Cover not available
Part of
Extravagant Morphology: Studies in rule-bending, pattern-extending and theory-challenging morphology
Edited by Matthias Eitelmann and Dagmar Haumann
[Studies in Language Companion Series 223] 2022
► pp. 1–18

Extravagance in morphology

Introduction

| University of Mainz
| University of Bergen
Article outline
  • 1.On the notion of extravagance
  • 2.Morphological extravagance in three respects
  • 3.The extravagant phenomena studied in this volume
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 16 March 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.223.01eit
References (58)
References
Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-morphous Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge: The MIT-Press.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald & Lieber, Rochelle. 1991. Productivity and English word-formation: A corpus-based study. Linguistics 29(5): 801–843. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie, Lieber, Rochelle & Plag, Ingo. 2013. The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 1983. English Word-Formation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergs, Alexander. 2018. Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist (Picasso): Linguistic aberrancy from a constructional perspective. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 66(3): 277–293. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergs, Alexander & Kompa, Nikola Anna. 2020. Creativity within and outside the linguistic system. Cognitive Semiotics 13(1): 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bochnak, M. Ryan & Csipak, Eva. 2014. A new metalinguistic degree morpheme. Proceedings of SALT 24: 432–452. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2013. Taking Form: Structuring Sense Volume 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. The generative word. In The Cambridge companion to Chomsky, James McGilvray (ed), 110–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Botha, Rudolf P. 1984. Morphological Mechanisms: Lexicalist Analysis of Synthetic Compounding. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Cappelle, Bert. 2010. Doubler-upper nouns: A challenge for usage-based models of language? In Cognitive Perspective on Word Formation, Alexander Onysko & Sascha Michel (eds), 335–374. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. Playing by/with the rules: Creativity in language, games, and art. Cognitive Semiotics 13(1): 1–8. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Wit, Astrid, Petré, Peter & Brisard, Frank. 2020. Standing out with the progressive. Journal of Linguistics 56: 479–514. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Di Sciullo, Anne-Marie & Williams, Edwin. 1987. On the Definition of Word. Cambridge, MA: The MIT-Press.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 2002. A model for relevant types of context in grammaticalization. In New Reflections on Grammaticalization, Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds), 103–120. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 2014. Making New Words. Morphological Derivation in English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eitelmann, Matthias, Haugland, Kari E. & Haumann, Dagmar. 2015. The -ish-factor: A corpus-based analysis of -ish-derivatives in English. Paper held at ICAME 36, 27–31 May 2015. Trier.Google Scholar
. 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): 1–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gabelentz, Georg von der. 1901 [1891]. Die Sprachwissenschaft, ihre Aufgaben, Methoden und bisherigen Ergebnisse. Leipzig: Weigel.Google Scholar
Gahl, Susanne & Yu, Alan C. L. 2006. Introduction to the special issue on exemplar-based models in linguistics. The Linguistics Review 23(3): 213–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geurts, Bart. 2000. Explaining grammaticalization (the standard way). Linguistics 38(4): 781–788. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gutzmann, Daniel. 2019. The Grammar of Expressivity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The View from Building 20: Essays in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Kenneth Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds), 111–176. Cambridge, MA: The MIT-Press.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi & Noyer, Rolf. 1999. State-of-the-article: Distributed Morphology. GLOT International 4(4): 3–9.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics 37(6): 1043–1068. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2002. On the role of context in grammaticalization. In New Reflections on Grammaticalization, Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds), 83–101. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Thompson, Sandra A. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56(2): 251–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jäger, Gerhard & Rosenbach, Annette. 2008. Priming and unidirectional language change. Theoretical Linguistics 34(2): 85–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jones, Rodney H. 2016. Introduction. In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Creativity, Rodney H. Jones (ed), 1–21. Oxfordshire & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Keller, Rudi. 1994. Language Change: The Invisible Hand in Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kempf, Luise & Eitelmann, Matthias. 2018. Von diutisk zu dynamisch, von englisc zu anything-ish. -is(c)h kontrastiv diachron. Zeitschrift für Wortbildung/Journal of Word Formation 2018(1): 93–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuzmack, Stefanie. 2007. Ish: A New Case of Antigrammaticalization? Paper presented at the meeting of the Linguistic Society of America (LSA), Anaheim, January 4–7.Google Scholar
Lapointe, Steven G. 1980. A Theory of Grammatical Agreement. PhD dissertation, Amherst: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 2015 [1982]. Thoughts on grammaticalization. Berlin: Language Science Press (Classics in Linguistics, 1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1985. Grammaticalization: Synchronic variation and diachronic change. Lingua e Stile 20: 303–318.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Malkiel, Yakov. 1977. Why Ap-ish but Worm-y? In Studies in Descriptive and Historical Linguistics. Festschrift for Winfred P. Lehmann, Paul J. Hopper (ed), 341–364. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 4: 201–225.Google Scholar
Marchand, Hans. 1969. The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Formation. A Synchronic-Diachronic Approach. Munich: C.H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Mattiello, Elisa. 2013. Extra-grammatical Morphology in English: Abbreviations, Blends, Reduplicatives, and Related Phenomena. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morris, Lori. 1998. A toughish problem: the meaning of -ish. LACUS Forum 24: 207–215.Google Scholar
Munat, Judith. 2016. Lexical creativity. In The Routledge Handbook of Language and Creativity, Rodney H. Jones (ed), 92–106. Oxfordshire & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nilssen, Signe & Kinn, Torodd. 2017. A chameleon abroad: English -ish and ish used in Norwegian. Maal og Minne 1: 123–143.Google Scholar
Norde, Muriel. 2009. Degrammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oltra-Massuet, Isabel. 2016. Propositional ish as a syntactic Speech Act Phrase. In On the Move: Glancing Backwards to Build a Future in English Studies, Aitor Ibarrola-Armendariz & Jon Ortiz de Urbina Arruabarrena (eds), 307–313. Bilbao: University of Deusto.Google Scholar
. 2017. Towards a morphosyntactic analysis of -ish. Word Structure 10(1): 54–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Petré, Peter. 2017. The extravagant progressive: an experimental corpus study on the history of emphatic [be Ving]. English Language and Linguistics 21(2): 227–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plag, Ingo. 2003. Word-formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sampson, Geoffrey. 2016. Two ideas of creativity. In Evidence, Experiment, and Argument in Linguistics and Philosophy of Language, Martin Hinton (ed), 15–26. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Scalise, Sergio. 1984. Generative Morphology. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg & Günther, Franziska. 2016. Towards a unified socio-cognitive framework for salience in language. Frontiers in Psychology 7.1110, 1–4. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1982. The Syntax of Words. Cambridge, MA: The MIT-Press.Google Scholar
Sternberg, Robert J. & Lubarg, Todd I. 1999. The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In Handbook of Creativity, Robert J. Sternberg (ed), 3–15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Uhrig, Peter. 2020. Creative intentions – The fine line between ‘creative’ and ‘wrong’. Cognitive Semiotics 13(1): 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wischer, Ilse. 2006. Grammaticalization. In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Vol. 5. 2nd edition, Brown, Keith (ed), 129–135. Oxford: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. & Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1987. Plain morphology and expressive morphology. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Aske, Jon, Natasha Beery, Laura Michaelis & Hana Filip (eds), 330–340. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Aijmer, Karin
2024. A contrastive analysis of (-)ish in English and Swedish blogs. Languages in Contrast DOI logo
Ivorra Ordines, Pedro & Belén López Meirama
2024.  Vete a freír cristales . Review of Cognitive Linguistics DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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.