Productivity and Onomasiological Coercion

  • Pius ten HackenEmail author
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Linguistics book series (SBIL)


Jackendoff’s understanding of morphological productivity is close to Schultink’s definition, which relies on unintentionality, and to Corbin’s notion of regularity. Jackendoff’s view emphasizes processing efficiency as a driving force. In Corbin’s analysis, regularity is subordinate to availability. This is more in line with the perspective of word formation as a device for generating names for new concepts. In this perspective, the meaning of the resulting word is determined by the concept to be named rather than by the word formation rule or the input words. This is called onomasiological coercion. In this respect, word formation rules are different from words and syntactic rules. Therefore, it is worth making word formation into a separate component, operating on the lexicon.


  1. Aronoff, Mark H. 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar, Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Atkins, B.T.Sue, and Michael Rundell. 2008. The Oxford Guide to Practical Lexicography. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Baayen, Harald. 1992. Quantitative Aspects of Morphological Productivity. In Yearbook of Morphology 1991, ed. Booij, Geert and van Marle, Jaap, 109–49. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  4. Bauer, Laurie. 2001. Morphological Productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bloemhoff, Henk. 2002. Stellingwerfs, Den Haag: Sdu.Google Scholar
  6. Booij, Geert. 2010. Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. CHN. 2013. Corpus Hedendaags Nederlands, Leiden: Instituut voor Nederlandse Lexicografie,
  8. Chomsky, Noam. 1961. Some Methodological Remarks on Generative Grammar. Word 17: 219–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chomsky, Noam. 1964. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. Den Haag: Mouton.Google Scholar
  10. Chomsky, Noam. 1980. Rules and Representations. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on Nominalization. In Readings in English Transformational Grammar, ed. Jacobs, Roderick A. and Rosenbaum, Peter S, 11–61. Waltham MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
  12. Corbett, Greville G. 1991. Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Corbin, Danielle. 1987. Morphologie dérivationnelle et structuration du lexique, Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  14. van Dale. 1992. Van Dale Groot Woordenboek der Nederlandse Taal, 12th ed., ed. Geerts, G. and Heestermans, H. Utrecht/Antwerpen: Van Dale Lexicografie.Google Scholar
  15. Duijff, Pieter. 2002. Fries en Stadsfries, Den Haag: Sdu.Google Scholar
  16. Grevisse, Maurice. 1980. Le bon usage: Grammaire française avec des Remarques sur la langue française d’aujourd’hui, onzième édition revue. Paris/Gembloux: Duculot.Google Scholar
  17. de Haas, Wim, and Mieke Trommelen. 1993. Morfologisch Handboek van het Nederlands: Een overzicht van de woordvorming, ’s-Gravenhage: SDU.Google Scholar
  18. ten Hacken, Pius. 2007. Chomskyan Linguistics and its Competitors. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
  19. ten Hacken, Pius. 2012. Neoclassical Word Formation in English and the Organization of the Lexicon. In Selected papers of the 10th International Conference of Greek Linguistics, ed. Zoe Gavriilidou, Angeliki Efthymiou, Evangelia Thomadaki, and Penelope Kambakis-Vougiouklis, 78–88. Komotini: Democritus University of Thrace.Google Scholar
  20. ten Hacken, Pius. 2013. Semiproductivity and the Place of Word Formation in Grammar. In The Semantics of Word Formation and Lexicalization, ed. ten Hacken, Pius and Thomas, Claire, 28–44. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  21. ten Hacken, Pius, and Renáta Panocová. 2011. Individual and Social Aspects of Word Formation. Kwartalnik Neofilologiczny 58: 283–300.Google Scholar
  22. ten Hacken, Pius, and Renáta Panocová. 2013. The Use of Corpora in Word Formation Research, CORELA (Cognition, Représentation, Langage), HS-13,
  23. ten Hacken, Pius, and Panocová, Renáta 2015. Medical Language, Word Formation and Transparency. In Word Formation and Transparency in Medical English, ten Hacken, Pius and Panocová, Renáta (eds.), Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Press, pp. 1–11.Google Scholar
  24. Halle, Morris. 1973. Prolegomena to a Theory of Word Formation. Linguistic Inquiry 4: 3–16.Google Scholar
  25. Halle, Morris, and Alec Marantz 1993. Distributed Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection. In The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, ed. Hale, Kenneth, and Keyser, Samuel J., 111–76. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. Hoppenbrouwers, Cor. 1990. Het Regiolect: Van dialect tot Algemeen Nederlands. Muiderberg: Coutinho.Google Scholar
  27. Jackendoff, Ray. 1975. Morphological and Semantic Regularities in the Lexicon. Language 51: 639–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jackendoff, Ray. 1993. Patterns in the Mind: Language and Human Nature. New York: Harvester/Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  29. Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of Language: Brain. Meaning, Grammar, Evolution, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Jackendoff, Ray. 2009. Compounding in the Parallel Architecture and Conceptual Semantics. In The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, ed. Rochelle Lieber and Pavol Štekauer, 105–128. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Jackendoff, Ray. 2010. Meaning and the Lexicon: The Parallel Architecture 1975–2010. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Jackendoff, Ray, and Jenny Audring. 2016. Morphological Schemas: Theoretical and Psycholinguistic Issues. The Mental Lexicon 11: 467–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. van Marle, Jaap. 1985. On the Paradigmatic Dimension of Morphological Creativity. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  35. Mehler, J. 1919. Woordenboek op de gedichten van Homèros. ’s-Gravenhage/Rotterdam: Nijgh & van Ditmar.Google Scholar
  36. Niebaum, Hermann, and Jürgen Macha. 1999. Einführung in die Dialektologie des Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
  37. Panocová, Renáta, and Pius ten Hacken. 2017. Naming Symptoms, Syndromes, and Diseases. In Health and Language, ed. Marietta Calderón-Tichy, Reinhard Heuberger and Emil Chamson, 225–233. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  38. Panocová, Renáta, and Pius ten Hacken. 2018. Process Nouns in Dictionaries: A Comparison of Slovak and Dutch. In Proceedings of the XVIII EURALEX International Congress: Lexicography in Global Contexts, 17–21 July 2018, Ljubljana, ed. Čibej, Jaka, Gorjanc, Vojko, Kosem, Iztok, and Krek, Simon, 713–22. Ljubljana: Univerza v Ljubljani Filozofska Fakulteta.Google Scholar
  39. Pustejovsky, James. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  40. Schultink, Henk. 1961. Produktiviteit als morfologisch fenomeen. Forum der Letteren 2: 110–125.Google Scholar
  41. van der Sijs, Nicoline (ed.). 2011. Dialectatlas van het Nederlands. Amsterdam: Bakker.Google Scholar
  42. Štekauer, Pavol. 1998. An Onomasiological Theory of English Word-Formation. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Štekauer, Pavol. 2005. Onomasiological Approach to Word-Formation. In Handbook of Word-Formation, ed. Pavol Štekauer and Rochelle Lieber, 207–232. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Štekauer, Pavol. 2016. Compounding from An Onomasiological Perspective. In The Semantics of Compounding, ed. ten Hacken, Pius, 54–68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Verschueren, Jozef (ed.). 1938. Modern woordenboek en populair-wetenschappelijke encyclopædie, geïllustreerd (2 vol.), 3rd ed. Amsterdam: Wereldbibliotheek.Google Scholar
  46. Verschueren 1979. Verschuerens Modern Woordenboek: Woordenboek en encyclopedie. (2 vol.), 8th ed., ed. Claes, Frans M. Antwerpen: Standaard.Google Scholar
  47. WNT. 2010. Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal, Leiden: Instituut voor Nederlandse Lexikologie,

Copyright information

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für TranslationswissenschaftLeopold-Franzens-Universität InnsbruckInnsbruckAustria

Personalised recommendations