EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 46 (2018) SHS Web Conf., 46 (2018) 10002 References
Open Access
Issue
SHS Web Conf.
Volume 46, 2018
6e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française
Article Number 10002
Number of page(s) 15
Section Psycholinguistique et acquisition
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20184610002
Published online 09 July 2018
  1. Alario, F.-X. et Caramazza, A. (2002).The production of determiners: evidence from French. Cognition, 82, 179-223. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  2. Barbaud, P., Ducharme, C. et Valois, D. (1982). d'un usage particulier du genre en canadien français: la féminisation des noms à initiale vocalique." Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique,27(2),103-133. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. Baayen, R.H., Dijkstra, T. et Schreuder, R. (1997). Singulars and Plurals in Dutch: Evidence for a Parallel Dual-Route Model. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 94-117. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bordag, D. et Pechmann, T. (2007). Factors influencing L2 processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 299-314. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bordag, D. et Pechmann, T. (2008). Grammatical gender in translation. Second Language Research. 24, 139. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  6. Cacciari, C. et Cubelli, R. (2003). The neuropsychology of grammatical gender: An introduction. Cortex, 39(3), 377-382. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  7. Caramazza, A. et Miozzo, M. (1997). The relation between syntactic and phonological knowledge in lexical access: Evidence from the “tip-of-the-tongue” phenomenon. Cognition, 64, 309-343. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  8. Carroll, S. E. (1992). On cognates. Second Language Research, 8(2), 93-119. [Google Scholar]
  9. Cohen, J. D., MacWhinney, B., Flatt, M. et al. (1993). PsyScope: An interactive graphic system for designing and controlling experiments in the psychology laboratory using Macintosh computers. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 25, 257-271. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  10. Corblin, F. (1995b). Compositionality and Complexity in Multiple Negation, dans IGPL Bulletin, 3(2), 449-473. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  11. Corblin, Francis (1995a) : Les formes de reprise dans le discours. Anaphores et chaînes de référence, Presses Universitaires de Rennes. [Google Scholar]
  12. Costa, A., Kovacic, D., Fedorenko, E. et al. (2003). The gender-congruency effect and the selection of freestanding and bound morphemes: Evidence from Croatian. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 1270-1282. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  13. Costa, A., Kovacic, D., Franck, J. et al. (2003). On the autonomy of the grammatical gender systems of the two languages of a bilingual. Bilingualism: Language & Cognition, 6, 181-200. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. Costa, A., Caramazza, A. et Sebastian-Gallés, N. (2000) : The cognate facilitation effect: Implications for the models of lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 26, 1283-1296. [Google Scholar]
  15. Costa, A., Miozzo, M. et Caramazza, A. (1999). Lexical selection in bilinguals; Do words in the bilingual’s two lexicons compete for selection? Journal of memory and Language, 41, 365-397. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. Cubelli, R., Lotto, L., Paolieri, D. et al. (2005). Grammatical gender is selected in bare noun production : Evidence from the picture-word interference paradigm. Journal of Memory and Language, 53, 42-59. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  17. Croitor, B. et Giurgea, I. (2009). On the so-called Romanian neuter. Bucharest Working Papers in Linguistics, 11(2), 21-39. [Google Scholar]
  18. Depiante, M. A. et Masullo. P. J. (2001). Género y número en la elipsis nominal: Consecuencias para la hipótesis lexicalista. Paper presented at the 1st Encuentro de Gramática Generativa [Google Scholar]
  19. Dijkstra, T. (2005). Bilingual visual word recognition and lexical access. In J. F. Kroll & A. M. B. De Groot (Eds), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches. New York: Oxford University Press, 178-201. [Google Scholar]
  20. De Groot, A. M. B. (1992a). Bilingual lexical representation: A closer look at conceptual representation. In R. Frost & L. Katz (eds.), Orthography, phonology, morphology and meaning, 389–412. Amsterdam: Elsevier. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  21. Farkas, D. F. (1990). Two cases of underspecification in morphology. Linguistic Inquiry, 21, 539-550. [Google Scholar]
  22. GALR. (2005). Gramatica limbii române. Bucharest: Editura Academiei Române. [Google Scholar]
  23. GLR. (1963). Gramatica limbii române. Bucharest: Editura Academiei RPR. [Google Scholar]
  24. Klassen, R. (2016). The Representation of Asymmetric Grammatical Gender Systems in the Bilingual Mental Lexicon. Probus, publié en ligne "ahead of print" [Google Scholar]
  25. Kroll, J. F. et De Groot, A. M. B. (1997). Lexical and conceptual memory in the bilingual: Mapping form to meaning in two languages. In A. M. B. De Groot & J. F. Kroll (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 169-199. [Google Scholar]
  26. Kroll, J. F. et Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming:Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 149-174. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  27. Lemhöfer, K., Spalek, K. et Schriefers, H. (2008). Cross-language effects of grammatical gender in bilingual word recognition and production. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 312-330. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  28. Lemhöfer, K., Dijkstra, T., Baayen, H. et al. (2008) : Native language influence on word recognition in a second language: A megastudy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 12-31. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  29. Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A. et Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 22(1), 1-75. [Google Scholar]
  30. Lotto, L. et deGroot, A. M.B. (1998). Effects of learning method and word type on acquiring vocabulary in an unfamiliar language. Language Learning, 48, 31-69. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  31. Manolescu, A. et Jarema, G. (2015). Grammatial gender in Romanian-French bilinguals. The Mental Lexicon, 10(3), 390-412. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  32. Marian, v., Blumenfeld,H. et Kaushanskaya, M. (2007). Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q), the Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 50(4), 940-967., http://www.bilingualism.northwestern.edu/leapq/ [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  33. Miozzo, M. et Caramazza, A. (1999). The Selection of Determiners in Noun Phrase Production. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(4), 907-922. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  34. New, B., Pallier, C., Ferrand, L. et al. (2001). Une base de données lexicales du français contemporain sur internet: lexique. L'Année Psychologique, 101, 447-462 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  35. Paolieri, D., Cubelli, R., Macizo, P. et al. (2010). Grammatical gender processing in italian and spanish bilinguals. The Quaterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(8), 1631-1645. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  36. Salamoura, A. et Williams, J. N. (2007). The representation of grammatical gender in the bilingual lexicon: Evidence from Greek and German. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 257-275. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  37. Schiller, N. O. et Caramazza, A. (2003). Grammatical feature selection in noun phrase production: Evidence from German and Dutch. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 169–194. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  38. Schriefers, H., Jescheniak, J. D. et Hantsch, A. (2005). Selection of Gender-Marked Morphemes in Speech Production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 31(1), 159-168. [CrossRef] [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.