Termout.org logo/LING


Update: February 24, 2023 The new version of Termout.org is now online, so this web site is now obsolete and will soon be dismantled.

Lista de candidatos sometidos a examen:
1) lexical (*)
(*) Términos presentes en el nuestro glosario de lingüística

1) Candidate: lexical


Is in goldstandard

1
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines152 - : Lexical units: Representation and definition in linguistic development

2
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines157 - : Lexical bundles in university textbooks: Variation across academic disciplines

3
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines157 - : Over the past two decades, researchers have become increasingly interested in the study of multiword prefabricated expressions. One productive approach to this research area has been to investigate the multi–word sequences that actually occur most commonly in a given register, referred to as ‘lexical bundles’. Lexical bundles have systematic structural characteristics, and they serve important discourse functions, expressing stance, signaling the discourse organization, or providing referential frames. Previous studies have documented the use of lexical bundles in conversation, academic prose, university textbooks, student writing, and classroom teaching. The present study extends this line of research by comparing the use of lexical bundles in textbooks across five major academic disciplines: business, engineering, natural science, social science, and humanities . The findings presented here show that there are important differences across academic disciplines, both in the extent to which

4
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines201 - : Adele Goldberg, precursora y pionera de la gramática de las construcciones (Goldberg, 1995) aporta al volumen el innovador trabajo titulado Constructions, lexical semantics, and the correspondence principle: Accounting for generalizations and subregularities in the realization of arguments . El artículo introduce la tercera parte del libro denominada Lexical restrictions on syntax. La autora critica las investigaciones que tienden a proporcionar principios generalizadores para dar cuenta de algunas tendencias generales en la realización de los argumentos. En el capítulo, se defiende una revaloración del papel de las construcciones y de factores discursivos en dicha realización, de forma que las generalizaciones propuestas se vuelvan más adecuadas y productivas para predecir no solo el comportamiento de la realización argumental, sino también las distintas excepciones en ella.

5
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines269 - : Podemos continuar preguntándonos si un ítem lexical particular que sirve como Modo: 'grado' muestra preferencias para Procesos de uno u otro de tipo proceso . Mi estrategia será comenzar buscando patrones que impliquen adverbios de grado^[40]9 que parecen estar colocacionalmente restringidos, adverbios como 'profundamente' y 'claramente'. Empecemos con 'profundamente'. Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech y Svartvik (1985: 593) observan que esto tiende a ocurrir con 'verbos actitudinales' y cita: "odiar, desagradar, admirar, valorar, lamentar". Ver también Matthiessen (1995a). El desafío aquí será localizar tales clases al interior de una explicación sistemática del TIPO DE PROCESO.

6
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines310 - : Cuando se produce un déficit de conocimiento, el lector puede formular preguntas. Si le resulta difícil lograr el paso desde la formulación superficial al nivel de base del texto, pregunta porque tiene dificultad con el significado de palabras que aparecen directamente en el texto. El desconocimiento de palabras que aparecen en los nodos del texto es un problema a nivel lexical (Baker, 1994) y el lector pregunta: ¿Qué significa X ? ¿Cuál X? ¿Qué X? donde X, en este caso, puede ser: toma, boca, paralelo, corriente, línea, calor, aislante, sobrecalentamiento, circuito, dispositivo, fusible, tapones, llave térmica o serie. También podrían darse en esta misma categoría preguntas que indaguen sobre el significado de más de una de estas palabras.

7
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines313 - : Verbs are often created from English verbs or nouns using Romanian verbal classifiers, like derivative suffixes: -a: forcasta (cf. forecast), targheta^[32]8 (cf. target), printa (cf. print); -iza: sponsoriza (cf. sponsor), globaliza (cf. global / globalize), computeriza (cf. computer / computerise), -ui^[33]9: a brandui (cf. brand), a bipui (cf. the interjection bip), a chatui (cf. chat), a serui (cf. share), a zipui (cf. zip) or inflectional suffixes: downloadati fisierul [download the file]: femeia care îl body-guard-eaza pe N. [the woman that *body-guards N.] (GALR, 2005). The affix-(a)re is specialized for abstract nouns, and is used as a means of completing the lexical family of the loanword: auditare, forcastare, printare, targhetare, etc .

8
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines319 - : While for Maienborn (2005), ser and estar have identical semantic properties, for Arche (2007), the ser/estar contrast is rooted in the lexicon. Estar conveys the linking to an external situation lexically and “refers to a circumstance in which an individual is” (Arche, 2007: 251 ). Since ser is more vacuous than estar in a lexical sense while ser does not impact the adjective, estar does it by associating the property to a concrete situation.

9
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines319 - : What exactly is the source of the difference between ser and estar is far from settled. According to Kratzer´s (1995) and Diesing´s (1992) proposals, in which ser and estar are assumed to be the lexical exponents of IL/SL predicates, the source of the difference is the presence/absence of a spatiotemporal argument. For Arche (2007), whose analysis also views ser and estar as the lexical exponents of the IL/SL distinction, ser and estar do not differ with respect to the spatiotemporal arguments they project (since both project spatiotemporal arguments) but rather on their lexical semantics: the linking nature of estar to a specific context is lexically encoded . For Maienborn (2003, 2005) the difference between ser and estar is only pragmatic while ser and estar have identical semantics. For Schmitt (1992, 1996, 2005) and Luján (1981), the difference lies in the aspectual properties of the predicates involving ser and estar. For Clements (2005) it is essential to consider not only the

10
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines336 - : The next step in developing a formalism representing semantic relations between the base and the collocate as well as semantic and structural similarity between collocations was done by Mel’čuk. Up to now, his endeavor has remained the most fundamental and theoretically well-grounded attempt to systematize collocational knowledge. This scholar proposed a linguistic theory called the Meaning-Text Theory, which explained how meaning, or semantic representation, is encoded and transformed into spoken or written texts (Mel’čuk, 1974). His theory postulates that collocations are produced by a mechanism called lexical function. Lexical function is a mapping from the base to the collocate; it is a semantically marked correspondence that governs the choice of the collocate for a particular base. The following definition of lexical function is given in (Mel’čuk, 1996: 40):

11
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines336 - : “The term function is used in the mathematical sense: f(X) = Y. …Formally, a Lexical Function f is a function that associates with a given lexical expression L, which is the argument, or keyword, of f, a set {Li} of lexical expressions – the value of f – that express, contingent on L, a specific meaning associated with f:

12
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines336 - : About 70 lexical functions have been identified in (Mel’čuk, 1996); each is associated with a particular meaning according to which it receives its name. The name of a lexical function is an abbreviated Latin word whose semantic content is closest to the meanings of this lexical function. Using the above notation, the collocation dar un paseo, lit. give a walk, is represented as Oper1(paseo) = dar where ‘Oper’ is from Latin operari (do, carry out); the argument, or the keyword of this lexical function is paseo; its value is dar; the subscript 1 stores information concerning the syntactical structure of utterances where the keyword of Oper1 (paseo) is used together with its value (dar) and where the first argument of paseo (Agent) is lexicalized in speech as the grammatical subject: Mi abuela (Agent ) da un paseo por este parque cada sábado, My grandma takes a walk in this park every Saturday. Other collocations that are isomorphic to dar un paseo can be represented likewise, and, in fact,

13
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines336 - : It can be noted that the collocational semantics in [32]Table 2 are complex lexical functions. [33]Table 3 presents the meanings from [34]Table 2 through the instrumentality of the lexical function formalism. The meanings are accompanied by sample collocations taken from [35]Table 2 as well. The notation includes the names of lexical functions and the syntactic information concerning grammatical functions of lexicalized semantic roles encoded in subscripts. For the sake of preserving the complete notation, we use the name of the function and the subscripts, but since we are interested in the semantic aspect of collocations, here we leave the subscripts unexplained. However, a detailed description of subscripts and their meanings can be obtained from (Mel’čuk, 1996). Complex lexical functions in [36]Table 3 include the following simple lexical functions as their constituents: Caus, Func, Plus, Minus, Incep, Cont, Oper . All of them, except for Plus and Minus, were introduced earlier in this

14
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines336 - : As it was said in Section 1.4, the overall number of lexical functions that have been identified is 70. This number includes lexical functions found in collocations of various structures: noun-noun, adjective-noun, verb-noun, verb-adverb, etc . In this work, we study only Spanish verb-noun collocations, and we were interested in lexical functions encountered in most frequent of them. We have found out that the list of 900 verb-noun collocations described above contains 36 lexical functions. However, only eight lexical functions of these 36 have the number of collocations sufficient for computer experiments, so they were selected for machine learning experiments. The chosen lexical functions are shown in [43]Table 4, and the number of collocations for each lexical function is presented in [44]Table 5.

15
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines336 - : However, the baseline can be a random choice of a positive or a negative answer to the question ‘Is this collocation of this particular lexical function?’ In such a case we deal with the probability of a positive and negative response. Since we are interested in only assigning the positive answer to a collocation, we calculate the probability of ‘yes’ class for eight lexical functions in the experiments according to the formula: probability of ‘yes’ = 1 / (the number of all examples / the number of positive examples of a given lexical function ). These probabilities will be results of a classifier that assigns the class ‘yes’ to collocations at random. Since we will compare the probabilities of the random choice with the results obtained in our experiments, we present the former as numbers within the range from 0 to 1 in [49]Table 5 as well as in [50]Table 6.

16
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines337 - : Although the results reported by Limongi Tirado et al. (submitted) provide initial evidence supporting the hypothesis that lexical and periphrastic causatives elicit differential neural activity, their results only refer to the differential activity found in frontal language-related areas (i .e., pars triangularis and pars opercularis) during the actual judgments of visual events. In this work, we expand their findings by testing the hypothesis that differences in the semantic representation of periphrastic and lexical causatives are mapped into differential neural activity during the reading of the verbal instructions. Those differences would be associated with differential neural recruitment related to top-down anticipated attentional control before the actual evaluation of the events (i.e., during the reading of the verbal instructions). Specifically, we hypothesize that attention-related prefrontal areas and parietal and occipital areas necessary for the detection of direct and indirect

17
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines347 - : "(…) idioms are not encoded as separate entries in the mental lexicon. Rather, their meaning is associated with particular configurations of words and becomes available-in lexical processing terms, is accessed-whenever sufficient input has rendered the configuration recognizable" (Cacciari & Tabossi, 1988: 678 ).

18
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines347 - : "In the model, there is a distinction between syntax and the lexicon. The syntactic part of the model consist of a set of rules that create a structural frame. The terminal nodes of these frames are grammatical categorized slots. The lexicon consists of a network of nodes for linguistic such as concepts, words, morphemes, and phonemes. The conceptual nodes are connected to the words nodes, the word nodes to the morphemes, and so on. The cross talk between the syntactic frames and the lexicon occurs within each level. For example, at the lexical level, insertion rules select activated lexical items from the lexicon to fill the slots in the syntactic frame. The lexical item assigned to a slot must be of the grammatical type that a slot specifies" (Cutting & Bock, 1997: 67-68 ).

19
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines347 - : Ahora bien, en su segundo y tercer experimento, Sprenger et al. (2006) buscaban testear la hipótesis de que el significado literal de las palabras se activa durante la producción de locuciones. Específicamente en el segundo experimento, los autores buscaban determinar si los mismos lemmas implicados en la producción del lenguaje literal también participan en la producción de locuciones y si estos tienen su significado y conceptos lexicales propios. La hipótesis postulada por Sprenger et al. (2006) es que si las locuciones están constituidas por palabras exclusivas para su configuración idiomática, la producción de locuciones no debiera verse afectada por la presentación de una palabra prime semánticamente relacionada a una pieza lexical correspondiente a su versión literal . Alternativamente, si la locución está constituida por lemmas simples que no son exclusivos para el bloque idiomático, la activación de estos podría producirse a partir de la representación de la locución o de su conce

20
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines347 - : En el modelo propuesto por Sprenger et al. (2006) las locuciones son representadas por su propio lemma y, por lo tanto, su producción sigue las mismas reglas de competición y selección lexical que opera para las palabras. Así, la producción de la locución "romper el hielo" requiere la activación de su superlemma, cuya selección lexical implica competición entre los lemmas co-activados como "relajar" y solo será seleccionado si es el nodo más altamente activado en el sistema (Sprenger et al ., 2006). Además, es importante destacar que la selección del superlemma meta gatilla la selección del set de lemmas simples que serán requeridos en los pasos siguientes de procesamiento, los que también estarán en competición con otros superlemmas y lemmas simples (Sprenger et al., 2006). Ahora bien, en este modelo la función del superlemma es poner a disposición del sistema de producción las particularidades sintácticas que operan en una locución, delimitando o modificando las propiedades sintáctic

21
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines353 - : (43) Synthetic: ergative: lexical: instigation . John opened the door (The door opened)

22
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines353 - : (44) Synthetic: ergative: lexical: initiation . John walked the dog. (The dog walked)

23
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines382 - : Raskin is credited with a significant contribution to the notion of ‘script’, a central concept of the Semantic Script Theory of Humour (SSTH). The script is defined as a cognitive structure that "represents the native speaker’s knowledge of a small part of the world" and contains semantic information about a word or information evoked by it. Formally, it can be represented by "a graph with lexical nodes and semantic links between the nodes" (Raskin, 1985: 81 ). The scripts store encyclopaedic information and express approximations of reality.

24
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines387 - : Asimismo, este autor distingue dos clases de gramática diferentes, “o, si se prefiere, dos niveles de descripción gramatical distintos” (Nunberg, 1990: 19), relevantes para determinar la distribución de elementos explícitos en la escritura. A la primera de ellas la denomina gramática lexical y a la segunda, gramática textual. La gramática lexical de la escritura es la responsable de describir las dependencias existentes entre los ítems lexicales del texto . Se trata de la misma clase de sistema que los lingüistas llaman generalmente gramática, en relación con el lenguaje hablado, pero, según el autor, habría ciertas diferencias a tener en cuenta. En primer lugar, la gramática lexical de un lenguaje escrito particular podría contener palabras específicas y construcciones que no se dan en la variedad oral y viceversa. Más importante, la gramática lexical de la escritura podría contener categorías morfológicas, semánticas o sintácticas que deben ser explícitamente marcadas en la escri

25
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines396 - : The initial stage of this study involved compiling a list of the lexical items from the semantic fields of building and animals, which were used in Angling (1988) and in Eskerod (1996). The corpus of project management texts was electronically queried for those items with WordSmith Tools 5, and a list of concordances was obtained. The list was manually analyzed for metaphorical uses (Pragglejaz Group, 2007). Moreover, the corpus word list was generated to search for other lexical items from the two semantic fields mentioned in the corpus. In order to ensure reliability at this particular stage, the lexical items selected from the word list were checked against Wordnet synsets ([24]http://wordnet .princeton.edu/) and additionally, other items from the two semantic fields given by Wordnet were searched for in the corpus word list. In this way, a complete list of lexical items from the two semantic fields, considered as the metaphor candidates, was produced. After that, the corpus was

26
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines396 - : Of the 46 building lexical items from the corpus word list, 25 were used metaphorically. ‘Build’, ‘foundation’, ‘construct’, ‘base’, and ‘architecture’ registered the highest frequencies in the corpus ([27]Figure 1). Regarding the animal vehicles, of the 86 lexical items identified in the corpus word list, 55 were used metaphorically: nearly twice as many as the building items . [28]Figure 2 shows the 34 most frequently used metaphor vehicles and their frequencies, while the data concerning the remaining and less frequent metaphor vehicles are included in [29]Appendix 2. In comparison to the building vehicles, more animal vehicles (13) registered significant frequencies (above the average frequency of 0.050): ‘grow’, ‘life’, ‘agile’, ‘body’, ‘health’, ‘head’, ‘face’, ‘neural’, ‘vital’, ‘mature’, ‘lifecycle’, ‘kill’, ‘survive’. Only four building vehicles (‘build’, ‘foundation’, ‘base’, ‘architecture’) were used in this ran

27
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines417 - : The semantic prosody of a lexical item is commonly classified in three different categories: positive, negative and neutral . Other evaluative labels have been used in the literature: favourable and unfavourable, desirable and undesirable, pleasant and unpleasant. Indeed, Xiao and McEnery (2006: 108) point out that:

28
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines424 - : [61]^[3] Authors such as Kemmer (1993) have a more restricted vision of lexical reciprocity: for this author if a reciprocal pronoun is used in a sentence then the verb cannot be symmetric because he considers that lexically reciprocal verbs do not need this anaphoric element . In our approach what identifies a symmetric verb is the meaning and not the form.

29
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines453 - : Within the family of CxGs, a specific group of approaches, collectively called ‘computational CxGs’, includes: ‘Embodied CxG’ (^[29]Bergen & Chang, 2013), 'Sign-Based CxG' (^[30]Boas & Sag, 2012), and ‘Fluid CxG’ (^[31]Steels, 2012). Although these approaches are concerned with providing formalized representations of linguistic constructions, most of the work has so far been devoted to argument-structure constructions such as the caused-motion and the ditransitive (e.g. ^[32]Sag, 2011; ^[33]van Trijp, 2011; ^[34]Steels & van Trijp, 2011; ^[35]Dodge & Petruck, 2014). Similarly, FrameNet, whose aim is “to document the range of semantic and syntactic combinatory possibilities (i.e. valences) of each lexical item” (^[36]Ruppenhofer, Ellsworth, Petruck, Johnson & Scheffczyk, 2010: 5 ), is also building computer-based Constructicons for different languages (^[37]Fillmore, 2006, ^[38]2008; ^[39]Fillmore, Lee-Goldman & Rhomieux, 2012; ^[40]Sato, 2012; ^[41]Torrent, Meireles, Fernandes, Da Silva & Da

30
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines454 - : Regarding pronouns in the plural, the use of first person forms such as ‘we’ and ‘us’ in online communities may express solidarity with the support group (^[99]Arguello et al., 2006). The lexical analysis of this corpus evidences that in English, however, first person plural forms rank low on the frequency list in both genders: ‘we’ at position 150 and ‘us’ at 901 out of a total of 1,927 . In Spanish, by contrast, and especially in women’s groups, we find the possessive nos, an inclusive engagement marker, in very remarkable positions, at position number 70 out a total of 2,138 words on the frequency list. This may corroborate the findings of other cross-cultural studies which suggest that Spanish nationals use the Spanish language in positive politeness-oriented ways which emphasises in-group involvement and relations (^[100]Mur-Dueñas, 2007; ^[101]Lorenzo-Dus & Bou-Franch, 2013).

31
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines469 - : It can be observed and confirmed through the learner’s comments that the problem he found had to do with the lexical item ‘suit’ (traje). He signals this by hesitating before uttering the approximated term, thus compensating for a specific lexical referent that he needed to continue communicating his message. It seems that this CS was particularly useful for this activity in view of its specific context, as it is considered informative enough to allow for reference to various properties of the target item (^[108]Ghout-Khenoune, 2012). In addition, it is also a quick and efficient way of tackling a specific lexical problem since it requires “less processing effort and less time to be uttered” (^[109]Lujan-Ortega, 1997:45 ). This mechanism is also seen as most effective since it reduces the probability of miscommunication (^[110]Rossiter, 2005), an important aspect to consider in view of such outcome-oriented type of task.

32
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines488 - : “invisible borrowing [...] in which the lexical item [in the source language] is replaced by semantically, phonetically or phono-semantically related morphemes or lexemes [in the target language]” (^[94]Zuckermann, 2003: 37 ).

33
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines500 - : ^[64]Periñán-Pascual (2013) points out that Goldberg’s broad conception of construction in Construction Grammar (CxG) makes it difficult to provide an accurate definition of the term since from her point of view any single lexical item (or even a suffix such as -ed) could be conceived as a construction: “all levels of grammatical analysis involve constructions” (Goldberg, 2006: 5 ). This implies that, within this broad definition, constructions are conceived as the building blocks in linguistic realization. Periñán-Pascual’s conception of construction differs from CxG and is closer to the LCM in the sense that constructions are viewed from a holistic perspective in which the meaning of the construction is always larger than the meaning of the building blocks conforming it. What is more, Periñán-Pascual (2013) shares ^[65]Ruiz de Mendoza-Ibáñez’s (2013) claim that for any linguistic pattern to be regarded as a construction some essential properties have to be met. Thus, the following criteria

34
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines509 - : The traditional classification between concrete and abstract nouns, although questioned (Bosque & Demonte, 1999), continues to be used by numerous authors from different theoretical perspectives (among the most current, García Meseguer, 2007; Battaner, 2017). We start from the hypothesis that nouns cannot be classified as concrete or abstract, but that there is a continuum between both poles. In the present work, we analyze the resemantizations of a subtype of abstract nouns, the temporal nouns (García Meseguer, 2007) or second-order nouns (Lyons, 1977; Schmid, 2000), as ‘tijeretazo’, with the meaning of ‘cut of economic or human resources towards a sector or company’ and ‘blindaje’, with the sense of ‘action and effect of protecting something’, documented in the Argentine written press, with the purpose of analyzing the continuum observed in the class of temporal abstract nouns, from a generation model of lexical meaning: the Generative Lexicon (Pustejovsky, 1995, 2011 ). According to this

35
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines510 - : A partir de una concepción eminentemente generativa y, por tanto, computacional del lenguaje natural, la Teoría del Lexicón Generativo, desarrollada por ^[64]Pustejovsky en diversos trabajos (1991, ^[65]1995, ^[66]1998, ^[67]2013), reacciona contra el estatismo de las teorías semánticas al uso a mediados del siglo xx, en tanto que aboga por la naturaleza dinámica del lenguaje; en este sentido: “The difficulty here for semantics and computational lexicons is that word sense enumeration cannot characterize all the possible meanings of the lexical item in the lexicon” (^[68]Pustejovsky, 1998: 46 ; ^[69]Piera, 2009; ^[70]Pustejovsky, Bouillon, Isahara, Kanzaki & Lee, 2013).

36
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines510 - : Monachini, M., Quochi, V., Ruimy, N. & Calzolari, N. (2007). Lexical relations and domain knowledge: The biolexicon meets the qualia structure, ms . Ponencia presentada en GL2007: 4th International Workshop on Generative Approaches to the Lexicon [en línea]. Disponible en: [218]https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Valeria_Quochi/publication/251778861_Lexical_Relations_and_Domain_Knowledge_The_Bio-Lexicon_Meets_the_Qualia_Structure/links/58529ba708aef7d030a51042/Lexical-Relations-and-Domain-Knowledge-The-Bio-Lexicon-Meets-the-Qualia-Structure.pdf [ [219]Links ]

37
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines510 - : ^3No debe olvidarse, pues, que “The generative approach to lexical semantics derives its name from the use of generative devices instead of a fixed set of primitives. Much of the theory consists of structuring and integrating a number of well-known proposals on specific topics in lexical semantics and knowledge representation into one coherent theory” (Heylen, 1995: 129 ). Vid. De Miguel (2012, 2014) para un panorama actual sobre algunos proyectos lexicológicos en marcha.

38
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines528 - : Although the author is unaware of an actual course anywhere else similar to ‘Spanish for Leadership in the Professions’, there exist some commonalities to courses recently described in publications by ^[112]King de Ramírez (2017), ^[113]Ruggiero (2017), and ^[114]Tocaimaza-Hatch and Walls (2017). These scholars separately argue that service learning naturally provides an ecological and effective learning context for HLLs, which may be conducive to important personal growth. Even though ^[115]Tocaimaza-Hatch and Walls (2017) do not reference linguistic landscape in their work, their mixed second and heritage service learning class engaged in providing Spanish translations for a local zoo signage. They conclude that even though all students (L2 and HLL) experienced clear lexical gains, HLLs:

39
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines529 - : The following research questions were examined in order to identify heritage language learners’ perspectives on the role of service-learning programs on their development of these key areas, evaluate learners’ professional and linguistic goals in language courses, and examine overall learner grammatical and lexical performance and development in service-learning courses:

40
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines533 - : Densidad léxica Densidad léxica Compleat lexical tutor A mayor presencia de palabras de contenido, más difícil es el texto

41
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines534 - : The positive perception held by EFL learners, including our future teachers, of poetry as a potential facilitator of grammar and vocabulary acquisition challenges two of the arguments most frequently put forward by critics of the use of poetry in EFL. These include, firstly, its detrimental effect on the development of language skills based on poetry's lexical difficulty, and secondly the deviation which poetic language entails from the conventions and rules underlying standard discourse (^[103]Lima, 2010 ). Surprisingly, the two benefits most widely highlighted by authors when advocating the use of poetry as a means of developing grammar and vocabulary, its memorability (^[104]Lazar, 1990) and the creativity of literary texts in contrast to the “bland correctness of specially written ESL textbooks” (^[105]Boggs, 1997: 64), were not mentioned by our informants perhaps due to their lack of an in-depth understanding of the stylistic features of poetic discourse.

42
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines536 - : Visual priming of a lexical item is done by presentation of the prime item followed by repetition of that item days, weeks or minutes later (Masson, 2001 ). Of course according to ^[42]Oschner, Chiu, and Schacter (1994), visual priming has a fundamental difference with explicit and conscious remembering in terms of mental processes involved. The memory system which supports repetition priming is different from the memory system which supports explicit memory. Visual priming, in fact, much depends on the perceptual way of representation dealing with physical features, structure and form and not the associative and semantic features. The fact that visual priming effect could last for hours or even for weeks is what distinguishes it from other priming types such as semantic priming that could only last for seconds.

43
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines559 - : TAALES2.0 (Tool for the Automatic Assessment of Lexical Sophistication) by ^[41]Kile, Crossley and Berger, (2018), is an AWE tool that computes numerous indices related to: word frequency (less frequent words are considered more sophisticated or complex ), word range (number of documents containing particular elements), n-gram frequency (set of infrequent terms that relate to the quality of the text), n-gram range, n-gram strength of association, contextual distinctiveness (measures the diversity of the context in which a word occurs), semantic network and word neighbors (words that share phonological, phonographic and orthographic similarities). This tool has been applied to L1 and L2 (Second Language) students to predict holistically the lexical proficiency. The authors discarded variables that did not comply with a minimum correlation, in addition to variables that presented multicollinearity. The final model included ten variables, which explain the 58% variance in the lexical

44
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines594 - : With the students’ increased knowledge of SFL, they seemed to more easily comprehend the teacher-written feedback they had received, which also further enhanced their knowledge of SFL and helped improve their writing (the third expository essay). That is, the students expanded their knowledge of SFL through the teacher-written feedback they had received, and improved their writing by learning and applying the meaning-making process, which is expected in expository writing. To illustrate this, in the latter half of the semester, the students, in line with the teacher-written feedback they had received, carefully molded the tone of their essays. Based on the teacher-written feedback she had received (i.e., Do you think you are too assertive?), Elizabeth replaced her lexical choice ‘totally’ with ‘majorly’ in the following sentence she originally wrote: ‘The high school course arrangement is totally different from that in university .’ The students also added cohesive devices in their

Evaluando al candidato lexical:


1) semantic: 20 (*)
6) item: 11
7) collocations: 11 (*)
12) items: 9
14) linguistic: 8 (*)
16) nouns: 8 (*)
19) corpus: 8 (*)
20) gramática: 8 (*)

lexical
Lengua: eng
Frec: 701
Docs: 151
Nombre propio: 4 / 701 = 0%
Coocurrencias con glosario: 6
Puntaje: 6.707 = (6 + (1+6.39231742277876) / (1+9.45532722030456)));
Rechazado: muy disperso;

Referencias bibliográficas encontradas sobre cada término

(Que existan referencias dedicadas a un término es también indicio de terminologicidad.)
lexical
: Abdel Raham, W. H. (1991). A critical linguistic study of lexical borrowings in Arabic and English. Arts, 3(1), 33-36.
: According to the degree of coherence established by lexical repetition among the different levels of a computational hypertext, Puebla and Puchmüller (2006) classify links from a corpus made up of hyper-biographies into:
: Adelman, J. S., Brown, G. D. & Quesada, J. F. (2006). Contextual diversity, not word frequency, determines word-naming and lexical decision times. Psychological Science, 17(9), 814-823.
: Ahangar, A., Jafarzadeh Fadaki, S. M. & Sehhati, A. (2016). The study of lexical relations device in speech of elderly Alzheimer patients and non-patients. Journal of Fundamentals of Mental Health, 18(1), 22-28.
: Amritavalli, R. (1997). Chunking, lexical phrases and collocations: The grammar of words. En V. Prakasam & K. Tirumalesh (Eds.), Issues in English grammar (pp. 100-112). Hyderabad: Central Institute of English and Foreign Languages.
: Anick, P. & Bergler, S. (1991). Lexical structures for linguistic inference. En J.Pustejovsky & S. Bergler (Eds.), Lexical Semantics and Knowledge Representation. Proceedings of the First SIGLEX Workshop (pp. 121-135). Berlín / Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.
: Apresjan, J. (1995). Lexical semantics. (In Russian). Moscow: Vostochnaya Literatura RAN.
: Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R. & H. van Rijn (Eds.) (1993). The CELEX Lexical Database (CD-ROM). University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (PA): Linguistic Data Consortium.
: Baicchi, A. & Ruiz de Mendoza, F. (2010). The cognitive grounding of illocutionary constructions within the theoretical perspective of the Lexical Constructional Model. Textus, English Studies in Italy, 23(3), 543-563.
: Baker, M. (2003). Lexical Categories: Verbs, Nouns, and Adjectives. Cambridge/ Nueva York: Cambridge University Press.
: Baker, M. (2004). Adjectives as neither nouns nor verbs. En M. Baker (Ed.), Lexical categories: Verbs, Nouns, and Adjectives (pp. 190-263). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
: Balharry, G. (2006). The use of lexical communication strategies in the performance of oral tasks by learners of English as a Second Language. Unpublished master’s thesis, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
: Balota, D. & Chumbley, J. (1984). Are lexical decisions a good measures of lexical access? The role of word frequency in the neglected decision stage. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human perception and performance, 10, 340-357.
: Bardovi-Harlig, K. (1999). Narrative structure and lexical aspect: Conspiring factors in second-language acquisition of tense-aspect morphology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 471-508.
: Barsalou, L. W. (1992). Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields. En A. Lehrer & E.F. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, Fields and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization (pp. 21-74). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
: Beck, I. L., Perfetti, C. A. & McKeown, M. G. (1982). Effects of long-term vocabulary instruction on lexical access and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(4), 506-521.
: Beretta, A., Fiorentino, R. & Poeppel, D. (2005). The effects of homonymy and polysemy on lexical access: An MEG study. Cognitive Brain Research, 24, 57-65.
: Berry-Roghe, G. (1972). The Computation of Collocations and their Relevance in Lexical Studies [en linea]. Disponible en: http:/ www.chilton-computing.org.uk/acl/ applications/cocoa/p010.htm
: Bialystok, E. & Frohlich, M. (1980). Oral communication strategies for lexical difficulties. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 5, 3-30.
: Biber, D. & Conrad, S. (1999). Lexical bundles in conversation and academic prose. En H. Hasselgard & S. Oksefjell (Eds.), Out of corpora: Studies in honor of Stig Johansson (pp. 181–189). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
: Biber, D. & Finegan, E. (1989). Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text, 9(1), 93-124.
: Biber, D., Conrad, S. & Cortés, V. (2003). Lexical bundles in speech and writing: An initial taxonomy. En A. Wilson, P. Rayson, & T. McEnery (Eds.), Corpus linguistics by the lune: A festschrift for Geoffrey Leech (pp. 71–92). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
: Biber, D., Conrad, S. & Cortés, V. (2004). If you look at…: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 371–405.
: Boulanger, J. C. (2010). Sur l’existence des concepts de néologie et de néologisme Propos sur un paradoxe lexical et historique. En Actes del I congrès internacional de neologia de les llengües romàniques (pp. 31-74). Barcelona: IULA Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
: Brennan, S. E. & Clark, H. H. (1996). Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(6), 1482.
: Butterworth, B. (1983). Lexical representation. En B. Butterworth (Ed.), Language production (pp. 257-294). Londres: Academic Press.
: Butterworth, B. (1989). Lexical access in speech production. En W. Marslen-Wilson (Ed.), Lexical representation and process (pp. 108-135). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
: Calvo, M. & Meseguer, E. (2002). Eye movements and processing stages in reading: Relative contribution of visual, lexical and contextual factors. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 5(1), 66-77.
: Carlisle, J. F. & Fleming, J. (2003) Lexical processing of morphologically complex words in the elementary years. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7, 239-253.
: Church, K., Gale, W., Hanks, P. & Hindle, D. (1991). Using statistics in lexical analysis. En U. Zernik (Ed.), Lexical Acquisition: Exploiting on-line resources to build a lexicon (pp. 115-64). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
: Clements, J. C. (2005). ´Ser´ and ´estar´ in the predicate adjective construction. In J. C. Clements & J. Yoon (Eds.), Functional approaches to Spanish syntax: Lexical semantics, discourse, and transitivity (pp. 161-202). London: Palgrave-Macmillan.
: Collins, L. (2002). The roles of L1 influence and lexical aspect in the acquisition of temporal morphology. Language Learning, 52(1), 43-84.
: Colé, P., Segui, J. & Taft, M. (1997). Words and morphemes as units for lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 37, 312-330.
: Copestake, A. (1995). The representation of group denoting nouns in a lexical knowledge base. En P. Saint-Dizier & E. Viegas (Eds.), Computational lexical semantics (pp. 217-230). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
: Cortés, V. (2004). Lexical bundles in published and student disciplinary writing: Examples from history and biology. English for Specific Purposes Journal, 23, 397–423.
: Crespo Fernández, E. & Martínez Lirola, M. (2012). Lexical and visual choices in the representation of immigration in the Spanish press. Spanish in Context, 9, 27-57.
: Cruse, A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
: Cruse, D. A. (2000). Lexical ‘facets’: Between monosemy and polysemy. En S. Beekmann, P. König & T. Wolf (Eds.), Sprachspiel und Bedeutung: Festschrift für Franz Hundsnurscher zum 60 Geburstag (pp. 25-36). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
: Cutler, A., (2015). Lexical stress in English pronunciation. In M. Reed & J. Levis (Eds.), The handbook of English pronunciation (pp. 106-124). John Wiley & Sons.
: Daulton, F. E. (2011). Lexical borrowing and the global web of words. Ryokoku Journal of Humanities and Sciences, 33(1), 25-31.
: De Miguel. E. (2015). Lexical agreement processes: On the construction of verbal aspect. En J. L. Cifuentes Honrubia, E. Barrajón & S. Rodríguez Rosique (Eds.), Verbal classes and aspect (pp. 131-152). Ámsterdam: John Benjamins.
: Delbecque, N. (1997). The Spanish copulas ser and estar. In M. Verspoor, K. D. Lee & E. Sweetser (Eds.), Lexical and syntactical constructions and the construction of meaning (pp. 247-270). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
: Dell, G. & O’ Seaghdha, P. (1992). Stages of lexical access in language production. Cognition, 42, 287-314.
: Dionne, G., Dale, P., Boivin, M. & Plomin, R. (2003). Genetic evidence for bidirectional effect of early lexical and grammatical development. Child Development, 74, 394-412.
: Doddis, A., Novoa, P. & Tabilo, X. (2001-2003). Lexical strategies of communication in the oral production of English as a second language learners: A longitudinal study. Lenguas Modernas, 28-29, 213-228.
: Duffy, S. A., Morris, R. K. & Rayner, K. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 27, 429-446.
: Dufour, S. & Peereman, R. (2003b). Lexical competition in phonological priming: Assessing the role of phonological match and mismatch lengths between primes and targets. Memory and Cognition, 31, 1271-1283.
: Edmonds, P. (2006). Disambiguation, lexical. En K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (pp. 607-623). Nueva York: Elsevier.
: Erkan, G. & Radev, D. (2004). LexRank: Graph-based lexical centrality as salience in text summarization. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 22(1), 457-479.
: Fellbaum, C. (1998). WordNet: An electronic lexical database. Cambridge (Mass.): MIT Press.
: Field, J. (2005). Intelligibility and the listener: The role of lexical stress. TESOL Quarterly, 39(3), 399-423.
: Fillmore, C. & Atkins, B. T. (1992). Towards a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. En A. Lehrer & E. F. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, Fields and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization (pp. 75-102). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
: Flowerdew, J. (2009). Use of signalling nouns in a learner corpus. En J. Flowerdew & M. Mahlberg (Eds.), Lexical cohesion and corpus linguistics (pp. 85-102). Ámsterdam: John Benjamins.
: Forster, K. I. & Chambers, S. M. (1973). Lexical access and naming time. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 12, 627-635.
: Francis, G. (1994). Labelling discourse: An aspect of nominal-group lexical cohesion. En M. Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in written text analysis (pp. 179-190). Londres: Routledge.
: Gayraud, F., Lee, H. R. & Barkat-Defradas, M. (2011). Syntactic and lexical context of pauses and hesitations in the discourse of Alzheimer patients and healthy elderly subjects. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 25(3), 198-209.
: Geeraerts, D. (2006). Cultural models of linguistic standardization. En D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Words and other wonders. Papers on lexical and semantic topics (pp. 272-306). Berlín/Nueva York: Mouton de Gruyter.
: Gennari, S. & Poeppel, D. (2003). Processing correlates of lexical semantic complexity. Cognition, 89, 27-41.
: González-López, S. & López López, A., (2015). Lexical analysis of student research drafts in computing. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 23(4), 638-644.
: Gómez, G., Sotomayor, C., Bedwell, P., Dominguez, A. & Jeldrez, E. (2016). Analysis of lexical quality and its relation to writing quality for 4th grade, primary school students in Chile. Reading and Writing, 29, 1317-1336. Doi: 10.1007/s11145-016-9637-9
: Hale, K. & Keyser, S. (1993). On the argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. En K. Hale & S. Keyser (Eds.), The view from building 20^th (pp. 53-109). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
: Hale, K. & Keyser, S. (2002). Prolegomenon to a theory of lexical argument structure. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
: Hale, K. & Keyser, S. J. (1993). On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. En K. Hale & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger (pp. 53-109). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press .
: Hamburger, M. & Slowiaczek, L. (1996). Phonological priming refects lexical competition. Psychono-mic Bulletin & Review, 3, 520-525.
: Hanks, P. (2013). Lexical analysis. Norms and exploitations. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
: Heylen, D. (1995). Lexical functions, generative lexicons and the world. En P. Saint-Dizier & E. Viegas (Eds.). Computational lexical semantics (pp. 125-140). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
: Hoey, M. (2005). Lexical Priming. A new theory of words and language. London: Routledge.
: Hunston, S. & Francis, G. (2000). Pattern grammar. A corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins .
: Hyland, K. (2000a). Hedges, boosters and lexical invisibility: Noticing modifiers in academic texts. Language Awareness, 9, 179-197.
: Jiang, J. & Conrath, D. (1997). Semantic similarity based on corpus statistics and lexical taxonomy. Ponencia presentada en el International Conference on Research in Computational Linguistics. Taiwán.
: Jiménez, M. A. & Tercedor, M. (2017). Lexical variation, register and explicitation in medical translation: A comparable corpus study of medical terminology in US websites translated into Spanish. Translation and Interpreting Studies, 12(3), 405-426.
: Jones, S. & Sinclair, J. (1974). English lexical collocations. A study in computational linguistics. Cahiers de Lexicology, 24(1), 15-61.
: Kile, K., Crossley, S. & Berger, C. (2018). The tool for the automatic analysis of lexical sophistication (TAALES): Version 2.0. Behavior Research Methods, 50(3), 1030-1046.
: Kiparsky, P. (1982). Lexical phonology and morphology. En I. Yang (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 3-91). Seúl: Hanshin.
: Knjazev, J. P. (2007). Lexical reciprocals as a means of expressing reciprocal situations. In V. P. Nedjalkov (Ed.), Reciprocal constructions (pp. 114-146). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
: Kolesnikova, O. (2011). Automatic extraction of lexical functions. Tesis doctoral, Instituto Politécnico Nacional, Ciudad de México, México.
: Lehrer, A. & Kittay, E. F. (1992). Frames, fields and contrasts: New essays in semantic and lexical organization. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
: Levin, B. & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1995). Unaccusativity: At the lexical syntax-semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
: Levin, B. & Rappaport, M. (1992). The lexical semantics of verbs of motion: The perspective from unaccusativity. En I. M. Roca (Ed.),Thematic Structure: Its Role in Grammar (pp. 247-269). Foris: Berlin.
: Lewis, M. (1993). The lexical approach. Londres: Language Teaching Publications.
: Lewis, M. (1993). The lexical approach: The state of ELT and a way forward. Hove, UK: Language Teaching Publications.
: Lexical Computing Ltd. (s. f.). Sketch Engine [en línea]. Disponible en: [144]http://www.sketchengine.co.uk/
: Li, P. & Bowerman, M. (1998). The acquisition of lexical and grammatical aspect in Chinese. First Language, 18(54), 311-350 [en línea]. Disponible en: [110]https://doi.org/10.1177/014272379801805404
: Li, P. & Shirai, Y. (2000). The acquisition of lexical and grammatical aspect. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter .
: Low, G. (1996) Intensifiers and hedges in questionnaire items and the lexical invisibility hypothesis. Applied Linguistics, 17, 1-37.
: Luzón, M. J. (2006). The rhetorical function of the lexical signalling of the author’s presence in the experimental biomedical paper. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University Jaume I, Castellón, Spain.
: L’Homme, M. C. (2003). Capturing the lexical structure in special subject fields with verbs and verbal derivatives: A model for specialized lexicography. International Journal of Lexicography, 16(4), 403-422.
: MacDonald, M. C. (1993). The interaction of lexical and syntactic ambiguity. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 692-715.
: MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. & Seidenberg, M. (1994a). The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676-703.
: Malvern, D., Richards, B., Chipere, N. & Durán, P. (2004). Lexical diversity and language development: Quantification and assessment. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
: Mani, I. & MacMillan, R. (1996). Identifying unknown proper names in Newswire Text. En B. Boguraev & J. Pustejovsky (Eds.), Corpus processing for lexical acquisition (pp. 41-59). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
: Marslen-Wilson, W. & Welsh, A. (1978). Processing interactions and lexical accessduring word recognition in continuos speech. Cognitive Psychology, 10, 29-63.
: Mason, R. A. & Just, M. A. (2007). Lexical ambiguity in sentence comprehension. Brain Research, 1146, 115-127.
: Matsumoto, Y. (2003). Lexical knowledge acquisition. En R. Mitkov (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of computational linguistics (pp. 396-409). New York: Oxford University Press.
: McGee, I. D. (2006). Lexical Intuitions and Collocation Patterns in Corpora. Cardiff: Cardiff University.
: Melville, P., Gryc, W. & Lawrence, R. (2009). Sentiment analysis of blogs by combining lexical knowledge with text classification. Ponencia presentada en el 15th Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. ACM, Nueva York, USA.
: Mel’čuk, I. (1996). Lexical functions: A tool for the description of lexical relations in a lexicon. In L. Wanner (Ed.), Lexical functions in lexicography and natural language processing (pp. 37–102). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Johm Benjamins.
: Miller, G. (1998). Nous in WordNet. En C. Fellbaum. (Ed.), WordNet: An electronic lexical database (pp. 23-46). Cambridge: MIT Press.
: Miller, G. A. (1995). WordNet: A lexical Database for English. Communications of the ACM, 38(11), 39-41.
: Mitchell, D. C. (1987). Lexical guidance in human parsing: Locus and processing characteristics. En M. Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and Performance XII (pp. 601-618). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
: Miyake, A., Just, M. A. & Carpenter, P. A. (1994). Working memory constraints on the resolution of lexical ambiguity: Maintaining multiple interpretations in neural contexts. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 175-202.
: Mohanan, K. P. & Mohanan, T. (1998). Strong and weak projection: Lexical reflexives and reciprocals. En M. Butt & W. Geuder (Eds.), The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors (pp. 165-94). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
: Montrul, S. & Foote, R. (2014). Age of acquisition interactions in bilingual lexical access: A study of the weaker language of L2 learners and heritage speakers. International Journal of Bilingualism, 18(3), 274-303.
: Moskowich, I. (2016). Lexical richness in modern women writers: Evidence from the Corpus of History English Text. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 72, 111-128.
: Muñoz-Basols, J. & Salazar, D. (2016). Cross-linguistic lexical influence between English and Spanish. Spanish in Context, 13(1), 80-102. Doi: [221]https://doi.org/10.1075/sic.13.1.04mun.
: Myers, G. A. (1991). Lexical cohesion and specialised knowledge in science and popular science texts. Discourse Processes, 14(1), 1-26.
: Onysko, A. (2007). Anglicisms in German: Borrowing, lexical productivity, and written codeswitching. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
: Ortega, R., Villaseñor, L. & Montes, M. (2007). Using lexical patterns for extracting hyponyms from the Web. En Proceedings of MICAI. Berlin: Springer.
: Ou, S. C. (2011). Training Taiwanese EFL learners to perceive English lexical stress contrast: A pilot study. In Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 150-153). Hong Kong, China.
: Palmer, M., Fellbaum, C., Cotton, S., Delfs, L. & Dang, H. T. (2001). English tasks: All-words and verb lexical sample. The Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Evaluating Word Sense Disambiguation Systems (pp. 21-24). Association for Computational Linguistics.
: París, L. (2006). Implicating and focusing on underspecifed lexical information. En K. von Heusinger & K. Turner (Eds.), When semantics meets pragmatics. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
: Perfetti, C. & Hart, L. (2001). The lexical basis of comprehension skills. En D. Gorfien (Ed.), On the consequences of meaning selection: Perspectives on resolving lexical ambiguity (pp. 67-86). Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.
: Perfetti, C. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 357-383.
: Pettito, L. (1993). Modularity and constraints in early lexical acquisition: Evidence from children's early language and gesture. En P. Bloom (Ed.), Language acquisition: Core readings (pp. 95–126). New York: Harvester Wheatsheat.
: Pradhan, S. S., Loper, E., Dligach, D. & Palmer, M. (2007). SemEval-2007 task 17: English lexical sample, SRL and all words. Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluations (pp. 87-92). Association for Computational Linguistics.
: Pustejovsky, J. & Jezek, E. (2016). Integrating Generative Lexicon and Lexical Semantic Resources [en línea]. Disponible en: [134]http://lrec2016.lrec-conf.org/media/filer_public/2016/05/10/tutorialmaterial_pustejovsky.pdf
: Pustejovsky, J. (1991). The syntax of event structure. En B. Levin & S. Pinker (Eds.), Lexical and Conceptual Structure (pp. 47-181). Oxford: Blackwell.
: Pustejovsky, J. (1995). Linguistic constraints on type coercion. En P. Saint-Dizier & E. Viegas (Eds.), Computational Lexical Semantics (pp. 71-97). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
: Pustejovsky, J. (2008). From concepts to meaning. The role of lexical knowledge. En P. van Sterkenburg (Ed.), Unity and Diversity of Languages (pp. 73-84). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
: Pustejovsky, J. (2013). Type theory and lexical decomposition. En J. Pustejovsky, J. Bouillon, P. Isahara, H. Hanzaki & C. Lee (Eds.), Advances in Generative Lexicon Theory (pp. 9-38). Nueva York: Springer.
: Rappaport, M. & Levin, B. (1998). Building verb meanings. En M. Butt & W. Geuder (Eds.),The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors(pp. 97-134). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications .
: Rappaport, M., Doron, E. & Siche, I. (2010). Lexical semantics, syntax, and event structure. London & New York: OUP.
: Rayner, K. & Duffy, S. A. (1986). Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory and Cognition, 14,191-201.
: Rodd, J., Gaskell, G. & Marslen-Wilson, W. (2002). Making sense of semantic ambiguity: Semantic competition in lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 46(2), 245-266.
: Ruimy, N., Gola, E. & Monachini, M. (2001). Lexicography informs lexical semantics: The SIMPLE experience. En P. Bouillon & F. Busa (Eds.) The language of word meaning (pp. 350-362). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
: Ruiz de Mendoza, F. & Mairal-Usón, R. (2008). Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: An introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model. Folia Linguistica, 42(2), 355-400.
: Salaberry, R. M. (2011). Assessing the effect of Lexical Aspect and Grounding on the Acquisition of L2 Spanish Paste Tense Morphology. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4(2), 184-202.
: Salehi, M., Mohsen, R. & Ghasisin, L. (2017). Lexical retrieval or semantic knowledge? Which one causes naming errors in patients with mild and moderate Alzheimer’s Disease? Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders Extra, 7(3), 419-429.
: Savage, C., Lieven, E., Theakston, A. & Tomasello, M. (2003). Testing the abstractness of children's linguistic representations: Lexical and structural priming of syntactic constructions in young children. Developmental Science, 6(5), 557-567.
: Schmalz, X., Marinus, E. & Castles, A. (2013). Phonological decoding or direct access? Regularity effects in lexical decisions of Grade 3 and 4 children. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 338-346.
: Scott, M. (2008). WordSmith Tools. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.
: Sinclair, J. (Ed.). (1987). Looking up: An Account of the COBUILD Project in Lexical Computing. Glasgow: HarperCollins.
: Sinclair, J. M. & Renouf, A. (1985). A lexical learning syllabus for language. En C. Ronald & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary and Language Teaching, (pp. 140-160). Londres/Nueva York: Longman.
: Sinclair, J. M. (1998). The lexical item. En E. Weigand (Ed.), Contrastive lexical semantics (pp. 1-24). Ámsterdam-Filadelfia: John Benjamins.
: Sinclair, J., Jones, S. & Daley, R. (1970). English lexical studies: Final report of O.S.T.I. Programme. University of Birmingham: Department of English.
: Slowiaczek, L. & Hamburger, M. (1992). Prelexical facilitation and lexical interfernce in auditory word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 1239-1250.
: Soto-Faraco, S., Sebastián-Gallés, N. & Cutler, A. (2001). Segmental and suprasegmental mismatch in lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 45, 412-432.
: Sprenger, S., Levelt, W. & Kempen, G. (2006). Lexical access during the production of idiomatic phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 54(2), 161-184.
: Stubbs, M. (2001). Words and phrases: Corpus studies of lexical semantics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
: Swinney, D. A. (1979). Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)con-sideration of context effects. Journal Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 18, 645-659.
: Taft, M. & Forster, K. (1975). Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 638-647.
: Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structures in lexical forms. En T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (pp. 57-138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
: Tanskanen, S. (2006). Collaborating towards coherence: Lexical cohesion in English discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
: Tehan, G. & Lalor, D. (2000). Individual differences in memory span: The contribution of rehearsal access to lexical memory and output speed. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53A, 1012-1038.
: Tenny, C. (1992). The aspectual interface hypothesis. En I. A. Sag & A. Szabolcsi (Eds.), Lexical matters (pp. 1-27). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
: Tiscornia, D. (2006). The LOIS project: Lexical ontologies for legal information sharing. Ponencia presentada en el 5th Legislative XML Workshop, Florencia, Italia.
: Tremblay, A. (2008). Is second language lexical access prosodically constrained? Processing of word stress by French Canadian second language learners of English. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29(4), 553-584.
: Trueswell, J. (1996). The role of lexical frequency in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 566-585.
: Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K. & Kello, C. (1993). Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 19, 528-553.
: Vannest, J. & Boland, J. (1999). Lexical morphology and lexical access. Brain and Language, 68, 324-332.
: Wexler, K. & Chien, Y. (1985). The development of lexical anaphors and pronouns. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, 24, 138-49.
: Win, K. T., Pluta, J., Yushkevich, P., Irwin, D. J., McMillan, C. T., Rascovsky, K., Wolk, D. & Grossman, M. (2017). Neural correlates of verbal episodic memory and lexical retrieval in Logopenic Variant Primary Progressive Aphasia. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 11,330.
: Winter, E. (1977). A clause-relational approach to English texts: A study of some predictive lexical items in written discourse. Instructional science, 6(1), 1-92.
: Zuckermann, G. (2003). Language contact and lexical enrichment in Israeli Hebrew. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.