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. 177190


Adams, Valerie
2001Complex Words in English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Allen, Andrew S.
1981“The Development of Prefixal and Parasynthetic Verbs in Latin and Romance”. Romance Philology 35.79–88.Google Scholar
Beard, Robert
1995Lexeme-Morpheme Based Morphology: A General Theory of Inflection and Word Formation. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Becker, Thomas
1993“Back-Formation, Cross-Formation, and ‘Bracketing Paradoxes’ in Paradigmatic Morphology”. Yearbook of Morphology 1992 ed. by Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle, 1–27. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert
2002The Morphology of Dutch. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville
2010“Canonical Derivational Morphology”. Word Structure 3.141–155. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Corbin, Danièle
2001“Du nouveau sur beurre laitier. Note sur une fausse conversion”. Par monts et par vaux. Itinéraires linguistiques et grammaticaux ed. by Claude Buridant, Georges Kleiber & Jean-Christophe Pellat, 127–143. Louvain & Paris: Peeters.Google Scholar
Darmesteter, Arsène
1894 [1875] Traité de la formation des mots composés dans la langue française comparée aux autres langues romanes et au latin. 2nd edition. Paris: Bouillon.Google Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U.
2000“Extragrammatical vs Marginal Morphology”. Marginal and Extragrammatical Morphology ed. by Ursula Doleschal & Anna M. Thornton, 1–10. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Fradin, Bernard
2000“Combining Forms, Blends and Related Phenomena”. Extragrammatical and Marginal Morphology, ed. by Ursula Doleschal & Anna M. Thornton, 11–59. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Hathout, Nabil
2011“Une analyse unifiée de la préfixation en anti-”. Roché, Boyé, Hathout, Lignon & Plénat, eds. 2011, 251–318.
Iacobini, Claudio
2004“Parasintesi”. La formazione delle parole in italiano ed. by Maria Grossmann & Franz Rainer, 165–188. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Koehl, Aurore
2009“Are French ité Suffixed Nouns Property Nouns?”. Selected Proceedings of the 6th Décembrettes: Morphology in Bordeaux ed. by Fabio Montermini, Gilles Boyé & Jesse Tseng, 95–110. Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Levinson, Steven C.
2000Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lindsay, Mark & Mark Aronoff
2013“Natural Selection in Self-Organizing Morphological Systems”. Morphology in Toulouse ed. by Nabil Hathout, Fabio Montermini & Jesse Tseng, 133–153. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Nagano, Akiko
2007“Marchand’s Analysis of Back-Formation Revisited: Back-Formation as a Type of Conversion”. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 54.33–72. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Namer, Fiammetta
2013“Adjectival Bases of French aliser and ariser Verbs: Syncretism or Under-Specification?”. Morphology in Toulouse ed. by Nabil Hathout, Fabio Montermini & Jesse Tseng, 185–210. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Piantadosi, Steven, Harry Tily & Edward Gibson
2012“The Communicative Function of Ambiguity in Language”. Cognition 122:3.280–291. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Plénat, Marc
2009“Les contraintes de taille”. Aperçus de Morphologie du français ed. by Bernard Fradin, Françoise Kerleroux & Marc Plénat, 47–64. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.Google Scholar
Plénat, Marc & Michel Roché
2004“Entre morphologie et phonologie: la suffixation décalée”. Lexique 16.159–198.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan & Paul Smolensky
1993Optimality Theory. Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. RuCCS Technical Report 2. Piscataway: Rutgers Center for Cognitive Sciences, Rutgers University, and Boulder : Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado.Google Scholar
Roché, Michel
2011a“Quel traitement unifié pour les dérivations en isme et en iste”. Roché, Boyé, Hathout, Lignon & Plénat, eds. 2011, 69–143.
2011b“Quelle morphologie?”. Roché, Boyé, Hathout, Lignon & Plénat, eds. 2011, 15–39.
2011c“Pression lexicale et contraintes phonologiques dans la dérivation en aie du français”. Linguistica 51.5–22.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roché, Michel, Gilles Boyé, Nabil Hathout, Stéphanie Lignon & Marc Plénat
2011Des unités morphologiques au lexique. Paris: Hermès.Google Scholar
Scalise, Sergio
1994Morfologia. Bologna: il Mulino.Google Scholar
Serrano Dolader, David
1995Las formaciones parasintéticas en español. Madrid: Arco Libros.Google Scholar
Shimamura, Reiko
1983“Backformation of English Compound Verbs”. Papers from the Parasession on the Interplay of Phonology, Morphology and Syntax ed. by John F. Richardson, Mitchell Marks & Amy Chukerman, 271–282. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Szymanek, Bogdan
2005“The Latest Trends in English Word-Formation”. Handbook of Word-Formation ed. by Pavel Štekauer & Rochelle Lieber, 429–448. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle 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
Warren, Beatrice
1990“The Importance of Combining Forms”. Contemporary Morphology ed. by Wolfgang U. Dressler, Hans Christian Luschützky, Oskar E. Pfeiffer & John R. Rennison, 111–132. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zipf, George K.
1949Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort. New York: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

Efthymiou, Angeliki, Georgia Fragaki & Angelos Markos
2015. Exploring the polysemy of the Modern Greek prefix iper-. Morphology 25:4  pp. 411 ff. Crossref logo
Namer, Fiammetta & Nabil Hathout
2020. ParaDis and Démonette – From Theory to Resources for Derivational Paradigms. Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics 114:1  pp. 5 ff. Crossref logo
Shalal, Fadhel Abbas
2018. Morpheme-based approach versus word-based approach: classifying derivative words with respect to their bases. Russian Linguistics 42:2  pp. 237 ff. Crossref logo
Stump, Gregory
2019. Some sources of apparent gaps in derivational paradigms. Morphology 29:2  pp. 271 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 december 2021. 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.