Article published in:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 18:1 (2020) ► pp. 162179
References

[ p. 173 ]References

Baldi, P.
(2000) Creative processes. In G. Booij, C. Lehmann & J. Mugdan (Eds.), Morphologie/Morphology (pp. 963–972). Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bauer, L.
(1983) English word-formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2001) Morphological productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Compounds and minor word-formation types. In B. Arts & A. McMahon (Eds.), The handbook of English linguistics (pp. 483–506). Malden, MA: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J.
(1985) Morphology. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, L.
(1998) Historical linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Casenhiser, D. M.
(2005) Children’s resistance to homonymy: an experimental study of pseudohomonyms. Journal of Child Language 32, 319–343. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clark, E. V.
(1983) The lexicon in acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cuyckens, Hu, Berg, T., & Dirven, R.
(Eds.) (2003) Motivation in language. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Di Sciullo, A. M., & Williams, E.
(1987) On the definition of word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Doherty, M. J.
(2004) Children’s difficulty in learning homonyms. Journal of Child Language 31, 203–214. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dressler, W. U.
(2005) Word-formation in natural morphology. In P. Štekauer & R. Lieber (Eds.), Handbook of word-formation (pp. 267–284). Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Firth, J. R.
(1930) Speech. In J. R. Firth, The tongues of men and speech 1964 London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fleischer, W.
(2000) Die Klassifiktion von Wortbildungsprozessen. In G. Booij, C. Lehmann & J. Mugdan (Eds.), Morphologie/Morphology (pp. 886–897). Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gilliéron, J., & Roques, M.
(1910) Études de géographie linguistique XII. Mots en collision. A: Le coq et le chat. Revue de Philologie Française 24, 278–288.Google Scholar
Grant, L., & Bauer, L.
(2004) Criteria for redefining idioms. Applied Linguistics, 25, 38–61. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hinzen, W., Machery, E., & Werning, M.
(Eds.) (2012) The Oxford handbook of compositionality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kaminski, J., Call, J., & Fischer, J.
(2004) Word learning in a domestic dog evidence for ‘fast mapping’. Science, 304, 1682–1683. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 174 ]
Labov, W.
(1972) Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D.
(1979) Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lipka, L.
(1994) Lexicalization and institutionalization. In R. E. Asher (Ed.), The encyclopedia of language and linguistics, vol. 4 (pp. 2164–2167). Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Lyons, J.
(1977) Semantics. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marchand, H.
(1969) The categories and types of present-day English word-formation. 2nd edition. Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
Mazzacocco, M. M.
(1997) Children’s interpretations of homonyms: a developmental study. Journal of Child Language, 24, 441–467. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Orr, J.
(1962) Three studies on homonymics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Panther, K. U., & Radden, G.
(Eds.) (2011) Motivation in grammar and the lexicon. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Plag, I.
(1999) Morphological productivity: structural constraints on English derivation. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Radden, G., & Panther, K. U.
(Eds.) (2004a) Studies in linguistic motivation. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2004b) Introduction: Reflections on motivation. In Radden & Günter (Eds.), Studies in linguistic motivation (pp. 1–46). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Renner, V., Maniez, F., & Arnaud, P. J. L.
(Eds.) (2012) Cross-disciplinary perspectives on lexical blending. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruhl, C.
(1989) On monosemy. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Saussure, F.
(1969) [1916]Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Schultink, H.
(1961) Produktiviteit als morfologisch fenomeen. Forum der Letteren, 2, 110–125.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. M.
(1991) Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Storkel, H. L., & Maekawa, J.
(2005) A comparison of homonym and novel word learning: the role of phonotactic probability and word frequency. Journal of Child Language, 32, 827–853. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tulloch, S.
(1991) The Oxford dictionary of new words. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ullmann, S.
(1957) The principles of semantics. 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Vennemann, T.
(1972) Phonetic analogy and conceptual analogy. In T. Vennemann & T. H. Wilbur (Eds.), Schuchardt, the Neogrammarians, and the transformational theory of phonological change: Four essays (pp. 181–204). Frankfurt: Athenaeum. (Cited in Hock, H. H. (2003) Analogical change. In B. D. Joseph & R. D. Janda (Eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics (pp. 441–460). Malden, MA: Blackwell.)Google Scholar
Weinreich, U.
(1964) Languages in contact. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Wray, A.
(2012) What do we (think we) know about formulaic language? An evaluation of the current state of play. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 231–254. CrossrefGoogle Scholar