Part III - Corpus-Based Case Studies
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 September 2020
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
- Complex WordsAdvances in Morphology, pp. 239 - 383Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
References
Ackema, P. and Neeleman, A. (2005). Word-formation in Optimality Theory. In Štekauer, P. and Lieber, R., eds., Handbook of Word-Formation, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 285–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, A. (2017). On the complex relationship between deverbal compounds and argument supporting nominals. In Bloch-Trojnar, M. and Malicka-Kleparska, A., eds., Aspect and Valency in Nominals, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 53–82.Google Scholar
Arcodia, G. F. (2012). Construction and headedness in derivation and compounding. Morphology, 22, 365–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L. (1983). English Word-Formation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L. (2005). Productivity: theories. In Štekauer, P. and Lieber, R., eds., Handbook of Word-Formation, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 315–334.Google Scholar
Bauer, L., Lieber, R. and Plag, I. (2013). The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. and Tarasova, E. (2013). The meaning link in nominal compounds. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 10(3), 2–18. Available at: www.skase.sk/Volumes/ JTL24/ pdf_doc/01.Google Scholar
Booij, G. (1988). The relation between inheritance and argument linking: deverbal nouns in Dutch. In Everaert, M., Evers, A., Huybregst, R. and Trommelen, M., eds., Morphology and Modularity: In Honour of Henk Schultink, Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 57–73.Google Scholar
Booij, G. (2015). The nominalization of Dutch particle verbs: schema unification and second order schemas. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 20, 285–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bralczyk, J., ed. (2005). Słownik 100 tysięcy potrzebnych słów, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.Google Scholar
Cetnarowska, B. (2018). Phrasal names in Polish: A+N, N+A and N+N units. In Booij, G., ed., The Construction of Words: Advances in Construction Morphology (Studies in Morphology series), Cham: Springer, pp. 287–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cetnarowska, B. (2019). Compound Nouns and Phrasal Nouns in English and Polish, Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.Google Scholar
Grzegorczykowa, R. and Puzynina, J. (1998). Rzeczownik. In Grzegorczykowa, R., Laskowski, R. and Wróbel, H., eds., Gramatyka współczesnego języka polskiego. Morfologia, 2nd ed., Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, pp. 389–468.Google Scholar
Guz, W. (2010). Register Variation and Lexical Innovation: A Study of English Nominalizations, Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.Google Scholar
Harley, H. (2009). Compounding in distributed morphology. In Lieber, R. and Štekauer, P., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 129–144.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. and Sims, A. D. (2010). Understanding Morphology, 2nd ed., London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hohenhaus, P. (2005). Lexicalization and institutionalization. In Štekauer, P. and Lieber, R., eds., Handbook of Word-Formation, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 353–373.Google Scholar
Hüning, M. (2009). Semantic niches and analogy in word formation: evidence from contrastive linguistics. Languages in Contrast, 9(2), 184–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (2009). Compounding in the parallel architecture and conceptual semantics. In Lieber, R. and Štekauer, P., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 105–129.Google Scholar
Jadacka, H. (2001). System słowotwórczy polszczyzny (1945–2000), Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.Google Scholar
Kageyama, T. (2009). Isolate: Japanese. In Lieber, R. and Štekauer, P., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 512–526.Google Scholar
Kolbusz-Buda, J. (2014). Compounding: A Morphosemantic Analysis of Synthetic Deverbal Compound Nouns in Polish in the Light of Parallel Constructions in English, Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL.Google Scholar
Konieczna, E. (2012). Analogical modelling and paradigmatic word formation as attention-seeking devices. In Ralli, A., Booij, G., Scalise, S. and Karasimos, A., eds., Morphology and the Architecture of Grammar. Online Proceedings of the Eight Mediterranean Morphology Meeting MMM8 (Cagliari) 14–17 September 2011, Patras: University of Patras, pp. 168–191. Available at: www.lilec.it/mmm/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/MMM8_Cagliari_Proceedings.pdf.Google Scholar
Levi, J. N. (1978). The Syntax and Semantics of Complex Nominals, New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lieber, R. (1983). Argument linking and compounds in English. Linguistic Inquiry, 14, 251–286.Google Scholar
Lieber, R. (2005). English word-formation processes. In Štekauer, P. and Lieber, R., eds., Handbook of Word-Formation, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 375–422.Google Scholar
Lieber, R. and Štekauer, P. (2009). Introduction: status and definition of compounding. In Lieber, R. and Štekauer, P., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–18.Google Scholar
Lipka, L., Handl, S. and Falkner, W. (2004). Lexicalization & institutionalization: the state of the art in 2004. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 1, 2–19.Google Scholar
Masini, F. (2009). Phrasal lexemes, compounds and phrases: a constructionist perspective. Word Structure, 2(2), 254–271.Google Scholar
Naccarato, C. (2019). Agentive (para)synthetic compounds in Russian: a quantitative study of rival constructions. Morphology, 29(1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagórko, A. (2010). Podręczna gramatyka języka polskiego, Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.Google Scholar
Štekauer, P., Chapman, D., Tomaščíková, S. and Franko, Š. (2005). Word-formation as creativity within productivity constraints: sociolinguistic evidence. Onomasiology Online, 6, 1–55.Google Scholar
Sugioka, Y. (1996). Regularity in inflection and derivation: rule and analogy in Japanese deverbal compound formation. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 43(1−2), 231–253.Google Scholar
Sugioka, Y. (2000). Rule vs. analogy in word formation. Keio Studies in Theoretical Linguistics, 2, 173–201.Google Scholar
Szymanek, B. (1989). Introduction to Morphological Analysis, Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.Google Scholar
NKJP = Narodowy Korpus Języka Polskiego. Available at: nkjp.pl.Google Scholar
SJP PWN = Słownik języka polskiego PWN. Available at: https://sjp.pwn.pl/.Google Scholar
NKJP = Narodowy Korpus Języka Polskiego. Available at: nkjp.pl.Google Scholar
SJP PWN = Słownik języka polskiego PWN. Available at: https://sjp.pwn.pl/.Google Scholar
Corpora and Online Dictionaries
NKJP = Narodowy Korpus Języka Polskiego. Available at: nkjp.pl.Google Scholar
SJP PWN = Słownik języka polskiego PWN. Available at: https://sjp.pwn.pl/.Google Scholar
References
Alegre, M. and Gordon, P. (1999). Frequency effects and the representational status of regular inflections. Journal of Memory and Language, 40(1), 41–61.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Chuang, Y., Shafaei-Bajestan, E. and Blevins, J. P. (2019). The discriminative lexicon: a unified computational model for the lexicon and lexical processing in comprehension and production grounded not in (de)composition but in linear discriminative learning. Complexity, 1, 1–39.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H. and Milin, P. (2010). Analyzing reaction times. International Journal of Psychological Research, 3(2), 12–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barton, K. (2009). MuMIn: Multi-model inference. Software package. http://r-forge.r-project.org/projects/mumin.Google Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B. and Walker, S. (2014). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4.Google Scholar
Bauer, L., Lieber, R. and Plag, I. (2013). The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bell, A., Brenier, J. M., Gregory, M., Girand, C. and Jurafsky, D. (2009). Predictability effects on durations of content and function words in conversational English. Journal of Memory and Language, 60(1), 92–111. https://doi.org10.1016/j.jml.2008.06.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ben Hedia, S. (2019). Gemination and Degemination in English Affixation: Investigating the Interplay between Morphology, Phonology and Phonetics, Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Ben Hedia, S. and Plag, I. (2017). Gemination and degemination in English prefixation: phonetic evidence for morphological organization. Journal of Phonetics, 62, 34–49.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, R. (2018). Stratal phonology. In Hannahs, S. J. and Bosch, A., eds., Routledge Handbook of Phonological Theory, London, UK: Routledge, pp. 100–134.Google Scholar
Blazej, L. J. and Cohen-Goldberg, A. M. (2015). Can we hear morphological complexity before words are complex? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41(1), 50–68.Google Scholar
Boersma, P. and Weenink, D. (2016). Praat: doing phonetics by computer. Computer program. Version 6.0.14. www.praat.org/.Google Scholar
Box, G. E. P. and Cox, D. R. (1964). An analysis of transformations (with discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B, 26, 211–252.Google Scholar
Brewer, J. (2008). Phonetic Reflexes of Orthographic Characteristics in Lexical Representation, PhD dissertation, Tucson: University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Caselli, N. K., Caselli, M. K. and Cohen-Goldberg, A. M. (2016). Inflected words in production: Evidence for a morphologically rich lexicon. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(3), 432–454.Google Scholar
Cohen, C. (2014). Probabilistic reduction and probabilistic enhancement. Morphology, 24(4), 291–323.Google Scholar
Cohen, C. (2015). Context and paradigms: two patterns of probabilistic pronunciation variation in Russian agreement suffixes. The Mental Lexicon, 10(3), 313–338.Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2013). The Corpus of Contemporary American English (full text on CD): 440 million words, 1990–2012. www.corpusdata.org/.Google Scholar
Dell, G. S. (1986). A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93, 283–321.Google Scholar
Engemann, U. M., Plag, I. and Zimmermann, J. (2019). Morphological boundaries and stem duration in English: replicating experimental results with corpus data. Poster presented at 12th Mediterranean Morphology Meeting, 27–30 June 2019, Ljubljana, Slovenia.Google Scholar
Gahl, S. (2008). Time and thyme are not homophones: the effect of lemma frequency on word durations in spontaneous speech. Language, 84(3), 474–496.Google Scholar
Gelman, A. and Hill, J. (2006). Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goldrick, M., Baker, H. R., Murphy, A. and Baese-Berk, M. (2011). Interaction and representational integration: evidence from speech errors. Cognition, 121(1), 58–72. https://doi.org10.1016/j.cognition.2011.05.006.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, D., Bell, A., Gregory, M. and Raymond, W. D. (2001). Probabilistic relations between words: evidence from reduction in lexical production. In Bybee, J. L. and Hopper, P. J., eds., Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure, Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 229–254.Google Scholar
Kemps, R., Ernestus, M., Schreuder, R. and Baayen, R. H. (2005). Prosodic cues for morphological complexity: the case of Dutch noun plurals. Memory and Cognition, 33(3), 430–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1982). Lexical morphology and phonology. In Yang, I.-S., ed., Linguistics in the Morning Calm: Selected Papers from SICOL, 3-91, Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Kisler, T., Reichel, U. and Schiel, F. (2017). Multilingual processing of speech via web services. Computer Speech & Language, 45, 326–347.Google Scholar
Klatt, D. H. (1976). Linguistic uses of segmental duration in English: acoustic and perceptual evidence. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 59(5), 1208–1221.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B. and Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26.Google Scholar
Lee-Kim, S.-I., Davidson, L. and Hwang, S. (2013). Morphological effects on the darkness of English intervocalic /l/. Laboratory Phonology, 4(2), 475–511. https://doi.org10.1515/lp-2013-0015.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J., Roelofs, A. and Meyer, A. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(1), 1–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lohmann, A. (2018). Time and thyme are not homophones: a closer look at Gahl’s work on the lemma-frequency effect, including a reanalysis. Language, 94(2), e180–e190.Google Scholar
Lohmann, A. and Conwell, E. (2020). Phonetic effects of grammatical category: how category-specific prosody and token frequency impact the acoustic realization of nouns and verbs. Journal of Phonetics, 78, 100939. doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2019.100939.Google Scholar
Lõo, K., Järvikivi, J., Tomaschek, F., Tucker, B. V. and Baayen, R. H. (2018). Production of Estonian case-inflected nouns shows whole-word frequency and paradigmatic effects. Morphology, 28(1), 71–97.Google Scholar
Matthews, P. H. (1974). Morphology: An Introduction to the Theory of Word Structure, London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Matuschek, H., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S., Baayen, H. and Bates, D. (2017). Balancing Type I error and power in linear mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 305–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, F., Huddleston, R. and Pullum, G. K. (2002). Inflectional morphology and related matters. In Huddleston, R. D. and Pullum, G. K., eds., The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1565–1619.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1999). Words and Rules: The Ingredients of Language, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.Google Scholar
Pitt, M. A., Dilley, L., Johnson, K., Kiesling, S., Raymond, W., Hume, E. and Fosler-Lussier, E. (2007). Buckeye Corpus of Conversational Speech, 2nd release, Columbus, OH: Department of Psychology, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Plag, I. (1998). Morphological haplology in a constraint-based morpho-phonology. In Kehrein, W. and Wiese, R., eds., Phonology and Morphology of the Germanic Languages, Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 199–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plag, I. and Ben Hedia, S. (2018). The phonetics of newly derived words: testing the effect of morphological segmentability on affix duration. In Arndt-Lappe, S., Braun, A., Moulin, C. and Winter-Froemel, E., eds., Expanding the Lexicon: Linguistic Innovation, Morphological Productivity, and Ludicity (The Dynamics of Wordplay v.5), Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter, pp. 93–116. www.anglistik.hhu.de/fileadmin/redaktion/Fakultaeten/Philosophische_Fakultaet/FG_2373/Publikationen/3_VAR/BenHedia/Plag___Ben_Hedia_2018.pdf.Google Scholar
Plag, I., Homann, J. and Kunter, G. (2017). Homophony and morphology: The acoustics of word-final S in English. Journal of Linguistics, 53(1), 181–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Development Core Team. (2014). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. www.r-project.org.Google Scholar
Rose, D. (2017). Predicting Plurality: An Examination of the Effects of Morphological Predictability on the Learning and Realization of Bound Morphemes, PhD dissertation, Christchurch: University of Canterbury.Google Scholar
Russel, K. (1997). Optimality theory and morphology. In Archangeli, D. and Langendoen, D. T., eds., Optimality Theory: An Overview, Malden, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, pp. 102–133.Google Scholar
Seyfarth, S., Garellek, M., Gillingham, G., Ackerman, F. and Malouf, R. (2018). Acoustic differences in morphologically-distinct homophones. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 33(1), 32–49.Google Scholar
Smith, R., Baker, R. and Hawkins, S. (2012). Phonetic detail that distinguishes prefixed from pseudo-prefixed words. Journal of Phonetics, 40(5), 689–705.Google Scholar
Sproat, R. (1993). Looking into words. In Hargus, S. and Kaisse, E. M., eds., Studies in Lexical Phonology, San Diego: San Diego Academic Press, pp. 173–195.Google Scholar
Sproat, R. and Fujimura, O. (1993). Allophonic variation in English/l/and its implications for phonetic implementation. Journal of Phonetics, 21(3), 291–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sugahara, M. and Turk, A. (2004). Phonetic reflexes of morphological boundaries at a normal speech rate. In Bel, B. and Marlien, I., eds., Proceedings of Speech Prosody, 2004, 353–356.Google Scholar
Sugahara, M. and Turk, A. (2009). Durational correlates of English sublexical constituent structure. Phonology, 26(3), 477–524.Google Scholar
Tomaschek, F., Hendrix, P. and Baayen, R. H. (2018). Strategies for addressing collinearity in multivariate linguistic data. Journal of Phonetics, 71, 249–267.Google Scholar
Tomaschek, F., Plag, I., Ernestus, M. and Baayen, R. H. (2019). Modeling the duration of word-final S in English with naive discriminative learning. Journal of Linguistics, 1–39. doi:10.1017/S0022226719000203.Google Scholar
Tomaschek, F., Tucker, B. and Baayen, R. H. (submitted). How is anticipatory coarticulation of suffixes affected by linguistic proficiency?Google Scholar
Turk, A. and Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. (2014). Timing in talking: what is it used for, and how is it controlled? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 369(1658), 1–13.Google Scholar
Van Borsel, J. and De Maesschalck, D. (2008). Speech rate in males, females, and male-to-female transsexuals. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 22(9), 679–685.Google Scholar
Venables, W. N. and Ripley, B. D. (2002). Modern Applied Statistics with S-Plus, 4th ed., New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Wightman, C. W., Shattuck-Hufnagel, S., Ostendorf, M. and Price, P. J. (1992). Segmental durations in the vicinity of prosodic phrase boundaries. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 91(3), 1707–1717.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, J. (2016). Morphological status and acoustic realization: findings from New Zealand English. In Carignan, C. and Tyler, M. D., eds., Proceedings of the 16th Australasian International Conference on Speech Science and Technology, Sydney: University of Western Sydney, pp. 6–9.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, J., Rose, D., Bürkle, D. and Watson, K. (2017). The role of predictability and sub-phonemic detail in speech perception: English has-clitic [s] vs. plural [s]. Paper presented at Old World Conference on Phonology 2017, 20–22 February 2017, Düsseldorf.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. M. (1975). Settling on an underlying form: the English inflectional endings. In Cohen, D. and Wirth, J. R., eds., Testing Linguistic Hypotheses, New York: Wiley, pp. 129–185.Google Scholar
References
Bauer, L. (1997). Evaluative morphology: a search for universals. Studies in Language, 21, 533–575.Google Scholar
Benveniste, É. (1963). Une valeur du diminutif. Prace Filologiczne. Warszawa: Państwowe wydawnictwo naukowe, 18, 9–11.Google Scholar
Chanpira, E. I. (1966). Ob okkazional'nom slove i okkazional'nom slovoobrazovanii [On occasional word and occasional word formation]. In Zemskaja, E. A. and Šmelev, D. N., eds., Razvitie slovoobrazovanija sovremennogo russkogo jazyka [Development of Word Formation of the Present Russian Language], Moskva: Nauka, pp. 153–166.Google Scholar
Coseriu, E. (1978). Einführung in die strukturelle Betrachtung der Wortschatzes [Introduction into the structural study of the lexicon]. In Geckeler, H., ed., Strukturelle Bedeutungslehre, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. U. and Merlini Barbaresi, L. (1994). Morphopragmatics, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. U., Merlini Barbaresi, L., Schwaiger, S., Ransmayr, J. and Korecky-Kröll, K. (2019). Rivalry and lack of blocking among Italian and German diminutives in adult and child language. In Rainer, F., Gardani, F., Luschützky, H.-C. and Dressler, W. U., eds., Competition in Inflection and Word-Formation, Cham: Springer, pp. 123–143.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. U. and Tumfart, B. (2017). New corpus-linguistic approaches to the investigation of poetic occasionalisms: the case of Johann Nepomuk Nestroy. Yearbook of the Poznan Linguistic Meeting, 3, 155–166.Google Scholar
Fradin, B., Hathout, N. and Meunier, F. (2003). French suffixation in -et and the question of productivity. Langue française, 140, 56–78.Google Scholar
Gagné, C. L. and Spalding, T. L. (2014). Conceptual composition: the role of relational competition in the comprehension of modifier-noun phrases and noun-noun compounds. In Ross, B., ed., The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, New York: Elsevier, pp. 97–130Google Scholar
Gagné, C. L. and Spalding, T. L. (2015). Semantics, concepts, and meta-cognition: Attributing properties and meanings to complex concepts. In Bauer, L., Körtvélyessy, L. and Stekauer, P., eds., Semantics of Complex Words, New York: Springer, pp. 9–25.Google Scholar
Gagné, C. L., Spalding, T. L. and Kostelecky, M. (2017). Conceptual combination, property inclusion, and the Artistotelian-Thomistic view of concepts. In Hampton, J. and Winter, Y., eds., Compositionality and Concepts in Linguistics and Psychology: Language, Cognition and Mind, New York: Springer, pp. 223–245.Google Scholar
Hay, J. B. and Baayen, H. R. (2002). Parsing and productivity. In Booij, G. and van Marle, J., eds., Yearbook of Morphology 2001, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 203–235.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, D. (1996). Universal tendencies in the semantics of the diminutive. Language, 72, 533–578.Google Scholar
Mattiello, E. and Dressler, W. U. (2019a). The morphosemantic transparency/opacity of novel English analogical compounds and compound families. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia, 53, 67–114.Google Scholar
Mattiello, E. and Dressler, W. U. (2019b). Dualism and superposition in the analysis of English synthetic compounds ending in -er [manuscript].Google Scholar
Mulder, K., Dijkstra, T., Schreuder, R. and Baayen, H. R. (2014). Effects of primary and secondary morphological family size in monolingual and bilingual word processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 72, 59–84.Google Scholar
Ransmayr, J., Schwaiger, S. and Dressler, W. U. (forthcoming). Semantische Untersuchungen zu österreichischen Diminutiven und Diminutivkomposita: Begriffsfelder und Graduierung der morphosemantischen Opazität. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik.Google Scholar
Ransmayr, J., Schwaiger, S., Ďurčo, M., Pirker, H. and Dressler, W. U. (2016). Graduierung der Transparenz von Diminutiven auf -chen: Eine korpuslinguistische Untersuchung. Deutsche Sprache, 44, 261–286.Google Scholar
Schwaiger, S., Barbaresi, A., Korecky-Kröll, K., Ransmayr, J. and Dressler, W. U. (2019). Diminutivvariation in österreichischen elektronischen Korpora. In Bülow, L., Fischer, A. K. and Herbert, K., eds., Dimensions of Linguistic Space: Variation – Multilingualism – Conceptualisations. Dimensionen des sprachlichen Raums: Variation – Mehrsprachigkeit – Konzeptualisierung. Schriften zur deutschen Sprache in Österreich 45, Berlin: Peter Lang, pp. 147–162.Google Scholar
Schwaiger, S., Ransmayr, J., Korecky-Kröll, K., Sommer-Lolei, S. and Dressler, W. U. (2017). Scaling morphosemantic transparency/opacity. A corpus-linguistic and acquisitionist study of German diminutives. Yearbook of the Poznan Linguistics Meeting, 3, 141–153.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1953/2001). Philosophische Untersuchungen [Philosophical Investigations]. Kritisch-genetische Edition, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
References
Baeskow, H. (2019). Denominal verbs in morphology. In Lieber, R., ed., The Oxford Encyclopedia of Morphology, Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://oxfordre.com/linguistics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acrefore-9780199384655-e-502.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. and Huddleston, R. (2002). Lexical word-formation. In Huddleston, R. and Pullum, G. K., eds., The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1621–1721.Google Scholar
Bauer, L., Lieber, R. and Plag, I. (2013). The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bagasheva, A. (2017). Comparative semantic concepts in affixation. In Santana-Lario, J. and Valera, S., eds., Competing Patterns in English Affixation, Bern: P. Lang, pp. 33–66.Google Scholar
Cetnarowska, B. (1993). The Syntax, Semantics and Derivation of Bare Nominalisations in English, Katowice: Uniwersytet Śląski.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. and Clark, H. H. (1979). When nouns surface as verbs. Language, 55, 767–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, M. (2004–). British National Corpus (from Oxford University Press). Available online at www.english-corpora.org/bnc/.Google Scholar
Dirven, R. (1999). Conversion as a conceptual metonymy of event schemata. In Panther, K.-U. and Günter, R., eds., Metonymy in Language and Thought, Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, pp. 275–287.Google Scholar
Don, J., Trommelen, M. and Zonneveld, W. (2000). Conversion and category indeterminacy. In Booij, G., Lehmann, C. and Mugdan, J., eds., Morphologie. Morphology. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung. An international handbook on inflection and word–formation. 1. Halband, Vol. 1, in collaboration with Kesselheim, W. and Skopeteas, S., Berlin: W. de Gruyter, pp. 943–952.Google Scholar
Fernández-Alcaina, C. (2017). Availability and unavailability in English word-formation. In Santana-Lario, J. and Valera, S., eds., Competing Patterns in English Affixation, Bern: P. Lang, pp. 163–206.Google Scholar
Fernández-Alcaina, C. (2020). Lemma Extractor, GitHub Repository. Available at https://github.com/cristinaalcaina/Lemma_extractor.Google Scholar
Gottfurcht, C. A. (2008). Denominal verb formation in English, PhD dissertation, Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.Google Scholar
Karius, I. (1985). Die Ableitung der denominalen Verben mit Nullsuffigierung im Englischen, Tübingen: M. Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Kastovsky, D., ed. (1974). Studies in Syntax and Word-Formation. Selected Articles by Hans Marchand, München: W. Fink.Google Scholar
Kastovsky, D. (1994). Verbal derivation in English: a historical survey or Much Ado About Nothing. In Britton, D., ed., English Historical Linguistics 1994. Papers from the 8th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics (8. ICEHL, Edinburgh, 19–23 September 1994), Amsterdam and Philadelphia: J. Benjamins, pp. 93–117.Google Scholar
Kisselew, M., Rimell, L., Palmer, A. and Padó, S. (2016). Predicting the direction of derivation in English conversion. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual SIGMORPHON Workshop on Computational Research in Phonetics, Phonology and Morphology, 11 August 2016, Berlin: Germany, pp. 93–98.Google Scholar
Lara-Clares, A. (2016). Scáthach: BNC Frequency List Tool. Available at: scathach.laraclares.com.Google Scholar
Lara-Clares, C. (2017). Competition in Present Day English nominalization by zero-affixation vs. -ation. In Santana-Lario, J. and Valera, S., eds., Competing Patterns in English Affixation, Bern: P. Lang, pp. 207–244.Google Scholar
Lee, Y. (2009). Conversion as zero-affixation: evidence from affix interaction. Journal of English Language and Linguistics, 9(1), 135–160.Google Scholar
Lieber, R. (2004). Morphology and Lexical Semantics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lieber, R. (2006). The category of roots and the roots of categories: what we learn from selection in derivation. Morphology, 16(2), 247–272.Google Scholar
Marchand, H. (1963). On a question of contrary analysis with derivationally connected but morphologically uncharacterized words. English Studies, 44, 176–187.Google Scholar
Marchand, H. (1964). A set of criteria for the establishing of derivational relationships between words unmarked by derivational morphemes. Indogermanische Forschungen, 69, 10–19.Google Scholar
Marchand, H. (1969). The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Formation, 2nd ed., München: C. Beck.Google Scholar
Martsa, S. (2007). Construction of meaning during conversion. Presented at the HUSSE/8 Conference, Szeged, 25–28 January 2007.Google Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary Online. Oxford University Press, March 2020. Web. 20 May 2019.Google Scholar
Plag, I. (2018). Word-Formation in English, 2nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Plank, F. (2010). Variable direction in zero-derivation and the unity of polysemous lexical items. Word Structure, 3(1), 82–97.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. N. and Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, London: Longman.Google Scholar
Sanders, G. (1988). Zero derivation and the Overt Analogue Criterion. In Hammond, M. and Noonan, M., eds., Theoretical Morphology: Approaches in Modern Linguistics, San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 155–175.Google Scholar
Tournier, J. (2010). Introduction descriptive à la lexicogénétique de l’anglais contemporain, 2nd ed., Paris and Geneve: Champion–Slaktine.Google Scholar
Valera, S. (2017). Conversion and figurative extension of meaning. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 14(2), 2–17.Google Scholar
Valera, S. (forthcoming). Main morphological formal means 3: approaches to conversion. In Fábregas, A., Acedo-Matellán, V., Armstrong, G., Cuervo, M. C. and Pujol, I., eds., The Routledge Handbook of Spanish Morphology, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
References
Bańko, M. (2008). Wspólczesny polski onomatopeikon: ikoniczność w języku, Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.Google Scholar
Bańko, M. (2009). Słownik onomatopei, czyli wyrazów dźwięko- i ruchonaśladowczych, Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.Google Scholar
Bauer, L., Lieber, R. and Plag, I. (2014). The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Beard, R. (1995). Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morphology, a General Theory of Inflection and Word Formation, SUNY Linguistic Series, Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Buffa, F. (1966). Slovesné podstatné mená z hľadiska slovotvorného [Verbal nouns in terms of word-formtion]. Slovenská reč, 31, 225–228.Google Scholar
de Smet, H. and Heyvaert, L. (2011). The meaning of the English present participle. English Language and Linguistics, 15(3), 473–498.Google Scholar
Dokulil, M. (1962). Tvoření slov v češtině. Teorie odvozování slov [Word-Formation in Czech. A Theory of Derivation], Praha: Nakladatelství československé akademie věd.Google Scholar
Dvonč, L., Horák, G., Miko, F., Mistrík, J., Oravec, J., Ružička, J. and Urbančok, M. (1966). Morfológia slovenského jazyka [Morphology of the Slovak Language], Bratislava: Vydavatelstvo Slovenskej akadémie vied.Google Scholar
Fanego, T. (2016). The Great Complement Shift revisited: the constructionalization of ACC-ing gerundives. Functions of Language, 23(1), 84–119.Google Scholar
Furdík, J. (2004). Slovenská slovotvorba [Slovak Word-Formation], Ološtiak, M., ed., Prešov: Náuka.Google Scholar
Ivanová, M., Kyseľová, M. and Perovská, V. (2015). Nominačné aspekty slovných druhov [Naming aspects of word-classes]. In Ološtiak, M., ed., Kvalitatívne a kvantitatívne aspekty tvorenia slov v slovenčine. [Qualitative and Quantitative Aspects of Word-Formation in Slovak], Prešov: Filozofická fakulta Prešovskej univerzity v Prešove, pp. 485–625.Google Scholar
Körtvélyessy, L. (2015). Evaluative Morphology from a Cross-Linguistic Perspective, Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Körtvélyessy, L. (2020). Onomatopoeia – A Unique Species?. Studia Linguistica. https://doi.org/10.1111/stul.12133.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. and Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: developing a cognitive linguistic view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9, 37–77.Google Scholar
Králik, Ľ. (2015). Stručný etymologický slovník slovenčiny [Short Etymological Dictionary of Slovak], Bratislava: VEDA.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Marchand, H. (1960). Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Formation, Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Ondrus, P., Horecký, J. and Furdík, J. (1980). Súčasný slovenský spisovný jazyk. Lexikológia [Contemporary Literary Slovak. Lexicology], Bratislava: Slovenské pedagogické nakladateľstvo.Google Scholar
Pauliny, E., Ružička, J. and Štolc, J. (1968). Slovenská gramatika [Slovak Grammar], Bratislava: Slovenské pedagogické nakladateľstvo.Google Scholar
Sokolová, M., Ološtiak, M. and Ivanová, M. (2012). Slovník koreňových morfém slovenčiny [Dictionary of Slovak Root Morphemes], Prešov: Vydavateľstvo Prešovskej univerzity.Google Scholar
Szymanek, B. (1989). Introduction to Morphological Analysis, Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.Google Scholar
References
Andersen, G. (2010). A contrastive approach to vague nouns, In Kaltenböck, G., Mihatsch, W. and Schneider, S., eds., New Approaches to Hedging, Bingeley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 35–48.Google Scholar
Bakema, P. and Geeraerts, D. (2008). Diminution and augmentation. In Booij, G. E., Lehmann, C., Mugdan, J. and Skopeteas, S., eds., Morphologie/Morphology, 2, Halbband, Berlin & New York: de Gruyter, pp. 1045–1052. Online Resource.Google Scholar
Bauer, L., Lieber, R. and Plag, I. (2013). The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Benkö, L., ed. (1993). Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Ungarischen, Band I, Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Cutting, J. (2013). ‘Thingmy an aa the rest o it’: vague language in spoken Scottish English. In Anderson, W., ed., Language in Scotland: Corpus-Based Studies, Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 189–214.Google Scholar
Cutting, J. (2015). Dingsbums und so: beliefs about German vague language. Journal of Pragmatics, 85, 108–121.Google Scholar
Drave, N. (2000). Vaguely speaking. A corpus approach to vague language in intercultural conversations. In Peters, P., Collins, P. and Smith, A., eds., Language and Computers. New Frontiers of Corpus Research. Papers from the Twenty-First International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora, Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi, pp. 25–40.Google Scholar
Fleischer, W. and Barz, I. (2012). Wortbildung der deutschen Gegenwartssprache, 4, völlig neu bearbeitete Auflage, Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fronek, J. (1982). Thing as a function word. Linguistics: An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences, 20(9–10), 633–654.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H., Smith, S. W. and Lüdge, T. (2003). Interactive aspects of vagueness in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language Studies, 35(12), 1737–1769.Google Scholar
Kaye, A. (1990). Whatchamacallem. A consideration of thingummies, doohickeys and other vague words. English Today, 6(1), 70–73.Google Scholar
Koester, A. (2007). ‘About twelve thousands or so’. Vagueness in North American and UK offices. In Cutting, J., ed., Vague Language Explored, London: Palgrave, pp. 40–61.Google Scholar
Marchand, H. (1969). The Categories and Types of Present Day English Word Formation. A Synchronic-Diachronic Approach, 2, completely rev. and enl. ed., München: Beck.Google Scholar
Núnez Pertejo, P. (2018). A contrastive study of placeholders in the speech of British and Spanish teenagers. In Ziegler, A., ed., Jugendsprachen/Youth Languages: Aktuelle Perspektiven internationaler Forschung/Current Perspectives of International Research, Teilband 1, Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter, pp. 391–417.Google Scholar
Nübling, D., Fahlbusch, F. and Heuser, R. (2015). Namen: Eine Einführung in die Onomastik, 2, überarbeitete und erweiterte Auflage, Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
O’Keeffe, A. (2004). ‘Like the wise virgins and all that jazz’: using a corpus to examine vague categorization and shared knowledge. Language and Computers, 52(1), 1–26.Google Scholar
Overstreet, M. (1999). Whales, Candlelight, and Stuff Like That: General Extenders in English Discourse, New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Overstreet, M. (2011). Vagueness and hedging. In Andersen, G. and Aijmer, K., eds., Pragmatics of Society (Handbook of Pragmatics 5), Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 293–318.Google Scholar
Palacios Martínez, I. M. and Núnez Pertejo, P. (2015). ‘Go up to miss thingy.’ ‘He’s probably like a whatsit or something.’ Placeholders in focus. The differences in use between teenagers and adults in spoken English. Pragmatics, 25(3), 425–451.Google Scholar
Raffman, D. (2014). Unruly Words: A Study of Vague Language, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schwaiger, T. (2015). Reduplication. In Müller, P. O., Ohnheiser, I., Olsen, S. and Rainer, F., eds., Word-Formation, Vol. 1, Berlin & Boston: de Gruyter, pp. 467–484. Online Resource.Google Scholar
Štekauer, P., Valera, S. and Körtvélyessy, L. (2012). Word-Formation in the World’s Languages: A Typological Survey, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Langendonck, W. (2007). Theory and Typology of Proper Names, Berlin & New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Vogel, P. M. (to appear). Der Dingsda aus Dingenskirchen: Passe-partout-Wörter für Eigennamen im Deutschen. Linguistik Online.Google Scholar