Cover not available
Part of
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
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.327.02rai
References (258)
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.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alexiadou, Artemis & Monika Rathert, eds. 2010. The Syntax of Nominalizations across Languages and Frameworks. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1980. “Contextuals”. Language 56.744–758. DOI logoGoogle 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 DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baerman, Matthew, Greville G. Corbett, Dunstan Brown & Andrew Hippisley, eds. 2007. Deponency and Morphological Mismatches. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barker, Chris. 1998. “Episodic -ee in English: A thematic role constraint on new word formation.” Language 74:4.695–727. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boye, Kasper & Peter Harder. 2012. “A usage-based theory of grammatical status and grammaticalization”. Language 88:1.1–44. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian Syntax: A Government-Binding Approach. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1985. “Diagrammatic iconicity in stem-inflection relations”. Iconicity in Syntax ed. by John Haiman, 11–47. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2001. Phonology and Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cifuentes Honrubia, José Luis, ed. 2011. Spanish Word Formation and Lexical Creation. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Eve V. & Herbert H. Clark. 1979. “When Nouns Surface as Verbs”. Language 55.767–811. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 1991. Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corbin, Danielle. 1987. Morphologie dérivationnelle et structuration du lexique. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. The Growth and Maintenance of Linguistic Complexity. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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.DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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.DOI logo
Dressler, Wolfgang U. & Lavinia Merlini-Barbaresi. 1994. Morphopragmatics: Diminutives and Intensifiers in Italian, German, and Other Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eckardt, Regine. 2006. Meaning Change in Grammaticalization: An Enquiry into Semantic Reanalysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fábregas, Antonio & Rafael Marín. 2012. “The role of Aktionsart in deverbal nouns: State nominalizations across languages”. Journal of Linguistics 48.35–70. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gloning, Thomas. 1996. Bedeutung, Gebrauch und sprachliche Handlung. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.DOI logoGoogle 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.DOI logo
Güldemann, Tom. 2008. Quotative Indexes in African Languages: A Synchronic and Diachronic Survey. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haiman, John. 1980. “The iconicity of grammar: Isomorphism and motivation”. Language 56:3.515–540. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. “In defence of iconicity”. Cognitive Linguistics 19:1.35–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Alice C. & Lyle Campbell. 1995. Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. “Against markedness (and what to replace it with)”. Journal of Linguistics 42:1.25–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. “Frequency vs. iconicity in explaining grammatical asymmetries”. Cognitive Linguistics 19:1.1–33. DOI logoGoogle 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.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. “Grammaticalization”. The Handbook of Historical Linguistics ed. by Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda, 575–601. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1947. “Problems of morphemic analysis”. Language 23:4.321–343. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1965. “Quest for the essence of language”. Diogenes 13/51.21–37. (Repr. in Jakobson 1971.345–359.) DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. “Morphologization from syntax”. The Handbook of Historical Linguistics ed. by Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda, 472–492. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klos, Verena. 2011. Komposition und Kompositionalität. Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der semantischen Dekodierung von Substantivkomposita. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krishnamurti, Bhadriraju. 2003. The Dravidian Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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.) DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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.DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. “The category of roots and the roots of categories: What we learn from selection in derivation”. Morphology 16:2.247–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luschützky, Hans Christian. 2011. “Agent-noun polysemy in Slavic: Some examples”. Language Typology and Universals 64:1.75–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luschützky, Hans Christian & Franz Rainer. 2011. “Agent noun polysemy in a cross-linguistic perspective”. Language Typology and Universals 64:4.287–338. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. Forthcoming. “Instrument and place nouns: A typological and diachronic perspective”. Linguistics.DOI logo
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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.DOI logo
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.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marchand, Hans. 1969. The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word Formation. München: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar
Martinet, André. 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mattissen, Johanna. 2003. Dependent-Head Synthesis in Nivkh: A Contribution to a Typology of Polysynthesis. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004a. “A structural typology of polysynthesis”. Word 55.189–216.DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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
Müller, Gereon. 2013. “Review article on Baerman et al. 2007”. Word Structure 6:1.100–122. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1992. “Iconicity and generative grammar”. Language 68:4.756–796. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nübling, Damaris. 2000. Prinzipien der Irregularisierung. Eine kontrastive Analyse von zehn Verben in zehn germanischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nuckolls, Janis B. 1999. “The case for sound symbolism”. Annual Review of Anthropology 28.225–252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nunberg, Geoffrey, Ivan A. Sag & Thomas Wasow. 1994. “Idioms”. Language 70.491–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ohala, John J. 1984. “An ethological perspective on common cross-language utilization of F0 of voice”. Phonetica 41:1.1–16. DOI logoGoogle 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.DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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.DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005b. “Constraints on productivity”. Handbook of Word-Formation ed. by Pavol Štekauer & Rochelle Lieber, 335–352. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. “Morphological metaphysics: Virtual, potential and actual words”. Word Structure 5:2.165–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. “Can relational adjectives really mean anything? An onomasiological approach”. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 10:1.12–40. [URL].
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. “Principles of affix ordering: An overview”. Word Structure 4:2.169–200. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 1988. “Bracketing paradoxes and the English lexicon”. Language 64:4.663–682. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. “Word-formation and syntax”. Handbook of Word-formation ed. by Pavol Štekauer & Rochelle Lieber, 73–97. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Štekauer, Pavol. 1998. An Onomasiological Theory of Word-Formation in English. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Meaning Predictability in Word Formation: Novel, Context-free Naming Units. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.DOI logo
Štekauer, Pavol, Salvador Valera & Lívia Körtvélyessy. 2012. Word-formation in the World’s Languages: A Typological Survey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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.DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, Sherman. 2004. “Cognitive iconicity: Conceptual spaces, meaning, and gesture in signed languages”. Cognitive Linguistics 15:2.119–147.DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (13)

Cited by 13 other publications

Yousefzadeh, Bahareh, Gary Libben & Sidney J. Segalowitz
2024. Persian compounds in the mental lexicon. Frontiers in Communication 9 DOI logo
Altakhaineh, Abdel Rahman Mitib
2023. The Conceptual Relationships in N+N Compounds in Arabic Compared to English. Cognitive Studies | Études cognitives :23 DOI logo
Kačmár, Pavol & Lívia Körtvélyessy
2023. Big-Five model of personality and word formation: role of open-mindedness in semantic transparency and economy of expression. Language and Cognition 15:2 ► pp. 217 ff. DOI logo
Salvadori, Justine & Richard Huyghe
2023. Affix polyfunctionality in French deverbal nominalizations. Morphology 33:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Leufkens, Sterre
2020. A functionalist typology of redundancy. Revista da ABRALIN ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Da Tos, Martina
2019. Inflectional uniformity in the present subjunctive in the dialects of central Friuli. In Italian Dialectology at the Interfaces [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 251], ► pp. 41 ff. DOI logo
Smith, Chris A.
2019. A Case Study of -some and -able Derivatives in the. Lexis :16 DOI 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. DOI logo
Shie, Jian-Shiung
2017. Variations in the use of metaphor at the macro-contextual level. Pragmatics and Society 8:4 ► pp. 498 ff. DOI logo
Acquaviva, Paolo
2016. Morphological Semantics. In The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology, ► pp. 117 ff. DOI logo
Dressler, Wolfgang U. & Marianne Kilani-Schoch
2016. Natural Morphology. In The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology, ► pp. 356 ff. DOI logo
Rossi, Daniela
2015. The why and how of total reduplication. Studies in Language 39:4 ► pp. 789 ff. DOI 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. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 october 2024. 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.