Displaying 1 - 10 of 10
-
Kempen, G., & Harbusch, K. (2018). A competitive mechanism selecting verb-second versus verb-final word order in causative and argumentative clauses of spoken Dutch: A corpus-linguistic study. Language Sciences, 69, 30-42. doi:10.1016/j.langsci.2018.05.005.
Abstract
In Dutch and German, the canonical order of subject, object(s) and finite verb is ‘verb-second’ (V2) in main but ‘verb-final’ (VF) in subordinate clauses. This occasionally leads to the production of noncanonical word orders. Familiar examples are causative and argumentative clauses introduced by a subordinating conjunction (Du. omdat, Ger. weil ‘because’): the omdat/weil-V2 phenomenon. Such clauses may also be introduced by coordinating conjunctions (Du. want, Ger. denn), which license V2 exclusively. However, want/denn-VF structures are unknown. We present the results of a corpus study on the incidence of omdat-V2 in spoken Dutch, and compare them to published data on weil-V2 in spoken German. Basic findings: omdat-V2 is much less frequent than weil-V2 (ratio almost 1:8); and the frequency relations between coordinating and subordinating conjunctions are opposite (want >> omdat; denn << weil). We propose that conjunction selection and V2/VF selection proceed partly independently, and sometimes miscommunicate—e.g. yielding omdat/weil paired with V2. Want/denn-VF pairs do not occur because want/denn clauses are planned as autonomous sentences, which take V2 by default. We sketch a simple feedforward neural network with two layers of nodes (representing conjunctions and word orders, respectively) that can simulate the observed data pattern through inhibition-based competition of the alternative choices within the node layers. -
Harbusch, K., & Kempen, G. (2002). A quantitative model of word order and movement in English, Dutch and German complement constructions. In Proceedings of the 19th international conference on Computational linguistics. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
Abstract
We present a quantitative model of word order and movement constraints that enables a simple and uniform treatment of a seemingly heterogeneous collection of linear order phenomena in English, Dutch and German complement constructions (Wh-extraction, clause union, extraposition, verb clustering, particle movement, etc.). Underlying the scheme are central assumptions of the psycholinguistically motivated Performance Grammar (PG). Here we describe this formalism in declarative terms based on typed feature unification. PG allows a homogenous treatment of both the within- and between-language variations of the ordering phenomena under discussion, which reduce to different settings of a small number of quantitative parameters. -
Kempen, G., & Harbusch, K. (2002). Performance Grammar: A declarative definition. In A. Nijholt, M. Theune, & H. Hondorp (
Eds. ), Computational linguistics in the Netherlands 2001: Selected papers from the Twelfth CLIN Meeting (pp. 148-162). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Abstract
In this paper we present a definition of Performance Grammar (PG), a psycholinguistically motivated syntax formalism, in declarative terms. PG aims not only at describing and explaining intuitive judgments and other data concerning the well–formedness of sentences of a language, but also at contributing to accounts of syntactic processing phenomena observable in language comprehension and language production. We highlight two general properties of human sentence generation, incrementality and late linearization,which make special demands on the design of grammar formalisms claiming psychological plausibility. In order to meet these demands, PG generates syntactic structures in a two-stage process. In the first and most important ‘hierarchical’ stage, unordered hierarchical structures (‘mobiles’) are assembled out of lexical building blocks. The key operation at work here is typed feature unification, which also delimits the positional options of the syntactic constituents in terms of so-called topological features. The second, much simpler stage takes care of arranging the branches of the mobile from left to right by ‘reading–out’ one positional option of every constituent. In this paper we concentrate on the structure assembly formalism in PG’s hierarchical component. We provide a declarative definition couched in an HPSG–style notation based on typed feature unification. Our emphasis throughout is on linear order constraints. -
Kempen, G., & Van Breugel, C. (2002). A workbench for visual-interactive grammar instruction at the secondary education level. In Proceedings of the 10th International CALL Conference (pp. 157-158). Antwerp: University of Antwerp.
-
Kempen, G., & Harbusch, K. (2002). Rethinking the architecture of human syntactic processing: The relationship between grammatical encoding and decoding. In Proceedings of the 35th Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea. University of Potsdam.
-
Dijkstra, T., & Kempen, G. (1984). Taal in uitvoering: Inleiding tot de psycholinguistiek. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.
-
Kempen, G., & Sprangers, C. (
Eds. ). (1984). Kennis, mens en computer. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.Abstract
Essays van psychologen en linguı̈sten over de relatie hersens-computers. -
Kempen, G. (1984). Taaltechnologie voor het Nederlands: Vorderingen bij de bouw van een Nederlandstalig dialoog- en auteursysteem. Toegepaste Taalwetenschap in Artikelen, 19, 48-58.
-
Kempen, G., Konst, L., & De Smedt, K. (1984). Taaltechnologie voor het Nederlands: Vorderingen bij de bouw van een Nederlandstalig dialoog- en auteursysteem. Informatie, 26, 878-881.
-
Nas, G., Kempen, G., & Hudson, P. (1984). De rol van spelling en klank bij woordherkenning tijdens het lezen. In A. Thomassen, L. Noordman, & P. Elling (
Eds. ), Het leesproces. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Share this page