EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 46 (2018) SHS Web Conf., 46 (2018) 08003 References
Open Access
Issue
SHS Web Conf.
Volume 46, 2018
6e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française
Article Number 08003
Number of page(s) 11
Section Morphologie
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20184608003
Published online 09 July 2018
  1. Aronoff M. (2016), “Competition and the lexicon”, In: A. Elia, C. Iacobino & M. Voghera, Livelli di Analisi e fenomeni di interfaccia. Atti del XLVII congresso internazionale della società di linguistica Italiana, Roma: Bulzoni Editore, pp. 39–52. [Google Scholar]
  2. Aronoff M. & Lindsay M. (2014), “Productivity, blocking, and lexicalization”, In: S. Lieber & P. Štekauer eds, The Handbook of Derivational Morphology, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 67–83. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bauer L. (2001), Morphological Productivity, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. Brown D. & Hippisley A. (2012), Network Morphology. A defaults-based Theory of Word Structure, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. Corbett G. G. (2007), “Canonical typology, suppletion, and possible words”, Language 83, pp. 8–42. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  6. Corbett G. G. (2010), “Canonical Derivational Morphology”, Word Structure 3, pp. 41–155. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  7. Dal G., Fradin B., Grabar N., Lignon S., Namer F., Plancq C., Yvon F. & Zweigenbaum P. (2008), « Quelques préalables linguistiques au calcul de la productivité des règles constructionnelles et premiers résultats », In : J. Durand, B. Habert & B. Laks éds, Actes en ligne du premier Congrès mondial de linguistique française, Paris, 9-12 juillet 2008, pp. 1525-1538. [Google Scholar]
  8. Dal G., Hathout N., Lignon S., Namer F. & Tanguy L. (2017), “Data-Driven vs. Dictionary-based description of French nominalizations in-age and in-ment: the paradigmatic evidence”, ParadigMO, First Workshop on Paradigmatic Word Formation Modeling, Université Jean Jaurès, Toulouse, 19-20 juin 2017. [Google Scholar]
  9. Dal G., Lignon S., Namer F. & Tanguy L. (2004), « Toile contre dictionnaires : analyse morphologique en corpus de noms déverbaux concurrents », Colloque Les noms déverbaux, Université Lille 3, 23-25 septembre 2004. [Google Scholar]
  10. Dal G. & Namer F. (2018), “Playful nonce-formations, creativity and productivity”, In: S. Arndt-Lappe, A. Braun, C. Moulin & E. Winter-Froemel eds, Expanding the Lexicon. Linguistic Innovation, Morphological Productivity, and Ludicity, Berlin & Boston, De Gruyter (The Dynamics of Wordplay 5), pp. 203–228. [Google Scholar]
  11. Dowty D. (1991), “Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection”, Language 67, pp. 547–619. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  12. Dubois J. (1962), Étude sur la dérivation suffixale en Français moderne et contemporain, Paris, Larousse. [Google Scholar]
  13. Fradin B. (2012), “On the correlation between-age and-ment and semantic distinctions in French nominalizations”, In 45th Annual meeting of SLE. Stockholm University, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  14. Fradin B. (2015), “What lies at the bottom of morphological oceans?”, Paper read at the International Conference on Morphology Décembrettes 9, Toulouse 3-4 décembre 2015. [Google Scholar]
  15. Fradin B. (2016), “Competition in derivation: what can we learn from doublets?”, Paper read at the International Morphology Meeting (IMM17), Vienna. [Google Scholar]
  16. Hathout N. & Namer F. (2012), “Discrepancy between form and meaning in Word Formation: the case of over-and under-marking in French”, In: F. Rainer, W. U. Dressler, F. Gardani & H. C. Luschützky eds, Morphology and Meaning. Selected papers from the 15th International Morphology Meeting, Vienna, February 2012, Amsterdam, John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp. 177–190. [Google Scholar]
  17. Hippisley A. (2017), “Default inheritance and the canonical. Derivation as sign builder and sign connector”, In: Gisborne N. & Hippisley A. eds, Defaults in Morphology Theory, Cambridge, Cambridge University Presse. [Google Scholar]
  18. Kelling C. (2001), “Agentivity and Suffix Selection”, In: Proceedings of the LFG ‘01 Conference, Stanford, CA, CSLI, pp. 147–162. [Google Scholar]
  19. Kelling C. (2003), “The Role of Agentivity for Suffix Selection”, In: G. Booij, J. De Cesaris, A. Ralli & S. Scalise eds, Topics in Morphology. Selected Papers from the Third Mediterranean Morphology Meeting, Barcelona: Institut universitari di lingüisticae aplicada, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, pp. 192–210. [Google Scholar]
  20. Kelling C. (2004), “Protorolleneigenschaften von Verbargumenten”, In: R. Kailuweit & H. Martin eds, Semantische Rollen, Tübingen, Narr, pp. 341–354. [Google Scholar]
  21. Lindsay M. & Aronoff M. (2013), “Natural selection in self-organizing morphological systems”, In: N. Hathout, F. Montermini & J. Tseng eds, Selected Proceedings of the 7th Décembrettes: Morphology in Toulouse. München: Lincom Europa, pp. 133–153. [Google Scholar]
  22. Lüdtke J. (1978), Prädikative Nominalisierungen mit Suffixen im Französischen, Katalanischen und Spanischen, Tübingen, Niemeyer. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  23. Martin F. (2010), “The semantics of eventive in French”, In: M. Rathert & A. Alexiadou eds, The Semantics of Nominalizations across Languages and Frameworks, Berlin/New York, Walter de Gruyter, pp. 109–140. [Google Scholar]
  24. Plag I. (1999), Morphological productivity. Structural constraints in English derivation, Berlin/New York, Mouton de Gruyter. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  25. Rainer F. (2016), “Blocking”, In: M. Aronoff ed., Linguistics: Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 1–22. [Google Scholar]
  26. Štekauer P. (2014), “Derivational Paradigms”, In: R. Lieber & P. Štekauer eds, The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 354–369. [Google Scholar]
  27. Tanguy L. (2012), Complexification des données et des techniques en linguistique : contributions du TAL aux solutions et aux problèmes, Mémoire d’Habilitation à Diriger des Recherches, Université de Toulouse-Le Mirail, Toulouse. [Google Scholar]
  28. Thornton A. M. (2011), “Overabundance (Multiple Forms Realizing the Same Cell): A Non-Canonical Phenomenon in Italian Verb Morphology”, In: M. Maiden, J. C. Smith, M. Goldbach & M.-O. Hinzelin eds., Morphological Autonomy: Perspectives from Romance Inflectional Morphology, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 358–381. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  29. Thornton A. M. (2012), “Reduction and maintenance of overabundance. A case study on Italian verb paradigms”, Word Structure 5, pp. 183–207. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  30. Tribout D. (2010), Les conversions de nom à verbe et de verbe à nom en français, Mémoire de doctorat, Université Paris Diderot, Paris. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.