Cover not available
Review article published In:
Issues in Diachronic Construction Morphology
Edited by Muriel Norde and Graeme Trousdale
[Constructions and Frames 15:2] 2023
► pp. 145–159
Introduction

Issues in Diachronic Construction Morphology

ORCID logo | Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
ORCID logo | University of Edinburgh
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The framework
    • 2.1Construction Morphology
    • 2.2Morphological schemas
    • 2.3Morphological networks
    • 2.4Paradigms in CxM
    • 2.5Productivity and CxM
  • 3.Summary of the articles
  • Note
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 8 January 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00070.nor
References
Ackerman, F., Blevins, J. P., & Malouf, R.
(2009) Parts and wholes: Implicative patterns in inflectional paradigms. In J. P. Blevins & J. Blevins (Eds.), Analogy in grammar: Form and acquisition (pp. 54–82). Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arnaud, P. J. L.
(2013) Word-formation and word-creation: A data-driven exploration of inventiveness in neologisms. Quaderns de Filologia. Estudis lingüístics, 18 1, 97–113.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J., Smirnova, E., Sommerer, L., & Gildea, S.
(Eds.) (2015) Diachronic construction grammar. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L.
(2001) Morphological productivity. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021) ‘What is the plural of mouse?’ and other unhelpful questions for morphologists. Cadernos de linguística, 2 (1), 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beliaeva, N.
(2019) Blending creativity and productivity: On the issue of delimiting the boundaries of blends as a type of word formation. Lexis, 141.Google Scholar
Blevins, J. P.
(2016) The minimal sign. In A. Hippisley & G. Stump (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of morphology (pp. 50–69). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, G.
(2010) Construction Morphology. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2013) Morphology in construction grammar. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 255–273). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2016) Construction Morphology. In A. Hippisley & G. Stump (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of morphology (pp. 424–448). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018) The construction of words: Introduction and overview. In G. Booij (Ed.), The construction of words: Advances in construction morphology (pp. 3–16). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, G., & Audring, J.
(2018) Partial motivation, multiple motivation: The role of output schemas in morphology. In G. Booij (Ed.), The construction of words: Advances in construction morphology (pp. 59–80). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, G., & Masini, F.
(2015) The role of second order schemas in the construction of complex words. In L. Bauer, L. Kőrtvélyessy & P. Štekauer (Eds.), Semantics of complex words (pp. 47–66). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, L. J., & Traugott, E. C.
(2005) Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, D., & Hippisley, A.
(2012) Network morphology: A defaults-based theory of word structure. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J.
(2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W.
(2020) Ten lectures on Construction Grammar and typology. Brill.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E.
(2016) Cognitive Linguistics’ seven deadly sins. Cognitive Linguistics, 27 (4), 479–491. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, B.
(2017) Introduction. In B. Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 1–10). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet, H., Ghesquière, L., & Van de Velde, F.
(Eds.) (2015) On multiple source constructions in language change. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H.
(2019) The grammar network: How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, G.
(2020) Paradigms lost – paradigms regained: Paradigms as hyper-constructions In L. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 277–315). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, G., & Politt, K.
(Eds.) (2022) Paradigms regained: Theoretical and empirical arguments for the reassessment of the notion of paradigm. Language Science Press.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 and Linguistics, 24 (4), 801–831. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fertig, D.
(2013) Analogy and morphological change. Edinburgh University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Freywald, U., & Finkbeiner, R.
(2018) Exact repetition or total reduplication? Exploring their boundaries in discourse and grammar. In R. Finkbeiner & U. Freywald (Eds.), Exact repetition in grammar and discourse (pp. 3–28). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
(2016) Partial productivity of linguistic constructions: Dynamic categorization and statistical preemption. Language and Cognition, 8 1, 369–390. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019) Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hartmann, S.
(2021) Past, present, and future. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 9 (1), 1–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015) From hand-carved to computer-based: Noun-participle compounding and the upward strengthening hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 26 (1), 113–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, N. P.
(2004) Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal? In W. Bisang, N. P. Himmelmann & B. Wiemer (Eds.), What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and components (pp. 21–42). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hudson, R.
(2007) Language networks: The new word grammar. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R.
(2017) In defense of theory. Cognitive Science, 41 1, 185–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R., & Audring, J.
(2016) Morphological schemas: Theoretical and psycholinguistic issues. The Mental Lexicon, 11 (3), 467–493. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakubíček, M., Kilgarriff, A., Kovář, V., Rychlý, P., & Suchomel, V.
(2013) TheTenTen corpus family. 7th International Corpus Linguistics Conference CL, 125–127.Google Scholar
Kempf, L., & Hartmann, S.
(2018) Schema unification and morphological productivity: A diachronic perspective. In Booij, G. (Ed.), The construction of words: Advances in construction morphology (pp. 441–474). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kemps, R. J. J. K., Ernestus, M., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H.
(2005) Prosodic cues for morphological complexity: The case of Dutch plural nouns. Memory and Cognition, 33 (3), 430–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G.
(1990) The Invariance Hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas? 1 (1), 39–74.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar volume I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(2008) Cognitive grammar. A basic introduction. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) Investigations in cognitive grammar. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, C.
(2015 [1982]) Thoughts on grammaticalization. Language Science Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lensch, A.
(2018) Fixer-uppers. Reduplication in the derivation of phrasal verbs. In R. Finkbeiner & U. Freywald (Eds.), Exact repetition in grammar and discourse (pp. 158–181). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Masini, F., & Audring, J.
(2019) Construction Morphology. In J. Audring & F. Masini (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of morphological theory (pp. 365–389). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Norde, M., & Morris, C.
(2018) Derivation without category change: A network-based analysis of diminutive prefixoids in Dutch. In K. Van Goethem, M. Norde, E. Coussé & G. Vanderbauwhede (Eds.), Category change from a constructional perspective (pp. 47–90). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norde, M., & Sippach, S.
(2019)  Nerdalicious scientainment: A network analysis of English libfixes. Word Structure, 12 (3), 353–384. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norde, M., & Van Goethem, K.
(2018) Debonding and clipping of prefixoids in Germanic: Constructionalization or constructional Change? In G. Booij (Ed.), The construction of words: Advances in construction morphology (pp. 475–518). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pijpops, D., & Van de Velde, F.
(2016) Constructional contamination: How does it work and how do we measure it? Folia Linguistica, 50 (2), 543–581. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sommerer, L., & Smirnova, E.
(Eds.) (2020) Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G.
(2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ungerer, T., & Hartmann, S.
(2020) Delineating extravagance: Assessing speakers’ perceptions of imaginative constructional patterns. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 34 (1), 345–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van de Velde, F., & Van der Horst, J.
(2013) Homoplasy in diachronic grammar. Language Sciences, 361, 66–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zehentner, E., & Traugott, E. C.
(2020) Constructional networks and the development of benefactive ditransitives in English. In L. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 168–211). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zimmer, B.
(2006) The surreptitious history of -licious . Language Log [URL]
Zwicky, A. M.
(2010) ‘Libfixes’ post on Arnold Zwicky’s Blog. [URL]