Open Access
Issue
SHS Web Conf.
Volume 78, 2020
7e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française
Article Number 08001
Number of page(s) 16
Section Morphologie
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20207808001
Published online 04 September 2020
  1. Baayen, R. H. (2014). Experimental and psycholinguistic approaches to studying derivation. In R. Lieber & P. Stekauer (eds.), Handbook of Derivational Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 95–117. [Google Scholar]
  2. Booij, G. (2010). Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  3. Brysbaert, M. & Duyck W. (2010). Is it time to leave behind the Revised Hierarchical Model of bilingual language processing after fifteen years of service? Bilingualism: Language & Cognition, 133, 359–371. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bybee, J. L. (1985). Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bybee, J. L. (1988). Morphology as lexical organisation. In M. Hammond & M. Noonan (eds.), Theoretical Morphology. Approaches to modern linguistics, 119-142. San Diego: Academic Press. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bybee, J. (1995). Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10 (5), 425–55. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bybee, J. L. & McClelland J. (2005). Alternatives to the combinatorial paradigm of linguistic theory based on domain general principles of human cognition. In N. Ritter (ed.) The role of linguistics in cognitive science. Special Issue of The Linguistic Review, 22(2-4), 381–410. [Google Scholar]
  8. Casaponsa, A. & Dunabeitia J. A. (2016). Lexical organization of language-ambiguous and language- specific words in bilinguals. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69 (3), 589–604. [Google Scholar]
  9. Costa, A., Caramazza A. & Sebastian-Galles N. (2000). The cognate facilitation effect: implications for models of lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 26, 1283–1296. [Google Scholar]
  10. Chen, B., Zhou H., Gao Y. & Dunlap S. (2014). Cross-language translation priming asymmetry: a test of the Sense model. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 433, 225–40. [Google Scholar]
  11. Clahsen, H. Felsen C., Neubauer K., Sato M. & Silva R. (2010). Morphological structure in native and non-native language processing. Language Learning, 60, 21–43. [Google Scholar]
  12. Corbin, D. (1987/1991). Morphologie dérivationnelle et structuration du lexique (2 vols.) Tübingen/Villeneuve d’Ascq: Max Niemeyer Verlag/Presses Universitaires de Lille. [Google Scholar]
  13. Dal Maso, S., Voga M. & Giraudo, H. (2016). Du traitement de la morphologie à l’apprentissage du lexique L2. RevueMéthodal, 1, 85–99. [Google Scholar]
  14. de Groot, A. M. B. & Nas G. L. J. (1991). Lexical representation of cognates and noncognates in compound bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 90–123. [Google Scholar]
  15. De Jong, N., R. Schreuder & R. H. Baayen. (2000). The morphological size effect and morphology. Language & Cognitive Processes, 15, 329–65. [Google Scholar]
  16. Diependaele, K., Dunabeitia J., Morris J. & Keuleers E. (2011). Fast morphological effects in first and second language word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 64(4), 344–58. [Google Scholar]
  17. Dijkstra, T. Moscoso del Prado Martin F., Schulpen B., Schreuder R. & Baayen R. H. (2005). A roommate in cream: Morphological family size effects on interlingual homograph recognition. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20, 7–41. [Google Scholar]
  18. Dufour, R. & J.F. Kroll. (1995). Matching words to concepts in two languages: A test of the concept mediation model of bilingual representations. Memory and Cognition, 23, 166–80. [Google Scholar]
  19. Dunabeitia, J., Dimitropoulou M., Morris J. & Diependaele K. (2013). The role of form in morphological priming: Evidence from bilinguals. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(7), 967–987. [Google Scholar]
  20. Forster, K.I. & Forster J.C. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavioral Research Methods: Instruments & Computers, 35, 116–124. [Google Scholar]
  21. Forster K.I., Mohan K. & Hector J. (2003). The mechanics of masked priming. In: S. Kinoshita & S.J. Lupker (eds). S. Kinoshita & S.J. Lupker(eds)Masked priming: State of the art. Hove, UK [Google Scholar]
  22. Fricke, M., Kroll, J. & Dussias, P. (2016). Phonetic variation in bilingual speech: A lens for studying the production-comprehension link. Journal of Memory and Language 89, 110–137. [Google Scholar]
  23. Gollan, T., Forster K.I. & Frost R. (1997). Translation priming with different scripts: Masked priming with cognates and noncognates in Hebrew-English bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory & Cognition, 23, 1122–1139. [Google Scholar]
  24. Guzzardo Tamargo, R., Valdes Kroff J. & Dussias P. (2016). Examining the relationship between comprehension and production processes in code-switched language. Journal of Memory and Language, 89, 138–161. [Google Scholar]
  25. Hoshino, N. & Kroll J.F. (2008). Cognate effects in picture naming: Does cross-language activation survive a change of script? Cognition, 106, 501–511. [Google Scholar]
  26. Jiang, N. (1999). Testing processing explanations for the asymmetry in masked cross-language priming. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 21, 59–75. [Google Scholar]
  27. Jiang, N. & Forster K.I. (2001). Cross-language priming asymmetries in lexical decision and episodic recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 44, 32–51. [Google Scholar]
  28. Kroll, J.F., Bobb S.C, Wodniecka Z. (2006). Language selectivity is the exception, not the rule: Arguments against a fixed locus of language selection in bilingual speech. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9,119–135. [Google Scholar]
  29. Kroll, J.F. & 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. [Google Scholar]
  30. Kroll, J., van Hell J., Tokowicz N. & Green D. (2010). The Revised Hierarchical Model: A critical review and assessment. Bilingualism: Language & Cognition, 133, 373–381. [Google Scholar]
  31. McClelland, J.L. & Rumelhart D.E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 1. An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 88, 375–407. [Google Scholar]
  32. Mulder, K., Dijkstra T., Schreuder R. & Baayen R.H. (2014). Effects of primary and secondary morphological family size in monolingual and bilingual word pro-cessing. Journal of Memory and Language, 72, 59–84. [Google Scholar]
  33. Pickering, M. & Garrod S. (2013). An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36(4), 329–347. [Google Scholar]
  34. Raaijmakers, J., Schrijnemakers J. & Gremmen F. (1999). How to deal with the language-as-fixed- effect fallacy: Common misconceptions and alternative solutions. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 416–426 [Google Scholar]
  35. Rastle, K., Davis M.H. & New, B. (2004). The broth in my brother’s brothel: morpho-orthographic segmentation in visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 11, 1090–1098. [Google Scholar]
  36. Sanchez-Casas, R. & Garcia-Albea J.E. (2005). The representation of cognate and noncognate words on bilingual memory: Can cognate status be characterized as a special kind of morphological relation? In J.F. Kroll & A.M.B. De Groot (eds.), Handbook of Bilingualism: Psycholinguists Approaches. 226–250. New York: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  37. Schoonbaert, S., Duyck W., Brysbaert M. & Hartsuiker R. (2009). Semantic and translation priming from a first language to a second and back: Making sense of the findings. Memory and Cognition, 37(5), 569–586. [Google Scholar]
  38. Schreuder, R. & Baayen R.H. (1997). How complex simplex words can be. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 118–139. [Google Scholar]
  39. Silbert, L.J., Honey C.J., Simony E., Poeppel D. & Hasson U. (2014). Coupled neural systems underlie the production and comprehension of naturalistic narrative speech. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ofthe USA, 111(43), E4687–96. [Google Scholar]
  40. 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, 245260. [Google Scholar]
  41. Van Hell, J.G. & Dijkstra T. (2002). Foreign language knowledge can influence native language performance in exclusively native contexts. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 780–789. [Google Scholar]
  42. van Hell, J.G. & De Groot A.M.B. (1998). Conceptual representation in bilingual memory: Effects of cognateness and cognate status in word association. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 193–211. [Google Scholar]
  43. Van Hell, J. & Tanner D. (2012). Second language proficiency and cross-language lexical activation. Language learning, 62(2), 148–171. [Google Scholar]
  44. Van Heuven, W.J., Dijkstra T. & Grainger J. (1998). Orthographic neighbourhood effects in bilingual word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 458–483. [Google Scholar]
  45. Voga, M. & Anastassiadis-Symeonidis A. (2018). Connecting lexica in bilingual cross-script morphological processing: base and series effects in language co-activation. Lexique, 28, 160184. [Google Scholar]
  46. Voga, M. & Grainger J. (2007). Cognate Status and Cross-script Translation Priming. Memory and Cognition, 35, 938–952. [Google Scholar]
  47. Voga, M., Anastassiadis-Symeonidis A. & Giraudo H. (2014). Does morphology play a role in L2 processing? Two masked priming experiments with Greek speakers of ESL. Linguisticae Investigationes, 37(2), 338–352. [Google Scholar]
  48. Voga, M., Gardani F. & Giraudo H. (2020). Multilingualism and the Mental Lexicon. Insights from language processing, diachrony, and language contact. In V. Pirelli, I. Plag & W. Dressler (eds.), Word knowledge and word usage: An interdisciplinary guide to the mental lexicon. [Google Scholar]
  49. Voga, M. & Giraudo H. (2017). Word and beyond-word issues in morphological processing. Word Structure, 10(2), 235–254. [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.