Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T00:58:30.026Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Laurie Bauer, Rochelle Lieber & Ingo Plag, The Oxford reference guide to English morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Pp. x + 691.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 October 2014

Wim Zonneveld*
Affiliation:
Research Institute of Language and Speech (UiL-OTS), Utrecht University
*
Author's address:Utrecht Institute of Linguistics OTS, Trans 10, 3512 JK Utrecht, The Netherlands[email protected]

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Reviews
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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

REFERENCES

Adams, Valerie. 2001. Complex words in English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 1993. On frequency, transparency and productivity. Yearbook of Morphology 1992, 181–208.Google Scholar
Brame, Michael K. 1974. The cycle in phonology: Stress in Palestinian, Maltese, and Spanish. Linguistic Inquiry 5, 3960.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, Anna Maria. 2012. Perspectives on morphological complexity. In Kiefer, Ferenc, Ladányi, Mária & Siptár, Péter (eds.), Current issues in morphological theory: (Ir)regularity, analogy and frequency, 107134. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1988. A grammar of Boumaa Fijian. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Fabb, Nigel. 1988. English suffixation is constrained only by selectional restrictions. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 6, 527539.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John A. 1990. Autosegmental and metrical phonology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. Lexical phonology and morphology. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm: Selected papers from SICOL 1981, 391. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Nooteboom, Sieb, Weerman, Fred & Wijnen, Frank (eds.). 2002. Storage and computation in the language faculty. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Pennanen, Esko V. 1971. Conversion and zero-derivation in English (Acta Universitatis Tamperensis, Series A, vol. 40). Tampere: University of Tampere.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1999. Words and rules. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven & Prince, Alan. 1991. Regular and irregular morphology and the psychological status of rules of grammar. In Sutton, Laurel A., Johnson, Christopher & Shields, Ruth (eds.), 17th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society (BLS 17), 230251. [Reprinted in Lima, Susan D., Corrigan, Roberta & Iverson, Gregory K. (eds.), The reality of linguistic rules, 321–352. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1994.]Google Scholar
Plag, Ingo & Baayen, R. Harald. 2009. Suffix ordering an morphological processing. Language 85, 109152.Google Scholar
Ricca, Davide. 2010. Corpus data and theoretical implications, with special reference to Italian V–N compounds. In Scalise, Sergio & Vogel, Irene (eds.), Cross-disciplinary issues in compounding, 237254. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Siegel, Dorothy C. 1974. Topics in English morphology. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Štekauer, Pavol. 2000. English word formation: A history of research (1960–1995). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar