• Aucun résultat trouvé

Malouf, R. (2000) The order of prenominal adjectives in natural language generation.

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Partager "Malouf, R. (2000) The order of prenominal adjectives in natural language generation."

Copied!
2
0
0

Texte intégral

(1)

References

Aldenderfer, M.S. and Blashfield, R.K. (1984) Cluster Analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Press.

Bard, E.G., Robertson, D. and Sorace, A. (1996) Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability.

Language, 72, 32-68.

Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T. & Baayen, R.H. (2005) Predicting the Dative Alternation. In Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation, ed. by G. Boume, I. Kraemer, and J. Zwarts.

Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science. 33 pages.

Cedergren, H.; and Sankoff, D. (1974). Variable rules: Performance as a statistical reflection of competence. Language, 50, 333-355.

Cowart, W. (1997) Experimental Syntax: Applying Objective Methods to Sentence Judgments.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Dyen, I, Kruskal, J.B. and Black, P. (1992) An Indoeuropean Classification: A Lexicostatistical Experiment. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 82 (5), 1-132.

Ferreira, F. (2003). The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 164-203.

Goldinger, S.D. & Azuma, T. (2003) Puzzle-solving science: the quixotic quest for units in speech perception. Journal of Phonetics, 31, 305-320.

Hays, William L. (1973) Statistics for the Social Sciences. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Heeringa, W. (2004) Measuring Dialect Pronunciation Differences using Levenshtein Distance.

Rijksuniversiteit Groningen: PhD Thesis.

Heeringa, W. & Braun, A. (2003) The use of the Almeida-Braun system in the measurement of Dutch dialect distances. Computers and the Humanities 37, 257-271.

Heeringa, W. & Gooskens, C. (2003) Norwegian dialects examined perceptually and acoustically.

Computers and the Humanities 37, 293-315.

Hetzron, R. (1978) On the relative order of adjectives. In H. Seiler (Ed.) Language Universals (pp. 165-184), Tübingen: Narr.

Intons-Peterson, M.J. (1983) Imagery paradigms: How vulnerable are they to experimenters’

expectations? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 9, 394-412.

Keller, F. (2000) Gradience in grammar: Experimental and computational aspects of degrees of grammaticality. Unpublished PhD Diss. University of Edinburgh.

Keller, F. (2003) A psychophysical law for linguistic judgments. R. Alterman & D. Kirsh (Eds.) Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 652-657), Boston.

Kruskal, J.B. and Wish, M. (1978) Multidimensional Scaling. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Press.

Ladefoged, P., Glick, R. & Criper, C. (1971) Language in Uganda. Nairobi: Oxford Univ. Press.

Lodge, M. (1981) Magnitude Scaling: Quantitative Measurement of Opinions. Beverly Hills, CA:

Sage Publications.

Luka, B.J. and Barsalou, L.W. (2005) Structural facilitation: Mere exposure effects for

grammatical acceptability as evidence for syntactic priming in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 52, 436-459.

Malouf, R. (2000) The order of prenominal adjectives in natural language generation.

(2)

Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 85-92.

Nakhleh, L. Ringe, D. & Warnow, T. (2005) Perfect phylogenetic networks: A new methodology for reconstructing the evolutionary history of natural languages. Language 81 (2), 382- 420.

Nakhleh, L., Warnow, T., Ringe, D. & Evans, S. (n.d.) A comparison of phylogenetic reconstruction methods on an IE dataset.

NIST/SEMATECH e-Handbook of Statistical Methods, http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/, Sept, 2004.

Pinheiro, J. and Bates, D.M. (2004) Mixed-effects Models in S and S-PLUS. NY, NY: Spinger Science+Business Media.

Pitt, M. & Shoaf, L. (2002) Revisiting bias effects in word-initial phonological priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 28, 1120-1130.

Raaijmakers, J.G., Schrijnemakers, J.M.C. & Gremmen, G. (1999) How to deal with “the language-as-fixed-effect fallacy”: Common misconceptions and alternative solutions.

Journal of Memory and Language 41, 416-426.

Sakamoto, Y., Ishiguro, M., and Kitagawa G. (1986). Akaike Information Criterion Statistics. D.

Reidel Publishing Company.

Sankoff, D. (1978) Linguistic variation: Models & methods. NY: Academic Press.

Sankoff, D. (1988) Variable Rules, In U. Ammon, N. Dittmar & K. J. Mattheier (eds.),

Sociolinguistics: An international handbook of the science of language and society. Berlin

& New York, de Gruyter. 984-997.

Sankoff, D. & Kruskal, J. (editors) (1983/1999) Time Warps, String Edits and Macromolecules:

The Theory and Practice of Sequence Comparison. Reprinted by CSLI Publications, Stanford, CA.

Schütze C. (1996) The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality Judgments and Linguistic Methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Stevens, S.S. (1975) Psychophysics: Introduction to its Perceptual, Neuronal, and Social Prospects. New York: John Wiley.

Swadesh, M. (1952) Lexico-statistic dating of prehistoric ethnic contacts: with special reference to North American Indians and Eskimos. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 96, 452-463.

Wulff, S. (2003) A multifactorial corpus analysis of adjective order in English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8, 245-282.

Références

Documents relatifs

In Figure 1 and in Section 3 we review all the necessary elements for our investigation: the notion of argumentation schemes; how to represent argument networks in the

In particular, we prove that some longstanding syntactical transformations between context-free grammars and many-sorted signatures and between many-sorted signatures and

Mapping to output language predicate-argument structures Starting from the structures provided by the text planning module (see Section 4), first, some idiosyncratic transformations

We present a system that can generate natural language text in multiple different languages, in large quantities and at low costs due to the utilization

The fact that the EAHP and the LAHP group showed no significant differences in their behavioral responses to the grammatical judgment task in L2 suggests that the

To have reference descriptions to compare with the generated texts from the NLG system, two of the physicians (who had knowledge in SNOMED) were asked to use

In the CLEF 2005 Ad-Hoc Track we experimented with language-specific morphosyntactic processing and light Natural Language Processing (NLP) for the retrieval of Bulgarian,

With this as- sumption in mind we describe first the techniques that help ontology engineers revisit and verify business rules represented in the legacy data model, and second we