Advertisement

Word-Formation in Natural Morphology

  • Wolfgang U. Dressler
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory book series (SNLT, volume 64)

Keywords

Word Formation Derivational Morphology Semantic Transparency Foreign Word Noun Incorporation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Baayen, Rolf H. and Schreuder, Robert. 1991. “War and peace: Morphemes and full forms in a non-interactive activation parallel route model.” Brain and Language 68, 27–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bauer, Laurie. 1983. English Word-Formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bauer, Laurie. 1996. “No phonetic iconicity in evaluative morphology.” Studia Linguistica 50, 189–204.Google Scholar
  5. Bauer, Laurie. 2001. Morphological Productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Berko, Jean. 1958. The child’s learning of English morphology. Word 14. 150–177.Google Scholar
  7. Bittner, Andreas. 1988. “Is anything ‘more natural? Considerations on establishing a hierarchy of Naturalness Principles (NP).” Linguistische Studien A 188, 23–35.Google Scholar
  8. Bloomer, Robert K. 1996. “Die pleonastischen Zusammensetzungen der deutschen Gegenwartssprache.” American Journal of Germanic Linguistics and Literatures 8, 69–90.Google Scholar
  9. Booij, Geert. 1992. “Compounding in Dutch.” Rivista di Linguistica 4, 37–59.Google Scholar
  10. Booij, Geert; Lehmann, Christian; and Mugdan, Joachim (eds.). 2000. Morphologie/Morphology I. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  11. Clark, Eve; Hecht, Barbara; and Mulford, Randa C. 1986. “Coining complex compounds in English.” Linguistics 24, 7–29.Google Scholar
  12. Corbin, Danielle. 1987. Morphologie dérivationnelle et structuration du lexique. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  13. Crocco Galèas, Grazia. 1990. “Conversion as a morphological metaphor.” In: J. Méndez-Dosuna and C. Pensado (eds.), Naturalists at Krems. Salamanca: Ediciones de la Universidad de Salamanca, 23–32.Google Scholar
  14. Crocco Galèas, Grazia. 2003a. “The morphological technique of metaphoricity in English word-formation.” In: E. Mela Athanasopoulou (ed.), Selected Papers from the 15th International Symposium on Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. Thessaloniki: Aristotle University, School of English, 135–151.Google Scholar
  15. Crocco Galèas, Grazia. 2003b. “Compound adjectives in English: the type lion-hearted and good-natured.” Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata 32, 31–43.Google Scholar
  16. Crocco Galèas, Grazia and Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1992. “Trasparenza morfotattica e morfosemantica dei composti nominali più produttivi dell’italiano di oggi.” In: B. Moretti, D. Petrini and S. Bianconi (eds.), Atti del 25. Congresso Società di Linguistica Italiana. Roma: Bulzoni, 9–24.Google Scholar
  17. de Knop, Sabine. 1987. Metaphorische Komposita in Zeitungsüberschriften. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  18. Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1982. “Zur semiotischen Begründung einer natürlichen Wortbildungslehre.” Klagenfurter Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 8. 72–87.Google Scholar
  19. Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1985a. “Typological aspects of Natural Morphology.” Wiener linguistische Gazette 36, 3–26 (reprinted in Acta Linguistica Hungarica 35, 1987, 51–70).Google Scholar
  20. Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1985b. Morphonology. Ann Arbor: Karoma Publ.Google Scholar
  21. Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1985c. “On the predictiveness of Natural Morphology.” Journal of Linguistics 21, 321–337.Google Scholar
  22. Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1988a. „Zur Bedeutung der Sprachtypologie in der Natürlichen Morphologie.“ In: Albrecht, J. (ed.), Energeia und Ergon. Tübingen: Narr, Vol.3, 199–208.Google Scholar
  23. Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1988b. „Preferences vs. strict universals in morphology: word based rules.“ In: M. Hammond and M. Noonan (eds.), Theoretical morphology. San Diego: Academic Press, 143–154.Google Scholar
  24. Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1990. Semiotische Parameter einer textlinguistischen Natürlichkeitstheorie. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
  25. Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1994. “LSP ‘von aussen’: Reflections on the 9th European LSP symposium.” In: M. Brekke et al. (eds.), Applications and Implications of Current LSP Research. Bergen: Fagbogforlaget, 950–969.Google Scholar
  26. Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1995. “Wealth and poverty of functional analyses, with special reference to functional deficiencies.” In: Sh. Miller and J. Mey (eds.), Form and Function in Language, Proceedings of the First Rasmus Rask Colloquium. Odense: Odense Univ. Press, 11–39.Google Scholar
  27. Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1999. “On a semiotic theory of preferences in language.” In: M. Shapiro and M. Haley (eds.), Essays in Semiotic Analysis, The Peirce Semiotic Papers 4, 389–415.Google Scholar
  28. Dressler, Wolfgang U. 2000a. “Naturalness.” In: G. Booij, C. Lehmann and J. Mugdan (eds.), Morphologie: ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung I. Berlin: de Gruyter, 288–296.Google Scholar
  29. Dressler, Wolfgang U. 2000b. “Extragrammatical vs. marginal morphology.” In: U. Doleschal and A. M. Thornton (eds.), Extragrammatical and Marginal Morphology. München: Lincom, 1–10.Google Scholar
  30. Dressler, Wolfgang U. 2002a. “Naturalness and functionalism.” In: K. Dziubalska-Kolaczyk and J. Weckwerth (eds.), Future Challenges for Natural Linguistics. München: Lincom. 83–101.Google Scholar
  31. Dressler, Wolfgang U. 2002b. “Naturalness and morphological change.” In: B. D. Joseph and R. D. Janda (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, 461–471.Google Scholar
  32. Dressler, Wolfgang U. and Karpf, Annemarie. 1995. “The theoretical relevance of pre-and protomorphology in language acquisition.” In: G. Booij and J. van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1994. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 99–122.Google Scholar
  33. Dressler, Wolfgang U. and Ladányi, Mária. 2000. “Productivity in Word Formation: a morphological approach.” Acta Linguistica Hungarica 47, 103–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Dressler, Wolfgang U.; Mayerthaler, Willi; Panagl, Oswald; and Wurzel, Wolfgang U. 1987. Leitmotifs in Natural Morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  35. Dressler, Wolfgang U. and Merlini Barbaresi, Lavinia. 1994. Morphopragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  36. Dressler, Wolfgang U. & Merlini Barbaresi, Lavinia. 2001. “Morphopragmatics of diminutives and augmentatives.” In: I. Kenesei and R. M. Harnish (eds.), Perspectives on Semantics, Pragmatics, and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 43–58.Google Scholar
  37. Felber, Helmut and Budin, Gerhard. 1989. Terminologie in Theorie und Praxis. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
  38. Frauenfelder, Uli H. and Schreuder, Robert. 1992. “Constraining psycholinguistic models of morphological processing and representation: the role of productivity.” In: G. Booij and J. van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1991. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 165–183.Google Scholar
  39. Hall, Christopher. 1992. Morphology and Mind. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Jakobson, Roman. 1941. Kindersprache, Aphasie und allgemeine Lautgesetze. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
  41. Jensen, John T. 1990. Morphology: Word Structure in Generative Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  42. Kilani-Schoch, Marianne. 1988. Introduction à la morphologie naturelle. Bern: LangGoogle Scholar
  43. Koj, Leon. 1979. “The principle of transparency and semantic antinomies.” In: J. Pelc (ed.), Semiotics in Poland. Dordrecht: Reidel, 376–406.Google Scholar
  44. Libben, Gary. 1998. “Semantic transparency in the processing of compounds: consequences for representation, processing and impairment.” Brain and Language 61, 30–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lieber, Rochelle. 1992. “Compounding in English.” Rivista di Linguistica. 4, 79–96.Google Scholar
  46. Mayerthaler, Willi. 1981. Morphologische Natürlichkeit. Wiesbaden: Athenaion (English translation: 1988. Morphological Naturalness. Ann Arbor: Karoma Press).Google Scholar
  47. Méndez Dosuna, Julián and Pensado, Carmen. 1990. “How unnatural is Spanish Víctor → Vict-ít-or? Infixed diminutives in Spanish.” In: Méndez Dosuna, J. and Pensado, C. (eds.), Naturalists at Krems. Salamanca: Acta Salmanticensia, Estudios Filologicos 227, 89–106.Google Scholar
  48. Meyer, Ralf. 1992. Compound Comprehension in Isolation and in Context. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  49. Olsen, Susan. 2001. “Copulative compounds: a closer look at the interface between syntax and morphology.” In: G. Booij and J. van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 2000. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 279–320.Google Scholar
  50. Peirce, Charles S. 1965. Collected Papers. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Plag, Ingo. 2003. Word-Formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Plag, Ingo. 2004. “Syntactic category information and the semantics of derivational morphological rules.” Folia Linguistica 38, 193–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rainer, Franz. 1993. Spanische Wortbildungslehre. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  54. Rainer, Franz. 2001. “Compositionality and paradigmatically determined allomorphy in Italian word-formation.” In: C. Schaner-Wolles, J. Rennison, and F. Neubarth (eds.), Naturally! Torino: Rosenberg and Sellier, 383–392.Google Scholar
  55. Ronneberger-Sibold, Elke. 1980. Sprachverwendung, Sprachsystem, Ökonomie und Wandel. Tübingen: NiemeyerGoogle Scholar
  56. Scalise, Sergio. 1992. “Compounding in Italian.” Rivista di Linguistica 4, 175–199.Google Scholar
  57. Scherer, Bernd M. 1984. Prolegomena zuu einer einheitlichen Zeichentheorie. Stuttgart: Stauffenburg Verlag.Google Scholar
  58. Seiler, Hansjakob. 1991. “Die Prinzipien der deskriptiven und der etikettierenden Benennung.” In: H. Seiler (ed.), Linguistic Workshop 3, 2–57.Google Scholar
  59. Shaw, Howard J. 1979. Motivierte Komposita in der deutschen und englischen Gegenwartssprache. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
  60. Siegel, Dorothy. 1977. “The adjacency constraint and the theory of morphology.” NELS 8, 189–197.Google Scholar
  61. Skalička, Vladimír. 1979. Typologische Studien. Braunschweig: Vieweg.Google Scholar
  62. Stampe, David. 1973. “On Chapter Nine.” In: M. Kenstowicz and Ch. Kisseberth (eds.), Issues in Phonological Theory. The Hague: Mouton, 44–52.Google Scholar
  63. Van Marle, Jaap. 1985. On the Paradigmatic Dimension of Morphological Creativity. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  64. Vennemann, Theo. 1983. “Theories of linguistic preferences as a basis for linguistic explanations.” Folia linguistica historica 4, 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wheeler, Max W. 1993. “On the hierarchy of naturalness principles in inflectional morphology.” Journal of Linguistics 29, 95–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wijnen, Frank; Kempen, Masja; and Gillis, Steven. 2001. “Root infinitives in Dutch early child language: an effect of input.” Journal of Child Language 28, 629–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Williams, Edwin. 1981. “Argument structure and morphology.” Linguistic Review 1, 81–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wunderlich, Dieter. 1986. “Probleme der Wortstruktur.” Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 5, 209–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wurzel, Wolfgang U. 1984. Flexionsmorphologie und Natürlichkeit. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
  70. Wurzel, Wolfgang U. 1988a. “The structuralist heritage in Natural Morphology.” Linguistische Studien A 188, 99–116.Google Scholar
  71. Wurzel, Wolfgang U. 1988b. “Hermann Paul — Analogie und die Natürliche Morphologie.” Zeitschrift für Germanistik 5, 537–544.Google Scholar
  72. Wurzel, Wolfgang U. 1994. “Grammatisch initiierter Wandel.” In: Jeßing, B. (ed.), Sprachdynamik. Auf dem Weg zu einer Typologie sprachlichen Wandels. Bochum: Brockmeyer, Vol.1, 7–114.Google Scholar
  73. Zwanenburg, Wiecher 1992a. “Compounding in French.” Rivista di Linguistica 4, 221–240.Google Scholar
  74. Zwanenburg, Wiecher 1992b. “La composition dans les langues romanes et germaniques: essuie-glace / wind-shield wiper.” OTS Working Papers. OTS-WP-TL, 92–113.Google Scholar
  75. Zwicky, Arnold M. and Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1987. “Plain morphology and expressive morphology.” In: J. Aske, N. Beery, L. Michaelis and H. Filip (eds.), Proceedings of the 13 th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, 330–340.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wolfgang U. Dressler
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations