Part I - Lexico-Semantic Aspects of Complex Words
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 September 2020
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Complex WordsAdvances in Morphology, pp. 17 - 116Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
References
Andreou, M. and Lieber, R. (2019). Aspectual and quantificational properties of deverbal conversion and -ing nouns. English Language and Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674319000108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asher, N. (2011). Lexical Meaning in Context. A Web of Words, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D. (1979). Word Meaning and Montague Grammar: The Semantics of Verbs and Times in Generative Semantics and Montague's PTQ, Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Fox, C. and Lappin, S. (2005). Foundations of Intensional Semantics, Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frege, G. (1892). Uber Sinn und Bedeutung. In Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik. Translation in Geach, P. and Black, M. (1960). Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Groenendijk, J. and Stokhof, M. (1991). Dynamic predicate logic. Linguistics and Philosophy, 14, 39–100.Google Scholar
Heim, I. and Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in Generative Grammar, Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kamp, H. and Reyle, U. (2011). Discourse representation theory. In Maienborn, C., von Heusinger, K. and Portner, P., eds., Semantics (HSK 33.1), Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 872–923.Google Scholar
Kamp, H., van Genabith, J. and Reyle, U. (2011). Discourse Representation Theory. In Gabbay, D. and Guenthner, F., eds., Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol. 15, 2nd ed. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 25–394.Google Scholar
Katz, J. and Postal, P. (1964). An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Katz, J. (1996). Semantics in linguistics and philosophy: an intensionalist perspective. In Lappin, S., ed., The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 599–616.Google Scholar
Levinson, L. (2014). The ontology of roots and verbs. In Alexiadou, A., Borer, H. and Schaefer, F., eds., The Syntax of Roots and the Roots of Syntax, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 208–229.Google Scholar
Lieber, R. (2004). Morphology and Lexical Semantics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lieber, R. (2016). English Nouns. The Ecology of Nominalization, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieber, R. and Andreou, M. (2018). Aspect and modality in -er nominals. Morphology, 28(2), 187–217. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11525–018-9321-7/CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pross, T. (2019). What about lexical semantics if syntax is the only generative component of the grammar? Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 37(1), 215–261.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. (2006). Type theory and lexical decomposition. Journal of Cognitive Science, 6, 39–76.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, J. (2011). Coercion in a general theory of argument selection. Linguistics, 49(6), 1401–1437.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, L. and McElree, B. (2006). The syntax-semantics interface: on-line composition of sentence meaning. In Traxler, M. and Gernsbacher, M. A., eds., Handbook of Psycholinguistics, New York: Elsevier, pp. 539–579.Google Scholar
Rossdeutscher, A. and Kamp, H. (2010). Syntactic and semantic constraints on the formation and interpretation of -ung-nouns. In Rathert, M. and Alexiadou, A., eds., The Semantics of Nominalizations Across Languages and Frameworks, Berlin: DeGruyter, pp. 169–214.Google Scholar
References
Åfarli, T. A. (1992). The Syntax of Norwegian Passive Constructions (Linguistik Aktuell 7), Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, S. R. (1988). Objects (direct and not so direct) in English and other languages. In Duncan-Rose, C., Vennemann, T. and Fisiak, J., eds., On Language: A Festschrift for Robert Stockwell, Beckenham, Kent: Croom-Helm Publishers, pp. 279–306.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. R. (1990). The grammar of Icelandic verbs in -st. In Maling, J. and Zaenen, A., eds., Icelandic Syntax: 24 (Syntax and Semantics), New York: Academic Press, pp. 235–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, S. R. (2015). The morpheme: its nature and use. In Baerman, M., ed., Oxford Handbook of Inflection, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 11–34.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. R. (2016a). The role of morphology in Transformational Grammar. In Hippisley, A. and Stump, G. T., eds., The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 587–608.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. R. (2016b). Synchronic versus diachronic explanation and the nature of the language faculty. Annual Review of Linguistics, 2, 5.1–5.21.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. R. (2017). Words and paradigms: Peter H. Matthews and the development of morphological theory. Transactions of the Philological Society, 115, 1–13.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. R. and de Saussure, L. (2018). René de Saussure and the Theory of Word Formation (Classics in Linguistics 6). Edition and translation of de Saussure, (1911) and de Saussure, (1919) with commentary. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. (1988). Introducing Linguistic Morphology, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Beavers, J. and Koontz-Garboden, A. (2013). In defense of the reflexivization analysis of anticausativization. Lingua, 131, 199–216.Google Scholar
Engdahl, E. (1999). The choice between bli-passive and s-passive in Danish, Norwegian and Swedish. NORDSEM Report 3. www.svenska.gu.se/digitalAssets/1336/ 1336829_engdahl-nordsem-passivechoice-1999.pdf.Google Scholar
Fernald, T., Legah, L., Perkins, A.N.E. and Platero, P. (2000). Definite and indefinite descriptions in Navajo. In Fernald, T. and Hale, K., eds., Diné Bizaad naalkaah: Navajo Language Investigations, Cambridge, MA: Working Papers on Endangered and Less Familiar Languages 3, pp. 31–54.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (1990). The grammaticalization of passive morphology. Studies in Language, 14, 25–72.Google Scholar
Horvath, J. and Siloni, T. (2011a). Anticausatives: against reflexivization. Lingua, 121, 2176–2186.Google Scholar
Horvath, J. and Siloni, T. (2011b). Causatives across components. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 29, 657–704.Google Scholar
Horvath, J. and Siloni, T. (2013). Anticausatives have no cause(r): a rejoinder to Beavers and Koontz-Garboden. Lingua, 131, 217–230.Google Scholar
Jónsson, J. G. (1995). Merkingarhlutverk, rökliðir og fallmörkun [Thematic roles, arguments and casemarking]. In Thráinsson, H., ed., Setningar: Handbók um setningafræði, Reykjavík: Almenna bókafélagið, pp. 350–409.Google Scholar
Koontz-Garboden, A. (2007). States, Changes of State, and the Monotonicity Hypothesis, PhD thesis, Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar
Koontz-Garboden, A. (2009). Anticausativization. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 27, 77–137.Google Scholar
Ottósson, K. G. (1992). The Icelandic Middle Voice: The Morphological and Phonological Development, PhD thesis, Lund University.Google Scholar
Palancar, E. L. (2006). Intransitivity and the origins of middle voice in Otomi. Linguistics, 44, 613–643.Google Scholar
Payne, T. E. (1990). Transitivity and ergativity in Panare. In Payne, D. L., ed., Amazonian Linguistics, Austin: University of Texas Press, pp. 429–453Google Scholar
de Saussure, R. (1911). Principes logiques de la formation de mots, Geneva: Librairie Kündig.Google Scholar
de Saussure, R. (1919). La structure logique des mots dans les langues naturelles, considérées au point de vue de son application aux langues artificielles, Berne: Librairie A. Lefilleul.Google Scholar
Schäfer, F. and Vivanco, M. (2016). Anticausatives are weak scalar expressions, not reflexive expressions. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 1(1), 18. http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.36.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, H. Á. (1989). Verbal Syntax and Case in Icelandic, PhD thesis, Lund University.Google Scholar
Stump, G. T. (2001). Inflectional Morphology: A Theory of Paradigm Structure, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thráinsson, H. (2007). The Syntax of Icelandic. Cambridge Syntax Guides, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thráinsson, H., Petersen, H. P., Jacobsen, J. L. and Hansen, Z. S. (2004). Faroese: An Overview and Reference Grammar, Tórshavn: Føroya Fróðskaparfelag.Google Scholar
Vari-Bogari, H. (2019). Valency adjusting strategies in Raga, a language of Vanuatu. Te Reo, 60, 3–28.Google Scholar
Wood, J. (2014). Reflexive -st verbs in Icelandic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 32, 1387–1425.Google Scholar
Wood, J. (2015). Icelandic Morphosyntax and Argument Structure (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 50), Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
References
Aronoff, M. (2016). Competition and the lexicon. In Elia, A., Iacobino, C. and Voghera, M., eds., Livelli di Analisi e Fenomeni di Interfaccia. Atti del XLVII Congresso Internazionale della Società di Linguistica Italiana. Roma: Bulzoni Editore, pp. 39–52.Google Scholar
Aronoff, M. (2019). Competitors and alternants in linguistic morphology. In Rainer, F., Gardani, F., Dressler, W. and Luschützky, H.C., eds., Competition in Inflection and Word Formation, Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H. (1992). Quantitative aspects of morphological productivity. In Booij, G. E. and van Marle, J., eds., Yearbook of Morphology 1991, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 109–149.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. (2005). The borderline between derivation and compounding. In Dressler, W., Kastovsky, D., Pfeiffer, O. and Rainer, F., eds., Morphology and Its Demarcations, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 97–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L., Lieber, R. and Plag, I. (2013). The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. and Plag, I. (2000). Categorywise, some compound-type morphemes seem to be rather suffix-like: on the status of -ful, -type, and -wise in present day English. Folia Linguistica, 34, 225–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandi, N. and Körtvélyessy, L. (2015). Edinburgh Handbook of Evaluative Morphology, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Kachru, B. (1990). The Alchemy of English: The Spread, Functions, and Models of Non-native Englishes, Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Marchand, H. (1969). The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Formation, München: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar
Potts, C. (2005). The Logic of Conventional Implicature, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Potts, C. and Kawahara, S. (2004). Japanese honorifics as emotive definite descriptions. In Watanabe, K. and Young, R. B., eds., Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 14, Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications, pp. 235–254.Google Scholar
Olsen, S. (2014). Delineating derivation and compounding. In Lieber, R. and Štekauer, P., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 26–49.Google Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary Online, Oxford: Oxford University Press. www.oxforddictionaries.com.Google Scholar
References
Alibert, L. (1966). Dictionnaire occitan-français, d’après les parlers languedociens, Toulouse: Institut d’Études Occitanes.Google Scholar
Anscombre, J.-C. (2013). El sufijo -ón en español contemporáneo: Morfología y prototipos. Oralia, 16, 11−32.Google Scholar
Bahder, K. von (1880). Die Verbalabstracta in den germanischen Sprachen ihrer Bildung nach dargestellt, Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Bosque, I. and Pérez Fernández, M. (1987). Diccionario inverso de la lengua española, Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Canello, U. A. (1878). Gli allótropi italiani. Archivio Glottologico Italiano, 3, 285−419.Google Scholar
Croatto, E. (2005–2006). I suffissi sostantivali, aggettivali e verbali nel dialetto ladinocadorino di Cortina d’Ampezzo. (Belluno). Archivio per l’Alto Adige, 99/100, 123−38.Google Scholar
Dardano, M. (1978). La formazione delle parole nell’italiano di oggi: Primi materiali e proposte, Roma: Bulzoni.Google Scholar
DCat = Coromines, J. (1995). Diccionari etimològic i complementari de la llengua catalana, 9 vols., Barcelona: Curial.Google Scholar
DCECH = Corominas, J. and Pascual, J. A. (1990–1991). Diccionario crítico etimológico castellano e hispánico, 6 vols., Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
DEI = Battisti, C. and Alessio, G. (1950–1957). Dizionario Etimologico Italiano, 5 vols., Firenze: Barbèra.Google Scholar
DELI = Cortelazzo, M. and Zolli, P. (1999). Dizionario Etimologico della Lingua Italiana, 2nd ed., Bologna: Zanichelli.Google Scholar
DIEC = Institut d’Estudis Catalans (2019). Diccionari de la llengua catalana, 2nd ed. http://mdlc.iec.cat/Google Scholar
DISC = Sabatini, F. and Coletti, V. (1997). Dizionario Italiano Sabatini Coletti, Firenze: Giunti.Google Scholar
EWD = Kramer, J. (1988–1996). Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Dolomitenladinischen, 7 vols., Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
EWFS = Gamillscheg, E. (1969). Etymologisches Wörterbuch der französischen Sprache, 2nd ed., Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Faitelson-Weiser, S. (1980). Les suffixes quantificateurs de l’espagnol, Paris: Éditions Hispaniques.Google Scholar
FEW = von Wartburg, W. (1928). Französisches etymologisches Wörterbuch: Eine Darstellung des galloromanischen Sprachschatzes, 24 vols., Basel: Zbinden, etc.Google Scholar
Fisch, R. (1890). Die lateinischen nomina personalia auf „o, onis“: Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis des Vulgärlateins, Berlin: Gaertner.Google Scholar
Gaide, F. (2002). Les substantifs masculins latins en -(i)ō, -(i)ōnis: Étude synchronique. In Kircher-Durand, Ch., ed., Grammaire fondamentale du latin, vol. 9: Création lexicale: la formation des mots par dérivation suffixale, Louvain: Peeters, pp. 307−336.Google Scholar
GDLI = Battaglia, S. and Barberi Squarotti, G., eds. (1961–2002). Grande Dizionario della Lingua Italiana, 21 vols., Torino: UTET.Google Scholar
Genasci, D. (2011). La formazione delle parole nel dialetto di Airolo, Magisterarbeit: Universität Zürich.Google Scholar
González Fernández, I. (1978). Sufijos nominales en el gallego actual, Santiago de Compostela: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela.Google Scholar
Hajek, J. (1988). Survival of the suffix -unz(a) in Northern Italian and Romantsch. Vox Romanica, 47, 103−8.Google Scholar
Heinemann, S. (2002). Zur funktional-semantischen Heterogenität von ital. -one unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Adverbbildung. In Heinemann, S., Bernhard, G. and Kattenbusch, D., eds., Roma et Romania: Festschrift für Gerhard Ernst zum 65. Geburtstag, Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 135−50.Google Scholar
Houaiss, A. (2001). Dicionário Houaiss da lingua portuguesa, Rio de Janeiro: Objetiva.Google Scholar
Institutul de Lingvistică din Bucureşti. (1957). Dicţionar invers, Bucureşti: Ed. Academiei Republicii Populare Romîne.Google Scholar
Kluge, F. (1886). Nominale Stammbildungslehre der altgermanischen Dialecte, Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Kremer, R. (1996). Die Werkzeugbezeichnungen im Italienischen, Bonn: Romanistischer Verlag.Google Scholar
Lo Duca, M. G. (2004). Nomi di strumento. In Grossmann, M. and Rainer, F., eds., La formazione delle parole in italiano, Tübingen: Niemeyer, pp. 364−74.Google Scholar
Luschützky, H. C. and Rainer, F. (2013). Instrument and place nouns: a typological and diachronic perspective. Linguistics, 51(6), 1301−59.Google Scholar
Lutz, F. and Strehle, D. (1988). Rückläufiges Wörterbuch des Surselvischen / Diziunari invers dil romontsch sursilvan, Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Machado, J. P. (1967–1973). Dicionário etimológico da lingua portuguesa, 2nd ed., Lisboa: Confluência.Google Scholar
Mascaró, J. and Rafel, J. (1990). Diccionari català invers amb informació morfològica, Barcelona: Publicancions de l’Abadia de Monserrat.Google Scholar
Melcher, F. (1924). Furmaziun nominala nel idiom d’Engadin’Ota. Annalas da la Societad Retorumantscha, 38, 119−79.Google Scholar
Meyer, W. (1888). Das lateinische Suffix ō, ōnis. Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik, 5, 223−33.Google Scholar
Meyer-Lübke, W. (1894). Grammatik der romanischen Sprachen, vol. 2: Formenlehre, Leipzig: Fues.Google Scholar
Meyer-Lübke, W. (1921). Historische Grammatik der französischen Sprache, vol. 2: Wortbildungslehre, Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Nyrop, K. (1908). Grammaire historique de la langue française, vol. 3: Formation des mots, Copenhagen: Gyldendal.Google Scholar
Pena, J. (1980). La derivación en español: Verbos derivados y sustantivos verbales, Santiago de Compostela: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela.Google Scholar
Piel, J.-M. (1989 [1940]). A formação dos nomes de lugares e de instrumentos em Português. In id. Estudos de linguística histórica galego-portuguesa, Lisboa: Imprensa Nacional-Casa da Moeda, pp. 201−11. (First published in Boletim de Filologia, 7, 31−47.)Google Scholar
Popescu-Marin, M., ed. (2007). Formarea cuvintelor în limba română din secolele al XVI-lea − al XVIII-lea, Bucureşti: Editura Academiei Române.Google Scholar
Pupier, P. (1999). Le morphème est plus une unité de forme qu’une unité de signification: Le cas de -on en français. Cahiers de Lexicologie, 74(1), 53−60.Google Scholar
Rainer, F. (2011). The agent-instrument-place “polysemy” of the suffix -tor in Romance. STUF – Language Typology and Universals, 64(1), 8−32.Google Scholar
REW = Meyer-Lübke, W. (1935). Romanisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, 3rd ed., Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Rio-Torto, G. M. (1993). Formação de palavras em português: Aspectos da construção de avaliativos, PhD thesis, Coimbra: Universidade de Coimbra.Google Scholar
Rio-Torto, G., ed. (2016). Gramática derivacional do português, 2nd ed., Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra.Google Scholar
Rohlfs, G. (1931). Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Pyrenäenmundarten. Revue de Linguistique Romane, 7, 119−69.Google Scholar
Rohlfs, G. (1969). Grammatica storica della lingua italiana e dei suoi dialetti, vol. 3: Sintassi e formazione delle parole, Torino: Einaudi.Google Scholar
Ronjat, J. (1937). Grammaire istorique des parlers provençaux modernes, vol. 3, Montpellier: Société des langues romanes.Google Scholar
Seidl, R. (1937). Die Nomina agentis und die denominalen Ableitungen auf -one im Galloromanischen, Dissertation, Universität Innsbruck.Google Scholar
Siller-Runggaldier, H. (1989). Grödnerische Wortbildung, Innsbruck: Institut für Romanistik.Google Scholar
Spitzer, L. (1921). Das Suffix -one im Romanischen. In Gamillscheg, E. and Spitzer, L. eds., Beiträge zur romanischen Wortbildungslehre, Genf: Olschki, pp. 183–205.Google Scholar
Tekavčić, P. (1984). La formazione delle parole nell’istroromanzo rovignese contemporaneo. L’Italia Dialettale, 47, 111−82.Google Scholar
TL = Tobler, A. and Lommatzsch, E. (1925–2002). Altfranzösisches Wörterbuch, 11 vols., Wiesbaden: Steiner.Google Scholar
TLFi = Trésor de la langue française informatisé. http://atilf.atilf.fr/Google Scholar
Tollemache, F. (1959). Derivati in -one, -ino e -ío di deverbali della lingua italiana. L’Italia Dialettale, 23, 55−74, 192−200.Google Scholar
Urdiales, M. (1979). Sobre las voces españolas masculinas terminadas en -ón. In Estudios ofrecidos a E. Alarcos Llorach (con motivo de sus XXV años de docencia en la Universidad de Oviedo), vol. 4, Oviedo: Universidad de Oviedo, pp. 181−208.Google Scholar
Videsott, P. and Plangg, G. A. (1998). Ennebergisches Wörterbuch / Vocabular mareo, Innsbruck: Wagner.Google Scholar
Vieli, R. and Decurtins, A. (1962). Vocabulari romontsch: Sursilvan-tudestg, Cuera: Ligia Romontscha.Google Scholar
Walker, D. C. (1982). Dictionnaire inverse de l’ancien français, Ottawa: Éditions de l’Université d’Ottawa.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, A. (1904). Die lateinischen Personennamen auf -o, -onis. Archiv für lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik, 13, 225−52, 415−26, 475−501.Google Scholar
References
Arad, M. (2003). Locality constraints on the interpretation of roots: the case of Hebrew denominal verbs. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 21(4), 737–778.Google Scholar
Baeskow, H. (2006). Reflections on noun-to-verb conversion in English. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 25, 205–237. https://doi.org/10.1515/ZFS.2006.008.Google Scholar
Baeskow, H. (2019). Denominal verbs in morphology. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics, Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.502.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. (1983). English Word-Formation, reprinted 1993, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bauer, L., Lieber, R. and Plag, I. (2013). The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blank, A. (2001). Einführung in die lexikalische Semantik für Romanisten, Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Borer, H. (2014). The category of roots. In Alexiadou, A., Borer, H. and Schäfer, F., eds., The Syntax of Roots and the Roots of Syntax, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 112–148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199665266.003.0006Google Scholar
Burgschmidt, E. (1975). System, Norm und Produktivität in der Wortbildung, Erlangen: Seminar für englische Philologie.Google Scholar
Chan, M. K. M. and Tai, J. H.-Y. (1995). From nouns to verbs. Verbalization in Chinese dialects and East Asian languages. In Camacho, J. and Choueiri, L., eds., Sixth North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics, NACCL-6, Los Angeles: Graduate Students in Linguistics (GSIL), USC. Volume II, pp. 49–74.Google Scholar
Cheng, J. and Lasnik, H. (2016). Parametric variations in English and Mandarin denominal verb derivation. Lingua, 180, 25–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2016.03.006.Google Scholar
Dirven, R. (1999). Conversion as a conceptual metonymy of event schemata. In Panther, K.-U. and Radden, G., eds., Metonymy in Language and Thought, Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 275–287.Google Scholar
Dowty, D. R. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67, 547–619.Google Scholar
Eco, U. (1979). The Role of the Reader. Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Fabrizio, C. (2013). The meaning of a noun converted into a verb. A semantic exploration on Italian. Rivista di Linguistica, 25(2), 175–219.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. (1968). The case for case. In Bach, E. and Harms, R. T., eds., Universals in Linguistic Theory, London: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp. 1–88.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hale, K. and Keyser, S. J. (2002). Prolegomena to a Theory of Argument Structure, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harley, H. (2005). How do verbs get their names? Denominal verbs, manner incorporation, and the ontology of verb roots in English. In Erteschik-Shir, N. and Rapoport, T., eds., The Syntax of Aspect, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 42–64.Google Scholar
Heusinger, K. von (1997). Salienz und Referenz. Der Epsilonoperator in der Semantik der Nominalphrase und anaphorischer Pronomen, Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, N. P. and Primus, B. (2015). Prominence beyond prosody. A first approximation. In De Dominicis, A., ed., pS-ProminenceS: Prominences in Linguistics. Proceedings of the pS-prominenceS International Conference, University of Tuscia, Viterbo: DISUCOM Press, pp. 38–58.Google Scholar
Jasinskaja, S., Chiriacescu, S., Donazzan, M., von Heusinger, K. and Hinterwimmer, S. (2015). Prominence in discourse. In De Dominicis, A., ed., pS-ProminenceS: Prominences in Linguistics. Proceedings of the pS-prominenceS International Conference, University of Tuscia, Viterbo: DISUCOM Press, pp. 134–153.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1942). A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Part VI: Morphology, Reprinted 1974, London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar
Karius, I. (1985). Die Ableitung der denominalen Verben mit Nullsuffigierung im Englischen, Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Kastovsky, D. (1982). Wortbildung und Semantik, Düsseldorf: Pädagogischer Verlag Schwann-Bagel GmbH.Google Scholar
Kerremans, D. (2015). A Web of New Words. A Corpus-Based Study of the Conventionalization Process of English Neologisms, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1997). Remarks on denominal verbs. In Alsina, A., Bresnan, J. and Sells, P., eds., Complex Predicates, Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 473–499.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z. and Radden, G. (1998). Metonymy: Developing a cognitive linguistics view. Cognitive Linguistics, 9, 37–77.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal About the Mind, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. (1993). Reference-point constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 4(1), 1–38.Google Scholar
Levin, B. (2005). Semantic prominence and argument realization II. The thematic hierarchy: A window into semantic prominence. Course 123, MIT. https://web.stanford.edu/~bclevin/lsa05thier.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieber, R. (1981). On the Organization of the Lexicon, Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club (IULC).Google Scholar
Lieber, R. (2004). Morphology and Lexical Semantics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marchand, H. (1969). The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Formation. A Synchronic-Diachronic Approach, Munich: Verlag C.H. Beck.Google Scholar
Oyón, A. L. (2013). Revisiting Goldberg’s constraints on the ‘way’ construction. RESLA, 26, 349–364.Google Scholar
Plag, I. (1999). Morphological Productivity: Structural Constraints in English Derivation, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rauh, G. (1988). Tiefenkasus, thematische Relationen, Thetarollen. Die Entwicklung einer Theorie von semantischen Relationen, Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Rong, B. (2014). Denominal Verbs in English and Mandarin from a Cognitive Perspective. Dissertation Submitted in Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Linguistics, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur. http://studentsrepo.um.edu.my/5679/1/BAI_RONG_TGC_110023.pdf.Google Scholar
Schönefeld, D. (2005). Zero-derivation – functional change – metonymy. In Bauer, L. and Valera, S., eds., Approaches to Conversion/Zero-Derivation, Münster: Waxmann Verlag GmbH.Google Scholar
Schönefeld, D. (2018). Friending someone into submission. Verbal cues for understanding. Word Structure, 11(2), 211–237.Google Scholar
Štekauer, P. (1996). A Theory of Conversion in English, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Štekauer, P. (2005). Meaning Predictability in Word Formation. Novel, Context-Free Naming Units, Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Thomaßen, H. (2004). Lexikalische Semantik des Italienischen. Eine Einführung, Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Ueding, G. and Steinbrink, B. (2011). Grundriß der Rhetorik. Geschichte - Technik - Methode, 5th ed., Stuttgart and Weimar: Verlag J.B. Metzler.Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2008–) The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 520 million words, 1990-present. Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/.Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2018–) The 14 Billion Word iWeb Corpus. Available online at https://corpus.byu.edu/iWeb/.Google Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary. Available online at www.oed.com.Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2008–) The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 520 million words, 1990-present. Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/.Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2018–) The 14 Billion Word iWeb Corpus. Available online at https://corpus.byu.edu/iWeb/.Google Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary. Available online at www.oed.com.Google Scholar
Electronic Sources
Davies, M. (2008–) The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 520 million words, 1990-present. Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/.Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2018–) The 14 Billion Word iWeb Corpus. Available online at https://corpus.byu.edu/iWeb/.Google Scholar
Oxford English Dictionary. Available online at www.oed.com.Google Scholar
References
Allen, M. (1978). Morphological Investigations, PhD dissertation, Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Barwise, J. and Cooper, R. (1981). Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy, 4, 159–219.Google Scholar
Bisetto, A. and Scalise, S. (2005). Classification of compounds. Lingue e linguaggio, 2, 319–332.Google Scholar
Brekle, H. E. (1986). The production and interpretation of ad hoc nominal compounds in German: A realistic approach. Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 36, 39–52.Google Scholar
Donnellan, K. (1966). Reference and definite descriptions. Philosophical Review, 75, 281–304.Google Scholar
Downing, P. (1977). On the creation and use of English compound nouns. Language, 53, 810–842.Google Scholar
Evans, G. (1973). A causal theory of names. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 47, 187–208.Google Scholar
Fábregas, A. (2005). The Definition of the Grammatical Category in a Syntactically-Oriented Morphology, PhD dissertation, Madrid: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.Google Scholar
Fernández-Leborans, M. J. (1999). El nombre propio. In Bosque, I. and Demonte, V., dirs., Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, Madrid: Espasa, pp. 77–129.Google Scholar
Frege, G. (1892) [1952]. On sense and reference. In Geach, P. and Black, M., eds., Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 56–79.Google Scholar
Hale, K. and Keyser, S. J. (2002). Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halle, M. and Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, K. and Keyser, S. J., eds., The View from Building 20, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 111–176.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (2010). The ecology of English N-N compounds. In Jackendoff, R., ed., Meaning and the Lexicon, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 413–451.Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. (2009). Proper-name nominal compounds in Swedish between syntax and lexicon. Rivista di Linguistica, 21, 119–148.Google Scholar
Mill, J. S. (1843). A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive, London: John W. Parker, West Strand.Google Scholar
Rainer, F. (2013). Can relational adjectives really express any relation? An onomasiological approach. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 10, 12–40.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. (1983). La sémantique des noms propres: remarques sur la notion de désignateur rigide. Langue Française, 57, 106–118.Google Scholar
Sadock, J. M. (1998). On the autonomy of compounding morphology. In Lapointe, S. G., Brentari, D. K. and Farrell, P. M., eds., Morphology and Its Relation to Phonology and Syntax, Stanford: CSLI, pp. 161–187.Google Scholar
Ten Hacken, P. (2016). The Semantics of Compounding, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wackernagel, J. (1905). Altindische Grammatik. II, 1: Einleitung zur Wortlehre. Nominalkomposition, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Wälchli, B. (2005). Co-compounds and natural coordination, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wälchli, B. (2015). Co-compounds. In Müller, P. O., Ohnheiser, I., Olsen, S. and Rainer, F., eds., Word-Formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 707–727.Google Scholar