References

Elisa Mattiello

doi:10.1017/9781009168274.011

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 December 2022

Elisa Mattiello

Show author details

Elisa Mattiello: Affiliation:
Università degli Studi, Pisa

Book contents

Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Type: Chapter
Information: Transitional Morphology
Combining Forms in Modern English
, pp. 227 - 235

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009168274.011 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, V. (1973). An Introduction to Modern English Word-Formation. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Amiot, D., & Dal, G. (2007). Integrating neoclassical combining forms into a lexeme-based morphology. In Booij, G., Fradin, B., Guevara, E., Scalise, S., & Ralli, A., eds, On-line Proceedings of the Fifth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (MMM5), 15–18 September 2005, Fréjus. Bologna: University of Bologna, 323–336.Google Scholar

Amiot, D., & Dugas, E. (2021). Combining forms and affixoids in morphology. In Lieber, R., ed., The Oxford Encyclopedia of Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780190682361.001.0001/acref-9780190682361-e-569.Google Scholar

Anderson, S. (1992). A-Morphous Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Aronoff, M. (1976). Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Aronoff, M. (1983). Potential words, actual words, productivity and frequency. In Inoue Shiro Hattori, K., ed., Proceedings of the XIII International Congress on Linguistics, 29 August–4 September, 1982, Tokyo. Tokyo: Permanent International Committee on Linguistics, 163–171.Google Scholar

Baldi, P., & Dawar, C. (2000). Creative processes. In Booij, G., Lehmann, C., Mugdan, J., Kesselheim, W., & Skopeteas, S., eds, Morphologie-Morphology: An International Handbook of Inflection and Word-Formation, vol. 1. Berlin: De Gruyter, 963–972.Google Scholar

Bauer, L. (1979). Against word-based morphology. Linguistic Inquiry, 10, 508–509.Google Scholar

Bauer, L. (1983). English Word-Formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bauer, L. (1998). Is there a class of neoclassical compounds, and if so is it productive? Linguistics, 36(3), 403–422.Google Scholar

Bauer, L. (2001). Morphological Productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bauer, L. (2005). The borderline between derivation and compounding. In Dressler, W. U., Kastovsky, D., Pfeiffer, O. E., & Rainer, F., eds, Morphology and Its Demarcations. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 97–108.Google Scholar

Bauer, L. (2006). Splinter. In Brown, K., ed., Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd ed. Boston: Elsevier, 77–78.Google Scholar

Bauer, L. (2012). Blends: Core and periphery. In Renner, V., Maniez, F., & Arnaud, P. J. L., eds, Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Lexical Blending. Berlin: De Gruyter, 11–22.Google Scholar

Bauer, L. (2017). Compounds and Compounding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bauer, L., Beliaeva, N., & Tarasova, E. (2019). Recalibrating productivity: Factors involved. Zeitschrift Für Wortbildung / Journal of Word Formation, 3(1), 44–81.Google Scholar

Bauer, L., & Huddleston, R. D. (2002). Lexical word-formation. In Huddleston, R. D. & Pullum, G. K., eds, The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1621–1721.Google Scholar

Bauer, L., Lieber, R., & Plag, I. (2013). The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Baayen, H. R. (1992). Quantitative aspects of morphological productivity. In Booij, G. & van Marle, J., eds, Yearbook of Morphology 1991. Dordrecht: Springer, 109–149.Google Scholar

Baayen, H. R. (1993). On frequency, transparency and productivity. In Booij, G. & van Marle, J., eds, Yearbook of Morphology 1992. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 181–208.Google Scholar

Baayen, H. R. (2009). Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. In Lüdeling, A. & Kytö, M., eds, Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter, 899–919.Google Scholar

Baayen, H. R., & Renouf, A. (1996). Chronicling The Times: Productive lexical innovations in an English newspaper. Language, 72(1), 69–96.Google Scholar

Becker, T. (1993). Back-formation, cross-formation and ‘bracketing paradoxes’ in paradigmatic morphology. In Booij, G. & van Marle, J., eds, Yearbook of Morphology 1993. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1–25.Google Scholar

Beliaeva, N. (2019). Blending creativity and productivity: On the issue of delimiting the boundaries of blends as a type of word formation. Lexis, 14, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.4000/lexis.4004.Google Scholar

Bertinetto, P. M. (2001). Blends and syllable structure: A four-fold comparison. In Lorente, M., Alturo, N., Boix, E., Lloret, M.-R., & Payrató, L., eds, La gramática i la semántica en l’estudi de la variació. Barcelona: Promociones y Publicaciones Universitarias, 59–112.Google Scholar

Blank, A. (2001). Einführung in die lexikalische Semantik für Romanisten. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar

Booij, G. (1993). Against split morphology. In G. Booij & J. van Marle, eds, Yearbook of Morphology. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 27–50.Google Scholar

Booij, G. (2005). The Grammar of Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Booij, G. (2010). Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Booij, G., & Hüning, M. (2014). Affixoids and constructional idioms. In Boogaart, R., Colleman, T., & Rutten, G., eds, Extending the Scope of Construction-Based Grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter, 77–106.Google Scholar

Bourque, S. Y. (2014). Toward a Typology of Semantic Transparency: The Case of French Compounds. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Department of French Studies, University of Toronto.Google Scholar

Brewer, C. (2014). Treasure-House of the Language: The Living OED. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Brinton, L. J., & Traugott, E. C. (2005). Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bybee, J. (1985). Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Callies, M. (2016). Of soundscapes, talkathons and shopaholics: On the status of a new type of formative in English (and beyond). STUF – Language Typology and Universals, 69(4), 495–516. https://doi.org/10.1515/stuf-2016-0021.Google Scholar

Carstairs-McCarthy, A. (1992). Current Morphology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Chanpira, E. I. (1966). Ob okkazional’nom slove i okkazional’nom slovoobrazovanii [On the occasionalistic word and on occasionalistic word formation]. In Zemskaja, E. A. & Šmelev, D. N., eds, Razvitie slovoobrazovanija sov-remennogo russkovo jazyka. Moscow: Nauka, 153–166.Google Scholar

Christofidou, A. (1994). Okkasionalismen in poetischen Texten: Eine Fallstudie am Werk von O. Elytis. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar

Corbin, D. (1987). Morphologie dérivationnelle et structuration du lexique, 2 vols. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar

Correia Saavedra, D. (2013). Lexical Blending in English: From Splinters to Combining Forms. Unpublished master’s thesis, Faculty of Humanities, University of Lausanne.Google Scholar

Correia Saavedra, D. (2016). Automatically identifying blend splinters that are morpheme candidates. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 31(1), 55–71. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqu059.Google Scholar

Dal, G. (2003). Productivité morphologique: définitions et notions connexes. Langue française, 140, 3–23.Google Scholar

Dal, G., & Namer, F. (2017). Playful nonce-formations in French: Creativity and productivity. In Arndt-Lappe, S., Braun, A., Moulin, C., & Winter-Froemel, E., eds, Expanding the Lexicon: Linguistic Innovation, Morphological Productivity, and Ludicity. Berlin: De Gruyter, 203–228.Google Scholar

Davies, M. (2008–). Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). www.english-corpora.org/coca/.Google Scholar

Davies, M. (2013–). Corpus of News on the Web (NOW). www.english-corpora.org/now/.Google Scholar

Dalton-Puffer, C., & Plag, I. (2000). Categorywise, some compound-type morphemes seem to be rather suffix-like: On the status of -ful, -type, and -wise in present-day English. Folia Linguistica, 34, 225–244.Google Scholar

Dressler, W. U. (1989). Prototypical differences between inflection and derivation. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung, 42, 3–10.Google Scholar

Dressler, W. U. (2000). Extragrammatical vs. marginal morphology. In Doleschal, U. & Thornton, A. M., eds, Extragrammatical and Marginal Morphology. Munich: LINCOM Europa, 1–10.Google Scholar

Dressler, W. U., Mayerthaler, W., Panagl, O., & Wurzel, W. U. (1987). Leitmotifs in Natural Morphology. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Dressler, W. U., & Merlini Barbaresi, L. (1991). Interradical interfixes: Contact and contrast. In Ivir, V. & Kalogjera, D., eds, Languages in Contact and Contrast: Essays in Contact Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter, 133–145.Google Scholar

Dressler, W. U., & Merlini Barbaresi, L. (1994). Morphopragmatics: Diminutives and Intensifiers in Italian, German, and Other Languages. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Eitelmann, M., Haugland, K., & Haumann, D. (2020). From engl-isc to whatever-ish: A corpus-based investigation of -ish derivation in the history of English. English Language & Linguistics, 24(4), 801–831. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674319000340.Google Scholar

Fernández-Domínguez, J., Bagasheva, A., & Lara-Clares, C., eds (2020). Paradigmatic Relations in Word Formation. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

Fischer, R. (1998). Lexical Change in Present Day English: A Corpus Based Study of the Motivation, Institutionalization, and Productivity of Creative Neologisms. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar

Fradin, B. (2000). Combining forms, blends and related phenomena. In Doleschal, U. & Thornton, A. M., eds, Extragrammatical and Marginal Morphology. Munich: LINCOM Europa, 11–59.Google Scholar

Gaeta, L., & Ricca, D. (2006). Productivity in Italian word formation: A variable-corpus approach. Linguistics, 44(1), 57–89.Google Scholar

Gaeta, L., & Zeldes, A. (2017). Between VP and NN: On the constructional types of German -er compounds. Constructions and Frames, 9, 1–40.Google Scholar

Green, J. (1991). Neologisms: New Words since 1960. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar

Gries, S. T. (2012). Quantitative corpus data on blend formation: Psycho- and cognitive-linguistic perspectives. In Renner, V., Maniez, F., & Arnaud, P. J. L., eds, Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Lexical Blending. Berlin: De Gruyter, 145–167.Google Scholar

Google Books Corpus. Google Books Ngram Viewer (2016). https://books.google.com/ngrams.Google Scholar

Hamans, C. (2010). The productivity of blending: Linguistic or cognitive? Or how to deal with ‘administrivia’ and ‘ostalgia’. In Stanulewicz, D., Wolański, T. Z., & Redzimska, J., eds, Lingua Terra Cognita II. A Festschrift for Professor Roman Kalisz. Gdańsk: University of Gdańsk, 467–490.Google Scholar

Hamans, C. (2017). Language change and morphological processes. Yearbook of the Poznań Linguistic Meeting, 3(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1515/yplm-2017-0001.Google Scholar

Hathout, N., & Namer, F. (2019). Paradigms in word formation: What are we up to? Morphology, 29(2), 153–165.Google Scholar

Hock, H. H. (1991). Principles of Historical Linguistics, 2nd ed. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hohenhaus, P. (1996). Ad-hoc-Wortbildung: Terminologie, Typologie und Theorie kreativer Wortbildung im Englischen. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Iacobini, C. (2004). Composizione con elementi neoclassici. In Grossmann, M. & Rainer, F., eds, La Formazione delle Parole in Italiano. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 69–95.Google Scholar

Iacobini, C., & Giuliani, A. (2010). A multidimensional approach to the classification of combining forms. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 22(2), 287–316.Google Scholar

Jacques, G. (2012). From denominal derivation to incorporation. Lingua, 122, 1207–1231.Google Scholar

Jespersen, O. (1942). A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Part VI: Morphology. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard.Google Scholar

Kastovsky, D. (1986). The problem of productivity in word-formation. Linguistics, 24, 585–600.Google Scholar

Kastovsky, D. (2009). Astronaut, astrology, astrophysics: About combining forms, classical compounds and affixoids. In McConchie, R. W., Honkapohja, A., & Tyrkkö, J., eds, Selected Proceedings of the 2008 Symposium on New Approaches in English Historical Lexis (HEL-LEX 2). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, 1–13.Google Scholar

Kilani-Schoch, M. (2020). Grilétarien. In Aberson, M., Dell’Oro, F., de Vaan, M., & Viredaz, A., eds, Mélanges de linguistique, de philologie et d’histoire ancienne offerts à Rudolf Wachter. Lausanne: Les Cahiers de l’ILSL, 99–102.Google Scholar

Kilani-Schoch, M., & Dressler, W. U. (1993). Prol-o, intell-o, gauch-o et les autres. Propriétés formelles de deux opérations du français parlé. Romanistisches Jahrbuch, 43, 65–86.Google Scholar

Klégr, A., & Čermák, J. (2010). Neologisms of the ‘on-the-pattern-of’ type: Analogy as a word-formation process? In Procházka, M., Malá, M., & Šaldová, P., eds, The Prague School and Theories of Structure. Göttingen: V&R unipress, 229–241.Google Scholar

Lehrer, A. (1996). Identifying and interpreting blends: An experimental approach. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(7), 359–390.Google Scholar

Lehrer, A. (1998). Scapes, holics, and thons: The semantics of combining forms. American Speech, 73, 3–28.Google Scholar

Lehrer, A. (2003). Understanding trendy neologisms. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 15(2), 369–382.Google Scholar

Lehrer, A. (2006). Neologisms. In Brown, K., ed., Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd ed. Boston: Elsevier, 590–593.Google Scholar

Lehrer, A. (2007). Blendalicious. In Munat, J., ed., Lexical Creativity, Texts and Contexts. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 115–133.Google Scholar

Libben, G. (2017). The quantum metaphor and the organization of words in the mind. Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science, 1, 49–55.Google Scholar

Lin, Y., Michel, J.-B., Lieberman Aiden, 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, 8–14 July, Jeju, South Korea, vol. 2, 169–174. https://aclanthology.org/P12-3029/.Google Scholar

López Rúa, P. (2004). The categorial continuum of English blends. English Studies, 85(1), 63–76.Google Scholar

Marchand, H. (1969). The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Formation: A Synchronic-Diachronic Approach, 2nd ed. Munich: Beck.Google Scholar

Marle, J. van (1990). Rule-creating creativity: Analogy as a synchronic morphological process. In Dressler, W. U., Luschützky, H. C., Pfeiffer, O. E., & Rennison, J. R., eds, Contemporary Morphology. Berlin: De Gruyter, 267–273.Google Scholar

Mattiello, E. (2007). Combining forms and blends: The case of scape. In Jottini, L., Del Lungo, G., & Douthwaite, J., eds, Cityscapes: Islands of the Self. Language Studies, vol. 2. Cagliari: CUEC, 115–130.Google Scholar

Mattiello, E. (2008). From sexgate to vallettopoli: Contrasting English and Italian combining forms. In Vergaro, C., ed., Dynamics of Language Contact in the Twenty-First Century, vol. 2. Perugia: Guerra, 177–190.Google Scholar

Mattiello, E. (2013). Extra-Grammatical Morphology in English: Abbreviations, Blends, Reduplicatives, and Related Phenomena. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Mattiello, E. (2016). Analogical neologisms in English. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 28(2), 103–142.Google Scholar

Mattiello, E. (2017). Analogy in Word-Formation: A Study of English Neologisms and Occasionalisms. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Mattiello, E. (2018a). Paradigmatic morphology: Splinters, combining forms, and secreted affixes. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 15(1), 2–22. www.skase.sk/Volumes/JTL36/pdf_doc/01.pdf.Google Scholar

Mattiello, E. (2018b). Lexicogenesis, analogy and productivity: The case of -burger. Neologica – Lexique: nouveauté et productivité, 12, 109–124.Google Scholar

Mattiello, E. (2019a). ‘Brexit, Grexit, with the possibility of Spexit’: Blend splinters and secreted affixes as creative word-formation mechanisms. In Bonsignori, V., Cappelli, G., & Mattiello, E., eds, Worlds of Words: Complexity, Creativity, and Conventionality in English Language, Literature and Culture, vol. 1. Pisa: Pisa University Press, 525–538.Google Scholar

Mattiello, E. (2019b). A corpus-based analysis of new English blends. Lexis, 14, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.4000/lexis.3660.Google Scholar

Mattiello, E. (2021). Blends vis-à-vis compounds in English. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 33(1), 3–34. www.italian-journal-linguistics.com/app/uploads/2021/07/1_Mattiello.pdf.Google Scholar

Mattiello, E. (2022) Language aggression in English slang: The case of the -o suffix. In Knoblock, N., ed., Grammar of Hate: Morphosyntactic Features of Hateful, Aggressive, and Dehumanizing Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 34–58.Google Scholar

Mattiello, E. (forth.) Derivational paradigms: The case of English combining forms. In Ruz, A. E., Fernández-Alcaina, C., & Lara-Clares, C., eds, Paradigms in Word Formation. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 129–152.Google Scholar

Mattiello, E., & Dressler, W. U. (2018). The morphosemantic transparency/opacity of novel English analogical compounds and compound families. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia: An International Review of English Studies, 53, 67–114. https://doi.org/10.2478/stap-2018-0004.Google Scholar

Mattiello, E., & Dressler, W. U. (2022). Dualism and superposition in the analysis of English synthetic compounds ending in -er. Linguistics, 60(2), 395–461. doi.org/10.1515/ling-2021-0235.Google Scholar

Mel’čuk, I. A. (1982). Towards a Language of Linguistics: A System of Formal Notions for Theoretical Morphology. Munich: Fink.Google Scholar

Merlini Barbaresi, L. (2006). Morphopragmatics. In Brown, K., ed., Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, 2nd ed. Boston: Elsevier, 332–335.Google Scholar

Michel, J.-B., Kui Shen, Y., Presser Aiden, A., et al. (2010). Quantitative analysis of culture using millions of digitized books. Science, 331(6014), 176–182.Google Scholar

Migliorini, B. (1963). I prefissoidi (il tipo aeromobile, radiodiffusione). In Migliorini, B., ed., Saggi sulla Lingua del Novecento. Firenze: Sansoni, 9–60.Google Scholar

Miller, G. D. (2014). English Lexicogenesis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Mugglestone, L. (2005). Lost for Words: The Hidden History of the Oxford English Dictionary. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Norde, M., & Van Goethem, K. (2018). Debonding and clipping of prefixoids in Germanic: Constructionalization or constructional change? In Booij, G., ed., The Construction of Words: Advances in Construction Morphology. Dordrecht: Springer, 475–518.Google Scholar

Online Etymology Dictionary (2001–). Harper, D., ed. www.etymonline.com.Google Scholar

Oxford English Dictionary Online (1989–). 2nd/3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. www.oed.com.Google Scholar

Perlmutter, D. (1988). The split morphology hypothesis: Evidence from Yiddish. In Hammond, M. & Noonan, M., eds, Theoretical Morphology: Approaches in Modern Linguistics. San Diego: Academic Press, 79–100.Google Scholar

Plag, I. (1999). Morphological Productivity: Structural Constraints in English Derivation. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Plag, I. (2003). Word-Formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Plag, I. (2006). Productivity. In Aarts, B. & McMahon, A., eds, The Handbook of English Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 537–557.Google Scholar

Plank, F. (1994). Inflection and derivation. In The Encyclopedia of Languages and Linguistics, vol. 3. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1671–1678.Google Scholar

Prćić, T. (2005). Prefixes vs initial combining forms in English: A lexicographic perspective. International Journal of Lexicography, 18(3), 313–334.Google Scholar

Prćić, T. (2008). Suffixes vs final combining forms in English: A lexicographic perspective. International Journal of Lexicography, 21(1), 1–22.Google Scholar

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Rainer, F. (1996). Inflection inside derivation: Evidence from Spanish and Portuguese. In Booij, G. & van Marle, J., eds, Yearbook of Morphology 1995. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3716-6_5.Google Scholar

Rainer, F. (2012). Morphological metaphysics: Virtual, potential and actual words. Word Structure, 5(2), 165–182.Google Scholar

Rainer, F. (2013). Formación de palabras y analogía: Aspectos diacrónicos. Anexos de Revista de Lexicografia, 19, 141–172.Google Scholar

Ramat, P. (1992). Thoughts on degrammaticalization. Linguistics, 30, 549–560.Google Scholar

Renner, V. (2008). Quelques remarques sur les quasi-lexèmes de type e- et -holic. In Lexicographie et terminologie: Histoire de mots. Colloque en l’honneur d’Henri Béjoint, September 2007, Lyon, 147–156. http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/51/23/03/PDF/Renner2008.pdf.Google Scholar

Renouf, A. (2019). Big data: Opportunities and challenges for English corpus linguistics. In Suhr, C., Nevalainen, T., & Taavitsainen, I., eds, From Data to Evidence in English Language Research. Leiden: Brill, 29–65. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004390652_003.Google Scholar

Roché, M. (2011). Quel traitement unifié pour les dérivations en -isme et en -iste? In Roché, M., Boyé, G., Hathout, N., Lignon, S., & Plénat, M., eds, Des unités morphologiques au lexique. Paris: Hermès Science-Lavoisier, 69–143.Google Scholar

Roll, M., Söderström, P., & Horne, M. (2013). Word-stem tones cue suffixes in the brain. Brain Research, 1520, 116–120.Google Scholar

Ronneberger-Sibold, E. (2006). Lexical blends: Functionally tuning the transparency of complex words. Folia Linguistica, 40(1/2), 155–181.Google Scholar

Ronneberger-Sibold, E. (2010). Word creation: Definition – function – typology. In Rainer, F., Dressler, W. U., Kastovsky, D., & Luschützky, H. C., eds, Variation and Change in Morphology: Selected Papers from the 13th International Morphology Meeting, Vienna, February 2008. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 201–216.Google Scholar

Ronneberger-Sibold, E. (2015). Word-creation. In Müller, P. O., Ohnheiser, I., Olsen, S., & Rainer, F., eds, Word-Formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe. Berlin: De Gruyter, 485–499.Google Scholar

Rundblad, G., & Kronenfeld, D. B. (2000). Folk-etymology: Haphazard perversion or shrewd analogy? In Coleman, J. & Kay, C. J., eds, Lexicology, Semantics and Lexicography: Selected Papers from the Fourth G. L. Brook Symposium. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 19–34.Google Scholar

Scalise, S. (1983). Morfologia Lessicale. Padova: CLESP.Google Scholar

Scalise, S. (1992). Compounding in Italian. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 4(1), 175–199.Google Scholar

Spencer, A. (1991). Morphological Theory: An Introduction to Word Structure in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Spencer, A. (2013) Lexical Relatedness: A Paradigm-Based Model. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Štekauer, P. (2014). Derivational paradigms. In Lieber, R. & Štekauer, P., eds, The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 354–369.Google Scholar

Stevens, C. M. (2005). Revisiting the affixoid debate: On the grammaticalization of the word. In Leuschner, T., Mortelmans, T., & de Groodt, S., eds, Grammatikalisierung im Deutschen. Berlin: De Gruyter, 71–83.Google Scholar

Štichauer, P. (2009). Morphological productivity in diachrony: The case of the deverbal nouns in -mento, -zione and -gione in Old Italian from the 13th to the 16th century. In Montermini, F., Boyé, G., & Tseng, J., eds, Selected Proceedings of the 6th Décembrettes. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, 138–147. www.lingref.com, document #2241.Google Scholar

Tournier, J. (1985). Introduction Descriptive à la Lexicogénétique de l’Anglais Contemporain. Paris: Champion/Slatkine.Google Scholar

Traugott, E. C., & Heine, B., eds (1991). Approaches to Grammaticalization, 2 vols. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Urban Dictionary (1999–). www.urbandictionary.com.Google Scholar

Vogel, P. M., Donalies, E., Eichinger, L. M., et al., eds (2017). Zeitschrift für Wortbildung/Journal of Word Formation, 1(1), 1–100. https://doi.org/10.3726/b11246_1.Google Scholar

Warren, B. (1990). The importance of combining forms. In Dressler, W. U., Luschützky, H. C., Pfeiffer, O. E., & Rennison, J. R., eds, Contemporary Morphology. Berlin: De Gruyter, 111–132.Google Scholar

Weijer van de, J., Sloos, M., & Wei, W. (2019). Vowel reduction in English -man compounds. The Linguistic Review, 36(4), 675–687.Google Scholar

Zwicky, A. M. (1990). Inflectional morphology as a (sub)component of grammar. In Dressler, W. U., Luschützky, H. C., Pfeiffer, O., & Rennison, J., eds, Contemporary Morphology. Berlin: De Gruyter, 217–236.Google Scholar

Zwicky, A. M. (2010). Libfixes. http://arnoldzwicky.org/2010/01/23/libfixes/.Google Scholar

Zwicky, A. M., & Pullum, G. K. (1987). Plain morphology and expressive morphology. In Aske, J., Beery, N., Michaelis, L., & Filip, H., eds, Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, General Session and Parasession on Grammar and Cognition. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 330–340.Google Scholar

Book contents

References

Summary

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive