Displaying 1 - 11 of 11
-
Kempen, G., & Harbusch, K. (2003). A corpus study into word order variation in German subordinate clauses: Animacy affects linearization independently of function assignment. In Proceedings of AMLaP 2003 (pp. 153-154). Glasgow: Glasgow University.
-
Kempen, G., & Harbusch, K. (2003). Dutch and German verb clusters in performance grammar. In P. A. Seuren, & G. Kempen (
Eds. ), Verb constructions in German and Dutch (pp. 185-221). Amsterdam: Benjamins. -
Kempen, G., & Harbusch, K. (2003). An artificial opposition between grammaticality and frequency: Comment on Bornkessel, Schlesewsky & Friederici (2002). Cognition, 90(2), 205-210 [Rectification on p. 215]. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00145-8.
Abstract
In a recent Cognition paper (Cognition 85 (2002) B21), Bornkessel, Schlesewsky, and Friederici report ERP data that they claim “show that online processing difficulties induced by word order variations in German cannot be attributed to the relative infrequency of the constructions in question, but rather appear to reflect the application of grammatical principles during parsing” (p. B21). In this commentary we demonstrate that the posited contrast between grammatical principles and construction (in)frequency as sources of parsing problems is artificial because it is based on factually incorrect assumptions about the grammar of German and on inaccurate corpus frequency data concerning the German constructions involved. -
Kempen, G. (2003). Language generation. In W. Frawley (
Ed. ), International encyclopedia of linguistics (pp. 362-364). New York: Oxford University Press. -
Kempen, G., & Harbusch, K. (2003). Word order scrambling as a consequence of incremental sentence production. In H. Härtl, & H. Tappe (
Eds. ), Mediating between concepts and grammar (pp. 141-164). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. -
Seuren, P. A. M., & Kempen, G. (
Eds. ). (2003). Verb constructions in German and Dutch. Amsterdam: Benjamins. -
Kempen, G., & Vosse, T. (1992). A language-sensitive text editor for Dutch. In P. O’Brian Holt, & N. Williams (
Eds. ), Computers and writing: State of the art (pp. 68-77). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Abstract
Modern word processors begin to offer a range of facilities for spelling, grammar and style checking in English. For the Dutch language hardly anything is available as yet. Many commercial word processing packages do include a hyphenation routine and a lexicon-based spelling checker but the practical usefulness of these tools is limited due to certain properties of Dutch orthography, as we will explain below. In this chapter we describe a text editor which incorporates a great deal of lexical, morphological and syntactic knowledge of Dutch and monitors the orthographical quality of Dutch texts. Section 1 deals with those aspects of Dutch orthography which pose problems to human authors as well as to computational language sensitive text editing tools. In section 2 we describe the design and the implementation of the text editor we have built. Section 3 is mainly devoted to a provisional evaluation of the system. -
Kempen, G. (1992). Generation. In W. Bright (
Ed. ), International encyclopedia of linguistics (pp. 59-61). New York: Oxford University Press. -
Kempen, G. (1992). Language technology and language instruction: Computational diagnosis of word level errors. In M. Swartz, & M. Yazdani (
Eds. ), Intelligent tutoring systems for foreign language learning: The bridge to international communication (pp. 191-198). Berlin: Springer. -
Kempen, G. (1992). Grammar based text processing. Document Management: Nieuwsbrief voor Documentaire Informatiekunde, 1(2), 8-10.
-
Kempen, G. (1992). Second language acquisition as a hybrid learning process. In F. Engel, D. Bouwhuis, T. Bösser, & G. d'Ydewalle (
Eds. ), Cognitive modelling and interactive environments in language learning (pp. 139-144). Berlin: Springer.
Share this page