oa Vissen naar variatie

References

1. Abraham, Werner & C.Jac Conradie(2001). Präteritumschwund und Diskursgrammatik: Präteritumschwund in gesamteuropäischen Bezügen: Areale Ausbreitung, heterogene Entstehung, Parsing sowie diskursgrammatische Grundlagen und Zusammenhänge. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Ariel, Mira(1990). Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. Londen/New York: Routledge.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Bannard, Colin & ChrisCallison-Burch(2005). Paraphrasing with bilingual parallel corpora. In: Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, 597-604.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Bergen, Geertje van & Peterde Swart.(2010). Scrambling in spoken Dutch: Definiteness versus weight as determinants of word order variation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory6, 267-295.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Bergen, Geertje van(2011). Who's first and what's next: Animacy and word order variation in Dutch language production. Doctorale dissertatie Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Beveren, Amélie Van, TimothyColleman & GertDe Sutter(2018). De om-alternantie: Een verkennende casestudy. Handelingen van de Koninklijke Zuid-Nederlandse Maatschappij voor Taal- en Letterkunde en Geschiedenis LXXI, 191-222.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Bouma, Gerlof & Helende Hoop(2008). Unscrambled pronouns in Dutch. Linguistic Inquiry39, 669-677.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Bouma, Gosse(2017). Om-omission. In: MartijnWieling, MartinKroon, Gertjanvan Noord, & GosseBouma (red.), From Semantics semantics to dialectometry: Festschrift in honor of John Nerbonne. Londen: College Publications, 65-74.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Broekhuis, Hans & Marcelden Dikken(2012). Syntax of Dutch: Nouns and noun phrases, vol. 2. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Burrows, John(2002). ‘Delta’: A measure of stylistic difference and a guide to likely authorship. Literary and Linguistic Computing17(3), 267-287.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Callison-Burch, Chris(2007). Paraphrasing and translation. Doctorale dissertatie University of Edinburgh.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Colleman, Timothy(2010). Lectal variation in constructional semantics: ‘Benefactive’ ditransitives in Dutch. In: DirkGeeraerts, GitteKristiansen & YvesPeirsman (red.), Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics. Berlijn/New York: De Gruyter Mouton, 191-221.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Daems, Frans(1981). Een eigen syntactische norm in Vlaanderen? Volgordevariatie in werkwoordsgroepen. In: Handelingen van het zesendertigste Nederlandse Filologencongres, 119-126.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Díaz Cintas, Jorge & AliceRemael(2014). Audiovisual translation: Subtitling. Londen/New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Eder, Maciej, JanRybicki & MikeKestemont(2016). Stylometry with R: A package for computational text analysis. R Journal8(1), 107-121.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Fehringer, Carol(2017). Internal constraints on the use of gaan versus zullen as future markers in spoken Dutch. Nederlandse Taalkunde22(3), 359-387.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Geeraerts, Dirk, StefanGrondelaers & DirkSpeelman(1999). Convergentie en divergentie in de Nederlandse woordenschat: Een onderzoek naar kleding- en voetbaltermen. Amsterdam: Meertens.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Grondelaers, Stefan(2009). Woordvolgorde in presentatieve zinnen en de theoretische basis van multifactoriële grammatica. Nederlandse Taalkunde14, 282-299.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Grondelaers, Stefan, DirkSpeelman & AnCarbonez(2001). Regionale variatie in de postverbale distributie van presentatief er. Neerlandistiek.nl 01.04. <www.neerlandistiek.nl>
    [Google Scholar]
20. Grondelaers, Stefan, DirkSpeelman & DirkGeeraerts(2002). Regressing on er: Statistical analysis of texts and language variation. In: AnnieMorin & PascaleSébillot (red.), 6ièmes journées internationales d’analyse statistique des données données. Rennes: Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique, 335-346.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Grondelaers, Stefan, DirkSpeelman & DirkGeeraerts.(2008). National variation in the use of er ‘there’: Regional and diachronic constraints on cognitive explanations. In: GitteKristiansen & RenéDirven (red.), Cognitive Sociolinguistics: Language variation, cultural models, social systems. Berlijn/New York: De Gruyter Mouton, 153-204.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Grondelaers, Stefan, KatrienDeygers, HildeVan Aken, VickyVan Den Heede & DirkSpeelman(2000). DigiTaal: Het CONDIV-corpus geschreven Nederlands. Nederlandse Taalkunde5(4), 356-363.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Grondelaers, Stefan, Paulvan Gent & Roelandvan Hout (ter perse). On the inevitability of social meaning and ideology in accounts of syntactic change: Evidence from pronoun competition in Netherlandic Dutch. In: TanyaChristensen & TorbenJuel Jensen (red.), Explanations in sociosyntax: Dialogue across paradigms. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Gyselinck, Emmeline & TimothyColleman(2016). Je dood vervelen of je te pletter amuseren? Het intensiverende gebruik van de pseudo-reflexieve resultatiefconstructie in hedendaags Belgisch en Nederlands Nederlands. Handelingen van de Koninklijke Zuid-Nederlandse Maatschappij voor Taal- en Letterkunde en Geschiedenis LXX, 103-136.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Haeseryn, Walter(1990). Syntactische normen in het Nederlands: Een empirisch onderzoek naar volgordevariatie in de werkwoordelijke eindgroep. Doctorale dissertatie Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Haeseryn, Walter(1996). Grammaticale verschillen tussen het Nederlands in België en het Nederlands in Nederland: Een poging tot inventarisatie. In: Roelandvan Hout & JoepKruijsen (red.), Taalvariaties: Toonzettingen en modulaties op een thema. Dordrecht: Foris Publications, 109-126.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Haeseryn, Walter, KirstenRomijn, GuidoGeerts, Jaapde Rooij & Maartenvan den Toorn(1997). Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. Tweede, geheel herziene druk. Groningen/Deurne: Martinus Nijhoff/Wolters Plantyn.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Haver, Jozef Van(1989). Noorderman & Zuiderman: Het taalverdriet van Vlaanderen. Tielt: Lannoo.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Hearne, Mary & AndyWay(2011). Statistical machine translation: A guide for linguists and translators. Language and Linguistics Compass5(5), 205-226.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Hoppenbrouwers, Cor(1991). Nederlanders over het Nederlands van Vlamingen. In: MarysaDemoor (red.), De kracht van het woord: 100 jaar Germaanse filologie aan de RUG (1890-1990). Gent: Studia Germanica Gandensia, 13-38.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Hosmer, David W. & StanleyLemeshow(2000). Applied logistic regression. Tweede editie. New York: Wiley & Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Jansen, Frank(1987). Omtrent de om-trend. Spektator17, 83-98.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Keuleers, Emmanuel, MarcBrysbaert & BorisNew(2010). SUBTLEX-NL: A new frequency measure for Dutch words based on film subtitles. Behavior Research Methods42, 643-650.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Kirsner, Robert S.(1979). The problem of presentative sentences in Modern Dutch. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Koehn, Philipp, HieuHoang, AlexandraBirch, ChrisCallison-Burch, MarcelloFederico, NicolaBertoldi, BrookeCowan, WadeShen, ChristineMoran, RichardZens, ChrisDyer, OndřejBojar, AlexandraConstantin & EvanHerbst(2007). Moses: Open source toolkit for statistical machine translation. In: Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics companion volume: Proceedings of the demo and poster sessions, 177-180.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Krawczak, Karolina(2018). Between grammar and semantics: A multivariate account of complement alternation in complex causal adpositions. Lezing gepresenteerd in de workshop Quantitative approaches to constructional variation: Corpus-driven studies of alternations van de 11de International Conference of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association (AELCO), 17-19 oktober 2018.
    [Google Scholar]
37. Labov, William(1993). The unobservability of structure and its linguistic consequences. Lezing gepresenteerd op NWAV 22, University of Ottawa.
    [Google Scholar]
38. Lavandera, Beatriz(1978). Where does the sociolinguistic variable stop?Language in Society7(2), 171-182.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Levon, Erez & IsabelleBuchstaller(2015). Perception, cognition and linguistic structure: The effect of linguistic modularity and cognitive style on sociolinguistic processing. Language Variation and Change27(3), 319-348.
    [Google Scholar]
40. Levshina, Natalia(2017). Online film subtitles as a corpus: An n-gram approach. Corpora12(3), 311-338.
    [Google Scholar]
41. Levshina, Natalia, DirkGeeraerts & DirkSpeelman(2013). Towards a 3D-grammar: Interaction of linguistic and extralinguistic factors in the use of Dutch causative constructions. Journal of Pragmatics52, 34-48.
    [Google Scholar]
42. Lison, Pierre & JörgTiedemann(2016). OpenSubtitles2016: Extracting large parallel corpora from movie and TV subtitles. In: Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, 923-929.
    [Google Scholar]
43. Meyerhoff, Miriam & James A.Walker(2013). An existential problem: The sociolinguistic monitor and variation in existential constructions on Bequia (St. Vincent and the Grenadines). Language in Society42, 407-428.
    [Google Scholar]
44. Mondorf, Britta(2002). Gender differences in English syntax. Journal of English Linguistics30, 158-180.
    [Google Scholar]
45. New, Boris, MarcBrysbaert, JeanVeronis & ChristophePallier(2007). The use of film subtitles to estimate word frequencies. Applied Psycholinguistics28, 661-677.
    [Google Scholar]
46. Och, Franz J. & HermannNey(2003). A systematic comparison of various statistical alignment methods. Computational Linguistics29(1), 19-51.
    [Google Scholar]
47. Oostdijk, Nelleke(2002). The design of the Spoken Dutch Corpus. In: PamPeters, PeterCollins & Adam S.Cohen (red.), New frontiers of corpus research. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi, 105-112.
    [Google Scholar]
48. Oostdijk, Nelleke, MartinReynaert, VéroniqueHoste & InekeSchuurman(2013). The construction of a 500-million-word reference corpus of contemporary written Dutch. In: PeterSpyns & JanOdijk (red.), Essential speech and language technology for Dutch. Heidelberg: Springer, 219-247.
    [Google Scholar]
49. Pijpops, Dirk & FreekVan de Velde(2018). A multivariate analysis of the partitive genitive in Dutch: Bringing quantitative data into a theoretical discussion. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory14(1), 99-131.
    [Google Scholar]
50. Pijpops, Dirk(2019). How, why and where does argument structure vary? A usage-based investigation into the Dutch transitive–prepositional alternation. Doctorale dissertatie Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.
    [Google Scholar]
51. Poplack, Shana(2015). Pursuing symmetry by eradicating variability. Lezing gepresenteerd op NWAV 44, University of Toronto.
    [Google Scholar]
52. Prieels, Lynn & GertDe Sutter(2018). A mixed-method approach to the use of Colloquial Belgian Dutch in intralingual subtitling on Flemish television: Further evidence for the gradual acceptance of tussentaal. Taal en Tongval70(2), 211-256.
    [Google Scholar]
53. Romaine, Suzanne(1984). On the problem of syntactic variation and pragmatic meaning in sociolinguistic theory. Folia Linguistica18, 409-439.
    [Google Scholar]
54. Spärck Jones, Karen(2007). Computational linguistics: What about the linguistics?Computational Linguistics33(3), 437-441.
    [Google Scholar]
55. Speelman, Dirk & DirkGeeraerts.(2009). Causes for causatives: The case of Dutch doen and laten. In: TedSanders & EveSweetser (red.), Causal categories in discourse and cognition. Berlijn/New York: De Gruyter Mouton, 173-204.
    [Google Scholar]
56. Speelman, Dirk, StefanGrondelaers & DirkGeeraerts(2003). Profile-based linguistic uniformity as a generic method for comparing language varieties. Computers and the Humanities37, 317-337.
    [Google Scholar]
57. Sutter, Gert De, DirkSpeelman & DirkGeeraerts.(2005). Regionale en stilistische effecten op de woordvolgorde in werkwoordelijke eindgroepen. Nederlandse Taalkunde10, 97-128.
    [Google Scholar]
58. Taeldeman, Johan(1992). Welk Nederlands voor Vlamingen?Nederlands van Nu40(2), 33-51.
    [Google Scholar]
59. Tiedemann, Jörg(2012). Parallel data, tools and interfaces in OPUS. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, 2214-2218.
    [Google Scholar]
60. Tummers, Jose(2005). Het naakt(e) adjectief. Kwantitatief-empirisch onderzoek naar de adjectivische buigingsalternantie bij neutra. Doctorale dissertatie Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.
    [Google Scholar]
61. Velde, Marc van de(1983). De volgorde binnen de drieledige werkwoordgroep. In: BrunoCallebaut (red.), Linguïstische en socio-culturele aspecten van het taalonderwijs. Gent: Faculteit Letteren en Wijsbegeerte, 139-148.
    [Google Scholar]
62. Vogels, Jorrig & Geertjevan Bergen(2017). Where to place inaccessible subjects in Dutch: The role of definiteness and animacy. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory13(2), 369-398.
    [Google Scholar]