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-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T21:32:47.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 December 2022

Elisa Mattiello
Elisa Mattiello
Affiliation:
Università degli Studi, Pisa
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
Transitional Morphology
Combining Forms in Modern English
 , pp. 227 - 235
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

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

Adams, V. (1973). An Introduction to Modern English Word-Formation. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Amiot, D., & Dal, G. (2007). Integrating neoclassical combining forms into a lexeme-based morphology. In Booij, G., Fradin, B., Guevara, E., Scalise, S., & Ralli, A., eds, On-line Proceedings of the Fifth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (MMM5), 15–18 September 2005, Fréjus. Bologna: University of Bologna, 323–336.Google Scholar
Amiot, D., & Dugas, E. (2021). Combining forms and affixoids in morphology. In Lieber, R., ed., The Oxford Encyclopedia of Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780190682361.001.0001/acref-9780190682361-e-569.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. (1992). A-Morphous Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Aronoff, M. (1976). Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Aronoff, M. (1983). Potential words, actual words, productivity and frequency. In Inoue Shiro Hattori, K., ed., Proceedings of the XIII International Congress on Linguistics, 29 August–4 September, 1982, Tokyo. Tokyo: Permanent International Committee on Linguistics, 163–171.Google Scholar
Baldi, P., & Dawar, C. (2000). Creative processes. In Booij, G., Lehmann, C., Mugdan, J., Kesselheim, W., & Skopeteas, S., eds, Morphologie-Morphology: An International Handbook of Inflection and Word-Formation, vol. 1. Berlin: De Gruyter, 963–972.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. (1979). Against word-based morphology. Linguistic Inquiry, 10, 508–509.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. (1983). English Word-Formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. (1998). Is there a class of neoclassical compounds, and if so is it productive? Linguistics, 36(3), 403–422.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. (2001). Morphological Productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. (2005). The borderline between derivation and compounding. In Dressler, W. U., Kastovsky, D., Pfeiffer, O. E., & Rainer, F., eds, Morphology and Its Demarcations. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 97–108.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. (2006). Splinter. In Brown, K., ed., Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd ed. Boston: Elsevier, 77–78.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. (2012). Blends: Core and periphery. In Renner, V., Maniez, F., & Arnaud, P. J. L., eds, Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Lexical Blending. Berlin: De Gruyter, 11–22.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. (2017). Compounds and Compounding. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bauer, L., Beliaeva, N., & Tarasova, E. (2019). Recalibrating productivity: Factors involved. Zeitschrift Für Wortbildung / Journal of Word Formation, 3(1), 44–81.Google Scholar
Bauer, L., & Huddleston, R. D. (2002). Lexical word-formation. In Huddleston, R. D. & Pullum, G. K., eds, The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1621–1721.Google Scholar
Bauer, L., Lieber, R., & Plag, I. (2013). The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baayen, H. R. (1992). Quantitative aspects of morphological productivity. In Booij, G. & van Marle, J., eds, Yearbook of Morphology 1991. Dordrecht: Springer, 109–149.Google Scholar
Baayen, H. R. (1993). On frequency, transparency and productivity. In Booij, G. & van Marle, J., eds, Yearbook of Morphology 1992. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 181–208.Google Scholar
Baayen, H. R. (2009). Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. In Lüdeling, A. & Kytö, M., eds, Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter, 899–919.Google Scholar
Baayen, H. R., & Renouf, A. (1996). Chronicling The Times: Productive lexical innovations in an English newspaper. Language, 72(1), 69–96.Google Scholar
Becker, T. (1993). Back-formation, cross-formation and ‘bracketing paradoxes’ in paradigmatic morphology. In Booij, G. & van Marle, J., eds, Yearbook of Morphology 1993. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1–25.Google Scholar
Beliaeva, N. (2019). Blending creativity and productivity: On the issue of delimiting the boundaries of blends as a type of word formation. Lexis, 14, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.4000/lexis.4004.Google Scholar
Bertinetto, P. M. (2001). Blends and syllable structure: A four-fold comparison. In Lorente, M., Alturo, N., Boix, E., Lloret, M.-R., & Payrató, L., eds, La gramática i la semántica en l’estudi de la variació. Barcelona: Promociones y Publicaciones Universitarias, 59–112.Google Scholar
Blank, A. (2001). Einführung in die lexikalische Semantik für Romanisten. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Booij, G. (1993). Against split morphology. In G. Booij & J. van Marle, eds, Yearbook of Morphology. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 27–50.Google Scholar
Booij, G. (2005). The Grammar of Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Booij, G. (2010). Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Booij, G., & Hüning, M. (2014). Affixoids and constructional idioms. In Boogaart, R., Colleman, T., & Rutten, G., eds, Extending the Scope of Construction-Based Grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter, 77–106.Google Scholar
Bourque, S. Y. (2014). Toward a Typology of Semantic Transparency: The Case of French Compounds. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Department of French Studies, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Brewer, C. (2014). Treasure-House of the Language: The Living OED. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Brinton, L. J., & Traugott, E. C. (2005). Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (1985). Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Callies, M. (2016). Of soundscapes, talkathons and shopaholics: On the status of a new type of formative in English (and beyond). STUF – Language Typology and Universals, 69(4), 495–516. https://doi.org/10.1515/stuf-2016-0021.Google Scholar
Carstairs-McCarthy, A. (1992). Current Morphology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chanpira, E. I. (1966). Ob okkazional’nom slove i okkazional’nom slovoobrazovanii [On the occasionalistic word and on occasionalistic word formation]. In Zemskaja, E. A. & Šmelev, D. N., eds, Razvitie slovoobrazovanija sov-remennogo russkovo jazyka. Moscow: Nauka, 153–166.Google Scholar
Christofidou, A. (1994). Okkasionalismen in poetischen Texten: Eine Fallstudie am Werk von O. Elytis. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Corbin, D. (1987). Morphologie dérivationnelle et structuration du lexique, 2 vols. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Correia Saavedra, D. (2013). Lexical Blending in English: From Splinters to Combining Forms. Unpublished master’s thesis, Faculty of Humanities, University of Lausanne.Google Scholar
Correia Saavedra, D. (2016). Automatically identifying blend splinters that are morpheme candidates. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 31(1), 55–71. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqu059.Google Scholar
Dal, G. (2003). Productivité morphologique: définitions et notions connexes. Langue française, 140, 3–23.Google Scholar
Dal, G., & Namer, F. (2017). Playful nonce-formations in French: Creativity and productivity. In Arndt-Lappe, S., Braun, A., Moulin, C., & Winter-Froemel, E., eds, Expanding the Lexicon: Linguistic Innovation, Morphological Productivity, and Ludicity. Berlin: De Gruyter, 203–228.Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2008–). Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). www.english-corpora.org/coca/.Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2013–). Corpus of News on the Web (NOW). www.english-corpora.org/now/.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C., & Plag, I. (2000). Categorywise, some compound-type morphemes seem to be rather suffix-like: On the status of -ful, -type, and -wise in present-day English. Folia Linguistica, 34, 225–244.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. U. (1989). Prototypical differences between inflection and derivation. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung, 42, 3–10.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. U. (2000). Extragrammatical vs. marginal morphology. In Doleschal, U. & Thornton, A. M., eds, Extragrammatical and Marginal Morphology. Munich: LINCOM Europa, 1–10.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. U., Mayerthaler, W., Panagl, O., & Wurzel, W. U. (1987). Leitmotifs in Natural Morphology. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. U., & Merlini Barbaresi, L. (1991). Interradical interfixes: Contact and contrast. In Ivir, V. & Kalogjera, D., eds, Languages in Contact and Contrast: Essays in Contact Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter, 133–145.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. U., & Merlini Barbaresi, L. (1994). Morphopragmatics: Diminutives and Intensifiers in Italian, German, and Other Languages. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Eitelmann, M., Haugland, K., & Haumann, D. (2020). From engl-isc to whatever-ish: A corpus-based investigation of -ish derivation in the history of English. English Language & Linguistics, 24(4), 801–831. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674319000340.Google Scholar
Fernández-Domínguez, J., Bagasheva, A., & Lara-Clares, C., eds (2020). Paradigmatic Relations in Word Formation. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Fischer, R. (1998). Lexical Change in Present Day English: A Corpus Based Study of the Motivation, Institutionalization, and Productivity of Creative Neologisms. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Fradin, B. (2000). Combining forms, blends and related phenomena. In Doleschal, U. & Thornton, A. M., eds, Extragrammatical and Marginal Morphology. Munich: LINCOM Europa, 11–59.Google Scholar
Gaeta, L., & Ricca, D. (2006). Productivity in Italian word formation: A variable-corpus approach. Linguistics, 44(1), 57–89.Google Scholar
Gaeta, L., & Zeldes, A. (2017). Between VP and NN: On the constructional types of German -er compounds. Constructions and Frames, 9, 1–40.Google Scholar
Green, J. (1991). Neologisms: New Words since 1960. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Gries, S. T. (2012). Quantitative corpus data on blend formation: Psycho- and cognitive-linguistic perspectives. In Renner, V., Maniez, F., & Arnaud, P. J. L., eds, Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Lexical Blending. Berlin: De Gruyter, 145–167.Google Scholar
Google Books Corpus. Google Books Ngram Viewer (2016). https://books.google.com/ngrams.Google Scholar
Hamans, C. (2010). The productivity of blending: Linguistic or cognitive? Or how to deal with ‘administrivia’ and ‘ostalgia’. In Stanulewicz, D., Wolański, T. Z., & Redzimska, J., eds, Lingua Terra Cognita II. A Festschrift for Professor Roman Kalisz. Gdańsk: University of Gdańsk, 467–490.Google Scholar
Hamans, C. (2017). Language change and morphological processes. Yearbook of the Poznań Linguistic Meeting, 3(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1515/yplm-2017-0001.Google Scholar
Hathout, N., & Namer, F. (2019). Paradigms in word formation: What are we up to? Morphology, 29(2), 153–165.Google Scholar
Hock, H. H. (1991). Principles of Historical Linguistics, 2nd ed. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hohenhaus, P. (1996). Ad-hoc-Wortbildung: Terminologie, Typologie und Theorie kreativer Wortbildung im Englischen. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Iacobini, C. (2004). Composizione con elementi neoclassici. In Grossmann, M. & Rainer, F., eds, La Formazione delle Parole in Italiano. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 69–95.Google Scholar
Iacobini, C., & Giuliani, A. (2010). A multidimensional approach to the classification of combining forms. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 22(2), 287–316.Google Scholar
Jacques, G. (2012). From denominal derivation to incorporation. Lingua, 122, 1207–1231.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1942). A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Part VI: Morphology. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Kastovsky, D. (1986). The problem of productivity in word-formation. Linguistics, 24, 585–600.Google Scholar
Kastovsky, D. (2009). Astronaut, astrology, astrophysics: About combining forms, classical compounds and affixoids. In McConchie, R. W., Honkapohja, A., & Tyrkkö, J., eds, Selected Proceedings of the 2008 Symposium on New Approaches in English Historical Lexis (HEL-LEX 2). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, 1–13.Google Scholar
Kilani-Schoch, M. (2020). Grilétarien. In Aberson, M., Dell’Oro, F., de Vaan, M., & Viredaz, A., eds, Mélanges de linguistique, de philologie et d’histoire ancienne offerts à Rudolf Wachter. Lausanne: Les Cahiers de l’ILSL, 99–102.Google Scholar
Kilani-Schoch, M., & Dressler, W. U. (1993). Prol-o, intell-o, gauch-o et les autres. Propriétés formelles de deux opérations du français parlé. Romanistisches Jahrbuch, 43, 65–86.Google Scholar
Klégr, A., & Čermák, J. (2010). Neologisms of the ‘on-the-pattern-of’ type: Analogy as a word-formation process? In Procházka, M., Malá, M., & Šaldová, P., eds, The Prague School and Theories of Structure. Göttingen: V&R unipress, 229–241.Google Scholar
Lehrer, A. (1996). Identifying and interpreting blends: An experimental approach. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(7), 359–390.Google Scholar
Lehrer, A. (1998). Scapes, holics, and thons: The semantics of combining forms. American Speech, 73, 3–28.Google Scholar
Lehrer, A. (2003). Understanding trendy neologisms. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 15(2), 369–382.Google Scholar
Lehrer, A. (2006). Neologisms. In Brown, K., ed., Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd ed. Boston: Elsevier, 590–593.Google Scholar
Lehrer, A. (2007). Blendalicious. In Munat, J., ed., Lexical Creativity, Texts and Contexts. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 115–133.Google Scholar
Libben, G. (2017). The quantum metaphor and the organization of words in the mind. Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science, 1, 49–55.Google Scholar
Lin, Y., Michel, J.-B., Lieberman Aiden, E., Orwant, J., Brockman, W., & Petrov, S. (2012). Syntactic annotations for the Google Books Ngram Corpus. In Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8–14 July, Jeju, South Korea, vol. 2, 169–174. https://aclanthology.org/P12-3029/.Google Scholar
López Rúa, P. (2004). The categorial continuum of English blends. English Studies, 85(1), 63–76.Google Scholar
Marchand, H. (1969). The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Formation: A Synchronic-Diachronic Approach, 2nd ed. Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
Marle, J. van (1990). Rule-creating creativity: Analogy as a synchronic morphological process. In Dressler, W. U., Luschützky, H. C., Pfeiffer, O. E., & Rennison, J. R., eds, Contemporary Morphology. Berlin: De Gruyter, 267–273.Google Scholar
Mattiello, E. (2007). Combining forms and blends: The case of scape. In Jottini, L., Del Lungo, G., & Douthwaite, J., eds, Cityscapes: Islands of the Self. Language Studies, vol. 2. Cagliari: CUEC, 115–130.Google Scholar
Mattiello, E. (2008). From sexgate to vallettopoli: Contrasting English and Italian combining forms. In Vergaro, C., ed., Dynamics of Language Contact in the Twenty-First Century, vol. 2. Perugia: Guerra, 177–190.Google Scholar
Mattiello, E. (2013). Extra-Grammatical Morphology in English: Abbreviations, Blends, Reduplicatives, and Related Phenomena. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mattiello, E. (2016). Analogical neologisms in English. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 28(2), 103–142.Google Scholar
Mattiello, E. (2017). Analogy in Word-Formation: A Study of English Neologisms and Occasionalisms. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mattiello, E. (2018a). Paradigmatic morphology: Splinters, combining forms, and secreted affixes. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 15(1), 2–22. www.skase.sk/Volumes/JTL36/pdf_doc/01.pdf.Google Scholar
Mattiello, E. (2018b). Lexicogenesis, analogy and productivity: The case of -burger. Neologica – Lexique: nouveauté et productivité, 12, 109–124.Google Scholar
Mattiello, E. (2019a). ‘Brexit, Grexit, with the possibility of Spexit’: Blend splinters and secreted affixes as creative word-formation mechanisms. In Bonsignori, V., Cappelli, G., & Mattiello, E., eds, Worlds of Words: Complexity, Creativity, and Conventionality in English Language, Literature and Culture, vol. 1. Pisa: Pisa University Press, 525–538.Google Scholar
Mattiello, E. (2019b). A corpus-based analysis of new English blends. Lexis, 14, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.4000/lexis.3660.Google Scholar
Mattiello, E. (2021). Blends vis-à-vis compounds in English. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 33(1), 3–34. www.italian-journal-linguistics.com/app/uploads/2021/07/1_Mattiello.pdf.Google Scholar
Mattiello, E. (2022) Language aggression in English slang: The case of the -o suffix. In Knoblock, N., ed., Grammar of Hate: Morphosyntactic Features of Hateful, Aggressive, and Dehumanizing Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 34–58.Google Scholar
Mattiello, E. (forth.) Derivational paradigms: The case of English combining forms. In Ruz, A. E., Fernández-Alcaina, C., & Lara-Clares, C., eds, Paradigms in Word Formation. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 129–152.Google Scholar
Mattiello, E., & Dressler, W. U. (2018). The morphosemantic transparency/opacity of novel English analogical compounds and compound families. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia: An International Review of English Studies, 53, 67–114. https://doi.org/10.2478/stap-2018-0004.Google Scholar
Mattiello, E., & Dressler, W. U. (2022). Dualism and superposition in the analysis of English synthetic compounds ending in -er. Linguistics, 60(2), 395–461. doi.org/10.1515/ling-2021-0235.Google Scholar
Mel’čuk, I. A. (1982). Towards a Language of Linguistics: A System of Formal Notions for Theoretical Morphology. Munich: Fink.Google Scholar
Merlini Barbaresi, L. (2006). Morphopragmatics. In Brown, K., ed., Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, 2nd ed. Boston: Elsevier, 332–335.Google Scholar
Michel, J.-B., Kui Shen, Y., Presser Aiden, A., et al. (2010). Quantitative analysis of culture using millions of digitized books. Science, 331(6014), 176–182.Google Scholar
Migliorini, B. (1963). I prefissoidi (il tipo aeromobile, radiodiffusione). In Migliorini, B., ed., Saggi sulla Lingua del Novecento. Firenze: Sansoni, 9–60.Google Scholar
Miller, G. D. (2014). English Lexicogenesis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mugglestone, L. (2005). Lost for Words: The Hidden History of the Oxford English Dictionary. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Norde, M., & Van Goethem, K. (2018). Debonding and clipping of prefixoids in Germanic: Constructionalization or constructional change? In Booij, G., ed., The Construction of Words: Advances in Construction Morphology. Dordrecht: Springer, 475–518.Google Scholar
Online Etymology Dictionary (2001–). Harper, D., ed. www.etymonline.com.Google Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary Online (1989–). 2nd/3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. www.oed.com.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. (1988). The split morphology hypothesis: Evidence from Yiddish. In Hammond, M. & Noonan, M., eds, Theoretical Morphology: Approaches in Modern Linguistics. San Diego: Academic Press, 79–100.Google Scholar
Plag, I. (1999). Morphological Productivity: Structural Constraints in English Derivation. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Plag, I. (2003). Word-Formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Plag, I. (2006). Productivity. In Aarts, B. & McMahon, A., eds, The Handbook of English Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 537–557.Google Scholar
Plank, F. (1994). Inflection and derivation. In The Encyclopedia of Languages and Linguistics, vol. 3. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1671–1678.Google Scholar
Prćić, T. (2005). Prefixes vs initial combining forms in English: A lexicographic perspective. International Journal of Lexicography, 18(3), 313–334.Google Scholar
Prćić, T. (2008). Suffixes vs final combining forms in English: A lexicographic perspective. International Journal of Lexicography, 21(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rainer, F. (1996). Inflection inside derivation: Evidence from Spanish and Portuguese. In Booij, G. & van Marle, J., eds, Yearbook of Morphology 1995. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3716-6_5.Google Scholar
Rainer, F. (2012). Morphological metaphysics: Virtual, potential and actual words. Word Structure, 5(2), 165–182.Google Scholar
Rainer, F. (2013). Formación de palabras y analogía: Aspectos diacrónicos. Anexos de Revista de Lexicografia, 19, 141–172.Google Scholar
Ramat, P. (1992). Thoughts on degrammaticalization. Linguistics, 30, 549–560.Google Scholar
Renner, V. (2008). Quelques remarques sur les quasi-lexèmes de type e- et -holic. In Lexicographie et terminologie: Histoire de mots. Colloque en l’honneur d’Henri Béjoint, September 2007, Lyon, 147–156. http://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/51/23/03/PDF/Renner2008.pdf.Google Scholar
Renouf, A. (2019). Big data: Opportunities and challenges for English corpus linguistics. In Suhr, C., Nevalainen, T., & Taavitsainen, I., eds, From Data to Evidence in English Language Research. Leiden: Brill, 29–65. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004390652_003.Google Scholar
Roché, M. (2011). Quel traitement unifié pour les dérivations en -isme et en -iste? In Roché, M., Boyé, G., Hathout, N., Lignon, S., & Plénat, M., eds, Des unités morphologiques au lexique. Paris: Hermès Science-Lavoisier, 69–143.Google Scholar
Roll, M., Söderström, P., & Horne, M. (2013). Word-stem tones cue suffixes in the brain. Brain Research, 1520, 116–120.Google Scholar
Ronneberger-Sibold, E. (2006). Lexical blends: Functionally tuning the transparency of complex words. Folia Linguistica, 40(1/2), 155–181.Google Scholar
Ronneberger-Sibold, E. (2010). Word creation: Definition – function – typology. In Rainer, F., Dressler, W. U., Kastovsky, D., & Luschützky, H. C., eds, Variation and Change in Morphology: Selected Papers from the 13th International Morphology Meeting, Vienna, February 2008. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 201–216.Google Scholar
Ronneberger-Sibold, E. (2015). Word-creation. In Müller, P. O., Ohnheiser, I., Olsen, S., & Rainer, F., eds, Word-Formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe. Berlin: De Gruyter, 485–499.Google Scholar
Rundblad, G., & Kronenfeld, D. B. (2000). Folk-etymology: Haphazard perversion or shrewd analogy? In Coleman, J. & Kay, C. J., eds, Lexicology, Semantics and Lexicography: Selected Papers from the Fourth G. L. Brook Symposium. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 19–34.Google Scholar
Scalise, S. (1983). Morfologia Lessicale. Padova: CLESP.Google Scholar
Scalise, S. (1992). Compounding in Italian. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 4(1), 175–199.Google Scholar
Spencer, A. (1991). Morphological Theory: An Introduction to Word Structure in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Spencer, A. (2013) Lexical Relatedness: A Paradigm-Based Model. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Štekauer, P. (2014). Derivational paradigms. In Lieber, R. & Štekauer, P., eds, The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 354–369.Google Scholar
Stevens, C. M. (2005). Revisiting the affixoid debate: On the grammaticalization of the word. In Leuschner, T., Mortelmans, T., & de Groodt, S., eds, Grammatikalisierung im Deutschen. Berlin: De Gruyter, 71–83.Google Scholar
Štichauer, P. (2009). Morphological productivity in diachrony: The case of the deverbal nouns in -mento, -zione and -gione in Old Italian from the 13th to the 16th century. In Montermini, F., Boyé, G., & Tseng, J., eds, Selected Proceedings of the 6th Décembrettes. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, 138–147. www.lingref.com, document #2241.Google Scholar
Tournier, J. (1985). Introduction Descriptive à la Lexicogénétique de l’Anglais Contemporain. Paris: Champion/Slatkine.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Heine, B., eds (1991). Approaches to Grammaticalization, 2 vols. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G. (2013). Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Urban Dictionary (1999–). www.urbandictionary.com.Google Scholar
Vogel, P. M., Donalies, E., Eichinger, L. M., et al., eds (2017). Zeitschrift für Wortbildung/Journal of Word Formation, 1(1), 1–100. https://doi.org/10.3726/b11246_1.Google Scholar
Warren, B. (1990). The importance of combining forms. In Dressler, W. U., Luschützky, H. C., Pfeiffer, O. E., & Rennison, J. R., eds, Contemporary Morphology. Berlin: De Gruyter, 111–132.Google Scholar
Weijer van de, J., Sloos, M., & Wei, W. (2019). Vowel reduction in English -man compounds. The Linguistic Review, 36(4), 675–687.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. M. (1990). Inflectional morphology as a (sub)component of grammar. In Dressler, W. U., Luschützky, H. C., Pfeiffer, O., & Rennison, J., eds, Contemporary Morphology. Berlin: De Gruyter, 217–236.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. M. (2010). Libfixes. http://arnoldzwicky.org/2010/01/23/libfixes/.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. M., & Pullum, G. K. (1987). Plain morphology and expressive morphology. In Aske, J., Beery, N., Michaelis, L., & Filip, H., eds, Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, General Session and Parasession on Grammar and Cognition. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 330–340.Google 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.

  • References
  • Elisa Mattiello, Università degli Studi, Pisa
  • Book: Transitional Morphology
  • Online publication: 13 December 2022
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009168274.011
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.

  • References
  • Elisa Mattiello, Università degli Studi, Pisa
  • Book: Transitional Morphology
  • Online publication: 13 December 2022
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009168274.011
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.

  • References
  • Elisa Mattiello, Università degli Studi, Pisa
  • Book: Transitional Morphology
  • Online publication: 13 December 2022
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009168274.011
Available formats
×