oa Oordelen, onderzoek, en abstractie

References

1. Augustinus, Liesbeth, Vincent Vandeghinste & Frank Van Eynde(2012). Example-based treebank querying. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on language resources and evaluation (= LREC-2012). Istanbul, Turkey, 3161-3167.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Austin, John L.(1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Banfield, Ann(1982). Unspeakable sentences. Narration and representation in the language of fiction. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Benveniste, Émile(1958). De la subjectivité dans le langage. Journal de psychologie normale et pathologique55, 257-265. (Herdrukt in Problèmes de linguistique générale. Paris: Éditions Gallimard, 1966, 258-266).
   [Google Scholar]
5. Boogaart, Ronny(2015). Een sprinter is een stoptrein zonder WC. De sturende kracht van taal. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Boven, Erica van & Gillis Dorleijn(2013). Literair mechaniek. Inleiding tot de analyse van verhalen en gedichten. Derde, herziene druk. Bussum: Coutinho.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Broekhuis, Hans & Norbert Corver(2018). Syntax of Dutch, Verbs and verb phrases, Vol. 2. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Calis, Piet(1999). De vrienden van weleer. Schrijvers en tijdschriften tussen 1945 en 1948. Amsterdam: Meulenhoff.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Colleman, Timothy(2009). Verb disposition in argument structure alternations: A corpus study of the dative alternation in Dutch. Language sciences31, 593-611.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Collins, Chris & Phil Branigan(1997). Quotative inversion. Natural language and linguistic theory15, 1-41.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Croft, William(2001). Radical Construction Grammar. Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Dąbrowska, Ewa(2010). Naive v. expert intuitions. An empirical study of acceptability judgments. The linguistic review27, 1-23.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Evans, Nicholas(2007). Insubordination and its uses. In: IrinaNikolaeva (red.), Finiteness: Theoretical and empirical foundations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 366-431.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Fagel-de Werd, Suzanne(2015). De stijl van gewoon proza. Proefschrift Universiteit Leiden <hdl.handle.net/1887/31606>.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Fludernik, Monika(1993). The fictions of language and the languages of fiction. London/‌New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Fludernik, Monika(2005). Speech representation. In: DavidHerman, ManfredJahn & Marie-LaureRyan (red.), Routledge encyclopedia of narrative theory. London/New York: Routledge, 558-563.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Foolen, Ad, Ingrid van Alphen, Eric Hoekstra, Henk Lammers, Harrie Mazeland & Esther Pascual(2006). Het quotatieve van. Vorm, functie en sociolinguïstische variatie. Toegepaste taalwetenschap in artikelen76, 137-149.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Geeraerts, Dirk(2010). Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Haaften, Ton van(1991). De interpretatie van verzwegen subjecten. Proefschrift Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Haeseryn, Walter, Kirsten Romijn, Guido Geerts, Jaap de Rooij & Maarten C. van den Toorn(1997). Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. Tweede, geheel herziene uitgave. Groningen, etc.: Martinus Nijhoff uitgevers & Wolters Plantyn <ans.ruhosting.nl/e-ans/>.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Haiman, John & Sandra A. Thompson (red.) (1988). Clause combining in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam/‌Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Hilpert, Martin(2014). Construction Grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Jackendoff, Ray(1972). Semantic interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Leech, Geoffrey & Mick Short(2007). Style in fiction. A linguistic introduction to English fictional prose. Second edition. Harlow, etc.: Pearson Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Leeuwen, Maarten van(2015). Stijl en politiek. Een taalkundig-stilistische benadering van Nederlandse parlementaire toespraken. Proefschrift Universiteit Leiden. Utrecht: LOT <hdl.handle.net/1887/32770>.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Lodewick, H.J.M.F.(1975). Literaire kunst. Den Bosch: Malmberg.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Luif, Jan(1990). Zijn zinnen in de directe rede bijzinnen? In: J.B.den Besten, A.M.Duinhoven & J.P.A.Stroop (red.), Vragende wijs: Vragen over tekst, taal en taalgeschiedenis. Bundel aangeboden aan Leopold Peeters bij zijn afscheid als Hoogleraar Historische Taalkunde van het Nederlands aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 114-121.
    [Google Scholar]
28. McCawley, James D.(1982). Parentheticals and discontinuous constituent structure. Linguistic inquiry13, 91-106.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Nikiforidou, Kiki(2010). Viewpoint and Construction Grammar. The case of past + now. Language and Literature19, 265-284.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Nuyts, Jan(2001). Epistemic modality, language, and conceptualization. A cognitive-pragmatic perspective. Amsterdam/‌Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Onrust, Margreet, Arie Verhagen & Rob Doeve(1993). Formuleren. Houten: Bohn Stafleu Van Loghum.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Park, Chongwon & Bridget Park(2017). Cognitive Grammar and English nominalization: Event/result nominals and gerundives.Cognitive linguistics28, 711-756.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Reinhart, Tanya(1975). Whose main clause? (Point of view in sentences with parentheticals). In: SusumoKuno (red.), Harvard studies of syntax and semantics: Vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: Dept. of Linguistics, Harvard University, 127-171.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Rijpma, E. & F.G. Schuringa(1972). Nederlandse spraakkunst. Bewerkt door J. van Bakel. 24e druk. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff <https://www.dbnl.org/tekst/rijp001nede01_01/>.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Schelfhout, Carla(2000). Corpus-based analysis of parenthetical reporting clauses. In: FrankVan Eynde, InekeSchuurman & NessSchelkens (red.), Computational linguistics in the Netherlands 1998. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 147-159.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Stukker, Ninke & Arie Verhagen(2019). Stijl, taal en tekst. Stilistiek op taalkundige basis. Leiden: Leiden University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
37. Vandelanotte, Lieven(2004). Deixis and grounding in speech and thought representation. Journal of pragmatics36, 489-520.
    [Google Scholar]
38. Vandelanotte, Lieven(2009). Speech and thought representation in English: A cognitive-functional approach. Berlin/‌New York: Mouton De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
39. Vandelanotte, Lieven & Kristin Davidse(2009). The emergence and structure of be like and related quotatives. Cognitive linguistics20, 777-807.
    [Google Scholar]
40. Verhagen, Arie(2003). The Dutch Way. In: ArieVerhagen & Jeroenvan de Weijer (red.), Usage-based approaches to Dutch. Utrecht: LOT, 27-57.
    [Google Scholar]
41. Verhagen, Arie (2005a). Constructions of intersubjectivity. Discourse, syntax, and cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
42. Verhagen, Arie (2005b). Constructiegrammatica en ‘usage based’ taalkunde. Nederlandse taalkunde10, 197-223.
    [Google Scholar]
43. Verhagen, Arie(2009). The conception of constructions as complex signs. Emergence of structure and reduction to usage. Constructions and frames1, 119-152.
    [Google Scholar]
44. Verhagen, Arie(2010). Taalkundig denken. Denken als een taalkundige. Levende talen magazine97, 20-24.
    [Google Scholar]
45. Vliegen, Maurice(2014). ‘Allemaal subjectief’, sneerde ze. Citaatuitleidende werkwoorden in landelijke Nederlandse dagbladen in 1950/1 en 2002. Tijdschrift voor taalbeheersing36, 197-224.
    [Google Scholar]
46. Vries, Mark de(2006). Reported direct speech in Dutch. In: Jeroenvan de Weijer & BettelouLos (red.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 2006. Amsterdam/‌Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 212-223.
    [Google Scholar]
47. Vries, Mark de(2008). Asymmetric Merge and Parataxis. Canadian journal of linguistics – Revue canadienne de linguistique53, 355-386.
    [Google Scholar]