Displaying 101 - 134 of 134
-
Naffah, N., Kempen, G., Rohmer, J., Steels, L., Tsichritzis, D., & White, G. (1985). Intelligent Workstation in the office: State of the art and future perspectives. In J. Roukens, & J. Renuart (
Eds. ), Esprit '84: Status report of ongoing work (pp. 365-378). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers. -
Nas, G., Kempen, G., & Hudson, P. (1984). De rol van spelling en klank bij woordherkenning tijdens het lezen. In A. Thomassen, L. Noordman, & P. Elling (
Eds. ), Het leesproces. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger. -
Noordman, L. G., & Vonk, W. (1998). Discourse comprehension. In A. D. Friederici (
Ed. ), Language comprehension: a biological perspective (pp. 229-262). Berlin: Springer.Abstract
The human language processor is conceived as a system that consists of several interrelated subsystems. Each subsystem performs a specific task in the complex process of language comprehension and production. A subsystem receives a particular input, performs certain specific operations on this input and yields a particular output. The subsystems can be characterized in terms of the transformations that relate the input representations to the output representations. An important issue in describing the language processing system is to identify the subsystems and to specify the relations between the subsystems. These relations can be conceived in two different ways. In one conception the subsystems are autonomous. They are related to each other only by the input-output channels. The operations in one subsystem are not affected by another system. The subsystems are modular, that is they are independent. In the other conception, the different subsystems influence each other. A subsystem affects the processes in another subsystem. In this conception there is an interaction between the subsystems. -
Ozyurek, A. (2000). Differences in spatial conceptualization in Turkish and English discourse: Evidence from both speech and gesture. In A. Goksel, & C. Kerslake (
Eds. ), Studies on Turkish and Turkic languages (pp. 263-272). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. -
Ozyurek, A. (2000). The influence of addressee location on spatial language and representational gestures of direction. In D. McNeill (
Ed. ), Language and gesture (pp. 64-83). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. -
Sandberg, A., Lansner, A., Petersson, K. M., & Ekeberg, Ö. (2000). A palimpsest memory based on an incremental Bayesian learning rule. In J. M. Bower (
Ed. ), Computational Neuroscience: Trends in Research 2000 (pp. 987-994). Amsterdam: Elsevier. -
Senft, G., & Labov, W. (1980). Einige Prinzipien linguistischer Methodologie [transl. from English by Gunter Senft]. In N. Dittmar, & B. O. Rieck (
Eds. ), William Labov: Sprache im sozialen Kontext (pp. 1-24). Königstein: Athenäum FAT. -
Senft, G. (1998). 'Noble Savages' and the 'Islands of Love': Trobriand Islanders in 'Popular Publications'. In J. Wassmann (
Ed. ), Pacific answers to Western hegemony: Cultural practices of identity construction (pp. 119-140). Oxford: Berg Publishers. -
Senft, G., & Labov, W. (1980). Hyperkorrektheit der unteren Mittelschicht als Faktor im Sprachwandel; [transl. from English by Gunter Senft]. In N. Dittmar, & B. O. Rieck (
Eds. ), William Labov: Sprache im sozialen Kontext (pp. 77-94). Königstein: Athneäum FAT. -
Senft, G. (2000). Introduction. In G. Senft (
Ed. ), Systems of nominal classification (pp. 1-10). Cambridge University Press. -
Senft, G. (2000). What do we really know about nominal classification systems? In Conference handbook. The 18th national conference of the English Linguistic Society of Japan. 18-19 November, 2000, Konan University (pp. 225-230). Kobe: English Linguistic Society of Japan.
-
Senft, G. (2000). What do we really know about nominal classification systems? In G. Senft (
Ed. ), Systems of nominal classification (pp. 11-49). Cambridge University Press. -
Senft, G. (1998). Zeichenkonzeptionen in Ozeanien. In R. Posner, T. Robering, & T.. Sebeok (
Eds. ), Semiotics: A handbook on the sign-theoretic foundations of nature and culture (Vol. 2) (pp. 1971-1976). Berlin: de Gruyter. -
Seuren, P. A. M. (2000). A discourse-semantic account of topic and comment. In N. Nicolov, & R. Mitkov (
Eds. ), Recent advances in natural language processing II. Selected papers from RANLP '97 (pp. 179-190). Amsterdam: Benjamins. -
Seuren, P. A. M. (1980). Dreiwertige Logik und die Semantik natürlicher Sprache. In J. Ballweg, & H. Glinz (
Eds. ), Grammatik und Logik: Jahrbuch 1979 des Instituts für deutsche Sprache (pp. 72-103). Düsseldorf: Pädagogischer Verlag Schwann. -
Seuren, P. A. M. (1976). Echo, een studie in negatie. In G. Koefoed, & A. Evers (
Eds. ), Lijnen van taaltheoretisch onderzoek: Een bundel oorspronkelijke artikelen aangeboden aan prof. dr. H. Schultink (pp. 160-184). Groningen: Tjeenk Willink. -
Seuren, P. A. M. (1986). Anaphora resolution. In T. Myers, K. Brown, & B. McGonigle (
Eds. ), Reasoning and discourse processes (pp. 187-207). London: Academic Press. -
Seuren, P. A. M. (2000). Pseudocomplementen. In H. Den Besten, E. Elffers, & J. Luif (
Eds. ), Samengevoegde woorden. Voor Wim Klooster bij zijn afscheid als hoogleraar (pp. 231-237). Amsterdam: Leerstoelgroep Nederlandse Taalkunde, Universiteit van Amsterdam. -
Seuren, P. A. M. (1973). The comparative. In F. Kiefer, & N. Ruwet (
Eds. ), Generative grammar in Europe (pp. 528-564). Reidel: Dordrecht.Abstract
No idea is older in the history of linguistics than the thought that there is, somehow hidden underneath the surface of sentences, a form or a structure which provides a semantic analysis and lays bare their logical structure. In Plato’s Cratylus the theory was proposed, deriving from Heraclitus’ theory of explanatory underlying structure in physical nature, that words contain within themselves bits of syntactic structure giving their meanings. The Stoics held the same view and maintained moreover that every sentence has an underlying logical structure, which for them was the Aristotelian subject- predicate form. They even proposed transformational processes to derive the surface from the deep structure. The idea of a semantically analytic logical form underlying the sentences of every language kept reappearing in various guises at various times. Quite recently it re-emerged under the name of generative semantics. -
Seuren, P. A. M., & Wekker, H. (1986). Semantic transparency as a factor in Creole genesis. In P. Muysken, & N. Smith (
Eds. ), Substrata versus universals in Creole genesis: Papers from the Amsterdam Creole Workshop, April 1985 (pp. 57-70). Amsterdam: Benjamins. -
Seuren, P. A. M. (1973). The new approach to the study of language. In B. Douglas (
Ed. ), Linguistics and the mind (pp. 11-20). Sydney: Sydney University Extension Board. -
Seuren, P. A. M. (1998). Towards a discourse-semantic account of donkey anaphora. In S. Botley, & T. McEnery (
Eds. ), New Approaches to Discourse Anaphora: Proceedings of the Second Colloquium on Discourse Anaphora and Anaphor Resolution (DAARC2) (pp. 212-220). Lancaster: Universiy Centre for Computer Corpus Research on Language, Lancaster University. -
Stassen, H., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1976). Systemen, automaten en grammatica's. In J. Michon, E. Eijkman, & L. De Klerk (
Eds. ), Handboek der psychonomie (pp. 100-127). Deventer: Van Loghum Slaterus. -
Stolker, C. J. J. M., & Poletiek, F. H. (1998). Smartengeld - Wat zijn we eigenlijk aan het doen? Naar een juridische en psychologische evaluatie. In F. Stadermann (
Ed. ), Bewijs en letselschade (pp. 71-86). Lelystad, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Vermande. -
Suppes, P., Böttner, M., & Liang, L. (1998). Machine Learning of Physics Word Problems: A Preliminary Report. In A. Aliseda, R. van Glabbeek, & D. Westerståhl (
Eds. ), Computing Natural Language (pp. 141-154). Stanford, CA, USA: CSLI Publications.Files private
Request files -
Thomassen, A., & Kempen, G. (1976). Geheugen. In J. A. Michon, E. Eijkman, & L. F. De Klerk (
Eds. ), Handboek der Psychonomie (pp. 354-387). Deventer: Van Loghum Slaterus. -
Van Wijk, C., & Kempen, G. (1985). From sentence structure to intonation contour: An algorithm for computing pitch contours on the basis of sentence accents and syntactic structure. In B. Müller (
Ed. ), Sprachsynthese: Zur Synthese von natürlich gesprochener Sprache aus Texten und Konzepten (pp. 157-182). Hildesheim: Georg Olms. -
Van Wijk, C., & Kempen, G. (1982). Kost zinsbouw echt tijd? In R. Stuip, & W. Zwanenberg (
Eds. ), Handelingen van het zevenendertigste Nederlands Filologencongres (pp. 223-231). Amsterdam: APA-Holland University Press. -
Van Geenhoven, V. (1998). On the Argument Structure of some Noun Incorporating Verbs in West Greenlandic. In M. Butt, & W. Geuder (
Eds. ), The Projection of Arguments - Lexical and Compositional Factors (pp. 225-263). Stanford, CA, USA: CSLI Publications.Files private
Request files -
Van Valin Jr., R. D. (1998). The acquisition of WH-questions and the mechanisms of language acquisition. In M. Tomasello (
Ed. ), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure (pp. 221-249). Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum. -
Weissenborn, J., & Stralka, R. (1984). Das Verstehen von Mißverständnissen. Eine ontogenetische Studie. In Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik (pp. 113-134). Stuttgart: Metzler.
-
Weissenborn, J. (1984). La genèse de la référence spatiale en langue maternelle et en langue seconde: similarités et différences. In G. Extra, & M. Mittner (
Eds. ), Studies in second language acquisition by adult immigrants (pp. 262-286). Tilburg: Tilburg University. -
Weissenborn, J. (1986). Learning how to become an interlocutor. The verbal negotiation of common frames of reference and actions in dyads of 7–14 year old children. In J. Cook-Gumperz, W. A. Corsaro, & J. Streeck (
Eds. ), Children's worlds and children's language (pp. 377-404). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. -
Zavala, R. (2000). Multiple classifier systems in Akatek (Mayan). In G. Senft (
Ed. ), Systems of nominal classification (pp. 114-146). Cambridge University Press.
Share this page