Amiot, D. and Van Goethem, K.
2012A Constructional Account of French -clé ‘key’ and Dutch sleutel- ‘key’ as in mot-clé / sleutelwoord ‘key word’. Morphology 221: 347–364. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, H. and Lieber, R.
1991Productivity and English Derivation: A Corpus-Based Study. Linguistics 291: 801–843. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, H.
2009Corpus Linguistics in Morphology: Morphological Productivity. In Corpus Linguistics. An International Handbook, A. Lüdeling and M. Kytö (eds), 900–919. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bakema, P. and Geeraerts, D.
2000Diminution and Augmentation. In Morphology. An International Handbook on Inflection and Word Formation, G. Booij, C. Lehmann and J. Mugdan (eds), 1045–1052. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J.
Bauer, L.
1983English Word-Formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997Evaluative Morphology: In Search of Universals. Studies in Language 21(3): 533–575. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blank, A.
2001112. Pathways of Lexicalization. In Language Typology and Language Universals (Vol. 21), M. Haspelmath, E. König, W. Oesterreicher and W. Raible (eds), 1596–1608. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Booij, G.
2010Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cappelle, B., Daugs, R. and Hartmann, S.
2023The English Privative Prefixes near-, pseudo- and quasi-: Approximation and ‘Disproximation’. Zeitschrift für Wortbildung/Journal of Word Formation 7(1): 52–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet, H.
2012The Course of Actualization. Language 88(3): 601–633. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dressler, W. U. and Barbaresi, L. M.
1994Morphopragmatics. Diminutives and Intensifiers in Italian, German, and other Languages. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Efthymiou, A.
2015Modern Greek Diminutive and Augmentative Adjectives (in a Cross-Linguistic Perspective). SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 21(1): 57–71.Google Scholar
Eitelmann, M., Haugland, K. E. and Haumann, D.
2020From 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eitelmann, M. and Haumann, D.
2023Getting close-ish: A Corpus-Based Exploration of -ish as a Marker of Approximation and Vagueness. Zeitschrift für Wortbildung/Journal of Word Formation 7(1): 76–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giannoulopoulou, G.
2006On the Borderline between Lexicon and Grammar: Confixes in Modern Greek and Italian. Language Typology and Universals 59(3): 270–283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gardani, F.
2020Borrowing Matter and Pattern in Morphology. An Overview. Morphology 301: 263–282. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grandi, N. and Körtvélyessy, L.
(eds) 2015Edinburgh Handbook of Evaluative Morphology. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grandi, N.
2017I diminutivi come marche di attenuazione e indeterminatezza. In L’expression de l’imprécision dans les langues romanes, O. D. Balaş, A. Ciama, M. Enăchescu, A. Gebăilă and R. Voicu (eds), 162–175. Bucharest: Ars docendi – Universitatea din București.Google Scholar
Hüning, M., Vogl, U., van der Wouden, T. and Verhagen, A.
2006Nederlands tussen Duits en Engels. Handelingen van de workshop aan de Freie Universität Berlin. Leiden: Stichting Neerlandistiek Leiden.Google Scholar
Iacobini, C.
2015Foreign Word-Formation in Italian. In Word-Formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe (Vol. 31), P. O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen and F. Rainer (eds), 1660–1679. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, D.
1996Universal Tendencies in the Semantics of the Diminutive. Language 72(3): 533–578. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kastovsky, D.
2009Astronaut, Astrology, Astrophysics: About Combining Forms, Classical Compounds and Affixoids. In Selected Proceedings of the 2008 Symposium on New Approaches in English Historical Lexis (HEL-LEX 2), R. W. McConchie, J. Tyrkkö and A. Honkapohja (eds), 1–13. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Kempf, L. and Eitelmann, M.
2018Von diutisk zu dynamisch, von englisc zu anything-ish. is(c)h kontrastiv diachron. Zeitschrift für Wortbildung / Journal of Word Formation 2(1): 93–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kilgarriff, A., Baisa, V., Bušta, J., Jakubíček, M., Kovář, V., Michelfeit, J., Rychlý, P. and Suchomel, V.
2014The Sketch Engine: Ten Years on. Lexicography 11: 7–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, E. and Gast, V.
2018Understanding English-German Contrasts (4th ed.). Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.Google Scholar
Körtvélyessy, L. and Štekauer, P.
(eds) 2011Diminutives and Augmentatives in the Languages of the World. Lexis: e-journal in English lexicology 61: 5–25.Google Scholar
Körtvélyessy, L.
2015Evaluative Morphology from a Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Kuzmack, S.
2007Ish: A New Case of Antigrammaticalization. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Lamiroy, B.
2011Degré de grammaticalisation à travers les langues de la même famille. Mémoires de la Société de linguistique de Paris 191: 167–192.Google Scholar
Levshina, N.
Masini, F. and Micheli, S.
2020The Morphological Expression of Approximation: The Emerging simil- Construction in Italian. Word Structure 13(3): 371–402. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Masini, F., Norde, M. and Van Goethem, K.
2023Approximation in Morphology: A State of the Art. Zeitschrift für Wortbildung/Journal of Word Formation 7(1): 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Merlini Barbaresi, L.
2015Evaluative Morphology and Pragmatics. In Edinburgh Handbook of Evaluative Morphology, N. Grandi and L. Körtvélyessy (eds), 32–42. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norde, M.
2009Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norde, M. and Van Goethem, K.
2015Emancipatie van affixen en affixoïden. Nederlandse Taalkunde 201: 109–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018Debonding and Clipping of Prefixoids in Germanic: Constructionalization or Constructional Change? In The Construction of Words, G. Booij (ed.), 475–518. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oltra-Massuet, I.
2017Towards a Morphosyntactic Analysis of -ish . Word Structure 10(1): 54–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prćić, T.
2005Prefixes vs Initial Combining Forms in English: A Lexicographic Perspective. International Journal of Lexicography 18(3): 313–334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prieto, V. M.
2005Spanish Evaluative Morphology: Pragmatic, Sociolinguistic, and Semantic Issues. PhD Thesis, University of Florida.
Rainer, F.
2015Intensification. In Word-formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe (Vol. 21), P. O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen and F. Rainer (eds), 1339–1351. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schneider, K. P.
2003Diminutives in English. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Seifart, F.
2015Direct and Indirect Affix Borrowing. Language 91(3): 511–532. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Goethem, K. and De Smet, H.
Van Goethem, K. and Koutsoukos, N.
2022How Typology Shapes the Constructional Network: Denominal Verb Constructions in English, Dutch and German. Zeitschrift für Wortbildung/Journal of Word Formation 6(1): 7–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Goethem, K. and Norde, M.
2020Extravagant “Fake” Morphemes in Dutch. Morphological Productivity, Semantic Profiles and Categorical Flexibility. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 16(3): 425–458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Haeringen, C. B.
1956Nederlands tussen Duits en Engels. The Hague: Servire.Google Scholar
Vassiliadou, H., Gerhard-Krait, F., Fotiadou, G. and Lammert, M.
2023 Pseudo(-) in French and Greek: Categorization and Approximation. Zeitschrift für Wortbildung/Journal of Word Formation 7(1): 234–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar


Online Etymological Dictionary (Etymonline)
Oxford English Dictionary (OED)
[URL]; TenTen corpora available on SketchEngine used in this study:
– Danish: daTenTen17 (1.9 billion tokens)
– Dutch: nlTenTen14 (2.6 billion tokens)
– English: enTenTen15 (13.2 billion tokens)
– French: frTenTen17 (5.8 billion tokens)
– German: deTenTen13 (16.5 billion tokens)
– Italian: itTenTen16 (4.9 billion tokens)
– Spanish: esTenTen18 (16.9 billion tokens)
– Swedish: svTenTen14 (3.4 billion tokens)
Svenska Akademiens Ordbok (SAOB)
scientific dictionary published by the Swedish Academy): [URL]
Trésor de la langue française informatisé (TLFi)
Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal (WNT)