Article published in:
The Dynamics of Lexical Innovation: Data, methods, models
Edited by Daphné Kerremans, Jelena Prokić, Quirin Würschinger and Hans-Jörg Schmid
[Pragmatics & Cognition 25:1] 2018
► pp. 142173
References

References

Algeo, John
1977Blends, a structural and systemic view. American Speech 52(1). 47–64. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Alm-Arvius, Christina
2012Comprehensive semantics: Lexicon, grammar, text cognition & the world. Stockholm University: Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Barber, Charles, Joan C. Beal & Philip A. Shaw
2009The English language: A historical introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie
1983English word-formation. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006Compounds and minor word-formation types. In Bas Aarts & April M. S. MacMahon (eds.), The handbook of English Linguistics, 483–506. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.. Crossref[ p. 171 ]Google Scholar
Beliaeva, Natalia
2014A study of English blends: From structure to meaning and back again. Word Structure 7(1). 29–54. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bergström, Gustaf Adolf
1906On blendings of synonymous or cognate expressions in English: A contribution to the study of contamination. Lund University (Press) / Lund: H. Ohlsson.Google Scholar
Cannon, Garland
1986Blends in English word formation. Linguistics 24(4). 723–753. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cook, Paul
2012Using social media to find English lexical blends. In Ruth Vatvedt Fjeld & Julie Matilde Torjusen (eds.), Proceedings of the 15th EURALEX International Congress, 846–854. Oslo: Department of Linguistics and Scandinavian Studies, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Cook, Paul & Suzanne Stevenson
2010Automatically identifying the source words of lexical blends in English. Computational Linguistics 36(1). 129–149. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crystal, David
2001Language and the internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011Internet linguistics: A student guide. New York: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U.
2000Extragrammatical vs. marginal morphology. In Ursula Doleschal & Anna M. Thornton (eds.), Extragrammatical and marginal morphology, 1–10. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Fandrych, Ingrid
2008Pagad, Chillax and Jozi: A multi-level approach to acronyms, blends, and clippings. Nawa: Journal of Language & Communication 2(2). 71–88.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner
2002The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Fradin, Bernard
2015Blending. In Peter O. Müller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen & Franz Rainer (eds.), Word-formation: An international handbook of the languages of Europe, 386–413. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th
2004aIsn’t that fantabulous? How similarity motivates intentional morphological blends in English. In Michael Achard & Suzanne Kemmer (eds.), Language, culture, and mind, 415–428. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
2004bShouldn’t it be breakfunch? A quantitative analysis of blend structure in English. Linguistics 42(3). 639–667. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006Cognitive determinants of subtractive word formation: A corpus-based perspective. Cognitive Linguistics 17(4). 535–558. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012Quantitative corpus data on blend formation: Psycho- and cognitive-linguistic perspectives. In Vincent Renner, Pierre Arnaud, Volker Gast & François Maniez (eds.), Cross-disciplinary perspectives on lexical blending, 145–167. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harley, Trevor A.
2008The psychology of language: From data to theory. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer
2001Lexical frequency in morphology: Is everything relative? Linguistics 39. 1041–1070. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Mark
1987The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Juhasz, Barbara J., Rebecca L. Johnson & Jennifer Brewer
2016An investigation into the processing of lexicalized English blend words: Evidence from lexical decisions and eye movements during reading. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 46(2): 1–14.Google Scholar
Kelly, Michael
1998To “brunch” or to “brench”: Some aspects of blend structure. Linguistics 36(3). 579–590. Crossref[ p. 172 ]Google Scholar
Kemmer, Suzanne
2003Schemas and lexical blends. In Hubert Cuyckens, Thomas Berg & René Dirven (eds.), Amsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science: Motivation in language. Studies in honor of Günter Radden, 69–97. Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
2008Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lehrer, Adrienne
1996Identifying and interpreting blends: An experimental approach. Cognitive Linguistics 7(4). 359–390. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1998Scapes, holics, and thons: The semantics of English combining forms. American Speech 73(1). 3–28. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007Blendalicious. In Judith Munat (ed.), Lexical creativity, texts and contexts, 115–133. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Libben, Gary, Martha Gibson, Yeo Bom Yoon & Dominiek Sandra
2003Compound fracture: The role of semantic transparency and morphological headedness. Brain and Language 84(1). 50–64. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
López Rúa, Paula
2004The categorial continuum of English blends. English Studies 85. 63–76. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Plag, Ingo
2003Word-formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pound, Louise
1914Blends: Their relation to English word formation. Heidelberg: Carl Winter’s Universitätsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Jan Svartvik, Geoffrey Leech & Sidney Greenbaum
1985A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London & New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Renner, Vincent, François Maniez & Pierre Arnaud
(eds.) 2012Cross-disciplinary perspectives on lexical blending. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ronneberger-Sibold, Elke
2006Lexical blends: Functionally tuning the transparency of complex words. Folia Linguistica 40(1–2). 155–181. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sandra, Dominiek
1990On the representation and processing of compound words: Automatic access to constituent morphemes does not occur. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A 42(3). 529–567. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de
1966Course in general linguistics. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Sereno, Joan A. & Allard Jongman
1997Processing of English inflectional morphology. Memory & Cognition 25(4). 425–437. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Soudek, Lev
1968Further members of the “burger” family. American Speech 43. 74–76. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1971The development and use of the morpheme burger in American English. Linguistics 9. 61–89. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, Andrew
1996Phonology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
Taylor, John R.
2002Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael
2003Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Warren, Beatrice
1990The importance of combining forms. In Wolfgang Dressler, Hans C. Luschutzky, Oskar E. Pfeiffer & John R. Rennison (eds.), Contemporary morphology, 111–132. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wentworth, Harold
1933Twenty-nine synonyms for ‘portmanteau word’. American Speech 8(4). 78–79.Google Scholar
Withington, Robert
1932More “portmanteau” coinages. American Speech 7(3). 200–203. Crossref[ p. 173 ]Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Karpova, Kateryna & Tetyana Chaiuk
2020. Vocabulary enrichment of modern English via world-formation (on the material of the language of COVID-19 pandemic). Actual issues of Ukrainian linguistics theory and practice :41  pp. 155 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 january 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.