The Morphology of Chinese: A Linguistic and Cognitive Approach

By J. Packard. 2000

423 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/fa3a44148d04d604eedbccfd612592a05a40cba7

How researchers see this paper

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

1. Xi Chen
2. Gloria Ramirez
3. E. Geva
4. Min Wang
5. Y. Luo
6. C. McBride-Chang
7. Nianwen Xue
8. Keiko Koda

Citations in the corpus

• The Penn Chinese TreeBank: Phrase structure annotation of a large corpus (2005, background): “To build a treebank for Chinese, we need to break a sentence into a word sequence before adding POS tags and phrase structures.”
• Analogical Reasoning on Chinese Morphological and Semantic Relations (2018, background): “However, Packard (2000) suggests that Chinese has a different morphological system because it selects different “settings” on parameters shared by all languages.”
• Metalinguistic skills and vocabulary knowledge in Chinese (L1) and English (L2) (2006, background): “Although much has been written about the nature of morphemes in language (e.g., Berko, 1958; Chomsky, 1976; Clark, Gelman, & Lane, 1985; Packard, 2000; Pounder, 2000), relatively little research has been carried out to test the extent to which various aspects of morphological awareness are theoret”
• Chinese Word Segmentation as Character Tagging (2003, unknown): “It has been well-documented in the linguistics literature [Dai, 1992; Packard, 2000; Xue, 2001] that phonological, syntactic and semantic criteria do not converge to allow a single notion of “ word ” in Chinese. practice, noting the difficulty in defining wordhood, researchers in automatic word…”
• Morphological Awareness and Learning to Read: A Cross-Language Perspective (2006, background): “Althoughcompounding isahighlyproductivewordformationprocess inMandarin (Packard,2000),mostof the research done on the acquisition of Mandarin compounds so far has focused only on the development of relational knowledge and knowledge about the headedness of compound nouns (Ku & Anderson, 2003; Li et…”
• Understanding Chinese Developmental Dyslexia: Morphological Awareness as a Core Cognitive Construct. (2006, background): “Moreover, in Chinese, distinctions among words versus phrases are not always clear (e.g., Packard, 2000).”
• Executive functioning skills uniquely predict Chinese word reading (2011, background): “In part because of a relatively large number of Chinese syllables sharing the same sounds or homophones, many syllables may have more than one homophone, each with a different meaning (eg, Packard, 2000; Zhou, Zhuang, & Yu, 2002).”
• Morphological Awareness Uniquely Predicts Young Children's Chinese Character Recognition (2003, background): “The importance of morphemes in building words is a particularly interesting aspect of Chinese (Packard, 2000).”
• The role of morphological awareness in children's vocabulary acquisition in English (2005, background): “For example, in Finnish, inflectional morphology is complex relative to English (Lyytinen & Lyytinen, 2004) and is a prominent early marker of language impairments in childhood, whereas in Chinese, inflectional morphology is limited (Packard, 2000).”
• Development of morphological awareness in Chinese and English (2003, background): “Unlike most bound roots in English (e.g., anti- and tele-), Chinese bound roots are less positionally restricted ( Packard, 2000 ).”
• What's in a word?: Morphological awareness and vocabulary knowledge in three languages (2008, unknown): “In addition, although our task focused on compounding morphology, because this is the primary method of word formation in Chinese languages and Korean (Packard, 2000), it is important to put these results in the context of other results finding similar effects of morphological awareness of vocabular”
• Comparing vocabulary development in Spanish- and Chinese-speaking ELLs: the effects of metalinguistic and sociocultural factors (2012, background): “Although rules have been proposed to distinguish between roots and derivational suffixes in Chinese ( Packard 2000 ), the two types of morphemes can still be easily confused, even by a native speaker who does not specialize in linguistics.”
• Cross-linguistic variations in L2 morphological awareness (2000, background): “Packard (2000) described several linguistic criteria through which a word can be defined, such as orthographic, sociological, lexical, semantic, phonological, and syntactic.”
• The contributions of phonology, orthography, and morphology in Chinese–English biliteracy acquisition (2009, background): “There are no inflectional words and only a few derivational words in Chinese (Packard, 2000).”
• SimpleNLG-ZH: a Linguistic Realisation Engine for Mandarin (2018, background): “Packard (2000) has challenged this view, arguing that more morphological operations are involved in the construction of Chinese words than is usually thought.”