Cover not available
Article published In:
Morphology and its interfaces: Syntax, semantics and the lexicon
Edited by Dany Amiot, Delphine Tribout, Natalia Grabar, Cédric Patin and Fayssal Tayalati
[Lingvisticæ Investigationes 37:2] 2014
► pp. 185–193

Introduction

| UdLille, STL-UMR 8163
Published online: 22 May 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/li.37.2.001int
References (45)
Alexiadou, A., & Schäfer, F. (2010). On the syntax of episodical vs. dispositional -er nominals. In A. Alexiadou & M. Rathert (Eds.), The syntax of nominalizations across languages and frameworks (pp. 9–30). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, S. R. (1982). Where’s morphology? Linguistic Inquiry, 131, 571–612.Google Scholar
Aronoff, M. (1994). Morphology by itself. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Aronoff, M., & Anshen, F. (1998). Morphology and the Lexicon: Lexicalization and productivity. In A. Spencer & A. M. Zwicky (Eds.), The Handbook of Morphology (pp. 237–247). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Balota, D. A., & Chumbley, J. I. (1984). Are lexical decisions a good measure of lexical access? The role of word frequency in the neglected decision stage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 101, 340–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barker, C. (1998). Episodic -ee in English: A thematic role constraint on a new word formation. Language, 741, 695–727. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beard, R. (1991). Decompositional composition: The semantics of scope ambiguities and ‘bracketing paradoxes’. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 91, 195–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1995). Lexeme - Morpheme base morphology. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Bergman, M. W., Hudson, P. T. W., & Eling, P. A. T. M. (1988). How simple complex words can be: Morphological processing and word representations. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 401, 41–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2013). Cognitive construction grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 233–254). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Booij, G. (2010). Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Borer, H. (2005). In name only. Structuring sense, vol. I1. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bradley, D. (1980). Lexical representation of derivational relation. In M. Aronoff & M-L. Kean (Eds.), Juncture (pp. 37–55). Saratoga, CA: Anma Libri.Google Scholar
Butterworth, B. (1989). Lexical access in speech production. In W. Marslen-Wilson (Ed.), Lexical representation and process (pp. 108–135). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. (1985). Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corbett, G. G. (2006). Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Corbin, D. (1987). Morphologie dérivationnelle et structuration du lexique, vol. 21. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2d ed. 1991, Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses du septentrion.Google Scholar
. (1992). De la Compositionnalité du Sens des Mots Construits (Réponse à Claire Vanderhoeft), Lingvisticae Investigationes, 16(1), 189–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cruschina, S., Maiden, M., & Charles Smith, J. (Eds.). (2013). The boundaries of pure morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Di Sciullo, A.-M., & Williams, E. (1987). On the definition of word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Embick, D., & Noyer, R. (2007). Distributed morphology and the syntax/morphology interface. In G. Ramchand & C. Reiss (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces (pp. 289–324). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fowler, C. A., Napps, S. E., & Feldman, L. (1985). Relations among regular and irregular morphologically related words in the lexicon as revealed by repetition priming. Memory & Cognition, 131, 241–255. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fradin, B., & Kerleroux, F. (2005). Troubles with lexemes. In G. Booij, J. de Cesaris, S. Scalise, & A. Ralli (Eds.), Topics in morphology. Selected papers from the Third Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (pp. 177–196). Barcelona: ULA-Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University 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: Essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger (pp. 111–176). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hay, J. B., & Baayen, H. R. (2005). Shifting paradigms: Gradient structure in Morphology. Trends in Cognitive Science, 91, 342–348. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1975). Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon. Language, 511, 639–671. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1983). Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. (1990). Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, D. (1996). A probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and disambiguation. Cognitive Science, 201, 137–194 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1982). Word-formation and the Lexicon. In F. Ingemann (Ed.), Proceedings of the Mid-America Linguistics Conference (pp. 3–29). Lawrence: University of Kansas.Google Scholar
Levin, B., & Rappaport-Hovav, M. (1998). Morphology and lexical semantics. In A. Spencer & A. M. Zwicky, The Handbook of Morphology (pp. 248–271). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Lieber, R. (1980). On the organization of the Lexicon. PhD dissertation. MIT Cambridge MA [Published by Indiana University Club 1981, and Garland Press 1990].
. (1992). Deconstructing morphology. Chicago: Press of the University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Lipka, L. (1983). A multi-level approach to word-formation: Complex lexemes and word semantics. In S. Hattori & K. Inoue (Eds.), Proceedings of the XIIIth International Congress of Linguists, Tokyo 1982 (pp. 926–928). The Hague: CIPL.Google Scholar
. (1990), Metaphor and metonymy as productive processes on the level of the Lexicon. In W. Banner, J. Schildt, & D. Viehweger (Eds.), Proceedings of the XIVth International Congress of Linguists, Berlin 1987 (pp. 1207–1210). Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W. (2005). Morphology and language processing. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. 2nd ed. (pp. 295–300). Elsevier.Google Scholar
. (2007). Morphological processes in language comprehension. In G. Gaskell (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 175–193). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Rappaport-Hovav, M., & Levin, B. (1992). ‑er Nominals: Implications for a theory of argument structure. In T. Stowell & E. Wehrli (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 26: Syntax and the Lexicon (pp. 127–153). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
. (1996). Lexical semantics and syntactic structure. In S. Lappin (Ed.), The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory (pp. 487–507). Oxford: Balckwell Publishings.Google Scholar
Roy, I., & Soare, E. (2012). L’enquêteur, le surveillant et le détenu : les noms déverbaux de participants aux événements, lectures événementielles et structure argumentale. Lexique, 201, 207–231.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E., & McClelland, J. L. (1986). On learning the past tenses of English verbs. In J. L. McClelland & D. E. Rumelhart (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing. Explorations in the microstructure of cognition. Vol. 2: Psychological and biological models (pp. 216–271). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, E. (1982). The syntax of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A., & Pullum G. (1983). Cliticization vs. Inflection: English N’T. Language, 591, 502–513. DOI logoGoogle Scholar