Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:34:47.583Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part II - Structure of Complex Words

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2020

Edited by
Lívia Körtvélyessy  and
Pavol Štekauer
Lívia Körtvélyessy
Affiliation:
P. J. Šafárik University, Košice, Slovakia
Pavol Štekauer
Affiliation:
P. J. Šafárik University, Košice, Slovakia
Get access

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.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Complex Words
Advances in Morphology
 , pp. 117 - 238
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Baayen, R. H., Chuang, Y.-Y. and Blevins, J. P. (2018). Inflectional morphology with linear mappings. The Mental Lexicon, (13)2, 232–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Chuang, Y.-Y. and Heitmeier, M. (2019a). WpmWithLdl: Implementation of Word and Paradigm Morphology with Linear Discriminative Learning. R package version 1.3.1.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Chuang, Y.-Y., Shafaei-Bajestan, E. and Blevins, J. P. (2019b). The discriminative lexicon: a unified computational model for the lexicon and lexical processing in comprehension and production grounded not in (de)composition but in linear discriminative learning. Complexity, 4895891, 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L. (1983). English Word Formation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, J. P. (2008). Declension classes in Estonian. Linguistica Uralica, 44(4), 241–267.Google Scholar
Blevins, J. P. (2016). Word and Paradigm Morphology, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Butz, M. V. and Kutter, E. F. (2016). How the Mind Comes into Being: Introducing Cognitive Science from a Functional and Computational Perspective, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. (1993). The Lexicon in Acquisition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erelt, M., ed. (2003). Estonian Language, Tallinn: Estonian Academy Publishers.Google Scholar
Gahl, S. (2008). Time and thyme are not homophones: the effect of lemma frequency on word durations in spontaneous speech. Language, 84(3), 474–496.Google Scholar
Gershkoff-Stowe, L. and Hahn, E. R. (2013). Word comprehension and production asymmetries in children and adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 114(4), 489–509.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Vol. 24, Current Studies in Linguistics, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 111–176.Google Scholar
Harm, M. W. and Seidenberg, M. S. (2004). Computing the meanings of words in reading: co-operative division of labor between visual and phonological processes. Psychological Review, 111, 662–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, A. C. (2009). Exuberant exponence in batsbi. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 27(2), 267–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, A. C. (2017). Multiple Exponence, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ingram, D. (1974). The relation between comprehension and production. In Schiefelbusch, R. L. and Lloyd, L. L., eds., Language Perspectives – Acquisition, Retardation, and Intervention, Baltimore: University Park Press, pp. 313–334.Google Scholar
Lõo, K., Järvikivi, J. and Baayen, R. (2018a). Whole-word frequency and inflectional paradigm size facilitate Estonian case-inflected noun processing. Cognition, 175, 20–25.Google Scholar
Lõo, K., Järvikivi, J., Tomaschek, F., Tucker, B. and Baayen, R. (2018b). Production of Estonian case-inflected nouns shows whole-word frequency and paradigmatic effects. Morphology, 1(28), 71–97.Google Scholar
Landauer, T. and Dumais, S. (1997). A solution to Plato’s problem: the latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104(2), 211–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2006). The language of space in yélî dnye. In Grammars of Space: Explorations in Cognitive Diversity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 157–203.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. and Majid, A. (2013). The island of time: yélî Dnye, the language of Rossel island. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1−11.Google Scholar
Lieber, R. (2010). Introducing Morphology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Majid, A., Bowerman, M., Kita, S., Haun, D. and Levinson, S. C. (2004). Can language restructure cognition? The case for space. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 108–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marantz, A. (2013). No escape from morphemes in morphological processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(7), 905–916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, P. H. (1974). Morphology. An Introduction to the Theory of Word Structure, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. J. (1981). A prosodic theory of non-concatenative morphology. Linguistic Inquiry, 12, 373–418.Google Scholar
Morgan, B. Q. and Oberdeck, L. M. (1930). Active and passive vocabulary. In Bagster-Collins, E. W., ed., Studies in Modern Language Teaching, London: Macmillan, pp. 213–221.Google Scholar
Newman, J. and Rice, S. (2006). Transitivity schemas of English eat and drink in the BNC. In Gries, S. T. and Stefanowitsch, A., eds., Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-Based Approaches to Syntax and Lexis, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 225–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Neill, G. (2014). Humming, whistling, singing, and yelling in Pirahã context and channels of communication in FDG. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA), 24(2), 349–375.Google Scholar
Plag, I. (2003). Word Formation in English, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plag, I., Homann, J. and Kunter, G. (2017). Homophony and morphology: the acoustics of word-final S in English 1. Journal of Linguistics, 53(1), 181–216.Google Scholar
Stump, G. (2001). Inflectional Morphology: A Theory of Paradigm Structure, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: semantic structure in lexical forms. Language Typology and Syntactic Description, 3, 57–149.Google Scholar
Ussishkin, A. (2005). A fixed prosodic theory of nonconcatenative templaticmorphology. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 23(1), 169–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viitso, T.-R. (2003). Structure of the Estonian language: phonology, morphology and word formation. In Erelt, M., ed., Estonian Language, Tallinn: Estonian Academy Publishers, pp. 9–129.Google Scholar
Widrow, B. and Hoff, M. E. (1960). Adaptive switching circuits. 1960 WESCON Convention Record Part IV, 96–104.Google Scholar
Young, R. and Morgan, W. (1980). The Navajo Language: A Grammar and Colloquial Dictionary, Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
Zwitserlood, P. (2018). Processing and representation of morphological complexity in native language comprehension and production. In Booij, G. E., ed., The Construction of Words. Advances in Construction Morphology, Cham: Springer, pp. 583–602.Google Scholar

References

Ackerman, F., Blevins, J. P. and Malouf, R. (2009). Parts and wholes: implicative patterns in inflectional paradigms. In Blevins, J. P. and Blevins, J., eds., Analogy in Grammar: Form and Acquisition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 54–82Google Scholar
Ackerman, F. and Malouf, R. (2013). Morphological organization: the low entropy conjecture. Language, 89, 429–464.Google Scholar
Baerman, M., Brown, D. and Corbett, G. G. (2017). Morphological Complexity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L. (2017). Compounds and Compounding, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. (2019). Rethinking Morphology, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, D. P., Chumakina, M., Corbett, G. G., Popova, G. D. and Spencer, A. (2012). Defining ‘periphrasis’: key notions. Morphology, 22, 233–275.Google Scholar
Corbett, G. G. (2000). Number, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dunn, M. J. (1999). A Grammar of Chukchi, PhD thesis, Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Embick, D. (2015). The Morpheme: A Theoretical Introduction, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Friedman, V. A. (1993). Macedonian. In Comrie, B. and Corbett, G., eds., The Slavonic Languages, London: Routledge, pp. 249–305.Google Scholar
Fuhrhop, N. (2012). Zwischen Wort und Syntagma, Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2000). Periphrasis. In Booij, G. and Lehmann, C., eds., Morphologie/ Morphology: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung/An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-formation, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 654–664.Google Scholar
Hewitt, G. (2010). Abkhaz. A Comprehensive Self-Tutor, Munich: LINCOM EUROPA.Google Scholar
Kalnača, A. and Lokmane, I. (2016). Compound genitives in Latvian. In Körtvélyessy, L., Štekauer, P. and Valera, S., eds., Word-Formation Across Languages, Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp. 169–196.Google Scholar
Lambton, A. K. S. (1963). Persian Grammar, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sag, I. A. (2012). Sign-Based Construction Grammar: an informal synopsis. In Boas, H. C. and Sag, I. A., eds., Sign-Based Construction Grammar, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 69–202.Google Scholar
Schultze-Berndt, E. (2000). Simple and Complex Verbs in Jaminjung. A Study of Event Categorisation in an Australian Language, PhD dissertation, Nijmegen: University of Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Sims, A. (2015). Inflectional Defectiveness, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Spencer, A. (1995). Incorporation in Chukchi. Language, 71, 439–489.Google Scholar
Spencer, A. (2013). Lexical Relatedness: A Paradigm-Based Model, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Spencer, A. (2016). How are words related? In Siddiqi, D. and Harley, H., eds., Morphological Metatheory, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co., pp. 1–26.Google Scholar
Spencer, A. (2019). Manufacturing consent over Distributed Morphology. Word Structure, 12, 208–259.Google Scholar
Spencer, A. and Luís, A. (2012). Clitics: An Introduction, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, G. (2001). Inflectional Morphology: A Theory of Paradigm Structure, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stump, G. (2016). Inflectional Paradigms. Content and Form at the Syntax-Morphology Interface, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Toivonen, I. (2003). Non-Projecting Words. A Case Study of Swedish Particles, Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. M. and Pullum, G. K. (1983). Cliticization vs. inflection: English n’t. Language, 59, 502–513.Google Scholar

References

Anderson, S. R. (1992). A‑Morphous Morphology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Arnott, D. W. (1970). The Nominal and Verbal Systems of Fula, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ashton, E. O. (1944). Swahili Grammar, Essex: Longman.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. (1988). A descriptive gap in morphology. In Booij, G. and van Marle, J., eds., Yearbook of Morphology 1, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 17–27.Google Scholar
Bochner, H. (1992). Simplicity in Generative Morphology, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. (2014). Making New Words: Morphological Derivation in English, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Favereau, F. (1997). Grammaire du breton contemporain /Yezhadur ar brezhoneg a‑vremañ, Morlaix: Skol Vreizh.Google Scholar
Harris, A. C. (2017). Multiple Exponence, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (1995). The growth of affixes in morphological reanalysis. In Booij, G. and van Marle, J., eds., Yearbook of Morphology 1994, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 1–29.Google Scholar
Kervella, F. (1976). Yezhadur bras ar brezhoneg, Brest: Al Liamm.Google Scholar
Luís, A. and Spencer, A. (2005). A paradigm function account of ‘mesoclisis’ in European Portuguese. In Booij, G. and van Marle, J., eds., Yearbook of Morphology 2004, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 177–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchand, H. (1960). The Categories and Types of Present‑Day English Word‑Formation, Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Soukka, M. (2000). A Descriptive Grammar of Noon, Munich: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
Stump, G. (2001). Inflectional Morphology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, G. (2016). Inflectional Paradigms, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stump, G. (2017a). Polyfunctionality and the variety of inflectional exponence relations. In Kiefer, F., Blevins, J. P. and Bartos, H., eds., Perspectives on Morphological Organization: Data and Analyses, Leiden: Brill, pp. 11–30.Google Scholar
Stump, G. (2017b). Rule conflation in an inferential‑realizational theory of morphotactics. Acta Linguistica Academica, 64(1), 79–124. http://akademiai.com/loi/2062Google Scholar
Stump, G. (2017c). Rules and blocks. In Bowern, C., Horn, L. and Zanuttini, R., eds., On Looking into Words (and Beyond), Berlin: Language Science Press, pp. 421–440.Google Scholar
Stump, G. (2019a). An apparently noncanonical pattern of morphotactic competition. In Rainer, F., Gardani, F., Dressler, W. and Luschützky, H. Ch., eds., Competition in Inflection and Word-Formation, Berlin: Springer, pp. 259–278.Google Scholar
Stump, G. (2019b). Some sources of apparent gaps in derivational paradigms. Morphology, 29(2), 271−292.Google Scholar
Stump, G. (to appear). Rule conflation, potentiation, affix telescoping. In Sims, A. et al., eds., Morphological Typology and Linguistic Cognition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Trépos, P. (n.d.). Grammaire bretonne, Rennes: Ouest France.Google Scholar
Whitney, W. D. (1889). Sanskrit Grammar, 2nd ed., Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, E. (1981). On the notions ‘lexically related’ and ‘head of a word’. Linguistic Inquiry, 12, 245–274.Google Scholar

References

Azkue, R. M. (1905–1906). Diccionario vasco-español-français, Dictionnaire basque-espagnol-français, 2 vols., Bilbao/Paris: Paul Geuthner.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. (2001). Morphological Productivity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L. (2007). Derivational morphology. Language and Linguistics Compass. Wiley Online Library. doi:10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00045.xGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L. (2009). Typology of compounds. In Lieber, R. and Štekauer, P., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 343–356.Google Scholar
Blevins, J. (2018). Advances in Proto-Basque Reconstruction with Evidence for the Proto-Indo-European-Euskarian Hypothesis, New York & London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Corbett, G. G. (2019). Pluralia tantum nouns and the theory of features: a typology of nouns with non-canonical number properties. Morphology, 29, 51–108.Google Scholar
Euskaltzaindia, . (1987–2005). Orotariko Euskal Hiztegia [General Basque Dictionary] (16 vols.), Bilbao: Euskaltzaindia. www.euskaltzaindia.net/oeh [Consulted, checked: March 2013–present].Google Scholar
Fortson, B. W. IV. (2010). Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction, 2nd ed., Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hualde, J. I., Lakarra, J. A. and Trask, R. L., eds. (1995). Towards a History of the Basque Language, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lakarra, J. A. (1995). Reconstructing the pre-Proto-Basque root. In Hualde, J. L., Lakarra, J. A. and Trask, R. L., eds., pp. 189–206.Google Scholar
Lakarra, J. A. (2018). La prehistoria de la lengua vasca. In Gorrochategui, J., Igartua, I. and Lakarra, J. A., eds., Historia de la lengua vasca, Vitoria: Gobierno Vasco, pp. 23–244.Google Scholar
Martinez-Areta, M., ed. (2013). Basque and Proto-Basque. Language-Internal and Typological Approaches to Linguistic Reconstruction, Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Michelena, L. (1961). Fonética histórica vasca, San Sebastián: Publicaciones del Seminario ‘Julio de Urquijo’. [first edition]Google Scholar
Michelena, L. (1977) [2011]. Fonética histórica vasca (Luis Michelena. Obras Completas VI. Supplements of ASJU 59). Donostia-San Sebastián. [second edition]Google Scholar
Peterson, D. (ed.) (2013). Becerro Galicano of San Millán de la Cogolla, 1022–1076. www.ehu.eus/galicano/?l=en.Google Scholar
Trask, R. L. (1997). The History of Basque, London: Routledge.Google Scholar

References

Acedo Matellán, V. (2006). Prefixes in Latin and Romance and the satellite vs. verb framed distinction. In Actes Del VII Congrés de Lingüìstica General (CDROM), Barcelona: Publicacions I Edicions de la Universitat de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Acedo Matellán, V. (2016). The Morphosyntax of Transitions: A Case Study in Latin and Other Languages, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A. (2013). Where is non-active morphology? In Müller, S., ed., Proceedings of the 20th Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 244–262.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A. (2019). A form-meaning mismatch? The case of Greek deponents. In Brown, J., Schmidt, A. and Wierzba, M., eds., Of Trees and Birds: A Festschrift for Gisbert Fanselow, Potsdam: Universitätsverlag Potsdam.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A. and Anagnostopoulou, E. (1999). Non active morphology and the direction of transitivity alternations. Proceedings of NELS, 29 (papers from the poster session), 27–40.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A. and Anagnostopoulou, E. (2004). Voice morphology in the causative-inchoative Alternation: evidence for a non unified structural analysis of unaccusatives. In Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E. and Everaert, M., eds., The Unaccusativity Puzzle, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 115–136.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A. and Anagnostopoulou, E. (2013). Manner vs. result complementarity in verbal alternations: a view from the clear alternation. Proceedings of NELS, 42, 39–52.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E. and Schäfer, F. (2006). The properties of anticausatives cross-linguistically. In Frascarelli, M., ed., Phases of Interpretation, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 187–212.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A., Anagnostopoulou, E. and Schäfer, F. (2015). External Arguments in Transitivity Alternations: A Layering Approach, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A. and Doron, E. (2012). The syntactic construction of two non-active Voices: passive and middle. Journal of Linguistics, 48, 1–34.Google Scholar
Alexiadou, A. and Schäfer, F. (2013). Towards a non-uniform analysis of naturally reflexive verbs. Proceedings of WCCFL, 31. www.lingref.com/cpp/wccfl/31/paper3001.pdf.Google Scholar
Arad, M. (2005). Roots and Patterns: Hebrew Morpho-Syntax, Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Asyllogistou, A. (2018). Result in the Diachrony of Greek, PhD dissertation, Belfast: University of Ulster.Google Scholar
Bortone, P. (2010). Greek Prepositions. From Antiquity to the Present, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. (2003). English prefixation. A typological shift? Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 50, 33–40.Google Scholar
Bertocci, D. (2017). Intensive verbal prefixes in Archaic Latin. In Benacchio, R., Muro, A. and Slavkova, S., eds., The Role of Prefixes in the Formation of Aspectuality. Issues in Grammaticalization, Firenze, Biblioteca di Studi Slavistici: University Press, pp. 41–59.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, A. M. (1997). Prefixed-verbs and adjunct identification. In Di Sciullo, A. M., ed., Projections and Interface Conditions, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 52–73.Google Scholar
Doron, E. (2003). Agency and voice: the semantics of Semitic templates. Natural Language Semantics, 11, 1–67.Google Scholar
Doron, E. and Labelle, M. (2011). An ergative analysis of French valency alternation. In Herschensohn, J., ed., Romance Linguistics 2010: Selected Papers from the 40th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 137–154.Google Scholar
Dowty, D. R. (1979). Word, Meaning and Montague Grammar. The Semantics of Verbs and Time in Generative Semantics and Montague’s PTQ, Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Efthymiou, A. (2015). Modern Greek parasynthetic verbs. A hierarchical relationship between prefixes and suffixes? In. Manova, S., ed., Affix Ordering Across Languages and Frameworks, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 82–107.Google Scholar
Efthymiou, A. (2017). Intensification and deintensification of Modern Greek verbs. Lexis, 10. http://lexis.revues.org/1089.Google Scholar
Embick, D. (1998). Voice systems and the syntax/morphology interface. Papers from the UPenn/MIT Roundtable on Argument Structure and Aspect, 32, 41–72.Google Scholar
Embick, D. (2010). Localism and Globalism in Morphology and Phonology, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Folli, R. and Harley, H. (2016). Against deficiency-based typologies: manner alternation parameters in Italian and English. In Carrilho, E., Fiéis, A. and Pereira, S., eds., Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 10: Selected Papers from ‘Going Romance’ 28, Lisbon, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 103–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Junker, M. O. (1987). Transitive, intransitive and reflexive uses of adjectival verbs in French. In Montreuil, J. P., ed., Advances in Romance Linguistics, Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 189–199.Google Scholar
Hale, K. and Keyser, S. J. (2002). Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (1993). More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations. In Comrie, B. and Polinsky, M., eds., Causatives and Transitivity, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 87–120.Google Scholar
Haveling, G. (2003). On prefixes and actionality in Classical and Late Latin. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 50, 113–135.Google Scholar
Hopperdietzel, J. (2019). Marked causatives as Voice-driven contextual allomorphy. Poster presented at GLOW 42, Oslo.Google Scholar
Klaiman, M. H. (1991). Grammatical Voice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (1996). Severing the external argument from its verb. In Rooryck, J., and Zaring, L., eds., Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 109–137.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, I. (2001). Medium: Eine Studie zur Verbsemantik, Habilitationsschrift: University of Düsseldorf.Google Scholar
Kemmer, S. (1993). The Middle Voice, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lavidas, N. (2009). Transitivity Alternations in Diachrony: Changes in Argument Structure and Voice Morphology, Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Laskaratou, C. and Philippaki-Warburton, I. (1984). Lexical vs transformational passives in Modern Greek. Glossologia, 2−3, 99–109.Google Scholar
Lekakou, M. (2005). In the Middle, Somewhat Elevated. The Semantics of Middles and its Crosslinguistic Realization, PhD dissertation, London: University of London.Google Scholar
Levin, B. (1993). English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levin, B. (1999). Objecthood: an event structure perspective. In Proceedings of CLS 35, Volume 1: The Main Session, Chicago Linguistic Society: University of Chicago, pp. 223–247.Google Scholar
Levin, B. and Rappaport Hovav, M. (1995). Unaccusativity: At the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Manney, L. J. (2000). Middle Voice in Modern Greek: Meaning and Function of an Inflectional Category, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Manzini, R, Roussou, A. and Savoia, L. (2016). Middle-passive Voice in Albanian and Greek. Journal of Linguistics, 52, 111–150.Google Scholar
Mendez-Dosuna, J. (1997). Fusion, fission and relevance in language change: De-univerbation in Greek verb morphology. Studies in Language, 21(3), 577–612.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. (1995). Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ramchand, G. (2008). Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First Phase Syntax, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ralli, A. (2003). Preverbs in Greek: the case of ksana, kse-, para-. In Di Sciullo, A. M., ed., Asymmetry in Grammar: Morphology, Phonology and Language Acquisition, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 37–65.Google Scholar
Ralli, A. (2004). Stem-based versus word-based morphological configurations: the case of Modern Greek preverbs. Lingue e Linguaggio, 2004(2), 241–275.Google Scholar
Schäfer, F. (2008). The Syntax of (Anti-)Causatives. External Arguments in Change-of-State Contexts, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schäfer, F. (2009). The causative alternation. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(2), 641–681.Google Scholar
Sioupi, Athina (1998). Middle Constructions: A Comparative Study in Greek and German (Domes Mesis Diathesis: mia sygritiki meleti ellinikis-germanikis), PhD dissertation, Athens: University of Athens.Google Scholar
Smirniotopoulos, J. (1992). Lexical Passives in Modern Greek, New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Spathas, G., Alexiadou, A. and Schäfer, F. (2015). Middle Voice and reflexive interpretations: afto-prefixation in Greek. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 33(4), 1293–1350.Google Scholar
Svenonius, P. (2004). Slavic prefixes inside and outside VP. Nordlyd, 32. https://septentrio.uit.no/index.php/nordlyd/article/view/68Google Scholar
Svenonius, P. (2007). Adpositions, particles and the arguments they introduce. In Reuland, E., Bhattacharya, T. and Spathas, G., eds., Argument Structure, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 65–103.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000). Typology and Process in Concept Structuring, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Theophanopoulou-Kontou, D. (2000). -O/-me alternations in MG patient oriented constructions: anticausatives and passives. In The Proceedings of the 20th Annual Meeting of the Linguistics Dept. of the University of Thessaloniki, 146–157.Google Scholar
Troberg, M. and Burnett, H. (2017). From Latin to Modern French: a punctuated shift. In Mathieu, E. and Truswell, R., eds., From Micro-Change to Macro-Change, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 104–124.Google Scholar
Tsakou, E. (2010). Derivative Verbs of Modern Greek without Correspondence between Form and Meaning. The Case of Prefixed Verbs Ending in -ízo, ‑iázo and -óno, MA thesis, Greece: Democritus University of Thrace [in Greek].Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I. M. (1989). On the properties of the passive affix in Modern Greek. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 1, 235–260.Google Scholar
Tsimpli, I. M. (2006). The acquisition of voice and transitivity alternations in Greek as native and second language. In Unsworth, S., Parodi, T., Sorace, A. an Young-Scholten, M., eds., Paths of Development in L1 and L2 Acquisition: In Honor of Bonnie D. Schwartz, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 15–55.Google Scholar
Wood, J. (2014). Reflexive -st verbs in Icelandic. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 32, 1387–1425.Google Scholar
Zombolou, K. (2004). Verbal Alternations in Greek: A Semantic Approach, PhD dissertation, Reading: University of Reading.Google Scholar
Zombolou, K. and Alexiadou, A. (2014). The canonical function of deponent verbs. In Rainer, F., Gardani, F., Luschützky, H. C. and Dressler, W., eds., Morphology and Meaning, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 331–343.Google Scholar

References

Andriotis, N. (1992). Eτυμολογικό λεξικό της Κοινής Νεοελληνικής [Εtymological Dictionary of Common Modern Greek], Thessaloniki: Institute of Modern Greek Studies.Google Scholar
Ascoop, K. and Leuschner, T. (2006). Affixoidhungrig? Skitbra! Comparing affixoids in Swedish and German. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung, 59, 241–252.Google Scholar
Booij, G. (2000). Inflection and derivation. In Booij, G., Lehmann, Ch., Mugdan, J., Kesselheim, W. and Skopeteas, S., eds., Morphologie/Morphology, vol. 1, Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 360–369.Google Scholar
Booij, G. (2010). Construction Morphology, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Booij, G. and Hüning, M. (2014). Affixoids and constructional idioms. In Boogaart, R., Colleman, T. and Rutten, G., eds., Extending the Scope of Construction Grammar, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 77−106.Google Scholar
Bonami, O., Boyé, G., Dal, G., Giraudo, H. and Namer, F., eds. (2018). The Lexeme in Descriptive Theoretical Morphology, Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Braun, F. and Haig, G. (2000). The noun/adjective distinction in Turkish: an empirical approach. In Göksel, A. and Kerslake, C., eds., Studies on Turkish and Turkic Languages: Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Turkish Linguistics, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, pp. 85–92.Google Scholar
Browning, R. (1969). Medieval and Modern Greek, London: Hutchinson & Co.Google Scholar
Decroos, N. and Leuschner, T. (2008). Wortbildung zwischen System und Norm: Affixoiden im Deutschen und im Niederländischen. Sprachwissenschaft, 33, 1–34.Google Scholar
Dimela, E. (2010). Η προθηματοποίηση στις νεοελληνικές διαλέκτους [Prefixation in Modern Greek Dialects], PhD dissertation, Patras: University of Patras.Google Scholar
Dinas, K., ed. (2018). Figura in Praesentia, Athens: Patakis.Google Scholar
Elsen, H. (2009). Affixoide: Nur was benannt wird, kann auch verstanden werden. Deutsche Sprache, 37, 316–333.Google Scholar
Hartmann, S. (2016). Compound constituents or affixoids? An exploration of German compound landscapes. Paper presented at the 49th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea, 31 August−3 September 2016, Naples: University of Naples Federico II.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (1999). Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics, 37(6), 1043–1068.Google Scholar
Hatzidakis, G. (1905−1907). Mεσαιωνικά και Νέα Ελληνικά [Medieval and Modern Greek], Athens: Sakellarios.Google Scholar
Humbert, P. (1972). Syntaxe grecque, Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Kastovsky, D. (1992) Semantics and vocabulary. In Hogg, R. M., ed., The Cambridge History of the English Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 290–408.Google Scholar
Kastovsky, D. (2006). Typological changes in derivational morphology. In van Kemenade, A. and Los, B., eds., The Handbook of the History of English, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 151–177.Google Scholar
Kastovsky, D. (2009). Astronaut, astrology, astrophysics: about combining forms, classical compounds and affixoids. In McConchie, R. W., Honkapohja, A. and Tyrkkö, J., eds., Selected Proceedings of the 2008 Symposium on New Approaches in English Historical Lexis (HEL-LEX 2), Somerville, MA: Cascadilla, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
Kenesei, I. (2007). Semiwords and affixoids: the territory between word and affix. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 54(3), 263–293.Google Scholar
Koukoules, Ph. (1908). Οινουντιακά. Γραμματική και Λεξιλόγιο της Β.Α. Λακωνίας, [Oinountiaka. Grammar and Vocabulary of Northeastern Lakonia], Chania: Saliverou.Google Scholar
Kriaras, E. (1966−2015). Λεξικό της μεσαιωνικής δημώδους γραμματείας [Dictionary of the Medieval Vulgar Greek Literature] (1100-1669), Thessaloniki: Centre for the Greek Language.Google Scholar
Ksanthoudidis, S. (1903). Χριστιανικαί επιγραφαί εκ Κρήτης [Christian inscriptions from Crete]. Αthina, 15, 72.Google Scholar
Leuschner, T. (2010). Ausnahmepianist fettgeschreckt – inbleich! Deutsche, niederländische und schwedische präfixoide im Spanningsfeld von Genealogie, Kreativität und Norm. In Dammel, A., Kürschner, S. and Nübling, D., eds., Kontrastive Germanische Linguistik, vol. 2, Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag, pp. 863–892.Google Scholar
Leuschner, T. and Wante, E. (2009). Personale Suffixoide im Deutschen und Niederlandischen. Germanistische Mitteilungen, 70, 59–73.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (2011a). Testing the Suffixoidization of German -MANN ‘man’. In Perko, G., ed., Linguistica LI, Special Issue Les frontières internes et externes de la morphologie, Ljubljana: Znanstvena založba Filozofske Fakultete, pp. 273–290.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (2011b). Grammaticalization and lexicalization. In Narrog, H. and Heine, B., eds., The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 438–449.Google Scholar
Manolessou, I. and Nifadopoulos, C. (2000). Verbal augment in Medieval Greek: A first approach on the basis of compound verbs. Studies in the Greek Language, 20, 301–315.Google Scholar
Melissaropoulou, D. (2015). Evaluative morphology in Greek. In Grandi, N. and Kortvelyessy, L., eds., Handbook of Evaluative Morphology, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 269–277.Google Scholar
Nespor, M. and Rall, A. (1996). Morphology-phonology interface: stress domains in Greek compounds. The Linguistic Review, 16, 357–382.Google Scholar
Norde, M. (2009). Degrammaticalization, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Oikonomidis, D. (1958). Γραμματική της ελληνικής διαλέκτου του Πóντου [Grammar of the Greek Dialect of Pontus], Athens: Academy of Athens.Google Scholar
Philintas, M. (1907−1910). Γραμματική της ρωμαίικης γλώσσας [Grammar of the Greek Language], 2 vols., Αthens: Nomiki.Google Scholar
Psaltes, S. (1913). Grammatik der Byzantinischen Chroniken, Göttingen.: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Ralli, A. (1988). Eléments de la morphologie du grec moderne, PhD dissertation, Montréal: Université de Montréal.Google Scholar
Ralli, A. (2005). Μορφολογία [Morphology], Athens: Patakis.Google Scholar
Ralli, A. (2008). Compound markers and parametric variation. Linguistic Typology and Universals – STUF, 61, 19–38.Google Scholar
Ralli, A. (2012) Greek. Revue Belge de Philologie et d’Histoire, 90, 939–966.Google Scholar
Ralli, A. (2013). Compounding in Modern Greek, Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Ralli, A. (2017). Λεξικό της διαλεκτικής ποικιλίας Κυδωνιών, Μοσχονησίων και Βορειοανατολικής Λέσβου [Dictionary of the Dialectal Variety of Kydonies, Moschonisia and Northeastern Lesbos], Αthens: Foundation of Historical Studies.Google Scholar
Ralli, A., ed. (2019). The Morphology of Asia Minor Greek: Selected Topics, Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Ralli, A. and Karasimos, A. (2009). The Bare-stem constraint in Greek compound formation. Gengo Kenkyu, 135, 29–48.Google Scholar
Sakkaris, G. (1940). Περί της διαλέκτου των Κυδωνιών εν συγκρίσει προς τας Λεσβιακάς [On the dialect of Kydonies (Aivali) as compared to the dialect of Lesbos]. Mikrasiatika Chronika, 3, 74–141.Google Scholar
Scalise, S. (1984). Generative Morphology, Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Schmidt, G. D. (1987). Das Affixoid. Zur Notwendigkeit und Brauchbarkeit eines beliebten Zwischenbegriffs der Wortbildung. In Wimmer, R. and Zifonun, G., eds., Deutsche Lehnwortbildung: Beiträge zur Erforschung der Wortbildung mit entlehnten WB-Einheiten im Deutschen (= Forschungsberichte des IdS 64.), Tübingen: Narr, pp. 53–101.Google Scholar
Simiris, D. (2017), Το Γλωσσικό Ιδίωμα της Ιθάκης [Τhe Dialect of Ithaca], Patras: Laboratory of Modern Greek Dialects.Google Scholar
Stevens, C. (2000). The derivational suffixes and suffixoids of Old Saxon. A panchronic approach to a linguistic category. American Journal of Germanic Linguistics and Literatures, 12, 53–79Google Scholar
Stevens, C. (2005). Revisiting the affixoid debate: on the grammaticalization of the word. In Leuschner, T., Mortelmans, T. and De Groodt, S., eds., Grammatikalisierung im Deutschen, Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 71–83.Google Scholar
ten Hacken, P. (2000). Derivation and compounding. In Booij, G., Lehmann, C., Mugdan, J., Kesselheim, W. and Skopeteas, S., eds., Morphologie/Morphology, vol. 1, Berlin: De Gruyter, 349–360.Google Scholar
Van Goethem, K. (2010). The French Nouveau + past participle revisited: arguments in favour of a prefixoid analysis of nouveau. Folia Linguistica, 44, 163−178.Google Scholar
Van Goethem, K. (2016). Debonding of affixoids. A comparative constructionist account. In Ralli, A., Joseph, B. D., Janse, M., Koutsoukos, N. and Bompolas, S., eds., Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Modern Greek Dialects and Linguistic Theory, Patras: Laboratory of Modern Greek Dialects, University of Patras.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×