English Word-Formation Processes

Observations, Issues, and Thoughts on Future Research
  • Rochelle Lieber
Part of the Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory book series (SNLT, volume 64)


Word Formation Argument Structure Internal Argument Phonological Effect Deverbal Noun 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adams, Valerie. 2001. Complex Words in English. Longman: London.Google Scholar
  2. Algeo, John. 1971. “The voguish uses of non.” American Speech 46, 87–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allen, Margaret. 1978. Morphological Investigations. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, Mona. 1979. Noun Phrase Structure. PhD dissertation. University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
  5. Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-Morphous Morphology. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  6. Andrews, Edna. 1986. “A synchronic analysis of de- and un- in American English.” American Speech 61/3, 221–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Apresjan, Jurij. 1974. “Regular Polysemy.” Linguistics 142, 5–32.Google Scholar
  8. Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. MIT Press: Cambridge MA.Google Scholar
  9. Aronoff, Mark and Sungeun Cho. 2001. “The semantics of -ship suffixation.” Linguistic Inquiry 32, 167–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Aronoff, Mark and Fuhrhop, Nanna. 2002. “Restricting Suffix Combinations in German and English: Closing Suffixes and the Monosuffix Constraint.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20/3, 451–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.Google Scholar
  12. Barker, Chris. 1998. “Episodic -ee in English: A thematic role constraint on new word formation.” Language 74, 695–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bauer, Laurie. 1978. The Grammar of Nominal Compounding with special reference to Danish, English and French. Odense: Odense University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Bauer, Laurie. 1987. “-ee by Gum!” American Speech 62, 315–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bauer, Laurie. 1993. “More-ee words.” American Speech 68, 222–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bauer, Laurie. 1998. “When is a sequence of two nouns a compound in English?” English Language and Linguistics 2/1, 65–86.Google Scholar
  17. Bauer, Laurie. 2001. Morphological Productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Bauer, Laurie. 2003. “English Prefixation — A Typological Shift?” Acta Linguistica Hungarica 50/1–2, 33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bauer, Laurie and Renouf, Antoinette. 2001. “A corpus-based study of compounding in English.” Journal of English Linguistics 29/2, 101–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Beard, Robert. 1976. “Once more on the analysis of ed-adjectives.” Journal of Linguistics 12, 155–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Beard, Robert. 1991. “Decompositional Composition: The Semantics of Scope Ambiguities and ‘Bracketing Paradoxes.’” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9, 195–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Beard, Robert. 1993. “Simultaneous Dual Derivational Origin.” Language 69, 716–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Beard, Robert. 1995. Lexeme Morpheme Base Morphology. SUNY Press: Albany, NY.Google Scholar
  24. Bierwisch, Manfred. 1988. “On the grammar of local prepositions.” In: M. Bierwisch, W. Motsch, and I. Zimmermann (eds.), Syntax, Semantik, und Lexikon: Rudolf Ruzicka zum 65. Geburtstag. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1–65.Google Scholar
  25. Bierwisch, Manfred. 1996. “How Much Space Gets Into Language?” In: P. Bloom, M. Peterson, L. Nadel, and M. Garrett (eds.), Language and Space. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 31–76.Google Scholar
  26. Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
  27. Booij, Geert. 1986. “Form and meaning in morphology: the case of Dutch ‘Agent’ Nouns.” Linguistics 24, 503–17.Google Scholar
  28. Booij, Geert. 1988. “The relation between inheritance and argument-linking: deverbal nouns in Dutch.” In: M. Everaert, A. Evers, R. Huybrechts, and M. Trommelen (eds.), Morphology and Modularity. Dordrecht: Foris, 57–74.Google Scholar
  29. Booij, Geert. 1992. “Compounding in Dutch.” Rivista di Linguistica 4/1, 37–60.Google Scholar
  30. Booij, Geert and Lieber, Rochelle. 2004. “On the paradigmatic nature of affixal semantics in English and Dutch.” Linguistics 42/2, 327–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Booij, Geert and van Haaften, Ton. 1988. “On the external syntax of derived words: evidence from Dutch.” In: G. Booij and J. van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1988. Dordrecht: Foris, 29–44.Google Scholar
  32. Botha, Rudolf P. 1980. Word-based morphology and synthetic compounding. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics, No. 5, University of Stellenbosch.Google Scholar
  33. Brekle, Herbert. 1970. Generative Satzsemantik und transformationelle Syntax im System der englischen Nominalkomposition. Munich: Fink.Google Scholar
  34. Bresnan, Joan. 1982. “Polyadicity.” In: J. Bresnan (ed.), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 149–172.Google Scholar
  35. Chomsky, Noam. 1970. “Remarks on Nominalization.” In: R. Jacobs and P. Rosenbaum (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Waltham, MA: Ginn, 184–221.Google Scholar
  36. Clark, Eve and Clark, Herbert. 1979. “When nouns surface as verbs.” Language 55/4, 767–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Comrie, Bernard and Thompson, Sandra. 1985. “Lexical nominalization.” In: T. Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Volume III. Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 349–398.Google Scholar
  38. Di Sciullo, Anna Maria and Williams, Edwin. 1987. On the Definition of Word. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  39. Dowty, David. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar: the Semantics of Verbs and Times in Generative Semantics and Montague’s PTQ. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  40. Don, Jan. 1993. Morphological Conversion. OTS Dissertation series. University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
  41. Fabb, Nigel. 1988. “English suffixation is constrained only by selectional restrictions.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6, 527–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Fraser, Bruce. 1976. The Verb-Particle Combination in English. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  43. Fu, Jingqi; Roeper, Thomas; and Borer, Hagit. 2001. “The VP within process nominals: Evidence from adverbs and the VP anaphor do so.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19, 549–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Giegerich, Heinz. 1999. Lexical Strata in English: Morphological causes, phonological effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Giegerich, Heinz. 2004. “Compound or Phrase? English noun-plus-noun constructions and the stress criterion.” English Language and Linguistics 8/1, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Gorska, Elzbieta. 1984. “Moonless nights and smoke-free cities, or what can be without what? A cognitive study of privative adjectives in English.” Folia Linguistica 28/3–4, 413–435.Google Scholar
  47. Gracia, Lluisa and Azkarate, Miren. 1998. Prefixes, heads and word order. Ms. University of Girona and University of the Basque Country.Google Scholar
  48. Gracia, Lluisa and Lieber, Rochelle. 2000. “Sobre el prefijo ex-.” Paper presented at the Fourth Congress of General Linguistics, Cadiz.Google Scholar
  49. Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  50. Gussmann, Edmund. 1987. “The lexicon of English De-adjectival Verbs.” In: E. Gussmann (ed.), Rules and the Lexicon. Lublin: Catholic University Press, 79–101.Google Scholar
  51. Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel Jay. 2002. Prolegomena to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  52. Harley, Heidi and Noyer, Rolf. 2000. “Formal versus encyclopaedic properties of vocabulary: Evidence from nominalizations.” In: B. Peeters (ed.), The Lexcion-Encyclopedia Interface. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 349–374.Google Scholar
  53. Haspelmath, Martin. 1996. “Word-class Changing inflection and Morphological Theory.” In: G. Booij and J. van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1995. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 43–66.Google Scholar
  54. Heyvaert, Lisbiet. 2001. Deverbal-er suffixation as morphological equivalent of the clausal Subject-Finite unit. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. Preprint 176.Google Scholar
  55. Higginbotham, James. 1985. “On Semantics.” Linguistic Inquiry 16, 547–594.Google Scholar
  56. Hoeksema, Jack. 1985. Categorial Morphology. New York: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar
  57. Hoeksema, Jack. 1988. “Head-types in Morpho-Syntax.” In: G. Booij and J. van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1988. Dordrecht: Foris, 123–138.Google Scholar
  58. Horn, Laurence. 1989. Natural History of Negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; reprinted 2001 by CSLI: Stanford.Google Scholar
  59. Horn, Laurence. 2002. “Uncovering the Un-Word: A study in lexical pragmatics.” Sophia Linguistica 49, 1–64.Google Scholar
  60. Horn, Laurence. (Forthcoming). An Un-paper for the Un-Syntactician. Ms. Yale University.Google Scholar
  61. Hudson, Richard. 1975. “Problems in the analysis of ed-adjectives.” Journal of Linguistics 11, 69–72.Google Scholar
  62. Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  63. Jackendoff, Ray. 1996. “The Architecture of the Linguistic-Spatial Interface.” In: P. Bloom, M. Peterson, L. Nadel, and M. Garrett (eds.), Language and Space. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1–30.Google Scholar
  64. Jespersen, Otto. 1965. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Part VI. Morphology. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar
  65. Kastovsky, Dieter. 1969. “Wortbildung und Nullmorphem.” Linguistische Berichte 2, 1–13.Google Scholar
  66. Kayne, Richard. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  67. Kettemann, Bernhard. 1988. Die Phonologie Morphologischer Prozesse im Amerikanischen Englisch. Tubingen: Narr.Google Scholar
  68. Keyser, Samuel Jay and Roeper, Thomas. 1992. “Re: The Abstract Clitic Hypothesis.” Linguistic Inquiry 23, 89–125.Google Scholar
  69. Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. “From Cyclic Phonology to Lexical Phonology.” In: H. van der Hulst and N. Smith, (eds.), The Structure of Phonological Representations. Dordrecht: Foris, 131–175.Google Scholar
  70. Kjellmer, Goren. 2001. “Why weaken but not strongen on deadjectival verbs.” English Studies 2, 154–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  72. Landau, Barbara. 1996. “Multiple Geometric Representations of Objects in Languages and Language Learners.” In: P. Bloom, M. Peterson, L. Nadel, and M. Garrett (eds.), Language and Space. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 317–364.Google Scholar
  73. Lees, Robert. 1961. The Grammar of English Nominalizations. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  74. Lehnert, Martin. 1971. Reverse Dictionary of Present-Day English. Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar
  75. Lehrer, Adrienne. 1995. “Prefixes in English word-formation.” Folia Linguistica 29/1–2, 133–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Levi, Judith. 1978. The Syntax of Complex Nominals. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  77. Levin, Beth. 1999. “Objecthood: an event structure perspective.” Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 35/1, 223–47.Google Scholar
  78. Levin, Beth and Rappaport, Malka. 1988. “Non-event -er Nominals: A Probe into Argument Structure.” Linguistics 26, 1067–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Levin, Beth and Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 1995. Unaccusativity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  80. Lieber, Rochelle. 1980. On the Organization of the Lexicon. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. [published by IULC, 1981 and Garland Press 1990.]Google Scholar
  81. Lieber, Rochelle. 1981. “Morphological conversion within a restrictive theory of the lexicon.” In: M. Moortgat, H. van der Hulst, and T. Hoekstra (eds.), The Scope of Lexical Rules. Dordrecht: Foris Publications, 161–200.Google Scholar
  82. Lieber, Rochelle. 1983. “Argument Linking and Compounds in English.” Linguistic Inquiry 14, 251–286.Google Scholar
  83. Lieber, Rochelle. 1992. Deconstructing Morphology. Chicago. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  84. Lieber, Rochelle. 1998. “The Suffix -ize in English: Implications for Morphology.” In: S. G. Lapointe, D. K. Brentari, and P. M. Farrell (eds.), Morphology and Its Relation to Phonology and Syntax. Stanford, CA: CSLI, 12–34.Google Scholar
  85. Lieber, Rochelle. 2004. Morphology and Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  86. Lieber, Rochelle and Baayen, Harald. 1997. “A Semantic Principle of Auxiliary Selection in Dutch.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15/4, 789–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Lieber, Rochelle and Baayen, Harald. 1999. “Nominalizations in a Calculus of Lexical Semantic Representations.” In: G. Booij and J. van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1998. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 175–198.Google Scholar
  88. Ljung, Magnus. 1970. English denominal adjectives. Gothenburg Studies in English, Lund.Google Scholar
  89. Ljung, Magnus. 1976. “-ed adjectives revisited.” Journal of Linguistics 12, 159–168.Google Scholar
  90. Mahn, Lothar. 1971. Zur Morphologie und Semantik englischer Verben auf-IFY mit Berucksichtigung franzosischer und deutscher Entsprechungen. Tubingen: Narr.Google Scholar
  91. Marchand, Hans. 1966. “On attributive and predicative derived adjectives and some problems related to the distinction.” Anglia 84, 131–149.Google Scholar
  92. Marchand, Hans. 1966. “On the analysis of substantive compounds and suffixal derivatives not containing a verbal element.” Indogermanische Forschungen 70/1, 118–145.Google Scholar
  93. Marchand, Hans. 1969. The Categories and Types of Present-day English Word Formation. Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
  94. Maynor, Natalie. 1979. “The morpheme un-.” American Speech 54, 310–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Mohanan, K. P. 1986. The Theory of Lexical Phonology. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
  96. Nunberg, Geoffrey. 1996. “Transfers of Meaning.” In: J. Pustejovsky and B. Boguraev (eds.), Lexical Semantics, the problem of polysemy. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 109–132.Google Scholar
  97. Orgun, Cemil Orhan and Sprouse, Ronald. 1999. “From MPARSE to CONTROL: Deriving ungrammaticality.” Phonology 16/2, 191–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Panther, Klaus and Thornburg, Linda. 1998. “The Polysemy of the Derivational -er Suffix in English.” Paper delivered at the Cognitive Morphology Workshop, Ghent, Belgium, July, 1998.Google Scholar
  99. Pennanen, Esko. 1971. Conversion and Zero Derivation in English. Tampere: Acta Universitatis Tamperensis. Ser. A vol. 40.Google Scholar
  100. Plag, Ingo. 1999. Morphological Productivity: Structural Constraints in English Derivation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  101. Raffelsiefen, Renate. 1996. Gaps in Word Formation. In: U. Kleinhenz (ed.), Interfaces in Phonology. Berlin: Academie Verlag, 194–209.Google Scholar
  102. Rappaport Hovav, Malka and Levin, Beth. 1992. “-ER Nominals: implications for the theory of argument structure. In: T. Stowell and E. Wehrli (eds.), Syntax and Semantics 26, Syntax and the Lexicon. New York: Academic Press, 127–153.Google Scholar
  103. Rappaport Hovav, Malka and Levin, Beth. 1998. “Building verb meanings.” In: M. Butt and W. Geuder (eds.), The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 97–134.Google Scholar
  104. Riddle, Elizabeth. 1985. “A historical perspective on the productivity of the suffixes -ness and -ity.” In: J. Fisiak (ed.), Historical Semantics Historical Word-Formation. Berlin. Mouton Publishers, 435–461.Google Scholar
  105. Roeper, Thomas. 1988. “Compound Syntax and Head Movement.” In: G. Booij and J. van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1. Dordrecht: Foris, 187–228.Google Scholar
  106. Roeper, Thomas. 1999. “Leftward Movement in Morphology.” In: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 34, 35–66.Google Scholar
  107. Roeper, Thomas and van Hout, Angeliek. 1999. The impact of nominalization on passive,-able and middle: Burzio’s generalization and feature-movement in the lexicon. Ms. University of Massachusetts, Amherst and Utrecht University.Google Scholar
  108. Roeper, Thomas and Siegel, Muffy. 1978. “A Lexical Transformation for Verbal Compounds.” Linguistic Inquiry 9, 197–260.Google Scholar
  109. Romaine, Suzanne. 1983. “On the productivity of word formation rules and limits of variability in the lexicon.” Australian Journal of Linguistics 3, 177–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Ryder, Mary Ellen. 1999. “Bankers and blue-chippers: an account of -er formations in Present-day English.” English Language and Linguistics 3, 269–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Schneider, Edgar. 1987. “Beobachtungen zur Pragmatik der verbbildenden Suffixe -en,-ify, und-ize im Englischen.” Sprachwissenschaft 12, 88–109.Google Scholar
  112. Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1982. The Syntax of Words. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  113. Siegel, Dorothy. 1974. Topics in English Morphology. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  114. Simpson, John (ed.). The Oxford English Dictionary (2nd edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  115. Slotkin, Alan. 1990. “Adjectival -less and -free: A case of shifting institutional currency.” American Speech 65/1, 33–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Smith, Carlotta. 1997. The Parameter of Aspect (2nd edition). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  117. Southerland, Ronald. 1994. “Derivatives in pre-: a persuasive morphological resource?“ American Speech 69/2, 168–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Spencer, Andrew. 1999. “Transpositions and Argument Structure.” In: G. Booij and J. van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1998. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 73–102.Google Scholar
  119. Sproat, Richard. 1985. On deriving the lexicon. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  120. Štekauer, Pavol. 1996. A Theory of Conversion in English. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  121. Štekauer, Pavol. 1998. An Onomasiological Theory of English Word-Formation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  122. Strauss, Steven. 1982. “On ‘relatedness paradoxes’ and related paradoxes.” Linguistic Inquiry 13, 694–700.Google Scholar
  123. Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  124. Toman, Jindrich. 1983. Wortsyntax. Tubingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
  125. Tyler, Andrea and Evans, Vyvyan. 2001. “Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of over.” Language 77/4, 724–765.Google Scholar
  126. Tyler, Andrea and Evans, Vyvyan. 2004. The Semantics of English Prepositions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  127. Van Marle, Jaap. 1985. On the Paradigmatic Dimension of Morphological Creativity. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
  128. Walinska de Hackbeil, Hannah. 1986. The roots of phrase structure: The syntactic base of English morphology. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle.Google Scholar
  129. Williams, Darrell. 1992. “English comparative compounds with OVER, UNDER, and OUT.” Proceedings of ESCOL 1992, 272–281.Google Scholar
  130. Williams, Edwin. 1981. “Argument Structure and Morphology.” Linguistic Review 1, 81–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Williams, Edwin. 1981. “On the notions ‘lexically related’ and ‘head of a word’.” Linguistic Inquiry 12/2, 245–274.Google Scholar
  132. Zimmer, Karl. 1964. Affixal Negation in English and Other Languages. Supplement to Word, Monograph No. 5.Google Scholar
  133. Zubizaretta, Maria Luisa. 1987. Levels of Representation in the Lexicon and in Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
  134. Zubizaretta, Maria Luisa and van Haaften, Ton. 1988. “English -ing and Dutch -en Nominal Constructions: A Case of Simultaneous Nominal and Verbal Projections.” In: M. Everaert, A. Evers, R. Huybrechts, and M. Trommelen (eds.), Morphology and Modularity. Dordrecht: Foris Publications, 361–394.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rochelle Lieber
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EnglishUniversity of New HampshireDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations