Article published In:
Functions of Language
Vol. 24:2 (2017) ► pp.139165
References (37)

References

Ackema, Peter & Ad Neeleman
2004Beyond morphology. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alegre, María A. & Peter Gordon
1996Red rats eater exposes recursion in children’s word formation. Cognition 601. 65–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ariel, Mira
1988Referring and accessibility. Journal of Linguistics 241. 65–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie
1978The grammar of nominal compounding. Odense: Odense University Press.Google Scholar
Behaghel, Otto
1932Deutsche Syntax: Band 4: Wortstellung. Periodenbau. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Bell, Melanie J.
2011At the boundary of morphology and syntax: Noun noun constructions in English. In Alexandra Galeni, Glyn Hicks & George Tsoulas (eds.), Morphology and its interfaces, 137–167. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Belnap, R. Kirk
1999A new perspective on the history of Arabic variation in marking agreement with plural heads. Folia Linguistica 331. 169–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berg, Thomas
2011The modification of compounds by attributive adjectives. Language Sciences 331. 725–737. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014How nominal compounds are modified by two adjectives. Folia Linguistica 481. 1–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berg, Thomas, Sabine Helmer, Marion Neubauer & Arne Lohmann
2012Determinants of the extent of compound use: A contrastive analysis. Linguistics 501. 269–303. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bock, Kathryn
1987An effect of the accessibility of word forms on sentence structures. Journal of Memory and Language 261. 119–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carnie, Andrew
2008Constituent structure. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Carroll, John M.
1979Complex nominals: phrasal embedding in lexical structure. Linguistics 171. 863–877. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Christianson, Kiel & Fernanda Ferreira
2005Conceptual accessibility and sentence production in a free word order language (Odawa). Cognition 981. 105–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Curzan, Anne
2003Gender shifts in the history of English. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davis, Matthew H., William D. Marslen-Wilson & M. Gareth Gaskell
2002Leading up the lexical garden path: Segmentation and ambiguity in spoken word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 281. 218–244.Google Scholar
Gagné, Christina
2001Relation and lexical priming during the interpretation of noun-noun combinations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 271. 236–254.Google Scholar
Gibson, Edward
1998Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 681. 1–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, John
1976An overview of autosegmental phonology. Linguistic Analysis 21. 23–68.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A.
1986A comparative typology of English and German: Unifying the contrasts. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Henson, Richard N. A., Dennis G. Norris, Michael P. A. Page & Alan D. Baddeley
1996Unchained memory: Error patterns rule out chaining models of immediate serial recall. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 49(A). 80–115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Isel, Frédéric, Thomas C. Gunter & Angela D. Friederici
2003Prosody-assisted head-driven access to spoken German compounds. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 291. 277–288.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. & Bernard Comrie
1977Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 81. 63–99.Google Scholar
Koester, Dirk, Thomas C. Gunter, Susanne Wagner & Angela D. Friederici
2004Morphosyntax, prosody, and linking elements: The auditory processing of German nominal compounds. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 161. 1647–1668. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Larson, Richard K.
1991 Promise and the theory of control. Linguistic Inquiry 221. 103–139.Google Scholar
Libben, Gary, Martha Gibson, Yeo Bom Yoon & Dominiek Sandra
2003Compound fracture: The role of semantic transparency and morphological headedness. Brain and Language 841. 50–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liberman, Mark & Richard Sproat
1992The stress and structure of modified noun phrases in English. In Ivan A. Sag & Anna Szabolcsi (eds.), Lexical matters, 131–181. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle
1992Deconstructing morphology. Chicago, Il: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
MacDonald, Maryellen C., Neal J. Perlmutter & Mark S. Seidenberg
1994The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review 1011. 676–703. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marelli, Marco, Davide Crepaldi & Claudio Luzzatti
2009Head position and the mental representation of nominal compounds. The Mental Lexicon 41. 430–454. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nakayama, Masataka & Satoru Saito
2014Within-word serial order control: Adjacent mora exchange and serial position effects in repeated single-word production. Cognition 1311. 415–430. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pickering, Martin J. & Matthew J. Traxler
1998Plausibility and recovery from garden paths: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 271. 940–961.Google Scholar
Prat-Sala, Mercè & Holly P. Branigan
2000Discourse constraints on syntactic processing in language production: A cross-linguistic study in English and Spanish. Journal of Memory and Language 421. 168–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross, John Robert
1973The Penthouse Principle and the order of constituents. In Claudia Corum, T. Cedric Smith-Stark & Ann Weiser (eds.), Papers from the 9th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 397–422. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Slattery, Timothy J., Patrick Sturt, Kiel Christianson, Masaya Yoshida & Fernanda Ferreira
2013Lingering misinterpretations of garden path sentences arise from competing syntactic representations. Journal of Memory and Language 691. 104–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ward, Gregory, Richard Sproat & Gail McKoon
1991A pragmatic analysis of so-called anaphoric islands. Language 671. 439–474. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwitserlood, Pienie
1994The role of semantic transparency in the processing and representation of Dutch compounds. Language and Cognitive Processes 91. 341–368. DOI logoGoogle Scholar