Part of
Crossroads Semantics: Computation, experiment and grammar
Edited by Hilke Reckman, Lisa Lai-Shen Cheng, Maarten Hijzelendoorn and Rint Sybesma
[Not in series 210] 2017
► pp. 107123
References (20)
References
Beek, Leonoor van der, Gosse Bouma, Robert Malouf & Gertjan van Noord. 2002. The Alpino Dependency Treebank. In Tanja Gaustad (ed.), Computational Linguistics in the Netherlands 2001. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brants, Sabine, Stefanie Dipper, Peter Eisenberg, Silvia Hansen-Schirra, Esther König, Wolfgang Lezius, Christian Rohrer, George Smith & Hans Uszkoreit. 2004. TIGER: Linguistic Interpretation of a German Corpus. Research on Language and Computation 2. 597–620. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Charniak, Eugene, Don Blaheta, Niyu Ge, Keith Hall, John Hale & Mark Johnson. 2000. BLLIP 1987–89 WSJ Corpus Release 1 LDC2000T43. DVD. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Drach, Erich. 1937. Grundgedanken der deutschen Satzlehre. Frankfurt am Main: Diesterweg. [Reprinted in 1963]Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew. 1995. Frequency and pragmatically unmarked word order. In Mickey Noonan & Pamela Downing (eds.), Word order in discourse, 105–135. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eerten, Laura van. 2007. Over het Corpus Gesproken Nederlands. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 12. 194–215.Google Scholar
Fitz, Hartmut, Franklin Chang & Morten H. Christiansen. 2011. A connectionist account of the acquisition and processing of relative clauses. In Evan Kidd (ed.), The acquisition of relative clauses. Processing, typology and function, 39–60. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Godfrey, John J., Eduard C. Holliman & Jane McDaniel. 1992. SWITCH-BOARD: Telephone speech corpus for research and development. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Audio, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP-92), 517–520.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2006. Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42. 25–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haider, Hubert. 2010. Wie wurde Deutsch OV? Zur diachronen Dynamik eines Strukturparameters der germanischen Sprachen. In Arne Ziegler (ed.), Historische Textgrammatik und Historische Syntax des Deutschen – Traditionen, Innovationen, Perspektiven, 11–32. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Höhle, Tilman N. 1986. Der Begriff ‘Mittelfeld’: Anmerkungen über die Theorie der topologischen Felder. In Walter Weiss, Herbert E. Wiegand & Marga Reis (eds.), Akten des VII. Internationalen Germanistenkongresses, 329–340. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Heleen, Michael Moortgat, Ineke Schuurman & Ton van der Wouden. 2001. Syntactic annotation for the spoken Dutch corpus project (CGN). Language and Computers 37(1). 73–87.Google Scholar
Kempen, Gerard & Karin Harbusch. 2016. Verb-second word order after German weil ‘because’: Psycholinguistic theory from corpus-linguistic data. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 1(1). 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, Esther & Wolfgang Lezius. 2003. The TIGER language: A Description Language for Syntax Graphs, Formal Definition. Stuttgart: University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Koster, Jan. 1975. Dutch as an SOV Language. Linguistic analysis 1. 111–136.Google Scholar
MacDonald, Maryellen C., Jessica L. Montag & Silvia P. Gennari. 2016. Are there really syntactic complexity effects in sentence production? A reply to Scontras, et al. (2015). Cognitive Science, 40. 513–518. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noord, Gertjan van, Gosse Bouma, Frank van Eynde, Daniël de Kok, Jelmar van der Linde, Ineke Schuurman, Erik Tjong Kim Sang, & Vincent Vandeghinste. 2013. Large scale syntactic annotation of written Dutch: Lassy. In Peter Spyns & Jan Odijk (eds.), Essential Speech and Language Technology for Dutch, 147–164. Springer, Berlin. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oostdijk, Nelleke, Martin Reynaert, Véronique Hoste & Ineke Schuurman. 2013. The construction of a 500-million-word reference corpus of contemporary written Dutch. In Peter Spyns & Jan Odijk (eds.), Essential speech and language technology for Dutch, 219–247. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stegmann, Rosemary, Heike Telljohann & Erhard W. Hinrichs. 2000. Stylebook for the German Treebank in Verbmobil. Saarbrücken: DFKI Report 239.Google Scholar
Wahlster, Wolfgang (ed.). 2000. Verbmobil: Foundations of speech-to-speech translation. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Pérez-Guerra, Javier
Kempen, Gerard & Karin Harbusch
2019. Mutual attraction between high-frequency verbs and clause types with finite verbs in early positions: corpus evidence from spoken English, Dutch, and German. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 34:9  pp. 1140 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 december 2024. 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.