Qualitative-Quantitative Analyses of Dutch and Afrikaans Grammar and Lexicon

| University of California, Los Angeles
HardboundAvailable
ISBN 9789027215772 | EUR 105.00 | USD 158.00
 
e-Book
ISBN 9789027271044 | EUR 105.00 | USD 158.00
 
Sharing certain assumptions but differing in theory and practice, both Columbia School linguistics (CS) and Cognitive Grammar (CG) have increasingly supported their analyses with quantitative evidence. Citation of individual sentences, in isolation or in context, has been supplemented with counts of linguistic forms in texts, informant questionnaires, and perception tests. The present volume, continuing a dialogue between CS and CG, offers six such qualitative-quantitative studies, one on Afrikaans and five on Dutch. Topics include (a) demonstratives, (b) pragmatic particles and imperatives, (c) a puzzling “dismissive” idiom, (d) progressive aspect, and (e) indirect objects. While CS is better suited for analyzing relatively closed systems (e.g. tense, pronouns), CG provides more insight into the vagaries of the amorphous lexicon. The author also offers personal remarks on “linguistics as a path” and discusses how in one case a wrong prediction reflects his dual role as both linguist and student of Dutch as a foreign language.
Publishing status: Available
Table of Contents
v
Acknowledgements
xi
1. Introduction
1–6
2. The Dutch demonstrative adjectives: Analyses and responses
7–42
3. The Afrikaans demonstratives and instructional meanings
43–84
4. On imperatives and pragmatic particles
85–120
5. What it takes to understand how one Dutch idiom works
121–162
6. Further explorations
163–212
7. Afterword
213–220
References and corpora
221–234
Name index
235–236
Subject index
237–239
“Professor Kirsner combines the perceptive amazement of a non-native speaker with analytic skills fed by the Columbia School of linguistics, by Californian functionalism, and by Cognitive Grammar. The result is a fascinating series of studies on Dutch and Afrikaans: aspects of the grammar that seem obvious to the native speaker turn out to be puzzles on closer scrutiny - but in Kirsner's able hands, they do come with a solution.”
“Are linguistic items typically monosemous or rather polysemous? Do lexical items and grammatical constructions behave the same or differently in this respect? And how can quantitative analysis of utterance data help decide such questions? In this book, Kirsner analyzes Dutch and Afrikaans demonstrative pronouns, Dutch modal particles and imperative and progressive constructions as test cases for these theoretical and methodological questions, and reflects on the implications of his findings for theoretical models like Columbia School and Cognitive Grammar. The present volume provides an inspiring insight in Kirsner’s life long fascination with languages, linguistic theories and methodological dilemmas.”
Cited by

Cited by other publications

No author info given
2017.  In The Substance and Value of ItalianSi [Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics, 74], Crossref logo
Breed, Adri, Frank Brisard & Ben Verhoeven
2017. Periphrastic Progressive Constructions in Dutch and Afrikaans: A Contrastive Analysis. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 29:4  pp. 305 ff. Crossref logo
Kirsner, Robert S.
2014.  In Above and Beyond the Segments,  pp. 165 ff. Crossref logo
Lin, Lin
2020.  In The German Demonstratives [Peking University Linguistics Research, 2],  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
van Rooy, Bertus & Haidee Kruger
2016. The innovative progressive aspect of Black South African English. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 2:2  pp. 205 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 november 2020. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

References

References and Corpora

References

Andrews, E. & Tobin, Y.
(Eds.). (1996). Towards a Calculus of Meaning: Studies in Markedness, Distinctive Features, and Deixis . [Studies in Structural and Functional Linguistics 43]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, M.
(1990) Accessing Noun Phrase Antecedents . London: Routledge.Google Scholar
(1998). The linguistic status of the ‘here and now.’ Cognitive Linguistics , 9 (3), 189–237. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2001). Accessibility theory: An overview. InT.Sanders , J.Schilperoord & W.Spooren (Eds.), Text Representation: Linguistic and Psycholinguistic Aspects (pp. 29–87). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishers. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Audring, J.
(2006). Pronominal gender in Spoken Dutch. Journal of Germanic Linguistics , 18(2), 85–116. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Battus
. (2003). Opperlands! Taal & Letterkunde . Amsterdam: Em. Querido’s Uitgeverij BV.Google Scholar
Becker, A. L.
(1984). The linguistics of particularity: Interpreting subordination in a Javanese text. InC.Brugman & M.Macauley et al.. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 425–436). University of California, Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Beets, A. & Knuttel, J. A. N.
(1912). Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal. Zesde Deel. Haarst-Izegrim . The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Bendix, E. H.
(1966). Componential Analysis of General Vocabulary: The Semantic Structure of a Set of Verbs in English, Hindi, and Japanese . Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Beveridge, W. I. B.
(1979). The Art of Scientific Investigation . London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Blom, A.
(1987). KLOPPEN S.V.P. Onderdeel van een procedure. Voortgang: Jaarboek voor de Neerlandistiek , 8, 177–189.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D.
(1975). Aspects of Language . (2nd ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Boogaart, R.
(1991). ‘Progressive aspect’ in Dutch. InF.Drijkoningen & A.van Kemenade (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1991 (pp. 1–9). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
(1999). Aspect and Temporal Ordering: A Contrastive Analysis of Dutch and English . PhD diss., Vrije Universiteit. Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics: The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar
den Boon, T. & Geeraerts, D. et al..
(Eds). (2005). Van Dale Groot Woordenboek van de Nederlandse Taal . Utrecht and Antwerp: Van Dale Lexicografie.Google Scholar
Brandt Corstius, H.
(1978). Computer-Taalkunde . Muiderberg: Dick Coutinho.Google Scholar
Brown, P. & Levinson, S.C.
(1987). Politeness. Some Universals in Language Usage . [Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 4]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Buitenhuis, P. A.
(1993). Hoor in vijf gedaanten. Onze Taal , 62(1), 6.Google Scholar
Carstens, W. A. M.
(1997). Afrikaanse Tekslinguistiek: 'n Inleiding . Pretoria: J. L. van Schaik.Google Scholar
Casad, E. H. & Langacker, R. W.
(1985). ‘Inside’ and ‘outside’ in Cora grammar. International Journal of American Linguistics , 51(3), 247–281. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Colleman, T.
(2006). De Nederlandse Datiefalternantie: Een Constructioneel en Corpus-gebaseerd Onderzoek . PhD. diss., Ghent University.Google Scholar
(2009). Verb disposition in argument structure alternations: a corpus study of the dative alternation in Dutch. Language Sciences , 31, 593–611. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Contini-Morava, E.
(1976). Statistical demonstration of a meaning: The Swahili locatives in existential assertions. Studies in African Linguistics , 7(2), 137–56.Google Scholar
(1989). Discourse Pragmatics and Semantic Categorization: The Case of Negation and Tense-Aspect with Special Reference to Swahili . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Contini-Morava, E. & Goldberg, B. S.
(Eds). (1995). Meaning as Explanation: Advances in Linguistic Sign Theory . [Trends in Linguistics 84]. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Contini-Morava, E. , Kirsner, R. S. & Rodríguz-Bachiller, B.
(Eds). (2004). Cognitive and Communicative Approaches to Linguistic Analysis . [Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics 51]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cook, K.
1995. Dubbel Dutch . Groningen: Boekwerk.Google Scholar
Coppen, P. A.
(1998). De succes-imperatief. Nederlandse Taalkunde , 3, 85–95.Google Scholar
Cornelis, L.
(1996). Dutch and English: The passive difference. Language Sciences , 18, 247–264. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1997). Passive and Perspective . [Utrecht Studies in Language and Communication 10]. Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Croft, W. & Cruse, D. A.
(2004). Cognitive Linguistics . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Darren, G. & Mallery, P.
(2003). SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide And Reference, 11.0 update . (4th ed.). New York: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Davis, J. , Gorup, R. J. & Stern, N.
(Eds.). (2006). Advances in Functional Linguistics: Columbia School beyond its Origins . [Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics 57]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Davis, J.
(1995). Italian pronouns and the virtue of relative meaninglessness. InE.Contini-Morava & B.SussmanGoldberg (Eds.) (pp. 423–440). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2000). On abstinence and abdication: Italian si . Paper presented at the6th International Conference on Columbia School Linguistics, February2000, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
(2002). Rethinking the place of statistics in Columbia School analysis. InW.Reid , R.Otheguy , and N.Stern (Eds.), Signal, Meaning, and Message: Perspectives on Sign-Based Linguistics (pp. 65–90). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2004). The linguistics of William Diver and the linguistics of Ferdinand de Saussure. InG.Haßler and G.Volkmann (Eds.), History of Linguistics in Texts and Concepts . [Volume1]. (pp. 307–326). Münster: Nodus Publikationen.Google Scholar
(2006). Consistency and change in Columbia School linguistics. InJ.Davis , R. J.Gorup , and N. (Eds.), Advances in Functional Linguistics: Columbia School beyond its Origins (pp. 1–15). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
DeLancy, S.
(2001). On Functionalism. Lecture 1. Unpublished. Santa Barbara: LSA Summer Institute. Retrieved as: http://​pages​.uoregon​.edu​/delancey​/sb​/LECT01​.htm
De Stadler, L. G.
(1989). Afrikaanse Semantiek . Johannesburg: Southern Boekuitgewers.Google Scholar
Diessel, H.
(1999). Demonstratives: Form, Function, and Grammaticalization [Typological Studies in Language 43]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006). Demonstratives, joint attention, and the emergence of grammar. Cognitive Linguistics , 17(4), 463–489. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diver, W.
(1969). The system of Relevance of the Homeric verb. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia , 12, 45–68. Reprinted inHuffman & Davis (Eds.) (pp.135–159). Leiden & Boston: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1984). The Grammars of Homeric Greek and Classical Latin . Unpublished textbook for Linguistics G6803, Columbia University.Google Scholar
(1986). The Latin precursors of the ‘Romance reflexive’. InO.Jaeggli & C.Silva-Corvalan (Eds.), Studies in Romance Linguistics (pp. 321–342). Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
(1987). The Dual. Columbia University Working Papers in Linguistics 8 , 100–114. Reprinted inHuffman and Davis (Eds.) (pp. 87–100). Leiden and Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
(1995). Theory. InE.Contini-Morava and B. SussmanGoldberg (Eds.), 43–114. Revised and augmented version printed inA.Huffman and J.Davis (Eds.), 445–519. Leiden and Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Diver, W. & Davis, J.
(2012). Latin voice and case. InA.Huffman and J.Davis (Eds.), (pp. 195–245). Leiden and Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Diver, W. , Davis, J. & Reid, Wallis
. (2012). Traditional grammar and its legacy in twentieth-century linguistics. InA.Huffman and J.Davis (Eds.) (pp. 371–443). Leiden and Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Donaldson, B.
(1993). A Grammar of Afrikaans . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2000). Colloquial Afrikaans . London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Duinhoven, A. M.
(1984). Ban de bom! Over de vorm en betekenis van de imperatief. De Nieuwe Taalgids , 77(2), 148–156.Google Scholar
(1997). Middelnederlandse Syntaxis: Synchroon en Diachroon. Deel 2: De werkwoordgroep . Groningen: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Ebeling, C. L.
(2006). Semiotaxis: Over Theoretische en Nederlandse Syntaxis . Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Elffers, E.
(1999). Accent and modal particles. InK.van Hoek , A.Kibrik & L.Noordman (Eds.) (pp. 149–164). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Epstein, R.
(1994). Discourse and Definiteness: Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives . PhD diss., University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Feige, E.
(1975). The consequences of journal editorial policies and a suggestion for revision. Journal of Political Economy , 83, 1291–95. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C.
(1997). Lectures on Deixis . Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Fletcher, W.
(1987). Semantic factors in Dutch gender choice. InW. H.Fletcher (Ed.) Papers from the Second Interdisciplinary Conference on Netherlandic Studies (pp.51–63). New York: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Foolen, A.
(1993). De Betekenis van Partikels: Een Dokumentatie van de Stand van het Onderzoek met Bijzondere Aandacht voor ‘Maar ’. PhD diss., Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen.Google Scholar
(1995). Dutch modal particles: The relevance of grammaticalized elements. InT. F.Shannon & J. P.Snapper (Eds.), The Berkeley Conference on Dutch Linguistics 1993 . [Publications of the American Association for Netherlandic Studies 8] (pp. 57–70). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
(1996). Pragmatic particles. InJ.Verschueren et al.. (Eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics 1996 (pp. 1–24). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Foreman, J.
(2003). Doctor for peace gains power for laity. A conversation with James Muller. New York Times . April 1, 2003. Page D5.
Fortuin, E.
(2003). De directieve infinitief en de imperatief in het Nederlands. Nederlandse Taalkunde , 9 (1), 14–43.Google Scholar
García, E.C.
, (1975). The Role of Theory in Linguistic Analysis. The Spanish Pronoun System . Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
, (1996). Measured coherence. Belgian Journal of Linguistics , 10, 139–160. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Geerts, G. , Haeseryn, W. , de Rooij, J. , & van den Toorn, M. C.
(1984). Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst . Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff & Leuven: Wolters.Google Scholar
Givón, T.
(1975). Negation in language: pragmatics, function, ontology. Working Papers in Language Universals 18, 59–116. Stanford: Stanford University.Google Scholar
(Ed.). (1979a). Discourse and Syntax . [Syntax and Semantics 12]. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(1979b). On Understanding Grammar . New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(1983). Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language Study . Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(1992). The inherent semantics of argument structure: The case of the English ditransitive construction. Cognitive Linguistics , 3, 37–74. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A.E.
(2011). Corpus evidence of the viability of statistical preemption. Cognitive Linguistics , 22(1), 131–153. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, R. J. , Brady, P. , & Muller, J. E.
et. al. (1990). Time of onset of symptoms of acute myocardial infarction. American Journal of Cardiology , 66, 140–144. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gorlach, M.
(2004). Phrasal Constructions and Resultativeness in English . Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gorup, R. J.
(2006). Se without Deixis . InJ. Davis, R. J. Gorup , & N.Stern (Eds.) (pp. 195–209). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Gouws, R. , Feinauer, I. , & Ponelis, F.
(1994). Basiswoordeboek van Afrikaans . Pretoria: Van Schaik Uitgewers.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H.
(1995). Some iconic ielationships among place, time, and discourse deixis. InJ.Haiman (Ed.), Iconicity in Syntax (pp. 270–287). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Gries, S. T.
(2003). Multifactorial Analysis in Corpus Linguistics: A Study of Particle Placement . New York & London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Gries, S. T. , & Stefanowitsch, A.
(2004). Extending collostructional analysis. A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations.’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics , 9(1), 97–129. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(Eds.). (2006). Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-Based Approaches to Syntax and Lexis . Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
de Groot, H. et al..
(Eds.). (1999). Van Dale Idioomwoordenboek . Utrecht & Antwerp: Van Dale Lexicografie.Google Scholar
Gross, M.
(1979). On the failure of generative grammar. Language , 55, 859–85. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gundel, J. K. , Hedberg, N. & Zacharski, R.
(1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language , 69, 274–307. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
de Haan, S.
(1992). Vul de bon in en win een reis! Over imperatieven in reclameteksten. InE.G.Schermer-Vermeer , W.G.Klooster & A.F.Florijn (Eds.), De Kunst van de Grammatica. Artikelen Aangeboden aan Frida Balk-Smit Duyzentkunst bij Haar Afscheid als Hoogleraar Taalkunde van het Hedendaags Nederlands aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam (pp. 95–109). Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Haeseryn, W. , Romijn, K. , Geerts, G. , de Rooij, J. , & van den Toorn, M.C.
(1997). Algemene Nederlandse spraakkunst . Tweede, geheel herziene druk. Volumes1and 2. Groningen: Martinus Nijhoff Uitgevers & Deurne: Wolters Plantyn.Google Scholar
Haiman, J.
(1990). Sarcasm as theater. Cognitive Linguistics , 1, 181–205. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1998). Talk is Cheap: Sarcasm, Alienation, and the Evolution of Languages . New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Han, C.
(1998). The Structure and Interpretation of Imperatives: Mood and Force in Universal Grammar . PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Hatch, E. , & Lazaraton, A.
(1991). The Research Manual: Design and Statistics for Applied Linguistics . Boston, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
van Heuven, V. J. , & Kirsner, R. S.
(1999). Interaction of grammatical form and intonation: Two experiments on Dutch imperatives. InR.Kager & R.van Bezooijen (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1999 (pp. 81–96). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hoeksema, J.
(1992). Bevelende zinnen zonder polaire tegenhanger. InH.Bennis and J.W.de Vries (Eds.), De Binnenbouw van het Nederlands: Een Bundel Artikelen voor Piet Paardekooper (pp. 125–131). Dordrecht : ICG Publications.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, T.A. & Hyams, N.
(1998). Aspects of root infinitives. Lingua , 106, 81–104. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J.
(1979). Aspect and foregrounding in discourse. InT.Givón (Ed.) (pp. 213–241). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. , & Thompson, S.
(1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language , 56, 251–299. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J. , & Traugott, E. C.
(2003). Grammaticalization . (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van der Horst, J. , & van der Horst, K.
(1999). Geschiedenis van het Nederlands in de Twintigste Eeuw . Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers and Antwerpen: Standaard Uitgeverij.Google Scholar
Huffman, A.
(1997). The Categories of Grammar. French lui and le [Studies in Language Companion Series 30]. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2001). The linguistics of William Diver and the Columbia School. Word , 52(1), 29–68. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006). Diver’s theory. InJ. Davis, R. J. Gorup. , and N.Stern (Eds.) (pp. 41–62). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
(2012). Introduction: The enduring legacy of William Diver. InA.Huffman and J.Davis (Eds.) (pp. 1–20). Boston & Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Huffman, A. , & Davis, J.
(Eds.) (2012). Language: Communication and Human Behavior: The Linguistic Essays of William Diver . Boston & Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Hyams, N.
(2005). Child non-finite clauses and the mood-aspect connection: evidence from child Greek. InR.Slabakova & P.Kempchinsky (Eds.) Aspectual Inquiries . (pp.293–315). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
IJbema, A.
(2002). Grammaticalization and Infinitival Complements in Dutch . PhD diss., Leiden University. LOT, Utrecht.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R.
(1932). Zur Struktur des russischen Verbums. Chiatisteria, V. Mathesio oblata . Cercle Linguistique de Prague, 74–83.Google Scholar
Janssen, T.A.J.M.
(1976). Hebben-Konstrukties en Indirekt-Objektskonstrukties . Utrecht: H & S Publishers.Google Scholar
(1995a). Deixis from a cognitive point of view. InE.Contini-Morava & B. S.Goldberg (Eds.) (pp. 245–270). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Janssen, T A.J.M.
(1995b). Heterosemy or polyfunctionality? The case of Dutch maar ‘but, only, just’. InT. F.Shannon & J. P.Snapper (Eds.) (pp. 71–85). Lanham, Md.: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Johnson Jr., J.
(2009). Raindrops keep falling -- too quickly -- on my head. Los Angeles Times , June 20, 2009. http://​articles​.latimes​.com​/2009​/jun​/20​/science​/sci​-rainfall20 .
de Jong, E.
(Ed.). (1979). Spreektaal: Woordfrequenties in Gesproken Nederlands . Utrecht: Bohn, Scheltema and Holkema.Google Scholar
Keppel, G.
(1982). Design and Analysis: A Researcher’s Handbook . (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.Google Scholar
(1991). Design and Analysis: A Researcher’s Handbook . (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Kirsner, R. S.
(1968). The Modal Auxiliaries of Modern Standard Dutch: A Comparison of Generative Transformational and Form-Content Analyses . Master’s thesis, Columbia University.Google Scholar
(1972). On Deixis and Degree of Differentiation in Modern Standard Dutch . PhD diss., Columbia University. Ann Arbor, Michigan, Xerox University Microfilms, 73–9027.Google Scholar
(1976a). De ‘onechte lijdende vorm’. Spektator: Tijdschrift voor Neerlandistiek , 6, 1–18.Google Scholar
(1976b). On the subjectless ‘pseudo-passive’ in Standard Dutch and the semantics of background agents. InC. N.Li (Ed.), Subject and Topic (pp. 384–415). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(1979a). Deixis in discourse: An exploratory quantitative study of the Modern Dutch demonstrative adjectives. InT.Givón (Ed.), Discourse and Syntax: Vol. 12. Syntax and Semantics (pp. 355–375). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(1979b). The Problem of Presentative Sentences in Modern Dutch . North-Holland Linguistic Series 43. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
(1981). The pragmatics of ‘progressive aspect’ in Modern Dutch. Paper presented at the56th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, New York City.Google Scholar
(1983). On the use of quantitative discourse data to determine inferential mechanisms in grammar. InF.Klein-Andreu (Ed.), Discourse Perspectives on Syntax (pp. 237–257). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(1985a). Iconicity and grammatical meaning. InJ.Haiman (Ed.), Iconicity in Syntax . [Typological Studies in Language 6]. (pp. 249–270). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1985b). Quantitative approaches to Dutch linguistic structure. InW.H.Fletcher (Ed.), Papers from the First Interdisciplinary Conference on Netherlandic Studies, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, June 1982. (pp. 95–104). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
(1986). On being empirical with Dutch indirect objects: The subtleties of aan . InJ.Snapper and J.van Oosten (Eds.), Dutch Linguistics at Berkeley: Papers Presented at the Dutch Linguistics Colloquium Held at the University of California, Berkeley on November 9th, 1985 (pp. 27–43). University of California, Berkeley: Dutch Studies Program.Google Scholar
(1987). What it takes to show whether an analysis ‘fits?’ InH.Bluhme and G.Hammarström (Eds.), Descriptio Linguistica: Proceedings of the First Conference on Descriptive and Strucural Linguistics . Antwerp, 9–10September1985 (pp. 76–113). Tübingen: Gunther Narr.Google Scholar
(1989). Does sign-oriented linguistics have a future? On the falsifiability of theoretical constructs. InY.Tobin (Ed.), From Sign to Text: A Semiotic View of Communication (pp. 161–178). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1990). Grappling with the ill-defined: Problems of theory and data in synchronic grammatical description. InR.Amacker and R.Engler (Eds.), Présence de Saussure: Actes du Colloque Internationale de Genève (21–23Mars 1988). [Publications du Cercle Ferdinand de Saussure 1] (pp. 187–201). Geneva: Librairie Droz.Google Scholar
(1991). A linguistic Michelson-Morley experiment? Dutch ‘indirect objects’ and the inference of ‘successful transfer’. InT. F.Shannon and J. P.Snapper (Eds.), The Berkeley Conference on Dutch Linguistics 1989 (pp. 117–137). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
(1993). From meaning to message in two theories: Cognitive and Saussurean views of the Modern Dutch demonstratives. InR.Geiger and B.Rudzka-Ostyn (Eds.), Conceptualizations and Mental Processing in Language . [Cognitive Linguistics Research 3] (pp. 81–114). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1994). ‘Meewerkende voorwerpen die niet willen meewerken’. InR.Boogaart and J.Noordegraaf (Eds.), Nauwe Betrekkingen: Voor Theo Janssen bij Zijn Vijftigste Verjaardag (pp. 119–128). Münster: Nodus Publikationen and VU, Amsterdam: Stichting Neerlandistiek VU.Google Scholar
(1996a). Determinism versus contingency and synchrony versus diachrony: Explaining ‘holes’ in Dutch grammatical patterns. InW. Z.Shetter & I.van der Cruysse (Eds.), Contemporary Explorations in the Culture of the Low Countries . [Publications of the American Association for Netherlandic Studies 9] (pp. 157–171). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
(1996b). The human factor and the insufficiency of invariant meanings. InE.Andrews and Y.Tobin (Eds.), Towards a Calculus of Meaning: Studies in Markedness, Distinctive Features, and Deixis (pp. 83–106). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2000). Empirical pragmatics: Downtoning and predictability in a Dutch final particle. InT.F.Shannon and J.P.Snapper (Eds.) The Berkeley Conference on Dutch Linguistics 1997 . [Publications of the American Association for Netherlandic Studies 12] (pp. 45–62). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
(2001a). De deur wel dichtdoen, hè? en andere mysterieuze zaken. Neerlandica Extra Muros , 39(2), 9–21.Google Scholar
(2001b). The nonsynonymy of the Afrikaans proximate demonstratives in discourse. Paper presented at theSeventh International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, University of California, Santa Barbara, July 23, 2001. Manuscript.Google Scholar
(2002a). The future of a minimalist linguistics in a maximalist world. InW. Reid, R. Otheguy , and N.Stern (Eds.) (pp. 339–371). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
(2002b). The necessity of instructional meanings: Evidence from a comparison of the Dutch and the Afrikaans demonstrative adjectives. Paper presented at theSeventh International Conference on the Interaction of Linguistic Form and Meaning with Human Behavior, Columbia University, February 16–18, 2002.Google Scholar
(2003a). Linguistics as politics: On the role of alternative approaches within Dutch linguistics. InR.B.Howell and J. V.Taylor (Eds.), History and Dutch Studies [Publications of the American Association for Netherlandic Studies 14] (pp. 125–139). New York: University Press of America.Google Scholar
(2003b) On the interaction of the Dutch pragmatic particles hoor and with the imperative and the infinitivus pro imperative. InArieVerhagen and Jeroenvan de Weijer (eds.) Usage-Based Approaches to Dutch (pp. 59–96).Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
(2004) Introduction: On paradigms, analyses, and dialogue. InE. Contini-Morava, R. S. Kirsner , and Rodríguez-Bachiller (Eds.) (pp. 1–18). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
(2006). Over uitdrukkingen met finaal maar. Voortgang: Jaarboek voor de Neerlandistiek , 24, 61–71.Google Scholar
(2007). On Instructional Meanings, the Afrikaans Demonstratives, and Linguistic Theory . Manuscript.Google Scholar
(2011). Instructional meanings, iconicity, and l’arbitraire du signe in the analysis of the Afrikaans demonstratives. InBobde Jonge and YishaiTobin (Eds.) Linguistic Theory and Empirical Evidence [Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics 64] (pp. 97–137). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kirsner, R. S. , & Deen, J. Y.
(1990). Het mes snijdt aan twee kanten: On the semantics and pragmatics of the Dutch sentence-final particle hoor . InM.Bruijn Lacy (Ed.), The Low Countries: Multidisciplinary Studies . [Publications of the American Association for Netherlandic Studies 4] (pp. 1–11). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Kirsner, R. S. , & van Heuven, V. J.
(1980). On the opposition between deze (dit) and die (dat) in Written Dutch: A discriminant analysis. InS.Daalder and M.Gerritsen (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1980 (pp. 102–109). Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
(1988). The significance of demonstrative position in Modern Dutch. Lingua , 76, 209–248. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1996). Boundary tones and the semantics of the Dutch final particles hè, hoor, zeg, and joh . InC.Cremers & M.den Dikken (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1996 (pp. 133–146). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
(1999). How Dutch final particles constrain the construal of utterances: Experiment and etymology. InK.van Hoek , A.Kibrik & L.Noordman (Eds.) (pp. 165–183). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kirsner, R. S. , van Heuven, V. J. , & van Bezooijen, R.
(1994). Interaction of particle and prosody in the interpretation of factual Dutch sentences. InR.Bok-Bennema and C.Cremers (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1994 (pp. 107–118). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kirsner, R. S. , van Heuven, V. J. & Caspers, J.
(1998). From request to command: An experimental study of grammatical form, intonation, and pragmatic particle in Dutch imperatives. InR.van Bezooijen & R.Kager (Eds.), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1998 (pp. 135–148). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kirsner, R. S. , van Heuven, V. J. , & Vermeulen, J. F. M.
(1987). Text-type, context, and demonstrative choice in written Dutch: Some experimental data. Text: An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 7 , 117–144.
Kirsner, R. S. , & van der Kloot, W.A.
(1998). The pragmatics of precision: Geometric and non-geometric periphrastic progressives in Modern English. InJ.-P.Koenig (Ed.), Discourse and Cognition. Bridging the Gap (pp. 123–140). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kirsner, R. S. , Verhagen, A. , & Willemsen, M.
(1985). Over PP's, transitiviteit en het zgn. indirekt objekt. Spektator: Tijdschrift voor Neerlandistiek , 14, 341–347.Google Scholar
de Klein, P. , & Nieuwborg, E.
(1983). Basiswoordenboek Nederlands . Groningen: Wolters-Noorhoff.Google Scholar
Labov, W.
(1970). The study of language in its social context. Studium Generale , 23, 30–87.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1972) Notes on what it would take to understand how one adverb works. Unpublished manuscript. Berkeley California: Berkeley Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
(1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. InA.Ortony (Ed.) Metaphor and Thought (pp. 202–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lambooy, J. H. T.
(1963). De korte infinitief. InA.W.de Groot (Ed.), Studies op het gebied van het hedendaagse Nederlands (pp. 107–157). The Hague: Mouton & Co.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(1986). An introduction to cognitive grammar. Cognitive Science , 10, 1–40. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume I: Theoretical Prerequisites . Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1991). A usage-based model. InR. W.Langacker Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar [Cognitive Linguistics Research 1] (pp.261–288). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1997). The conceptual basis of Cognitive Semantics. In, J.Nuyts and E.Pederson (Eds.), Language and Conceptualization (pp.229–252). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2000). A dynamic usage-based model. InM.Barlow and S.Kemmer (Eds.), Usage Based Models of Language , (pp1–63). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
(2004). Form, meaning, and behavior: The Cognitive Grammar analysis of double subject constructions. InE.Contini-Morava , R. S.Kirsner , and B.Rodríguez-Bachiller (Eds.) Cognitive and Communicative Approaches to Linguistic Analysis (pp. 21–60). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008). Cognitive Grammar. A Basic Introduction . Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lemmens, M.
(2002). The semantic network of Dutch posture verbs. InJ.Newman (Ed.), The Linguistics of Sitting, Standing, and Lying (pp. 103–139). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005). Aspectual posture verb constructions in Dutch. Journal of Germanic Linguistics , 17 (3), 183–217. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) Variatie en verankering bij progressiefconstructies in het Nederlands. Nederlandse Taalkunde , 17, 284–291. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C.
(1983). Pragmatics . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2000). Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature . Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lindley, J.
(2010). “I broke a finger”: A Salience-based Cognitive Model for Selecting A or My with Inalienable Possessions . Masters thesis, Department of Applied Linguistics, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Maes, A. A.
(1995). Nominal Anaphors, Markedness, and the Coherence of Discourse . [Studies op het Gebied van de Nederlandse Taalkunde 3. Belgisch Interuniversitair Centrum voor Neerlandistiek.] Leuven:Peters.Google Scholar
Medawar, P.
(1964). Pluto’s Republic . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Meerling
. (1981). Methoden en Technieken van Psychologisch Onderzoek. Deel 2 Data-analyse en Psychometrie . Boom: Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Müller, D.
(2003). Skryf Afrikaans van A tot Z . Kaapstad: Pharos.Google Scholar
Multatuli
. (1870–1871). Ideeën , derde bundel. Reprinted in Multatuli, Volledige Werken IV . Amsterdam: G. A. van Oorschot, 1973.Google Scholar
Norušis¸M. J.
(2009). SPSS Statistics Base 17.0. User’s Guide . Chicago, Illinois: SPSS Inc.Google Scholar
Oehrle, R. T.
(1976). The Grammatical Status of the English Dative Alternation . PhD diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Osgood, C. E. , Suci, G. J. , & Tannenbaum, P. J.
(1957). The Measurement of Meaning . Urbana, Ill: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Otheguy, R.
(2012) The signals of the English System of Degree of Control. Paper delivered at the11th Columbia School Linguistics Conference, Rutgers University, October 13–15, 2012. Manuscript.Google Scholar
Overdiep, G. S.
(1949). Stilistische grammatica van het Moderne Nederlandsch . 2e druk verzorgd door G. A. van Es. Zwolle: W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink.Google Scholar
Paardekooper, P. C.
(1951). De imperatief als grammatische categorie in het ABN. De nieuwe taalgids , 44, 97–107.Google Scholar
Piwek, P. , & Beun, R. – J.
(2001). Multimodal referential acts in a dialogue game: From empirical investigations to algorithms. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Information Presentation and Natural Multimodal Dialogue (IPNMD-2001) (pp.127–131).Verona Italy, 14–15December2001.Google Scholar
Piwek, P. , Beun, R.-J. , & Cremers, A.
(2008). ‘Proximal’ and ‘distal’ inlanguage and cognition: Evidence from deictic demonstratives in Dutch. Journal of Pragmatics , 40, 694–718. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Piwek, P. L.A, & Cremers, A. H. M.
(1996). Dutch and English demonstratives: A comparison. Language Sciences , 18, 835–851. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Polya, G.
(1954). Patterns of Plausible Inference . [Mathematics and Plausible Reasoning 2]. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ponelis, F. A.
(1979). Afrikaanse Sintaksis . Pretoria: J. L. Van Schaik.Google Scholar
Ponelis, F.
(1993). The Development of Afrikaans .[ Duisberger Arbeiten zur Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaf 18]. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Popper, K.
(1963). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge . London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Proeme, H.
(1984). Over de Nederlandse imperativus. Forum der Letteren, 25 , 241–258.
Reichenbach, H.
(1966). Elements of Symbolic Logic . New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Reid, W.
(1977) The quantitative validation of a grammatical hypothesis: The passé simple and the imparfait . InJ. A.Keglet al (Eds.) Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society (pp. 315–333). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT.Google Scholar
(1979) The Human Factor in Linguistic Analysis: The Passé Simple and the Imparfait . PhD diss., Columbia University.Google Scholar
(1991). Verb and Noun Number in English: A Functional Approach . London & New York: Longman.Google Scholar
(1995). Quantitative analysis in Columbia School theory. InE.Contini-Morava and B. S.Goldberg (Eds.) (pp. 115–152). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2004). Monosemy, homonymy, and polysemy. InE.Contini-Morava , R.S.Kirsner , & B.Rodríguez-Bachiller (Eds.) (pp. 93–129). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
(2006). Columbia School and Saussure’s langue . InJ. Davis, R. J. Gorup , and N.Stern (Eds.) (pp. 17–39). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Reid, W. , Otheguy, R. and Stern, N.
(Eds.). (2002). Signal, Meaning, and Message. Perspectives on Sign-Based Linguistics . Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Renkema, J.
(1981). De Taal van ‘Den Haag’. Een Kwantitatief-stilistisch Onderzoek naar Aanleiding van Oordelen over Taalgebruik . Den Haag: Staatsuitgeverij.Google Scholar
Rietveld, A. C. M. , & van Heuven, V. J.
. (2001). Algemene Fonetiek . Bussum: Uitgeverij Coutinho.Google Scholar
de Rijk, R. P. G.
(1967). A Dutch counterpart of the English progressive. Unpublished manuscript. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Roberge, P. T.
(2001). Diachronic notes on the Afrikaans demonstrative pronouns. InA.Carstens and H.Grebe (Eds.), Taallandskap: Huldigingsbundel vir Christo van Rensburg . (pp. 124–136), Pretoria: Van Schaik Uitgewers.Google Scholar
Schermer-Vermeer, E. C.
(1991). Substantiële versus Formele Taalbeschrijving: Het Indirect Object in het Nederlands . PhD diss., Universiteit van Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, D.
(1987). Discourse Markers . [Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 5]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schoonees, P. C.
et. al. (1956). Woordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal. Tweede Deel D-F . Pretoria: Die Staatsdrukker.Google Scholar
Shannon, T. F. and Snapper, J. P.
(Eds.). (1995). The Berkeley Conference on Dutch Linguistics 1993: Dutch Linguistics in a Changing Europe . [Publications of the American Association for Netherlandic Studies 8]. Lanham, New York & London. University Press of America.Google Scholar
Shepard, R. N.
(1972). Psychological representation of speech sounds. InE. E.David, Jr. , & P. B.Denes (Eds.), Human Communication: A Unified View (pp. 67–113). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Shetter, W. Z. , & van der Cruysse-Van Anterwerpen, I.
(2002). Dutch: An Essential Grammar . (8th ed.). London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. , & Wilson, D.
(1995). Relevance. Communication and Cognition . (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stoett, F. A.
(1923). Middelnederlandsche Spraakkunst: Syntaxis . The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Surowiecki, J.
(2005). The Wisdom of Crowds . New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
Sweetser, E.
(1990). From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taalkommissie van die Suid-Afrikaanse Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns
. (2002). Afrikaanse Woordelys en Spelreëls . Pharos: Kaapstad.Google Scholar
Thorne, K. S.
(1994). Black Holes & Time Warps: Einstein’s Outrageous Legacy . New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Tobin, Y.
(1990). Semiotics and Linguistics . London & New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Uit den Boogaart, P. C.
(Ed.). (1975). Woordfrequenties in Geschreven en Gesproken Nederlands . Utrecht: Oosthoek, Scheltema & Holkema.Google Scholar
van Everbroeck, E.
(1999). Ditjes en Datjes: Three analyses of Dutch demonstratives. Unpublished Manuscript, Department of Linguistics, UCSD.Google Scholar
van Gelderen, E.
(2007). The definiteness cycle in Germanic. Journal of Germanic Linguistics , 19(4), 275–308. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Hoek, K.
(1997). Anaphora and Conceptual Structure . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
van Hoek, K. , Kibrik, A. A. , & Noordman, L.
(Eds.). (1999). Discourse Studies in Cognitive Linguistics . Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Olmen, D.
(2009). De imperativische infinitief in het Nederlands: Een corpusgebaseerde benadering. Nederlandse Taalkunde , 14 (2), 147–170. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011). The Imperative in English and Dutch: A Functional Analysis in Comparable and Parallel Corpora . PhD diss., Antwerp: Universiteit Antwerpen.Google Scholar
van Schoor, J. L.
(1983). Die Grammatica van Standaard-Afrikaans . Kaapstad: Lex Patria Uitgewers.Google Scholar
Verhagen, A.
(1986). Linguistic Theory and the Function of Word Order in Dutch . Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
(2002). From parts to wholes and back again. Cognitive Linguistics , 13(4), 403–439. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005). Constructiegrammatica en ‘usage-based’ taalkunde. Nederlandse Taalkunde. Themanummber: Confrontaties en perspectieven Nederlandse taalkunde in bedrijf 10, 197–222.Google Scholar
Vismans, R. M.
(1981). ‘Durative’ Constructions in Modern Dutch . M.A. thesis, Department of General Linguistics, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Vismans, R.
(1993). Dutch modal particles in directive sentences. InR. S.Kirsner (Ed.), The Low Countries and Beyond . [Publications of the American Association for Netherlandic Studies 5] (pp. 111–121). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
(1994). Modal Particles in Dutch Directives: A Study in Functional Grammar . [Studies in Language and Language Use 11]. Amsterdam: IFOTT.Google Scholar
de Vries, J.
(2001). Onze Nederlandse Spreektaal . Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers.Google Scholar
Weijnen, A.A.
(1971). Schets van de Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse Syntaxis . Assen: Van Gorcum & Co.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U.
(1957). Travels through semantic space. Word , 14, 346–66. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A.
(1980). Lingua Mentalis: The Semantics of Natural Language . New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
(1996). Semantics: Primes and Universals . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Woordenboek der Nederlandsche taal op CD-Rom
. 2003. Den Haag: Sdu uitgevers.Google Scholar
van der Wouden, T.
(1998). Niet huilen maar: negation, directives and particles. InL.C.J.Barbiers , J.E.C.V.Rooryck & J.M.van de Weijer (Eds.) Small Words in the Big Picture: Squibs for Hans Bennis (pp.125–128). Leiden: Holland Institute of Generative Linguistics.Google Scholar
Wulff, S.
(2006). Go-V vs. go-and-V in English: A case of constructional synonymy?InS. T.Gries and A.Stefanowitsch (Eds.) (pp. 101–125). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Young, F. W. , & Harris, D.
(2005). Multidimensional scaling. InM. J.Norušis (Ed.), SPSS 13.0 Advanced Statistical Procedures Companion . Upper SaddleRiver, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 287–360.Google Scholar
Zanuttini, R.
(1997). Negation and Structure . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zimmer, K. E.
(1964). Affixal Negation in English and Other Languages: An Investigation of Restricted Productivity . Word 20.2. Supplement.

Corpora

Behr¸M.
(1993). Die Reuk van Appels . Kaapstad: Queillerie-Uitgewers.Google Scholar
Behr, M.
(1995). The Smell of Apples . New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
Blom, J. S. , van Houcke, R. , Liefering, T. , & Verrijn Stuart, H.
(1980). De Vondelstraat: Verslagen van Radio STAD 29 februari – 3 maart 1980 . Amsterdam: Van Gennep.Google Scholar
Bordewijk, F.
(1966). Character: A Novel of Father and Son . E. M. Prince, transl. London: Peter Owen.Google Scholar
(2007). Karakter: Roman van Zoon en Vader . Amsterdam: Nijgh & Van Ditmar.Google Scholar
Breytenbach, B.
(1978). In Africa Even the Flies Are Happy. Selected Poems and Prose 1964–1977 . London: John Calder.Google Scholar
(1984). Buffalo Bill . Emmarentia: Taurus.Google Scholar
(1985). The True Confessions of an Albino Terrorist . New York: Farrar Straus Giroux.Google Scholar
Brink, A. P.
(1973 & 1983). Kennis van die Aand . Kaapstad: Human & Rousseau.Google Scholar
(1975). Looking on Darkness . New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc.Google Scholar
Brink, A.
(2006). Die Blou Deur/ The Blue Door . Roggebaai, South Africa: Umuzi.Google Scholar
Brink, A. P.
(2009). ’n Vurk in die Pad: ’n Memoir . Kaapstad & Pretoria: Human & Rousseau.Google Scholar
Campert, R.
(1960). Een Ellendige Nietsnut en Andere Verhalen . Amsterdam: De Bezige Bij.Google Scholar
Carmiggelt, S.
(1975). Slenteren . Amsterdam: De Arbeiderspers.
Coetzee, A.
(1990a). Letterkunde & Krisis: ’n Honderd Jaar Afrikaanse Letterkunde en Afrikaner-nasionalisme . Pretoria: Taurus.Google Scholar
(1990b). Literature and crisis: One hundred years of Afrikaans literature and Afrikaner nationalism. InMartinTrump (Ed.), Rendering Things Visible: Essays on South African Literary Culture . (pp.322–366). Johannesburg: Raven Press.Google Scholar
Corpus Gesproken Nederlands
Dahl, R.
(1988). Matilda . New York: Puffin Books.Google Scholar
Dorrestein, R.
(2000). Verborgen Gebreken . Amsterdam: Pandora Pockets.Google Scholar
Garrett, R. I. with Farrant, R.
(2003). Crossing Over. One Woman’s Escape from Amish Life . New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Goosen, Prof. D.
(2008). Van die Voorsitter. Nuusbrief 2. Federasie van Afrikaanse Kultuurvereniginge. [faklede at mcentre.fak.org.za] Desember12, 2008.
Haasse, H.
(1972). De Tuinen van Bomarzo . Amsterdam: Querido.
Hellinger
. (1967). Vlammen . Amsterdam: Born.Google Scholar
van Kalsbeek, A. & Kuiken, Fokert, F.
, et al. (no date). Code Nederlands. Basisleergang Nederlands voor Volwassen Anderstaligen . Tekstboek 1.Amsterdam: Meulenhoff Educatief bv.
van Kaalsbeek, A. , Huizinga, M. , & Kuiken, F.
(1998). Code Nederlands. Basisleergang Nederlands voor Volwassen Anderstaligen . Textboek 2. Tweede druk. Amsterdam: Meulenhoff Educatief bv.Google Scholar
van Kooten, K. van
. (1988). Koot Graaft Zich Autobio . Amsterdam: Uitgeverij de Bezige Bij.Google Scholar
Lerner, A. J. , & Loewe, F.
(1956). My Fair Lady. Naar Pygmalion van Bernard Shaw . Vertaling Text: Hubert Janssen en Alfred Pleiter, Bewerking liedjes: Seth Gaaikema. Derde druk. Amsterdam: H.J.W. Becht’s Uitgeversmaatschappij N.V.Google Scholar
Leroux, E.
(1962). Sewe Dae by die Silbersteins . Kaapstad: Human & Rousseau.Google Scholar
(1967). Seven Days at the Silbersteins , Charles. Eglington, transl. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
Nuchelmans, G.
(1969). Overzicht van de Analytische Wijsbegeerte . Utrecht: Het Spectrum.Google Scholar
Opperman, D. J.
(1980). Groot Verseboek . Kaapstad: Tafelberg-Uitgewers Beperk.Google Scholar
Rees, G.
(2007a). From stigma to support: Fighting stress the Royal Marines’ way. Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma. PostedJanuary4, 2007. http://​www​.dartcenter​.org ​/articles​/special​_features​/rees​_trim​.html. Originally published in European Trauma Bulletin 14 (1): 4–40.
(2007b). Van stigma tot steun: Hoe de Royal Mariness stress te lijf gaan. Cogiscope: Tijdschrift over Gevolgen van Oorlog en Geweld 3 (2), 18–25.Google Scholar
van het Reve, G. K.
(1972). De Avonden: Een Winterverhaal . Amsterdam: Athenaeum – Polak & Van Gennep.Google Scholar
Reve, Gerard
. (No date). The Evenings . Paul Vincent, transl. Unpublished manuscript. Foundation for the Promotion of the Translation of Dutch Literary Works.
van Straaten, P.
(1989). Lukt het Agnes? Amsterdam: Maarten Muntinga.Google Scholar
(2002). Scènes uit het Literaire Leven . Amsterdam: Rainbow Pockets.Google Scholar
Taalkommissie van die Suid-Afrikaanse Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns
. (2002). Afrikaanse Woordelys en Spelreëls . Pharos: Kaapstad.Google Scholar
Tydeman, N.
(1980). Zitten: De Praktijk van Zen . Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Karnak.Google Scholar
Van Heerden, E.
(1983). My Kubaan. InE.Van Heerden, My Kubaan (pp. 91–99). Kaapstad: Tafelberg.Google Scholar
(1986a). My Cuban. Catherine Knox, transl. InA. M.Brink & J. M.Coetzee A Land Apart: A Contemporary South African Reader (pp. 240–248) New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
(1986b). Toorberg . Kaapstad: Tafelberg-Uitgewers Beperk.Google Scholar
(1989). Ancestral Voices . [Translation of Toorberg .] Malcom Hacksley, transl. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
(1992). Mijn Cubaan. InE.VanHeerden, De witte aap . Uit het Zuidafrikaans vertaald door Riet de Jong-Goossens. (pp. 7–18). Amsterdam: Meulenhoff.Google Scholar
Wessels, L.
(1994). Die Einde van ’n Era: Bevryding van ’n Afrikaner . Kaapstad: Tafelberg Beperk.Google Scholar
Subjects
BIC Subject: CFK – Grammar, syntax
BISAC Subject: LAN009000 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / General
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2013031135 | Marc record