References
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 October 2016
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- English NounsThe Ecology of Nominalization, pp. 186 - 191Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2016
References
Adger, David 2003. Core Syntax: A Minimalist Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis 2001. Functional Structure in Nominals: Nominalizations and Ergativity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis 2011. Statives and nominalization. Recherches linguistiques de Vincennes 40. 25–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis, Iordachioaia, Gianina, & Soare, Elena 2010. Number/aspect interactions in the syntax of nominalizations: A distributed approach. Journal of Linguistics 46.3. 537–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis & Schäfer, Florian 2010. On the syntax of episodic vs. dispositional -er nominals. In Alexiadou, A. & Rathert, M., eds. Syntax of Nominalizations across Languages and Frameworks. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 9–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anshen, Frank & Aronoff, Mark 1981. Morphological productivity and phonological transparency. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 26.1. 63–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arndt-Lappe, Sabine 2014. Analogy in suffix rivalry: The case of English -ity and -ness. English Language and Linguistics 18.3. 497–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark & Cho, Sungeun 2001. The semantics of -ship suffixation. Linguistic Inquiry 32. 167–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, Harald 1989. A corpus-based approach to morphological productivity. PhD dissertation. Free University, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Baayen, Harald & Lieber, Rochelle 1991. Productivity and English derivation: A corpus-based study. Linguistics 29. 801–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baeskow, Heike 2010. His Lordship’s -ship and the King of Golfdom. Against a purely functional analysis of suffixhood. Word Structure 3.1. 11–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baeskow, Heike 2012. -Ness and -ity: Phonological exponents of n or meaningful nominalizers of different adjectival domains. Journal of English Linguistics 40.1. 6–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, Chris 1998. Episodic -ee in English: A thematic role constraint on new word formation. Language 74. 694–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie, Lieber, Rochelle, & Plag, Ingo 2013. The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie & Renouf, Antoinette 2001. A corpus-based study of compounding in English. Journal of English Linguistics 29. 101–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benveniste, Emile 1966. La forme et le sens dans le language. Le Langage: Actes du XIIIe congrès des sociétés e philosophie de langue française. Neuchatel: La Baconnière. 27–40.Google Scholar
Bierwisch, Manfred 1990/1991. Event nominalizations: Proposals and problems. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 40.1–2. 19–84.Google Scholar
Bisetto, Antoinette & Scalise, Sergio 2005. The classification of compounds. Lingua e linguaggio 4.2. 319–332.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert 1986. Form and meaning in morphology: The case of Dutch ‘agent’ nouns. Linguistics 24. 503–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert & Lieber, Rochelle 2004. On the paradigmatic nature of affixal semantics in English and Dutch. Linguistics 42.2. 327–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borer, Hagit 2009. Categorizing roots. Handout of an invited talk. CASTL Colloquium. University of Tromsø (cited in Fabregas, Antonio 2014).Google Scholar
Bowers, John 2010. Non-event nominals and argument structure. Lingua 121: 1194–1206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin 2013. By phrases in passives and nominals. Syntax 16.1. 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruening, Benjamin 2014. Word formation is syntactic: Adjectival passives in English. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 32. 363–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Jacobs, R. & Rosenbaum, P., eds. Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Waltham, MA: Ginn. 184–221.Google Scholar
Cohen, Ariel 2014. A semantic explanation for the external argument generalization. Talk given at Semantics of Derivational Morphology workshop. Düsseldorf.Google Scholar
Copestake, Ann & Briscoe, Ted 1996. Semi-productive polysemy and sense extension. In Pustejovsky, James & Boguraev, Brad, eds. Lexical Semantics: The Problem of Polysemy. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 15–68.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark 2008–. The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 520 million words, 1990–2015. Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/.Google Scholar
DiSciullo, Anna Maria & Williams, Edwin 1987. On the Definition of Word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fabregas, Antonio 2012. Zero nouns with and without objects. Nordlyd 39.1. 63–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fabregas, Antonio 2014. Argument structure and morphologically underived nouns in Spanish and English. Lingua 141. 97–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fabregas, Antonio & Marin, Rafael 2012. The role of Aktionsart in deverbal nouns: State nominalizations across languages. Journal of Linguistics 48. 35–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fradin, Bernard 2011. Remarks on state denoting nominalizations. Recherches linguistiques de Vincennes 40. 73–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, Edward, Piantadosi, Steve & Fedorenko, Kristina 2011. Using Mechanical Turk to obtain and analyze English acceptability judgments. Language and Linguistics Compass 5.8. 509–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenbaum, Sidney 1976. Syntactic frequency and acceptability. Lingua 40. 99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenbaum, Sidney 1977. Judgments of syntactic acceptability and frequency. Studia Linguistica 31. 83–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane 2011. Deverbal nominalization (Article 51). In von Heusinger, K., Maienborn, C., and Portner, P., eds. Semantics (HSK 32, vol. 2). Berlin: De Gruyter. 1292–1313.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi 2009. The morphology of nominalizations and the syntax of vP. In Giannakidou, A. & Rathert, M., eds. Quantification, Definiteness, and Nominalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 321–343.Google Scholar
Heyvaert, Liesbet 2001. Deverbal -er suffixation as morphological equivalent of the clausal subject-finite unit. Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium. Preprint 176.Google Scholar
Householder, H. 1973. On arguments from asterisks. Foundations of Language 10.3. 365–376.Google Scholar
van Hout, Angeliek, Kamiya, Masaaki & Roeper, Thomas 2013. Passivization, reconstruction and edge phenomena: Connecting English and Japanese nominalizations. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31: 137–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray 2009. Compounding in the parallel architecture and conceptual semantics. In Lieber, R. & Štekauer, P., eds. The Oxford Handbook of Compounding. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 105–128.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto 1943. A Modern Engilsh Grammar on Historical Principles. Part VI. Morphology. Copenhagen: Einar Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Kittay, Eva 1992. Semantic fields and the individuation of content. In Lehrer, A. & Kittay, E., eds. Frames, Fields, and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Ehrlbaum. 229–252.Google Scholar
Lebeaux, David 1986. The interpretation of derived nominals. In Farley, A., Farley, P., & McCullough, K.-E., eds. Papers from the Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 22.Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 231–247.Google Scholar
Lees, Robert 1960. The Grammar of English Nominalizations. Bloomington: Indiana University Press/The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Lehrer, Adrienne 1974. Semantic Fields and Lexical Structure. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Lehrer, Adrienne 1993. Semantic fields and frames: Are they alternatives? In Lutzeier, Peter Rolf, ed. Studies in Lexical Field Theory. Berlin: DeGruyter. 149–162.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Hovav, Malka Rappaport 1988. Non-event -er nominals: a probe into argument structure. Linguistics 26. 1067–1083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle 1983. Argument linking and compounds in English. Linguistic Inquiry. 14. 251–286.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle 1992. Deconstructing Morphology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle 2004. Morphology and Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle 2006. The category of roots and the roots of categories. Morphology 16. 2. 247–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle 2009. A lexical semantic approach to compounding. In Lieber, R. & Štekauer, P., eds. The Oxford Handbook of Compounding. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 78–104.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle 2010a. On the lexical semantics of compounds: Non-affixal (de)verbal compounds. In Scalise, S. & Vogel, I., eds. Cross-disciplinary Issues in Compounding. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 127–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle 2010b. Toward an OT morphosemantics: The case of –hood, -dom, and –ship. In Olsen, S., ed. New Impulses in Word Formation. Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft 17. 61–80.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle 2015. The semantics of transposition. Morphology. DOI 10.1007/s11525-015-9261-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle 2016. The lexical semantic approach to compounding. In ten Hacken, P., ed. The Semantics of Compounding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 38–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle forthcoming. On the interplay of facts and theory. In Siddiqi, D. & Harley, H., eds. Morphological Metatheory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle & Baayen, Harald 1997. A semantic principle of auxiliary selection in Dutch. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15. 789–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle & Baayen, Harald 1999. Nominalizations in a calculus of lexical semantic representations. In Booij, Geert & van Marle, Jaap, eds. Yearbook of Morphology 1998. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 175–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John 1968. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchand, Hans 1969. The Categories and Types of Present-day English Word Formation, 2nd ed. Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
Melloni, Chiara 2007. Polysemy in Word Formation: The Case of Deverbal Nominals. Verona: University of Verona Dissertation.Google Scholar
Melloni, Chiara 2011. Event and Result Nominals: A Morpho-semantic Approach. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick 2009. Current challenges to the lexicalist hypothesis: An overview and a critique. In Lewis, W., Karimi, S. & Harley, H., eds. Time and Again: Theoretical Perspectives on Formal Linguistics: In Honor of D. Terence Langendoen. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 91–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pustejovsky, James 1998. The semantics of lexical underspecification. Folia Linguistica 32. 3–4. 323–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pustejovsky, James 2011. Coercion in a general theory of argument selection. Linguistics 49. 6. 1041–1431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Levin, Beth 1992. -ER nominals: Implications for the theory of argument structure. In Stowell, T. & Wehrli, E., eds. Syntax and Semantics vol. XXVI: Syntax and the Lexicon. New York: Academic Press. 127–153.Google Scholar
Ricoeur, Paul 1975/1977. The Rule of Metaphor: Multi-Disciplinary Studies of the Creation and Meaning of Language. Trans. Czerny, Robert. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Riddle, Elizabeth 1985. A historical perspective on the productivity of the suffixes -ness and -ity. In Fisiak, Jacek, ed. Historical Semantics, Historical Word-Formation. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 435–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roeper, Thomas 1993. Explicit syntax in the lexicon: The representation of nominalizations. In Pustejovsky, J., ed. Semantics and the Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 185–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roeper, Thomas & Siegel, Muffy 1978. A lexical transformation for verbal compounds. Linguistic Inquiry 9. 197–260.Google Scholar
Roy, Isabelle 2010. Deadjectival nominalizations and the structure of the adjective. In Alexiadou, A. & Rathert, M. eds. Interface Explorations: Syntax of Nominalizations across Languages and Frameworks. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.129–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, Isabelle & Soare, Elena 2011. Nominalizations: New insights and theoretical implications. Recherches linguistiques de Vincennes 40. 7–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryder, Mary Ellen 1999. Bankers and Blue-chippers: An account of -er formations in present-day English. English Language and Linguistics 3. 269–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand 1916/1983. Course in General Linguistics. Translated & annotated by Harris, Roy. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Scalise, Sergio & Bisetto, Antoinette 2009. The classification of compounds. In Lieber, R. & Štekauer, P., eds. The Oxford Handbook of Compounding. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 34–53.Google Scholar
Schütze, Carson 1996. The Empirical Base of Linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sichel, Ivy 2010. Event-structure constraints on nominalization. In Alexiadou, A. & Rathert, M., eds. Interface Explorations: Syntax of Nominalizations across Languages and Frameworks. Berlin: Walter de Gruter. 159–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, William 1998. On the aspectual properties of English derived nominals. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 25. 125–139.Google Scholar
Sprouse, Jon & Almeida, Diogo 2012. Assessing the reliability of textbook data in syntax: Adger’s Core Syntax. Journal of Linguistics 48. 3. 609–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steffensen, Sune & Fill, Alvin (2014). Ecolinguistics: The state of the art and future horizons. Language Sciences 41. 6–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Štekauer, Pavol 1998. An Onomasiological Theory of English Word Formation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trips, Carola 2009. Lexical Semantics and Diachronic Morphology: The Development of -hood, -dom, and -ship in the History of English. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Zeno 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verkuyl, Henk 1972. Semantic primitives. Linguistische Forschungen. No. 22, Frankfurt: Athenäum.Google Scholar
Verkuyl, Henk 1989. Aspectual classes and aspectual composition. Linguistics and Philosophy 12. 39–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verkuyl, Henk 1993. A Theory of Aspectuality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verkuyl, Henk 1999. Aspectual Issues: Studies on Time and Quantity. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas & Arnold, Jennifer 2005. Intuitions in Linguistic Argumentation. Lingua 115. 11. 1481–1496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wunderlich, Dieter 2011. Operations on argument structure (Article 84). In Maienborn, C., von Heusinger, K. & Portner, P., eds. Semantics (HSK, vol. 3). Berlin: De Gruyter. 2224–2259.Google Scholar