1887
Volume 15, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
Preview this article:

Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00070.nor
2024-01-08
2025-02-08
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/cf.00070.nor.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00070.nor&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Ackerman, F., Blevins, J. P., & Malouf, R.
    (2009) Parts and wholes: Implicative patterns in inflectional paradigms. InJ. P. Blevins & J. Blevins (Eds.), Analogy in grammar: Form and acquisition (pp. 54–82). Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199547548.003.0003
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199547548.003.0003 [Google Scholar]
  2. Arnaud, P. J. L.
    (2013) Word-formation and word-creation: A data-driven exploration of inventiveness in neologisms. Quaderns de Filologia. Estudis lingüístics, 181, 97–113.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Barðdal, J., Smirnova, E., Sommerer, L., & Gildea, S.
    (Eds.) (2015) Diachronic construction grammar. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.18
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.18 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bauer, L.
    (2001) Morphological productivity. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486210
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486210 [Google Scholar]
  5. (2021) ‘What is the plural of mouse?’ and other unhelpful questions for morphologists. Cadernos de linguística, 2(1), 1–16. 10.25189/2675‑4916.2021.v2.n1.id303
    https://doi.org/10.25189/2675-4916.2021.v2.n1.id303 [Google Scholar]
  6. Beliaeva, N.
    (2019) Blending creativity and productivity: On the issue of delimiting the boundaries of blends as a type of word formation. Lexis, 141.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Blevins, J. P.
    (2016) The minimal sign. InA. Hippisley & G. Stump (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of morphology (pp. 50–69). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781139814720.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139814720.003 [Google Scholar]
  8. Booij, G.
    (2010) Construction Morphology. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. (2013) Morphology in construction grammar. InT. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 255–273). Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. (2016) Construction Morphology. InA. Hippisley & G. Stump (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of morphology (pp. 424–448). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781139814720.016
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139814720.016 [Google Scholar]
  11. (2018) The construction of words: Introduction and overview. InG. Booij (Ed.), The construction of words: Advances in construction morphology (pp. 3–16). Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑74394‑3_1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74394-3_1 [Google Scholar]
  12. Booij, G., & Audring, J.
    (2018) Partial motivation, multiple motivation: The role of output schemas in morphology. InG. Booij (Ed.), The construction of words: Advances in construction morphology (pp. 59–80). Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑74394‑3_3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74394-3_3 [Google Scholar]
  13. Booij, G., & Masini, F.
    (2015) The role of second order schemas in the construction of complex words. InL. Bauer, L. Kőrtvélyessy & P. Štekauer (Eds.), Semantics of complex words (pp. 47–66). Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑14102‑2_4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14102-2_4 [Google Scholar]
  14. Brinton, L. J., & Traugott, E. C.
    (2005) Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511615962
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615962 [Google Scholar]
  15. Brown, D., & Hippisley, A.
    (2012) Network morphology: A defaults-based theory of word structure. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511794346
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511794346 [Google Scholar]
  16. Bybee, J.
    (2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511750526
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526 [Google Scholar]
  17. Croft, W.
    (2020) Ten lectures on Construction Grammar and typology. Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Dąbrowska, E.
    (2016) Cognitive Linguistics’ seven deadly sins. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(4), 479–491. 10.1515/cog‑2016‑0059
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0059 [Google Scholar]
  19. Dancygier, B.
    (2017) Introduction. InB. Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 1–10). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316339732.001
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316339732.001 [Google Scholar]
  20. De Smet, H., Ghesquière, L., & Van de Velde, F.
    (Eds.) (2015) On multiple source constructions in language change. John Benjamins. 10.1075/bct.79
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.79 [Google Scholar]
  21. Diessel, H.
    (2019) The grammar network: How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108671040
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108671040 [Google Scholar]
  22. Diewald, G.
    (2020) Paradigms lost – paradigms regained: Paradigms as hyper-constructionsInL. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 277–315). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.27.08die
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.08die [Google Scholar]
  23. Diewald, G., & Politt, K.
    (Eds.) (2022) Paradigms regained: Theoretical and empirical arguments for the reassessment of the notion of paradigm. Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 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 and Linguistics, 24(4), 801–831. 10.1017/S1360674319000340
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674319000340 [Google Scholar]
  25. Fertig, D.
    (2013) Analogy and morphological change. Edinburgh University Press. 10.1515/9780748646234
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9780748646234 [Google Scholar]
  26. Freywald, U., & Finkbeiner, R.
    (2018) Exact repetition or total reduplication? Exploring their boundaries in discourse and grammar. InR. Finkbeiner & U. Freywald (Eds.), Exact repetition in grammar and discourse (pp. 3–28). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110592498‑001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110592498-001 [Google Scholar]
  27. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. (2016) Partial productivity of linguistic constructions: Dynamic categorization and statistical preemption. Language and Cognition, 81, 369–390. 10.1017/langcog.2016.17
    https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2016.17 [Google Scholar]
  29. (2019) Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Hartmann, S.
    (2021) Past, present, and future. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 9(1), 1–34. 10.1515/gcla‑2021‑0001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/gcla-2021-0001 [Google Scholar]
  31. Hilpert, M.
    (2008) Germanic future constructions: A usage-based approach to language change. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.7
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.7 [Google Scholar]
  32. (2015) From hand-carved to computer-based: Noun-participle compounding and the upward strengthening hypothesis. Cognitive Linguistics, 26(1), 113–147. 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0001 [Google Scholar]
  33. Himmelmann, N. P.
    (2004) Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal?InW. Bisang, N. P. Himmelmann & B. Wiemer (Eds.), What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and components (pp. 21–42). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197440.1.21
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197440.1.21 [Google Scholar]
  34. Hudson, R.
    (2007) Language networks: The new word grammar. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Jackendoff, R.
    (2017) In defense of theory. Cognitive Science, 411, 185–212. 10.1111/cogs.12324
    https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12324 [Google Scholar]
  36. 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]
  37. Jakubíček, M., Kilgarriff, A., Kovář, V., Rychlý, P., & Suchomel, V.
    (2013) TheTenTen corpus family. 7th International Corpus Linguistics Conference CL, 125–127.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Kempf, L., & Hartmann, S.
    (2018) Schema unification and morphological productivity: A diachronic perspective. InBooij, G. (Ed.), The construction of words: Advances in construction morphology (pp. 441–474). Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑74394‑3_16
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74394-3_16 [Google Scholar]
  39. Kemps, R. J. J. K., Ernestus, M., Schreuder, R., & Baayen, R. H.
    (2005) Prosodic cues for morphological complexity: The case of Dutch plural nouns. Memory and Cognition, 33(3), 430–46. 10.3758/BF03193061
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193061 [Google Scholar]
  40. Lakoff, G.
    (1990) The Invariance Hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas?1(1), 39–74.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar volume I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. (2008) Cognitive grammar. A basic introduction. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  43. (2009) Investigations in cognitive grammar. Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110214369
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214369 [Google Scholar]
  44. Lehmann, C.
    (2015 [1982]) Thoughts on grammaticalization. Language Science Press. 10.26530/OAPEN_603353
    https://doi.org/10.26530/OAPEN_603353 [Google Scholar]
  45. Lensch, A.
    (2018) Fixer-uppers. Reduplication in the derivation of phrasal verbs. InR. Finkbeiner & U. Freywald (Eds.), Exact repetition in grammar and discourse (pp. 158–181). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110592498‑007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110592498-007 [Google Scholar]
  46. Masini, F., & Audring, J.
    (2019) Construction Morphology. InJ. Audring & F. Masini (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of morphological theory (pp. 365–389). Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Norde, M., & Morris, C.
    (2018) Derivation without category change: A network-based analysis of diminutive prefixoids in Dutch. InK. Van Goethem, M. Norde, E. Coussé & G. Vanderbauwhede (Eds.), Category change from a constructional perspective (pp. 47–90). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.20.03nor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.20.03nor [Google Scholar]
  48. Norde, M., & Sippach, S.
    (2019) Nerdalicious scientainment: A network analysis of English libfixes. Word Structure, 12(3), 353–384. 10.3366/word.2019.0153
    https://doi.org/10.3366/word.2019.0153 [Google Scholar]
  49. Norde, M., & Van Goethem, K.
    (2018) Debonding and clipping of prefixoids in Germanic: Constructionalization or constructional Change?InG. Booij (Ed.), The construction of words: Advances in construction morphology (pp. 475–518). Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑74394‑3_17
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74394-3_17 [Google Scholar]
  50. Pijpops, D., & Van de Velde, F.
    (2016) Constructional contamination: How does it work and how do we measure it?Folia Linguistica, 50(2), 543–581. 10.1515/flin‑2016‑0020
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2016-0020 [Google Scholar]
  51. Sommerer, L., & Smirnova, E.
    (Eds.) (2020) Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.27
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27 [Google Scholar]
  52. Traugott, E. C., & Trousdale, G.
    (2013) Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199679898.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  53. Ungerer, T., & Hartmann, S.
    (2020) Delineating extravagance: Assessing speakers’ perceptions of imaginative constructional patterns. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 34(1), 345–356. 10.1075/bjl.00058.ung
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00058.ung [Google Scholar]
  54. Van de Velde, F., & Van der Horst, J.
    (2013) Homoplasy in diachronic grammar. Language Sciences, 361, 66–77. 10.1016/j.langsci.2012.03.020
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2012.03.020 [Google Scholar]
  55. Zehentner, E., & Traugott, E. C.
    (2020) Constructional networks and the development of benefactive ditransitives in English. InL. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.), Nodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar (pp. 168–211). John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.27.05zeh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.05zeh [Google Scholar]
  56. Zimmer, B.
    (2006) The surreptitious history of -licious. Language Logitre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003546.html
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Zwicky, A. M.
    (2010) ‘Libfixes’ post on Arnold Zwicky’s Blog. https://arnoldzwicky.org/2010/01/23/libfixes/
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00070.nor
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
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