Editorial published in:
Representation and Processing in Bilingual Morphology
Edited by Jennifer R. Austin
[Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 9:1] 2019
► pp. 15


Anderson, S.
(1982) Where’s morphology? Linguistic Inquiry, 13(4), 571–612.Google Scholar
Baker, M.
(1985) The mirror principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry, 16(3), 373–415.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L.
(1985) Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form (Vol. 9). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N.
(1970) Remarks on nominalization. In R. Jacobs & P. Rosenbaum (Eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar. Boston: Ginn, 184–221.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., Felser, C., Neubauer, K., Sato, M., & Silva, R.
(2010) Morphological structure in native and nonnative language processing. Language Learning, 60(1), 21–43. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, P. & Jackendoff, R.
(2005) Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Grauwe, S., Lemhöfer, K., Willems, R. M., & Schriefers, H.
(2014) L2 speakers decompose morphologically complex verbs: fMRI evidence from priming of transparent derived verbs. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 802.Google Scholar
Diependaele, K., Duñabeitia, J. A., Morris, J., & Keuleers, E.
(2011) Fast morphological effects in first and second language word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 64(4), 344–358. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Di Sciullo, A. M., & Williams, E.
(1987) On the definition of word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halle, M., & Marantz, A.
(1993) Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K. Hale & S. Keyser (Eds.), The View from Building 20. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 111–176.Google Scholar
Gor, K., Chrabaszcz, A., & Cook, S. V.
(2019) A case for agreement: Processing of case inflection by early and late learners. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 9(1).Google Scholar
Harley, H. & Ritter, E.
(2002) Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language 78(3), 482–526. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lee, E. & Lardiere, D.
(2019) Feature reassembly in the acquisition of plural marking by Korean and Indonesian bilinguals: A bidirectional study. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 9(1).Google Scholar
Liceras, J. M. & Klassen, R.
(2019) Compounding and derivation: On the ‘promiscuity’ of derivational affixes. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 9(1).Google Scholar
Mueller Gathercole, V.
(2007) Miami and North Wales, so far and yet so near: A constructivist account of morphosyntactic development in bilingual children. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(3), 224–247. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S.
(2004) Subject and object expression in Spanish heritage speakers: A case of morphosyntactic convergence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7(2), 125–142. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nicoladis, E., Palmer, A., & Marentette, P.
(2007) The role of type and token frequency in using past tense morphemes correctly. Developmental Science, 10(2), 237–254. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nicoladis, E., Song, J., & Marentette, P.
(2012) Do young bilinguals acquire past tense morphology like monolinguals, only later? Evidence from French-English and Chinese-English bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33(3), 457–479. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paradis, J., Nicoladis, E., Crago, M., & Genesee, F.
(2011) Bilingual children’s acquisition of the past tense: A usage-based approach. Journal of Child Language, 38(3), 554–578. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Silva, R., & Clahsen, H.
(2008) Morphologically complex words in L1 and L2 processing: Evidence from masked priming experiments in English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11(2), 245–260. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sagarra, N., Sánchez, L., & Bel, A.
(2019) Processing DOM in relative clauses: Salience and optionality in early and late bilinguals. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 9(1).Google Scholar
Unsworth, S.
(2013) Assessing the role of current and cumulative exposure in simultaneous bilingual acquisition: The case of Dutch gender. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(1), 86–110. CrossrefGoogle Scholar