Displaying 1 - 10 of 10
-
Kempen, G. (2004). Terug naar Wundt: Pleidooi voor integraal onderzoek van taal, taalkennis en taalgedrag. In Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen (
Ed. ), Gij letterdames en gij letterheren': Nieuwe mogelijkheden voor taalkundig en letterkundig onderzoek in Nederland. (pp. 174-188). Amsterdam: Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen. -
Kempen, G., & Harbusch, K. (2004). A corpus study into word order variation in German subordinate clauses: Animacy affects linearization independently of grammatical function assignment. In T. Pechmann, & C. Habel (
Eds. ), Multidisciplinary approaches to language production (pp. 173-181). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. -
Kempen, G., & Harbusch, K. (2004). Generating natural word orders in a semi-free word order language: Treebank-based linearization preferences for German. In A. Gelbukh (
Ed. ), Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing (pp. 350-354). Berlin: Springer.Abstract
We outline an algorithm capable of generating varied but natural sounding sequences of argument NPs in subordinate clauses of German, a semi-free word order language. In order to attain the right level of output flexibility, the algorithm considers (1) the relevant lexical properties of the head verb (not only transitivity type but also reflexivity, thematic relations expressed by the NPs, etc.), and (2) the animacy and definiteness values of the arguments, and their length. The relevant statistical data were extracted from the NEGRA–II treebank and from hand-coded features for animacy and definiteness. The algorithm maps the relevant properties onto “primary” versus “secondary” placement options in the generator. The algorithm is restricted in that it does not take into account linear order determinants related to the sentence’s information structure and its discourse context (e.g. contrastiveness). These factors may modulate the above preferences or license “tertiary” linear orders beyond the primary and secondary options considered here. -
Kempen, G., & Harbusch, K. (2004). How flexible is constituent order in the midfield of German subordinate clauses? A corpus study revealing unexpected rigidity. In S. Kepser, & M. Reis (
Eds. ), Pre-Proceedings of the International Conference on Linguistic Evidence (pp. 81-85). Tübingen: Niemeyer. -
Kempen, G. (2004). Interactive visualization of syntactic structure assembly for grammar-intensive first- and second-language instruction. In R. Delmonte, P. Delcloque, & S. Tonelli (
Eds. ), Proceedings of InSTIL/ICALL2004 Symposium on NLP and speech technologies in advanced language learning systems (pp. 183-186). Venice: University of Venice. -
Kempen, G., & Harbusch, K. (2004). How flexible is constituent order in the midfield of German subordinate clauses?: A corpus study revealing unexpected rigidity. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Linguistic Evidence (pp. 81-85). Tübingen: University of Tübingen.
-
Kempen, G. (2004). Human grammatical coding: Shared structure formation resources for grammatical encoding and decoding. In Cuny 2004 - The 17th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. March 25-27, 2004. University of Maryland (pp. 66).
-
Kempen, G. (1998). Comparing and explaining the trajectories of first and second language acquisition: In search of the right mix of psychological and linguistic factors [Commentory]. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 29-30. doi:10.1017/S1366728998000066.
Abstract
When you compare the behavior of two different age groups which are trying to master the same sensori-motor or cognitive skill, you are likely to discover varying learning routes: different stages, different intervals between stages, or even different orderings of stages. Such heterogeneous learning trajectories may be caused by at least six different types of factors: (1) Initial state: the kinds and levels of skills the learners have available at the onset of the learning episode. (2) Learning mechanisms: rule-based, inductive, connectionist, parameter setting, and so on. (3) Input and feedback characteristics: learning stimuli, information about success and failure. (4) Information processing mechanisms: capacity limitations, attentional biases, response preferences. (5) Energetic variables: motivation, emotional reactions. (6) Final state: the fine-structure of kinds and levels of subskills at the end of the learning episode. This applies to language acquisition as well. First and second language learners probably differ on all six factors. Nevertheless, the debate between advocates and opponents of the Fundamental Difference Hypothesis concerning L1 and L2 acquisition have looked almost exclusively at the first two factors. Those who believe that L1 learners have access to Universal Grammar whereas L2 learners rely on language processing strategies, postulate different learning mechanisms (UG parameter setting in L1, more general inductive strategies in L2 learning). Pienemann opposes this view and, based on his Processability Theory, argues that L1 and L2 learners start out from different initial states: they come to the grammar learning task with different structural hypotheses (SOV versus SVO as basic word order of German). -
Kempen, G., & Harbusch, K. (1998). A 'tree adjoining' grammar without adjoining: The case of scrambling in German. In Fourth International Workshop on Tree Adjoining Grammars and Related Frameworks (TAG+4).
-
Kempen, G. (1998). Sentence parsing. In A. D. Friederici (
Ed. ), Language comprehension: A biological perspective (pp. 213-228). Berlin: Springer.
Share this page