General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain.• You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal.

This article examines the limited productivity of a minimally schematic Icelandic microclass, originally containing bók ‘book’, bót ‘patch’, brók ‘trousers’, nót ‘fishing net’, and rót ‘root’ only. Productivity is betrayed by the addition of feminine blók ‘nonentity’ and forms of neuter kók ‘Coke™’. While plural nominative/accusative blækur and kækur speak to the productivity of the microclass specifically, doublet forms in both paradigms follow multiple inflection classes. Some are of the opinion that plural kækur belies real language use, as it is only used for humorous effect. The current paper applies a usage-based cognitive analysis to the relevant data with two objectives. First, to account for graded membership in the microclass as a function of limited productivity. Secondly, to demonstrate that innovative kækur and blækur are deduced by identical means. It is concluded that productivity is a property of language use, which is posited as a function of analogy.

This paper presents a usage-based cognitive approach to the different rates at which Icelandic masculine forms in nominative/accusative plural -ur are reanalysed as feminine. Of the 14.92% of nouns in plural -ur, 91.89% are feminine, others masculine. Syncretism in nominative/accusative plural is exceptionless among feminines, but relatively rare among masculines. Interestingly, plurals such as masculine eigendur ‘owners’, fætur ‘feet’, vetur ‘winters’ occasionally yield the feminine outputs definite eigendur- nar , fætur- nar , vetur- nar , and are sometimes modified by feminine forms of adjectives and determiners. As the full set of forms in plural -ur is highly schematic, we might expect reanalysis – viewed as a property of a schema’s productivity – to correlate proportionately with the frequency of corresponding masculine forms. However, corpus data for Icelandic betray a mismatch. Through a network model approach that emphasises prototype structure, minimal schematicity is shown to impact the rate of reanalysis by means of a gang effect.

This critical report-cum-position statement summarises several workshops and conference panels recently held in three Nordic countries—Denmark, Iceland, and the Faroe Islands—based in developing the concept of island languages. It puts forward the epistemology and ontology of these sessions. The role these gatherings are playing in encouraging a more linguistically mandated direction within island studies and the study of island languages, especially in the Nordic countries and Europe, is summarised.