Article published in:
Morphology and Meaning: Selected papers from the 15th International Morphology Meeting, Vienna, February 2012
Edited by Franz Rainer, Francesco Gardani, Hans Christian Luschützky and Wolfgang U. Dressler
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 327] 2014
► pp. 3–46

Morphology and meaning

An overview

| Vienna University of Economics and Business
| University of Vienna
| Vienna University of Economics and Business
| University of Vienna
Published online: 27 February 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.327.02rai
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y
2003 Classifiers: A Typology of Noun Categorization Devices. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2007 “Typological distinctions in word-formation”. Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. III: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon ed. by Timothy Shopen, 2nd ed., 1–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis & Monika Rathert
eds. 2010 The Syntax of Nominalizations across Languages and Frameworks. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Amador Rodríguez, Luis Alexis
2009 La derivación nominal en español: nombres de agente, instrument, lugar y acción. Frankfurt am Main & Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Andersen, Henning
1980 “Morphological change: Towards a typology”. Historical Morphology ed. by Jacek Fisiak, 1–50. The Hague: Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008 “Grammaticalization in a speaker-oriented theory of language”. Grammatical Change and Linguistic Theory The Rosendal Papers ed. by Thórhallur Eythórsson, 11–44. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Earl R
1998 A Grammar of Iconism. Madison: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R
1992 A-morphous Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Anttila, Raimo
1972 An Introduction to Historical and Comparative Linguistics. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
1989 Historical and Comparative Linguistics. 2nd ed. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark
1980 “Contextuals”. Language 56.744–758. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1994 Morphology by Itself: Stems and Inflectional Classes. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark & Sungeun Cho
2001 “The Semantics of -ship”. Linguistic Inquiry 32.167–173 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baerman, Matthew & Greville G. Corbett
2010 “Introduction: Defectiveness: Typology and Diachrony”. Baerman et al., 1–18.
Baerman, Matthew, Greville G. Corbett & Dunstan Brown
eds. 2010 Defective paradigms: Missing Forms and What They Tell Us. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baerman, Matthew, Greville G. Corbett, Dunstan Brown & Andrew Hippisley
eds. 2007 Deponency and Morphological Mismatches. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baeskow, Heike
2002 Abgeleitete Personenbezeichnungen im Deutschen und Englischen. Kontrastive Wortbildungsanalysen im Rahmen des Minimalistischen Programms und unter Berücksichtigung sprachhistorischer Aspekte. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baldinger, Kurt
1950 Kollektivsuffix und Kollektivbegriff: Ein Beitrag zur Bedeutungslehre im Französischen mit Berücksichtigung der Mundarten. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Banga, Arina, Esther Hanssen, Robert Schreuder & Anneke Neijt
2013 “Two languages, two sets of interpretations: language-specific influences of morphological form on Dutch and English speakers’ interpretation of compounds”. Cognitive Linguistics 24:2.195–220. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barker, Chris
1998 “Episodic -ee in English: A thematic role constraint on new word formation.” Language 74:4.695–727. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie
1994 “Productivity”. The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics ed. by Robert E. Asher, 3354–3357. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
2000 “What you can do with derivational morphology”. Morphology 2000: Selected Papers from the Ninth Morphology Meeting, Vienna, 24–28 February 2000 ed. by Sabrina Bendjaballah, Wolfgang U. Dressler, Oskar E. Pfeiffer & Maria D. Voeikova, 37–48. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Beard, Robert
1991 “Decompositional composition: The semantics of scope ambiguities and ‘bracketing paradoxes’”. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 9.195–229. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1995 Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morphology: A General Theory of Inflection and Word Formation. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Benveniste, Émile
1948 Noms d’agent et noms d’action en indo-européen. Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve.Google Scholar
Bergen, Benjamin K
2004 “The psychological reality of phonaesthemes”. Language 80:2.290–311. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bertinetto, Pier Marco
1995 “Compositionality and non-compositionality in morphology”. Crossdisciplinary Approaches to Morphology ed. by Wolfgang U. Dressler & Cristina Burani, 9–36. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Blank, Andreas
1997 Prinzipien des lexikalischen Bedeutungswandels am Beispiel der romanischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert E
1997 “Autonomous morphology and paradigmatic relations”. Yearbook of Morphology 1996 ed. by Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle, 35–53. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009 “Lexical Integrity as a formal universal: A constructionist view”. Universals of language today ed. by Sergio Scalise, Elisabetta Magni & Antonietta Bisetto, 83–100. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert E. & Rochelle Lieber
2004 “On the paradigmatic nature of affixal semantics in English and Dutch”. Linguistics 42:2.327–357. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boye, Kasper & Peter Harder
2012 “A usage-based theory of grammatical status and grammaticalization”. Language 88:1.1–44. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bréal, Michel
1868 Les idées latentes du langage. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
1887 “L’histoire des mots”. Revue des Deux Mondes, LVIIe année – troisième période, tome quatre-vingt-deuxième, 187–212.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott
2005 Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Burzio, Luigi
1986 Italian Syntax: A Government-Binding Approach. Dordrecht: Reidel. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L
1985 “Diagrammatic iconicity in stem-inflection relations”. Iconicity in Syntax ed. by John Haiman, 11–47. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan
2001 Phonology and Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 “Usage-based theory and grammaticalization”. The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization ed. by Heine, Bernd & Heiko Narrog, 69–78. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan & Paul Hopper
eds. 2001 Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca
1994 The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle
2001 “What’s wrong with grammaticalization?”. Grammaticalization: A Critical Assessment ed. by Lyle Campbell. Special Issue of Language Sciences 23:2/3.113–161. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle & Richard D. Janda
2001 “Introduction: Conceptions of grammaticalization and their problems”. Grammaticalization: A Critical Assessment ed. by Lyle Campbell. Special Issue of Language Sciences 23:2/3.93–112. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew
2010 The Evolution of Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace
2002 “Putting grammaticalization in its place”. New Reflections on Grammaticalization ed. by Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald, 395–412. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cifuentes Honrubia, José Luis
ed. 2011 Spanish Word Formation and Lexical Creation. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Eve V. & Herbert H. Clark
1979 “When Nouns Surface as Verbs”. Language 55.767–811. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G
1991 Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Corbin, Danielle
1987 Morphologie dérivationnelle et structuration du lexique. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Coseriu, Eugenio
1982 “Les procédés sémantiques dans la formation des mots”. Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure 35.3–16.Google Scholar
Croft, William
2003 Typology and Universals. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2007 “Construction Grammar”. The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics ed. by Dirk Geeraerts & Hubert Cuyckens, 463–508. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2010 “The origins of grammaticalization in the verbalization of experience”. Linguistics 48.1–48. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cruse, Alan D
1986 Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2011 Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen
2001 “Inflationary effects in language and elsewhere”. Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure ed. by Joan Bybee & Paul Hopper, 471–480. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004 The Growth and Maintenance of Linguistic Complexity. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Cuypere, Ludovic
2008 Limiting the Iconic: From the Metatheoretical Foundations to the Creative Possibilities of Iconicity in Language. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele
2010 “On some problem areas in grammaticalization studies”. Grammaticalization: Current Views and Issues ed. by Katerina Stathi, Elke Gehweile & Ekkehard König, 17–50. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele & Elena Smirnova
2012 “‘Paradigmatic integration’: The fourth stage in an expanded grammaticalization scenario”. Grammaticalization and Language Change: New Reflections ed. by Kristin Davidse, Tine Breban, Lieselotte Brems & Tanja Mortelmans, 111–134. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Downing, Laura J. & Barbara Stiebels
2012 “Iconicity”. The Morphology and Phonology of Exponence ed. by Jochen Trommer, 379–426. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Downing, Pamela Ann
1977 “On the creation and use of English compound nouns”. Language 53.810–842. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David
2007 “Compositionality as an empirical problem”. Direct Compositionality ed. by Chris Barker & Pauline Jacobson, 23–101. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U
1968 Studien zur verbalen Pluralität. Iterativum, Distributivum, Durativum, Intensivum in der allgemeinen Grammatik, im Lateinischen und Hethitischen. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
1989 “Prototypical differences between inflection and derivation”. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 42.3–10.Google Scholar
1997 “Universals, typology and modularity in Natural Morphology”. Language History and Linguistic Modelling. A Festschrift for Jacek Fisiak on His 60th Birthday ed. by Raymond Hickey & Stanisław Puppel, vol. II, 1399–1423. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
1999 “On a semiotic theory of preferences in language”. The Peirce Seminar Papers: Essays in Semiotic Analysis ed. by Michael Shapiro & Michael Haley, 389–415. New York: Berghahn.Google Scholar
2005 “Word-formation in natural morphology”. Handbook of Word-Formation ed. by Pavol Štekauer & Rochelle Lieber, 267–284. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U., Marianne Kilani-Schoch & Sabine Klampfer
2003 “How does a child detect morphology? Evidence from production”. Morphological Structure in Language Processing ed. by Harald Baayen & Robert Schreuder, 391–425. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U., Laura E. Lettner & Katharina Korecky-Kröll
2010 “First language acquisition of compounds. With special emphasis on early German child language.” Cross-Disciplinary Issues in Compounding ed. by Sergio Scalise & Irene Vogel, 323–344. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U., Gary Libben & Katharina Korecky-Kröll
Forthcoming. “Conflicting vs. converging vs. interdependent motivations in morphology”. Competing Motivations in Grammar and Usage ed. by Brian MacWhinney, Andrej Malchukov & Edith Moravcsik Oxford Oxford University Press Crossref
Dressler, Wolfgang U. & Lavinia Merlini-Barbaresi
1994 Morphopragmatics: Diminutives and Intensifiers in Italian, German, and Other Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eckardt, Regine
2006 Meaning Change in Grammaticalization: An Enquiry into Semantic Reanalysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Elbourne, Paul
2011 Meaning: A Slim Guide to Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Epps, Patience
2008 A Grammar of Hup. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fábregas, Antonio & Rafael Marín
2012 “The role of Aktionsart in deverbal nouns: State nominalizations across languages”. Journal of Linguistics 48.35–70. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga
2007 Morphosyntactic Change: Functional and Formal Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fleischer, Wolfgang & Irmhild Barz
2012 Wortbildung der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frege, Gottlob
1891 Function und Begriff. Jena: Pohle.Google Scholar
1892 “Über Sinn und Bedeutung”. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik N. F. 100.25–50.Google Scholar
Gardani, Francesco
2013 Dynamics of Morphological Productivity: The Evolution of Noun Classes from Latin to Italian. Leiden & Boston: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk
2010 Theories of Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy
1985 “Iconicity, isomorphism, and non-arbitrary coding in syntax”. Iconicity in Syntax ed. by John Haiman, 187–219. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1991 “The evolution of dependent clause morpho-syntax in Biblical Hebrew”. Approaches to Grammaticalization, vol. II: Types of Grammatical Markers ed. by Elizabeth C. Traugott & Bernd Heine, 257–310. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gloning, Thomas
1996 Bedeutung, Gebrauch und sprachliche Handlung. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E
2006 Constructions at Work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grandi, Nicola
2009 “Restrictions of Italian verb evaluative suffixes: The role of aspect and actionality”. York Papers in Linguistics (Series 2) 10.46–66.Google Scholar
Grimm, Jacob
1826 Deutsche Grammatik. Zweiter Theil. Göttingen: Dieterich.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane
1990 Argument Structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Grzega, Joachim
Forthcoming. “Word-formation in onomasiology”. Word-formation: A Handbook of the Languages of Europe ed. by Peter O. Müller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen & Franz Rainer Berlin & Boston De Gruyter Mouton Crossref
Güldemann, Tom
2008 Quotative Indexes in African Languages: A Synchronic and Diachronic Survey. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haiman, John
1980 “The iconicity of grammar: Isomorphism and motivation”. Language 56:3.515–540. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008 “In defence of iconicity”. Cognitive Linguistics 19:1.35–48. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Alice C. & Lyle Campbell
1995 Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
1997 From Space to Time: Temporal Adverbials in the World’s Languages. Munich: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
1998 “Does grammaticalization need reanalysis?”. Studies in Language 22:2.315–351. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004 “On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization”. Up and Down the Cline – The Nature of Grammaticalization ed. by Olga Fischer, Muriel Norde & Harry Perridon, 17–44. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 “Against markedness (and what to replace it with)”. Journal of Linguistics 42:1.25–70. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008 “Frequency vs. iconicity in explaining grammatical asymmetries”. Cognitive Linguistics 19:1.1–33. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd
1993 Auxiliaries: Cognitive Forces and Grammaticalization. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
1995 “Conceptual grammaticalization and prediction”. Language and the Cognitive Construal of the World ed. by John R. Taylor & Robert E. McLaury, 119–135. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003 “Grammaticalization”. The Handbook of Historical Linguistics ed. by Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda, 575–601. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi & Friederike Hünnemeyer
1991 Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva
2002 World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 The Genesis of Grammar: A Reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Heiko Narrog
2011 The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Mechthild Reh
1984 Grammaticalization and Reanalysis in African Languages. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
Hewson, John & Vit Bubenik
1997 Tense and Aspect in Indo-European Languages: Theory, Typology, Diachrony. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hinton, Leanne, Johanna Nichols & John J. Ohala
1994 “Introduction: Sound-symbolic processes”. Sound Symbolism ed. by Leanne Hinton, Johanna Nichols & John J. Ohala, 1–12. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hintz, Daniel J
2008 Crossing Aspectual Frontiers: Emergence, Evolution, and Interwoven Semantic Domains in South Conchucos Quechua Discourse. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich
1991 Principles of Historical Linguistics. 2nd ed. Berlin, New York & Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hockett, Charles F
1947 “Problems of morphemic analysis”. Language 23:4.321–343. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoeksema, Jacob
2000 “Compositionality of meaning”. Morphology: An International Handbook of Inflection and Word-Formation ed. by Geert E. Booij, Christian Lehmann & Joachim Mugdan, vol. I, 851–857. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hofstadter, Douglas R
1979 Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid. 1st ed. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul & Elizabeth Closs Traugott
2003 Grammaticalization. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Itkonen, Esa
2004 “Typological explanation and iconicity”. Logos and Language 5:1.21–33.Google Scholar
Jaberg, Karl
1905 Review of Max Roediger Die Bedeutung des Suffixesment. Dissertation, Friedrich Wilhelms Universität Berlin 1904 Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen und Literaturen 114.458–462.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray
2010a Meaning and the Lexicon: The Parallel Architecture 1975–2010. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2010b “The Parallel Architecture and its place in cognitive science”. The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis ed. by Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog, 583–605. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman O
1984 [1936] “Contribution to the general theory of case: General meanings of the Russian cases”. Roman Jakobson. Russian and Slavic grammar: Studies 1931–1981 ed. by Linda R. Waugh & Morris Halle, 59–103. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, Roman
1965 “Quest for the essence of language”. Diogenes 13/51.21–37. (Repr. in Jakobson 1971.345–359.) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1971 Selected Writings: Word and Language. II. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, Kasia M
2010 “Default Semantics”. The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis ed. by Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog, 193–221. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jeffers, Robert J
1975 “Remarks on Indo-European infinitives”. Language 51:1.133–148. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, Brian D
1987 “On the use of iconic elements in etymological investigation: Some case studies from Greek”. Diachronica 4:1.1–26. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003 “Morphologization from syntax”. The Handbook of Historical Linguistics ed. by Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda, 472–492. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. & Richard D. Janda
2003 “On language, change, and language change – Or, of history, linguistics, and historical linguistics”. The Handbook of Historical Linguistics ed. by Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda, 3–180. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kibrik, Aleksandr E
1998 “Archi”. The Handbook of Morphology ed. by Andrew Spencer & Arnold M. Zwicky, 455–476. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kiefer, Ferenc
2000 “Regularity”. Morphology: An International Handbook of Inflection and Word-Formation ed. by Geert E. Booij, Christian Lehmann & Joachim Mugdan, vol. I, 296–302. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kita, Sotaro
2008 “World-view of protolanguage speakers as inferred from semantics of sound symbolic words: A case of Japanese mimetics”. The Origins of Language ed. by Nobuo Masataka, 25–38. Tokyo: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Klos, Verena
2011 Komposition und Kompositionalität. Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der semantischen Dekodierung von Substantivkomposita. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kluge, Friedruch
1886 Nominale Stammbildungslehre der altgermanischen Dialecte. Halle/S.: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Koch, Harold
1996 “Reconstruction in morphology”. The Comparative Method Reviewed: Regularity and Irregularity in Language Change ed. by Mark Durie & Malcolm Ross, 18–63. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Koefoed, Geert & Jaap van Marle
2000 “Productivity”. Morphology: An International Handbook of Inflection and Word-Formation ed. by Geert E. Booij, Christian Lehmann & Joachim Mugdan, vol. I, 303–311. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kranich, Svenja
2010 “Grammaticalization, subjectification and objectification”. Grammaticalization: Current Views and Issues ed. by Katerina Stathi, Elke Gehweile & Ekkehard König, 101–122. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju
2003 The Dravidian Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kronasser, Heinz
1968 Handbuch der Semasiologie. Kurze Einführung in die Geschichte, Problematik und Terminologie der Bedeutungslehre. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy
1949 “La notion de l’isomorphisme”. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Copenhague 5:1.48–60. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1965 “The evolution of grammatical categories”. Diogenes 51.55–71. (Repr. in Jerzy Kuryłowicz, Esquisses linguistiques, vol. II, 38–54. München: Wilhelm Fink, 1976.) CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Laca, Brenda
1986 Die Wortbildung als Grammatik des Wortschatzes: Untersuchungen zur spanischen Subjektnoinalisierung. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George
1987 Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson
1980 Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W
2007 “Cognitive Grammar”. The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics ed. by Dirk Geeraerts & Hubert Cuyckens, 421–462. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian
2002 Thoughts on Grammaticalization. Second, revised edition. (= Arbeitspapiere des Seminars für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Erfurt, 9.) Erfurt.
2004 “Theory and method in grammaticalization”. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 32:2.152–187. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 “Motivation in language. Attempt at a systematization”. Sprachliche Variation. Zur Interdependenz von Inhalt und Ausdruck ed. by Peter Gallmann, Christian Lehmann & Rosemarie Lühr, 100–135. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Lehrer, Adrienne
2000 “Are Affixes Signs?”. Morphological Analysis in Comparison ed. by Wolfgang U. Dressler, Oskar E. Pfeiffer, Markus A. Pöchtrager & John R. Rennison, 143–154. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003 “Polysemy in derivational affixes”. Polysemy: Flexible Patterns of Meaning in Mind and Language ed. by Brigitte Nerlich, Zazie Todd, Vimala Herman & David D. Clarke, 217–232. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levi, Judith
1978 The Syntax and Semantics of Complex Nominals. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Libben, Gary
2006 “Why study compound processing: An overview of the issues”. The Representation and Processing of Compound Words ed. by Gary Libben & Gonia Jarema, 1–21. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Libben, Gary, Monika Boniecki, Marlies Martha, Karin Mittermann, Katharina Korecky-Kröll & Wolfgang U. Dressler
2009 [2010] “Interfixation in German compounds: What factors govern acceptability judgements?”. Italian Journal of Linguistics 21:1.149–180.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle
2004 Morphology and Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 “The category of roots and the roots of categories: What we learn from selection in derivation”. Morphology 16:2.247–272. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Luschützky, Hans Christian
2011 “Agent-noun polysemy in Slavic: Some examples”. Language Typology and Universals 64:1.75–97. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Luschützky, Hans Christian & Franz Rainer
2011 “Agent noun polysemy in a cross-linguistic perspective”. Language Typology and Universals 64:4.287–338. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Forthcoming. “Instrument and place nouns: A typological and diachronic perspective”. Linguistics.Crossref
Maiden, Martin
2008 “Lexical nonsense and morphological sense. On the real importance of ‘folk etymology’ and related phenomena for historical linguists”. Grammatical Change and Linguistic Theory: The Rosendal papers ed. by Thórhallur Eythórsson, 307–328. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins 2008. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maiden, Martin, John Charles Smith, Maria Goldbach & Marc-Olivier Hinzelin
eds. 2011 Morphological Autonomy: Perspectives from Romance Inflectional Morphology. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Malkiel, Yakov
1990 [1977] “From phonosymbolism to morphosymbolism”. The Fourth Lacus Forum ed. by Michel Paradis, 511–529. Columbia, SC: Hornbeam Press. Repr. in Yakov Malkiel, Diachronic Problems in Phonosymbolism: Edita and Inedita, 1979–1988, vol. I, 157–175. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Crossref
Malt, Barbara C., Silvia Gennari & Mutsumi Imai
2010 “Lexicalization patterns and the world-to-words mapping”. Words and the Mind: Perspectives on the Language-Thought Interface ed. by Barbara C. Malt & Phillip Wolff, 29–57. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marchand, Hans
1969 The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word Formation. München: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar
Martinet, Andr
é 1957 “Arbitraire linguistique et double articulation”. Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure 15.105–116.Google Scholar
Masuda, Keiko
2002 A Phonetic Study of Sound Symbolism. University of Cambridge, PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
2007 “The physical basis for phonological iconicity”. Insistent Images ed. by Elżbieta Tabakowska, Christina Ljungberg & Olga Fischer, 57–71. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mattissen, Johanna
2003 Dependent-Head Synthesis in Nivkh: A Contribution to a Typology of Polysynthesis. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004a “A structural typology of polysynthesis”. Word 55.189–216.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004b “The missing link between different types of polysynthetic languages”. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 38:2.386–399.Google Scholar
2006 “Ontology and diachrony of polysynthesis”. Advances in the Theory of the Lexicon ed. by Dieter Wunderlich, 287–353. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mayerthaler, Willi
1981 Morphologische Natürlichkeit. Wiesbaden: Athenaion.Google Scholar
Meir, Irit, Carol Padden, Mark Aronoff & Wendy Sandler
2013 “Competing iconicities in the structure of languages”. Cognitive Linguistics 24:2.309–343. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Melloni, Chiara
2011 Event and Result Nominals: A Morpho-semantic Approach. Frankfurt am Main & Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Mengel, Svetlana
2009 “Wortbildungsbedeutung”. Die slavischen Sprachen. Ein internationales Handbuch zu ihrer Struktur, ihrer Geschichte und ihrer Erforschung ed. by Sebastian Kempgen, Peter Kosta, Tilmann Berger & Karl Gutschmidt, 775–781. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Edith
1978 “Reduplicative constructions”. Universals of Human Language, vol. III: Word Structure ed. by Joseph H. Greenberg, Charles A. Ferguson & Edith A. Moravcsik, 297–334. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2006 An Introduction to Syntax: Fundamentals of Syntactic Analysis. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Mühleisen, Susanne
2010 Heterogeneity in Word-Formation Patterns: A Corpus-based Analysis of Suffixation with -ee and its Productivity in English. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Gereon
2013 “Review article on Baerman et al. 2007”. Word Structure 6:1.100–122. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, Gregory L
2002 The Big Book of Concepts. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nattinger, James R. & Jeannette S. De Carrico
1992 Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nerlich, Brigitte
2003 “Polysemy: Past and present”. Polysemy: Flexible Patterns of Meaning in Mind and Language ed. by Brigitte Nerlich, Zazie Todd, Vimala Herman & David D. Clarke, 49–76. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J
1992 “Iconicity and generative grammar”. Language 68:4.756–796. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1998 Language Form and Language Function. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
2001 “Deconstructing grammaticalization”. Grammaticalization: A Critical Assessment ed. by Lyle Campbell. Special Issue of Language Sciences 23.187–229. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Norde, Muriel
2009 Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012 “Lehmann’s parameters revisited’. Grammaticalization and Language Change: New Reflections ed. by Kristin Davidse, Tine Breban, Lieselotte Brems & Tanja Mortelmans, 73–110. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nöth, Winfried
2008 “Semiotic foundations of natural linguistics and diagrammatic iconicity”. Naturalness and Iconicity in Language ed. by Klaas Willems & Ludovic De Cuypere, 73–100. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nübling, Damaris
2000 Prinzipien der Irregularisierung. Eine kontrastive Analyse von zehn Verben in zehn germanischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nuckolls, Janis B
1999 “The case for sound symbolism”. Annual Review of Anthropology 28.225–252. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nunberg, Geoffrey, Ivan A. Sag & Thomas Wasow
1994 “Idioms”. Language 70.491–538. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ohala, John J
1984 “An ethological perspective on common cross-language utilization of F0 of voice”. Phonetica 41:1.1–16. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1989 “Sound change is drawn from a pool of synchronic variation”. Language Change. Contributions to the Study of Its Causes ed. by Leiv Egil Breivik & Ernst Håkon Jahr, 173–198. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1997 “Sound symbolism”. Proceedings of the 4th Seoul International Conference on Linguistics [SICOL] 11–15 Aug 1997, 98–103. Seoul: Linguistic Society of Korea.
Olschansky, Heike
1996 Volksetymologie. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ortner, Hanspeter & Lorelies Ortner
1984 Zur Theorie und Praxis der Kompositaforschung. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Panagl, Oswald
1987 “Productivity and diachronic change in morphology”. Leitmotifs in Natural Morphology by Wolfgang U. Dressler, Willi Mayerthaler, Oswald Panagl & Wolfgang U. Wurzel, 127–151. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Panther, Klaus-Uwe
2008 “Conceptual and pragmatic motivation as an explanatory concept in linguistics”. Journal of Foreign Languages 31:5.2–19.Google Scholar
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda Thornburg
2002 “The roles of metaphor and metonomy in English -er nominals”. Metaphor and Metonymy in Comparison and Constrast ed. by René Dirven & Ralf Pörings, 279–319. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paul, Hermann
1981 [ 5 1920] Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. Halle/S.: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
1981 [1896] “Ueber die Aufgaben der Wortbildungslehre”. Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-philologischen und der historischen Classe der k. bayer. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu München, Heft 4, 692–713. (Repr. in Wortbildunged. by Leonhard Lipka & Hartmut Günther, 17–35. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.)Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S
1932 Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vol. II: Elements of Logic ed. by Charles Hartshorn & Paul Weiss. Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Perniss, Pamela, Robin L. Thompson & Gabriella Vigliocco
2010 “Iconicity as a general property of language: Evidence from spoken and signed languages”. Frontiers in Psychology 1.1–15. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David
1985 “Morphology and Logical Form”. Linguistic Inquiry 16:2.193–246.Google Scholar
Pizzuto, Elena, Paola Pietrandrea & Raffaele Simone
eds. 2007 Verbal and Signed Languages: Comparing Structures, Constructs and Methodologies. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Plank, Frans
1981 Morphologische (Ir-)Regularitäten. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Pounder, Amanda
2000 Processes and Paradigms in Word-Formation Morphology. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pustejovsky, James
2002 “Syntagmatic processes”. Lexicology. An international handbook of the nature and structure of words and vocabularies ed. by D. Alan Cruse, Franz Hundsnurscher, Michael Job & Peter Rolf Lutzeier, vol. I, 565–570. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Radden, Günter & Klaus-Uwe Panther
2004 “Introduction: Reflections on motivation”. Studies in Linguistic Motivation ed. by Radden, Günter & Klaus-Uwe Panther, 1–46. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rainer, Franz
1996 “La polysémie des noms abstraits: historique et état de la question”. Les noms abstraits. Histoire et théories ed. by Nelly Flaux, Michel Glatigny & Didier Samain, 117–126. Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses Universitaires du Septentrion.Google Scholar
2005a “Semantic change in word formation”. Linguistics 43:2.415–441. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005b “Constraints on productivity”. Handbook of Word-Formation ed. by Pavol Štekauer & Rochelle Lieber, 335–352. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012 “Morphological metaphysics: Virtual, potential and actual words”. Word Structure 5:2.165–182. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 “Can relational adjectives really mean anything? An onomasiological approach”. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 10:1.12–40. http://​www​.skase​.sk/.
Rettig, Wolfgang
1981 Sprachliche Motivation. Zeichenrelationen von Lautform und Bedeutung am Beispiel französischer Lexikoneinheiten. Frankfurt am Main & Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Rice, Keren
2000 Morpheme Order and Semantic Scope: Word Formation in the Athapaskan Verb. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 “Principles of affix ordering: An overview”. Word Structure 4:2.169–200. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ryder, Mary E
1994 Ordered Chaos: The Interpretation of English Noun-Noun Compounds. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Sablayrolles, François
2000 La néologie en français contemporain. Examen du concept et analyse de productions néologiques récentes. Paris: Honoré Champion.Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M
1991 Autolexical Syntax: A Theory of Parallel Grammatical Representations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2012 The Modular Architecture of Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M. & Eric Schiller
1993 “The Generalized Interface Principle”. Chicago Linguistic Society 29:1.391–402.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward L
1921 Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Company.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward
1929 “A study in phonetic symbolism”. Journal of Experimental Psychology 12:3.225–239. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de
2005 [1916] Cours de linguistique générale. Publié par Charles Bally et Albert Séchehaye avec la collaboration de Albert Riedlinger. Édition critique préparée par Tullio de Mauro. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Schreiner, Markus
1987 Bibliographie zur Volksetymologie. Münster: Institut für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft der Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität.Google Scholar
Schwaiger, Thomas
2013 “On the structure of reduplicants: Iconicity and preferred form in reduplication”. Morphology in Toulouse: Selected Proceedings of Decembrettes 7 (Toulouse, 2–3 December 2010) ed. by Nabil Hathout, Fabio Montermini & Jesse Tseng, 211–229. München: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
Forthcoming. “Reduplication”. Word-formation: A Handbook of the Languages of Europe ed. by Peter O. Müller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen & Franz Rainer Berlin & Boston De Gruyter Mouton
Seiler, Hansjakob
1975 “Die Prinzipien der deskriptiven und der etikettierenden Benennung”. Linguistic Workshop III ed. by Hansjakob Seiler, 2–57. München: Wilhelm Fink.Google Scholar
1979 “Language universals research, language typology, and individual grammar”. Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 29.353–367.Google Scholar
Shaoul, Cyrus & Chris Westbury
2011 “Formulaic sequences: Do they exist and do they matter?”. Mental Lexicon 6.171–196. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, Andrew
1988 “Bracketing paradoxes and the English lexicon”. Language 64:4.663–682. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005 “Word-formation and syntax”. Handbook of Word-formation ed. by Pavol Štekauer & Rochelle Lieber, 73–97. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Štekauer, Pavol
1998 An Onomasiological Theory of Word-Formation in English. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005. Meaning Predictability in Word Formation: Novel, Context-free Naming Units. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Crossref
Štekauer, Pavol, Salvador Valera & Lívia Körtvélyessy
2012 Word-formation in the World’s Languages: A Typological Survey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Steriade, Donca
2000 “Paradigm uniformity and the phonetics-phonology boundary”. Papers in Laboratory Phonology V: Acquisition and the Lexicon ed. by Michael B. Broe & Janet B. Pierrehumbert, 313–334. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stolz, Thomas, Cornelia Stroh & Aina Urdze
2011 Total Reduplication: The Areal Linguistics of a Potential Universal. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sweetser, Eve
1999 “Compositionality and blending: Semantic composition in a cognitively realistic framework”. Cognitive Linguistics: Foundations, Scope, and Methodology ed. by Theo Janssen & Gisela Redeker, 129–162. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard
2007 “Lexical typologies”. Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. III: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon ed. by Timothy Shopen, 66–168. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, John R
2011 Linguistic Categorization. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thornton, Anna M
2012 “Reduction and maintenance of overabundance. A case study on Italian verb paradigms”. Word Structure 5:2.183–207. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
2010a “(Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment”. Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization ed. by Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte & Hubert Cuyckens, 29–70. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010b “Grammaticalization”. Continuum Companion to Historical Linguistics ed. by Silvia Luraghi, 269–283. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Richard B. Dasher
2002 [1992] Regularity in Semantic Change. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tsujimura, Natsuko
2005 “Mimetic verbs and innovative verbs in the acquisition of Japanese”. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society 31:1.371–382.Google Scholar
Ullman, Michael T
2004 “Contributions of memory circuits to language: The declarative/procedural model”. Cognition 92.231–270. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ultan, Russell
1978 “Size-sound symbolism”. Universals of Human Language, vol. II: Phonology ed. by Joseph H. Greenberg, Charles A. Ferguson & Edith A. Moravcsik, 525–568. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Urban, Matthias
2007 Deskriptivität als Subtyp lexikalischer Motivation. Eine quantitative Studie in Synchronie und Diachronie. Köln: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft, Universität zu Köln.Google Scholar
Voeltz, Erhard F.K. & Christa Kilian-Hatz
eds. 2001 Ideophones. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Warren, Beatrice
1978 Semantic Patterns of Noun-Noun Compounds. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
1984 Classifying Adjectives. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
Werning, Markus, Wolfram Hinzen & Edouard Machery
eds. 2012 The Oxford Handbook of Compositionality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Whorf, Benjamin L
1956 [1936] “A linguistic consideration of thinking in primitive communities”. Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf ed. by John B. Carroll, 65–86. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. (2nd ed. by John B. Carroll, Stephen C. Levinson & Penny Lee 2012.)Google Scholar
Wilbur, Ronnie B
2009 “Productive reduplication in ASL a fundamentally monosyllabic language”. Language Sciences 31:2/3.325–342. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Willems, Klaas
2011 “Meaning and interpretation: The semiotic similarities and differences between Cognitive Grammar and European structural linguistics”. Semiotica 185:1/4.1–50. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, Sherman
2004 “Cognitive iconicity: Conceptual spaces, meaning, and gesture in signed languages”. Cognitive Linguistics 15:2.119–147.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wurzel, Wolfgang U
1994 “Morphology, Natural”. The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics ed. by R.E. Asher & J.M.Y. Simpson, 1st ed., 2590–2598. Oxford & New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Zimmer, Karl E
1964 Affixal Negation in English and Other Languages: An Investigation of Restricted Productivity. New York: The Linguistic Circle of New York.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Thomas Ede & Wolfgang Sternefeld
2013 Introduction to Semantics: An Essential Guide to the Composition of Meaning. Berlin: De Gruyter/Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 7 other publications

Acquaviva, Paolo
2016.  In The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology, ► pp. 117 ff. Crossref logo
Da Tos, Martina
2019.  In Italian Dialectology at the Interfaces [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 251], ► pp. 41 ff. Crossref logo
Dressler, Wolfgang U. & Marianne Kilani-Schoch
2016.  In The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology, ► pp. 356 ff. Crossref logo
Mattiello, Elisa & Wolfgang U. Dressler
2018. The Morphosemantic Transparency/Opacity of Novel English Analogical Compounds and Compound Families. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 53:1 ► pp. 67 ff. Crossref logo
Rossi, Daniela
2015. The why and how of total reduplication. Studies in Language 39:4 ► pp. 789 ff. Crossref logo
Schulte, Marion
2015. Polysemy and synonymy in derivational affixation—a case study of the English suffixes -age and -ery. Morphology 25:4 ► pp. 371 ff. Crossref logo
Shie, Jian-Shiung
2017. Variations in the use of metaphor at the macro-contextual level. Pragmatics and Society 8:4 ► pp. 498 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 august 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.