Morphology and Lexical Semantics

467 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

How marginal are phrasal compounds? Generalized insertion, expressivity, and I/Q-interaction (2007, background): “The prediction with lexicalized phrasal compounds is that they should be understandable to a high degree (their meaning being directly derivable form 14 Following Lieber (2004), in the case of N+N-compounds the referential arguments of the head and the non-head are coindexed, for example dog bed [+m”
The Classification of Compounds (2011, methodology): “If we represent compounds making use (in a slightly modifi ed way) of Lieber’s (2004) theory of lexical semantics representation, according to which every lexeme is represented with a skeleton (containing grammatical information) and a body (containing encyclopaedic information), the following pictu”
Compositional-ly Derived Representations of Morphologically Complex Words in Distributional Semantics (2013, background): “…sparseness problems, a system of this sort, that automatically induces the semantic contents of morphological processes, would also be of tremendous theoretical interest, given that the semantics of derivation is a central and challenging topic in linguistic morphology (Dowty, 1979; Lieber, 2004).”