Arnaud, P. 2013. Word-formation and word-creation: A data-driven exploration of inventiveness in neologisms. Quaderns de Filologia 18, 97–113.Google Scholar

Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Aronoff, M., and Anshen, F.. 1998. Morphology and the lexicon: Lexicalization and productivity. In Spencer, A. and Zwicky, A. M. (eds.), The Handbook of Morphology, 237–47. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar

Aronoff, M., and Lindsay, M.. 2014. Productivity, blocking, and lexicalization. In Lieber, S. and P. Štekauer, (eds.), The Handbook of Derivational Morphology, 67–83. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Aurnague, M., and Plénat, M.. 2013. Manifestations morphologiques de la relation d’attachement habituel. In Dal, G. and Amiot, D., Repères en morphologie, 11–20. Lille: Laboratoire STL. Originally published as in Silexicales 1 (1997), 15–24.Google Scholar

Baayen, R. H. 1992. Quantitative aspects of morphological productivity. Yearbook of Morphology 1991, 109–49.Google Scholar

Baayen, R. H. 1993. On frequency, transparency and productivity. Yearbook of Morphology 1992, 181–208.Google Scholar

Baayen, R. H. 1994. Derivational productivity and text typology. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 1, 16–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baayen, R. H. 2009. Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. In Lüdeling, A. and Kytö, M. (eds.), Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook, vol. 2, 899–919. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baayen, R. H., and Lieber, R.. 1991. Productivity and English derivation: A corpus-based study. Linguistics 29.5, 801–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baayen, R. H., and Neijt, A.. 1997. Productivity in context: A case study of a Dutch suffix. Linguistics 35, 565–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baayen, R. H., and Renouf, A.. 1996. Chronicling the Times: Productive lexical innovations in an English newspaper. Language 72, 69–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bagasheva, A., and Stamenov, C.. 2013. The ludic aspect of lexical inventiveness. Quaderns de Filologia 18, 71–82.Google Scholar

Balteiro, I., and Campos, M. Á.. 2012. False anglicisms in the Spanish language of fashion and beauty. Ibérica 24, 233–60.Google Scholar

Baroni, M.; Bernardini, S., Ferraresi, A., and Zanchetta, E.. 2009. The WaCky Wide Web: A collection of very large linguistically processed Web-crawled corpora. Language Resources and Evaluation 43.3, 209–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bauer, L. 2001. Morphological Productivity. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bauer, L. 2005. Productivity: Theories. In Štekauer, P. and Lieber, R. (eds.), Handbook of Word-Formation, 315–34. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Blevins, J. 2016. Word and Paradigm Morphology. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bochner, H. 1993. Simplicity in Generative Morphology. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Booij, G. 1977. Dutch Morphology: A study of word formation in generative grammar. Lisse: The Peter de Ridder Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Booij, G. 2010. Construction Morphology. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bresnan, J. 2001. Explaining morphosyntactic competition. In Baltin, M. and Collins, C. (eds.), Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, 11–44. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar

Burzio, L. 1998. Multiple Correspondence. Lingua 103, 79–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carstairs-McCarthy, A. 1992. Current Morphology. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Chmielik, J., and Grabar, N. 2011. Détection de la spécialisation scientifique et technique des documents biomédicaux grâce aux informations morphologiques. TAL 52.2, 151–79.Google Scholar

Corbin, D. 1987. Morphologie dérivationnelle et structuration du lexique. 2 vols., Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag; new edition, Villeneuve d’Ascq: Presses Universitaires de Lille, 1991.Google Scholar

Dal, G. 2003. Productivité morphologique: Définitions et notions connexes. Langue Française 140, 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dal, G., and Namer, F.. 2003. Complex words vs phrases: The case of causative verbs in French. 3d Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (MMM3) (selected papers), 129–48. Barcelona: IULA-Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar

Dal, G., and Namer, F. 2012. Faut-il brûler les dictionnaires? Ou comment les ressources numériques ont révolutionné les recherches en morphologie. In Neveu, F., Muni Toke, V., Blumenthal, P., Klingler, T., Ligas, P., Prévost, S., and Teston-Bonnard, S. (eds.), Actes en ligne du 3e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française. Lyon, 4–7 juillet 2012, 1261–76. Paris: EDP Sciences.Google Scholar

Dal, G., and Namer, F.. 2014. Adjectifs positifs en -able et négatifs en in- correspondants en français: ou pourquoi seuls sonts importables les ordinateurs portables. In Neveu, F., Blumenthal, P., Hriba, L., Gerstenberg, A., Meinschaefer, J., and Prévost, S. (eds.), Actes du 4e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française, Berlin, Allemagne, 19–23 juillet 2014, 1741–54. Paris: EDP Sciences.Google Scholar

Dal, G., and Namer, F.. 2015. Internet. In Müller, P. O., Ohnheiser, I., Olsen, S., and Rainer, F. (eds.), Word-Formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe, 2372–86. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Dal, G.; Fradin, B., Grabar, N., Lignon, S., Namer, F., Plancq, C., Yvon, F., and Zweigenbaum, P. 2008. Quelques préalables linguistiques au calcul de la productivité des règles constructionnelles et premiers résultats. In Durand, J., Habert, B., and Laks, B. (eds.), Actes du premier Congrès mondial de linguistique française, Paris, 9–12 juillet 2008, 1587–99. Paris: Institut de Linguistique Française.Google Scholar

Dressler, W. 2005. Word-formation in natural morphology. In Štekauer, P. and Lieber, R. (eds.), Handbook of Word-Formation, 267–84. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Evert, S., and Lüdeling, A.. 2001. Measuring morphological productivity: Is automatic preprocessing sufficient? In Rayson, P., Wilson, A., McEnery, T., Hardie, A., and Khoja, S. (eds.), Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics 2001 Conference, UCREL Technical Papers, 167–75. Lancaster University.Google Scholar

Fernández-Domínguez, J. 2010. Productivity vs. lexicalisation: frequency-based hypotheses on word-formation. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 46.2, 193–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fernández-Domínguez, J.; Díaz-Negrillo, A., and S̆tekauer, P.. 2007. How is low morphological productivity measured? Atlantis 29.1, 29–54.Google Scholar

Fradin, B., 2003. Nouvelles approches en morphologie. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fradin, B.; Dal, G., Grabar, N., Lignon, S., Namer, F., Tribout, D., and Zweigenbaum, P.. 2008. Remarques sur l’usage des corpus en morphologie. Langage 171, 34–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gaeta, L., and Ricca, D.. 2003. Italian prefixes and productivity: A quantitative approach. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 50, 89–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gaeta, L., and Ricca, D.. 2006. Productivity in Italian word formation: A variable-corpus approach. Linguistics 44.1, 57–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gaeta, L., and Ricca, D.. 2015. Productivity. In Müller, P. O., Ohnheiser, I., Olsen, S., and Rainer, F. (eds.), Word-Formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe, 842–58. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Hathout, N. 2011. Morphonette: a paradigm-based morphological network. Lingue e Linguaggio 2, 243–62.Google Scholar

Hathout, N., and Namer, F.. 2014. Discrepancy between form and meaning in Word Formation: The case of over- and under-marking in French. In Rainer, F., Dressler, W. U., Gardani, F., and Luschützky, H. C., Morphology and Meaning (Selected Papers from the 15th International Morphology Meeting, Vienna, February 2010), 177–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Hathout, N.; Plénat, M., and Tanguy, L.. 2003. Enquête sur les dérivés en -able. Cahiers de Grammaire 28, 49–91.Google Scholar

Hay, J. 2001. Lexical frequency in morphology: Is everything relative? Linguistics 39.6, 1041–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hohenhaus, P. 2005. Lexicalization and institutionalization. In Štekauer, P. and Lieber, R. (eds.), Handbook of Word-Formation, 353–74. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Jespersen, O. 1942. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, vol. 6: Morphology. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.Google Scholar

Keune, K.; Ernestus, M., Van Hout, R., and Baayen, R. H.. 2005. Social, geographical, and register variation in Dutch: From written MOGELIJK to spoken MOK. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1, 183–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Koefoed, G., and van Marle, J.. 2000. Productivity. In Booij, G., Lehmann, C., and Mugdan, J. (eds.), An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation, vol. 1, 303–11. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Koehl, A. 2012a. La construction morphologique des noms désadjectivaux de propriété en français. Thesis, Université de Lorraine.Google Scholar

Koehl, A. 2012b. Altitude, négritude, bravitude ou la résurgence d’une suffixation. In Neveu, F., Muni Toke, V., Blumenthal, P., Klinger, T., Ligas, P., Prévost, S., and Teston-Bonnard, S. (eds.), Actes du 3^e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française, Lyon, 1307–23. Paris: Institut de Linguistique Française.Google Scholar

Lignon, S., and Namer, F.. 2010. Comment conversionner les V-ion? Ou la construction de V-ionner par conversion. In Neveu, F., Muni Toke, V., Klingler, T., Durand, J., Mondada, L., and Prévost, S. (eds.), Actes du 2^e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française, New Orleans, 1009–28. Paris: Institut de Linguistique Française.Google Scholar

Lüdeling, A., and Evert, S.. 2005. The emergence of productive non-medical -itis: corpus evidence and qualitative analysis. In Kepser, S. and Reis, M. (eds), Linguistic Evidence: Empirical, Theoretical and Computational Perspectives, 350–70. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Marle, J. van. 1985. On the Paradigmatic Dimension of Morphological Creativity. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar

Marle, J. van. 1992. The relationship between morphological productivity and frequency: A comment on Baayen’s performance-oriented conception of morphological productivity. Yearbook of Morphology 1991, 151–63.Google Scholar

Munat, J. (ed.) 2007. Lexical Creativity, Texts and Contexts: Studies in Functional and Structural Linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Namer, F., and Villoing, F.. 2015. Sens morphologiquement construit et procédés concurrents: Les noms de spécialistes en –logue et –logiste. Revue de sémantique et de pragmatique 35–6, 7–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Panckhurst, R.; Détrie, C., Lopez, C., Moïse, C., Roche, M., and Verine, B.. 2013. Sud4science, de l’acquisition d’un grand corpus de SMS en français à l’analyse de l’écriture SMS. Épistémè: Revue internationale de sciences sociales appliquées 9, 107–38.Google Scholar

Piantadosi, S.; Tily, H., and Gibson, E.. 2012. The communicative function of ambiguity in language. Cognition 122.3, 280–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Plag, I. 1999. Morphological Productivity: Structural Constraints in English Derivation. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Plag, I. 2006. Productivity. In Aarts, B. and McMahon, A. (eds.), Handbook of English Linguistics, 537–56. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar

Plag, I.; Dalton-Puffer, C., and Baayen, R. H., 1999. Productivity and register. Journal of English Language and Linguistics 3, 209–28.Google Scholar

Plénat, M.; Lignon, S., Serna, N., and Lignon, L.. 2002. La conjecture de Pichon. Corpus et recherches linguistiques 1, 105–50.Google Scholar

Pruñonosa-Tomas, M.; Fernandez-Domingez, J., and Penner, V. (eds.) 2013. Theoretical and Empirical Advances in Word-Formation: Quaderns de Filologia. Universitat València.Google Scholar

Rainer, F. 1989. Towards a theory of blocking: The case of Italian and German quality nouns. Yearbook of Morphology 1988, 155–85.Google Scholar

Rainer, F. 2000. Produktivitätsbeschränkungen. In Booij, G., Lehman, C., and Mugdan, J. (eds.), Morphology: An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation, vol. 1., 877–85. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Rainer, F. 2005. Constraints on productivity. In Štekauer, P. and Lieber, R. (eds.), Handbook of Word-Formation, 335–52. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Renner, V., and Fernandez-Dominguez, J.. 2014. False anglicization in the romance languages: A contrastive analysis of French, Spanish and Italian. In Furiassi, C. and Gottlieb, H. (eds.), English: Studies on False Anglicisms in Europe, Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter, Mouton.Google Scholar

Roché, M. 2011. Quelle morphologie? In Roché, M., Boyé, G., Hathout, N., Lignon, S., and Plénat, M. (eds.), Des unités morphologiques au lexique, 15–39. Paris: Hermès.Google Scholar

Roldán-Vendrell, M., and Fernandez-Dominguez, J.. 2012. Emergent neologisms and lexical gaps in specialised languages. Terminology 18.1, 9–26.Google Scholar

Scalise, S. 1990. Morfologia e lessico. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar

Scalise, S.; Ceresa, M., Drigo, M., and Zannier, I.. 1983. Sulla nozione di Blocking in morfologia derivazionale. Lingua e Stile 2, 243–68.Google Scholar

Schultink, H. 1961. Produktiviteit als morfologisch fenomeen. Forum der Letteren 2, 110–25.Google Scholar

Schultink, H. 1992. Herkomst en groei van het begrip “produktiviteit” als morfologisch fenomeen, Produktiviteit als morfologisch fenomeen. In Klein, M. (ed.), Nieuwe eskapades in de neerlandistiek, 187–201. Groningen: Wolfters-Noordhoff.Google Scholar

Seddah, D.; Sagot, B., Candito, M., Mouilleron, V., and Combet, V.. 2012. The French Social Media Bank: A treebank of noisy user generated content. COLING 2012: 24th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, 2441–58. Mumbai: The COLING 2012 Organizing Committee.Google Scholar

Smyk-Bhattacharjee, D. 2006. Acceptance as an integral factor in the interpretation of novel words. Skase Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 3.2, 28–36.Google Scholar

Štekauer, P. 2005. Onomasiological approach to word-formation. In Štekauer, P. and Lieber, R. (eds.), Handbook of Word-Formation, 207–32. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Štekauer, P. (ed.) 2006. Interpretation of novel words. Skase Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 3.2.Google Scholar

Szymanek, B. 2005. The latest trends in English word-formation. In Štekauer, P. and Lieber, R. (eds.), Handbook of Word-Formation, 429–48. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Wielding, M.; Montemagni, S., Nerbonne, J., and Baayen, R. H.. 2014. Lexical differences between Tuscan dialects and Standard Italian: Accounting for geographic and sociodemographic variation using generalized additive mixed modelling, Language 90.3, 669–92.Google Scholar

Zimmer, K. 1964. Affixal negation in English and other languages: an investigation of restricted productivity. Word 20.2, Supplement (Monograph 5).Google Scholar

Zwanenburg, W. 1983. Productivité morphologique et emprunt: Étude des dérivés déverbaux savants en français moderne. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar