1887
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. A Constructional Account of Verb-Forming Suffixation

A Constructional Account of Verb-Forming Suffixation

image of A Constructional Account of Verb-Forming Suffixation
USD
Buy:$180.00 + Taxes

The range of meanings expressed by derivatives formed by the attachment of the four principal verb-forming suffixes - ate, - en, - ify and - ize has been the subject of extensive analysis for over two decades. From a descriptive perspective, the research reported in this volume constitutes the most comprehensive usage-based analysis of verbal derivatives available to date and provides register-based and diachronic comparisons of usage and distribution patterns across corpora of spoken English. The semantic analysis adopts the seven well-established semantic categories of verbal derivatives and extends the set to twenty by including further meaning classes documented in the morphological literature and additional senses that emerged from the contextualized analysis of complex verbs in the datasets. From a theoretical standpoint, the novel approach involves the explicit linking of affix schemas to argument structure constructions, and proposes a unified model of verb-forming suffixation that accounts for the multi-functional characteristics of verbal derivatives, from a constructional perspective.

References

  1. Adams, V.
    (2001) Complex Words in English. Harlow: Pearson.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Aijmer, K.
    (2021) “That’s well good”: A Re-emergent Intensifier in Current British English. Journal of English Linguistics, 49(1), 18-38. 10.1177/0075424220979143
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424220979143 [Google Scholar]
  3. Anderson, S.
    (1971) The role of deep structure in semantic interpretation. Foundations of Language, 7(3), 387-96.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Audring J.
    (2019) Mothers or sisters? The encoding of morphological knowledge. Word Structure, 12(3), 274–96. 10.3366/word.2019.0150
     https://doi.org/10.3366/word.2019.0150 [Google Scholar]
  5. Axelsson, K.
    (2018) Canonical tag questions in contemporary British English. In V. Brezina , R. Love & K. Aijmer (Eds.), Corpus Approaches to Contemporary British Speech: Sociolinguistic studies of the Spoken BNC2014 (pp. 96-119). New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315268323‑7
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315268323-7 [Google Scholar]
  6. Baayen, R. H.
    (2008) Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511801686
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801686 [Google Scholar]
  7. (2009) Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. In A. Lüdeling & M. Kytö (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook (pp. 899–919). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110213881.2.899
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110213881.2.899 [Google Scholar]
  8. Barðdal, J.
    (2008) Productivity: evidence form case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.8
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.8 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bauer, L.
    (2001) Morphological productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486210
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486210 [Google Scholar]
  10. (1983) English Word-Formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139165846
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165846 [Google Scholar]
  11. Bauer, L. , Lieber, R. , & Plag, I.
    (2013) The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198747062.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198747062.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  12. BE06: The British English 2006 Corpus
    BE06: The British English 2006 Corpus . Baker, P. (2007–2008) Available online athttps://cqpweb.lancs.ac.uk/.
  13. Biber, D.
    (1988) Variation across speech and writing. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511621024
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621024 [Google Scholar]
  14. Biber, D. and Conrad, S.
    (2019) Register, Genre, and Style. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108686136
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108686136 [Google Scholar]
  15. Biber, B. , Johansson, S. , Leech, G. , Conrad, S. , & Finegan, E.
    (1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. BLOB: The Before LOB 1931 Corpus
    BLOB: The Before LOB 1931 Corpus . Leech, G. , Rayson, P. & Smith, N. (2003–2006) Available online athttps://cqpweb.lancs.ac.uk/.
  17. Boas, H. C.
    (2000) Resultative Constructions in English and German. Ph.D. thesis, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. (2003) A constructional approach to resultatives. Stanford, Ca: CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Booij, G.
    (2005) Compounding and derivation: Evidence for Construction Morphology. In W. U. Dressler , D. Kastovsky , O. E. Pfeiffer , & F. Rainer (Eds.), Morphology and its demarcations (pp. 109–132). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.264.08boo
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.264.08boo [Google Scholar]
  20. (2007) Polysemy and Construction Morphology. In F. Moerdijk , A. van Santen & R. Tempelaars (Eds.), Leven met woorden (pp. 355-364). Leiden: Instituut voor Nederlandse Lexicologie.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. (2010) Construction morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Booij, G.
    (2012) The grammar of words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Booij, G.
    (2013) Morphology in Construction Grammar. In T. Hoffmann and G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 255–274). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. (2017) Inheritance and motivation in construction morphology. In N. Gisborne & A. Hippisley (Eds.), Defaults in morphological theory (pp. 18–39). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198712329.003.0002
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198712329.003.0002 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2019) The role of schemas in Construction Morphology. Word Structure, 12(3), 385–395. 10.3366/word.2019.0154
     https://doi.org/10.3366/word.2019.0154 [Google Scholar]
  26. Bowie, J. , Wallis, S. and Aarts, B.
    (2013) Contemporary change in modal usage in spoken British English: mapping the impact of genre. In Arrese, J. I. M. , Carretero, M. , Hita, J. A. and van der Auwera, J. (Eds.), English modality: core, periphery and evidentiality (pp. 57-94). Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110286328.57
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110286328.57 [Google Scholar]
  27. BNCweb
    BNCweb (bncweb.lancs.ac.uk/)
  28. Bresnan, J. , Cueni, A. , Nikitina, T. & Baayen, H.
    (2007) Predicting the dative alternation. In G. Boume , I. Kraemer & J. Zwarts (Eds.), Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation (pp. 69–94). Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Briscoe, E. J. , Copestake, A. & V. de Paiva
    (1993) Inheritance, defaults and the lexicon. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. British National Corpus, version 4.4
    British National Corpus, version 4.4 (2018) Distributed by Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium. Retrieved via BNCweb (CQP-Edition) frombncweb.lancs.ac.uk/
  31. The British National Corpus
    The British National Corpus 2014: User manual and reference guide, version 1.1.Retrieved fromcorpora.lancs.ac.uk/bnc2014/doc/BNC2014manual.pdf
  32. Cambridge Dictionary
    Cambridge Dictionary. Retrieved fromhttps://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/
  33. Cappelle, B.
    (2006) Particle placement and the case for “allostructions”. Constructions Special Volume1, 1-28.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Clark, E. V. , & Clark, H. H.
    (1979) When nouns surface as verbs. Language, 55, 767-811. 10.2307/412745
     https://doi.org/10.2307/412745 [Google Scholar]
  35. Collins English Dictionary
    Collins English Dictionary. Retrieved fromhttps://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/
  36. Collins, P. & Yao, X.
    (2018) Colloquialisation and the evolution of Australian English: A cross-varietal and cross-generic study of Australian, British and American English from 1931 to 2006. English World-Wide, 39(3). 253-277. 10.1075/eww.00014.col
     https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.00014.col [Google Scholar]
  37. Cowie, C.
    (1998) Diachronic Word-Formation: A Corpus-Based Study of Derived Nominalizations in the History of English. Doctoral dissertation, University of Cambridge.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. (2006) Economical with the truth: Register categories and the functions of -wise viewpoint adverbs in the British National Corpus. ICAME Journal, 30, 5-36.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. CQPweb
    CQPweb. Retrieved fromhttps://cqpweb.lancs.ac.uk/
  40. Croft, W.
    (2001) Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  41. (2003) Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In H. Cuyckens , T. Berg , R. Dirven , & K-U. Panther (Eds.), Motivation in language: Studies in honor of Gunter Radden (pp. 49–68). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.243.07cro
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.243.07cro [Google Scholar]
  42. Croft, W. & Cruse, D. A.
    (2004) Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  43. Culicover, P. W. , & Jackendoff, R.
    (2005) Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199271092.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199271092.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  44. Dictionary.com
    Dictionary.com. Retrieved fromhttps://www.dictionary.com/
  45. Dixon, R. M. W.
    (2014) Making new words: Morphological derivation in English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198712367.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198712367.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  46. Downing, P.
    (1977) On the Creation and Use of English Compound Nouns. Language, 53(4), 810-842. 10.2307/412913
     https://doi.org/10.2307/412913 [Google Scholar]
  47. Dunning, T.
    (1993) Accurate methods for the statistics of surprise and coincidence. Computational Linguistics, 19, 61-74.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Fillmore, C. J.
    (1988) The mechanisms of ‘Construction Grammar.’ In S. Axmaker , A. Jaisser & H. Signmaster (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 35–55). Berkeley CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. 10.3765/bls.v14i0.1794
     https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v14i0.1794 [Google Scholar]
  49. Fillmore, C. , Kay, P. & O’Connor, M. C.
    (1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language. 64, 501–38. 10.2307/414531
     https://doi.org/10.2307/414531 [Google Scholar]
  50. FLOB: The Freiburg-LOB Corpus. =
    FLOB: The Freiburg-LOB Corpus. = Mair, C. (1991–1996) Available online athttps://cqpweb.lancs.ac.uk/.
  51. FrameNet
    FrameNet. Retrieved fromhttps://framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu/
  52. Fuchs, R.
    (2017) Do women (still) use more intensifiers than men?: Recent change in the sociolinguistics of intensifiers in British English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(3), 345-374. 10.1075/ijcl.22.3.03fuc
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.22.3.03fuc [Google Scholar]
  53. Gardner, A. C.
    (2014) Derivation in Middle English: Regional and Text Type Variation. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. (2002) Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics, 13(3), 327–356. 10.1515/cogl.2002.022
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2002.022 [Google Scholar]
  56. (2003) Constructions: a new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences7(5). 219–24. 10.1016/S1364‑6613(03)00080‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00080-9 [Google Scholar]
  57. (2006) Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. (2009) The nature of generalization in language. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(1), 93–127. 10.1515/COGL.2009.005
     https://doi.org/10.1515/COGL.2009.005 [Google Scholar]
  59. (2013a) Argument Structure Constructions versus Lexical Rules or Derivational Verb Templates. Mind & Language. 28(4). 435-465. 10.1111/mila.12026
     https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12026 [Google Scholar]
  60. (2013b) Constructionist approaches. In Hoffmann, T. & G. Trousdale (Eds). The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 15-31). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Goldberg, A. , Casenhiser, D. , & Sethuraman, N.
    (2004) Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics, 15(3), 289–316. 10.1515/cogl.2004.011
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2004.011 [Google Scholar]
  62. Goldberg, A. E. & Jackendoff, R.
    (2004) The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language80. 532–68. 10.1353/lan.2004.0129
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2004.0129 [Google Scholar]
  63. Goldberg, A. E.
    (2001) Patient arguments of causative verbs can be omitted: the role of information structure in argument distribution. Language Sciences, 23, 503-524. 10.1016/S0388‑0001(00)00034‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0388-0001(00)00034-6 [Google Scholar]
  64. Gries, S. Th. , Hampe, B. & Schönefeld, D.
    (2005) Converging evidence: Bringing together experimental and corpus data on the associations of verbs and constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 16. 635–676. 10.1515/cogl.2005.16.4.635
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2005.16.4.635 [Google Scholar]
  65. Gries, S. Th. , Hampe, B. & Schönefeld, D.
    (2010) Converging evidence II: more on the association of verbs and constructions. In J. Newman & S. Rice (Eds.), Experimental and Empirical Methods in the Study of Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language (pp. 59-72). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Gropen, J. , Pinker, S. , Hollander, M. , Goldberg, R. , & Wilson, R.
    (1989) The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English. Language, 65, 203–257. 10.2307/415332
     https://doi.org/10.2307/415332 [Google Scholar]
  67. Groupings
    Groupings. Retrieved fromhttps://verbs.colorado.edu/html_groupings/
  68. Guz, W.
    (2009) English affixal nominalizations across language registers. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 45(4), pp. 447–471. 10.2478/v10010‑009‑0030‑6
     https://doi.org/10.2478/v10010-009-0030-6 [Google Scholar]
  69. Hampe, B.
    (2011) Discovering constructions by means of collostruction analysis: The English denominative construction. Cognitive Linguistics22(2), 211–245. 10.1515/cogl.2011.009
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2011.009 [Google Scholar]
  70. (2014) More on the as-predicative: Granularity issues in the description of construction networks. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association2. 207–234. 10.1515/gcla‑2014‑0013
     https://doi.org/10.1515/gcla-2014-0013 [Google Scholar]
  71. Hilpert, M.
    (2013) Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK. 10.1017/CBO9781139004206
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139004206 [Google Scholar]
  72. Hoffmann, S. , Evert, S. , Smith, N. , Lee, D. & Berglund Prytz, Y.
    (2008) Corpus Linguistics with BNCweb – A Practical Guide. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Hoffmann, T.
    (2017) Construction Grammars. In Dancygier, B. (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 310-329). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316339732.020
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316339732.020 [Google Scholar]
  74. Hoffmann, T. , & Trousdale, G.
    (2013) Construction Grammar: Introduction. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 1-12). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Iwata, S.
    (2008) Locative alternation. A lexical-constructional approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.6
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.6 [Google Scholar]
  76. Jackendoff, R.
    (1983) Semantics and cognition. Cambridge: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. (1990) Semantic Structures. Cambridge: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. (2002) Foundations of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270126.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198270126.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  79. (2007) A parallel architecture perspective on language processing. Brain Research, 1146, 2–22. 10.1016/j.brainres.2006.08.111
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2006.08.111 [Google Scholar]
  80. (2009) Compounding in the Parallel Architecture and Conceptual Semantics. In R. Lieber and P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Compounding: 105-129. New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Jackendoff, R. , & Audring, J.
    (2016) Morphological schemas: Theoretical and psycholinguistic issues. The Mental Lexicon, 11(3), 467–493. 10.1075/ml.11.3.06jac
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.11.3.06jac [Google Scholar]
  82. Jurafsky, D.
    (1992) An on-line computational model of human sentence interpretation: A theory of the representation and use of linguistic knowledge. Dissertation/Tech. Rep. No. 92/676.Berkeley, CA: University of California at Berkeley, Computer Science Division. 10.21236/ADA604298
     https://doi.org/10.21236/ADA604298 [Google Scholar]
  83. Kaunisto, M.
    (2007) Variation and Change in the Lexicon: A Corpus-based Analysis of Adjectives in English Ending in -ic and -ical. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 10.1163/9789401204644
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789401204644 [Google Scholar]
  84. Kempf, L.
    (2016) Modeling polyfunctional word formation patterns. A Construction Morphology account of adjectival derivation in the history of German. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics13(2). 140–163.
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  86. Landis, J. R. , Koch, G. G.
    (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics33. 159–174. 10.2307/2529310
     https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310 [Google Scholar]
  87. Laws, J. , Ryder, C. & Jaworska, S.
    (2017) A diachronic corpus-based study into the effects of age and gender on the usage patterns of verb-forming suffixation in spoken British English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(3): 375-402. 10.1075/ijcl.22.3.04law
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.22.3.04law [Google Scholar]
  88. Laws, J. and Ryder, C.
    (2018) Register variation in spoken British English: The case of verb-forming suffixation. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 23(1). 1–27. 10.1075/ijcl.16036.law
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.16036.law [Google Scholar]
  89. Laws, J.
    (2019) Profiling complex word usage in the speech of English preschool children: frequency patterns and transparency characteristics. First Language, 39(6). 593–617. 10.1177/0142723719872669
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0142723719872669 [Google Scholar]
  90. (in preparation) Grammatical function and verb-forming suffixation.
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Leech, G. , Hundt, M. , Mair, C. , & Smith, N.
    (2009) Change in contemporary English: A grammatical study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511642210
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511642210 [Google Scholar]
  92. Lehnert, M.
    (1971) Reverse dictionary of Present-Day English. Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie.
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Levin, B.
    (1985) Lexical semantics in review: an introduction. In B. Levin (Ed.), Lexical semantics in review. Lexicon Project Working Papers, 1. Cambridge, MA: MIT Center for Cognitive Science.
     [Google Scholar]
  94. (1993) English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  95. (1999) Objecthood: An event structure perspective. In S. J. Billings , J. P. Boyle & A. M. Griffith (Eds.), Papers from the 35th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic SocietyPart 1 (pp.223-247). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Levin, B. and Rappaport, M.
    (1988) Non-event -er nominals: a probe into argument structure. Linguistics, 26, 1067-83. 10.1515/ling.1988.26.6.1067
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1988.26.6.1067 [Google Scholar]
  97. Levin, B. and Rappaport Hovav, M.
    (1995) Unaccusativity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  98. (2005) Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511610479
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610479 [Google Scholar]
  99. Lieber, R.
    (2004) Morphology and lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  100. (2005) English word-formation processes: Observations, issues, and thoughts on future research. In P. Štekauer & R. Lieber (Eds.), Handbook of Word-Formation (pp. 375-427). Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/1‑4020‑3596‑9_16
     https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3596-9_16 [Google Scholar]
  101. (2009) A lexical semantic approach to compounding. In R. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compounding (pp. 78-104). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  102. Lieber, R. , & Baayen, H.
    (1999) Nominalizations in a calculus of lexical semantic representations. In G. Booij & J. van Marle (Eds.), Yearbook of morphology1998 (pp. 175–198). Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/978‑94‑017‑3720‑3_8
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3720-3_8 [Google Scholar]
  103. Lindsay, M.
    (2012) Rival suffixes: synonymy, competition, and the emergence of productivity. In A. Ralli , G. E. Booij , S. Scalise & A. Karasimos (Eds.), Morphology and the architecture of grammar: On-line proceedings of the Eighth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (pp. 192–203). Patras: University of Patras.
     [Google Scholar]
  104. Lindsay, M. and M. Aronoff
    (2013) Natural Selection in Self-Organizing Morphological Systems. In N. Hathout & F. Montermini , Gilles Boyé , and Jesse Tseng (Eds.) Morphology in Toulouse: Selected Proceedings of the 7th Décembrettes (pp. 133-153). Germany: Lincom Europa.
     [Google Scholar]
  105. LOB: The Lancaster-Oslo/Bergen Corpus
    LOB: The Lancaster-Oslo/Bergen Corpus . Leech, G. , Johansson, S. & Hofland, K. (1970–1978) Available online athttps://cqpweb.lancs.ac.uk/.
  106. Love, R. , Brezina, V. , McEnery, T. , Hawtin, A. , Hardie A. & Dembry, C.
    (2019) Functional variation in the Spoken BNC2014 and the potential for register analysis. Register Studies1(2). 296–317. 10.1075/rs.18013.lov
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.18013.lov [Google Scholar]
  107. Love, R , & N. Curry
    (2021) Recent change in modality in informal spoken British English: 1990s–2010s. English Language & Linguistics, 25(3), 537–562. 10.1017/S1360674321000265
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674321000265 [Google Scholar]
  108. Lloyd, C.
    (2011) Semantics and Word Formation. The Semantic Development of Five French Suffixes in Middle English. Bern: Peter Lang. 10.3726/978‑3‑0353‑0103‑8
     https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0353-0103-8 [Google Scholar]
  109. Love, R. , Dembry, C. , Hardie, A. , Brezina V. & McEnery T.
    (2017) The Spoken BNC2014: Designing and building a spoken corpus of everyday conversations. Special Issue ofInternational Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(3), 319-344.
     [Google Scholar]
  110. Mahlberg, M. V. Wiegand, P. Stockwell & A. Hennessey
    (2019) Speech-bundles in the 19th-century English novel. Language and Literature. 28(4) 326–353. 10.1177/0963947019886754
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947019886754 [Google Scholar]
  111. Marchand, H.
    (1969) The Categories and Types of Present-day English Word-formation: A Synchronic-diachronic Approach (2nd ed.). Munich: C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.
     [Google Scholar]
  112. Merriam-Webster
    Merriam-Webster. Retrieved fromhttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/
  113. Oxford English Dictionary (OED online)
    Oxford English Dictionary (OED online)Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved fromwww.oed.com/March 2023.
  114. Palmer, C. C.
    (2009) Borrowings, Derivational Morphology, and Perceived Productivity in English, 1300–1600. PhD dissertation, The University of Michigan.
     [Google Scholar]
  115. Perek, F. & Lemmens, M.
    (2010) Getting at the meaning of the English at-construction: the case of a constructional split. CogniTextes, 5. Retrieved fromhttps://cognitextes.revues.org/331.. 10.4000/cognitextes.331
     https://doi.org/10.4000/cognitextes.331 [Google Scholar]
  116. Perek, F.
    (2012) Alternation-based generalizations are stored in the mental grammar: Evidence from a sorting task experiment. Cognitive Linguistics. 23, 601–35. 10.1515/cog‑2012‑0018
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2012-0018 [Google Scholar]
  117. (2014) Rethinking constructional polysemy: The case of the English conative construction. In D. Glynn & J. Robinson (Eds.), Polysemy and Synonymy: Corpus Methods and Applications in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 61-85). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.43.03per
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.43.03per [Google Scholar]
  118. (2015) Argument structure in usage-based construction grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.17
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.17 [Google Scholar]
  119. Pinker, S.
    (1989) Learnability and cognition: the acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  120. Pinker, S. Lebeaux, D. and Frost, L. A.
    (1987) Productivity and constraints in the acquisition of the passive. Cognition, 26, 195–267. 10.1016/S0010‑0277(87)80001‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(87)80001-X [Google Scholar]
  121. Plag, I.
    (1999) Morphological productivity: structural constraints in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  122. Plag, I.
    (2018) Word-formation in English. Second edition.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316771402
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316771402 [Google Scholar]
  123. Plag, I.
    (2000) On the mechanisms of morphological rivalry: A new look at competing verb-deriving affixes in English. In B. Reitz & S. Rieuwerts (Eds.), Anglistentag 1999 Mainz. Proceedings (pp. 63–76). Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.
     [Google Scholar]
  124. Plag, I. , Dalton-Puffer, C. , & Baayen, R. H.
    (1999) Morphological productivity across speech and writing. English Language and Linguistics, 3(2), 209-228. 10.1017/S1360674399000222
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674399000222 [Google Scholar]
  125. PropBank
    PropBank. Retrieved fromhttps://verbs.colorado.edu/propbank/
  126. Prytz Y. B.
    (2020) Return to the future: Exploring spoken language in the BNC and BNC2014. In E. Jonsson & T. Larsson (Eds.), Voices Past and Present – Studies of Involved, Speech-related and Spoken Texts: In honor of Merja Kytö (pp. 227-246). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
     [Google Scholar]
  127. Pustejovsky, J.
    (1995) The generative lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  128. Pustejovsky, J. and Boguraev, B.
    (1996) Introduction: lexical semantics in context. In J. Pustejovsky & B. Boguraev (Eds.), Lexical Semantics: The Problem of Polysemy (pp. 1-14). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  129. Quinion, M.
    (2002) Ologies and Isms: Word Beginnings and Endings. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved fromhttps://affixes.org/index.html
     [Google Scholar]
  130. Rappaport Hovav, M. & Levin, B.
    (1998) Building verb meanings. In M. Butt & W. Geuder (Eds.), The projection of arguments: Lexical and compositional factors (pp. 97-134). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  131. Rappaport Hovav, M. and Levin, B.
    (2008) The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics, 44(1), 129–167. 10.1017/S0022226707004975
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226707004975 [Google Scholar]
  132. Rautionaho, P. & R. Fuchs
    (2021) Recent change in stative progressives: a collostructional investigation of British English in 1994 and 2014. English Language & Linguistics, 25(1), 35-60. 10.1017/S136067431900042X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S136067431900042X [Google Scholar]
  133. Reference Guide for the British National Corpus (XML Edition). Burnard
    Reference Guide for the British National Corpus (XML Edition). Burnard (2007) Retrieved fromwww.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/docs/URG/
  134. Rodríguez-Puente, P.
    (2020) Register variation in word-formation processes: The development of -ity and -ness in Early Modern English. International Journal of English Studies20(2): 147-169. 10.6018/ijes.364261
     https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes.364261 [Google Scholar]
  135. (2021) Nominalizations in Early Modern English: A cross-register perspective. In E. Seoane & D. Biber (Eds.), Corpus-based approaches to register variation. Studies in Corpus Linguistics103 (pp. 259-289). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.103.10rod
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.103.10rod [Google Scholar]
  136. Rodríguez-Puente, P. , Säily, T. & Suomela, J.
    (2022) New methods for analysing diachronic suffix competition across registers: How -ity gained ground on -ness in Early Modern English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics27(4): 506-528. 10.1075/ijcl.22014.rod
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.22014.rod [Google Scholar]
  137. Ryder, M. E.
    (1999) Bankers and Blue-chippers: An Account of -er Formations in Present-day English. English Language and Linguistics, 3(2), 269–297. 10.1017/S1360674399000246
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674399000246 [Google Scholar]
  138. Säily, T.
    (2011) Variation in morphological productivity in the BNC: Sociolinguistic and methodological considerations. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 7(1), 119-141. 10.1515/cllt.2011.006
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt.2011.006 [Google Scholar]
  139. Säily, T. , & Suomela, J.
    (2017) Types2: Exploring word-frequency differences in corpora. In T. Hiltunen , J. McVeigh , & T. Säily (Eds.) Big and Rich Data in English Corpus Linguistics: Methods and Explorations. Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English. Helsinki: VARIENG.
     [Google Scholar]
  140. Säily, T. , V. González-Díaz & J. Suomela
    (2018) Variation in the productivity of adjective comparison in present-day English. In V. Brezina , R. Love & K. Aijmer (Eds.), Corpus Approaches to Contemporary British Speech: Sociolinguistic studies of the Spoken BNC2014 (pp. 159–184). New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315268323‑9
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315268323-9 [Google Scholar]
  141. Schröder, A.
    (2011) On the productivity of verbal prefixation in English: Synchronic and diachronic perspectives. Language in Performance44. Tübingen: Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  142. Schmid, H-J.
    (2011) English Morphology and Word-formation: An Introduction. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  143. Schneider, G.
    (2022) Recent changes in spoken British English in verbal and nominal constructions. In S. Flach & M. Hilpert (Eds.), Broadening the Spectrum of Corpus Linguistics: New approaches to variability and change (pp. 173-195). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.105.06sch
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.105.06sch [Google Scholar]
  144. Schulte, M.
    (2015) The semantics of derivational morphology: A synchronic and diachronic investigation of the suffixes -age and -ery in English. Tübingen: Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  145. Simpson, J.
    (1983) Resultatives. In L. Levin , M. Rappaport and A. Zaenen (Eds.), Papers in lexical-functional grammar pp. 143-157. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
     [Google Scholar]
  146. Stefanowitsch, A. , & Gries, S.
    (2003) Collostructions: investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243. 10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste [Google Scholar]
  147. Stein, G.
    (2007) A Dictionary of English Affixes: Their Function and Meaning. Munich: Lincom Europa.
     [Google Scholar]
  148. Stratton, J. M.
    (2020) A diachronic analysis of the adjective intensifier well from Early Modern English to Present Day English. Canadian Journal of Linguistics. 65(2), 216-245. 10.1017/cnj.2020.6
     https://doi.org/10.1017/cnj.2020.6 [Google Scholar]
  149. Stubbs, M.
    (2002) Words and phrases: Corpus studies of lexical semantics. Malden: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
     [Google Scholar]
  150. Szymanek, B.
    (1988) Categories and categorization in morphology. Lublin: Catholic University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  151. Tomasello, M.
    (2003) Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  152. Tsunoda, T.
    (1985) Remarks on transitivity. Journal of Linguistics, 21(2), 385-396. 10.1017/S0022226700010318
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700010318 [Google Scholar]
  153. Vendler, Zeno
    . (1967) Linguistics in Philosophy. Cornell University Press, Ithaca. 10.7591/9781501743726
     https://doi.org/10.7591/9781501743726 [Google Scholar]
  154. Wierzbicka, A.
    (1996) Semantics: Primes and Universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  155. (1988) The semantics of grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.18
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.18 [Google Scholar]
  156. Williams, E.
    (1981) Argument Structure and Morphology. The Linguistic Review1, 81–114. 10.1515/tlir.1981.1.1.81
     https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.1981.1.1.81 [Google Scholar]
  157. Wilson, A.
    (2013) Embracing Bayes factors for key item analysis in corpus linguistics. In M. Bieswanger & A. Koll-Stobbe (Eds.), New Approaches to the Study of Linguistic Variability. Language Competence and Language Awareness in Europe. (pp. 3-11). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  158. WordNet
    WordNet. Retrieved fromwordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
  159. Yao, X. & Collins, P.
    (2019) Developments in Australian, British, and American English Grammar from 1931 to 2006: An Aggregate, Comparative Approach to Dialectal Variation and Change. Journal of English Linguistics, 47(2) 120-149. 10.1177/0075424219837337
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424219837337 [Google Scholar]
/content/books/9789027249470
Loading

  • From This Site

    /content/books/9789027249470
    dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Chapter
    10
    5
/content/books/9789027249470
dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Journal -contentType:Chapter
10
5
Chapter
content/books/9789027249470
Book
false
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error