Cover not available
Review published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 28:1 (2004) ► pp.225–237
Book review

Joan Bybee. Phonology and Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. xviii + 238 pp.

Reviewed by
| Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Published online: 5 May 2004
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.28.1.12boo
References (34)
References
Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Baayen, Harald; Burani, Christina; and Schreuder, Robert. 1997. “Effects of semantic markedness in the processing of regular nominal and singular plurals in Italian”. In: Booij, Geert; and van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1996, 13–34. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 1993. Review of Becker 1990. In: Booij, Geert; and van Marle, Jaap (eds), Yearbook of morphology 1992, 264–68. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Baumann, Monica. 1996. The production of syllables in connected speech, Ph.D. diss., University of Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Becker, Thomas. 1990. Analogie und morphologische Theorie. München: Fink.Google Scholar
Bergem, Dick van. 1995. Acoustic and lexical vowel reduction, Ph. D. diss, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Bochner, Harry. 1993. Simplicity in generative morphology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert. 1997. “Non-derivational phonology meets Lexical Phonology”. In Roca, Iggy (ed.), Derivations and constraints in phonology, 261–288. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
. 1999. “The role of the prosodic word in phonotactic generalizations”. In: Hall and Kleinhenz (eds.), 47–72.Google Scholar
. 2002. The morphology of Dutch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. In press. “Lexical storage and phonological change”. To appear in Hanson, Kristin; and Inkelas, Sharon (eds.) The nature of words. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logo
Burzio, Luigi. 2000. “Cycles, non-derived environment blocking, and correspondence”. In: Dekkers, Joost; van der Leeuw, Frank; and van de Weijer, Jeroen (eds.), Optimality theory. Phonology, syntax and acquisition, 47–87. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1988 “Morphology as lexical organization”. In: Hammond, Michael; and Noonan, Michael (eds.), Theoretical morphology. Approaches to modern linguistics, 119–142. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 1993. “Morphology without word-internal constituents: A review of Stephen R. Anderson’s A-morphous morphology”. In: Booij, Geert; and van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1992, 209–34. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Clahsen, Harald. 1999. “Lexical entries and rules of language. A multidisciplinary study of German inflection”. Brain and Behavioral Sciences 221: 991–1013. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ernestus, Mirjam. 2000. Voice assimilation and segment reduction in casual Dutch. Ph.D. diss, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Ernestus, Mirjam; and Baayen, Harald. 2001. “Choosing between the Dutch past tense suffxes -te and -de ”. In: van der Wouden, Ton; and Broekhuis, Hans (eds.) Linguistics in the Netherlands 2001, 77–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hall, Tracy Alan; and Kleinhenz, Ursula. 1999 (eds.). Studies on the phonological word. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hay, Jennifer. 2001. “Lexical frequency in morphology: is everything relative?” Linguistics 391: 1041–1070. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1975. “Semantic and morphological regularities in the lexicon”. Language 511: 639–671. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jong, Nivja de; Schreuder, Robert; and Baayen, Harald. 2000. “The morphological size effect and morphology”. Language and Cognitive Processes 151: 329–365. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krott, Andrea. 2001. Analogy in morphology. The selection of linking elements in Dutch compounds. Ph. D. diss., Univ. of Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. 1989. Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1992. “Accessing words in speech production: Stages, processes and representations”. Cognition 421: 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marle, Jaap van. 1985. On the paradigmatic dimension of morphological creativity. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1998. Language form and language function. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2000. Three book-length studies of language evolution. Journal of Linguistics 361: 383–398. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nooteboom, Sieb; Weerman, Fred; and Wijnen, Frank. (eds.) 2002. Storage and computation in the language faculty. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1999. Words and rules. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Santen, Ariane van. 1992. Productiviteit in taal en taalgebruik. Ph. D. Diss., Univ. of Leiden.Google Scholar
Schultink, Hendrik. 1962. De morfologische valentie van het ongelede adjectief in modern Nederlands. ‘s Gravenhage: Van Goor Zonen.Google Scholar
Skousen, Roy. 1989. Analogical modeling of language. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 2001. Inflectional morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wijk, Nicolaas van. 1939. Phonologie. Een hoofdstuk uit de structurele taalwetenschap. ‘s-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Hinskens, Frans, Ben Hermans & Marc van Oostendorp
2014. Grammar or lexicon. Or: Grammar and lexicon? Rule-based and usage-based approaches to phonological variation. Lingua 142 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Hinskens, Frans
2011. Lexicon, phonology and phonetics. Or: rule-based and usage-based approaches to phonological variation. In Linguistic Universals and Language Variation, ► pp. 425 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.