Collocations and Other Lexical Combinations in

Collocations and Other Lexical Combinations in Spanish Theoretical, Lexicographical and Applied Perspectives Edited by Sergi Torner and Elisenda Bernal

First published 2017 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2017 Sergi Torner and Elisenda Bernal selection and editorial matter; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Sergi Torner and Elisenda Bernal to be identied as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice : Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identication and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been requested ISBN: 978-1-138-21044-8 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-45525-9 (ebk) Typeset in Times New Roman by Apex CoVantage, LLC

Contents

Introduction

1

SECTION 1

Theoretical notions 1 On the conceptual bases of collocations: Restricted adverbs and lexical selection

7 9

2 Can collocations be deduced? A lexically driven analysis from the perspective of language production

21

3 Studying lexical meaning in context: From collocation to collocational networks and resonance

41

4 The xedness of combinatory relationships: Idioms

75

5 Compositional mechanisms in a generative model of the lexicon

92

6 A quantitative analysis of the semantics of verb-argument structures

114

SECTION 2

Lexicographical insights

137

7 Word combinations in general dictionaries

139

8 Collocations in learner’s dictionaries

157

9 Collocations in e-bilingual dictionaries: From underlying theoretical assumptions to practical lexicography and translation issues

173

10 Specialized collocations in specialized dictionaries

200

vi

Contents

SECTION 3

Pedagogical perspectives

223

11 The Lexical Approach in SLT

225

12 Pedagogical principles for the teaching of collocations in the foreign language classroom

250

13 Learning Spanish L1 vocabulary in context

267

14 Teaching multiword sequences in the native language

287

SECTION 4

Research in other Iberian languages

303

15 Lexical combinatorics in Catalan

305

16 Lexical combinations in Galician

315

17 Metaphors as one of the foundations of Basque collocations

324

Bibliography Index

337 374

5

Compositional mechanisms in a generative model of the lexicon1 Elena de Miguel and Olga Batiukova

1 Introduction In this chapter, we provide an overview of one of the theoretical frameworks that encode the selectional constraints in the lexicon, the Generative Lexicon theory. We will review the different compositional mechanisms put forward in GL (with special attention to the type shifting or coercion) and apply them to analyze a set of predicate-argument (verb-argument) and modication (adjectival modier-noun) constructions in Spanish. This work is structured as follows. Section 2 introduces the compositionality principle, presents different types of compositionality violations, and briey outlines the existing approaches to type shifting. Section 3 presents the main tenets of the Generative Lexicon theory: the concept of underspecication (§ 3.1), the structure of the lexical entry (the levels of representation are reviewed in § 3.2.1, the lexical-semantic types are dealt with in § 3.2.2), and the general approach to selection within the predicate (§ 3.3). Section 4 provides a detailed description of the selectional mechanisms assumed in the Generative Lexicon: § 4.1 focuses on type matching, § 4.2 on accommodation, and § 4.3 on coercion. Section 5 sums up the ndings of the previous sections and reects on their implications for the compositional treatment of different kinds of word combinations.

2 The compositionality principle and its violations The natural language is generally assumed to be compositional: the properties of complex expressions are determined by the properties of their constituent parts and the rules used to combine them. The compositionality principle (also known as Frege’s principle, by the name of the author of one of its most widely known modern formulations) explains how the speakers are capable of interpreting and generating an innite number of utterances from a limited number of lexical units, and how they can understand and produce phrases and sentences they have never heard before. However, numerous examples from our everyday linguistic experience pose a challenge to strict compositionality. Let us briey examine the following Spanish examples (mostly inspired in the classical studies on compositionality and

Compositional mechanisms 93 coercion, such as Moens and Steedman 1988, Pustejovsky 1995, among many others): 1

a b c d

Juan empezó {el libro / la tesis}. ‘Juan began {the book / the thesis}.’ un {conductor / café} rápido ‘a fast {driver / coffee}’ Mi tío descargó su camión durante quince años. ‘My uncle unloaded his truck for fteen years.’ Los Beatles no me caben en el estante. ‘The Beatles do not t on my shelf.’

Our intuition suggests that these examples are not interpreted quite literally. The reason is that there is a conict between the semantic type of the argument required by the predicate and the actual semantic type of its argument. By ‘beginning the book’ we usually mean ‘begin to read the book’ or ‘begin to write the book’,2 this means that empezar ‘begin’ needs its complement to be an [EVENT] (as in begin to read or begin the reading) which, however, is not explicitly expressed in (1a). The semantic type of the actual complement is different: roughly, both book and thesis are [PHYSICAL OBJECT]. Similarly, the adjective rápido ‘fast’ denes a property of events (e.g., desembarco rápido ‘fast disembarkation’). In (1b), however, it refers to an entity (conductor ‘driver’) capable of performing quickly the event of driving (which is not explicitly referred to in [1b]) or, in general, an entity somehow associated with an event that lasts a short time, as in café rápido ‘fast coffee’, i.e., a fast coffeedrinking event. The verb descargar ‘unload’ in (1c) denotes a durative and resultative event, therefore it can be modied by time-frame adverbials, which refer to a bounded time period (descargó su camión en dos horas ‘unloaded his truck in two hours’), or durative adverbials compatible with the typical duration of the event of unloading (descargó su camión durante dos horas ‘unloaded his truck for two hours’). Therefore, the example (1c) only makes sense if we assume that there have been many events of unloading trucks during the time period dened by the adverbial durante quince años ‘for fteen years’, since the typical duration of the unloading event is much shorter (a few hours at most). The sentence in (1d) is different in that, in principle, there should be no conict: assuming that we know that the entity assigned the proper name The Beatles is a group of people (a rock band), this noun can be interpreted as [PHYSICAL OBJECT] (just like books) and should be licensed as the subject of the verb caber ‘t’. However, we interpret it differently based on our (lexical or pragmatic) knowledge of what kind of objects can be found on a shelf: here The Beatles refers to physical objects (e.g., CDs) representing the artistic production of the band. All these issues notwithstanding, these sentences are not perceived as anomalous or weird by the speakers of Spanish and do not pose interpretation problems unlike, for example, poetic metaphors, which usually require an additional

94 Elena de Miguel and Olga Batiukova processing effort. Moreover, we could say that this kind of encoding allows for a more succinct and exible linguistic expression: we only put into words a part of what we actually mean and this turns out to be enough for making ourselves understood. The easiest approach to this kind of selectional conicts would be assuming that there is no mismatch and that all the different senses expressed by the argument are listed as a part of its lexical entry in our mental lexicon. For instance, café ‘coffee’ would have a sense of ‘action or event of drinking coffee’, in addition to the ‘plant’ and ‘beverage’ meanings. This way, verbs selecting for [EVENT] arguments could target this sense directly without causing incompatibility. Similarly, rápido ‘fast’ would need to be registered relative to all the different actions that can be performed by a ‘fast’ Agent: conductor rápido ‘fast driver’ as ‘fast-driving person’, lector rápido ‘fast reader’ as ‘fast-reading person’, café rápido ‘fast coffee’ as ‘fast coffee-drinking event’, etc. However, this solution (known as sense-enumerative lexicon, cf. Pustejovsky and Boguraev 1993, Pustejovsky 1995, among others) is unsatisfactory for several reasons. In the rst place, it would make us compile an exhaustive list of all the possible meanings of a given lexical item, which is impossible because the range of contexts where a lexical item can be inserted is innite. In the second place, we would have to assume that the speakers are able to store and process this huge lexicon, which is problematic since our memory has a limited capacity. Last, this lexicon would be extremely rigid and unable to predict what other senses the words can assume in novel contexts (which happens constantly and is, in fact, one of the basic properties of the lexicon). The other possible approach consists in keeping the size of the lexicon and the lexical entries as small as possible, and assuming that compositionality is violated in examples like (1) and that there must be a mechanism allowing to repair the mismatches they present. This mechanism is often referred to as coercion or reinterpretation in linguistic literature. Most existing denitions of coercion rely on a function that serves as a buffer (we borrow this metaphor from Egg 2005: IX) between the predicate demanding a specic kind of argument and the argument that does not satisfy this requirement: this intermediate function has the type required by the predicate and, in turn, can be satised by the semantic type of the argument: 2

F(Op(A)) F – the functor (the governing predicate), A – the argument, Op – the coercion function.

For example, empezar ‘begin’ cannot be directly combined with libro ‘book’ or tesis ‘thesis’ because they are [PHYSICAL OBJECT], but it is compatible with leer ‘read’ or escribir ‘write’, which are [EVENT]. Leer and escribir, in turn, require arguments denoting information recorded on a physical medium, and libro and tesis have this semantic type. The specic content of this intermediate function or operator can be dealt with in two ways. In most treatments, it is an additional element inserted in the semantic representation as a result of interface rules. These rules can be applied across-the-board,

Compositional mechanisms 95 irrespective of whether there is or there is not a semantic conict (if there is not, they work as identity functions, cf. Pulman 1997, Dölling 1999, 2000), or after verifying that there is a conict (De Swart 1998, 2011). An example of such a rule is the insertion of the Csd operator when the progressive combines with a stative verb (as in [3a], adopted from De Swart 2011), which is banned in principle because progressive implies dynamicity and stative verbs do not encode dynamic events. The Csd operator (De Swart 1998, 2011) makes this sentence acceptable: 3

a b

Juan está siendo insoportable. ‘Juan is being impossible to put up with.’ [Pres [Prog [Csd [Juan ser insoportable]]]] *Juan está siendo rubio. ‘Juan is being blond.’

In order to prevent this rule from overgenerating (i.e., generating impossible sentences, such as [3b]), it must be explicitly stated when it may apply. De Swart (2011: 584) includes this constraint in the denition of the coercion function Csd: “a function from sets of state eventualities onto sets of dynamic eventualities in such a way that the state is presented as a process or event that the agent is actively involved in”. Since Juan is not an actively involved Agent in (3b), the function does not apply and the progressive reading is not licensed. The obvious disadvantage of this kind of approaches is that the content of the coercion function is not motivated independently, thus forcing to stipulate when it can be applied. The other way of dealing with the content of the coercion function consists in restraining it lexically, i.e., deriving the possible interpretations of coerced arguments from the information encoded in their lexical entries. This approach is argued for within the Generative Lexicon theory (henceforth, GL; cf. Pustejovsky 1995, 2011). In this framework, the need of reinterpretation mechanisms is acknowledged, but the semantic material handled by these mechanisms is lexically predetermined. Pustejovsky (1995: 111) provides the following denition of function application with coercion: 4

Function Application with Coercion (FAC): If is of type c, and is of type a b, then, a b c

if type c = a then ( ) is of type b. if there is a such that ( ) results in an expression of type a, then ( ( )) is of type b. otherwise, a type error is produced.

In this denition, the rst conditional refers to combinations where the type required by the predicate is directly satised by the argument (cf. § 4.1). The second conditional states that the coercion function can be applied whenever its content is encoded as one of the features of the argument ( ) (cf. § 4.2 and § 4.3). According to the third conditional, all the other combinations result in a type clash.

96 Elena de Miguel and Olga Batiukova This approach can be adopted for the analysis of the sentences in (1). As will be shown in more detail in the following sections, if we assume that events related to an object’s origin and function are encoded as a part of the lexical entry of the word denoting this object, then this information can be exploited by the mechanisms of meaning composition. Thus, the interpretation of empezar {el libro / la tesis} ‘begin {the book / the thesis}’, in (1a), involves the events of reading and writing because both books and theses come into existence by the process of writing and because their purpose is to be read. Similarly, un {conductor / café} rápido ‘a fast {driver / coffee}’ in (1b) refers to events of driving or drinking coffee fast. This work is focused precisely on cases where the interpretation of a priori unacceptable word combinations is based on the information provided by rich lexical entries. Since this information is independently motivated and is needed elsewhere in the grammar, we believe that, whenever possible, it should be taken advantage of before resorting to a much wider and unconstrained pragmatic knowledge. The theoretical discussion will be illustrated with examples of coercion phenomena in Spanish. In addition to type coercion, we will briey refer to the socalled aspectual coercion (exemplied in [1c]) in order to show, following the strategy outlined above, that many of the seemingly coerced predicates cannot be considered as candidates for reinterpretation if an articulated event structure representation is adopted. This kind of ‘coercion’ emerges when the event type denoted by the predicate is modied in context (often, under the inuence of adverbial modiers). The examples (1c) and (5) represent the so-called iterative coercion, wherein an event lexically encoded as bounded or telic is interpreted as iterative.3 5

María estornudó durante dos minutes. ‘María sneezed for two minutos.’

Of course, we do not deny that the meaning of an expression can only be fully determined by combining linguistic and non-linguistic knowledge. Moreover, we acknowledge that conceptual and pragmatic knowledge has the last word in determining the interpretation of anomalous combinations. For instance, if Juan in (1a) is a cat, he will most likely tear apart the book, rather than reading or writing it, and (1d) can only be interpreted correctly if we know that the proper name The Beatles belongs to a rock band. However, we will take the distinction between linguistic and extralinguistic information seriously and will only deal with the former.

3 Compositionality and decomposition in the Generative Lexicon theory In what follows we examine how the GL accounts for contextual construction of the meaning, including the combinations traditionally classied as idiomatic and cases where compositionality seems to be breached. As has been noted in the literature, the GL framework is based on a componential analysis of the lexical meaning, inherited from structuralist lexicological analyzes

Compositional mechanisms 97 and the generative semantics of the 70s (cf. Geeraerts 2002, De Miguel 2009a, 2014, 2015b, and the references therein). Indeed, this theory assumes that the meaning of lexical items can be decomposed in sublexical features. The combination of the sublexical features of words within complex expressions determines their interpretation, which is built compositionally. Sometimes, an expression can have more than one interpretation, as a result of the potentialities encoded in the denition of the combined words in the form of sublexical features (as in [1a]). This kind of polysemy is systematic, inasmuch as it emerges whenever the same type of word combination occurs, and it poses a challenge for explaining how compositionality operates and what are its limits in the meaning-construction process. In order to account for these fundamental issues, the GL makes a set of assumptions related to how the lexical entry is modeled and how the lexical-semantic information is exploited compositionally in context. This section briey outlines the format of the lexical entry put forward in GL, presents the word types based on the information included in the lexical entry, and introduces the generative compositional mechanisms dened within this framework. 3.1 Underspecication as a requirement for contextual specication In the GL, words have minimal denitions that are contained in highly structured levels of representation. These levels of representation encode the basic meaning parameters of the lexical item, which are further specied in context when appropriately combined with the features encoded in the minimal denitions of other words. Let us examine the following examples: 6

a b c d

una maleta ligera ‘a lightweight suitcase’ una comida ligera ‘a light lunch’ una comedia ligera ‘a light comedy’ # una laguna ligera ‘a light lagoon’ / # un eclipse ligero ‘a light eclipse’4

The adjective ligero ‘light’ (similarly to rápido ‘fast’ in [1b]) predicates different properties of different nouns: when applied to una maleta ‘a suitcase’, it means ‘lightweight’, with una comida ‘a meal’ it is ‘easy to digest’, and with una comedia ‘a comedy’ it implies that the show or the book does not demand a serious reection from the audience. It should be noted that these paraphrases do not exhaust all the possible uses of this adjective: for instance, with brisa ‘breeze’ and combustible ‘fuel’ its meaning is very different from the senses just mentioned. As pointed out in § 2, the contextual polysemy displayed by ligero is problematic for sense-enumerative lexicons, which aim at registering all its meanings. It is also challenging for models that associate its meaning with the semantics of the modied noun, because the list of such nouns could be endless. This is one of the reasons why some lexicologists and semanticists end up adopting an extreme approach and denying that meaning exists independently from use (cf. Recanati 2004). However, it can be objected that the words are not combined freely, as conrmed by the examples in (6d), which sound odd to native Spanish speakers. The

98 Elena de Miguel and Olga Batiukova mismatch between ligero ‘light’ on the one hand, and laguna ‘lagoon’ and eclipse ‘eclipse’ on the other hand can be explained by a lack of agreement of the lexical features making up the lexical entry of these words. As mentioned above, one of the main tenets of the GL is that words have a minimal meaning that licenses their combination with other words and the interpretation of the resulting expressions. This assumption is known as underspecication (Pustejovsky 1995), see the denition in (7): 7

Underspecication: lack of specication of lexical entries which enables them to participate in different syntactic structures and in different semantic compositional operations.

Based on (7), the meaning construction proceeds as follows. The underspecied lexical entries subsume all the meanings that a lexical item can display in context. Words whose features agree can be combined and, when this happens, these (initially underspecied) features are further specied. Consequently, listing all the meanings of a given lexical item (such as ligero ‘light’ in [6]) becomes unnecessary and the relationships between words become visible. Thus, ligero applied to maleta ‘suitcase’ in (6a) refers to the weight and the volume of the object denoted by this noun, which is a [CONTAINER] (inherently dened by its size and dimensionality). In (6b–d), by contrast, the features of both words do not agree. This mismatch may lead to an interpretive clash, as in (6d) (# una laguna ligera ‘a light lagoon’), or it may trigger a rescue mechanism forcing one of the words to be recategorized: the head coerces its argument in order to make it compatible and build an interpretable expression. This is what happens in (6b,c): comida ‘meal’ or comedia ‘comedy’ are not typed as [CONTAINER], and ligero does not allude to the weight and the volume of the objects referred to by the noun. Instead, it expresses the actions (events) for which both objects are destined: ‘be digested’ for comida and ‘be read or watched (and understood)’ for comedia. In the latter case, ligero means that this action can be performed effortlessly. It should be emphasized that the lexical features that license the combinations in (1) and (6a–c) are included in the underspecied word denitions, which are structured in four levels of representation, each encoding a specic kind of lexical information. This is the second basic assumption of the GL model of the lexicon, as briey outlined in § 3.2. To sum up, in GL, the lexical items are provided with underspecied denitions in the mental lexicon, which enable them to acquire more specic meanings when combined with other words in different contexts. This means that the lexicon is conceived as a dynamic, generative, and compositional component of the language (cf. De Miguel 2009b). It is dynamic because it allows generating new meanings based on the information included in underspecied lexical entries, generative because it is assumed that there is a specic set of mechanisms that operate on a limited set of elements in order to yield an innite set of results, and compositional because the new meanings are generated in different contexts.5

Compositional mechanisms 99 3.2 The lexical meta-entry in the mental lexicon The highly structured lexical denitions allow explaining how different lexical features interact in different syntactic combinations, including when novel interpretations arise, as for rápido ‘fast’ when combined with conductor ‘driver’ and café ‘coffee’ (1b), for ligero ‘light’ when combined with maleta ‘suitcase’, comida ‘meal’ and comedia ‘comedy’ in (6a–c), for descargar un camión ‘unload a truck’ when combined with durante x tiempo ‘for x time’ in (1c), and for los Beatles ‘the Beatles’ combined with caber ‘t’ in (1d). The sublexical structure of a word is not transparent, but it can be accessed by the lexical features of other words. Busa et al. (2001: 31) used the kaleidoscope metaphor to convey this intuition: the context gives rise to multiple materializations of the lexical features, similarly to how the colored beads inside the kaleidoscope create different patterns when moved around. The sublexical features structured within lexical meta-entries allow reducing the size of the lexicon: the generative mechanisms extract some of these features and use them to generate new meanings. On the other hand, the information included in the meta-entries allows classifying words in terms of syntactically motivated lexical-semantic types. The levels of representation are presented in the next subsection (§ 3.2.1) and the lexical-semantic types are dealt with in § 3.2.2. 3.2.1 Levels of representation Four levels of representation are assumed in GL: the argument structure (henceforth, AS), the event structure (ES), the qualia structure (QS), and the lexical inheritance structure.6 The AS contains the specication of number and type of arguments in a predicate: their semantic type ([ANIMATE INDIVIDUAL ], [PHYSICAL OBJECT], [EVENT], etc.) and how they are realized syntactically: NP, PP, etc. [ chapter 6]. The compositional mechanisms (see § 4) check the selectional requirements of the predicates against the sublexical features of their potential arguments. For instance, the predicates empezar ‘begin’ in (1a) and rápido ‘fast’ in (1b) both select for arguments typed as [EVENT]. Since the direct objects el libro ‘the book’, la tesis ‘the thesis’, un conductor ‘a driver’, and un café ‘a coffee’ do not encode events, they have to be reinterpreted as such in order to be compatible with the respective predicates. The ES contains the denition of the event type of a lexical item or a predicate. In the GL framework events are not viewed as atomic entities. Rather, they have a complex internal structure, which can be decomposed in subevents or phases. The subevents are ordered temporally and are also specied for prominence. For instance, an event typed as transition (such as descargar el camión ‘unload the truck’ in [1c]) is composed of two phases: the initial process (‘be unloading the truck’) and a resultant state (‘the truck is unloaded’). The subevents may be foregrounded ( focused) or backgrounded depending on the context, for example under the inuence of temporal and manner adverbials. Thus, both subevents of

100 Elena de Miguel and Olga Batiukova the event denoted by descargar el camión ‘unload a truck’ are focused by the timeframe adverbial en dos horas ‘in two hours’, and the process subevent is focused by the durative adverbial durante dos horas ‘for two hours’, as mentioned above. However, the durative adverbial durante quince años ‘for fteen years’ in (1c) is incompatible with the canonical duration assigned to this kind of events. Therefore, the whole event has to be reinterpreted as iterative: ‘a series of completed actions carried out for a period of fteen years’. The most innovative level of representation proposed by the GL is the qualia structure.7 This level encodes the basic meaning dimensions of words denoting entities, properties, and events, such as: what kind of entity or event is referred to by the word and how it is related to other words in the same domain, what is its the internal constituency, how it was brought about, and what is its purpose. These meaning parameters are encoded in four qualia roles: the formal role (FQ), the constitutive role (CQ), the agentive role (AQ), and the telic role (TQ). The representation in (8) shows the QS of the noun conductor ‘driver’, and the examples in (9) illustrate how adjectival and prepositional modiers bring out the different qualia parameters: 8

conductor ‘driver’ QS

9

a b c d

(

)

FQ: animate individual CQ: relevant (physical and other) attributes AQ: professional training TQ: drive an automobile

un conductor {alto / simpático / británico} [FQ] ‘a {tall / friendly / British} driver’ un conductor con {mala visión nocturna / problemas de lateralidad / piernas demasiado largas} [CQ] ‘a driver with {night vision issues / laterality issues / too long legs}’ un conductor {autorizado / sin carnet} [AQ] ‘a licensed driver / a driver without a driver’s license’ un conductor {torpe / rápido / brusco} [TQ] a {clumsy / fast / rude} driver

The four meaning parameters listed in (8) allow describing entities (both concrete and abstract), events, and properties. The distribution of different types of lexicalsemantic features in different dimensions within the lexical entry is essential to explain how the compositional mechanisms operate, as will be shown in § 4. The next section presents the types of nominals based on the QS values specied in their lexical entries. 3.2.2 Word types based on QS values The qualia roles differ with respect to their prominence in the denitions of different classes of lexical items. In the nominal domain, three types of words can be

Compositional mechanisms 101 distinguished: natural (simple) types, unied (artifactual, functional) types, and complex types (the dot objects). The natural kinds correspond to naturally occurring individuals. The naturals are only specied with respect to their formal and constitutive values. For instance, caballo ‘horse’, roca ‘rock’, and agua ‘water’ are solely dened with respect to their category and internal constitution. The unied or functional kinds are words denoting created entities (artifacts). In addition to the meaning parameters lexicalized by natural kinds, they refer to the inherent function and to factors involved in the object’s creation (encoded in the telic and the agentive roles, respectively). Thus, biberón ‘feeding bottle’, cuchillo ‘knife’, and professor ‘teacher’ denote physical entities meant to fulll a certain purpose: to feed, to cut, and to teach, respectively. In this respect, the unied kinds lexicalize more meaning dimensions than the naturals and their denitions are more complex. This inherent complexity often results in polysemy in certain contexts. Let us examine the example of biberón ‘feeding bottle’, which is dened in the QS as ‘physical object, usually made of plastic, which can contain liquid and serves to feed a baby’. Depending on the context, one of the components specied in this denition can be materialized, as illustrated in (10a–b). (10c) provides an example where the context triggers ambiguity: the verb dar ‘give’ can refer simultaneously to the information specied in the formal and the telic role. 10 a b c

El biberón se rompió. ‘The feeding bottle broke.’ [= the physical object broke] El niño se tomó el biberón. ‘The baby drank up the feeding bottle.’ [= the baby drank up the liquid contained in the feeding bottle]8 La abuela dio el biberón al niño. ‘The grandma gave the feeding bottle to the baby.’ [= she gave the physical object to the baby / she gave the liquid contained in the feeding bottle to the baby]

The complex types (also called dot objects) are composed of two or more types in their QS. They represent a Cartesian product of both types, and are formally represented by the logical operator dot, which builds a complex type [a • b] from types a and b. For example, comida ‘meal’ is a complex object of type [FOOD] • [EVENT], composed of two seemingly incompatible types. Both types have their own QS, which explains the syntactic and semantic alternations displayed by this word in context. The examples in (11) show how the qualia values of each of these types are selected depending on context: 11 a b

La quinoa es una comida vegetal muy sana y nutritiva fácil de elaborar. ‘The quinoa [FOOD] is a very healthy and nutritious (TQ) vegetable (FQ) food, which is easy to cook (AQ).’ La comida benéca contó con muchos asistentes. ‘The charity (TQ) luncheon [EVENT] was attended by many people (CQ).’

102 Elena de Miguel and Olga Batiukova Some of the other complex kinds whose contextual behavior is going to be discussed further on (§ 4.3.2) are clase ‘class’ and palabra ‘word’, which are typed as [OBJECT] • [INFORMATION] • [EVENT]. Dot objects are systematically polysemous. Comida ‘meal’, clase ‘class’, palabra ‘word’, conferencia ‘lecture’, construcción ‘construction’, entrada ‘entrance’, convento ‘convent’, libro ‘book’, and other complex objects referring to two different meanings in their formal quale can project one of the types disjunctively (as in [11]) or can display both simultaneously. In the ambiguous examples (12a–c), both meanings of comida ‘meal’ are available: 12 a b c

No me gustó la comida. ‘I did not like the meal.’ [= I did not like {the food / the event}] Qué comida tan horrible. ‘What a terrible meal.’ [= terrible to eat / terrible to attend] Se ha acabado la comida. ‘The meal is over.’ [= the food is over / the event of eating is over]

The sentences in (12) illustrate one of the key properties of the dot objects: they trigger co-predication, a process whereby two different meanings of a lexical item are accessed simultaneously by two different predicates. Similar examples, to which we will return later, are included in (13). 13 a b c

El colegio en que estudié era muy grande. ‘The school I attended was very big.’ La clase de gramática era la peor iluminada. ‘The grammar class(room) has the worst lighting.’ Usa a menudo palabras monosílabas pero muy contundentes y precisas. ‘He often uses one-syllable words, but they are very convincing and precise.’

The types presented above (naturals, artifacts, and dots) are dened as follows in the Type Composition Logic (Pustejovsky 2011: 1408), rst introduced in Asher and Pustejovsky (2006) and further developed in Asher (2011): 14 a

e the general type of entities; t the type of truth values. . If and are types, then so is If and are types, then so is Q , for qualia relation, Q. If and are types, then so is • .

3.3 Modication of the argument type imposed by the predicate The representation (14) includes two operators, which participate in the type construction: the tensor ( ) introduces agentive and telic relations to the base type, and the dot (•) creates complex objects out of simple types. For example, cerveza ‘beer’ and café ‘coffee’ have the type liquid T drink (both are liquid

Compositional mechanisms 103 substances meant to be drunk), and libro ‘book’ is typed as [PHYSICAL OBJECT] • [INFORMATION ]. As shown in (12) and (13), the simple types within a dot object can be targeted jointly by the predicate. In (15), by contrast, the verb only targets one of the simple types. For instance, the object interpretation emerges when comida ‘meal’ is combined with quemar ‘burn’ in (15a), and the event interpretation is triggered by the predicate tener lugar ‘take place’ in (15b):9 15 a b

La comida se quemó. ‘The meal burnt.’ La comida tuvo lugar a las diez. ‘The meal took place at ten.’

There is yet another possibility: when a verb requires a dot complement (e.g., leer ‘read’), a simple type (such as pizarra ‘blackboard’, which is a [PHYSICAL OBJECT]) is recategorized as a complex type ([PHYSICAL OBJECT] • [INFORMATION]), as in Desde aquí no puedo leer la pizarra ‘I cannot read the blackboard from here’. The coercion mechanism involved in this case is presented in § 4.3. Assuming that a predicate can foreground or even alter the features encoded in the lexical meta-entry of its arguments allows explaining a signicant number of compositionality violations attested in natural language without contradicting the tenets of language acquisition and processing. Thus, the GL allows a natural kind to be transformed into a complex semantic structure when combined with certain predicates. In (16a), the natural types caballo ‘horse’, roca ‘rock’, and agua ‘water’ are combined with the natural predicate tocar ‘touch’, which selects for complements of the kind [PHYSICAL OBJECT]. In (16b), the same nouns are reinterpreted as events (involving the nominal entities as these events’ participants), because acabar ‘nish’ selects for event complements: acabar {el caballo / la roca} ‘nish the {horse / the rock}’ can mean ‘nish drawing {the horse / the rock}’, and acabar el agua ‘nish the water’ is most likely to mean ‘nish drinking a contextually specied quantity of water’. A similar interpretation is assigned to agua in (16c), with another event-selecting verb, querer ‘want’.10 In order to obtain an event interpretation of natural-kind nominals, we have to assume that they must be reinterpreted as functional objects destined for a particular use. 16 a b c

Tocar {el caballo / la roca / el agua}. ‘Touch {the horse / the rock / the water}.’ Acabar {el caballo / la roca / el agua}. ‘Finish {the horse / the rock / the water}.’ Quiero agua. ‘I want water.’

Interestingly, the example tocar el agua ‘touch the water’ (in [16a]) can have other interpretations, illustrated in (17). In (17), agua ‘water’ is a functional

104 Elena de Miguel and Olga Batiukova object, but we will argue that this reinterpretation is not caused by tocar ‘touch’, which is a natural predicate. 17 a b c

Tu primo no toca el agua, es insufrible compartir casa con él. ‘Your cousin does not touch the water, being his roommate is a nightmare’ (= he does not use water for personal hygiene) Desde que se retiró tras las Olimpiadas, no ha vuelto a tocar el agua. ‘Since he retired from the Olympiads, he never touched the water again.’ [= he never swam again] Yo no toco el agua, eso es cosa de los expertos, a mí me han contratado solo para la comercialización. ‘I do not touch the water, this is for experts, I was only hired to market it.’ [= I do not participate in the process of {production/bottling} of an artifact derived from the natural object ‘water’]

There are two ways of explaining this puzzling behavior of tocar el agua ‘touch the water’. The rst one is to assume that the true predicate is agua and tocar is its argument. The second one consists in postulating a bidirectional relation, wherein both the argument and the predicate are mutually inuenced.11 Tocar can have the same meaning (‘manipulate an artifact’) when combined with functional objects, such as el piano ‘piano’ (which is a musical instrument), ordenador ‘computer’, or televisión ‘TV set’ (which are electronic devices). This accounts for the polysemy of the following examples: 18 a b c d

Juan toca el piano todas las mañanas. Lit.: ‘Juan touches the piano every morning.’ (= he puts his hands on it / he plays it) Juan ha tocado el ordenador sin permiso. ‘Juan touched the computer without permission.’ (= he put his hands on it / he manipulated its internal mechanism) ¿Quién ha tocado esta televisión? ‘¿Who touched this TV set?’ (=who put his hands on it / who manipulated it) Yo no toco el pan. ‘I do not touch the bread.’ (= I do not put my hands on it / I do not eat it / I do not participate in its production)

The examples in (18) show that the meaning of tocar depends on what kind of object is being touched. However, all these examples can be classied in two groups: in the rst one the FQ of the complement is exploited, yielding the meaning ‘put the hands on an object’, and in the second one the TQ is exploited, with the meaning ‘use for the inherent aim of the object’ (make sounds, work, eat, etc.). Therefore, this is not an instance of an unexpected or unlimited polysemy but rather the result of a systematic and compositional behavior. It should be noted, however, that the examples (17c) and (18d) may pose a challenge for this approach, because they have one more meaning, related to the AQ,

Compositional mechanisms 105 where tocar is paraphrased as ‘participate in the production’. It certainly seems surprising that this meaning is available for the natural object agua ‘water’ as opposed to the artifacts piano ‘piano’ and ordenador ‘computer’. This apparent contradiction disappears if we adopt a more global perspective: indeed, in (16a), tocar {el caballo / la roca} ‘touch {the horse / the rock}’ can also be interpreted as ‘alter an artifact’, e.g., ‘modify the drawing of a horse or a rock’. If any nominal combined with tocar can be recategorized as an artifact, it must be assumed that this verb only behaves as a natural predicate when it refers to the information encoded in the FQ (for example, when the exterior of the object is touched). Touching the interior (CQ), by contrast, amounts to manipulating the object (for example, by swimming in the water or altering the image represented in a painting; and also by ‘manipulating its internal circuits’ if we touch a computer). Tocar can also mean ‘use an artifact’, when we exploit its TQ by touching it: tocar el pan ‘touch the bread’ (= eat), tocar el agua ‘touch the water’ (= to have a wash), no tocar la raqueta ‘not to touch the racket’ (= not to play tennis), tocar el piano ‘play (lit. touch) the piano / make it sound’, and tocar el ordenador ‘touch the computer’ (= use it). Finally, with objects in whose production we can participate, the AQ can be exploited by tocar: no tocar la tesis en dos meses ‘not to touch the thesis in two months’ (= not to work on the thesis). Also, if the subject is a piano manufacturer, no tocar el piano desde hace unos días ‘not to touch the piano in a few days’ can mean ‘not to work on it in a few days’. This is the same lecture we detected in tocar {el pan / el agua}, with the meaning ‘participate in the production’. This interpretation is expected with pan ‘bread’, which denotes an artifact, but with agua ‘water’, the agentive and the telic interpretation require a prior recategorization as an artifact (through a generative mechanism we will deal with in § 4). The contextual polysemy displayed by tocar can be accounted for by the intervention of mechanisms that exploit the features encoded in the QS of the words denoting different kinds of objects, but these mechanisms may seem unconstrained at rst glance. The following examples prove that they are not: 19 a b c d

A Juan se le da muy bien {el ordenador / el piano}. ‘Juan is good at {computers / the piano}.’ A Juan se le da muy bien el pan. ‘Juan is good at (making) bread.’ A Juan se le da muy bien el agua. ‘Juan is good at water.’ *A Juan se le da muy bien {la roca/el caballo}. ‘Juan is good at {the rock / the horse}.’

The ungrammaticality of (19d) conrms that recategorization is not always licensed, and that type coercion is determined by the information included in the highly structured minimal denitions of lexical items. In addition, the fact that the meaning of dársele bien a alguien algo ‘be good at something’ changes depending on the type of complement conrms that

106 Elena de Miguel and Olga Batiukova compositionality is preserved and that the compositional mechanisms are at play. Dársele bien a alguien algo requires its complement to denote an event. With artifacts (as in [19a]) the exploited event is encoded in the TQ (‘be good at using the artifact’). Naturals, on the other hand, have to be recategorized in order to get an agentive or telic interpretation (as in [17] and [19c]): dársele bien a alguien el agua can mean ‘feel comfortable when moving in this medium’ (= be a good swimmer) or ‘be good at manufacturing the functional object water’. This approach to the selection of arguments in a predicate is innovative and has far-reaching consequences for the study of compositionality and its apparent violations. It is based on the assumption that we can enrich the conceptualization of a natural entity (for example, agua ‘water’) by providing it with a function (a TQ) and thus changing its type from natural to functional. If the added TQ is ‘to drink’, the resulting interpretation of event-oriented predicates (such as [16c]) can take advantage of this information ([16c] means ‘I want to drink water’). A similar strategy can be applied to an artifactual kind (e.g., pan ‘bread’), which is specied for the event involved in its origin. Thus (19b) is interpreted as ‘be good at making bread’. Of course, what is especially puzzling is why reinterpretation is not possible in some cases: *{ darse bien / querer} la roca ‘{to be good at / want} the rock’, as in (19c), or * tocar el eclipse ‘touch the eclipse’. We argue that these constraints are imposed by the values encoded in the QS, which proves that the proposed approach is not unconstrained and therefore has predictive power. The next section deals with mechanisms that operate on features included in underspecied lexical entries in order to license certain combinations, render others as uninterpretable, and occasionally rescue some of the latter, as in some of the cases dealt with above.

4 The lexical selectional mechanisms The operations yielding the generation of new meanings are, in reality, lexical agreement processes. Lexical agreement licenses or rules out certain word combinations depending on their lexical meaning. As mentioned in § 2, the predicates empezar ‘start’ and rápido ‘fast’ in (1) require event complements, therefore {el libro / la tesis} ‘the book / the thesis’ and {conductor / café} ‘driver / coffee’ turn into events when combined with them. Descargar is an event whose duration cannot last durante quince años ‘for fteen years’, therefore the predicate is reinterpreted as iterative. Caber en el estante ‘t on the shelf’ requires the size of its subject to be commensurable with the storage capacity of a shelf, this is why los Beatles ‘the Beatles’ (individuals whose size is not compatible with a standard-size shelf) are reinterpreted as ‘artistic production’ (this is a typical case of the author-creation metonymy).12 In all these cases takes place type coercion, i.e., adjustment of the type of the argument in order to meet the selectional requirements of the predicate.13 Hence, coercion is the rescue mechanism that solves lexical mismatches: the argument is forced to satisfy the lexical requirements of the predicate. Coercion is not free (the reinterpretation possibilities are encoded in the lexical meta-entry, in particular in

Compositional mechanisms 107 the QS) and sometimes a combination is rejected because it cannot be salvaged. From this perspective, coercion is the last step of the lexical selection process, and it has several subtypes. In recent versions of the framework (Pustejovsky 2011), four selectional mechanisms are distinguished, which we present in § 4.1–4.5.14 4.1 Type matching Type matching (also called pure selection, inasmuch as it does not involve any kind of adjustment) is a mechanism operating when the type required by the predicate (in italics in [20]) is satised directly by the argument. If the information included in the QS of the combined words is compatible, their combination and interpretation is licensed by type matching: 20 a b c d e f g

Beber una bebida. ‘Drink a beverage [LIQUID].’ Dibujar un dibujo. ‘Draw a drawing [ARTISTIC CREATION].’ Oír un ruido. ‘Hear a noise [SOUND].’ Empezar a llover. ‘Start raining [EVENT].’ Correr rápido. ‘Run [EVENT] fast.’ Descargar un camión durante dos horas. ‘Unload [DURATIVE EVENT] a truck for two hours.’ Caber un libro en el estante. ‘Fit (the book [PHYSICAL OBJECT]) on the shelf.’

The lexical requirements imposed by the predicates in (20) are satised directly by their arguments, and this kind of full compatibility of features gives rise to redundancy, with some interesting syntactic consequences: 21 a b c d e

La bebida de ayer me gustó más que esta. ‘I liked more the beverage I had yesterday than this one.’ (= the one I drank) El dibujo del niño está en la cocina. ‘The child’s drawing is in the kitchen.’ (= the one he drew) El ruido me asustó. ‘The noise scared me.’ (= the one I heard) Ayer dibujó mucho. ‘He painted a lot yesterday.’ (= he drew many drawings) El estante está lleno. ‘The shelf is full.’ (= nothing else ts on it)

As shown in (21), the redundancy licenses the omission of both the predicate and the argument, since its meaning can be retrieved without explicit reference.15

108 Elena de Miguel and Olga Batiukova As will be shown in the remainder of this work, all the other compositional mechanisms trigger type adjustment; they operate in different contexts and have different constraints. 4.2 Accommodation subtyping Accommodation subtyping applies when the features of the argument do not satisfy the selectional requirements of the verb directly. Rather, the argument meets these requirements by virtue of inheriting the needed semantic type from its hyperonym. For example, the construction oír la música ‘hear the music’ is acceptable because música ‘music’ is a hyponym of [SOUND], which is the type required by the verb oír ‘hear’ (cf. [20c]). 4.3 Coercion The accommodation mechanism, based on lexical inheritance, accounts for oír la música ‘hear the music’ but not for apparently similar examples, such as oír {un piano / a los músicos} ‘hear {the piano / the musicians}’, because neither piano ‘piano’ nor músicos ‘musicians’ are hyponyms of sound. Therefore, a different kind of mechanism needs to be assumed in order to formalize the intuition that both piano and músicos refer through their QS to the fact that they are able to make sounds. This mechanism, which enables the access to one of the meanings available in their respective QSs, is a subtype of coercion. Type coercion is a mechanism intervening when the argument does not have the semantic type required by the predicate. Thus, coercion allows avoiding the interpretive clash (as in [6b,c]), but it does not operate indiscriminately. Crucially, the underspecied denition of the argument needs to include information that can potentially be interpreted in the sense required by the predicate. This explains the ungrammaticality of, for example, una laguna ligera ‘a light lagoon’ in (6d). Type coercion is one of the core elements of the GL inasmuch as it accounts for contextual modulation of lexical meaning in a compositional and constrained manner. Recent work framed within this theory distinguished two types of coercion mechanisms, which are licensed differently and apply in different contexts: coercion by introduction and coercion by exploitation. 4.3.1 Coercion by introduction Coercion by introduction is triggered when the type required by the predicate is “richer” than the actual type of the argument. In order to rescue this kind of combinations, the predicate “wraps” the argument with the type it needs or, in other words, introduces additional information. Coercion by introduction may involve modications of the original type while staying within the same domain (domain-preserving coercion) or a more drastic change involving type-shifting across domains (domain-shifting coercion).

Compositional mechanisms 109 Examples of domain-shifting coercion are acabó el caballo ‘he/she nished the horse’ (16b) and se le da bien el agua ‘he/she is good at water’ (19c), where natural entities caballo ‘horse’ and agua ‘water’ are reinterpreted as belonging to the domain of events (the event interpretation is accomplished by recategorizing them as artifacts). Leyó la pizarra ‘he/she read the blackboard’ (in [22]), on the other hand, is an instance of domain-preserving coercion (known as dot introduction): 22 Leyó la pizarra. ‘He read the blackboard.’ (= he read the [INFORMATION] recorded on a [PHYSICAL OBJECT]) 4.3.2 Coercion by exploitation Exploitation consists in selecting one of the features of the argument in order to satisfy the selectional requirements of the predicate. It mostly operates on internally complex types (artifacts and dots). Examples (11) and (15) above, where the predicate selects one of the types encoded by a dot object, are instances of coercion by exploitation. Exploitation is a very regular and productive process whereby new meanings are generated, it even allows accounting for interpretations considered as idiomatic in other frameworks. Let us examine further examples of dot exploitation involving the words clase ‘class’ and palabra ‘word’, which unify the following types (among others): [OBJECT] • [INFORMATION] • [EVENT]: 23 a b c d 24 a b c d

La clase estaba muy bien iluminada. ‘The class [OBJECT] was very well lit.’ La clase era teórica. ‘The class [INFORMATION] was theoretical.’ La clase era por la mañana. ‘The class [EVENT] was in the morning.’ La clase es muy numerosa y participativa. ‘The class [HUMAN GROUP] was large and participative.’ Piensa una palabra que empiece por p. ‘Think of a word [OBJECT] beginning with p.’ He leído las cariñosas palabras que me dedicó. ‘I read the warm words [INFORMATION] he dedicated to me.’ Me quitó la palabra para dársela a Pedro. ‘He denied me the oor and gave it to Pedro.’ (lit.: ‘took the word [EVENT] away from me’) Cumplió su palabra. ‘He kept his word [EVENT].’

Each of the types included in a dot object has its own QS, which accounts for the different syntactic combinations. The corresponding lexical entries are very rich

110 Elena de Miguel and Olga Batiukova in all kinds of information, which can be productively exploited by the syntactic context, as we have seen in (23) and (24). As we anticipated, this mechanism allows exploiting the sublexical features that trigger interpretations classied as idiomatic in other approaches, for instance in the examples (24c, d). From the perspective adopted here, by contrast, quitar la palabra ‘deny the oor to someone’ and cumplir la palabra ‘keep the word’ are regular and productive combinations: palabra is a dot object referring to an event (‘someone’s turn to speak’ in [24c] or ‘promise’ in [24d]), among other things. The same meanings are expressed in dar la palabra ‘give the word’ (= ‘let talk / promise’) and tomar la palabra lit. ‘take the word’ (= ‘talk or take the oor / believe a promise’). The model described in this work avoids postulating multiple denitions for the meanings acquired by lexical items in context and accounts for the systematic relations the words establish among themselves. The generative mechanisms postulated within GL contribute to reducing the size of the lexicon. If we assume that the speaker does not need to store an innite listing of word meanings in his mental lexicon but rather makes use of underspecied denitions and a set of (presumably universal) general principles and mechanisms allowing to use them in context, important issues associated to language acquisition and language processing turn out to be manageable.

5 Conclusions The framework presented in this chapter accounts in a unied fashion for a wide range of phenomena treated separately in previous research: logical and contextual polysemy, metonymy, aspectual and semantic coercion. This unied account is compositional and constrained, inasmuch as it makes use of the features independently encoded in the lexical entries of the words. We have shown that, in all the examples provided in this work, the syntactic context brings out or species these features rather than just modifying them. One of the main advantages of this approach is that it reduces signicantly the need for invoking pragmatic factors and real-world knowledge when dealing with violations of strict compositionality. Enriching the lexical semantics with meaning components traditionally ascribed to extralinguistic knowledge is precisely the source of a good deal of the criticism directed towards the Generative Lexicon. In this respect, it should be mentioned that all the features and levels of representation postulated within GL have proved to be syntactically relevant, which conrms their pertinence in a model of natural language (cf. De Miguel 2009b). This being said, can we state that coercion be captured in terms of compositional semantics alone? In other words, can we say that the nature of the ‘missing link’ between two seemingly incompatible elements (e.g., the predicate and its arguments) can be xed one and for all? Probably not, if the distinction between linguistic and extralinguistic knowledge is taken seriously, and if we do not want to overload the lexical entries with all sorts of common-sense and extralinguistic data (such as ‘what is the usual duration of an unloading event’,

Compositional mechanisms 111 or ‘what is the size of a shelf’, recall the examples in [1c, d]). However, we did show that the role of these other factors is less signicant than assumed in other frameworks. The assumptions put forward by GL and other theories of compositionality and coercion (among them, the advantages of lexicon-based approaches and advantages of pragmatic approaches), and how they correlate with empirical data on language processing are the topic of an extensive trend of psycholinguistic research, whose results should be denitely taken into account (cf. Pylkkänen 2008, Bott 2010, Zarcone 2014, and the references therein). Notwithstanding their interest, in this work we focused on the strictly linguistic mechanisms which account for word combinations, including the cases which may seem to challenge the meaning compositionality assumption.

Notes 1 This work was nanced by the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness of Spain under Grant No. FFI2012–33807 (Subprogram FILO). 2 The latter interpretation is strongly favored with the direct object ‘thesis’ due to the difference in meaning: although the denitions of both words are very similar, the purpose of a book is to be read, and the thesis is meant to be evaluated, which implies that it needs to be written. Section 3.2 presents how the function of an object is included in the denition of the referring nominal. See De Miguel (2012) on the different interpretations of empezar {un libro / un diccionario / un periódico} ‘begin {a book / a dictionary / a newspaper}’. 3 The other kinds of aspectual coercion are (Bott 2010): • Subtractive coercion (annulled-result accomplishments): predicates lexically encoded as durative and telic are interpreted as atelic, as in (1). • Additive coercion: a preparatory or resultant state phase is added to the event type encoded by the predicate, as in (2) and (3), respectively. 1 Juan pintó la valla durante veinte minutos. ‘Juan painted the fence for twenty minutes.’ 2 Juan encontró la llave en cinco minutos. ‘Juan found the key in ve minutes.’ 3 Juan salió durante diez minutos. ‘Juan left for ten minutes.’ 4 The exclamation mark (!) is used to signal semantic anomaly (Asher and Pustejovsky 2006). 5 Here compositional is tantamount to context-sensitive, i.e., in the GL, the context is the source of the new senses contained in the word denitions as potentialities and brought out by the compositional mechanisms. The latter establish links between the features accessed through decomposition. Indeed, the way the agreement and coercion processes are dened in GL reinforces a exible, dynamic, and context-sensitive conception of the lexicon. By contrast, its generative nature gives rise to disagreement in the literature. On the one hand, the fact that lexical rules (as opposed to syntactic rules) do not generate new data but rather “exploit” the potentialities encoded in sublexical structures (see Asher and Pustejovsky 2006) may seem to call into question the generative nature of the GL model (see Nirenburg and Raskin 1996, Polguère 2007). On the other hand, it can be argued that Pustejovsky’s framework is the heir to the ideal of generative formal semantic representation put forward in Katz (1972), but in the sense expressed in the previous objection: the main difference between both feature-based models is that the latter’s

112 Elena de Miguel and Olga Batiukova

6

7 8

9

10

11

12 13

14

formalism is static and the former is exible. This difference is the reason why Geeraerts (2002: 28) denes the GL as a neo-generative framework. To sum up, there is an agreement that the GL model is dynamic, exible, and contextsensitive. However, its generative capacity is subject to debate. The lexical inheritance structure will not be dealt with in detail in this study. In classical GL, it is assumed to specify “how a lexical structure is related to other structures in the type lattice, and its contribution to the global organization of a lexicon” (Pustejovsky 1995: 61). See De Miguel (2009b) for an overview of related Spanish data. The qualia are inspired in the aitiai or modes of explanation, ontological (non-linguistic) parameters postulated by Aristotle in Physics, as noted in Moravscik (1975, 1991) (cf. Batiukova 2008: §1.10.1, De Miguel 2009b, footnote 21). Examples like (10c) are traditionally considered to be instances of metonymy. From the GL perspective, they can be easily accounted for by general and regular mechanisms responsible for the generation of literal meanings. Moreover, one of the most appealing aspects of this model is that it can explain certain metaphorical and metonymic meaning extensions without postulating exceptional mechanisms nor increasing the size of the mental lexicon, as will be shown in § 4. The approach to co-predication opposes the GL to the Text-Meaning framework, where the different word meanings are argued to correspond to different lexical items. The Text-Meaning model denies the existence of co-predication, i.e., it can account for the examples in (15), and also in (1) and (2) below: 1 Juan es experto en curar los dedos de tenistas. / Hay que añadir un dedo de sal. ‘Juan is expert in curing the ngers of tennis players. / Cover the surface with salt to a ½ inch thickness (lit.: ‘one nger of salt’).’ 2 *Se preocupó del dedo del tenista y de sal. Lit.: ‘He took care of the tennis player’s nger and of the nger of salt.’ However, it cannot explain the examples included in (12) and (13), which can only be accounted for if it is assumed that words have complex internal structure whose components can be accessed independently. This meaning of querer, associated to event complements or artifacts reinterpreted as events (e.g., querer un cigarro ‘to want [to smoke] a cigarette’, querer una bicicleta ‘to want [to ride] a bicycle’, querer una casa ‘to want [to live in] a house’) is not the only one. The sense ‘to love, to be fond of’ is associated to all kinds of physical and abstract entities, including the natural types, e.g., quiero a {mi padre / mi ciudad} ‘I love {my dad / my city}’. Both approaches have been adopted in the literature in order to account for compositionality in light verb constructions, such as hacer una pregunta ‘{to make/ask} a question’ or dar una respuesta ‘to give an answer’. It has been argued sometimes that in these constructions the argument and the predicate choose each other and share the predicative force (this mechanism is known as co-composition in the GL framework). Others treat these cases as instances of a regular selection process and claim that the true predicate is the event nominal (pregunta ‘question’, respuesta ‘answer’, etc.) rather than the verb (cf. De Miguel 2006, De Miguel 2011). Some of this information can be argued to be lexical or pragmatic in nature, an issue we leave open here. In general, the predicative force (i.e., capacity to select a certain type of argument) is attributed to verbs (which choose the subjects and the complements), and to adverbs and predicative adjectives (which choose the verb or the noun they modify). The event nominals choose the light verbs compatible with them, as mentioned in footnote 10. There is a fth mechanism, co-composition, to which we referred briey in footnote 10. It was used to account for the behavior of verb–noun combinations (light verb constructions) sometimes classied as collocations. We are not going to deal with it here, since this work is focused on the role of coercion in licensing apparently unexpected word

Compositional mechanisms

113

combinations. Also, as mentioned above, the light verb constructions can be accounted for in a more principled fashion, as a case of selection and not as a special instance of co-composition (cf. De Miguel 2011). 15 Redundancy triggers ungrammaticality in passive constructions without a by-phrase: el dibujo fue pintado *(por el niño) ‘the drawing was painted (by the boy)’, or middles such as *una bebida se bebe lit. ‘the beverage drinks’ (cf. De Miguel 2004, 2012, 2015a, Batiukova 2008: chapter 8). Batiukova and Pustejovsky (2013) offer a qualiabased account of redundant past participle–noun combinations in English: produced wine, driven car, branched tree, etc.

Bibliography

1 Corpora [BNC]. The British National Corpus, version 3 (BNC XML Edition) (2007). Distributed by Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium. Available at . [CDE]. Davies, M. (2002). Corpus del español: 100 million words, 1200s-1900s. Available at . [CORPES XXI]. Real Academia Española (in progress). Banco de datos CORPES XXI. Corpus del español del siglo XXI. Available at . [CREA]. Real Academia Española. Corpus de referencia del español actual. Available at . [enTenTen]. Jakubí ek, M.; Kilgarriff, A.; Ková , V.; Rychlý, P.; Suchomel, V. (2013). enTenTen. Sketch Engine. Available at . [EUROPARL]. European Parliament Proceedings Parallel Corpus (1996–2011). Available at . [frTenTen]. Jakubí ek, M.; Kilgarriff, A.; Ková , V.; Rychlý, P.; Suchomel, V. (2012). frTenTen. Sketch Engine. Available at .

2 Dictionaries [Alcalá]. Alvar Ezquerra, M. (dir.) (1995). Diccionario para la enseñanza de la lengua española. Español para extranjeros. Barcelona: Vox-Biblograf – Universidad de Alcalá. [ASELE]. Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española (2010). Diccionario de americanismos. Madrid: Santillana. Available at . [BBI]. Benson, M.; Benson, E.; Ilson, R. (1986). The BBI Dictionary of English Word Combinations. 1st edition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [BBI2]. Benson, M.; Benson, E.; Ilson, R. (1997). The BBI Dictionary of English Word Combinations. 2nd edition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [BBI3]. Benson, M.; Benson, E.; Ilson, R. (2010). The BBI Dictionary of English Word Combinations. 3rd edition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [CCEC]. Sinclair, J. (1995). The Collins Cobuild English Collocations on CD-ROM. London/Glasgow: HarperCollins. [Cercaterm]. Servei de consultes – Cercaterm. TERMCAT Centre de Terminologia. Available at .

338 Bibliography [Clave]. Maldonado, C. (dir.) (1996). Clave. Diccionario de uso del español actual [online]. Madrid: SM. Available at . [Clave]. Maldonado, C. (dir.) (2012). Clave. Diccionario de uso del español actual. 9th ed. Madrid: SM. Available at . [Cotgrave]. Cotgrave, R. (1611). A Dictionarie of the French and English Tongues. Paris: Bibliothèque nationale de France, département Littérature et art, X-243. Available at (last access: March 20, 2015). [CSD]. Collins Spanish-English Dictionary. Available at ; . [DAF]. Académie Française (1740). Dictionnaire de l’Académie Française. Paris: JeanBaptiste Coignard, Imprimeur du Roy, Académie Françoise. [DAUT]. Real Academia Española (1726–1739). Diccionario de autoridades. Vol. 3 (letters D, E, F). Madrid: Real Academia Española. Available at . [DBC]. Popescu, T.; Toma, M. (2009). Dictionary of Business Collocations: With Romanian Translation and Practice Section. Alba Iulia: Aeternitas. [DBE]. Miyares Bermúdez, E. (2003, 20082). Diccionario Básico Escolar. Santiago de Cuba: Centro de Lingüística Aplicada. [DCECH]. Corominas, J.; Pascual, J. A. (1997). Diccionario crítico etimológico castellano e hispánico [CD]. Madrid: Gredos. [DCM]. Le Fur, D. (dir.) (2007). Dictionnaire des combinaisons de mots. Paris: Le Robert. [DDH]. Alcaraz Varó, E.; Campos Pardillos, M. Á. (dirs.) (2008). Diccionario de términos de derechos humanos. Barcelona: Ariel. [DDLC]. Institut d’Estudis Catalans. Diccionari descriptiu de la llengua catalana. Available at . [DEA]. Seco, M.; Andrés, O.; Ramos, G. (1999). Diccionario del español actual. Madrid: Aguilar. [DEC]. Kjellmer, G. (ed.) (1994). A Dictionary of English Collocations: Based on the Brown Corpus. 3 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press. [DECFC]. Mel’ uk, I. (dir.) (1984, 1988, 1992, 1999). Dictionnaire explicatif et combinatoire du français contemporain, Recherches lexico-sémantiques. Vols. 1 4. Montréal: Les Presses de L’Université de Montréal. [DEE]. Martín Municio, Á.; Colino Martínez, A. (dirs.) (2004). Diccionario español de la energía, con vocabulario inglés-español. Madrid: Doce Calles. [DEMED]. U.S. National Library of Medicine. Medical Dictionary and Encyclopedia of Medicine: MedlinePlus [online]. Available at . [DESEN]. Real Academia Española (2006). Diccionario esencial de la lengua española. Madrid: Real Academia Española. Available at . [DET]. Martínez Val, J. M. (2000). Diccionario enciclopédico de tecnología. Madrid: Síntesis. [DFDEA]. Seco, M.; Andrés, O.; Ramos, G. (2004). Diccionario fraseológico documentado del español actual. Locuciones y modismos españoles. Madrid: Aguilar. [DHL]. Nebrija, A. de (1495). Vocabulario español-latino. Salamanca. Retrieved from the Nuevo tesoro lexicográco de la lengua española (NTLLE). Madrid: Real Academia Española. Available at . [DHLF]. Rey, A. (dir.) (1992). Dictionnaire historique de la langue française. Paris: Dictionnaires Le Robert.

Bibliography

339

[DiCE]. Alonso Ramos, M. (dir.) (2004). Diccionario de colocaciones del español. A Coruña: Universidade da Coruña. Available at . [DICLOCADV]. Penadés Martínez, I. (2005). Diccionario de locuciones adverbiales para la enseñanza del español. Madrid: Arco/Libros. [DICLOCNAP]. Penadés Martínez, I. (2008). Diccionario de locuciones nominales, adjetivas y pronominales para la enseñanza del español. Madrid: Arco/Libros. [DiCoEnviro]. L’Homme, M. C. (dir.) (2009). DiCoEnviro. Le dictionnaire fondamental de l’environnement [online]. Available at . [DiCoInfo]. L’Homme, M. C. (dir.) (2009). DiCoInfo. Le dictionnaire fondamental de l’informatique et de l’Internet [online]. Available at . [DiHA]. Academia Argentina de las Letras (2003). Diccionario del habla de los argentinos. Available at . [DILEA]. Penadés Martínez, I. (in preparation). Diccionario de locuciones idiomáticas del español actual. [DIRAE]. Rodríguez Alberich, G.; Real Academia Española (2014). Diccionario inverso de la Real Academia Española [online]. Available at . [DMYPUB]. Alcaraz Varó, E.; Hugues, B.; Campos Pardillos, M. Á. (2005). Diccionario de términos de marketing, publicidad y medios de comunicación. Barcelona: Ariel. [DPD]. Real Academia Española & Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española (2005). Diccionario panhispánico de dudas [online]. Madrid: Santillana. Available at . [DPNIA]. Alcaraz Varó, E.; Hughes, B.; Mateo Martínez, J.; Vargas Sierra, C.; Gómez González-Jover, A. (2005). Diccionario de términos de la piedra natural e industrias anes. Barcelona: Ariel. [DRAE]. Real Academia Española (2014). Diccionario de la lengua española [online]. 23th edition. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Available at . [DRAE22]. Real Academia Española (2001). Diccionario de la lengua española. 22nd edition. Available at . [DTM]. Real Academia Nacional de Medicina (2011). Diccionario de términos médicos. Madrid / Buenos Aires / México / Bogotá: Editorial Médica Panamericana. Available at . [DUE]. Moliner, M. (1966, 1997). Diccionario de uso del español. Madrid: Gredos. [DUEAE]. Battaner, P. (dir.) (2002). Diccionario de uso del español de América y España [CD]. Barcelona: Spes Editorial. [EAC]. Koz owska, C. D. (1991). English Adverbial Collocations. Warsow: Wydawnictwo Naukowe. [Estienne]. Estienne, R. (1539). Dictionnaire francois latin contenant les motz et manières de parler francois, tournez en latin. Paris: Bibliothèque nationale de France. Available at . [Euléxico]. Boneu, J. (2001). Diccionario euléxico para expresarse con estilo y rigor. Barcelona: Juventud. [Furetière]. Furetière, A. (1702). Dictionnaire universel (1619–1688), contenant généralement tous les mots françois tant vieux que modernes, & les termes des sciences et des arts. Tome 1. 2nd edition, reversed and enlarged by Henri Basnage de Beauval. The Hague / Rotterdam: Arnoud et Reinier Leers. Available at .

340 Bibliography [IATE]. Inter-Active Terminology for Europe. Centro de Traducción de los Órganos de la Unión Europea. Available at . [Intermedio]. Maldonado, C. (dir.) (2012). Intermedio. Lengua española. 14th edition. Madrid: SM. [IRBC]. Meynard, I. (2000). Internet. Répertoire bilingue de combinaisons léxicales spécialisées (français-anglais). Brossard: Linguatech. [KID]. Konecny, C.; Autelli, E. (2014). Kollokationen Italienisch-Deutsch. Hamburg: Helmut Buske. [KWG]. Friedbichler, M.; Friedbichler, I. (2007). KWiC Web Guide to Medical English for German-Speaking Health Professionals / Fachwortschatz Medizin Englisch. Sprachtrainer und Fachwörterbuch in einem. Stuttgart: Thieme-Verlag. [LCDT]. Mayor, M. (ed.) (2013). Longman Collocations Dictionary and Thesaurus with On-Line Access. Harlow: Pearson. [LDC]. Cohen, B. (2011 [1986]). Lexique de cooccurrents. Bourse et conjoncture économique. 2nd edition. Brossard: Linguatech. [LEMA]. Battaner, P. (dir.) (2001). Lema. Diccionario de la lengua española. Barcelona: Spes Vox. [Updated as Diccionario general de lengua española Vox (2009). Barcelona: Larousse.]. [LEME]. Lancashire, I. (ed.) (2015). Lexicons of Early Modern English, LEME Database. Toronto: University of Toronto Library and University of Toronto Press. Available at . [LID]. Díaz Fernández, A. M. (2013). Diccionario LID Inteligencia y seguridad. Madrid: Editorial LID. [LSD]. Larousse Spanish-English Dictionary [online]. Available at ; . [LTP]. Hill, J.; Lewis, M. (eds.) (1997). LTP Dictionary of Selected Collocations. Hove: Language Teaching Publications. [MCD]. Rundell, M. (ed.) (2010). Macmillan Collocations Dictionary for Learners of English. Oxford: Macmillan. [OALD]. Wehmeier, S. (ed.) (2005). Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. 7th edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [OALDCE]. Hornby, A. S.; Cowie, A. P. (eds.) (1963). Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [OCD02]. Crowther, J.; Lea, D.; Dignen, S. (2002). Oxford Collocations Dictionary for Students of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [OCD09]. McIntosh, C.; Francis, B.; Poole, R. (2009). Oxford Collocations Dictionary for Students of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [OED]. Simpson, J. (ed.) (2009). Oxford English Dictionary [CD-ROM]. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [OSD]. Oxford Spanish-English Dictionary [online]. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available at . [PDEV]. Hanks, P. (in progress). Pattern Dictionary of English Verbs. Available at . [PLI]. Augé, C. (1974). Petit Larousse illustré. Paris: Librairie Larousse. [Práctico]. Bosque, I. (dir.) (2006). Diccionario combinatorio práctico del español contemporáneo: las palabras en su contexto. Madrid: SM. [RECD]. Iordanskaja, L.; Paperno, S. (1996). A Russian-English Collocational Dictionary of the Human Body [online]. Available at .

Bibliography

341

[Redes]. Bosque, I. (dir.) (2004). REDES. Diccionario combinatorio del español contemporáneo. Madrid: Ediciones SM. [Rosal]. Rosal, F. del (1601–16011). Origen y etimología de todos los vocablos originales de la Lengua Castellana. Madrid: Biblioteca Nacional de Madrid, manuscrito Ms. 6929 (siglo XVIII). [Salamanca]. Gutiérrez Cuadrado, J. (dir.) (1996). Diccionario Salamanca de la lengua española [online]. Madrid: Santillana – Universidad de Salamanca. Availble at . [SDC]. Benson, M.; Benson, E.; Ilson, R. (1999). Student’s Dictionary of Collocations. Berlin: Cornelsen. [SEC]. Dzierzanowska, H.; Koz owska, C. D. (1982). Selected English Collocations. Warsow: Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. [SM]. Maldonado, C. (dir.) (2002). Diccionario de español para extranjeros. Boadilla del Monte: SM. [Termium]. TERMIUM Plus. Bureau de la traduction. Available at . [UPO]. Nuevo diccionario de español como lengua extranjera: Expresiones idiomáticas . Sevilla: Universidad Pablo de Olavide. Available at . [VCC]. Caignon, P. (2001). Vocabulaire et cooccurrents de la comptabilité. Brossard: Linguatech. [Vittori]. Vittori, G. (1609). Tesoro de las tres lenguas francesa, italiana y española. Thresor des trois langues Françoise, italienne et espagnolle. Geneva: Philippe Albert & Alexandre Pernet.

3 Textbooks Higueras García, M. (2008). Vocabulario A1. De las palabras al texto. Madrid: SM. Marks, J.; Wooder, A. (2007). Check Your Vocabulary for Natural English Collocations: All You Need to Improve Your Vocabulary. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. O’Dell, F.; McCarthy, M. (2008). English Collocations in Use: Advanced: How Words Work Together for Fluent and Natural English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sans, N.; Martín Peris, E.; Garmendia, A. (2011). Bitácora. Barcelona: Difusión. Walter, E.; Woodford, K. (2010). Using Collocations for Natural English. Singapore: Delta Publishing.

4 Bibliography Abbot-Smith, K.; Tomasello, M. (2006). “Exemplar-learning and schematization in a usage-based account of syntactic acquisition”. Linguistic Review 23. 275–290. Acquaroni, R. (2007). Las palabras que no se lleva el viento: literatura y enseñanza del español como LE/L2. Madrid: Santillana – Universidad de Salamanca. Acquaroni, R. (2008). La incorporación de la competencia metafórica (CM) a la enseñanza-aprendizaje del español como segunda lengua (L2) a través de un taller de escritura creativa: estudio experimental. PhD dissertation. Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Aguilar Ruiz, M. J. (2013). “Notas sobre las posibilidades de aprendizaje de español mediante unidades fraseológicas”. MarcoELE 17.

342 Bibliography Aijmer, K.; Altenberg, B. (eds.) (2013). Advances in Corpus-Based Contrastive Linguistics: Studies in Honour of Stig Johansson. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ainciburu, M. C. (2008a). Aspectos del aprendizaje del vocabulario. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Ainciburu, M. C. (2008b). “La enseñanza del léxico en lenguas extranjeras. ¿Qué palabras hay que enseñar?” [online]. In III Jornadas de Español como Lengua Extranjera / I Congreso Internacional de Enseñanza e Investigación en ELSE, 21–23 de mayo de 2008. Ainciburu, M. C. (2009). “¿Basta repetir? Lógicas y vericuetos del proceso de aprendizaje de palabras en una lengua extranjera”. In Pastor Villalba, C. (coord.), Actas del Programa de formación para profesorado de ELE 2008. Berlin: Instituto Cervantes. 41–62. Ainciburu, M. C.; Baralo, M.; Estaire, S.; Higueras García, M. (2009). Enfoques y recursos para mejorar el aprendizaje del léxico. Unpublished course. Alcalá de Henares: Instituto Cervantes. Aitchison, Jean (1987). Words in the Mind: An Introduction to the Mental Lexicon. 3rd edition. Oxford: Blackwell. Alali, F. A.; Schmitt, N. (2012). “Teaching formulaic sequences: The same as or different from teaching single words?”. TESOL 3 (2). 153–180. Alba Quiñones, V. (2011). “La competencia léxica. Una propuesta de actividades sobre los campos léxicos para las clases de ELE”. MarcoELE 13. Available at . Alba Quiñones, V. (2012). Lexías simples y colocaciones léxicas en la enseñanza de ELE. Análisis e implicaciones didácticas. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Aldai, G. (2002). The Grammaticalization of Present and Past in Basque. PhD dissertation. Los Angeles: University of Southern California. Aldezabal, I. (2002). Azpikategorizazioaren azterketa sintaxi partzialetik sintaxi osorako bidean. PhD dissertation. Gasteiz: Universidad del País Vasco. Alegria, I.; Ansa, O.; Artola, X.; Ezeiza, N.; Gojenola, K.; Urizar, R. (2004). “Representation and treatment of multiword expressions in Basque” [online]. ACL Workshop on Multiword Expressions. Available at . Alexiadou, A. (1997). Adverb Placement. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Alfonseca, E.; Manandhar, S. (2002). “Extending a lexical ontology by a combination of distributional semantics signatures”. In Gómez-Pérez, A.; Benjamins, V. R. (eds.). Proceedings of EKAW’02. Berlin: Springer. 1–7. Almela, M. (2002). “Convergencias de las descripciones de la colocación en la lingüística actual”. Revista de Investigación Lingüística 1 (5). 31–62. Alonso Ramos, M. (2003). “Hacia un diccionario de colocaciones del español y su codicación”. In Martí Antonín, M. A.; Fernández Montraveta, A. M.; Vázquez García, G. (eds.). Lexicografía computacional y semántica. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona. 11–34. Alonso Campo, A. (2009). Características del léxico del medio ambiente y pautas de representación en el diccionario general. PhD dissertation. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra. Alonso, A.; Blancafort, H.; De Groc, C.; Million, C.; Williams, G. (2012). “METRICC: Harnessing Comparable Corpora for Multilingual Lexicon Development”. In Fjeld, R. V.; Torjusen, J. M. (eds.). Proceedings of the 15th EURALEX International Congress; 2012 Aug 7-11; University of Oslo. Oslo: University of Oslo. Alonso Campo, A.; Millon, C.; Williams, G. (2011). “Collocational networks and their application to an e-advanced learner’s dictionary of verbs in science (DicSci)”. In

Bibliography

343

Kosem, I.; Kosem, K. (eds.). Electronic Lexicography in the 21st Century: New Applications for New Users: Proceedings of eLex 2011, Bled, 10–12 November 2011. Ljubljana: Trojína, Institue for Applied Slovene Studies. 12–22. Available at . Alonso Campo, A.; Renau, I. (2013). “Corpus pattern analysis in determining specialised uses of verbal lexical units”. Terminàlia 7. 26–33. Alonso Campo, A.; Torner, S. (2010). “Adjectives and collocations in specialized texts: Lexicographical implications”. In Dykstra, A.; Schoonheim, T. (eds.). Proceedings of the 14th Euralex International Congress, Leeuwarden, 6–10 July 2010. Leeuwarden: Fryske Akademy. 872–881. Alonso Ramos, M. (1993). Las funciones léxicas en el modelo lexicográco de I. Mel’ uk. PhD dissertation. Madrid: Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia. Alonso Ramos, M. (1994–1995). “Hacia una denición del concepto de colocación: de J. R. Firth a I. A. Mel’ uk”. Revista de Lexicografía 1. 9–28. Alonso Ramos, M. (2004a). “Elaboración del Diccionario de colocaciones del español y sus aplicaciones”. In Bataner, P.; DeCesaris, J. (eds.). De Lexicografía. Actes del I Simposium Internacional de Lexicografía. Barcelona: Institut Universitari de Lingüística Aplicada – Universitat Pompeu Fabra. 149–162. Alonso Ramos, M. (2004b). Las construcciones con verbo de apoyo. Madrid: Visor Libros. Alonso Ramos, M. (2005). “Semantic description of collocations in a lexical database”. In Kiefer, F.; Kiss, G.; Pajzs, J. (eds.). Papers in Computational Lexicography COMPLEX 2005. Budapest: Linguistics Institute and Hungarian Academy of Sciences. 17–27. Alonso Ramos, M. (2006). “Towards a dynamic way to learn collocations in a second language”. In Corino, E.; Marello, C.; Onesti, C. (eds.). Proceedings of the 12th EURALEX International Congress. Turin: Accademia della Crusca / Università di Torino / Edizioni dell’Orso. 909–923. Alonso Ramos, M. (2010). “No importa si la llamas o no colocación, descríbela”. In Mellado, C.; Buján, P.; Herrero, C.; Iglesias, N.; Mansilla, A. (eds.). La fraseografía del S. XXI: Nuevas propuestas para el español y el alemán. Berlin: Frank & Timme. 55–80. Alonso Ramos, M. (2011). “Sobre los usos gurados: ¿extensiones de una única denición”. In Escandell-Vidal, M. V.; Leonetti, M.; Sánchez, C. (eds.). 60 problemas de gramática (dedicados a Ignacio Bosque). Madrid: Akal. 340–346. Alonso Ramos, M.; Rambow, O.; Wanner, L. (2008). “Using semantically annotated corpora to build collocation resources”. In Calzolari, N.; Choukri, K.; Gangemi, A.; Maegaard, B.; Mariani, J.; Piperidis, S.; Tapias, D. (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC 2008). Marrakesh: LREC. 1154–1158. Alonso Ramos, M.; Wanner, L. (2007). “Collocation chains: How to deal with them?”. In Gerdes, K.; Reuther, T.; Wanner, L. (eds.). Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Meaning-Text Theory, Klagenfurt, May 20–24. München: Universität München. 11–20. Alshawi, H. (1989). “Analysing the dictionary denitions”. In Boguraev, B.; Briscoe, T. (eds.). Computational Lexicography for Natural Language Processing. White Plains: Longman. 153–169. Altenberg, B. (1998). “On the phraseology of spoken English: The evidence of recurrent word-combinations”. In Cowie, A. P. (ed.). Phraseology: Theory, Analysis and Applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 101–122. Altzibar, X.; Bilbao, X.; Garai, K. (2011). “Collocations in Basque Language”. In Boguslavsky, L.; Wanner, L. (eds.). Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on

344 Bibliography Meaning-Text Theory, Barcelona, September 8–9. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra. 1–13. Available at . Altzibar, X.; Odriozola, J. C. (2013). “Kolokazioak: OEH eta egungo erabilera”. In Gómez López, R.; Gorrochategui Churruca, J.; Lakarra Andrinua, J. A.; Mounole, C. (eds.). Koldo Mitxelena Katedraren III. Biltzarra. Vitoria: Universidad del País Vasco. 23–40. Álvarez Cavanillas, J. L. (2008). “Algunas aplicaciones del enfoque léxico al aula de ELE”. Master’s thesis. Biblioteca Virtual RedELE 9. Álvarez de la Granja, M. (2003). As locucións verbais galegas. Santiago de Compostela: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela. Álvarez de la Granja, M. (2010). “O tratamento lexicográco dos verbos soporte no marco da teoría da metáfora”. In Sánchez Palomino, M. D. (ed.). Lexicografía galega e portuguesa. A Coruña: Universidade da Coruña, 53–66. Álvarez, R.; Xove, X. (2002). Gramática da lingua galega. Vigo: Galaxia. Alvariño, M. P.; Martínez, M. L.; Sánchez, B. (2007). “As colocacións nos dicionarios e obras terminográcas”. Cadernos de Lingua 29. 155–171. Anand, P.; Brasoveanu, A. (2010). “Modal concord as modal modication”. In Prinzhorn, M.; Schmitt, V.; Zobel, S. (eds.). Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 14. Wien: Universität Wien. 19–36. Available at . Apresjan, J. (2009). “The theory of lexical functions: An update”. In Gerdes, K.; Beck, D.; Mili evi , J.; Polguère, A. (eds.). Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Meaning-Text Theory. Montreal: OLST. 1–14. Apresjan, J.; Glovinskaja, M. (2007). “Two projects: English ECD and Russian production dictionary”. In Gerdes, K.; Reuther, T.; Wanner, L. (eds.). Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Meaning-Text Theory. München: Universität München. 31–46. Asher, N. (2011). A Web of Words: Lexical Meaning in Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Asher, N.; Pustejovsky, J. (2006). “A type composition logic for generative lexicon”. Journal of Cognitive Science 6. 1–38. Atienza, E. (2009). “Voces que tienen usos condicionados. Su incorporación en diccionarios de aprendizaje”. Revista de Lexicografía 15. 7–18. Atserias, J.; Casas, B.; Comelles, E.; González, M.; Padró, L.; Padró, M. (2006). “FreeLing 1.3: Syntactic and semantic services in an open-source NLP library”. In Calzolari, N.; Choukri, K.; Gangemi, A.; Maegaard, B.; Mariani, J.; Odijk, J.; Tapias, D. (eds.). Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2006). Genoa: LREC. 2281–2286. Azkarate, M. (1990). Hitz elkartuak euskaraz. San Sebastián: Mundaiz. Azorín Fernández, D. (2000). “Los diccionarios didácticos del español desde la perspectiva de sus destinatarios”. Estudios de Lingüística. Universidad de Alicante 14. 19–44. Azorín Fernández, D.; Climent de Benito, J. (2005). “El diccionario como instrumento didáctico en la enseñanza/aprendizaje de E/LE”. In Oro Cabanas, J. M.; Anderson, J.; Varela Zapata, J. (coords.). La enseñanza de las lenguas en una Europa multicultural.Santiago de Compostela: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidade de Santiago de Compostela. 671–693. Azorín Fernández, D.; Martínez Egido, J. J. (2007). “Los diccionarios para la enseñanza del español: criterios de evaluación”. In Balmaseda Maestu, E. (ed.). Las destrezas orales en la enseñanza del español L2-LE. La Rioja: Universidad de La Rioja. Baeza-Yates, R.; Ribeiro-Neto, B. (1999). Modern Information Retrieval. New York: ACM Press. Bahns, J. (1996). Kollokationen als lexikographisches Problem. Eine Analyse allgemeiner und spezieller Lernerwörterbücher des Englischen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

Bibliography

345

Baird Senturia, M. (1998). “‘Make a noun’ or ‘take a noun’: The semantics of ‘light verbs’”. Linguistic Notes from La Jolla 19. 63–80. Bannard, C.; Lieven, E. (2009). “Repetition and reuse in child language learning”. In Corrigan, R.; Moravcsik, E.; Ouali, H.; Wheatley, K. (eds.). Formulaic Language: Vol. 2: Acquisition, Loss, Psychological Reality, Functional Explanations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 297–321. Bannard, C.; Lieven, E. (2012). “Formulaic language in L1 acquisition”. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 32. 3–16. Baralo, M. (2001). “El lexicón no nativo y las reglas de gramática”. In Pastor Cesteros, S.; Salazar García, V. (eds.). Tendencias y líneas de investigación en adquisición de segundas lenguas. Alicante: Universidad de Alicante. 5–40. Available at . Baralo, M. (2005a). “Aspectos de la adquisición de léxico y su aplicación en el aula”. In Izquierdo, J. M.; Juan Lázaro, O.; de Basterrechea, J. P.; Alonso, M.; Prieto, R.; Mochón, A.; Lim, H.; Altmann, W. (eds.). Actas del Primer Congreso Internacional de FIAPE, Federación Internacional de Profesores de Español. Toledo. March 20–23. Available at . Baralo, M. (2005b). “La competencia léxica en el Marco Común Europeo de Referencia”. Carabela 58. 27–48. Bareld, A.; Gyllstad, H. (eds.) (2009). Researching Collocations in Another Language. New York: Palgrave. Bargalló, M.; Caramés, J.; Ferrando, V.; Moreno, J. A. (1999). “Unidades fraseológicas y diccionarios bilingües”. In Fernández González, J.; Fernández Juncal, C.; Marcos Sánchez, M.; Prieto de los Mozos, E.; Santos Río, L. (eds.). Actas del III Congreso de Lingüística General. Lingüística para el siglo XXI. Salamanca: Publicaciones de la Universidad. 247–256. Barnbrook, G.; Mason, O.; Krishnamurthy, R. (2013). Collocation: Applications and Implications. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Barrios, M. A. (2008). El dominio de las funciones léxicas en el marco de la Teoría SentidoTexto. PhD dissertation. Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Barrios, M. A. (2015). Las colocaciones en español. Madrid: Arco/Libros. Bartsch, R. (1976). The Grammar of Adverbials. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Bartsch, S. (2004). Structural and Functional Properties of Collocations in English: A Corpus Study of Lexical and Pragmatic Constraints on Lexical Co-Occurrence. Tübingen: Narr. Batiukova, O. (2008). Del léxico a la sintaxis: aspecto y qualia en la gramática del ruso y del español. Madrid: Ediciones de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid. Batiukova, O.; Pustejovsky, J. (2013). “Informativeness constraints and compositionality”. In Saurí, R.; Calzolari, N.; Huang, C.; Lenci, A.; Monachini, M.; Pustejovsky, J. (eds.). Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Generative Approaches to the Lexicon, Pisa, September 24–25. Pisa: Instituto di Linguistica Computazionale “Antonio Zampolli”. 92–100. Battaner, P. (1994). “La investigación en enseñanza del español/lengua materna: vocabulario y léxico”. In Actas del Congreso de la Lengua Española, Sevilla, 1992. Available at . Battaner, P. (2003). “La lectura electrónica de los diccionarios”. In Martín Zorraquino, M. A.; Aliaga Jiménez, J. L. (eds.). La lexicografía hispánica ante el siglo XXI, balance

346 Bibliography y perspectivas (Actas del Encuentro de Lexicógrafos celebrado en Zaragoza, en el marco del centenario María Moliner, Zaragoza, 4 y 5 de noviembre de 2002). Zaragoza: Gobierno de Aragón / Institución Fernando el Católico. 231–244. Battaner, P. (2015). “El léxico, como pilar inicial de la reexión lingüística, y el diccionario”. In Garcés Gómez, M. P. (ed.). Lingüística y diccionarios. A Coruña: Universidade da Coruña. 32–62. Battaner, P.; López Ferrero, C. (eds.) (2000). VI Jornada de Corpus Lingüístics: Corpus Lingüístics i Ensenyament de Llengües. Barcelona: Institut Universitari de Lingüística Aplicada – Universitat Pompeu Fabra. Battaner, P.; Renau, I. (2012). “Verbo y diccionario de español para extranjeros. Las prestaciones en la codicación de verbos para el Diccionario de aprendizaje de español como lengua extranjera (DAELE)”. In Lombardini, H.; Pérez Vázquez, M. E. (coords.). Núcleos: estudios sobre el verbo en español e italiano. Bern: Peter Lang. 77–97. Bazell, C. E.; Carford, J.; Halliday, M.; Robins, R. (eds.) (1996). In Memory of John Firth. London: Longman. Beas Teruel, M. A. (2009). “Transferencia léxica en las colocaciones con hacer y dar en el español de Mallorca desde la perspectiva diacrónica”. In Romero, L.; Julià, C. (eds.). Tendencias actuales en la investigación diacrónica de la lengua: actas del VIII Congreso Nacional de la Asociación de Jóvenes Investigadores de Historiografía e Historia de la Lengua Española. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona. 197–206. Belletti, A. (1990). Generalized Verb Movement. Turin: Rosenberg & Sellier. Benson, M. (1989). “The structure of the collocational dictionary”. International Journal of Lexicography 2 (1). 1–14. Benson, M. (1995). “Collocations and idioms”. In Ilson, R. (ed.). Dictionaries, Lexicography and Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon. 61–68. Benson, M. W.; Benson, E. (1993). Russian-English Dictionary of Verbal Collocations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bergenholtz, H.; Tarp, S. (eds.) (1995). Manual of Specialized Lexicography. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bernardini, S.; Picci, G.; Baroni, M. (2010). “Web corpora for bilingual lexicography: A pilot study of English/French collocation extraction and translation”. In Xiao, R. (ed.). Using Corpora in Contrastive and Translation Studies. Newcastle upon Type: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 337–359. Biber, D. (1995). Dimensions of Register Variation: A Cross-Linguistic Comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Biber, D. (2006). University Language: A Corpus-Based Study of Spoken and Written Registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Biber, D. (2009). “A corpus-driven approach to formulaic language in English: Multi-word patterns in speech and writing”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14 (3). 275–311. Biber, D.; Barbieri, F. (2007). “Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers”. English for Specic Purposes 26 (3). 263–286. Biber, D.; Conrad, S. (1999). “Lexical bundles in conversation and academic prose”. In Hasselgard, H.; Oksefjell, S. (eds.). Out of Corpora: Studies in Honor of Stig Johansson. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 181–189. Biber, D.; Conrad, S.; Cortes, V. (2003). “Lexical bundles in speech and writing: An initial taxonomy”. In Wilson, A.; Rayson, P.; McEnery, T. (eds.). Corpus Linguistics by the Lune: A Festschrift for Geoffrey Leech. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 71–92. Biber, D.; Conrad, S.; Cortes, V. (2004). “If you look at . . .: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks”. Applied Linguistics 25 (3). 371–405.

Bibliography

347

Biber, D.; Conrad, S.; Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Biber, D.; Gray, B. (2010). “Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9. 2–20. Biber, D.; Johansson, S.; Leech, G.; Conrad, S. (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman. Biemann, C.; Bordag, S.; Quasthoff, U. (2004). “Lernen paradigmatischen Relationen auf iterierten Kollokationen”. LDV Forum 19 (1–2). 103–111. Blanco Escoda, X. (2000). “Verbos soporte y clase de predicados en español”. Lingüística Española Actual 22 (1). 99–118. Bley-Vroman, R. (2002). “Frequency in production, comprehension, and acquisition”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24. 209–213. Bloomeld, L. (1933). Language. New York: Henry Holt. Boers, F.; Eyckmans, J.; Kappel, J.; Stengers, H.; Demecheleer, M. (2006). “Formulaic sequences and perceived oral prociency: Putting a lexical approach to the test”. Language Teaching Research 10. 245–261. Boers, F.; Lindstromberg, S. (eds.) (2008). Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to Teaching Vocabulary and Phraseology. Berlin / New York: de Gruyter. Boers, F.; Lindstromberg, S. (2009). Optimizing a Lexical Approach to Instructed Second Language Acquisition. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Bogaards, P. (1999). “Access structures of learners’ dictionaries”. In Herbst, T.; Popp, K. (eds.). The Perfect Learners’ Dictionary (?). Tübingen: Niemeyer. 113–130. Bogatz, H. (1997) [CD-ROM]. Bilingual Collocational Dictionary. European Language Resources Association (ELRA). Bonami, O.; Godard, D.; Kampers-Manhe, B. (2004). “Adverb classication”. In Corblin, F.; de Swart, H. (eds.). Handbook of French Semantics. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 143–184. Bosque, I. (2001a). “Sobre el concepto de ‘colocación’ y sus límites”. Lingüística Española Actual 23 (1). 9–40. Bosque, I. (2001b). “Bases para un diccionario de restricciones léxicas”. Moenia 7. 11–52. Bosque, I. (2004a). “Combinatoria y signicación. Algunas reexiones”. In Bosque, I. (dir.). Redes. Diccionario combinatorio del español contemporáneo. Madrid: SM. LXXVII–CLXXIV. Bosque, I. (2004b). “La direccionalidad en los diccionarios combinatorios y el problema de la selección léxica”. In Cabré Monné, T. (ed.). Lingüística teòrica: Anàlisi i perspectives I, Catalan Journal of Linguistics Monographies. 13–58. Available at . Bosque, I. (2011). “Deducing collocations”. In Boguslavsky, L.; Wanner, L. (eds.). Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Meaning-Text Theory. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra. vi–xxiii. Available at . Bosque, I. (2015). “Usos modales de los adverbios de facilidad y dicultad”. In Galán, C.; Montero, M. L.; Martín, J. C.; Rodríguez, M. I. (eds.). El discurso de la gramática. Estudios ofrecidos a José Manuel González Calvo. Cáceres: Universidad de Extremadura. 75–87. Bosque, I.; Mairal, R. (2012a). “Hacia una organización conceptual del deniens. Capas nocionales del adverbio arriba”. In Corbella, D.; Dorta, J.; Fajardo Aguirre, A.; Izquierdo, L.; Medina López, J.; Nelsi Torres, A. (coords.). Lexicografía hispánica del siglo XXI: Nuevos proyectos y perspectivas. Homenaje al Profesor Cristóbal Corrales Zumbado. Madrid: Arco/Libros. 125–150.

348 Bibliography Bosque, I.; Mairal, R. (2012b). “Deniciones mínimas”. In Rodríguez, F. (ed.). Estudios de lingüística española. Homenaje a Manuel Seco. Alicante: Universidad de Alicante. 123–136. Bott, O. (2010). The Processing of Events. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Bowker, L.; Corpas Pastor, G. (2015) [online]. “Translation technologies”. In Mitkov, R. (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Computational Linguistics. 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bratus, B. V. (1979). Russian Word-Collocations: Learner’s Dictionary. Moscow: Russian Language Publishers. Bratus, B. V. (1981). Wortverbindungen der russischen Gegenwartssprache. Lernwörterbuch für Deutschsprechende. 2nd ed. Moscow: Russische Sprache. Bullinaria, J. A. (2008). “Semantic categorization using simple word co-occurrence statistics”. In Baroni, M.; Evert, S.; Lenci, A. (eds.). Proceedings of the ESSLLI Workshop on Distributional Lexical Semantics Bridging the Gap between Semantic Theory and Computational Simulations. Hamburg, August 4–9. 1–8. Busa, F.; Calzolari, N.; Lenci, A.; Pustejovsky, J. (2001). “Building a semantic lexicon: Structuring and generating concepts”. In Bunt, H.; Muskens, R.; Thijsse, E. (eds.). Computing Meaning. Vol. 2. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 29–51. Butler, C. S. (1997). “Repeated word combinations in spoken and written text: Some implications for functional grammar”. In Butler, C. S.; Connolly, J. H.; Gatward, R. A.; Vismans, R. M. (eds.). A Fund of Ideas: Recent Developments in Functional Grammar. Amsterdam: IFOTT, University of Amsterdam. 60–77. Bybee, J. (1998). “The emergent lexicon”. Chicago Linguistic Society 34. 421–435. Cabré, M. T. (1999). La terminología: representación y comunicación: Elementos para una teoría de base comunicativa y otros artículos. Barcelona: Institut Universitari de Lingüística Aplicada – Universitat Pompeu Fabra. Cabré, M. T.; Estopà, R.; Lorente, M. (1998). “Terminología y fraseología”. In Actas del V Simposio Iberoamericano de Terminología: Terminología, Ciencia y Tecnología. Ciudad de México, del 3 al 8 de noviembre de 1996. Mexico: El Colegio de México – Unión Latina. 67–81. Cabré, M. T.; Vidal, V. (2005). “La combinatoria léxica en la enseñanza y aprendizaje de lenguas para propósitos especícos”. In Castillo Carballo, M. A.; Cruz Moya, O.; García Platero, J. M.; Mora Gutiérrez, J. P. (coords.). Las gramáticas y los diccionarios en la enseñanza del español como segunda lengua, deseo y realidad. Actas del XV Congreso Internacional de ASELE. Sevilla: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Sevilla. 896–902. Camps, A.; Castelló, M. (2013). “La escritura académica en la universidad”. Revista de Docencia Universitaria 11 (1). 17–36. Caruso, V. (2011). “Online specialised dictionaries: A critical survey”. In Kosem, I.; Kosem, K. (eds.). Electronic Lexicography in the 21st Century: New Applications for New Users: Proceedings of eLex 2011. Ljubljana: Trojina, Institute for Applied Slovene Studies. 66–75. Casares, J. (1950). Introducción a la lexicografía moderna. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientícas. Cassidu, M. B. (1996). “Lessico mentale e produzione verbale: Modelli psicolinguistici e applicazioni didattiche”. Lingua e Nuova Didattica 2 (47–58) and Lingua e Nuova Didattica 3 (23–36). Castell, A. (1999). “Funktionsverbgefüge im Deutschen, Spanischen und Katalanischen”. Forum 9. 125–133.

Bibliography

349

Castell, A. (2011). “El tractament de les construccions amb verb suport en els diccionaris monolingües i bilingües de l’alemany i el català”. Zeitschrift für Katalanistik 24. 73–88. Castillo, M. A. (2000). “Norma y producción lingüística: las colocaciones léxicas en la enseñanza de segundas lenguas”. In Martín Zorraquino, M. A.; Díez Pelegrín, C. (eds.). Actas del XI Congreso Internacional de ASELE. Zaragoza: Universidad de Zaragoza. 267–272. Cercadillo López de Medrano, M. (2010). Enseñanza del léxico en el aula de L2: los verbos funcionales generales. Master’s thesis. Santander: Universidad Internacional Menéndez Pelayo. Available at Biblioteca Virtual Virtual RedELE 11. Cheikh-Khamis Cases, F. (2013). Lingüística cognitiva aplicada a la enseñanza del léxico en segundas lenguas. Las colocaciones en la clase de ELE. Master’s thesis. Biblioteca Virtual RedELE 14. Chen, Y. H.; Baker, P. (2010). “Lexical bundles in L1 and L2 academic writing”. Language Learning and Technology 14. 30–49. Chodorow, M.; Byrd, R.; Heidorn, G. (1985). “Extracting semantic hierarchies from a large online dictionary”. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Chicago: Association for Computational Linguistics. 299–304. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Church, K. W.; Hanks, P. (1989). “Word association norms, mutual information, and lexicography”. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Vancouver: Association for Computational Linguistics. 76–83. Church, K. W.; Hanks, P. (1990). “Word association norms, mutual information, and lexicography”. Computational Linguistics 16 (1). 22–29. Ciaramita, M. (2002). “Boosting automatic lexical acquisition with morphological information”. In Proceedings of the ACL-02 Workshop on Unsupervised Lexical Acquisition. Vol. 9. Stroudsburg: Association for Computational Linguistics. 17–25. Clark, A. (2001). Unsupervised Language Acquisition: Theory and Practice. PhD dissertation. Sussex: University of Sussex. Clear, J. (1994). “I can’t see the sense in a large corpus”. In Kiefer, F.; Kiss, G.; Pajzs, J. (eds.). Papers in Computational Lexicography: Complex ’94. Budapest: Linguistics Institute. 33–48. Colominas, C. (2001). La representació semàntica de les construccions de suport des d’una perspectiva multilingual. PhD dissertation. Bellaterra: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Colominas, C. (2002). “La representació semàntica de les construccions de suport en català”. Romanistik in Geschichte und Gegenwart 9. 207–217. Conklin, K.; Schmitt, N. (2012). “The processing of formulaic language”. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 32. 45–61. Corpas Pastor, G. (1996). Manual de fraseología española. Madrid: Gredos. Corpas Pastor, G. (2001). “Corrientes actuales de la investigación fraseológica en Europa”. Euskera 46 (1). 21–49. Corpas Pastor, G. (ed.) (2003). Diez años de investigación en fraseología: análisis sintáctico-semánticos, contrastivos y traductológicos. Madrid / Frankfurt am Main: Iberoamericana / Vervuert. Corpas Pastor, G. (2013). “Detección, descripción y contraste de las unidades fraseológicas mediante tecnologías lingüísticas”. In Olza, I.; Manero, E. (eds.). Fraseopragmática. Berlin: Frank & Timme. 335–373. Corpas Pastor, G. (2015). “Register-specic collocational constructions in English and Spanish: A usage-based approach”. Journal of Social Sciences 11 (3). 139–151.

350 Bibliography Corpas Pastor, G. (2016). “Collocations dictionaries for English and Spanish: The state of the art”. In Orlandi, A.; Giacomini, L. (eds.). Dening Collocations for Lexicographic Purposes: From Linguistic Theory to Lexicographic Practice. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Corpas Pastor, G. (ed.) (2016). Computerised and Corpus-Based Approaches to Phraseology: Monolingual and Multilingual Perspectives (Full Papers) – Fraseología computacional y basada en corpus: perspectivas monolingües y multilingües (Trabajos completos). Geneva: Tradulex. Available at . Cortes, V. (2002). “Lexical bundles in Freshman composition”. In Reppen, R.; Fitzmaurice, S. M.; Biber, D. (eds.). Using Corpora to Explore Linguistic Variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 131–145. Cortes, V. (2004). “Lexical bundles in published and student disciplinary writing: Examples from history and biology”. English for Specic Purposes 23. 397–423. Cortes, V. (2006). “Teaching lexical bundles in the disciplines: An example from a writing intensive history class”. Linguistics and Education 17. 391–406. Cortes, V. (2008). “A comparative analysis of lexical bundles in academic history writing in English and Spanish”. Corpora 3. 43–58. Coseriu, E. (1981). Lecciones de lingüística general. Madrid: Gredos. Cowie, A. P. (1981). “The treatment of collocations and idioms in learners’ dictionaries”. Applied Linguistics 2 (3). 223–235. Cowie, A. P. (1992). “Multiworld lexical units and communicative language teaching”. In Arnaud, P. J. L.; Béjoint, H. (eds.). Vocabulary and Applied Linguistics. London: Macmillan. 1–12. Cowie, A. P. (ed.) (1998). Phraseology: Theory, Analysis, and Applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Coxhead, A.; Byrd, P. (2007). “Preparing writing teachers to teach the vocabulary and grammar of academic prose”. Journal of Second Language Writing 16. 129–147. Craik, F.; Lockhart, R. S. (1972). “Levels of processing: A framework for memory research”. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 11. 671–684. Crowther, J.; Dignen, S.; Lea, D. (eds.) (2002). Oxford Collocations Dictionary for Students of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Daille, B.; Gaussier, E.; Langé, J. M. (1998). “An evaluation of statistical scores for word association”. In Ginzburg, J.; Khasidashvili, Z.; Vogel, C.; Lévy, J. J. (eds.). Proceedings of the Tbilisi Symposium on Logic, Language and Computation. Standford: CSLI Publications. 177–188. Dale, E. (1973). The Words We Know: A National Inventory. San Palo: Field Educational Publications. Daneš, F. (1966). “The relation of centre and periphery as a language universal”. Travaux Linguistiques de Prague 2. 9–21. Davidson, D. (1967). “The logical form of action sentences”. In Rescher, N. (ed.). The Logic of Decision and Action. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. 81–95. DeCesaris, J.; Williams, G. (2014). “Harvesting from one’s own eld: A study in collocational resonance”. In Abel, A.; Vettori, Ch.; Ralli, N. (eds.). Proceedings of the 16th EURALEX International Congress: The User in Focus, 15–19 July 2014. Bolzano: EURAC research, Euralex. 855–866. De Cock, S. (1998). “A recurrent word combination approach to the study of formulae in the speech of native and non-native speakers of English”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 3 (1). 59–80.

Bibliography

351

De Miguel, E. (2004). “La formación de pasivas en español. Análisis en términos de la estructura de qualia y la estructura eventiva”. Verba Hispanica 12. 107–129. De Miguel, E. (2006). “Tensión y equilibrio semántico entre nombres y verbos: el reparto de la tarea de predicar”. In Villayandre, M. (ed.). Actas del XXXV Simposio de la Sociedad Española de Lingüística. León: Ediciones del Departamento de Filología Hispánica y Clásica, Universidad de León. 1289–1313. De Miguel, E. (2008). “Construcciones con verbos de apoyo en español. De cómo entran los nombres en la órbita de los verbos”. In Olza Moreno, I.; Casado Velarde, M.; González Ruiz, R. (eds.). Actas del XXXIX Simposio Internacional de la Sociedad Española de Lingüística. Pamplona: Universidad de Navarra. 567–578. De Miguel, E. (2009a). “Introducción”. In De Miguel, E. (ed.). Panorama de la lexicología. Barcelona: Ariel. 13–20. De Miguel, E. (2009b). “La Teoría del Lexicón Generativo”. In De Miguel, E. (ed.). Panorama de la lexicología. Barcelona: Ariel. 337–368. De Miguel, E. (2011). “En qué consiste ser verbo de apoyo”. In Escandell-Vidal, M. V.; Leonetti, M.; Sánchez, C. (eds.). 60 problemas de gramática (dedicados a Ignacio Bosque). Madrid: Akal. 139–146. De Miguel, E. (2012). “Properties an internal structure of the lexicon: Applying the generative lexicon model to Spanish”. In Sanz, M.; Igoa, J. M. (eds.). Advances in the Sciences of Language and Their Application to Second Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 165–200. De Miguel, E. (2013). “Los nombres psicológicos: propuesta de análisis en términos subléxicos”. In Marín, R. (ed.). Los predicados psicológicos. Madrid: Visor. 211–248. De Miguel, E. (2014). “La lexicología en España. Tendencias y proyectos en curso”. Cahiers de Lexicologie 104. 17–44. De Miguel, E. (2015a). “Minimal denitions and lexical agreement: Project of a dynamic dictionary”. In Villalba, A.; Silvestre, J. P. (eds.). Planning Non-Existent Dictionaries, Monographic Issue of Dicionarística Portuguesa. Aveiro: Universidade de Aveiro. 69–102. De Miguel, E. (2015b). “Lexicología”. In Gutiérrez-Rexach, J. (dir.). Enciclopedia de Lingüística Hispánica. London / New York: Routledge. 173–185. De Miguel García, M. L. (2004). Panorama histórico de la didáctica del léxico en L2 y LE. Tratamiento actual en el aula. Master’s thesis. València: Universitat de València. De Miguel García, M. L. (2005). “La enseñanza del léxico del español como lengua extranjera. Resultados de una encuesta sobre la metodología aplicada en el aula” [online]. MarcoELE 1. Available at < http://marcoele.com/lexico-del-ele/>. Demonte, V. (2000). “El adjetivo: clases y usos. La posición del adjetivo en el sintagma nominal”. In Bosque, I.; Demonte, V. (dirs.). Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española. Vol. 2. Madrid: Espasa. 129–215. De Rycker, T. (2004). “Lists, boxes or maps? Recording and retrieving collocations in an ELT/ESP context?”. Belgian Journal of English Language and Literature 2. 315–328. De Swart, H. (1998). “Aspect shift and coercion”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16 (2). 347–385. De Swart, H. (2011). “Mismatches and coercion”. In Maienborn, C.; von Heusinger, K.; Portner, P. (eds.). Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning. Berlin: De Gruyter. 574–597. Diesel, H. (2013). “Construction Grammar and rst language acquisition”. In Hoffmann, T.; Trousdale, G. (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 347–364.

352 Bibliography Dölling, J. (1999). “Kopulasätze als Zustandsbeschreibungen”. ZAS Papers in Linguistics 14. 95–122. Dölling, J. (2000). “Formale Ana1yse von Metonymie und Metapher”. In Eckardt, R.; von Heusinger, K. (eds.). Meaning Change – Meaning Variation. Konstanz: Universität Konstanz. 31–53. Durrant, P.; Doherty, A. (2010). “Are high-frequency collocations psychologically real? Investigating the thesis of collocational priming”. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 6 (2). 125–155. Durrant, P.; Mathews-Aydinli, J. (2011). “A function-rst approach to identifying formulaic language in academic writing”. English for Specic Purposes 30 (1). 58–72. Eberenz, R. (1984). “Les locucions verbals en la prosa de Ramon Llull”. Estudis de Llengua i Literatura Catalanes 9. 9–41. Eckardt, R. (1998). Adverbs, Events and Other Things: Issues in the Semantics of Manner Adverbs. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Egg, M. (2005). Flexible Semantics for Reinterpretation Phenomena. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Ellis, N. C. (1996). “Sequencing in SLA: Phonological memory, chunking, and points of order”. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18. 91–126. Ellis, N. C. (2008). “Phraseology: The periphery and the heart of language”. In Meunier, F.; Grainger, S. (eds.). Phraseology in Language Learning and Teaching. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 1–13. Ellis, N. C. (2013). “Construction Grammar and second language acquisition”. In Hoffmann, T.; Trousdale, G. (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 365–378. Ellis, N. C.; Frey, E. (2009). “The psycholinguistic reality of collocation and semantic prosody”. In Corrigan, R.; Moravcsik, E.; Ouali, H.; Wheatley, K. (eds.). Formulaic Language. Vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 473–498. Ellis, N. C.; Simpson-Vlach, R.; Maynard, C. (2008). “Formulaic language in native and second-language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL”. TESOL Quarterly 41 (3). 375–396. Elyot, T. (1548). The Dictionary of syr Thomas Eliot knyght (1538). London: In aedibus Thomae Bertheleti typis impress. Ernst, T. (2002). The Syntax of Adjuncts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Espinal, M. T. (2000). “Sobre les expressions lexicalitzades”. Els Marges 67. 7–31. Espinal, M. T. (2001). “Property denoting objects in idiomatic constructions”. In D’hulst, Y.; Rooryck, J.; Schroten, J. (eds.). Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 1999: Selected Papers from ‘Going Romance’ 1999: Leiden, 9–11 December. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 117–141. Espinal, M. T. (2002). “Idiomatic constructions vs. light verb constructions”. In Leonetti, M.; Fernández-Soriano, O.; Escandell-Vidal, M. V. (eds.). Current Issues in Generative Grammar: Papers from the 10th Colloquium on Generative Grammar:Universidad de Alcalá, 12–14 April 2000. Alcalá de Henares: Universidad de Alcalá. 69–81. Espinal, M. T. (2004). “Lexicalization of light verb structures and the semantics of nouns”. Catalan Journal of Linguistics 3. 15–43. Estopà, R. (1999). Extracció de terminologia: elements per a la construcció d’un SEACUSE (Sistema d’Extracció Automàtica de Candidats a Unitats de Signicació Especialitzada). PhD dissertation. Barcelona: Institut Universitari de Lingüística Aplicada – Universitat Pompeu Fabra.

Bibliography

353

Ettinger, S. (2008). “Alcances e limites da fraseodidatica. Dez preguntas clave sobre o estado actual da investigación”. Cadernos de Fraseoloxía Galega 10. 95–127. Evens, M. W. (ed.) (1988). Relational Models of the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Evert, S. (2005). The Statistics of Word Cooccurrrences: Word Pairs and Collocations. PhD dissertation. Stuttgart: Universität Stuttgart. Evert, S. (2007). Corpora and Collocations. Osnabrück: University of Osnabrück. Available at . Evert, S.; Krenn, B. (2005). “Exploratory collocation extraction”. In Cosme, C.; Gouverneur, C.; Meunier, F.; Paquot, M. (eds.). Phraseology 2005: The Many Faces of Phraseology. Leuven: Université Catholique de Louvain. 113–115. Eyckmans, J.; Boers, F.; Stengers, H. (2007). “Identifying chunks: Who can see the wood for the trees?”. Language Forum 33 (2). 85–99. Fernández Gómez, C. (1962). Vocabulario de Cervantes. Madrid: Real Academia Española. Fernández López, M. C. (2012). “Materiales E/LE. Selección de manuales y materiales didácticos”. Cuadernos Cervantes 27. Available at . Ferrando, V. (2010). Materiales didácticos para la enseñanza-aprendizaje de las colocaciones. Master’s thesis. Tarragona: Universitat Rovira i Virgili. Available at Biblioteca Virtual RedELE 11. Ferrando, V. (2012). Aspectos teóricos y metodológicos para la compilación de un diccionario combinatorio destinado a estudiantes de E/LE. PhD dissertation. Tarragona: Universitat Rovira i Virgili. Ferrando, V. (2013). “El tratamiento de las colocaciones en la lexicografía española y alemana: estudio contrastivo”. Revista Internacional de Lenguas Extranjeras 2. 31–53. Ferrero, J. (2013). El hijo de Brian Jones. Madrid: Alianza. Ferro Ruibal, X. (1998). “Diccionario de Fraseoloxía Galega. Estado actual dos fondos e dos traballos”. In Ferro Ruibal, X. (coord.). Actas do I coloquio galego de fraseoloxía. Santiago de Compostela: Centro Ramón Piñeiro / Xunta de Galicia. 289–312. Fillmore, C. J. (1968). “The case for case”. In Bach, E.; Harms, R. T. (eds.). Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. 1–88. Fillmore, C. J. (1975). “An alternative to checklist theories of meaning”. In Cogen, C.; Thompson, H.; Thurgood, G.; Whistler, K.; Wright, J. (eds.). Proceedings of the First Annual Meetings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society. 123–131. Fillmore, C. J. (1977). “Scenes-and-frames semantics”. In Zampolli, A. (ed.). Linguistic Structures Processing. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing. 55–88. Firth, J. R. (1957). Papers in Linguistics 1934–1951. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Firth, J. R. (1968). “Linguistic analysis as a study of meaning”. In Palmer, F. R. (ed.). Selected Papers of J. R. Firth 1952–59. London / Harlow: Longmans. 12–26. Fontenelle, T. (1992). “Collocation acquisition from a corpus or from a dictionary: A comparison”. In Tommola, H.; Varantola, K.; Salmi-Tolonen, T.; Schopp, J. (eds.). Proceedings I–II: Papers Submitted to the 5th EURALEX International Congress on Lexicography. Tampere: University of Tampere. 221–228. Forment Fernández, M. del M. (2001). “Hacer novillos, hacer campana o hacer vaca: ¿Qué fraseología enseñar?”. In Martín Zorraquino, M. A.; Díez Pelegrín, C. (eds.). ¿Qué español enseñar? Norma y variación lingüísticas en la enseñanza del español a extranjeros. Zaragoza: Universidad de Zaragoza. 317–325.

354 Bibliography Foster, P. (2001). “Rules and routines: A consideration of their role in the task-based language production of native and non-native speakers”. In Bygate, M.; Skehan, P.; Swain, M. (eds.). Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching, and Testing. Harlow: Longman. 75–93. Freixeiro Mato, X. R. (1999). Gramática da Lingua Galega. III. Semántica. Vigo: A Nosa Terra. Freixeiro Mato, X. R. (2006). Gramática da lingua galega. Vigo: A Nosa Terra. Fuster Ortuño, M. À. (2009). “La traducció de clàssics medievals: locucions verbals i col·locacions en el Curial e Güelfa”. In Faluba, K.; Szijj, I. (eds.). Actes del Catorzè Col·loqui Internacional de Llengua i Literatura Catalanes. Universitat Eötvös Loránd de Budapest, 4–9 de setembre de 2006. Vol. 2. Barcelona: Publicacions de l’Abadia de Montserrat. 167–176. Gaatone, D. (2004). “Ces insupportables verbes supports. Le cas des verbes événementiels”. Linguisticae Investigationes 27 (2). 239–251. Gaizauskas, R.; Wilks, Y. (1998). “Information extraction: Beyond document retrieval”. Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing 3 (2). 17–60. Galisson, R. (1978). Recherches de lexicologie descriptive: La banalisation lexicale. Paris: Nathan. Gao, Z. M. (2014). “Automatic extraction of English collocations and their Chinese-English bilingual examples: A computational tool for bilingual lexicography”. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics 40 (1). 95–12. García-Page, M. (2001). “Adverbios restringidos y adverbios colocacionales”. Revista de Lexicografía 8. 103–147. García-Page, M. (2004). “Estructuras del adverbio colocacional: índices de colocabilidad”. In Solís Fonseca, G. (ed.). Cuestiones de lingüística general hispánica y aplicada. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. 227–240. Garriga Escribano, C. (2001). “Los ejemplos en los diccionarios didácticos del español”. In Ayala Castro, M. C. (coord.). Diccionarios y enseñanza. Alcalá de Henares: Universidad de Alcalá. 127–149. Geeraerts, D. (2002). “The theoretical and descriptive development of lexical semantics”. In Behrens, L.; Zaefferer, D. (eds.). The Lexicon in Focus: Competition and Convergence in Current Lexicology. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 23–42. Gelbukh, A.; Kolesnikova, O. (2013a). “Multiword expressions in NLP: General survey and a special case of verb-noun constructions”. In Bandyopadhyay, S.; Naskar, S. K.; Ekbal, A. (eds.). Emerging Applications of Natural Language Processing: Concepts and New Research. Hershey: IGI Global. 1–21. Gelbukh, A.; Kolesnikova, O. (2013b). Semantic Analysis of Verbal Collocations with Lexical Functions. Berlin: Springer. Geuder, W. (2002). Oriented Adverbs: Issues in the Lexical Semantics of Event Adverbs . PhD dissertation. Tübingen: Universität Tübingen. Geuder, W. (2003). “Agentive adjectives and adverbs”. In Beyssade, C.; Bonami, O.; Cabredo Hofherr, P.; Corblin, F. (eds.). Empirical Issues in Formal Syntax and Semantics 4. Papers from the Colloque de Syntaxe et Semantique a Paris (CSSP). Paris: Presses de l’Université Paris-Sorbonne. 173–188. Geurts, B.; Huitink, J. (2006). “Modal concord”. In Dekker, P.; Zeijlstra, H. (eds.). Concord Phenomena and the Syntax-Semantics Interface: Proceedings of the ESSLLI 2006 Workshop. Málaga: Universidad de Málaga. 15–20. Gilquin, G.; Granger, S.; Paquot, M. (2007). “Learner corpora: The missing link in EAP pedagogy”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 6 (4). 319–335.

Bibliography

355

Ginebra, J. (2003). “Fraseologia, concurrències lèxiques i llengua estàndard”. In Pradilla, M. À. (ed.). Identitat lingüística i estandardització. Valls: Cossetània. 7–55. Ginebra, J. (2004). “Contribució de la lexicologia a la gramática”. In Lloret, M. R.; Pons, C. (eds.). Lingüística i gramàtiques. Barcelona: PPU. 59–108. Ginebra, J. (2008). “Els verbs de suport en català i en anglès. Estudi contrastiu a partir d’un petit corpus paral·lel”. Els Marges 85. 53–72. Ginebra, J.; Montserrat, S.; Sánchez, E.; Sentís, A. (forthcoming). “La fraseologia”. In Martines, J.; Pérez Saldanya, M. (eds.). Gramàtica del català antic. Berlin / Barcelona: de Gruyter / Columna. Ginebra, J.; Navarro, P. (2015). “Concurrències lèxiques en català i en espanyol: uns quants contrastos”. In Martín Escribà, À.; Piquer Vidal, A.; Sánchez Miret, F. (eds.). Actes del XVI Col·loqui Internacional de Llengua i Literatura Catalanes, Universidad de Salamanca, 1–6 de juliol de 2012. Vol. 2. Barcelona: Publicacions de l’Abadia de Montserrat. 217–228. Gledhill, C. J. (1995). Scientic Innovation and the Phraseology of Rhetoric: Posture, Reformulation and Collocation in Cancer Research Articles. PhD dissertation. Birmingham: Aston University. Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gómez Molina, J. R. (2000). “Las unidades fraseológicas del español: Una propuesta metodológica para la enseñanza de las locuciones en la clase de ELE”. Quaderns de Filologia. Estudis Lingüístics 5. 111–134. Gómez Molina, J. R. (2003). “Las unidades léxicas: tipología y tratamiento en el aula de ELE”. Mosaico 11. 4–8. Gómez Molina, J. R. (2004a). “Las unidades léxicas en español”. Carabela 56. 27–50. Gómez Molina, J. R. (2004b). “Los contenidos léxico-semánticos”. In Sánchez Lobato, J.; Santos Gargallo, I. (dirs.). Vademécum para la formación de profesores. Enseñar español como segunda lengua (L2) / lengua extranjera (LE) . Madrid: SGEL. 491–510. Gómez Molina, J. R. (2004c). “La subcompetencia léxico-semántica”. In Sánchez Lobato, J.; Santos Gargallo, I. (dirs.). Vademécum para la formación de profesores. Enseñar español como segunda lengua (L2) / lengua extranjera (LE). Madrid: SGEL. 789–810. González Domínguez, J. (2014). Análisis léxico y construccional de los verbos de contacto en español. PhD dissertation. Vigo: Universidade de Vigo. González García, L. (1995). “Prólogo”. In López Taboada, C.; Soto Arias, M. R. (eds.). Así falan os galegos. Fraseoloxía da lingua galega. A Coruña: Galinova. 7–17. Gouws, R. H. (2010). “Idioms and collocations in bilingual dictionaries and their Afrikaans translation equivalents”. Lexicographica 12. 54–88. Granger, S.; Lefer, M. A. (2013). “Enriching the phraseological coverage of highfrequency adverbs in English-French bilingual dictionaries”. In Altenberg, B.; Aijmer, K. (eds.). Advances in Corpus-Based Contrastive Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 157–176. Granger, S.; Paquot, M. (2008). “Disentangling the phraseological web”. In Granger, S.; Meunier, F. (eds.). Phraseology: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 27–49. Granger, S.; Paquot, M. (eds.) (2012). Electronic Lexicography. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Greenbaum, S. (1970). Verb-Intensier Collocations in English: An Experimental Approach. London: Longman.

356 Bibliography Greenbaum, S. (1974). “Some verb-intensier collocations in American and British English”. American Speech 49 (1–2). 79–89. Greenbaum, S. (1988). Good English and the Grammarian. London: Longman. Grefenstette, G. (1994). Explorations in Automatic Thesaurus Discovery. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Grimshaw, J.; Mester, A. (1988). “Light verbs and theta-marking”. Linguistic Inquiry 19 (2). 205–232. Grishman, R. (2012). “Information extraction: Capabilities and challenges”. Notes prepared for the 2012 International Winter School in Language and Speech Technologies. Tarragona: Universitat Rovira i Virgili. Gross, M. (1981). “Les bases empiriques de la notion de prédicat sémantique”. Langages 15 (63). 7–52. Grosz, P. (2010). “Grading modality: A new approach to modal concord and its relatives”. In Prinzhorn, M.; Schmitt, V.; Zobel, S. (eds.). Proceedings of Sinn and Bedeutung 14. Vienna: Universität Wien. 185–201. Guia, J. (2008). Principis teòrics i metodològics per a l’estudi de les unitats fràsiques en textos versicats. Anàlisi fraseològica de l’Espill. PhD dissertation. València: Universitat de València. Gurrutxaga, A.; Alegria, I. (2013). “Combining different features of idiomaticity for the automatic classication of noun+verb expressions in Basque”. In Kordoni, V.; Ramisch, C.; Villavicencio, A. (eds.). Proceedings of the 9th Workshop on Multiword Expressions – NAACL HLT 2013. Atlanta: The Association for Computational Linguistics. 116–125. Gutiérrrez-Rexach, J. (1996). “Notes on the thematic properties of manner and subjectoriented adverbs”. International Journal of Basque Linguistics and Philology 30 (2). 605–619. Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold Halliday, M. A. K. (1966). “Lexis as a linguistic level”. In Bazell, C. E.; Catford, J. C.; Halliday, M. A. K.; Robins, R. H. (eds.). In Memory of John Firth. London: Longman. 148–162. Hanks, P. (1994). “Linguistic norms and pragmatic exploitations, or why lexicographers need prototype theory and vice versa”. In Kiefer, F.; Kiss, G.; Pajzs, J. (eds.). Papers in Computational Lexicography: Complex ’94. Budapest: Hungarian Academy of Sciences. 89–113. Hanks, P. (2000). “Do word meanings exist?”. Computers and the Humanities 34 (1–2). 205–215. Hanks, P. (2004a). “The syntagmatics of metaphor and idiom”. International Journal of Lexicography 17 (3). 245–274. Hanks, P. (2004b). “Corpus pattern analysis”. In Williams, G.; Vessier, S. (eds.). Proceedings of the 11th EURALEX International Congress. Lorient: Université de Bretagne-Sud. 87–97. Hanks, P. (2005). “Resonance and the phraseology of metaphors”. Unpublished paper presented at the conference Phraseology 2005: The Many Faces of Phraseology Conference. Louvain-la-Neuve. 181–184. Hanks, P. (2008). “What is lexicology?”. In Hanks, P. (ed.). Lexicology: Critical Concepts in Linguistics. Vol. 1. London: Routledge. 1–25. Hanks, P. (2012). “How people use words to make meanings: Semantic types meet valencies”. In Boulton, A.; Thomas, J. (eds.). Input, Process and Product: Developments in Teaching and Language Corpora. Brno: Masaryk University Press. 52–67.

Bibliography

357

Hanks, P. (2013). Lexical Analysis: Norms and Exploitations. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Harris, Z. (1951). Structural Linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Harris, Z. (1954). “Distributional structure”. Word 10 (23). 146–162. Hausmann, F. J. (1979). “Un dictionnaire des collocations est-il possible?”. Travaux de Linguistique et de Literature 17 (1). 187–195. Hausmann, F. J. (1985). “Kollokationen in deutschen Wörterbuch: Ein Beitrag zur Theorie des lexikographischen Beispiels”. In Bergenholtz, H.; Mugdam, J. (eds.). Lexikographie und Grammatik: Akten des Essener Kolloquiums zur Grammatik in Wörterbuch, 28–30 June 1984. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. 118–129. Hausmann, F. J. (1989). “Le dictionnaire de collocations”. In Hausmann, F. J.; Reichmann, O.; Wiegand, H. E.; Zgusta, L. (eds.). Wörterbücher – Dictionaries – Dictionnaires. Vol. 1. Berlin / New York: de Gruyter. 1000–1019. Hausmann, F. J. (1991). “Collocations in monolingual and bilingual English dictionaries”. In Ivir, V.; Kalogjera, D. (eds.). Languages in Contact and Contrast: Essays in Contact Linguistics. Berlin / New York: de Gruyter. 225–236. Hausmann, F. J. (1998). “O diccionario de colocacións. Criterios de organización”. In Ferro Ruibal, X. (coord.). Actas do I Coloquio Galego de Fraseoloxía. Santiago de Compostela: Centro Ramón Piñeiro / Xunta de Galicia. 63–81. Hausmann, F. J. (2007). “Die Kollokationen im Rahmen der Phraseologie – Systematische und historische Darstellung”. Zeitschrift Für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 55. 217–234. Heid, U. (1992). “Décrire les collocations: deux approches lexicographiques et leur application dans un outil informatisé”. Terminologie et Traduction 2 (3). 523–548. Heid, U. (1994). “On ways words work together – Topics in lexical combinatorics”. In Martin, W.; Meijs, W.; Moerland, M.; ten Pas, E.; van Sterkenburg, P.; Vossen, P. (eds.). Proceedings of the 6th EURALEX International Congress. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit. 226–257. Heid, U. (1997). “Proposte per la costruzione semi-automatica di un dizionario elettronico delle collocazioni.” In De Mauro, T.; Lo Cascio, V. (eds.). Lessico e grammatica. Teorie linguistiche e applicazioni lessicograche. Roma: Bulzoni. 47–62. Heid, U. (1998). “Towards a corpus-based dictionary of German noun-verb collocations”. In Proceedings of the 98’ Euralex International Congress. Liège: Université de Liège. 301–312. Heid, U. (2007). “Computational linguistic aspects of phraseology II”. In Burger, H.; Dobrovol’skij, D.; Kühn, P.; Norrick, N. R. (eds.). Phraseologie – Phraseology. Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung. An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Vol. 2. Berlin / New York: De Gruyter. 1036–1044. Heid, U. (2008). “Computational phraseology: An Overview”. In Granger, S.; Meunier, F. (eds.). Phraseology: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 337–360. Heid, U.; Freibott, G. (1991). “Collocations dans une base de données terminologiques et lexicale”. Meta 36 (1). 77–91. Herbst, T. (1996). “What are collocations: Sandy beaches or false teeth?”. English Studies 77 (4). 379–393. Higginbotham, J. (1985). “On semantics”. Linguistic Inquiry 6. 547–593. Higueras García, M. (1997a). “La importancia del componente idiomático en la enseñanza del léxico a extranjeros”. Frecuencia L: Revista de Didáctica Español como Segunda Lengua 6. 15–19. Higueras García, M. (1997b). “Las unidades léxicas y la enseñanza del léxico a extranjeros”. Revista de Estudios de Adquisición de la Lengua Española (REALE) 8. 35–49. Higueras García, M. (2004a). La enseñanza-aprendizaje de las colocaciones en el desarrollo de la competencia léxica en el español como lengua extranjera. PhD dissertation. Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid.

358 Bibliography Higueras García, M. (2004b). “Claves prácticas para la enseñanza del léxico”. Carabela 56. 5–25. Higueras García, M. (2006). Las colocaciones y su enseñanza en la clase de ELE. Madrid: Arco/Libros. Higueras García, M. (2007). Estudio de las colocaciones léxicas y su enseñanza en español como lengua extranjera. Madrid: Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia. Higueras García, M. (2011). “Lexical collocations and the learning of Spanish as a foreign language: State of the art and future projects”. In Cifuentes Honrubia, J. L.; Rodríguez Rosique, S. (eds.). Spanish Word Formation and Lexical Creation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 439–463. Hjelmslev, L. (1943). Prolegomena to a Theory of Language. Baltimore: Indiana University. Hoey, M. (2005). Lexical Priming: A New Theory of Words and Language. London: Routledge. Hoand, S. V. (2011). Adverbs in Conceptual Semantics. Master’s thesis. Oxford: University of Oxford. Horst, M.; Cobb, T.; Nicolae, I. (2005). “Expanding academic vocabulary with an interactive on-line database”. Language Learning and Technology 9. 90–110. Howarth, P. (1998a). “Phraseology and second language prociency”. Applied Linguistics 19. 24–44. Howarth, P. (1998b). “The phraseology of learners’ academic writing”. In Cowie, A. (ed.). Phraseology: Theory, Analysis, and Applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 161–186. Huitink, J. (2012). “Modal concord: A case study of Dutch”. Journal of Semantics 29 (3). 403–437. Hulstijn, J.; Laufer, B. (2001). “Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition”. Language Learning 51 (3). 539–558. Hunston, S.; Francis, G. (2000). Pattern Grammar: A Corpus-Driven Approach to the Lexical Grammar of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hyland, K. (2008a). “Academic clusters: Text patterning in published and postgraduate writing”. International Journal of Applied Linguistic 18 (1). 41–62. Hyland, K. (2008b). “As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation”. English for Specic Purposes 27 (1). 4–21. Ichikawa, S. (ed.) (1995). The Kenkyusha Dictionary of English Collocations. Tokyo: Kenkyusha. Ilgenfritz, P.; Stephan-Gabriel, N.; Schneider, G. (1989). Langenscheidts Kontextwörterbuch Franzosisch-Deutsch. Berlin / Munich: Langenscheidt. Indurkhya, N.; Damerau, F. J. (eds.) (2010). Handbook of Natural Language Processing. 2nd edition. Boca Raton: CRC Press. Instituto Cervantes. (2006). Plan curricular del Instituto Cervantes. Niveles de referencia para el español. Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva. Írsula Peña, J. (1994). Substantive-Verb-Kollokationen. Kontrastive Untersuchungen Deutsch-Spanisch. Frankfurt am Main / New York: Peter Lang. Izquierdo Gil, M. C. (2004). La selección del léxico en la enseñanza del español como lengua extranjera. Su aplicación en el nivel elemental en estudiantes francófonos . PhD dissertation. València: Universitat de València. Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press. Jackendoff, R. (1991). “Parts and boundaries”. Cognition 41 (1–3). 9–45.

Bibliography

359

Jackendoff, R. (1996). “The proper treatment of measuring out, telicity, and perhaps even quantication in English”. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 14 (2). 305–354. Jakubí ek, M.; Kilgarriff, A.; Ková , V.; Rychlý, P.; Suchomel, V. (2013). “The TenTen corpus family”. Paper presented at the 7th International Corpus Linguistics Conference, Lancaster, July 2013. Available at (Last accessed: 23rd March 2015). Ježek, E.; Hanks, P. (2010). “What lexical sets tell us about conceptual categories”. Lexis: E-Journal in English Lexicology 4. 7–22. Jones, M.; Haywood, S. (2004). “Facilitating the acquisition of formulaic sequences: An exploratory study in an EAP context”. In Schmitt, N. (ed.). Formulaic Sequences. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 269–292. Jones, S.; Sinclair, J. (1974). “English lexical collocations: A study in computational linguistics”. Cahiers de Lexicology 24. 15–61. Katsumata, S. (ed.) (1958). Kenkyusha’s New Dictionary of Collocations. Tokyo: Kenkyusha. Katz, G. (2003). “Event arguments, adverb selection, and the stative adverb gap”. In Lang, E.; Maienborn, C.; Fabricius-Hansen, C. (eds.). Modifying Adjuncts. Berlin / New York: de Gruyter. 455–474. Katz, J. J. (1972). Semantic Theory . New York: Harper and Row. Kiel, C. (1979). Semantic and Conceptual Development: An Ontological Perspective. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Kilgarriff, A.; Baisa, V.; Bušta, J.; Jakubí ek, M.; Ková , V.; Michelfeit, J.; Rychlý, P.; Suchomel, V. (2014). “The sketch engine: Ten years on”. Lexicography 1 (1). 7–37. Kilgarriff, A.; Renau, I. (2013). “esTenTen, a vast web corpus of Peninsular and American Spanish”. Procedia 95. 12–19. Kilgarriff, A.; Rychlý, P.; Smrz, P.; Tugwell, D. (2004). “The Sketch Engine”. In Williams, G.; Vessier, S. (eds.). Proceedings of the 11th EURALEX International Congress. Lorient: Université de Bretagne-Sud. 105–116. Kleiber, G. (1990). La sémantique du prototype: catégories et sens lexical. Paris: Presses Universitaire de France. Klosa, A.; Kupietz, M.; Lüngen, H. (2012). “Zum Nutzen von Korpusauszeichnungen für die Lexikographie”. Lexicographica 28 (1). 71–98. Koehn, P. (2005). “Europarl: A parallel corpus for statistical machine translation”. In Proceedings of the 10th Machine Translation Summit, Phuket, 12–16 September. 79–86. Kohonen, T. (1982). “Self-organized formation of topologically correct feature maps”. Biological Cybernetics 43 (1). 59–69. Koike, K. (2001). Colocaciones léxicas en el español actual: estudio formal y léxicosemántico. Alcalá de Henares: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Alcalá / Takushoku University. Koike, K. (2002). “Comportamientos semánticos en las colocaciones léxicas”. Lingüística Española Actual 24 (1). 5–23. Korhonen, J. (2007). “Probleme der kontrastiven Phraseologie”. In Burger, H.; Dobrovol’skij, D.; Kühn, P.; Norrick, N. R. (eds.). Phraseologie. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössicher Forschung 1. Berlin / New York: de Gruyter. 574–589. Kuiper, K. (2007). “Syntactic aspects of phraseology II: Generative approaches”. In Burger, H.; Dobrovol’skij, D.; Kühn, P.; Norrick, N. R. (eds.). Phraseologie. Phraseology. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung 1. Berlin / New York: de Gruyter. 53–63.

360 Bibliography Labov, W. (1973). “The boundaries of words and their meanings”. In Hanks, P. (ed.). Lexicology: Critical Concepts. Vol. 1. London: Routledge. 377–407. Lakoff, G.; Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we Live By. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, G.; Turner, M. (1989). More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Landauer, T. K.; Dumais, S. T. (1997). “A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge”. Psychological Review 104 (2). 211–240. Larreta Zulategui, J. P. (2004). “Colocacións verbais: estabilidade fraseolóxica vs combinatoria sintáctico-semántica”. Cadernos de Fraseoloxía Galega 6. 141–147. Lassaleta, M. (1974). Aportación al estudio del lenguaje coloquial galdosiano. Madrid: Ínsula. Laufer, B. (2005). “Focus on form in second language vocabulary learning”. In FosterCohen, S. (ed.). EUROSLA Yearbook 5. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 223–250. Laufer, B. (2009). “Second language vocabulary acquisition from language input and from form-focused activities”. Language Teaching 42 (3). 341–354. Laufer, B. (2011). “The contibution of dictionary use to the production and retention of collocations in a L2”. International Journal of Lexicography 24 (1). 29–49. Leferman, B. (2011). “Agent-oriented adverbs = individual-level predicates”. Paper presented at GLOW 34. Vienna: Universität Wien. Lehrer, E.; Feder Kittay, E. (1992). Frames, Fields, and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Le niewska, J. (2006). “Collocations and second language use”. Studia Linguistica 123. 95–105. Levin, B. (1993). English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lewis, M. (1993). The Lexical Approach. Hove: Language Teaching Publications. Lewis, M. (1996). “Pedagogical implications of the lexical approach”. In Coady, J.; Huckin, T. (eds.). Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 255–270. Lewis, M. (1997). Implementing the Lexical Approach. London: Language Teaching Publications. Lewis, M. (2000). Teaching Collocation: Further Develpments in the Lexical Approach. London: Language Teaching Publications. L’Homme, M.-C. (1995). “Processing word combinations in existing term banks”. Terminology 2 (1). 141–162. L’Homme, M.-C. (1997). “Organisation des classes conceptuelles pour l’accès informatisé aux combinaisons lexicales spécialisées verbe + terme”. In Condamines, A. (ed.). Actes des deuxièmes rencontres Terminologie et Intelligence Articielle. Toulouse: Université Toulouse-le-Mirail. 161–174. L’Homme, M.-C. (1998). “Caractérisation des combinaisons lexicales spécialisées par rapport aux collocations de langue générale”. In Fontenelle, T.; Hiligsmann, P.; Michiels, A. (eds.). Euralex ’98 Proceedings: Actes from the 8th Euralex International Congress. Vol. 2. Liège: Université de Liège. 513–522. L’Homme, M.-C. (2000). “Understanding specialized lexical combinations”. Terminology 6 (1). 89–110. L’Homme, M.-C. (2009). “A methodology for describing collocations in a specialised dictionary”. In Nielsen, S.; Tarp, S. (eds.). Lexicography in the 21st Century: In Honour of Henning Bergenholtz. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 237–256.

Bibliography

361

L’Homme, M.-C.; Bertrand, C. (2000). “Specialized lexical combinations: Should they be described as collocations or in terms of selectional restrictions?”. In Heid, U.; Evert, S.; Lehmann, E. (eds.). Proceedings of the Ninth Euralex International Congress. Euralex 2000. Stuttgart: Universität Stuttgart. 4974–4506. Li, J.; Schmitt, N. (2009). “The acquisition of lexical phrases in academic writing: A longitudinal case study”. Journal of Second Language Writing 18. 85–102. Lin, D. (1998). “Automatic retrieval and clustering of similar words”. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING’98), Montréal, 10–14 August. Stroudsburg: Association for Computational Linguistics. 768–774. Lin, D.; Church, K.; Ji, H.; Sekine, S.; Yarowsky, D.; Bergsma, S.; Patil, K.; Pitler, E.; Lathbury, R.; Rao, V.; Dalwani, K.; Narsale, S. (2010). Unsupervised Acquisition of Lexical Knowledge from n-grams: Final Report of the 2009 JHU CLSP Workshop. Baltimore: John Hopkins University. Available at . Lin, Y.; Michel, J. B.; Lieberman, E.; Orwant, J.; Brockman, W.; Petrov, S. (2012). “Syntactic annotations for the Google Books ngram corpus”. In Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Jeju, Republic of Korea. Vol. 2. Stroudsburg: The Association for Computational Linguistics. 169–174. Lindstromberg, S.; Boers, F. (2008). Teaching Chunks of Language: From Noticing to Remembering. Rum: Helbling Languages. Lope Blanch, J. M. (1991). Estudios sobre el español de México. Mexico City: UNAM. Lope Blanch, J. M. (ed.) (1977). Estudios sobre el español hablado en las principales ciudades de América. Mexico City: UNAM. López, X.; Lourenço, C.; Moreda, M. (2010). Gramática práctica da lingua galega. A Coruña: Baía Edicións. López Ferrero, C. (2007). “Academic writing: Exploring Corpus 92”. In Parodi, G. (ed.). Working with Spanish Corpora. London / New York: Continuum. 173–194. López Morales, H. (1999). Léxico disponible de Puerto Rico. Madrid: Arco/Libros. López Vázquez, L. (2011). “La competencia fraseológica en los textos de los manuales de ELE de nivel superior”. In de Santiago Guervós, J.; Bongaerts, H.; Sánchez Iglesias, J. J.; Seseña Gómez, M. (eds.). Del texto a la lengua: la aplicación de los textos a la enseñanza-aprendizaje del español L2-LE. Vol. 1. Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca. 531–542. Lorente, M. (2002). “Altres elements lèxics”. In Solà, J.; Lloret, M. R.; Mascaró, J.; Pérez Saldanya, M. (dirs.). Gramàtica del català contemporani. Vol. 1. Barcelona: Empúries. 831–888. Lorente, M. (2006–2007). “Colocaciones con verbos de soporte en el discurso especializado”. Filología 38–39. 99–137. Lorente, M. (2007). “Les unitats lèxiques verbals dels textos especialitzats. Redenició d’una proposta de classicació”. In Lorente, M.; Estopà, R.; Freixa, J.; Martí, J.; Tebé, C. (eds.). Estudis de lingüística i de lingüística aplicada en honor de M. Teresa Cabré Castellví. Vol. 2: De deixebles. Barcelona: Institut Universitari de Lingüística Aplicada – Universitat Pompeu Fabra. 365–380. Lorente, M. (2009). “Verbos y fraseología en los discursos de especialidad”. In Casas, M.; Márquez, R. (eds.). XI Jornadas de Lingüística: homenaje al profesor José Luis Guijarro Morales: Cádiz, 22 y 23 de abril de 2008. Cádiz: Universidad de Cádiz. 55–84. Lorente, M.; Bevilacqua, C.; Estopà, R. (2002). “El análisis de la fraseología especializada mediante elementos de la lingüística actual”. In Correia, M. (ed.). Terminologia, desenvolvimento e identidade nacional. VI Simpósio Ibero-Americano de Terminologia (Cidade de Havana, Cuba, 16–19 de novembro de 1998). Lisbon: Instituto de Linguística Teórica e Computacional – Colibri. 647–666.

362 Bibliography Louw, B. (1993). “Irony in the text or insincerity in the writer? The diagnostic potential of semantic prosodies”. In Baker, M.; Francis, G.; Tognini-Bonelli, E. (eds.). Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 157–176. Louw, B.; Milojkovic, M. (2016). Corpus Stylistics as Contextual Prosodic Theory and Subtext. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Luque Durán, J. D.; Manjón Pozas, F. J. (1998). “Colocaciones léxicas: cuestión lingüística o estilística”. In Luque Durán, J. D.; Manjón Pozas, F. J. (eds.). Teoría y práctica de la lexicografía. IV Jornadas Internacionales sobre Estudios y Enseñanza del Léxico. Granada: Universidad de Granada. 15–24. Magnusson, C.; Vanharanta, H. (2003). “Visualizing sequences of texts using collocational networks”. In Perner, P.; Rosenfeld, A. (eds.). MLDM’03 Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Machine Learning and Data Mining in Pattern Recognition: Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 2734/2003. Berlin: Springer. 276–283. Makkai, A. (1972). Idioms Structure in English. The Hague: Mouton. Maldonado, C. (2000). “La descripción del contexto de uso en la denición lexicográca”. In Oliver Frade, J. M.; Corrales Zumbado, C. J.; Izquierdo Guzmán, M. L.; García Padrón, D.; Corbella Díaz, D.; Gómez Soliño, J. S.; Martínez Hernández, M.; Cortés Rodríguez, F. J. (coords.). Cien años de investigación semántica, de Michel Bréal a la actualidad: actas del Congreso Internacional de Semántica (Universidad de la Laguna, 1997). Vol. 1. Madrid: Ed. Clásicas. 647–658. Maldonado, C. (2011). “Las redes del idioma”. In Escandell-Vidal, M. V.; Leonetti, M.; Sánchez, C. (eds.). 60 problemas de gramática dedicados a Ignacio Bosque. Madrid: Akal. 329–332. Maldonado, C. (2013). “La entrada léxica en el discurso lexicográco digital”. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación 56. 26–52. Malinowski, B. (1989 [1923]). “The problem of meaning in primitive languages”. In Ogden, C. K.; Richards, I. A. (eds.). The Meaning of Meaning. New York: Harvest / HBJ. 451–510. Manning, C.; Raghavan, P.; Schütze, H. (2008). Introduction to Information Retrieval. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Manning, C.; Schütze, H. (1999). Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Markowitz, J. A. (1982). The Child as Lexicographer of Terms of the Classroom Culture. [S.l.]. Distributed by ERIC Clearinghouse, abstract at ERIC – Institute of Education Sciences website [online]. Available at . Marslen-Wilson, W. (coord.) (1989). Lexical Representation and Process. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Martin, F. (2013). “Oriented adverbs and object experiencer ‘psych-verbs’”. In Arsenijevic, B.; Gehrke, B.; Marín, R. (eds.). Studies in the Composition and Decomposition of Event Predicates. Berlin: Springer. 71–97. Martín Bosque, A. (2007). “Las locuciones en los diccionarios monolingües de aprendizaje de español lengua extranjera”. In Minerva, N. (ed.). Lessicologia e lessicograa nella storia degli insegnamenti linguistici: atti della quinta giornata del CIRSIL, 2006. Bologna: CLUEB. 205–220. Martín Peris, E. (2006). “El pronombre se en la enseñanza de español para extranjeros. Entre el vocabulario y la gramática”. In Bernal, E.; DeCesaris, J. (eds.). Palabra por palabra. Estudios ofrecidos a Paz Battaner. Barcelona: Institut Universitari de Lingüística Aplicada – Universitat Pompeu Fabra. 161–178.

Bibliography

363

Martín Peris, E. (2013). “Aprendizaje del vocabulario y mediante el vocabulario. Redescubrir el poder de las palabras en la didáctica de ELE”. In Contreras, N. M.; Anglada, M.; Blanco, J. M. (eds.). La enseñanza del español para sinohablantes en contextos. SinoELE Monográco 10. Jaén: Universidad de Jaén. 15–32. Martín Zorraquino, M. A. (2004). “El tratamiento lexicográco de los marcadores del discurso y la enseñanza de E/LE”. In Castillo Carballo, M. A.; Cruz Moya, O.; García Platero, J. M.; Mora Gutiérrez, J. P. (coords.). XV Congreso Internacional de ASELE. Las Gramáticas y los Diccionarios en la Enseñanza del Español como Segunda Lengua: Deseo y Realidad. Sevilla, September 22–25. Sevilla: Universidad de Sevilla. 53–68. Martines, V. (2006). “Materials per a l’anàlisi multilingüe i contrastiva de locucions, col·locacions i fraseologia. Un escandall quant a Ausiàs March i Tirant lo Blanch”. Caplletra 40. 153–190. Martínez López, J. A.; Aarli, G. (2008). “Locucións e colocacións: algunhas causas da coaparición dos seus formantes”. Cadernos de Fraseoloxía Galega 10. 175–188. Martínez-Salom, À. (2012). Combinacions lèxiques restringides: de les ‘col·locacions’ a les ‘clases lèxiques’. Primeres exploracions en llengua catalana. Master’s thesis. Barcelona: Institut Universitari de Lingüística Aplicada – Universitat Pompeu Fabra. Martínez-Salom, À. (2014). “Algunes dades sobre col·locacions lèxiques en discursos especialitzats en llengua catalana”. Terminàlia 10. 17–26. McKeown, M. G.; Curtis, M. E. (coords.) (1987). The Nature of Vocabulary Acquisition. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Medrano, D. (2010). La enseñanza del léxico en E/LE. Análisis comparativo del tratamiento del léxico en 4 manuales: Nuevo Ven, Gente, Redes, Aula. Master’s thesis. Tarragona: Universitat Rovira i Virgili. Meillet, A. (1926). Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. Paris: Klincksieck. Mel’ uk, I. (1973). “Towards a linguistic ‘meaning text’ model”. In Kiefer, F. (ed.). Trends in Soviet Theoretical Linguistics. Vol. 18. Dordrecht: Reidel. 33–57. Mel’ uk, I. (1982). “Lexical funcions in lexicographic description”. In Macaulay, M.; Gensler, O.; Brugman, C.; ivkulis, I.; Dahlstrom, A.; Krille, K.; Sturm, R. (eds.). Proceedings of the 8th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society . Berkeley: University of California. 427–444. Mel’ uk, I. (1995). “Phrasemes in language and phraseology in linguistics”. In Everaert, M.; Van der Linden, E.-J.; Schenk, A.; Schreuder, R. (eds.). Idioms: Structural and Psychological Perspectives. Hillsdale/Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 167–232. Mel’ uk, I. (1996). “Lexical functions: A tool for the description of lexical relations in the lexicon”. In Wanner, L. (ed.). Lexical Functions in Lexicography and Natural Language Processing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 37–102. Mel’ uk, I. (1997). Vers une linguistique Sens-Texte. Leçon inaugurale. Paris: Collège de France. Mel’ uk, I. (1998). “Collocations and lexical functions”. In Cowie, A. P. (ed.). Phraseology: Theory, Analysis, and Applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 23–53. Mel’ uk, I. (2012). “Phraseology in the language, in the dictionary, and in the computer”. Yearbook of Phraseology 3 (1). 31–56. Mel’ uk, I. (2013). Semantics: From Meaning to Text. Vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Mel’ uk, I.; Clas, A.; Polguère, A. (1995). Introduction à la lexicologie explicative et combinatoire. Bruxelles: Duculot. Mel’ uk, I.; Pertsov, N. V. (1987). Surface Syntax of English: A Formal Model within the Meaning-Text Framework. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

364 Bibliography Méndez Cendón, B. (2002). Estrategias fraseológicas en el genero discursivo de los artículos cientícos médicos en lengua inglesa. PhD dissertation. Valladolid: Universidad de Valladolid. Mendoza Rivera, Ó.; Mitkov, R.; Corpas Pastor, G. (2013). “A exible framework for collocation retrieval and translation from parallel and comparable corpora”. In Monti, J.; Mitkov, R.; Corpas Pastor, G.; Seretan, V. (eds.). Proceedings of the 14th Machine Translation Summit: Workshop on Multi-Word Units in Machine Translation and Translation Technologies, Allschwill (Switzerland): European Association for Machine Translation (EAMT), 2013. Allschwil: The European Association for Machine Translation. 18–25. Mestres, J. M. (2007). “Per un tractament unívoc de les unitats pluriverbals en fraseologia i terminologia”. In Lorente, M.; Estopà, R.; Freixa, J.; Martí, J.; Tebé, C. (ed.). Estudis de lingüística i de lingüística aplicada en honor de M. Teresa Cabré Castellví. Vol. 2: De deixebles. Barcelona: Institut Universitari de Lingüística Aplicada – Universitat Poempu Fabra. 381–399. Meunier, F.; Granger, S. (eds.) (2008). Phraseology in Foreign Language Learning and Teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Meyer, I.; Mackintosh, K. (1996). “Rening the terminographer’s concept-analysis methods: How can phraseology help?”. Terminology 3 (1). 1–26. Millán, J. A. (n. d.). Libros y bitios. Available at . Millon, C. (2011). Acquisition automatique de relations lexicales désambiguïsées à partir du Web. PhD dissertation. Lorient: Université de Bretagne-Sud. Ministerio de Educación. Diplomas de español como lengua extranjera. Available at . Mitchell, T. F. (1971). “Linguistic ‘goings-on’: Collocations and other lexical matters arising on the syntagmatic record”. Archivum Linguisticum 2. 35–69. Model, B. A. (2010). Syntagmatik im zweisprachigen Wörterbuch. Berlin: De Gruyter. Moens, M.; Steedman, M. (1988). “Temporal ontology and temporal reference”. Computational Linguistics 14 (2). 15–28. Monllaó, A. (2003). “Perífrasis verbonominals: denició, característiques i criteris operatius per reconèixer-les”. Estudios Catalanes 1 (1). 75–93. Monllaó, M. (1998). Aproximació a les perífrasis verbonominals en alemany i en català. Master’s thesis. Tarragona: Universitat Rovira i Virgili. Montero Martínez, S. (2002). Estructuración conceptual y formalización terminològica de frasemas en el subdominio de la oncología. PhD dissertation. Valladolid: Universidad de Valladolid. Monti, J.; Mitkov, R.; Corpas Pastor, G.; Seretan, V. (eds.) (2013). Proceedings of the 14th Machine Translation Summit: Workshop on Multi-Word Units in Machine Translation and Translation Technologies. Allschwil: The European Association for Machine Translation. Moon, R. (1997). “Vocabulary connections: Multi-word items in English”. In Schmitt, N.; McCarthy, M. (eds.). Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 40–63. Moon, R. (1998). Fixed Expressions and Idioms in English: A Corpus-Based Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Moon, R. (2008). “Dictionaries and collocation”. In Granger, S.; Meunier, F. (eds.). Phraseology: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 313–336. Moravcsik, J. M. (1975). “Aitia as generative factor in Aristotle’s philosophy”. Dialogue 14 (4). 622–638.

Bibliography

365

Moravcsik, J. M. (1991). “What makes reality intelligible? Reections on Aristotle’s theory of Aitia”. In Judson, L. (ed.). Aristotle’s Physics. Oxford: Clarendon. 31–47. Moreno, S.; Buyke, K. (2003). “Colocaciones léxicas: pistas y trampas”. Mosaico 10. 10–17. Mounin, G. (1972). Clefs pour la sémantique. Paris: Seghers. Muñiz Álvarez, E. M. (2005). “Notas para unha análise comparativa das nocións de restricción léxica e colocación”. Cadernos de Fraseoloxía Galega 7. 177–190. Nadeau, D.; Sekine, S. (2007). “A survey of named entity recognition and classication”. Journal of Linguisticae Investigationes 30 (1). 3–26. Nation, I. S. P. (1990). Teaching and Learning Vocabulary. New York: Newbury House. Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nation, I. S. P. (2004). New Ways in Teaching Vocabulary. Virginia: TESOL. Nation, I. S. P. (2008). Teaching Vocabulary: Strategies and Techniques. Boston: Heinle. Nattinger, J. R.; DeCarrico, J. S. (1992). Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Navajas Algava, A. (2006). Las colocaciones en el aula de E/LE: actividades para su explotación didáctica. Master’s thesis. Madrid: Universidad de Nebrija. Available at Biblioteca Virtual RedELE 7. Nazar, R.; Renau, I. (2012). “A co-occurrence taxonomy from a general language corpus”. In Vatvedt Fjeld, R.; Matilde Torjusen, J. (eds.). Proceedings of the 15th EURALEX International Congress, 7–11 August 2012. Oslo: University of Oslo. 367–375. Nazar, R.; Renau, I. (2015). “Agrupación semántica de sustantivos basada en similitud distribucional. Implicaciones lexicográcas”. In Garcés Gómez, M. P. (ed.). Lingüística y diccionarios. A Coruña: Universidade de Coruña. 281–295. Nazar, R.; Renau, I. (submitted). “Extraños-misteriosos-insondables-inescrutables son los caminos del Señor: extracción de relaciones paradigmáticas mediante análisis estadístico de textos”. Nebrija, A. de (1492). Gramática de la lengua castellana . Available at . Neff van Aertselaer, J. (2008). “Contrasting English-Spanish interpersonal discourse phrases: A corpus study”. In Meunier, F.; Granger, S. (eds.). Phraseology in Foreign Language Learning and Teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 85–100. Nekrasova, T. M. (2009). “‘English L1 and L2 speakers’ knowledge of lexical bundles”. Language Learning 59 (3). 647–686. Nesselhauf, N. (2005). Collocations in a Learner Corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [NGLE]. Real Academia Española y Asociación de Academias de la Lengua Española (2009). Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Madrid: Espasa Libros. Nilsen, O. (2004). “Domains for adverbs”. Lingua 114. 809–847. Nirenburg, S.; Raskin, V. (1996). Ten Choices for Lexical Semantics. Memoranda in Computer and Cognitive Science. Las Cruces: New Mexico State University. Odriozola, J. C. (2004). “Verb-deriving processes in Basque”. In Oyharçabal, B. (ed.). Inquiries into the Lexicon-Syntax Relations in Basque: Supplements of the Anuario de Filología Vasca ‘Julio de Urquijo’. Bilbao: Universidad del País Vasco. 185–223. Odriozola, J. C. (2010). Euskararen aditz-unitate fraseologikoen deskribapena. Bilbao: Universidad del País Vasco. Odriozola, J. C. (2012). “Adjektibo adberbialak”. In Sareko Euskal Gramatika. Available at .

366 Bibliography Odriozola, J. C. (2013). “Gauza ziurra eta gezur hutsa: euskal izenondo adberbialen kolokazioak”. In Ezeizabarrena, M. J.; Gómez, R. (eds.). Eridenen du zerzaz kontenta. Sailkideen omenaldia Henrike Knörr irakasleari (1947–2008). Bilbao: Universidad del País Vasco. 563–582. Odriozola, J. C.; Altzibar, X. (2013). “Basque complex predicates and grammar change”. Fontes Linguae Vasconum 45 (16). 17–189. Olaeta Rubio, R. (1997). “Las paremias, un recurso didáctico para la enseñanza de la lengua española”. Paremia 6. 451–458. Olímpio, M. E.; Penadés, I.; Ruiz, A. M. (2006). Ni da igual, ni da lo mismo. Para conocer y usar las locuciones verbales en el aula de español. Madrid: Edinumen. Ovejero, F. (2009). “Sociología analítica: por lo menos el qué”. Revista de Libros núm. 151–152. Available at . Palmer, F. R. (ed.) (1968). Selected Papers of J. R. Firth (1952–59). London: Longmans. Palmer, H. E. (1933). Second Interim Report on English Collocations. Tokyo: Kaitakusha. Pamies Bertrán, A.; Pazos Granada, J. M. (2004). “Extracción automática de colocacións e modismos”. Cadernos de Fraseoloxía Galega 6. 191–203. Papius (circa 1040). Elementarium Doctrinae Rudimentum. 1200th–1225th edition. Paris: Bibliothèque nationale de France, Département des manuscrits, ark:/12148/ btv1b9077980j. Parodi, G. (2010). Academic and Professional Discourse Genres in Spanish. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Parsons, T. (1990). Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Partington, A. (1998). Patterns and Meanings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Pawley, A.; Syder, F. H. (1983). “Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike uency”. In Richards, J. C.; Schmidt, R. W. (eds.). Language and Communication. London: Longman. 191–225. Paz Roca, M. C. (2004). “Estudo das colocacións a través da análise de corpus”. Cadernos de Fraseoloxía Galega 6. 205–219. Penadés Martínez, I. (1999). La enseñanza de las unidades fraseológicas. Madrid: Arco/ Libros. Penadés Martínez, I. (2004). “La enseñanza de la fraseología en el aula de E/LE”. Carabela 56. 51–67. Penadés Martínez, I. (2012). Gramática y semántica de las locuciones. Alcalá de Henares: Universidad de Alcalá. Perales-Escudero, M.; Swales, J. M. (2011). “Tracing convergence and divergence in Pairs of Spanish and English research article abstracts: The case of Ibérica”. Ibérica 21. 49–70. Pérez-Llantada, C. (2014). “Formulaic language in L1 and L2 expert academic writing: Convergent and divergent usage”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 14. 84–94. Pérez Serrano, M. (2015). Un enfoque léxico a prueba: efectos de la instrucción en el aprendizaje de colocaciones léxicas. PhD dissertation. Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca. Phillips, M. (1985). Aspects of Text Structure: An Investigation of the Lexical Organisation of Text. New York: Elsevier. Pierrehumbert, J. (2001). “Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition, and contrast”. In Bybee, J.; Hopper, P. (eds.). Frecuency Use and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 137–157.

Bibliography

367

Polguère, A. (2007). “Is ‘Meaning-Text Generative Lexicon’ a swearword?”. In Bouillon, P.; Danlos, L.; Kanzaki, K. (eds.). Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Generative Approaches to the Lexicon, May 10–11, Paris. Porto Dapena, J. (2002). Manual de técnica lexicográca. Madrid: Arco Libros. Porto Dapena, J. (2007). El Diccionario ‘Coruña’ de la lengua española actual: planta y muestra. A Coruña: Universidade Da Coruña. Pulman, S. (1997). “Aspectual shift as type coercion”. Transactions of the Philological Society 95. 279–317. Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Pustejovsky, J. (1998). “The semantics of lexical underspecication”. Folia Linguistica 32. 323–347. Pustejovsky, J. (2011). “Coercion in a general theory of argument selection”. Linguistics 49 (6). 1401–1431. Pustejovsky, J.; Boguraev, B. (1993). “Lexical knowledge representation and natural language processing”. Articial Intelligence 63 (1). 193–223. Pustejovsky, J.; Bouillon, P. (1996). “Aspectual coercion and logical polysemy”. In Pustejovsky, J.; Boguraev, B. (eds.). Lexical Semantics: The Problem of Polysemy. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 133–162. Pylkkänen, L. (2008). “Mismatching meanings in brain and behavior”. Language and Linguistics Compass 2 (4). 712–738. Quirk, R.; Greenbaum, S.; Leech, G.; Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman. Radulescu, R. A. (2009). “Sobre cuánto puede dar de sí el verbo dar en fraseologismos españoles y rumanos”. In De Miguel, E.; Sánchez Jiménez, S. U.; Serradilla Castaño, A.; Radulescu, R.-A.; Batiukova, O. (eds.). Fronteras de un diccionario. Las palabras en movimiento. San Millán de la Cogolla: Cilengua. 469–500. Rastier, F. (1991). Sémantique et recherches cognitives. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Rastier, F. (2006). “Formes sémantiques et textualité”. Langages 163. 99–114. Recanati, F. (2004). El signicado literal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Renau, I. (2012). Gramática y diccionario: las construcciones con se en las entradas verbales del diccionario de español como lengua extranjera. PhD dissertation. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra. Renau, I.; Alonso Campo, A. (forthcoming). “Systematising corpus-based denitions in second language dictionaries”. Renau, I.; Battaner, P. (2012). “Using CPA to represent Spanish pronominal verbs in a learner’s dictionary”. In Vadvedt, R.; Torjusen, M. (eds.). Proceedings of the 15th Euralex International Congress, Oslo, 7–11 August 2012. Oslo: University of Oslo. 350–361. Renau, I.; Nazar, R. (2012). “Hypernymy relations from deniens-deniendum co-occurrence in multiple dictionary denitions”. Procesamiento del Lenguaje Natural 49. 83–90. Renau, I.; Nazar, R. (submitted). “Análisis semántico de verbos del castellano con Verbario: procedimiento manual y automatizado”. Renouf, A.; Sinclair, J. (1991). “Collocational frameworks in English”. In Aijmer, K.; Altenberg, B. (eds.). English Corpus Linguistics. Harlow: Longman. 128–143. Richards, J. C. (1985). The Context of Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rodríguez Bou, I. et al. (1952). Recuento de vocabulario español. San Juan: Universidad de Puerto Rico.

368 Bibliography Rodríguez Gil, E. (2013). El tratamiento del léxico en manuales de ELE de nivel inicial: análisis de materiales. Master’s thesis. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona. Available at Biblioteca Virtual RedELE 14 . Rodríguez-Piñero, A. I. (2007). La relación léxica de la parasinonimia. Cádiz: Universidad de Cádiz. Rodríguez Ramalle, T. (2001). “Los adverbios de manera como predicados de los subeventos temporales”. Revista de la Sociedad Española de Lingüística 31 (1). 107–143. Romero Dolz, B. (2014). El enfoque léxico aplicado a la reducción de errores interlingüísticos. Una investigación experimental. Master’s thesis. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona. Available at Biblioteca Virtual RedELE 15 . Rosch, E. H. (1973). “Natural categories”. Cognitive Psycology 4. 328–350. Ruiz Gurillo, L. (1997). Aspectos de fraseología teórica española. Valencia: Universitat de València. Ruiz Gurillo, L. (2001). Las locuciones en español actual. Madrid: Arco/Libros. Sánchez López, E. (2013). Estudi de la llengua d’Ausiàs March a través de les col·locacions. Una aproximació semiautomàtica. Berlin: de Gruyter. Sánchez López, I. (2011). Léxico, diccionario y enseñanza/aprendizaje de ELE: la reacción verbal en los diccionarios monolingües de producción. PhD dissertation. Jaén: Universidad de Jaén. Sánchez Pérez, A. (1992). Historia de la enseñanza del español como lengua extranjera. Madrid: SGEL. Sánchez Rufat, A. (2010). “Apuntes sobre las colocaciones léxicas y el concepto de colocación”. Anuario de Estudios Filológicos 33. 291–306. Sánchez Rufat, A. (2011). “Léxico gramaticalizado y lengua formulaica: algunas precisiones al enfoque léxico”. Sintagma 23. 85–98. Sánchez Rufat, A. (2013). “El aprendizaje de las unidades fraseológicas a partir de planteamientos lingüísticos cognitivos”. In Calero Vaquera, M. L.; Hermosilla Álvarez, M. (coords.). Lenguaje, literatura y cognición. Córdoba: Universidad de Córdoba. 189–199. Sánchez Rufat, A.; Jiménez Calderón, F. (2013). “Combinatoria léxica y corpus como input”. Language Design 14. 61–81. Sanromán Vilas, B. (2011). “The unbearable lightness of light verbs”. In Boguslavsky, I.; Wanner, L. (eds.). Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Meaning-Text Theory, Barcelona, September 8–9, 1–13. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra. 253–263. Sarmiento, Edward (1970). Concordancias de las Obras poéticas en castellano de Garcilaso de la Vega. Madrid: Castalia. Schäfer, M. (2002). “Pure manner adverbs revisited”. In Katz, G.; Reinhard, S.; Reuter, P. (eds.). Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 6. Osnabrück: Universität Osnabrück. 311–323. Schäfer, M. (2005). German Adverbial Adjectives: Syntactic Position and Semantic Interpretation. PhD dissertation. Leipzig: Universität Leipzig. Schäfer, M. (2008). “Resolving scope in manner modication”. In Bonami, O.; Cabredo Hofherr, P. (eds.). Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 7, Papers presented at the Syntax and Semantics Conference in Paris 2007. 351–372. Schmid, H. (1994). “Probabilistic part-of-speech tagging using decision trees”. Proceedings of International Conference on New Methods in Language Processing. Manchester, UK. Schmidt, R. W. (1990). “The role of consciousness in second language learning”. Applied Linguistics 11 (2). 129–158.

Bibliography

369

Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schmitt, N. (2005). “Formulaic language: Fixed and varied”. Estudios de Lingüística Inglesa Aplicada 6. 13–39. Schmitt, N. (2008). “Review article: Instructed second language vocabulary learning”. Language Teaching Research 12. 329–363. Schmitt, N. (2010). Researching Vocabulary: A Vocabulary Research Manual. Basingstoke: Palgrave Press. Schmitt, N. (ed.) (2004). Formulaic Sequences: Acquisition, Processing and Use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Schmitt, N.; Carter, R. (2004). “Formulaic sequences in action: An introduction”. In Schmitt, N. (ed.). Formulaic Sequences: Acquisition, Processing, and Use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1–22. Schmitt, N.; Grandage, S.; Adolphs, S. (2004). “Are corpus-derived recurrent clusters psycholinguistically valid?”. In Schmitt, N. (ed.). Formulaic Sequences: Acquisition, Processing, and Use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 127–151. Scott, M. (2004). WordSmith Tools Version 4 . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Seco, M. (1979). “El contorno en la denición lexicográca”. In Homenaje a Samuel Gili Gaya (in memoriam). Barcelona: Biblograf. Seretan, V. (2011). Syntax-Based Collocation Extraction. Dordrecht: Springer. Seretan, V.; Wehrli, E. (2009). “Multilingual collocation extraction with a syntactic parser”. Language Resources and Evaluation 43 (1). 71–85. Serra Sepúlveda, S. (2009). “Las restricciones de selección en los diccionarios generales de lengua española”. Boletín de Filología de la Universidad de Chile 44. 187–213. Serra Sepúlveda, S. (2010). “Estructura argumental y denición lexicográca. De cómo denir los predicados verbales en un diccionario semasiológico del español”. Lenguas Modernas 35. 71–87. Serra Sepúlveda, S. (2011). “Las combinaciones léxicas en los diccionarios semasiológicos de español”. In X Coloquio de Lexicografía y Lexicología Luis Jaime Cisneros. Lima: Universidad Mayor de San Marcos. Available at . Serra Sepúlveda, S. (2012). Gramática y diccionario: contornos, solidaridades léxicas y colocaciones en lexicografía española contemporánea. PhD dissertation. Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Sharoff, S.; Babych, B.; Hartley, A. (2006). “Using collocations from comparable corpora to nd translation equivalents”. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2006). Genoa: LREC. 465–470. Siepmann, D. (2005). “Collocation, colligation and encoding dictionaries. Part I: Lexicological aspects”. International Journal of Lexicography 18 (4). 409–443. Siepmann, D. (2006). “Collocation, colligation and encoding dictionaries. Part II: Lexicographical aspects”. International Journal of Lexicography 19 (1). 1–39. Simpson, J. (2014). “What would Dr Murray have made of the OED online today?”. Slovenš ina 2.0 2 (2). 15–36. Simpson, R.; Mendis, D. (2003). “A corpus-based study of idioms in academic speech”. TESOL Quarterly 3. 419–441. Simpson-Vlach, R.; Ellis, N. C. (2010). “An academic formulas list (AFL)”. Applied Linguistics 31 (4). 487–512. Sinclair, J. (1966). “Beginning the study of lexis”. In Bazell, C. E.; Catford, J. C.; Halliday, M. A. K.; Robins, R. H. (eds.). In Memory of John Firth. London: Longman. 410–430.

370 Bibliography Sinclair, J. (ed.) (1987a). Looking Up: An Account of the COBUILD Project in Lexical Computing. London: Collins. Sinclair, J. (1987b). “The nature of the evidence”. In Sinclair, J. (ed.). Looking Up: An Account of the COBUILD Project in Lexical Computing. London: Collins. 150–159. Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sinclair, J. (1996). “The search for units of meaning”. Textus: English Studies in Italy 9 (1). 75–106. Sinclair, J. (1999). “The lexical item”. In Wiegand, E. (ed.). Contrastive Lexical Semantics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1–24. Sinclair, J. (2004a). Trust the Text: Language, Corpus and Discourse. London: Routledge. Sinclair, J. (2004b). “In praise of the dictionary”. In Williams, G.; Vessier, S. (eds.). Proceedings of the 11th EURALEX International Congress. Lorient: Université de Bretagne-Sud. 1–12. Sinclair, J.; Jones, S.; Daley, R. (1970). English Lexical Studies, Report to Ofce for Scientic and Technical Information (OSTI) on Project C/LP/08. Birmingham: University of Birmingham. Stefanowitsch, A. (2013). “Collustructional analysis”. In Hoffmann, T.; Trousdale, G. (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 290–306. Steinbügl, B. (2005). Deutsch-englische Kollokationen. Erfassung in zweisprachigen Wörterbüchern und Grenzen der korpusbasierten Analyse. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Stubbs, M. (1995). “Collocations and semantic proles: On the cause of the trouble with quantitative studies”. Functions of Language 2 (1). 23–55. Stubbs, M. (2002). “Two quantitative methods of studying phraseology in English”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 7 (12). 215–244. Szigetvári, M.; Morvay, K. (2002). “Apuntes sobre las propiedades combinatorias del verbo hacer en el español de Barcelona”. Lingüística Española Actual 24 (1). 115–143. Taylor, J. R. (1989). Linguistic Categorization. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Thornbury, S. (1998). “The lexical approach: A journey without maps”. Modern English Teacher 7. 7–13. Thun, H. (1978). Probleme der Phraseologie. Untersuchungen zur wiederholten Rede mit Beispielen aus den Französischen, Italienischen, Spanischen und Rumänischen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Timmis, I. (2008). “The lexical approach is dead: Long live the lexical dimension”. Modern English Teacher 17 (3). 5–9. Tognini-Bonelli, E. (2001). Corpus Linguistics at Work: Studies in Corpus Linguistics. Vol. 6. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Torner, S. (2007). De los adjetivos calicativos a los adverbios en -mente: semántica y gramática. Madrid: Visor Libros. Torner, S.; Battaner, P. (eds.) (2005). El corpus PAAU 1992, Estudios descriptivos, textos y vocabulario. Barcelona: Institut Universitari de Lingüística Aplicada – Universitat Pompeu Fabra. Tracy-Ventura, N.; Cortes, V.; Biber, D. (2007). “Lexical bundles in speech and writing”. In Parodi, G. (ed.). Working with Spanish Corpora. London: Continuum. 217–231. Travalia, C. (2006). “El enfoque léxico aplicado a la enseñanza de la entonación en español”. In Balmaseda Maestu, E. (coord.). XVII Congreso Internacional de ASELE. Logroño 27–30 de septiembre de 2006. Logroño: Universidad de la Rioja. 1021–1034.

Bibliography

371

Tseng, W.-T.; Schmitt, N. (2008). “Towards a self-regulating model of vocabulary learning: A structural equation modeling approach”. Language Learning 58 (2). 357–400. Tsohatzidis, Savas L. (coord.) (1990). Meanings & Prototypes. London: Routledge. Valdenegro Hormazábal, C. (2012). “Incorporación de las restricciones léxicas en los contornos de las definiciones de verbos y adjetivos en un diccionario semasiológico de español”. Contextos: Revista de Humanidades y Ciencias Sociales 27 (12). 125–144. Van der Wouden, T. (1997). Negative Contexts: Collocation, Polarity and Multiple Negation. London / New York: Routledge. Van Dijk, T. (1983 [1978]). La ciencia del texto. Barcelona: Paidós. Van Valin, R. D. (2004). Lexical Representation, Co-Composition, and Linking Syntax and Semantics. Manuscript. New York: University at Buffalo. Van Valin, R. D.; LaPolla, R. J. (1997). Syntax. Structure Meaning and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vargas-Sierra, C. (2010). “Combinatoria terminológica y diccionarios especializados para traductores”. In Ibáñez Rodríguez, M. (ed.). Lenguas de especialidad y terminología. Granada: Comares. 17–46. Verlinde, S.; Paulussen, H.; Slootmaekers, A.; De Wachter, L. (2010). “La conception de didacticiels intégrés d’aide à la lecture, à la traduction et à la rédaction”. Revue Française de Linguistique Appliquée 15 (2). 53–65. Véronis, J. (2004). “Hyperlex: Lexical cartography for information retrieval”. Computer, Speech and Language 18 (3). 223–252. Vidiella, M. (2012). El enfoque léxico en los manuales de ele. Master’s thesis. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona. Available at Marcoele 14. Vossen, P. (1998). EuroWordNet: A Multilingual Database with Lexical Semantic Networks. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Pensamiento y lenguaje. Madrid: Paidós. Walker, C. (2008). “Factors which inuence the process of collocation”. In Boers, F.; Lindstromberg, S. (eds.). Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to Teaching Vocabulary and Phraseology. Berlin: de Gruyter. 291–308. Walker, C. (2009). “The treatment of collocations by learners dictionaries, collocational dictionaries and dictionaries of business English”. International Journal of Lexicography 22 (3). 281–299. Wanner, L. (2007). Selected Lexical and Grammatical Issues in the Meaning-Text Theory: In Honour of Igor Mel’ uk. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Wible, D.; Tsao, N. (2010). “Stringnet as a computational resource for discovering and investigating linguistic constructions”. The NAACL HLT Workshop on Extracting and Using Constructions in Computational Linguistics, Los Angeles, USA. Wierzbicka, A. (1982). “Why can you have a drink when you can’t *have an eat?”. Language 58 (4). 753–799. Wierzbicka, A. (1986). Lexicography and Conceptual Analysis. Ann Arbor: Karoma. Williams, G. (1998). “Collocational networks: Interlocking patterns of lexis in a corpus of plant biology research articles”. International Journal of Computational Linguistics 3 (1). 151–171. Williams, G. (2001). “Mediating between lexis and texts: Collocational networks in specialised corpora”. Anglais de Spécialité 31–33. 63–76. Williams, G. (2002). “In search of representativity in specialised corpora: Categorisation through collocation”. International Journal of Computational Linguistics 7 (1). 43–64.

372 Bibliography Williams, G. (2006). “Advanced ESP and the learner’s dictionary”. In Corino, E.; Marello, C.; Onesti, C. (eds.). Proceedings of the 12th Euralex Congress. Turin: Accademia della Crusca / Università di Torino / Edizioni dell’Orso. 795–801. Williams, G. (2008a). “The Good Lord and his works: A corpus-based study of collocational resonance”. In Granger, S.; Meunier, F. (eds.). Phraseology: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 159–174. Williams, G. (2008b). “Verbs of science and the learner’s dictionary”. In Bernal, E.; DeCesaris, J. (eds.). Proceedings of the 13th Euralex Congress. Barcelona: Institut Universitari de Lingüística Aplicada – Universitat Pompeu Fabra. 797–806. Williams, G. (2011a). “A cultivated audience: Comparable corpora and cross language collocation”. In Bondi, M.; Cacchiani, S.; Palumbo, G. (eds.). Corpus Linguistics and Language Variation, Special Issue of RILA. Bolzano: Rassegna Italiana di Linguistica Applicata. 39–64. Williams, G. (2011b). “Art for dictionaries sake: Comparing cultural outlooks through dictionaries and corpora”. In Facchinetti, R. (ed.). Cultural Identities in English Lexicography. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishers. 171–200. Williams, G. (2012). “Bringing data and dictionary together: Real science in real dictionaries”. In Bolton, A.; Thomas, S.; Rowley-Jolivet, E. (eds.). Corpus-Informed Research and Learning in ESP: Issues and Applications. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 219–240. Williams, G. (forthcoming). “Meaning and sense: A corpus-driven diachronic approach”. In ermáková, A.; Mahlberg, M. (eds.). Corpora as Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Williams, G.; Millon, C. (2009). “The general and the specic: Collocational resonance of scientic language”. In Mahlberg, M.; González-Díaz, V.; Smith, C. (eds.). Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics Conference CL2009, 20–23 July 2009. Liverpool: University of Liverpool. Williams, G.; Millon, C. (2010). “Going organic: Building an experimental bottom-up dictionary of verbs in science”. In Dykstra, A.; Schoonheim, T. (eds.). Proceedings of the 14th Euralex Congress, Leeuwarden, 6–10 July 2010. Leeuwarden: Fryske Akademy. 1251–1257. Williams, G.; Millon, C.; Alonso Campo, A. (2012). “Growing naturally: The DicSci organic E-advanced learner’s dictionary of verbs in science”. In Vadvedt, R.; Torjusen, M. (eds.). Proceedings of the 15th Euralex International Congress, Oslo, 7–11 August 2012. Oslo: University of Oslo. 1008–1013. Willis, D. (2003). Rules, Patterns and Words: Grammar and Lexis in English Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wittgenstein, L. (1991 [1953]). Philosophical Investigations. 3rd edition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Wood, D. (2002). “Formulaic language in acquisition and production: Implications for teaching”. TESL Canada Journal 20 (1). 1–15. Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wray, A. (2008). Formulaic Language: Pushing the Boundaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Yannong, W.; Pangyong, J. (1985). A Collocational Dictionary of Common Chinese Verbs (with English Explanations). Heidelberg: Julius Groos. Zabala, I. (2004). “Los predicados complejos en vasco”. In Pérez-Gaztelu, E.; Zabala, I.; Gràcia, L. (eds.). Las fronteras de la composición en lenguas románicas y en vasco. Bilbao: Universidad de Deusto. 445–534.

Bibliography

373

Zaldívar, J. M. (2013). “Les col·locacions i el llenguatge periodístic (caracterització teòrica)”. Curs 7. 251–304. Zarcone, A. (2014). Event Knowledge and Models of Logical Metonymy Interpretation. PhD dissertation. Stuttgart: Universität Stuttgart. Zeijlstra, H. (2008). “Modal concord is syntactic agreement”. In Gibson, M.; Freidman, T. (eds.). Proceedings of SALT (Semantics and Linguistics Theory) 17. Ithaca: CLC Publications. 317–332. Zeldes, A. (2012). Productivity in Argument Selection: From Morphology to Syntax. Berlin: de Gruyter. Zuluaga, A. (1980). Introducción al estudio de las expresiones jas. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.