EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 191 (2024) SHS Web Conf., 191 (2024) 00003 References
Open Access
Issue
SHS Web Conf.
Volume 191, 2024
9e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française
Article Number 00003
Number of page(s) 23
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/202419100003
Published online 28 June 2024
  1. Aurnague, M. & Plenat, M. (1997), Manifestations morphologiques de la relation d’attachement habituel. Silexicales, 1. Mots possibles et mots existants, Corbin, D. Fradin, B., Habert, B. Kerleroux, F. & Plénat, M. éds. Lille: Université de Lille 3: 15–24. [Google Scholar]
  2. Baayen, R. H. (1992), Quantitative aspects of morphological productivity. Yearbook of Morphology 1991, Booij, G. E. & van Marle, J. éds. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers: 109–149. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  3. Baayen, R.H. (1993), On frequency, transparency, and productivity. Yearbook of Morphology 1991, Booij, G. E. & van Marle, J. éds. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers: 181–208. [Google Scholar]
  4. Baayen, R. H. (2009), Corpus linguistics in morphology: morphological productivity. Corpus Linguistics. An international handbook, Lüdeling, A.& Kyto, M. éds, Berlin: De Gruyter: 900–919. [Google Scholar]
  5. Baayen, R. H., et Renouf, A. (1996), Chronicling The Times: Productive Lexical Innovations in an English Newspaper. Language, 72: 69–96. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  6. Barðdal, J. (2008), Productivity: Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: Benjamins. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  7. Barðdal, J., Enghels, R., Feltgen, Q., Van Hulle, S. & Lauwers, P. (sous presse), Productivity in Diachrony. Wiley Blackwell Companion to Diachronic Linguistics, Ledgeway A., Breitbarth A., Kiss, K., Salmons J. & Simonenko A. éds. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell. [Google Scholar]
  8. Benoit, K., Watanabe, K., Wang, H., Nulty, P., Obeng, A., Müller, S., & Matsuo, A. (2018), Quanteda: An R package for the quantitative analysis of textual data. Journal of Open Source Software, 3(30), 774. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bolinger, D. (1972), Degree words. The Hague: Mouton. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  10. Booj, G. (2010), Construction morphology. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(1): 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bybee, J. (1995). Regular morphology and the lexicon, Language and Cognitive Processes, 10(5): 425–455. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  12. Bybee, J. (2006). Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  13. Bybee, J. & Eddington, D. (2006), A usage-based approach to Spanish verbs of ‘becoming’. Language, 82(2): 323–355. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. Chomsky, N. (1965), Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. [Google Scholar]
  15. Corbin, D. (1987), Morphologie dérivationnelle et structuration du lexique (2 vols). Tubingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. [Google Scholar]
  16. Dal, G. (2003), Productivité morphologique: définitions et notions connexes. Langue française, 140: 3–23. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  17. Desagulier, G. (2016), A lesson from associative learning: Asymmetry and productivity in multiple-slot constructions. Corpus linguistics and linguistic theory, 12(2): 173–219. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  18. Devlin, J., Chang M.W., Lee K. & Toutanova K. (2019), BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Association for Computational Linguistics: 4171–4186. [Google Scholar]
  19. Erk, K. (2012), Vector space models of word meaning and phrase meaning: a survey. Language and Linguistics Compass 6(10): 635–653. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  20. Evert, S. (2014), Distributional Semantics in R with the wordspace Package. Proceedings of COLING 2014, the 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations, Dublin: 110-114. [Google Scholar]
  21. Feltgen, Q. (2017), Statistical physics of language evolution: the grammaticalization phenomenon. Paris: Université Paris sciences et lettres dissertation. Feltgen, Q. (s.p.p.), Testing diachronic measures of productivity using Zipf-Mandelbrot law. Qualico (12th International Quantitative Linguistics Conference). [Google Scholar]
  22. Firth, J.R. (1957), A synopsis of linguistic theory 1930–1955. Studies in Linguistic Analysis. Oxford: Philological Society: 1–32. [Google Scholar]
  23. Gaeta, L. & Ricca, D. (2006), Productivity in Italian word formation: a variable-corpus approach. Linguistics, 44(1): 57–89. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  24. Goldberg, A. (1995), Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  25. Goldberg, A. (2019). Explain me this. Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton: Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar]
  26. Grabar, N., Tribout D., Dal G., Fradin B., Hathout N., Lignon S., Namer F., Plancq C., Yvon F., Zweigenbaum P. (2006). Productivité quantitative des suffixations par -ité et -Able dans un corpus journalistique moderne. Verbum ex machina, Actes de la 13e conférence sur le traitement automatique des langues naturelles, Mertens P., Fairon, C., Dister, A. & Watrin P. éds. Louvain-la Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain: 167–177. [Google Scholar]
  27. Gries, S. (2010). Useful statistics for corpus linguistics, A mosaic of corpus linguistics: selected approaches, Sánchez A. & Almela M. éds. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang: 269–291. [Google Scholar]
  28. Gries, S. (2015), More (old and new) misunderstandings of collostructional analysis: On Schmid and Küchenhoff (2013). Cognitive Linguistics, 26 (3): 505–536. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  29. Heylen, K., Wielfaert, T., Speelman, D. & Geeraerts, D. (2015), Monitoring polysemy: Word space models as a tool for large-scale lexical semantic analysis. Lingua, 157: 153–172. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  30. Hoeksema, J. (2002), Minimaliseerders in het Standaardnederlands. Tabu, 32: 105–174. [Google Scholar]
  31. Jackendoff, R., & Audring, J. (2019), The texture of the lexicon. Relational Morphology and the Parallel Architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  32. Joubarne, C. & Inkpen, D.. 2011, Comparison of Semantic Similarity for Different Languages Using the Google n-gram Corpus and Second-Order Co-occurrence Measures. Advances in Artificial Intelligence . Canadian AI 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 6657, Butz, C. & Lingras, P. éds. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer: 216–221. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  33. Jurafsky D. & Martin J.H. (2024), Chapter 6: Vector semantics and embeddings. Speech and Language Processing (3e éd.). Publication en ligne: https://web.stanford.edu/~jurafsky/slp3/6.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  34. Kassambara, A. & Mundt, F. (2020), Factoextra: Extract and visualize the results of Multivariate Data Analyses. R package version 1.0.7. [Google Scholar]
  35. Kassambara, A. (2017). Practical guide to principal component methods in R: PCA, M(CA), FAMD, MFA, HCPC, factoextra. STHDA. [Google Scholar]
  36. Kruskal, J. B. (1964). Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis. Psychometrika, 29(1): 1–27. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  37. Langacker, R. (1987), Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  38. Lauwers, P. (2014), From lexicalization to constructional generalizations. On complex prepositions in French. In: Romance Construction Grammar, Gonzálvez-García, F. & Boas, H. éds. Amsterdam etc.: Benjamins: 79–111. [Google Scholar]
  39. Lauwers, P., & Van den Heede, M. (en préparation), Productivity and semantic diversity within a family of minimizing constructions in French. [Google Scholar]
  40. Le H., Vial L., Frej J., Segonne, V., Coavoux M., Lecouteux, B., Allauzen A., Crabbe B., Besacier L. & Schwab, D. (2020). FlauBERT: Unsupervised language model pre-training for French ». Marseille: LREC. [Google Scholar]
  41. Lê, S., Josse, J., & Husson, F. (2008), FactoMineR: An R Package for Multivariate Analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 25(1): 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  42. Mandera, P., Keuleers, E., & Brysbaert, M. (2017), Explaining human performance in psycholinguistic tasks with models of semantic similarity based on prediction and counting: A review and empirical validation. Journal of Memory and Language, 92: 57-78. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  43. Martin L., Muller, B., Ortiz Suárez, P.J., Dupont, Y., Romary L., de la Clergerie E., Seddah D. & Sagot B. (2020), CamemBERT: a tasty French language model. Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Association for Computational Linguistics: 7203–7219. [Google Scholar]
  44. Nyrop, K. (1908), Grammaire historique de la langue française, tome 3. Copenhague: Gyldendalske Boghandel Nordisk Forlag; Leipzig/New York/Paris: Harrassowitz, Stechert & Picard. [Google Scholar]
  45. Perek F. (2020), Productivity and Schematicity in constructional change. Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar, Sommerer, L. & Smirnova, E. éds, Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins: 141–166. [Google Scholar]
  46. Perek, F. (2016), Using distributional semantics to study syntactic productivity in diachrony: A case study. Linguistics, 54: 149–188. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  47. Pinker, S. (1999), Words and Rules: The Ingredients of Language. London: Phoenix. [Google Scholar]
  48. Plevoets, K. (2015), svs: Tools for Semantic Vector Spaces. Gent: Ghent University. [Google Scholar]
  49. Pankratz, E., von der Malsburg, T. & Vasishth, S. (2022), Shannon entropy is a more comprehensive and principled morphological productivity measure than the standard alternatives. PsyArXiv, 8, juin 2022 (en ligne). [Google Scholar]
  50. Suttle, L., & Goldberg, A. (2011), The partial productivity of constructions as induction. Linguistics, 49(6), 1237–1269. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  51. Trousdale, G. (2008), A constructional approach to lexicalization processes in the history of English: evidence from possessive constructions. Word Structure, 1: 156–177. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  52. Van den Heede, M. (en préparation), The minimizing construction in Dutch and French, Thèse de doctorat. Université de Gand. [Google Scholar]
  53. Van den Heede, M., & Lauwers, P. (2023), Syntactic productivity under the microscope: the lexical and semantic openness of Dutch minimizing constructions. Folia Linguistica, 57(3): 723–761. [Google Scholar]
  54. Van Hulle, S., Enghels, R. & Lauwers, P. (soumis pour publication), The many guises of productivity: a case-study of Spanish inchoative constructions. [Google Scholar]
  55. Van Wettere, N. (2018), Copularité et Productivité: une analyse contrastive des verbes attributifs issus de verbes de mouvement en français et en néerlandais. Thèse de doctorat. Université de Gand. [Google Scholar]
  56. Van Wettere, N. (2021), Productivity of French and Dutch (semi-)copular constructions and the adverse impact of high token frequency. International Journal of Corpus linguistics, 26: 396–428. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  57. Van Wettere, N. (2022), The hapax/type ratio. An indicator of minimally required sample size in productivity studies? International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 27(2): 166–190. [Google Scholar]
  58. Venables, W. N. & Ripley, B.D. (2002), Modern applied statistics with S. Fourth edition. New York: Springer [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  59. Wickham, H. (2016), ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. New York: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  60. Zeldes, A. (2012), Productivity in Argument Selection: From Morphology to Syntax. Berlin: De Gruyter. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  61. Schäfer, R. (2015). Processing and querying large web corpora with the COW14 architecture. Proceedings of challenges in the management of large corpora (CMLC-3), IDS publication server: 28–34. [Google Scholar]
  62. Schäfer, R. & Bildhauer, F. (2012), Building large corpora from the web using a new efficient tool chain. Proceedings of the eighth international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC’ 12): 486–493. [Google Scholar]
  63. Jakubíček, M., Kilgarriff A., Kovář V., Rychlý, P. & Suchomel, V. (2013). The TenTen corpus family. 7th International Corpus Linguistics Conference CL. Lancaster: 125–127. [Google Scholar]
  64. New, B. Lexique (http://www.lexique.org/) [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.