Ackema, Peter and Neeleman, Ad 2004. Beyond Morphology. Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ackema, Peter and Neeleman, Ad 2010. ‘The role of syntax and morphology in compounding’, in Scalise, and Vogel, (eds.), pp. 21–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Adams, Valerie 1973. An Introduction to Modern English Word Formation. London: LongmanGoogle Scholar

Adams, Valerie 2001. Complex Words in English. Harlow: LongmanGoogle Scholar

Allen, Margaret Reece 1978. ‘Morphological investigations’, PhD thesis, University of ConnecticutGoogle Scholar

Arcodia, Giorgio F., Grandi, Nicola and Wälchli, Bernhard 2010. ‘Coordination in compounding’, in Scalise, and Vogel, (eds.), pp. 177–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Arnaud, Pierre J.L. 2003. Les Composés timbre-poste. Presses Universitaires de LyonGoogle Scholar

Arnaud, Pierre J.L and Renner, Vincent 2014. ‘English and French [NN]_N lexical units: A categorial, morphological and semantic comparison’, Word Structure 7: 1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aronoff, Mark 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Asher, Nicholas and Lascarides, Alex 2003. Logics of Conversation. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Baeskow, Heike 2004. Lexical Properties of Selected Non-Native Morphemes of English. Tübingen: Gunter NarrGoogle Scholar

Barbaud, Philippe 1971. ‘L’ambiguïté structurale du composé binominal’, Cahiers de Linguistique (Montreal) 1: 71–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1982. ‘Context-independent and context-dependent information in concepts’, Memory & Cognition 10(1): 82–93CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Bassac, Christian 2006. ‘A compositional treatment for English compounds’, Research in Language 4: 133–153Google Scholar

Bauer, Laurie 1978. The Grammar of Nominal Compounding, with Special Reference to Danish, English and French. Odense University PressGoogle Scholar

Bauer, Laurie 1979. ‘Against word-based morphology’, Linguistic Inquiry 10: 175–213Google Scholar

Bauer, Laurie 1983. English Word-Formation. Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bauer, Laurie 1998. ‘Is there a class of neoclassical compounds in English and is it productive?’, Linguistics 36: 403–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bauer, Laurie 2002. ‘Lexical word-formation’, in Huddleston, Rodney and Pullum, Geoffrey K. (eds.) The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge University Press, pp. 1621–1722CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bauer, Laurie 2009. ‘Typology of compounds’, in Lieber, and Štekauer, (eds.), pp. 343–356Google Scholar

Bauer, Laurie 2010. ‘The typology of exocentric compounding’, in Scalise, and Vogel, (eds.), pp. 167–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bauer, Laurie, Lieber, Rochelle and Plag, Ingo 2013. The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology. Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bauer, Laurie and Renouf, Antoinette 2001. ‘A corpus-based study of compounding in English’, Journal of English Lingustics 29: 101–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bauer, Laurie and Tarasova, Elizaveta 2013. ‘The meaning link in nominal compounds’, SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 10: 2–18Google Scholar

Becker, Judith A. 1994. ‘“Sneak-shoes”, “sworders”, and “nose-beards”: A case study of lexical innovation’, First Language 14: 195–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bell, Melanie J. and Schäfer, Martin 2013. ‘Semantic transparency: Challenges for distributional semantics’, in Herbelot, Aurélie, Zamparelli, Roberto and Boleda, Gemma (eds.) Proceedings of the IWCS 2013 Workshop Towards a Formal Distributional Semantics. Potsdam: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 1–10. www.aclweb.org/anthology/W13-0601Google Scholar

Benczes, Réka 2006. Creative Compounding in English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing CompanyCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Berman, Ruth A. 2009. ‘Children‘s Acquisition of Compound Constructions’, in Lieber, and Štekauer, (eds.), pp. 298–322Google Scholar

Bisetto, Antonietta 2010. ‘Recursiveness and Italian compounds’, SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 7(1). www.skase.sk/Volumes/JTL15/pdf_doc/02.pdf (accessed 14 October 2011)Google Scholar

Bisetto, Antonietta, Scalise, Sergio and Guevara, Emiliano 2005. ‘Classifying compounds’, Lingue e Linguaggio 4(2): 319–332Google Scholar

Blank, Andreas 1997. Prinzipien des lexikalischen Bedeutungswandels am Beispiel der romanischen Sprachen (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 285). Tübingen: NiemeyerCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blank, Andreas 1998. ‘Kognitive italienische Wortbildungslehre’, Italienische Studien 19: 5–27Google Scholar

Bloomfield, Leonard 1933. Language. London: Allen & Unwin (1st British ed. 1935)Google Scholar

Booij, Geert 2007. The Grammar of Words. An Introduction to Linguistic Morphology, 2nd edition. Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Booij, Geert 2009. ‘Compounding and construction morphology’, in Lieber, and Štekauer, (eds.), pp. 201–216Google Scholar

Booij, Geert 2010a. Construction Morphology. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Booij, Geert 2010b. ‘Compound construction: Schemas or analogy? A construction morphology perspective’, in Scalise, and Vogel, (eds.), pp. 93–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Borer, Hagit 1998. ‘Morphology and syntax’, in Spencer, and Zwicky, (eds.), pp. 151–191Google Scholar

Borer, Hagit 2013. Taking Form. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Botha, Rudolf P. 1981. ‘A base rule theory of Afrikaans synthetic compounds’, in Moortgat, Michael, van der Hulst, Harry and Hoekstra, Teun (eds.) The Scope of Lexical Rules. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 1–77Google Scholar

Brekle, Herbert E. 1970. Generative Satzsemantik und transformationelle Syntax im System der englischen Nominalkomposition. Munich: FinkGoogle Scholar

Brekle, Herbert E. 1975. Generative Satzsemantik im System der englischen Nominalkomposition. Munich: FinkGoogle Scholar

Brekle, Herbert E. 1986. ‘The production and interpretation of ad hoc nominal compounds in German: A realistic approach’, Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 36: 39–52Google Scholar

Bruguera i Talleda, Jordi 2006. Diccionari de la formació de mots. Barcelona: Enciclopèdia CatalanaGoogle Scholar

Busa, Federica 1997. ‘Compositionality and the semantics of nominals’, PhD thesis, Dept of Computer Science, Brandeis UniversityGoogle Scholar

Cannon, Garland 1992. ‘Bound-morpheme items: New patterns of derivation’, in Blank, Claudia (ed.) Language and Civilization: A Concerted Profusion of Essays and Studies in Honour of Otto Hietsch. Frankfurt [etc.]: Peter Lang Publishers, pp. 478–494Google Scholar

CED 2000. Collins Dictionary of the English Language, 5th edn. Glasgow: CollinsGoogle Scholar

Chaffin, Roger, Herrmann, Douglas J. and Winston, Morton 1988. ‘An empirical taxonomy of part-whole relations: Effects of part-whole relation type on relation identification’, Language and Cognitive Processes 3: 17–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Charitonidis, Chariton 2014. ‘The linking of denotational and socio-expressive heads in Modern Greek and English compounding’, Italian Journal of Linguistics 26(2): 9–50Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar

Chomsky, Noam 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar

Chomsky, Noam and Halle, Morris 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper & RowGoogle Scholar

Clark, Eve V. 1981. ‘Lexical innovations: How children learn to create new words’, in Deutsch, Werner (ed.) The Child’s Construction of Language. New York: Academic Press, pp. 299–328Google Scholar

Clark, Eve V. 1987. ‘The principle of contrast: A constraint on language acquisition’, in MacWhinney, Brian (ed.) Mechanisms of Language Acquisition. Hillsdale: Erlbaum, pp. 1–33Google Scholar

Clark, Eve V. 1993. The Lexicon in Acquisition. Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clark, Eve V. 2004. ‘How language acquisition builds on cognitive development’, TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences 8(10): 472–478CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Clark, Eve V. and Berman, Ruth A. 1984. ‘Structure and use in acquisition of word-formation’, Language 60: 542–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clark, Eve V. and Berman, Ruth A. 1987. ‘Types of linguistic knowledge: Interpreting and producing compound nouns’, Journal of Child Language 14(3): 547–567CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Clark, Eve V., Gelman, Susan A. and Lane, Nancy M. 1985. ‘Compound nouns and category structure in young children’, Child Development 56: 84–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar

COED 2011. Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 12th edn, Stevenson, Angus and Waite, Maurice (eds.). Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Cruse, D. Alan 1991. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Dąbrowska, Ewa 2012. ‘Different speakers, different grammars: Individual differences in native language attainment’, Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 2(3): 219–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar

van Dale, 1992. Van Dale Groot Woordenboek der Nederlandse Taal, 12th edn, Geerts, Guido and Heestermans, Hans (eds.). Utrecht/Antwerpen: Van Dale LexicografieGoogle Scholar

Darmesteter, Arsène 1874. Traité de la formation des mots composés dans la langue française comparée aux autres langues romanes et au latin. Paris: FranckGoogle Scholar

Di Sciullo, Anna Maria 2005. ‘Decomposing compounds’, SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 2: 14–33Google Scholar

Di Sciullo, Anna Maria and Williams, Edwin 1987. On the Definition of Word. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar

Dirven, René and Verspoor, Marjolein 1998. Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics [Cognitive Linguistics in Practice 1]. Amsterdam: John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar

Dokulil, Miloš 1962. Tvoření slov v češtině I. Teorie odvozování slov. Prague: Nakladatelství Československé akademie vědGoogle Scholar

Downing, Pamela 1977. ‘On the creation and use of English compound words’, Language 53: 810–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Durkin, Philip 2014. Borrowed Words: A History of Loanwords in English. Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Efremova, Tatjana F. 2000. Новый словарь русского языка [New dictionary of the Russian language]. Moscow: Russkij Jezik. www.efremova.infoGoogle Scholar

Fabb, Nigel 1998. ‘Compounding’, in Spencer, and Zwicky, (eds.), pp. 66–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fanselow, Gisbert 1981. Zur Syntax und Semantik der Nominalkomposition: ein Versuch praktischer Anwendung der Montague-Grammatik auf die Wortbildung im Deutschen. Linguistische Arbeiten 107. Tübingen: NiemeyerCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fernández-Domínguez, Jesús 2010. ‘N+N compounds in English: Semantic categories and the weight of modifiers’, Brno Studies in English 36: 47–76Google Scholar

Fillmore, Charles and Atkins, Sue 1992. ‘Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors’, in Lehrer, Adrienne and Feder Kittay, Eva (eds.) Frames, Fields, and Contrasts. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 75–102Google Scholar

Fradin, Bernard 2009. ‘IE, Romance: French’, in Lieber, and Štekauer, (eds.), pp. 417–435Google Scholar

Furetière, Antoine 1690. Dictionnaire universel contenant généralement tous les mots français […]. The Hague: LeersGoogle Scholar

Gagné, Christina L. 2001. ‘Relation and lexical priming during the interpretation of noun-noun combinations’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition 1: 236–254Google Scholar

Gagné, Christina L. 2002. ‘Lexical and relational influences on the processing of novel compounds’, Brain and Language 81: 723–735CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Gagné, Christina L. and Shoben, Edward J. 1997. ‘Influence of thematic relations on the comprehension of modifier-noun compounds’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 23: 71–87Google Scholar

Gagné, Christina L. and Spalding, Thomas L. 2004. ‘Effect of relation availability on the interpretation and access of familiar noun-noun compounds’, Brain and Language 90: 478–486CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Gagné, Christina L. and Spalding, Thomas L. 2010. ‘Relational competition during compound interpretation’, in Scalise, and Vogel, (eds), pp. 287–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gallmann, Peter 1990. Kategoriell komplexe Wortformen. Tübingen: NiemeyerCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gårding, Eva 1974. Kontrastiv prosodi. Lund: Liber LäromedelGoogle Scholar

Gavriilidou, Zoe 1997. Etude comparée des suites NN en français et en grec. Elaboration d’un lexique bilingue. Lille: Presses Universitaires du SeptentrionGoogle Scholar

Gavriilidou, Zoe 2013. ′Οψεις επíτασης στη Νέα Ελληνική [Aspects of Intensity in Modern Greek]. Thessaloniki: KyriakidesGoogle Scholar

Giurescu, Anca 1975. Les Mots composés dans les langues romanes. The Hague: MoutonCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gleitman, Lila R. and Gleitman, Henry 1970. Phrase and Paraphrase: Some Innovative Uses of Language. New York: W. W. NortonGoogle Scholar

Grandi, Nicola 2002. Morfologie in contatto. Le costruzioni valutative nelle lingue del Mediterraneo. Milano: Franco AngeliGoogle Scholar

Grandi, Nicola 2005. ‘Sardinian evaluative morphology in typological perspective’, in Putzu, Ignazio (ed.) Sardinian in Typological Perspective. Bochum: Dr Brockmeyer University Press, pp. 188–209Google Scholar

Grieve-Schumacher, Madeleine 1960. Die Nominalkomposition im Französischen. Winterthur: KellerGoogle Scholar

Grzega, Joachim 2003. ‘Borrowing as a word-finding process in cognitive historical onomasiology’, Onomasiology Online 4: 22–42Google Scholar

Grzega, Joachim 2009. ‘Compounding from an onomasiological perspective’, in Lieber, and Štekauer, (eds.), pp. 217–232Google Scholar

Guilbert, Louis 1971. ‘De la formation des unités lexicales’, in Guilbert, Louis, Lagane, René and Niobey, Georges (eds.) Grand Larousse de la langue française. Paris: Larousse, pp. ix–lxxxiGoogle Scholar

Gunkel, Lutz and Zifonun, Gisela 2009. ‘Classifying modifiers in common names’, Word Structure 2(2): 205–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar

de Haas, Wim and Trommelen, Mieke 1993. Morfologisch Handboek van het Nederlands: Een overzicht van de woordvorming. ‘s-Gravenhage: SDUGoogle Scholar

ten Hacken, Pius 1994. Defining Morphology: A Principled Approach to Determining the Boundaries of Compounding, Derivation, and Inflection. Hildesheim: OlmsGoogle Scholar

ten Hacken, Pius 2000. ‘Derivation and compounding’, in Booij, Geert, Lehmann, Christian and Mugdan, Joachim (eds.) Morphologie – Morphology: Ein Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung – A Handbook on Inflection and Word Formation. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 349–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar

ten Hacken, Pius 2003. ‘Phrasal elements as parts of words’, in Hajičová, Eva, Kotěšovcová, Anna and Mírovský, Jiří (eds.) Proceedings of CIL17, CD-ROM. Praha: Matfyzpress, MFF UKGoogle Scholar

ten Hacken, Pius 2007. Chomskyan Linguistics and its Competitors. London: EquinoxGoogle Scholar

ten Hacken, Pius 2009. ‘Early generative approaches’, in Lieber, and Štekauer, (eds.), pp. 54–77Google Scholar

ten Hacken, Pius 2010. ‘Synthetic and exocentric compounds in a parallel architecture’, Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft 17: 233–251Google Scholar

ten Hacken, Pius 2012a. ‘Lexicalization and productivity: A PA perspective’, in Bloch-Trojnar, Maria and Bloch-Rozmej, Anna (eds.) Modules and Interfaces. Lublin: Wydawnictwo KUL, pp. 271–288Google Scholar

ten Hacken, Pius 2012b. ‘Neoclassical word formation in English and the organization of the lexicon’, in Gavriilidou, Zoe, Efthymiou, Angeliki, Thomadaki, Evangelia and Kambakis-Vougiouklis, Penelope (eds.) Selected Papers of the 10th International Conference on Greek Linguistics. Komotini: Democritus University of Thrace, pp. 78–88Google Scholar

ten Hacken, Pius 2013a. ‘Semiproductivity and the place of word formation in grammar’, in ten Hacken, and Thomas, (eds.), pp. 28–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar

ten Hacken, Pius 2013b. ‘Diminutives and Plurals of Dutch Nouns’, Quaderns de Filología: Estudis lingüístics 18: 61–70Google Scholar

ten Hacken, Pius 2013c. ‘Compounds in English, in French, in Polish, and in general’, SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 10: 97–113Google Scholar

ten Hacken, Pius 2015. ‘Transposition and the limits of word formation’, in Bauer, Laurie, KÖrtvélyessy, Livia and Štekauer, Pavol (eds.) Semantics of Complex Words. Berlin: Springer, pp. 187–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar

ten Hacken, Pius and Panocová, Renáta 2011. ‘Individual and social aspects of word formation’, Kwartalnik Neofilologiczny 58: 283–300Google Scholar

ten Hacken, Pius and Panocová, Renáta 2013. ‘The use of corpora in word formation research’, CORELA – Numéro thématique / Statut et utilisation des corpus en linguistique. http://corela.revues.org/3018 (accessed 15 August 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

ten Hacken, Pius and Panocová, Renáta 2014. ‘Neoclassical formatives in dictionaries’, in Abel, Andrea, Vettori, Chiara and Ralli, Natascia (eds.) Proceedings of the XVI EURALEX International Congress: The User in Focus, pp. 1058–1072Google Scholar

ten Hacken, Pius and Thomas, Claire 2013. ‘Word formation, meaning and lexicalization’, in ten Hacken, and Thomas, (eds.), pp. 1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar

ten Hacken, Pius and Thomas, Claire (eds.) 2013. The Semantics of Word Formation and Lexicalization. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University PressGoogle Scholar

Haensch, Günther and Lallemand-Rietkötter, Annette 1972. Wortbildungslehre des modernen Französisch. Munich: HueberGoogle Scholar

Hall, Robert A. 1956. ‘How we noun-incorporate in English’, American Speech 31: 83–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harley, Heidi 2009. ‘Compounding in distributed morphology’, in Lieber, and Štekauer, (eds.), pp. 129–144Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin 2009. ‘Lexical borrowing: concepts and issues’, in Haspelmath, Martin and Tadmor, Uri (eds.) Loanwords in the World’s Languages: A Comparative Handbook. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 35–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hatcher, Anna Granville 1960. ‘An introduction to the analysis of English noun compounds’, Word 16: 356–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Higginbotham, James 1985. ‘On semantics’, Linguistic Inquiry 16: 547–94Google Scholar

Hoeksema, Jack 2012. ‘Elative compounds in Dutch’, in Oebel, Guido (ed.) Crosslinguistic Comparison of Intensified Adjectives and Adverbs. Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kovac, pp. 97–142Google Scholar

Hoffmann, Sebastian, Evert, Stefan, Berglund Prytz, Ylva, Lee, David and Smith, Nicholas 2008. Corpus Linguistics with BNCweb – A Practical Guide, volume 6 of English Corpus Linguistics. Frankfurt am Main: Peter LangGoogle Scholar

Hohenhaus, Peter 1998. ‘Non-lexicalizability as a characteristic feature of nonce word formation in English and German’, Lexicology 4(2): 237–280Google Scholar

Huddleston, Rodney and Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2005. The Cambridge Reference Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Jackendoff, Ray 1975. ‘Morphological and semantic regularities in the Lexicon’, Language 51: 639–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jackendoff, Ray 1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar

Jackendoff, Ray 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar

Jackendoff, Ray 1997. The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar

Jackendoff, Ray 2002. Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jackendoff, Ray 2009. ‘Compounding in the Parallel Architecture and Conceptual Semantics’, in Lieber, and Stekauer, (eds.), pp. 105–129Google Scholar

Jackendoff, Ray 2010. ‘The Ecology of English Noun-Noun Compounds’, in Meaning and the Lexicon: The Parallel Architecture, 1975–2010. Oxford University Press, pp. 413–451Google Scholar

Jackendoff, Ray 2013. ‘Constructions in the Parallel Architecture’, in Hoffmann, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford University Press, pp. 70–92Google Scholar

Jenkins, Fred M. 1972. ‘Double-noun compounds in contemporary French’, French Review 46: 67–73Google Scholar

Jespersen, Otto 1942. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Perspectives. Part VI: Morphology. Copenhagen: MunksgaardGoogle Scholar

Johnston, Michael and Busa, Federica 1999. ‘Qualia structure and the compositional interpretation of compounds’, in Viegas, Evelyne (ed.) Proceedings of the ACL SIGLEX Workshop on Breadth and Depth of Semantic Lexicons, Santa Cruz, Cal. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 77–88Google Scholar

Kastovsky, Dieter 1982. Wortbildung und Semantik. Tübingen/Düsseldorf: Francke/BagelGoogle Scholar

Kastovsky, Dieter 1986. Diachronic word-formation in a functional perspective’, in Kastovsky, Dieter and Szwedek, Aleksander (eds.) Linguistics Across Historical and Geographical Boundaries. In Honour of Jacek Fisiak on the Occasion of his Fiftieth Birthday. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 409–421Google Scholar

Kastovsky, Dieter 2009. ‘Astronaut, astrology, astrophysics: About combining forms, classical compounds and affixoids’, in McConchie, Rod W., Honkapohja, Alpo and Tyrkkö, Jukka (eds.) Selected Proceedings of the 2008 Symposium on New Approaches in English Historical Lexis. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 1–13Google Scholar

Katz, Jerrold J. and Postal, Paul M. 1964. An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar

Keune, Karen 2012. ‘Explaining register and sociolinguistic variation in the lexicon: Corpus studies on Dutch’. LOT Dissertation Series 307Google Scholar

Klembárová, Eva 2012. ‘Contrastive analysis of word-formation in children of different age’, MA thesis, P.J. Šafárik University, KošiceGoogle Scholar

Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria 2009. ‘Proper-name compounds in Swedish between syntax and lexicon’, Rivista di Linguistica/Italian Journal of Linguistics 21: 119–148Google Scholar

Körtvélyessy, Lívia 2010. Vplyv sociolingvistických faktorov na produktivitu v slovotvorbe. Prešov: SlovacontactGoogle Scholar

Körtvélyessy, Lívia and Štekauer, Pavol 2014. ‘Derivation in social context’, in Lieber, and Štekauer, (eds.), pp. 407–423Google Scholar

Lamy, Marie-Noëlle 1978. ‘Neological noun-noun compounds in contemporary French’, Semasia 5: 125–147Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume I, Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford University PressGoogle Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 1988. ‘A view of Linguistic Semantics’, in Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida (ed.) Topics in Cognitive Linguistics, Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 50. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 49–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume II: Descriptive Applications. Stanford University PressGoogle Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 1997. ‘The contextual basis of cognitive semantics’, in Nuyts, Jan and Pederson, Eric (eds.) Language and Conceptualization. Cambridge University Press, pp. 229–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lapointe, Steven Guy 1980. ‘A theory of grammatical agreement’, PhD thesis, University of MassachusettsGoogle Scholar

Lascarides, Alex, and Copestake, Ann 1998. ‘Pragmatics and word meaning’, Journal of Linguistics 34: 387–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lees, Robert B. 1960. The Grammar of English Nominalizations. Bloomington: Indiana University Press and The Hague: Mouton (reissued 1963, 5th printing 1968)Google Scholar

Lees, Robert B. 1970. ‘Problems in the analysis of English nominal compounds’, in Bierwisch, Manfred and Heidolph, Karl Erich (eds.) Progress in Linguistics. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 174–186Google Scholar

Levi, Judith N. 1975. ‘The syntax and semantics of non-predicating adjectives in English’, PhD thesis, University of ChicagoGoogle Scholar

Levi, Judith N. 1978. The Syntax and Semantics of Complex Nominals. New York: Academic PressGoogle Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive Meanings. The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Li, Charles N. 1971. ‘Semantics and the structure of compounds in Chinese’, PhD thesis, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar

Lieber, Rochelle 1983. ‘Argument linking and compounds’, Linguistic Inquiry 14: 251–286Google Scholar

Lieber, Rochelle 1988. ‘Phrasal compounds and the morphology-syntax interface’, in Brentair, Diane, Larson, Gary and MacLeod, Lynn (eds.) Chicago Linguistic Society, Pt II, Parasession on Agreement in Grammatical Theory. University of Chicago, Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 202–222Google Scholar

Lieber, Rochelle 1992. Deconstructing Morphology. University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar

Lieber, Rochelle 2004. Morphology and Lexical Semantics. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Lieber, Rochelle 2006. ‘The category of roots and the roots of categories. What we learn from selection in derivation’, Morphology 16: 247–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lieber, Rochelle 2009. ‘A lexical semantic approach to compounding’, in Lieber, and Štekauer, (eds.), pp. 79–104Google Scholar

Lieber, Rochelle 2010. ‘On the lexical semantics of compounds: Non-affixal (de-)verbal compounds’, in Scalise, and Vogel, (eds.), pp. 127–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lieber, Rochelle forthcoming. ‘On the interplay of facts and theory’, in Siddiqi, Daniel and Harley, Heidi (eds.) Morphological Metatheory. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar

Lieber, Rochelle and Baayen, R. Harald 1997. ‘A semantic principle of auxiliary selection in Dutch’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15: 789–845CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lieber, Rochelle and Scalise, Sergio 2007. ‘The lexical integrity hypothesis in a new theoretical universe’, in Ralli, Angela; Booij, Geert and Scalise, Sergio (eds.) On-line Proceedings of the Fifth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (MMM5). Fréjus 15–18 September 2005, University of Bologna, pp. 1–24. http://mmm.lingue.unibo.it/Google Scholar

Lieber, Rochelle and Štekauer, Pavol (eds.) 2009. The Oxford Handbook of Compounding. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Lüdeling, Anke 2006. ‘Neoclassical compounding’, in Brown, Keith (ed.) Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 580–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lüdeling, Anke, Schmid, Tanja and Kiokpasoglou, Sawwas 2002. ‘On neoclassical word formation in German’, in Booij, Geert and van Marle, Jaap (eds.) Yearbook of Morphology 2001. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 253–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar

MacWhinney, Brian 2004. ‘A multiple process solution to the logical problem of language acquisition’, Journal of Child Language 31: 883–914CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Maguire, Phil, Wisniewski, Edward J. and Storms, Gert 2010. ‘A corpus study of semantic patterns in compounding’, Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 6: 49–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Marchand, Hans 1965. ‘The analysis of verbal nexus substantives’, Indogermanische Forschungen 70: 57–71Google Scholar

Marchand, Hans 1969. The Categories and Types of Present-Day English Word-Formation. A Synchronic-Diachronic Approach, 2nd edn. Munich: BeckGoogle Scholar

Masini, Francesca 2009. ‘Phrasal lexemes, compounds and phrases: A constructionist perspective’, Word Structure 2: 254–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mathesius, Vilém 1961. Obsahový rozbor současné angličtiny na základě obecně lingvistickém. Praha: ČAVGoogle Scholar

Matthews, Peter H. 1974. Morphology: An Introduction to the Theory of Word Structure. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Meibauer, Jörg 2003. ‘Phrasenkomposita zwischen Wortsyntax und Lexikon’, Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 22(2): 153–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Meibauer, Jörg 2007. ‘How marginal are phrasal compounds? Generalized insertion, expressivity, and I/Q-interaction’, Morphology (17): 233–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Meibauer, Jörg 2013. ‘Expressive compounds in German’, Word Structure 6 (1): 21–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Meibauer, Jörg forthcoming. ‘On ‘R’ in phrasal compounds – a contextualist approach’, in Trips, and Kornfilt, (eds.)Google Scholar

Mellenius, Ingmarie 1997. ‘The acquisition of nominal compounding in Swedish’, PhD thesis, Lund University PressGoogle Scholar

Meyer, Ralf 1993. Compound Comprehension in Isolation and Context. Linguistische Arbeiten 299. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer VerlagGoogle Scholar

Millikan, Ruth. 1984. Language, Thought, and Other Biological Categories. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Motsch, Wolfgang. 2004. Deutsche Wortbildung in Grundzügen. 2., überarbeitete Aufl. Berlin, New York: De GruyterCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nakov, Preslav 2013. ‘On the interpretation of noun compounds: Syntax, semantics, and entailment’, Natural Language Engineering 19: 291–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nakov, Preslav and Hearst, Marti 2006. ‘Using verbs to characterize noun-noun relations’, in Proceedings of AIMSA 2006, Bulgaria, September. http://biotext.berkeley.edu/papers/aimsa2006.pdfGoogle Scholar

Nakov, Preslav and Hearst, Marti 2013. ‘Semantic interpretation of noun compounds using verbal and other paraphrases’, ACM Transactions on Speech and Language Processing, special issue on Multiword Expressions 10 (3). http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2483975Google Scholar

Nespor, Marina and Ralli, Angela 1996. ‘Morphology-phonology interface: Stress domain in Greek compounds’, The Linguistic Review 16: 357–382Google Scholar

Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1986. Linguistic Theory in America, 2nd edn. New York: Academic PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Noailly, Michèle 1990. Le Substantif épithète. Paris: Presses Universitaires de FranceGoogle Scholar

Nunberg, Geoffrey. 1979. ‘The non-uniqueness of semantic solutions: Polysemy’, Linguistics and Philosophy, 3: 143–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ó Séaghdha, Diarmuid 2007. ‘Designing and evaluating a semantic annotation scheme for compound nouns’, Proceedings of Corpus Linguistics 2007. Birmingham. www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~do242/Papers/dos_cl2007.pdfGoogle Scholar

Ó Séaghdha, Diarmuid 2008. ‘Learning compound noun semantics’, PhD thesis, Computer Laboratory Technical Report 735, Cambridge UniversityGoogle Scholar

OED 2014. Oxford English Dictionary. 3rd edn, ed. Simpson, John, www.oed.comGoogle Scholar

Olsen, Susan 2001. ‘Copulative compounds: A closer look at the interface between morphology and syntax’, Yearbook of Morphology 2000. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 279–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Olsen, Susan 2012. ‘Semantics of compounds’, in Maienborn, Claudia, von Heusinger, Klaus and Portner, Paul (eds.) Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 2120–2150Google Scholar

Ortner, Hanspeter and Ortner, Lorelies 1984. Zur Theorie und Praxis der Kompositaforschung: mit einer ausführlichen Bibliographie. Forschungsberichte Des Instituts Für Deutsche Sprache 55. Tübingen: NarrGoogle Scholar

Ortner, Lorelies and Müller-Bollhagen, Elgin 1991. Deutsche Wortbildung: Typen und Tendenzen in der Gegenwartssprache. Vierter Hauptteil: Substantivkomposita. Berlin, New York: De GruyterGoogle Scholar

Paepcke, Fritz 1946. ‘Die französische Nominalkomposition’, PhD thesis, Ludwig-Maximilians Universität, MunichGoogle Scholar

Pafel, Jürgen 2007. ‘Ein Essay mit dem Titel “on pure quotation”’, in Brendel, Elke, Meibauer, Jörg and Steinbach, Markus (eds.) Zitat und Bedeutung, Linguistische Berichte, Sonderheft 15. Hamburg: Buske, pp. 201–214Google Scholar

Pafel, Jürgen 2011. ‘Two dogmas on quotation’, in Brendel, Elke; Meibauer, Jörg and Steinbach, Markus (eds.) Understanding Quotation. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, pp. 249–267Google Scholar

Pafel, Jürgen forthcoming. ‘Phrasal compounds are compatible with lexical integrity’, in Trips, and Kornfilt, (eds.)Google Scholar

Panocová, Renáta 2015. Categories of Word Formation and Borrowing. An Onomasiological Account of Neoclassical Formations. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing,Google Scholar

Panocová, Renáta and ten Hacken, Pius in press. ‘Naming Symptoms, Syndromes, and Diseases’, in Calderón-Tichy, Marietta and Heuberger, Reinhard (eds.), Health and Language. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Panther, Klaus-Uwe and Thornburg, Linda 2007. ‘Metonymy’, in Geeraerts, Dirk and Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford University Press, pp. 236–264Google Scholar

Pavelková, Adriana 2014. ‘Back-formation process in English’, MA thesis, Pavol Jozef Šafárik University, KošiceGoogle Scholar

Picone, Michael D. 1996. Anglicisms, Neologisms and Dynamic French. Amsterdam: John BenjaminsCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pirrelli, Vito, Guevara, Emiliano and Baroni, Marco 2010. ‘Computational issues in compound processing’, in Scalise, and Vogel, (eds.), pp. 271–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Potts, Christopher 2007. ‘The expressive dimension’, Theoretical Linguistics 33(2): 165–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Prćić, Tvrtko 2005. ‘Prefixes vs initial combining forms in English: A lexicographic perspective’, International Journal of Lexicography 18: 313–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Prćić, Tvrtko 2008. ‘Suffixes vs. final combining forms in English: a lexicographic perspective’, International Journal of Lexicography 21: 1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pustejovsky, James 1991. ‘The Generative Lexicon’, Computational Linguistics 17: 409–441Google Scholar

Pustejovsky, James 1995. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar

Ralli, Αngela 2007. Η σύνθεση λέξεων. Διαγλωσσική μορϕολογική προσέγγιση [The Composition of Words. A Morphological Cross-linguistic Approach]. Athens: PatakisGoogle Scholar

Ralli, Αngela 2009. ‘IE: Hellenic: Modern Greek’, in Lieber, and Štekauer, (eds), pp. 453–463Google Scholar

Rappaport Hovav, Malka and Levin, Beth 1992. ‘-er nominals: Implications for a theory of argument structure’, in Stowell, Tim and Wehrli, Eric (eds.) Syntax and Semantics 26: Syntax and the Lexicon. New York: Academic Press, pp. 127–153Google Scholar

Roeper, Thomas and Siegel, Muffy 1978. ‘A lexical transformation for verbal compounds’, Linguistic Inquiry 9: 199–260Google Scholar

Rohrer, Christian 1967. Die Wortzusammensetzung im modernen Französisch. Tübingen: BetzGoogle Scholar

Rosenbach, Anette 2009. ‘Identifying noun modifiers in English’. Manuscript, Universität Paderborn. http://freelancehaven.weebly.com/uploads/5/0/1/1/5011326/identifying_noun_modifiers_in_english_ms_2009.pdfGoogle Scholar

Roth, Tobias 2014. Wortverbindungen und Verbindungen von Wörtern. Lexikografische und distributionelle Aspekte kombinatorischer Begriffsbildung zwischen Syntax und Morphologie. Tübingen: Francke VerlagGoogle Scholar

Ryder, Mary Ellen 1994. Ordered Chaos: The Interpretation of English Noun-Noun Compounds. Berkeley: University of California PressGoogle Scholar

Sadock, Jerrold 1998. ‘On the autonomy of compounding morphology’, in Lapointe, Steven G., Brentari, Diane K. and Farrell, Patrick M. (eds.) Morphology and its Relation to Phonology and Syntax. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 161–187Google Scholar

Säily, Tanja 2011. ‘Variation in morphological productivity in the BNC: Sociolinguistic and methodological considerations’, Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 7/1: 119–141Google Scholar

Scalise, Sergio 1984. Generative Morphology. Dordrecht: ForisGoogle Scholar

Scalise, Sergio and Bisetto, Antonietta 2009. ‘The classification of compounds’, in Lieber, and Štekauer, (eds.), pp. 34–53Google Scholar

Scalise, Sergio, Bisetto, Antonietta and Guevara, Emiliano 2005. ‘Selection in compounding and derivation’, in Dressler, Wolfgang U., Kastovsky, Dieter, Pfeiffer, Oskar E. and Rainer, Franz (eds.), Morphology and its Demarcations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 133–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Scalise, Sergio and Vogel, Irene (eds.) 2010. Cross-Disciplinary Approaches to Compounding. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John BenjaminsCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schlücker, Barbara 2013. ‘Non-classifying compounds in German’, Folia Linguistica 47(2): 449–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schlücker, Barbara 2014. Grammatik im Lexikon. Adjektiv+Nomen-Verbindungen im Deutschen und Niederländischen. Linguistische Arbeiten 553. Berlin, Boston: De GruyterCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Selkirk, Elizabeth O. 1982. The Syntax of Words. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar

Shoben, Edward 1991. ‘Predicating and nonpredicating combinations’, in Schwanenflugel, Paula J. (ed.) The Psychology of Word Meanings. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 117–135Google Scholar

Siegel, Dorothy 1979. Topics in English Morphology. New York: GarlandGoogle Scholar

Simoska, Silvana. 1999. ‘Die morphologische und semantische Vielfalt des Adjektiv+Nomen-Kompositums’. Deutsche Sprache 27: 156–187Google Scholar

Smith, Viktor, Barratt, Daniel and Zlatev, Jordan 2014. ‘Unpacking noun-noun compounds: Interpreting novel and conventional food names in isolation and on food labels’, Cognitive Linguistics 25(1): 99–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Soegaard, Anders 2005. ‘Compounding theories and linguistic diversity’, in Frajzyngier, Zygmund, Hodges, Adam and Rood, David S. (eds.) Linguistic Diversity and Language Theories. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 319–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Spalding, Thomas L., Gagné, Christina L., Mulally, Allison C. and Ji, Hongbo 2010. ‘Relation-based interpretations of noun–noun phrases: A new theoretical approach’, in Olsen, Susan (ed.). New Impulses in Word-Formation. Hamburg: Buske, pp. 283–315Google Scholar

Spencer, Andrew 2005. Word-Formation and Syntax, in Lieber, and Štekauer, (eds.), pp. 73–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Spencer, Andrew and Zwicky, Arnold M. (eds.) The Handbook of Morphology. Blackwell: OxfordGoogle Scholar

Štekauer, Pavol 1998. An Onomasiological Theory of English Word-Formation. Amsterdam: BenjaminsCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Štekauer, Pavol 2001. ‘Fundamental principles of an onomasiological theory of English word-formation’, in Grzega, Joachim (ed.) A Recollection of 11 Years of Onomasiology Online (2000–2010). All Articles Re-collected, pp. 15–54. www1.ku-eichstaett.de/SLF/EngluVglSW/OnOn-Total.pdf (accessed 10 August 2013)Google Scholar

Štekauer, Pavol 2005a. Meaning Predictability in Word-Formation. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John BenjaminsCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Štekauer, Pavol 2005b. ‘Onomasiological approach to word-formation’, in Štekauer, Pavol and Lieber, Rochelle (eds.) Handbook of Word-Formation. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 207–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Štekauer, Pavol 2009. ‘Meaning predictability of novel context-free compounds’, in Lieber, and Štekauer, (eds.), pp 272–297Google Scholar

Štekauer, Pavol 2015. ‘Back-formation’, in Müller, Peter O., Ohnheiser, Ingeborg, Olsen, Susan and Rainer, Franz (eds.) HSK Word-Formation. An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe. Berlin, New York: Mouton De Gruyter, pp. 240–251Google Scholar

Štekauer, Pavol, Chapman, Don, Tomaščíková, Slávka and Franko, Štefan 2005. ‘Word-formation as creativity within productivity constraints. Sociolinguistic evidence’, Onomasiology Online, 1–55Google Scholar

Thiele, Johannes 1987. La Formation des mots en français moderne. Montreal: Presses de l’Université de MontréalGoogle Scholar

Thomas, Claire 2013. ‘Lexicalization in generative morphology and conceptual structure’, in ten Hacken, and Thomas, (eds.), pp. 45–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tomasello, Michael 2003. Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar

Tratz, Stephen and Hovy, Eduard H. (2010). ‘A taxonomy, dataset, and classifier for automatic noun compound interpretation’, in Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Uppsala, Sweden, 11–16 July, pp. 678–687. www.aclweb.org/anthology/P10-1070Google Scholar

Trips, Carola 2012. ‘Empirical and theoretical aspects of phrasal compounds: against the “syntax explains it all” attitude’, in Ralli, Angela, Booij, Geert and Scalise, Sergio (eds.) Online Proceedings of the Mediterranean Morphology Meeting 8, pp. 322–346. http://lmgd.philology.upatras.gr/en/research/downloads/MMM8_Proceedings.pdfGoogle Scholar

Trips, Carola 2014. ‘How to account for the expressive nature of phrasal compounds in a conceptual semantic framework’, SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 11(1): 33–61Google Scholar

Trips, Carola and Kornfilt, Jaklin (eds.) forthcoming. Phrasal compounds in a typological and theoretical perspective. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (Sonderheft STUF)Google Scholar

Unterhuber, Johann 1988. ‘Die Nominalkomposition im Französischen und im Englischen mit einem Ausblick auf Suffixableitungen: ein Vergleich’, PhD thesis, Ludwig-Maximilians Universität, MunichGoogle Scholar

Ušhakov, Dmitrij N. 1946–47. Толковый словарь русского языка [Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language]. Online edition www.dict.t-mm.ru/ushakovGoogle Scholar

Vachek, Josef 1976. Selected Writings in English and General Linguistics. Praha: AcademiaCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wälchli, Bernhard 2005. Co-Compounds and Natural Coordination. Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wandruszka, Ulrich 1972. Französische Nominalsyntagmen. Munich: FinkGoogle Scholar

Warren, Beatrice 1978. Semantic Patterns of Noun-Noun Compounds. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis GothoburgensisGoogle Scholar

Warren, Beatrice 1984. Classifying adjectives. Gothenburg Studies in English 56. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis GothoburgensisGoogle Scholar

Warren, Beatrice 1992. Sense Developments. Stockholm: Almqvist and WiksellGoogle Scholar

Weiskopf, Daniel A. 2007. ‘Compound nominals, context, and compositionality’, Synthese 156: 161–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wiese, Richard 1996. ‘Phrasal compounds and the theory of word syntax’, Linguistic Inquiry, 27: 183–193Google Scholar

Williams, Edwin 1981. ‘On the notions “lexically related” and “head of a word”’, Linguistic Inquiry 12: 245–274Google Scholar

Windsor, Jennifer 1993. ‘The function of novel word compounds’, Journal of Child Language 20: 119–138CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Wisniewski, Edward J. 1996. ‘Construal and similarity in conceptual combination’, Journal of Memory and Language 35: 434–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wisniewski, Edward J. and Gentner, Dedre 1991. ‘On the combinatorial semantics of noun pairs: Minor and major adjustments to meaning’, in Simpson, Greg B. (ed.) Understanding Word and Sentence. New York: Elsevier Science Publishers, pp. 241–84Google Scholar

Wright, Sue Ellen 2006. ‘Standards for the language industry’, in ten Hacken, Pius (ed.) Terminology, Computing, and Translation. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag, pp. 19–40Google Scholar

Zimmer, Karl E. 1971. ‘Some general observations about nominal compounds’, Working Papers on Language Universals, Stanford University 5: C1–C21Google Scholar