Cover not available
Part of
Word Formation in South American Languages
Edited by Swintha Danielsen, Katja Hannss and Fernando Zúñiga
[Studies in Language Companion Series 163] 2014
► pp. 1–10

Introduction and acknowledgments

| University of Leipzig
| University of Cologne
| University of Bern
The term ‘word formation’ is ambiguous in modern linguistics. In one usage of the term, it is equivalent to ‘morphology’ and refers to matters such as affixation and reduplication as used in the creation of words. In the more widely accepted sense of the term, word formation refers to the creation of new lexemes in a given language. Thus it specifically excludes inflectional morphology, such as that which makes manages and managed from the base manage. At the same time, it may include things that are only marginally considered to be morphology, or that may be excluded from morphology. (L. Bauer 2006: 632, emphasis in the original)
Published online: 14 November 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.163.01dan
References (38)
References
Adelaar, Willem with Muysken, Pieter. 2004. The Languages of the Andes. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2007. Typological distinctions in word-formation. In Shopen (ed), Vol. 3, 1–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1985. Typological distinctions in word formation. In Shopen (ed), 1–56.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark & Fasola, Carlos. 2009. Araucanian: Mapudungun. Lieber & Štekauer (eds), 594–618.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 2003. Introducing Linguistic Morphology, 2nd edn. Edinburgh: EUP.Google Scholar
. 2004. English Word-Formation. Reprint. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
. 2006. Word formation. In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Keith Brown (ed), 632–633. Oxford: Elsevier. [URL] DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Becker, Martin. 2003. Die Entwicklung der modernen Wortbildung im Spanischen: der politisch-soziale Wortschatz seit 1896. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar & Nichols, Johanna. 2007. Inflectional morphology. In Shopen (ed), Vol. 3, 169–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form [Typological Studies in Language 9]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W. & Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2002. Word: A Cross- linguistic Typology. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Donalies, Elke. 2005. Die Wortbildung des Deutschen: Ein Überblick. Tübingen: Narr. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Epps, Patience. 2008. A Grammar of Hup. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fisiak, Jacek. 1985. Historical Semantics, Historical Word Formation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guillaume, Antoine. 2008. A Grammar of Caviñena. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2011. The indeterminacy of word segmentation and the nature of morphology and syntax. Folia Linguistica 45(1): 31–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haude, Katharina. 2006. A Grammar of Movima. PhD dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen.
Hurch, Bernhard (ed). 2005. Studies on Reduplication [Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 28]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle & Štekauer, Pavol. 2009. The Oxford Handbook of Compounding. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1982. Re reduplication. Linguistic Inquiry 13(3): 435–482.Google Scholar
. 1988. Clitics, morphological merger and the mapping to phonological structure. In Theoretical Morphology. Approaches in Modern Linguistics, Michael Hammond & Michael P. Noonan (eds), 253–270. San Diego CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Mengel, Swetlana. 2002. Slavische Wortbildung: Semantik und Kombinatorik. Materialien der 5. Internationalen Konferenz der Kommission für Slavische Wortbildung beim Internationalen Slavistenkommitee; Lutherstadt Wittenberg, 20–25 September 2001. Münster: Lit.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1984. The evolution of noun incorporation. Language 60(4): 847–894. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moravcsik, Edith A. 1978. Reduplicative constructions. In Universals of Human Language, Vol. 3: Word Structure, Joseph H. Greenberg, Charles A. Ferguson & Edith A. Moravcsik (eds), 297–334. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Olsen, Susan. 2010. New Impulses in Word Formation. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
Plag, Ingo. 2003. Word-Formation in English. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rice, Keren. 2009. Athapaskan: Slave. In Lieber & Štekauer (eds), 542–563.Google Scholar
Rose, Françoise. 2011. Grammaire de l’émérillon teko, une langue tupi-guarani de Guayane. Louvain: Peeters.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language. An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York NY: Harcourt, Brace & World. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiering, René, Hildebrandt, Kristine A. & Bickel, Balthasar. 2010. The prosodic word is not universal, but emergent. Journal of Linguistics 46(3): 657–709. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shopen, Timothy. 2007. Language Typology and Syntactic Description, 2nd edn, Vol. 1–3. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Smeets, Ineke. 2008. A Grammar of Mapuche. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Štekauer, Pavol. 2000. English Word-Formation. A History of Research (1960–1995). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Štekauer, Pavol & Lieber, Rochelle. 2005. Handbook of Word-Formation. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Štekauer, Pavol, Valera, Salvador & Körtvélyessy, Lívia. 2012. Word-Formation in the World’s Languages. A Typological Survey. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
ten Hacken, Pius. 1994. Defining Morphology: A Principled Approach to Determining the Boundaries of Compounding, Derivation, and Inflection. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
Zamponi, Raoul. 2009. Arawakan: Maipure-Yavitero. In Lieber & Štekauer (eds), 584–593.Google Scholar