oa Het gebruik van zo’n en zulk

References

1. Algeo2006 – J.Algeo, British or American English? A handbook of word and grammar patterns. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Altenberg1994 – B.Altenberg, ‘On the functions of such in spoken and written English’. In: N.Oostdijk, P.De Haan & J.Aarts (eds.), Corpus-based research into language. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1994, p. 223-239.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Arnon & Snider2010 – I.Arnon & N.Snider, ‘More Than Words: Frequency Effects for Multi-Word Phrases’. In: Journal of Memory and Language62 (2010) 1, p. 67-82.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Barr e.a.2013 – D. J.Barr e.a., ‘Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal’. In: Journal of Memory and Language68 (2013) 3, p. 255-278.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Bates e.a.2018 – D.Bates e.a., ‘Parsimonious Mixed Models’. In: arXiv.org. Ithaca: Cornell University Library, arXiv.org, 2018, 1506.04967v2.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Beuls & Steels2013 – K.Beuls & L.Steels, ‘Agent-Based Models of Strategies for the Emergence and Evolution of Grammatical Agreement’. In: PLoS ONE8 (2013), 3, p. e58960.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Bod1995 – L.W.M.Bod, Enriching linguistics with statistics. Performance models of natural language. Proefschrift Universiteit van Amsterdam.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Cappelle2006 – B.Cappelle, ‘Particle placement and the case for “allostructions”’. In: Constructions7 (2006), p. 1-28.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Centraal Bureau voor Statistiek – Beschikbaar op: https://opendata.cbs.nl/statline/#/CBS/nl/dataset/83926NED/barv?dl=17256&ts=1584114358740 (Bezocht op 15september2021).
10. Croft2003 – W.Croft, ‘Lexical rules vs. constructions. A false dichotomy’. In: H.Cuyckens e.a. (eds.), Motivation in language: studies in honor of Günter Radden. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 2003, p. 49-68.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Dąbrowska2006 – E.Dąbrowska, ‘Low-level schemas or general rules? The role of diminutives in the acquisition of Polish case inflections’. In: Language Sciences28 (2006) 1, p. 120-135.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Dąbrowska2012 – E.Dąbrowska, ‘Different Speakers, Different Grammars: Individual Differences in Native Language Attainment’. In: Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism2 (2012) 3, p. 219-253.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Dąbrowska2014 – E.Dąbrowska, ‘Recycling utterances: A speaker’s guide to sentence processing’. In: Cognitive Linguistics25 (2014) 4, p. 617-653.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Dąbrowska2018 – E.Dąbrowska, ‘Experience, aptitude and individual differences in native language ultimate attainment’. In: Cognition178 (2018), p. 222-235.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Daems, Heylen & Geeraerts2015 – J.Daems, K.Heylen & D.Geeraerts, ‘Wat dragen we vandaag: een hemd met blazer of een shirt met jasje?’ In: Taal en Tongval67 (2015) 2, p. 307-342.
    [Google Scholar]
16. DenBoon & Geeraerts2005 – Van Dale Groot woordenboek van de Nederlandse taal. 14th ed. Antwerpen/Utrecht: Van Dale Lexicografie, 2005.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Diessel2019 – H.Diessel, The Grammar Network. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Duinhoven1988 – A. M.Duinhoven, Middelnederlandse syntaxis, synchroon en diachroon. Deel 1: de naamwoordgroep. Leiden: Nijhoff, 1988.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Gazzaniga, Ivry & Mangun2009 – M.Gazzaniga, R.Ivry & G.Mangun, Cognitive neuroscience. The biology of the mind. 3rd edn. New York: Norton, 2009.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Geeraerts & Van de Velde2013 – D. Geeraerts & H.Van de Velde, ‘Supra-regional characteristics of colloquial Dutch’. In: F.Hinskens & J.Taeldeman (eds.), Language and space: Dutch. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2013, p. 532-556.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Ghesquière & Van de Velde2011 – L.Ghesquière & F.Van de Velde, ‘A corpus-based account of the development of English such and Dutch zulk: Identification, intensification and (inter)subjectification’. In: Cognitive Linguistics22 (2011) 4, p. 765-797.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Gilbert2008 – N.Gilbert, Agent-based models. Los Angeles: Sage, 2008.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Gries2013 – S. T.Gries, Statistics for linguistics with R. A practical introduction. 2e ed. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2013.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Grondelaers, Speelman & Geeraerts2008 – S.Grondelaers, D.Speelman & D.Geeraerts, ‘National variation in the use of er “there”. Regional and diachronic constraints on cognitive explanations’. In: G.Kristiansen & R.Dirven (eds.), Cognitive Sociolinguistics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2008, p. 153-203.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Haeseryn1996 – W.Haeseryn, ‘Grammaticale verschillen tussen het Nederlands in België en het Nederlands in Nederland: Een poging tot inventarisatie’. In: R.van Hout & J.Kruijsen (red.), Taalvariaties: Toonzettingen en modulaties op een thema. Dordrecht: Foris, 1996, p. 109-126.
    [Google Scholar]
26. Haeseryn e.a.1997 – W.Haeseryn e.a, Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. Groningen: Nijhoff, 1997.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Heller2018 – B.Heller, Stability and fluidity in syntactic variation world-wide. Proefschrift KU Leuven.
    [Google Scholar]
28. Hosmer & Lemeshow2000 – D.Hosmer & S.Lemeshow, Applied logistic regression. 2e ed. New York: Wiley, 2000.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Levshina2015 – N.Levshina, How to do linguistics with R. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2015.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Oostdijk e.a.2002 – N.Oostdijk e.a., ‘Experiences from the Spoken Dutch corpus project’. Proceedings of the third international conference on language resources and evaluation (lrec), 2002, p. 340-347.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Oostdijk e.a.2013 – N.Oostdijk e.a., ‘The Construction of a 500-Million-Word Reference Corpus of Contemporary Written Dutch’. In: P.Spyns & J.Odijk (eds.), Essential Speech and Language Technology for Dutch. Heidelberg: Springer, 2013, p. 219-247.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Pijpops2020 – D.Pijpops, ‘What is an alternation? Six answers’. In: Belgian Journal of Linguistics34 (2020), p. 283-294.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Pijpops te versch. – D.Pijpops, ‘Lectal contamination. Evidence from corpora and from agent-based simulation’. In: International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, te verschijnen.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Pijpops, Beuls & Van de Velde2015 – D.Pijpops, K.Beuls & F.Van de Velde, ‘The rise of the verbal weak inflection in Germanic. An agent-based model’. In: Computational linguistics in the Netherlands Journal5 (2015), p. 81-102.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Pijpops & Van de Velde2016 – D.Pijpops & F.Van de Velde, ‘Constructional contamination: How does it work and how do we measure it?’ In: Folia Linguistica50 (2016) 2, p. 543-581.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Pijpops & Van de Velde2018 – D.Pijpops & F.Van de Velde, ‘A multivariate analysis of the partitive genitive in Dutch. Bringing quantitative data into a theoretical discussion’. In: Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory14 (2018) 1, p. 99-131.
    [Google Scholar]
37. Pijpops e.a.2018 – D.Pijpops e.a., ‘Comparing explanations for the Complexity Principle. Evidence from argument realization’. In: Language and Cognition10 (2018) 3, p. 514-543.
    [Google Scholar]
38. Plevoets2008 – K.Plevoets, Tussen spreek- en standaardtaal. Een corpusgebaseerd onderzoek naar de situationele, regionale en sociale verspreiding van enkele morfosyntactische verschijnselen uit het gesproken Belgisch-Nederlands. Proefschrift KU Leuven.
    [Google Scholar]
39. ‘Referentiebestand Nederlands – RBN’2014. Beschikbaar aan het Instituut voor de Nederlandse taal: http://hdl.handle.net/10032/tm-a2-n2, 2014.
40. Rohdenburg & Schlüter2009 – G.Rohdenburg & J.Schlüter, One language, two grammars? Differences between British and American English. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
    [Google Scholar]
41. Ruette2012 – T.Ruette, Aggregating Lexical Variation: towards large-scale lexical lectometry. Proefschrift KU Leuven.
    [Google Scholar]
42. De Smet & Van de Velde2019 – I.De Smet & F.Van de Velde, ‘Reassessing the evolution of West Germanic preterite inflection’. In: Diachronica36 (2019) 2, p. 139-180.
    [Google Scholar]
43. Speelman2014 – D.Speelman, ‘Logistic regression: A confirmatory technique for comparisons in corpus linguistics’. In: D.Glynn & J. A.Robinson (eds.), Corpus Methods for Semantics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2014, p. 487-533.
    [Google Scholar]
44. Speelman e.a.2020 – D.Speelman e.a., ‘Schaalvergroting in het syntactische alternantieonderzoek. Een nieuwe analyse van het presentatieve er met automatisch gegenereerde predictoren’. In: Nederlandse Taalkunde25 (2020) 1, p. 101-123.
    [Google Scholar]
45. Speelman & Geeraerts2009 – D.Speelman & D.Geeraerts, ‘Causes for causatives: the case of Dutch “doen” and “laten”’. In: T.Sanders & E.Sweetser (eds.), Causal Categories in Discourse and Cognition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2009, p. 173-204.
    [Google Scholar]
46. Speelman, Grondelaers & Geeraerts2008 – D.Speelman, S.Grondelaers & D.Geeraerts, ‘Variation in the choice of adjectives in the two main national varieties of Dutch’. In: G.Kristiansen & R.Dirven (eds.), Cognitive Sociolinguistics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2008, p. 205-233.
    [Google Scholar]
47. Speelman, Heylen & Geeraerts2018 – D.Speelman, K.Heylen & D.Geeraerts, ‘Introduction’. In: D.Speelman, K.Heylen & D.Geeraerts (eds.), Mixed-Effects Regression Models in Linguistics. Cham: Springer, 2018, p. 1-10.
    [Google Scholar]
48. Stefanowitsch & Flach2016 – A.Stefanowitsch & S.Flach, ‘The corpus-based perspective on entrenchment’. In: H.-J.Schmid (eds.), Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2016, p. 101-127.
    [Google Scholar]
49. Stefanowitsch & Gries2003 – A.Stefanowitsch & S.T.Gries, ‘Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions’. In: International Journal of Corpus Linguistics8 (2003) 2, p. 209-244.
    [Google Scholar]
50. Tremblay e.a.2011 – A.Tremblay e.a., ‘Processing Advantages of Lexical Bundles: Evidence from Self-Paced Reading and Sentence Recall Tasks’. In: Language Learning61 (2011) 2, p. 569-613.
    [Google Scholar]
51. Tremblay & Baayen2010 – A.Tremblay & R.H.Baayen, ‘Holistic Processing of Regular Four-word Sequences: A behavioral and ERP study of the effects of structure, frequency, and probability on immediate free recall’. In: D.Wood (eds.), Perspectives on formulaic language: acquisition and communication. London: Continuum, 2010, p. 151-173.
    [Google Scholar]
52. Tummers, Speelman & Geeraerts2005 – J.Tummers, D.Speelman & D.Geeraerts, ‘Inflectional variation in Belgian and Netherlandic Dutch: a usage-based account of the adjectival inflection’. In: N.Delbecque, J.Van der Auwera & D.Geeraerts (eds.), Perspectives on variation: sociolinguistic, historical, comparative. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2005, p. 93-110.
    [Google Scholar]
53. Van Agtmaal-Wobma e.a.2007 – E.van Agtmaal-Wobma e.a., Belgen in Nederland en Nederlanders in België. Centraal Bureau voor de Statisitiek (cbs).
    [Google Scholar]
54. Van de Velde2009 – F.Van de Velde, De nominale constituent. Structuur en geschiedenis. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2009.
    [Google Scholar]
55. Van der Horst2008 – J.van der Horst, Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse syntaxis. Leuven: Universitaire Pers Leuven, 2008.
    [Google Scholar]
56. Van der Vliet2007 – H.van der Vliet, ‘The Referentiebestand Nederlands as a Multi-Purpose Lexical Database’. In: International Journal of Lexicography20 (2007) 3, p. 239-257.
    [Google Scholar]
57. Van Eerten2007 – L.van Eerten, ‘Over het Corpus Gesproken Nederlands’. In: Nederlandse Taalkunde12 (2007) 3, p. 194-215.
    [Google Scholar]
58. Van Olmen2019 – D.Van Olmen, ‘A diachronic corpus study of prenominal zo’n “so a” in Dutch: Pathways and (inter)subjectification’. In: Functions of Language26 (2019) 2, p. 216-247.
    [Google Scholar]
59. Van Olmen & Van der Auwera2014 – D.Van Olmen & J.van der Auwera, ‘Over zo’n en zo meer’. In: F.Van de Velde e.a. (red.), Patroon en argument. Een dubbelfeestbundel bij het emeritaat van William Van Belle en Joop van der Horst. Leuven: Universitaire Pers Leuven, 2014, p. 215-228.
    [Google Scholar]
60. Variantengrammatik des Standarddeutschen2018 – Ein Online-Nachschlagewerk. Verfasst von einem Autorenteam unter der Leitung von Christa Dürscheid, Stephan Elspaß und Arne Ziegler. 2018. Beschikbaar op http://mediawiki.ids-mannheim.de/VarGra/index.php/Substantive_auf_-ation_/_-ung.
    [Google Scholar]
61. Wallis2012 – S.Wallis, ‘That vexed problem of choice’. Presentatie op ICAME33, KU Leuven, 30mei – 3juni2012. Beschikbaar op: www.ucl.ac.uk/english-usage/statspapers/vexedchoice.pdf.
    [Google Scholar]
62. Wolk e.a.2013 – C.Wolk e.a., ‘Dative and genitive variability in Late Modern English: Exploring cross-constructional variation and change’. In: Diachronica30 (2013) 3, p. 382-419.
    [Google Scholar]
63. Zehentner & Traugott2020 – E.Zehentner & E.C.Traugott, ‘Constructional networks and the development of benefactive ditransitives in English’. In: L.Sommerer & E.Smirnova (eds.), Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2020, p. 168-211.
    [Google Scholar]