Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Foundations of Morphological Theory
- Part II Issues in Morphological Theory
- Part III Morphological Principles
- Part IV Morphological Frameworks
- Part V The Role of Morphology in Theories of Phonology and Syntax
- Part VI Domains for the Evaluation of Morphological Theories
- Index of languages
- Index of names
- Index of subjects
- References
Part I - Foundations of Morphological Theory
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 January 2017
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Foundations of Morphological Theory
- Part II Issues in Morphological Theory
- Part III Morphological Principles
- Part IV Morphological Frameworks
- Part V The Role of Morphology in Theories of Phonology and Syntax
- Part VI Domains for the Evaluation of Morphological Theories
- Index of languages
- Index of names
- Index of subjects
- References
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.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology , pp. 25 - 90Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2016
References
References
Bauer, Laurie; Lieber, Rochelle, and Plag, Ingo. 2013. The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beard, Robert. 1981. The Indo-European Lexicon: A Full Synchronic Theory. North-Holland Linguistic Series, 44. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 1988. The relation between inheritance and argument linking: deverbal nouns in Dutch. In Everaert, Martin, Evers, Arnold, Huybrechts, Riny, and Trommelen, Mieke (eds.), Morphology and Modularity, 57–74. In Honour of Henk Schultink. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert. 1996. Inherent versus contextual inflection and the split morphology hypothesis. Yearbook of Morphology 1995, 1–16.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2013. Structuring Sense, Volume 3: Taking Form. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Dunstan, and Hippisley, Andrew. 2012. Network Morphology: A Defaults-based Theory of Word Structure. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Dunstan; Chumakina, Marina, Corbett, Greville G., Popova, Gergana D., and Spencer, Andrew. 2012. Defining “periphrasis”: key notions. Morphology 22, 233–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2010. Canonical derivational morphology. Word Structure 3, 141–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downing, Pamela 1977. On the creation and use of English nominal compounds. Language 55, 810–42.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1973. Prolegomena to a theory of word formation. Linguistic Inquiry 4, 3–16.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris, and Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel J. (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays Presented to Silvain Bromberger on his 50th Birthday, 111–76. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1996. Word-class-changing inflection and morphological theory. Yearbook of Morphology 1995, 43–66.Google Scholar
Helimski, Eugene. 1998. Selkup. In Abondolo, Daniel (ed.), The Uralic Languages, 548–9. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kenesei, István 2007. Semiwords and affixoids: The territory between word and affix. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 54, 263–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Los, Bettelou; Blom, Corrien, Booij, Geert, Elenbaas, Marion, and van Kemenade, Ans. 2012. Morphosyntactic Change: A Comparative Study of Particles and Prefixes. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Randall, Janet. 1989. Morphological Structure and Language Acquisition: PhD dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. New York: Garland Publishers.Google Scholar
Randall, Janet 2010. Linking: The Geometry of Argument Structure. Dordrecht: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, Keren D. 2000. Morpheme Order and Semantic Scope: Word Formation in the Athabaskan Verb. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 1999. Transpositions and argument structure. Yearbook of Morphology 1998, 73–102.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 2005. Towards a typology of “mixed categories.” In Orhan Orgun, C. and Sells, Peter (eds.), Morphology and the Web of Grammar: Essays in Memory of Steven G. Lapointe, 95–138. Stanford University Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 2013. Lexical Relatedness: A Paradigm-based Model. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 1993. How peculiar is evaluative morphology? Journal of Lingustics 29, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 2001. Inflectional Morphology: A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, Gregory. 2005. Some criticisms of Carstairs-McCarthy’s conclusions. Yearbook of Morphology 2005, 283–303.Google Scholar
Vajda, Edward J. 2004. Ket. Languages of the World/Materials 204. Munich: LINCOM EUROPA.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1981. On the notions “lexically related” and “head of a word,” Linguistic Inquiry 12, 245–74.Google Scholar
Wunderlich, Dieter, and Fabri, Ray. 1995. Minimalist Morphology: An Approach to Inflection. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 14, 236–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold. 1985. How to describe inflection. In Niepokuj, Mary, Van Clay, Mary, Nikiforidou, Vassiliki and Feder, Deborah (eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 372–86. Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
References
Ackerman, F., and Malouf, R. 2013. Morphological organization: The Low Conditional Entropy Conjecture. Language 89, 429–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, S. R. 1986. Disjunctive ordering in inflectional morphology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4, 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, S. R. 2015. The morpheme: Its nature and use. In Baerman, M. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Inflection, 11–34. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Andrews, A. D. 1990. Unification and morphological blocking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8, 507–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, M. 1994. Morphology by Itself: Stems and Inflectional Classes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H.; McQueen, J. M., Dijkstra, T., and Schreuder, R.. 2003. Frequency effects in regular inflectional morphology: Revisiting Dutch plurals. In Baayen, R. H. and Schreuder, R. (eds.), Morphological Structure in Language Processing, 355–70. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H.; Milin, P., Đurđević, D. Filipović, Hendrix, P., and Marelli, M.. 2011. An amorphous model for morphological processing in visual comprehension based on naive discriminative learning. Psychological Review 118, 438–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baayen, R. H.; Shaoul, C., Willits, J., and Ramscar, M.. 2016. Comprehension without segmentation: A proof of concept with naïve discrimination learning. Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience 31.1, 106–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bazell, C. E. 1949. On the problem of the morpheme. Archivum Linguisticum 1, 1–15. Reprinted in E. Hamp, F. W. Householder, and R. Austerlitz (eds.), Readings in Linguistics II, 216–26. University of Chicago Press, 1966.Google Scholar
Beard, R. 1995. Lexeme-morpheme Base Morphology: A General Theory of Inflection and Word Formation. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Blevins, J. P. 1995. Syncretism and paradigmatic opposition. Linguistics and Philosophy 18, 113–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, J. P. 2006. Word-based morphology. Journal of Linguistics 42, 531–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, J. P. 2007. Conjugation classes in Estonian. Linguistica Uralica 43.4, 250–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, J. P. 2008. Declension classes in Estonian. Linguistica Uralica 44.4, 241–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, L. 1926. A set of postulates for the science of language. Language 2, 153–64. Reprinted in Joos (1957), 26–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, M.; Marslen-Wilson, W. D., and Gaskell, M.. 2002. Leading up the lexical garden-path: Segmentation and ambiguity in spoken word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 28, 218–44.Google Scholar
Drager, K. K. 2011. Sociophonetic variation and the lemma. Journal of Phonetics 39, 694–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gahl, S. 2008. “Thyme” and “Time” are not homophones: The effect of lemma frequency on word durations in spontaneous speech. Language 84.3, 474–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halle, M., and Marantz, A.. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, K. and Keyser, S. J. (eds.), The View from Building 20, 111–76. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harris, Z. S. 1942. Morpheme alternants in linguistic analysis. Language 18, 169–80. Reprinted in Joos (1957), 109–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hockett, C. F. 1942. A system of descriptive phonology. Language 18, 3–21. Reprinted in Joos (1957), 97–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hockett, C. F. 1947. Problems of morphemic analysis. Language 23, 321–43. Reprinted in Joos (1957), 229–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hockett, C. F. 1954. Two models of grammatical description. Word 10, 210–31. Reprinted in Joos (1957), 386–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hockett, C. F. 1987. Refurbishing our Foundations: Elementary Linguistics from an Advanced Point of View. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemps, J. J. K. R.; Ernestus, M., Schreuder, R., and Baayen, R. H.. 2005. Prosodic cues for morphological complexity: The case of Dutch plural nouns. Memory and Cognition 33.3, 430–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lounsbury, F. 1953. Oneida Verb Morphology. Yale University Publications in Anthropology 48. New Haven: Yale University Press. Chapter 1 reprinted in Joos (1957), 379–85.Google Scholar
Maiden, M. 2005. Morphological autonomy and diachrony. Yearbook of Morphology 2004, 137–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marantz, A. 2013. No escape from morphemes in morphological processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28.7, 905–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, P. H. 1965. The inflectional component of a word-and-paradigm grammar. Journal of Linguistics 1, 139–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, P. H. 1972. Inflectional Morphology: A Theoretical Study Based on Aspects of Latin Verb Conjugation. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Plag, I.; Homann, J., and Kunter, G. 2015. Homophony and morphology: The acoustics of word-final S in English. Journal of Linguistics (http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0022226715000183).Google Scholar
Ramscar, M.; Dye, M., and McCauley, S. M.. 2013. Error and expectation in language learning: The curious absence of mouses in adult speech. Language 89.4, 760–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramscar, M.; Yarlett, D., Dye, M., Denny, K., and Thorpe, K.. 2010. The effects of feature-label-order and their implications for symbolic learning. Cognititive Science 34, 909–57.Google ScholarPubMed
Rescorla, R. A. 1988. Pavlovian conditioning: It’s not what you think it is. American Psychologist 43.3, 151–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rescorla, R. A., and Wagner, A. R.. 1972. A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In Black, A. H. and Prokasy, W. F. (eds.), Classical Conditioning II, 64–99. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Robins, R. H. 1959. In defence of WP. Transactions of the Philological Society 58, 116–44. Reprinted in Transactions of the Philological Society 99, 2001, 116–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saussure, F. d. 1916. Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot, critical edition edited by T. de Mauro, 2005 edition.Google Scholar
Saussure, F. d. 1959. Cours de linguistique générale. New York: Philosophical Press. Translated by Baskin, W..Google Scholar
Stump, G. T. 2001. Inflectional Morphology: A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
References
Arnaud, P. 2013. Word-formation and word-creation: A data-driven exploration of inventiveness in neologisms. Quaderns de Filologia 18, 97–113.Google Scholar
Aronoff, M., and Anshen, F.. 1998. Morphology and the lexicon: Lexicalization and productivity. In Spencer, A. and Zwicky, A. M. (eds.), The Handbook of Morphology, 237–47. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Aronoff, M., and Lindsay, M.. 2014. Productivity, blocking, and lexicalization. In Lieber, S. and P. Štekauer, (eds.), The Handbook of Derivational Morphology, 67–83. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aurnague, M., and Plénat, M.. 2013. Manifestations morphologiques de la relation d’attachement habituel. In Dal, G. and Amiot, D., Repères en morphologie, 11–20. Lille: Laboratoire STL. Originally published as in Silexicales 1 (1997), 15–24.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H. 1992. Quantitative aspects of morphological productivity. Yearbook of Morphology 1991, 109–49.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H. 1993. On frequency, transparency and productivity. Yearbook of Morphology 1992, 181–208.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H. 1994. Derivational productivity and text typology. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 1, 16–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H. 2009. Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. In Lüdeling, A. and Kytö, M. (eds.), Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook, vol. 2, 899–919. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., and Lieber, R.. 1991. Productivity and English derivation: A corpus-based study. Linguistics 29.5, 801–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., and Neijt, A.. 1997. Productivity in context: A case study of a Dutch suffix. Linguistics 35, 565–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., and Renouf, A.. 1996. Chronicling the Times: Productive lexical innovations in an English newspaper. Language 72, 69–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagasheva, A., and Stamenov, C.. 2013. The ludic aspect of lexical inventiveness. Quaderns de Filologia 18, 71–82.Google Scholar
Balteiro, I., and Campos, M. Á.. 2012. False anglicisms in the Spanish language of fashion and beauty. Ibérica 24, 233–60.Google Scholar
Baroni, M.; Bernardini, S., Ferraresi, A., and Zanchetta, E.. 2009. The WaCky Wide Web: A collection of very large linguistically processed Web-crawled corpora. Language Resources and Evaluation 43.3, 209–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L. 2005. Productivity: Theories. In Štekauer, P. and Lieber, R. (eds.), Handbook of Word-Formation, 315–34. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Bochner, H. 1993. Simplicity in Generative Morphology. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booij, G. 1977. Dutch Morphology: A study of word formation in generative grammar. Lisse: The Peter de Ridder Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J. 2001. Explaining morphosyntactic competition. In Baltin, M. and Collins, C. (eds.), Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, 11–44. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Chmielik, J., and Grabar, N. 2011. Détection de la spécialisation scientifique et technique des documents biomédicaux grâce aux informations morphologiques. TAL 52.2, 151–79.Google Scholar
Corbin, D. 1987. Morphologie dérivationnelle et structuration du lexique. 2 vols., Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag; new edition, Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses Universitaires de Lille, 1991.Google Scholar
Dal, G. 2003. Productivité morphologique: Définitions et notions connexes. Langue Française 140, 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dal, G., and Namer, F.. 2003. Complex words vs phrases: The case of causative verbs in French. 3d Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (MMM3) (selected papers), 129–48. Barcelona: IULA-Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
Dal, G., and Namer, F. 2012. Faut-il brûler les dictionnaires? Ou comment les ressources numériques ont révolutionné les recherches en morphologie. In Neveu, F., Muni Toke, V., Blumenthal, P., Klingler, T., Ligas, P., Prévost, S., and Teston-Bonnard, S. (eds.), Actes en ligne du 3e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française. Lyon, 4–7 juillet 2012, 1261–76. Paris: EDP Sciences.Google Scholar
Dal, G., and Namer, F.. 2014. Adjectifs positifs en -able et négatifs en in- correspondants en français: ou pourquoi seuls sonts importables les ordinateurs portables. In Neveu, F., Blumenthal, P., Hriba, L., Gerstenberg, A., Meinschaefer, J., and Prévost, S. (eds.), Actes du 4e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française, Berlin, Allemagne, 19–23 juillet 2014, 1741–54. Paris: EDP Sciences.Google Scholar
Dal, G., and Namer, F.. 2015. Internet. In Müller, P. O., Ohnheiser, I., Olsen, S., and Rainer, F. (eds.), Word-Formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe, 2372–86. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dal, G.; Fradin, B., Grabar, N., Lignon, S., Namer, F., Plancq, C., Yvon, F., and Zweigenbaum, P. 2008. Quelques préalables linguistiques au calcul de la productivité des règles constructionnelles et premiers résultats. In Durand, J., Habert, B., and Laks, B. (eds.), Actes du premier Congrès mondial de linguistique française, Paris, 9–12 juillet 2008, 1587–99. Paris: Institut de Linguistique Française.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. 2005. Word-formation in natural morphology. In Štekauer, P. and Lieber, R. (eds.), Handbook of Word-Formation, 267–84. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Evert, S., and Lüdeling, A.. 2001. Measuring morphological productivity: Is automatic preprocessing sufficient? In Rayson, P., Wilson, A., McEnery, T., Hardie, A., and Khoja, S. (eds.), Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics 2001 Conference, UCREL Technical Papers, 167–75. Lancaster University.Google Scholar
Fernández-Domínguez, J. 2010. Productivity vs. lexicalisation: frequency-based hypotheses on word-formation. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 46.2, 193–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández-Domínguez, J.; Díaz-Negrillo, A., and S̆tekauer, P.. 2007. How is low morphological productivity measured? Atlantis 29.1, 29–54.Google Scholar
Fradin, B., 2003. Nouvelles approches en morphologie. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fradin, B.; Dal, G., Grabar, N., Lignon, S., Namer, F., Tribout, D., and Zweigenbaum, P.. 2008. Remarques sur l’usage des corpus en morphologie. Langage 171, 34–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaeta, L., and Ricca, D.. 2003. Italian prefixes and productivity: A quantitative approach. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 50, 89–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaeta, L., and Ricca, D.. 2006. Productivity in Italian word formation: A variable-corpus approach. Linguistics 44.1, 57–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaeta, L., and Ricca, D.. 2015. Productivity. In Müller, P. O., Ohnheiser, I., Olsen, S., and Rainer, F. (eds.), Word-Formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe, 842–58. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hathout, N. 2011. Morphonette: a paradigm-based morphological network. Lingue e Linguaggio 2, 243–62.Google Scholar
Hathout, N., and Namer, F.. 2014. Discrepancy between form and meaning in Word Formation: The case of over- and under-marking in French. In Rainer, F., Dressler, W. U., Gardani, F., and Luschützky, H. C., Morphology and Meaning (Selected Papers from the 15th International Morphology Meeting, Vienna, February 2010), 177–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hathout, N.; Plénat, M., and Tanguy, L.. 2003. Enquête sur les dérivés en -able. Cahiers de Grammaire 28, 49–91.Google Scholar
Hay, J. 2001. Lexical frequency in morphology: Is everything relative? Linguistics 39.6, 1041–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hohenhaus, P. 2005. Lexicalization and institutionalization. In Štekauer, P. and Lieber, R. (eds.), Handbook of Word-Formation, 353–74. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. 1942. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, vol. 6: Morphology. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Keune, K.; Ernestus, M., Van Hout, R., and Baayen, R. H.. 2005. Social, geographical, and register variation in Dutch: From written MOGELIJK to spoken MOK. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1, 183–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koefoed, G., and van Marle, J.. 2000. Productivity. In Booij, G., Lehmann, C., and Mugdan, J. (eds.), An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation, vol. 1, 303–11. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Koehl, A. 2012a. La construction morphologique des noms désadjectivaux de propriété en français. Thesis, Université de Lorraine.Google Scholar
Koehl, A. 2012b. Altitude, négritude, bravitude ou la résurgence d’une suffixation. In Neveu, F., Muni Toke, V., Blumenthal, P., Klinger, T., Ligas, P., Prévost, S., and Teston-Bonnard, S. (eds.), Actes du 3e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française, Lyon, 1307–23. Paris: Institut de Linguistique Française.Google Scholar
Lignon, S., and Namer, F.. 2010. Comment conversionner les V-ion? Ou la construction de V-ionner par conversion. In Neveu, F., Muni Toke, V., Klingler, T., Durand, J., Mondada, L., and Prévost, S. (eds.), Actes du 2e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française, New Orleans, 1009–28. Paris: Institut de Linguistique Française.Google Scholar
Lüdeling, A., and Evert, S.. 2005. The emergence of productive non-medical -itis: corpus evidence and qualitative analysis. In Kepser, S. and Reis, M. (eds), Linguistic Evidence: Empirical, Theoretical and Computational Perspectives, 350–70. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Marle, J. van. 1985. On the Paradigmatic Dimension of Morphological Creativity. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Marle, J. van. 1992. The relationship between morphological productivity and frequency: A comment on Baayen’s performance-oriented conception of morphological productivity. Yearbook of Morphology 1991, 151–63.Google Scholar
Munat, J. (ed.) 2007. Lexical Creativity, Texts and Contexts: Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Namer, F., and Villoing, F.. 2015. Sens morphologiquement construit et procédés concurrents: Les noms de spécialistes en –logue et –logiste. Revue de sémantique et de pragmatique 35–6, 7–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panckhurst, R.; Détrie, C., Lopez, C., Moïse, C., Roche, M., and Verine, B.. 2013. Sud4science, de l’acquisition d’un grand corpus de SMS en français à l’analyse de l’écriture SMS. Épistémè: Revue internationale de sciences sociales appliquées 9, 107–38.Google Scholar
Piantadosi, S.; Tily, H., and Gibson, E.. 2012. The communicative function of ambiguity in language. Cognition 122.3, 280–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plag, I. 1999. Morphological Productivity: Structural Constraints in English Derivation. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Plag, I. 2006. Productivity. In Aarts, B. and McMahon, A. (eds.), Handbook of English Linguistics, 537–56. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Plag, I.; Dalton-Puffer, C., and Baayen, R. H., 1999. Productivity and register. Journal of English Language and Linguistics 3, 209–28.Google Scholar
Plénat, M.; Lignon, S., Serna, N., and Lignon, L.. 2002. La conjecture de Pichon. Corpus et recherches linguistiques 1, 105–50.Google Scholar
Pruñonosa-Tomas, M.; Fernandez-Domingez, J., and Penner, V. (eds.) 2013. Theoretical and Empirical Advances in Word-Formation: Quaderns de Filologia. Universitat València.Google Scholar
Rainer, F. 1989. Towards a theory of blocking: The case of Italian and German quality nouns. Yearbook of Morphology 1988, 155–85.Google Scholar
Rainer, F. 2000. Produktivitätsbeschränkungen. In Booij, G., Lehman, C., and Mugdan, J. (eds.), Morphology: An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation, vol. 1., 877–85. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rainer, F. 2005. Constraints on productivity. In Štekauer, P. and Lieber, R. (eds.), Handbook of Word-Formation, 335–52. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Renner, V., and Fernandez-Dominguez, J.. 2014. False anglicization in the romance languages: A contrastive analysis of French, Spanish and Italian. In Furiassi, C. and Gottlieb, H. (eds.), English: Studies on False Anglicisms in Europe, Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter, Mouton.Google Scholar
Roché, M. 2011. Quelle morphologie? In Roché, M., Boyé, G., Hathout, N., Lignon, S., and Plénat, M. (eds.), Des unités morphologiques au lexique, 15–39. Paris: Hermès.Google Scholar
Roldán-Vendrell, M., and Fernandez-Dominguez, J.. 2012. Emergent neologisms and lexical gaps in specialised languages. Terminology 18.1, 9–26.Google Scholar
Scalise, S.; Ceresa, M., Drigo, M., and Zannier, I.. 1983. Sulla nozione di Blocking in morfologia derivazionale. Lingua e Stile 2, 243–68.Google Scholar
Schultink, H. 1961. Produktiviteit als morfologisch fenomeen. Forum der Letteren 2, 110–25.Google Scholar
Schultink, H. 1992. Herkomst en groei van het begrip “produktiviteit” als morfologisch fenomeen, Produktiviteit als morfologisch fenomeen. In Klein, M. (ed.), Nieuwe eskapades in de neerlandistiek, 187–201. Groningen: Wolfters-Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Seddah, D.; Sagot, B., Candito, M., Mouilleron, V., and Combet, V.. 2012. The French Social Media Bank: A treebank of noisy user generated content. COLING 2012: 24th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, 2441–58. Mumbai: The COLING 2012 Organizing Committee.Google Scholar
Smyk-Bhattacharjee, D. 2006. Acceptance as an integral factor in the interpretation of novel words. Skase Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 3.2, 28–36.Google Scholar
Štekauer, P. 2005. Onomasiological approach to word-formation. In Štekauer, P. and Lieber, R. (eds.), Handbook of Word-Formation, 207–32. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Štekauer, P. (ed.) 2006. Interpretation of novel words. Skase Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 3.2.Google Scholar
Szymanek, B. 2005. The latest trends in English word-formation. In Štekauer, P. and Lieber, R. (eds.), Handbook of Word-Formation, 429–48. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Wielding, M.; Montemagni, S., Nerbonne, J., and Baayen, R. H.. 2014. Lexical differences between Tuscan dialects and Standard Italian: Accounting for geographic and sociodemographic variation using generalized additive mixed modelling, Language 90.3, 669–92.Google Scholar
Zimmer, K. 1964. Affixal negation in English and other languages: an investigation of restricted productivity. Word 20.2, Supplement (Monograph 5).Google Scholar
Zwanenburg, W. 1983. Productivité morphologique et emprunt: Étude des dérivés déverbaux savants en français moderne. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar