Wolfgang U. DresslerLavinia Merlini Barbaresi
Table of contents

Morphology, dealing with the structure and operations of inflectional and derivational affixes, of compounding, of pronouns, etc., is usually viewed as having no exclusive relations with pragmatics, in the sense that the independent pragmatic impact of the word meanings and/or the syntactic constructions overrides its importance. For example, when studying the pragmatics of imperatives, the syntax of imperative sentences is more important for pragmatics than the inflectional means of forming imperatives (cf. Rosengren 1992).

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price.


Alonso, A.
1933/1961Noción, emoción, acción y fantasía en los diminutivos. Estudios lingüísticos: Temas españoles: 161–189.Google Scholar
Aronoff, M.
1980Contextuals. Language 56: 744–758. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Bazzanella, C., C. Caffi & M. Sbis
1991Scalar dimensions of illocutionary force. In I. Zagar (ed.) Speech acts: fiction or reality? 63–76. Ljubljana: Institute for Social Sciences.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Brown, P. & S. Levinson
1987Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Coseriu, E.
1970Bedeutung und Bezeichnung im Lichte der strukturellen Semantik. In P. Hartmann & H. Vernay (eds.) Sprachwissenschaft und Übersetzen: 104–121. München.Google Scholar
Doleschal, U.
1992Movierung im Deutschen. Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Dressler, W.U.
(ed.) 1997Studies in Pre- and Protomorphology. Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. & L.M. Barbaresi
1991Elements of morphopragmatics. In J. Verschueren (ed.) Levels of linguistic adaptation: 33–51. John Benjamins. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
1994Morphopragmatics. Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Gaarder, B.
1966Los llamados diminutivos y aumentativos en el español de México. Publications of the Modern Language Association 81: 585–595. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gillis, S.
(ed.) 1998Studies in the Acquisition of Number and Diminutive Marking. Antwerp Papers in Linguistics 95.Google Scholar
Hasselrot, B.
1957Etudes sur la formation diminutive dans les langues romanes. Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Ide, S.
1990How and why do women speak more politely in Japanese? In S. Ide & N. Mcgloin (eds.): 63–79.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Kiefer, F.
1998Morphology and pragmatics. In A. Spencer & A. Zwicky (eds.) A Handbook of Morphology: 272–279. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Leech, G.N.
1983Principles of Pragmatics. Longman.Google Scholar
Romaine, S.
1983On the productivity of word formation rules and limits of variability in the lexicon. Australian Journal of Linguistics 3: 177–200. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosengren, I.
1992Zur Grammatik und Pragmatik des Imperativsatzes. Sprache und Pragmatik 28.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Searle, J.R. & D. Vanderveken
1985Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sebüktekin, H.
1974Morphotactics of Turkish verb suffixation. Bogazici University Journal 2: 87–116.Google Scholar
Sieberer, A.
1950Das Wesen des Deminutivs. Die Sprache 2: 85–121.Google Scholar
Spitzer, L.
1910Die Wortbildung als stilistisches Mittel exemplifiziert an Rabelais. Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Thun, N.
1963Reduplicative Words in English. University of Uppsala.Google Scholar
Verschueren, J.
1987Pragmatics as a theory of linguistic adaptation. IPrA Working Document 1.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A.
1991Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: The semantics of human interaction. Mouton de Gruyter.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Wunderlich, D.
1976Studien zur Sprechakttheorie. Suhrkamp.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, A. & G. Pullum
1987Plain morphology and expressive morphology. Berkeley Linguistic Society Papers 13: 339–342.Google Scholar