Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T09:25:51.477Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - Productivity

from Part I - Foundations of Morphological Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 January 2017

By
Georgette Dal  and
Fiammetta Namer
Edited by
Andrew Hippisley  and
Gregory Stump
Andrew Hippisley
Affiliation:
University of Kentucky
Gregory Stump
Affiliation:
University of Kentucky
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology , pp. 70 - 90
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arnaud, P. 2013. Word-formation and word-creation: A data-driven exploration of inventiveness in neologisms. Quaderns de Filologia 18, 97–113.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Aronoff, M., and Anshen, F.. 1998. Morphology and the lexicon: Lexicalization and productivity. In Spencer, A. and Zwicky, A. M. (eds.), The Handbook of Morphology, 237–47. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Aronoff, M., and Lindsay, M.. 2014. Productivity, blocking, and lexicalization. In Lieber, S. and P. Štekauer, (eds.), The Handbook of Derivational Morphology, 67–83. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aurnague, M., and Plénat, M.. 2013. Manifestations morphologiques de la relation d’attachement habituel. In Dal, G. and Amiot, D., Repères en morphologie, 11–20. Lille: Laboratoire STL. Originally published as in Silexicales 1 (1997), 15–24.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H. 1992. Quantitative aspects of morphological productivity. Yearbook of Morphology 1991, 109–49.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H. 1993. On frequency, transparency and productivity. Yearbook of Morphology 1992, 181–208.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H. 1994. Derivational productivity and text typology. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 1, 16–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H. 2009. Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. In Lüdeling, A. and Kytö, M. (eds.), Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook, vol. 2, 899–919. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., and Lieber, R.. 1991. Productivity and English derivation: A corpus-based study. Linguistics 29.5, 801–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., and Neijt, A.. 1997. Productivity in context: A case study of a Dutch suffix. Linguistics 35, 565–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., and Renouf, A.. 1996. Chronicling the Times: Productive lexical innovations in an English newspaper. Language 72, 69–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagasheva, A., and Stamenov, C.. 2013. The ludic aspect of lexical inventiveness. Quaderns de Filologia 18, 71–82.Google Scholar
Balteiro, I., and Campos, M. Á.. 2012. False anglicisms in the Spanish language of fashion and beauty. Ibérica 24, 233–60.Google Scholar
Baroni, M.; Bernardini, S., Ferraresi, A., and Zanchetta, E.. 2009. The WaCky Wide Web: A collection of very large linguistically processed Web-crawled corpora. Language Resources and Evaluation 43.3, 209–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L. 2001. Morphological Productivity. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L. 2005. Productivity: Theories. In Štekauer, P. and Lieber, R. (eds.), Handbook of Word-Formation, 315–34. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Blevins, J. 2016. Word and Paradigm Morphology. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bochner, H. 1993. Simplicity in Generative Morphology. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booij, G. 1977. Dutch Morphology: A study of word formation in generative grammar. Lisse: The Peter de Ridder Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booij, G. 2010. Construction Morphology. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. 2001. Explaining morphosyntactic competition. In Baltin, M. and Collins, C. (eds.), Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, 11–44. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Burzio, L. 1998. Multiple Correspondence. Lingua 103, 79–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carstairs-McCarthy, A. 1992. Current Morphology. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chmielik, J., and Grabar, N. 2011. Détection de la spécialisation scientifique et technique des documents biomédicaux grâce aux informations morphologiques. TAL 52.2, 151–79.Google Scholar
Corbin, D. 1987. Morphologie dérivationnelle et structuration du lexique. 2 vols., Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag; new edition, Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses Universitaires de Lille, 1991.Google Scholar
Dal, G. 2003. Productivité morphologique: Définitions et notions connexes. Langue Française 140, 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dal, G., and Namer, F.. 2003. Complex words vs phrases: The case of causative verbs in French. 3d Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (MMM3) (selected papers), 129–48. Barcelona: IULA-Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
Dal, G., and Namer, F. 2012. Faut-il brûler les dictionnaires? Ou comment les ressources numériques ont révolutionné les recherches en morphologie. In Neveu, F., Muni Toke, V., Blumenthal, P., Klingler, T., Ligas, P., Prévost, S., and Teston-Bonnard, S. (eds.), Actes en ligne du 3e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française. Lyon, 4–7 juillet 2012, 1261–76. Paris: EDP Sciences.Google Scholar
Dal, G., and Namer, F.. 2014. Adjectifs positifs en -able et négatifs en in- correspondants en français: ou pourquoi seuls sonts importables les ordinateurs portables. In Neveu, F., Blumenthal, P., Hriba, L., Gerstenberg, A., Meinschaefer, J., and Prévost, S. (eds.), Actes du 4e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française, Berlin, Allemagne, 19–23 juillet 2014, 1741–54. Paris: EDP Sciences.Google Scholar
Dal, G., and Namer, F.. 2015. Internet. In Müller, P. O., Ohnheiser, I., Olsen, S., and Rainer, F. (eds.), Word-Formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe, 2372–86. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dal, G.; Fradin, B., Grabar, N., Lignon, S., Namer, F., Plancq, C., Yvon, F., and Zweigenbaum, P. 2008. Quelques préalables linguistiques au calcul de la productivité des règles constructionnelles et premiers résultats. In Durand, J., Habert, B., and Laks, B. (eds.), Actes du premier Congrès mondial de linguistique française, Paris, 9–12 juillet 2008, 1587–99. Paris: Institut de Linguistique Française.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. 2005. Word-formation in natural morphology. In Štekauer, P. and Lieber, R. (eds.), Handbook of Word-Formation, 267–84. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Evert, S., and Lüdeling, A.. 2001. Measuring morphological productivity: Is automatic preprocessing sufficient? In Rayson, P., Wilson, A., McEnery, T., Hardie, A., and Khoja, S. (eds.), Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics 2001 Conference, UCREL Technical Papers, 167–75. Lancaster University.Google Scholar
Fernández-Domínguez, J. 2010. Productivity vs. lexicalisation: frequency-based hypotheses on word-formation. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 46.2, 193–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández-Domínguez, J.; Díaz-Negrillo, A., and S̆tekauer, P.. 2007. How is low morphological productivity measured? Atlantis 29.1, 29–54.Google Scholar
Fradin, B., 2003. Nouvelles approches en morphologie. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fradin, B.; Dal, G., Grabar, N., Lignon, S., Namer, F., Tribout, D., and Zweigenbaum, P.. 2008. Remarques sur l’usage des corpus en morphologie. Langage 171, 34–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaeta, L., and Ricca, D.. 2003. Italian prefixes and productivity: A quantitative approach. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 50, 89–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaeta, L., and Ricca, D.. 2006. Productivity in Italian word formation: A variable-corpus approach. Linguistics 44.1, 57–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaeta, L., and Ricca, D.. 2015. Productivity. In Müller, P. O., Ohnheiser, I., Olsen, S., and Rainer, F. (eds.), Word-Formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe, 842–58. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hathout, N. 2011. Morphonette: a paradigm-based morphological network. Lingue e Linguaggio 2, 243–62.Google Scholar
Hathout, N., and Namer, F.. 2014. Discrepancy between form and meaning in Word Formation: The case of over- and under-marking in French. In Rainer, F., Dressler, W. U., Gardani, F., and Luschützky, H. C., Morphology and Meaning (Selected Papers from the 15th International Morphology Meeting, Vienna, February 2010), 177–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hathout, N.; Plénat, M., and Tanguy, L.. 2003. Enquête sur les dérivés en -able. Cahiers de Grammaire 28, 49–91.Google Scholar
Hay, J. 2001. Lexical frequency in morphology: Is everything relative? Linguistics 39.6, 1041–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hohenhaus, P. 2005. Lexicalization and institutionalization. In Štekauer, P. and Lieber, R. (eds.), Handbook of Word-Formation, 353–74. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. 1942. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, vol. 6: Morphology. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Keune, K.; Ernestus, M., Van Hout, R., and Baayen, R. H.. 2005. Social, geographical, and register variation in Dutch: From written MOGELIJK to spoken MOK. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1, 183–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koefoed, G., and van Marle, J.. 2000. Productivity. In Booij, G., Lehmann, C., and Mugdan, J. (eds.), An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation, vol. 1, 303–11. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Koehl, A. 2012a. La construction morphologique des noms désadjectivaux de propriété en français. Thesis, Université de Lorraine.Google Scholar
Koehl, A. 2012b. Altitude, négritude, bravitude ou la résurgence d’une suffixation. In Neveu, F., Muni Toke, V., Blumenthal, P., Klinger, T., Ligas, P., Prévost, S., and Teston-Bonnard, S. (eds.), Actes du 3e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française, Lyon, 1307–23. Paris: Institut de Linguistique Française.Google Scholar
Lignon, S., and Namer, F.. 2010. Comment conversionner les V-ion? Ou la construction de V-ionner par conversion. In Neveu, F., Muni Toke, V., Klingler, T., Durand, J., Mondada, L., and Prévost, S. (eds.), Actes du 2e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française, New Orleans, 1009–28. Paris: Institut de Linguistique Française.Google Scholar
Lüdeling, A., and Evert, S.. 2005. The emergence of productive non-medical -itis: corpus evidence and qualitative analysis. In Kepser, S. and Reis, M. (eds), Linguistic Evidence: Empirical, Theoretical and Computational Perspectives, 350–70. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marle, J. van. 1985. On the Paradigmatic Dimension of Morphological Creativity. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Marle, J. van. 1992. The relationship between morphological productivity and frequency: A comment on Baayen’s performance-oriented conception of morphological productivity. Yearbook of Morphology 1991, 151–63.Google Scholar
Munat, J. (ed.) 2007. Lexical Creativity, Texts and Contexts: Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Namer, F., and Villoing, F.. 2015. Sens morphologiquement construit et procédés concurrents: Les noms de spécialistes en –logue et –logiste. Revue de sémantique et de pragmatique 35–6, 7–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panckhurst, R.; Détrie, C., Lopez, C., Moïse, C., Roche, M., and Verine, B.. 2013. Sud4science, de l’acquisition d’un grand corpus de SMS en français à l’analyse de l’écriture SMS. Épistémè: Revue internationale de sciences sociales appliquées 9, 107–38.Google Scholar
Piantadosi, S.; Tily, H., and Gibson, E.. 2012. The communicative function of ambiguity in language. Cognition 122.3, 280–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plag, I. 1999. Morphological Productivity: Structural Constraints in English Derivation. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Plag, I. 2006. Productivity. In Aarts, B. and McMahon, A. (eds.), Handbook of English Linguistics, 537–56. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Plag, I.; Dalton-Puffer, C., and Baayen, R. H., 1999. Productivity and register. Journal of English Language and Linguistics 3, 209–28.Google Scholar
Plénat, M.; Lignon, S., Serna, N., and Lignon, L.. 2002. La conjecture de Pichon. Corpus et recherches linguistiques 1, 105–50.Google Scholar
Pruñonosa-Tomas, M.; Fernandez-Domingez, J., and Penner, V. (eds.) 2013. Theoretical and Empirical Advances in Word-Formation: Quaderns de Filologia. Universitat València.Google Scholar
Rainer, F. 1989. Towards a theory of blocking: The case of Italian and German quality nouns. Yearbook of Morphology 1988, 155–85.Google Scholar
Rainer, F. 2000. Produktivitätsbeschränkungen. In Booij, G., Lehman, C., and Mugdan, J. (eds.), Morphology: An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation, vol. 1., 877–85. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rainer, F. 2005. Constraints on productivity. In Štekauer, P. and Lieber, R. (eds.), Handbook of Word-Formation, 335–52. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Renner, V., and Fernandez-Dominguez, J.. 2014. False anglicization in the romance languages: A contrastive analysis of French, Spanish and Italian. In Furiassi, C. and Gottlieb, H. (eds.), English: Studies on False Anglicisms in Europe, Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter, Mouton.Google Scholar
Roché, M. 2011. Quelle morphologie? In Roché, M., Boyé, G., Hathout, N., Lignon, S., and Plénat, M. (eds.), Des unités morphologiques au lexique, 15–39. Paris: Hermès.Google Scholar
Roldán-Vendrell, M., and Fernandez-Dominguez, J.. 2012. Emergent neologisms and lexical gaps in specialised languages. Terminology 18.1, 9–26.Google Scholar
Scalise, S. 1990. Morfologia e lessico. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Scalise, S.; Ceresa, M., Drigo, M., and Zannier, I.. 1983. Sulla nozione di Blocking in morfologia derivazionale. Lingua e Stile 2, 243–68.Google Scholar
Schultink, H. 1961. Produktiviteit als morfologisch fenomeen. Forum der Letteren 2, 110–25.Google Scholar
Schultink, H. 1992. Herkomst en groei van het begrip “produktiviteit” als morfologisch fenomeen, Produktiviteit als morfologisch fenomeen. In Klein, M. (ed.), Nieuwe eskapades in de neerlandistiek, 187–201. Groningen: Wolfters-Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Seddah, D.; Sagot, B., Candito, M., Mouilleron, V., and Combet, V.. 2012. The French Social Media Bank: A treebank of noisy user generated content. COLING 2012: 24th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, 2441–58. Mumbai: The COLING 2012 Organizing Committee.Google Scholar
Smyk-Bhattacharjee, D. 2006. Acceptance as an integral factor in the interpretation of novel words. Skase Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 3.2, 28–36.Google Scholar
Štekauer, P. 2005. Onomasiological approach to word-formation. In Štekauer, P. and Lieber, R. (eds.), Handbook of Word-Formation, 207–32. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Štekauer, P. (ed.) 2006. Interpretation of novel words. Skase Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 3.2.Google Scholar
Szymanek, B. 2005. The latest trends in English word-formation. In Štekauer, P. and Lieber, R. (eds.), Handbook of Word-Formation, 429–48. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Wielding, M.; Montemagni, S., Nerbonne, J., and Baayen, R. H.. 2014. Lexical differences between Tuscan dialects and Standard Italian: Accounting for geographic and sociodemographic variation using generalized additive mixed modelling, Language 90.3, 669–92.Google Scholar
Zimmer, K. 1964. Affixal negation in English and other languages: an investigation of restricted productivity. Word 20.2, Supplement (Monograph 5).Google Scholar
Zwanenburg, W. 1983. Productivité morphologique et emprunt: Étude des dérivés déverbaux savants en français moderne. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×