zacks, J. M.
2004Using movement and intentions to understand simple events. Cognitive Science, 28(6), 979–1008. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zacks, J. M., & Swallow, K. M.
2007Event segmentation. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(2), 80–84. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zacks, J. M., & Tversky, B.
2001Event structure in perception and conception. Psychological Bulletin, 127(1), 3–21. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zemskaja, Е. А.
2004Russkaja razgovornaja reč’: Lingvističeskij analiz i problemy obučenia [Russian oral speech: Linguistic analysis and methods of teaching]. Moscow: Flinta.Google Scholar
Zwaan, R.
2009Mental simulation in language comprehension and social cognition. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(7), 1142–1150. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zwaan, R. A., Langston, M. C., & Graesser, A. C.
1995The construction of situation models in narrative comprehension: An event-indexing model. Psychological Science, 6(5), 292–297. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zwaan, R. A., & Radvansky, G. A.
1998Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin, 123(2), 162. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zwarts, J.
2006 Event shape: Paths in the semantics of verbs . Ms. Radboud University: Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 8 other publications

No author info given
2018. New and recent publications. Gesture 17:1  pp. 221 ff. Crossref logo
No author info given
2018. New and recent publications. Gesture 17:2  pp. 322 ff. Crossref logo
No author info given
2018. New and recent publications. Gesture 17:3  pp. 464 ff. Crossref logo
No author info given
2019. New and recent publications. Gesture 18:1  pp. 114 ff. Crossref logo
No author info given
2019. New and recent publications. Gesture 18:2-3  pp. 396 ff. Crossref logo
No author info given
2021. New and recent publications. Gesture 19:1  pp. 156 ff. Crossref logo
Jehlička, Jakub & Eva Lehečková
2020. Multimodal Event Construals: The Role of Co-Speech Gestures in English vs. Czech Interactions. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 68:4  pp. 351 ff. Crossref logo
Müller, Cornelia
2018. Gesture and Sign: Cataclysmic Break or Dynamic Relations?. Frontiers in Psychology 9 Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 08 may 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

BIC Subject: CFK – Grammar, syntax
BISAC Subject: LAN009060 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / Syntax
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2018016334 | Marc record