Open Access

In this paper, we investigate the question of whether and how perspective taking at the linguistic level interacts with perspective taking at the level of co-speech gestures. In an experimental rating study, we compared test items clearly expressing the perspective of an individual participating in the event described by the sentence with test items which clearly express the speaker’s or narrator’s perspective. Each test item was videotaped in two different versions: In one version, the speaker performed a co-speech gesture in which she enacted the event described by the sentence from a participant’s point of view (i.e. with a character viewpoint gesture). In the other version, she performed a co-speech gesture depicting the event described by the sentence as if it was observed from a distance (i.e. with an observer viewpoint gesture). Both versions of each test item were shown to participants who then had to decide which of the two versions they find more natural. Based on the experimental results we argue that there is no general need for perspective taking on the linguistic level to be aligned with perspective taking on the gestural level. Rather, there is clear preference for the more informative gesture.

We argue that there is a crucial difference between determiner and adverbial quantification. Following Herburger [2000] and von Fintel [1994], we assume that determiner quantifiers quantify over individuals and adverbial quantifiers over eventualities. While it is usually assumed that the semantics of sentences with determiner quantifiers and those with adverbial quantifiers basically come out the same, we will show by way of new data that quantification over events is more restricted than quantification over individuals. This is because eventualities in contrast to individuals have to be located in time which is done using contextual information according to a pragmatic resolution strategy. If the contextual information and the tense information given in the respective sentence contradict each other, the sentence is uninterpretable. We conclude that this is the reason why in these cases adverbial quantification, i.e. quantification over eventualities, is impossible whereas quantification over individuals is fine.

The guidelines for Information Structure include instructions for the annotation of Information Status (or ‘givenness’), Topic, and Focus, building upon a basic syntactic annotation of nominal phrases and sentences. A procedure for the annotation of these features is proposed.

Background: The posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) plays an important role in maintaining physiological kinematics and function of the knee joint. To date mainly in-vitro models or combined magnetic resonance and fluoroscopic systems have been used for quantifying the importance of the PCL. We hypothesized, that both tibiofemoral and patellofemoral kinematic patterns are changed in PCL-deficient knees, which is increased by isometric muscle flexion. Therefore the aim of this study was to simultaneously investigate tibiofemoral and patellofemoral 3D kinematics in patients suffering from PCL deficiency during different knee flexion angles and under neuromuscular activation. Methods: We enrolled 12 patients with isolated PCL-insufficiency as well as 20 healthy volunteers. Sagittal MR-images of the knee joint were acquired in different positions of the knee joint (0[degree sign], 30[degree sign], 90[degree sign] flexion, with and without flexing isometric muscle activity) on a 0.2 Tesla open MR-scanner. After segmentation of the patella, femur and tibia local coordinate systems were established to define the spatial position of these structures in relation to each other. Results: At full extension and 30[degree sign] flexion no significant difference was observed in PCL-deficient knee joints neither for tibiofemoral nor for patellofemoral kinematics. At 90[degree sign] flexion the femur of PCL-deficient patients was positioned significantly more anteriorly in relation to the tibia and both, the patellar tilt and the patellar shift to the lateral side, significantly increased compared to healthy knee joints. While no significant effect of isometric flexing muscle activity was observed in healthy individuals, in PCL-deficient knee joints an increased paradoxical anterior translation of the femur was observed at 90[degree sign] flexion compared to the status of muscle relaxation. Conclusions: Significant changes in tibiofemoral and patellofemoral joint kinematics occur in patients with isolated PCL-insufficiency above 30 degrees of flexion compared to healthy volunteers. Since this could be one reasonable mechanism in the development of OA our results might help to understand the long-term development of tibiofemoral and/or patellofemoral osteoarthritis in PCL-insufficient knee joints.