Alegre, Maria, and Gordon, Peter. 1999. Frequency effects and the representational status of regular inflections. Journal of Memory and Language 40, 41–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Altmann, Eduardo G.; Pierrehumbert, Janet B., and Motter, Adilson E.. 2009. Beyond word frequency: Bursts, lulls, and scaling in the temporal distributions of words. PLoS One 4.ll. e7678.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Anshen, Frank, and Aronoff, Mark. 1997. Morphology in real time. Yearbook of Morphology 1996, 9–12.Google Scholar

Aronoff, Mark. 1980. The relevance of productivity in a synchronic description of word formation. In Fisiak, Jacek (ed.), Historical Morphology: Papers prepared for the International Conference on Historical Morphology Held at Boszkowo, Poland, 15–18 March 1978, 71–82. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aronoff, Mark, and Anshen, Frank. 2001. Morphology and the lexicon: Lexicalization and productivity. In Spencer, Andrew and Zwicky, Arnold M. (eds.), The Handbook of Morphology, 237–47. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Aslin, Richard N.; Saffran, Jenny R., and Newport, Elissa L.. 1998. Computation of conditional probability statistics by 8-month-old infants. Psychological Science 9.4, 321–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Auer, Edward T.; Bernstein, Lynne E., and Tucker, Paula E.. 2000. Is subjective word familiarity a meter of ambient language? A natural experiment on effects of perceptual experience. Memory and Cognition 28.5, 789–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald. 1992a. On frequency, transparency and productivity. Yearbook of Morphology 1991, 181–208.Google Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald. 1992b. Quantitative aspects of morphological productivity. Yearbook of Morphology 1991, 109–49.Google Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald. 1994. Derivational productivity and text typology. Journal of Quantitatie Linguistics 1.1, 16–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald. 2000. Word Frequency Distributions. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald. 2009. Corpus linguistics in morphology: Morphological productivity. In Luedeling, A. and Kyto, M. (eds.), Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook, 909–19. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald. 2010. Demythologizing the word frequency effect: A discriminative learning perspective. The Mental Lexicon 5, 436–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald. 2011. Corpus linguistics and naive discriminative learning. Revista Brasileira de Linguistica Aplicada 11.2, 295–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald, and Hendrix, Peter. 2011. Sidestepping the combinatorial explosion: Towards a processing model based on discriminative learning. In Empirically examining parsimony and redundancy in usage-based models, Isa workshop.Google Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald, and Renouf, Antoinette. 1996. Chronicling the Times: Productive lexical innovations in an English newspaper. Language 72, 69–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald; Piepenbrock, Richard, and van Rijn, Hedderik. 1993. The CELEX Lexical Database. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald; Dijkstra, Ton, and Schreuder, Robert. 1997. Singulars and plurals in Dutch: Evidence for a parallel dual-route model. Journal of Memory and Language 37.1, 94–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald; Milin, P., Filipovic Durdevic, D., Hendrix, P., and Marelli, M.. 2011. An amorphous model for morphological processing in visual comprehension based on naive discriminative learning. Psychological Review 118, 438–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Baker, Paul. 2010. Diachronic variation. In Sociolinguistics and Corpus Linguistics, 57–80. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Balota, David A.; Pilotti, Maura, and Cortese, Michael J. 2001. Subjective frequency estimates for 2,938 monosyllabic words. Memory and Cognition 29.4, 639–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bauer, Laurie. 1994. Watching English Change. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Bauer, Laurie. 2001. Morphological Productivity, Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 95. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bell, Alan; Brenier, Jason, Gregory, Michelle, Giraud, Cynthia, and Jurafsky, Dan. 2009. Predictability effects on durations of content and function words in conversational English. Journal of Memory and Language 60, 92–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Berg, Thomas. 2011. A diachronic frequency account of the allomorphy of some grammatical markers. Journal of Linguistics 47.1, 31–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bertram, R.; Schreuder, Robert, and Harald Baayen, R.. 2000. The balance of storage and computation in morphological processing: The role of word formation type, affixal homonymy, and productivity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 26, 1–23.Google ScholarPubMed

Blevins, James P. 2003. Stems and paradigms. Language 79.4, 737–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Burani, C., and Caramazza, A.. 1987. Representation and processing of derived words. Language and Cognitive Processes 2, 217–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Joan 1995. Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 10.5, 425–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Joan, and Thompson, Sandra. 1997. Three frequency effects in syntax. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session and Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Structure, 378–88. Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar

Chapman, Don, and Skousen, Royal. 2005. Analogical Modeling and morphological change: The case of the adjectival negative prefix in English. English Language and Linguistics 9.2, 333–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ciszek, Ewa. 2012. The Middle English suffix -ish: Reasons for decline in productivity. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 47.2–3, 27–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Connine, Cynthia M.; Mullennix, John, Shernoff, Eve, and Yelen, Jennifer. 1990. Word familiarity and frequency in visual and auditory word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 16.6, 1084–96.Google ScholarPubMed

Dabrowska, Ewa. 2008. The effects of frequency and neighbourhood density on adult speakers: Productivity with Polish case inflections. An empirical test of usage based approaches to morphology. Journal of Memory and Language 58.4, 931–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Daelemans, W.; Zavrel, J., van der Sloot, K., and van den Bosch, A.. 2007. TiMBL: Tilburg Memory Based Learner, version 6.1, Reference Guide. Tech. rep. ILK Research Group Technical Report Series no. 07-07.Google Scholar

Dalton-Puffer, Christiane. 1996. The French Influence on Middle English Morphology: A Corpus-based Study of Derivation, Topics in English Linguistics 20. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dalton-Puffer, Christiane, and Cowie, Claire. 2002. Diachronic word-formation and studying changes in productivity over time: Theoretical and methodological considerations. In Dfaz Vera, J. E. (ed.), A Changing World of Words: Studies in English Historical Lexicography, Lexicology and Semantics, 410–37. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar

Davies, Mark 2008. The corpus of contemporary American English: 425 million words, 1990-present. Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/coca (accessed April 18, 2016).Google Scholar

de Jong, Ninja; Schreuder, Robert, and R. Harald Baayen, . 2000. The morphological family size effect and morphology. Journal of Memory and Language 42, 390–405.Google Scholar

Enger, Hans-Olav. 2004. On the relation between gender and declension: A diachronic perspective from Norwegian. Studies in Language 28.1, 51–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Frisch, Stefan A.; Pierrehumbert, Janet B., and Broe, Michael B.. 2004. Similarity avoidance and the OCP. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22, 179–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gernsbacher, Morton A. 1984. Resolving 20 years of inconsistent interactions between lexical familiarity and orthography, concreteness, and polysemy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 113.2, 256–81.Google ScholarPubMed

Gonnerman, L.; Seidenberg, M. S., and Andersen, E.. 2007. Graded semantic and phonological similarity effects in priming: Evidence for a distributed connectionist approach to morphology. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 136, 323–45.Google ScholarPubMed

Gries, Stefan T. 2008. Dispersions and adjusted frequencies in corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 13.4, 403–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gries, Stefan T. 2009. Dispersions and adjusted frequencies in corpora: Further explorations. Language and Computers 71.1, 197–212.Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan T. 2011. Frequency tables: Tests, effect sizes, and explorations. In Glynn, Dylan and Robinson, Justyna A. (eds.), Polysemy and Synonymy: Corpus Methods and Applications in Cognitive Linguistics, 365–89. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan T. 2014a. Corpus and quantitative methods. In The Bloomsbury Companion to Cognitive Linguistics, 279–300. London and, New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan T. 2014b. Quantitative corpus approaches to linguistic analysis: Seven or eight levels of resolution and the lessons they teach us. In Taavitsainen, Irma, Kyto, Merja, Claridge, Claudia, and Smith, Jeremy (eds.), Developments in English: Expanding Electronic Evidence. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan T., and Hilpert, Martin. 2008. The identification of stages in diachronic data: Variability-based neighbour clustering. Corpora 3.1, 59–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gries, Stefan T., and Hilpert, Martin. 2010. Modeling diachronic change in the third person singular: A multifactorial, verb- and author-specific exploratory approach. English Language and Linguistics 14.3, 293–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gries, Stefan T., and Hilpert, Martin. 2012. Variability-based neighbor clustering: A bottom-up approach to periodization in historical linguistics. In Nevalainen, Terttu and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th., and Newman, John 2013. Research methods in Linguistics chap. Creating and Using Corpora. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hay, Jennifer B. 2001. Lexical frequency in morphology: Is everything relative? Linguistics 39.6, 1041–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hay, Jennifer B. 2003. Causes and Consequences of Word Structure. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Hay, Jennifer B., and Baayen, R. Harald. 2002. Parsing and productivity. Yearbook of Morphology 2001, 203–35.Google Scholar

Hay, Jennifer B., and Baayen, R. Harald. 2005. Shifting paradigms: Gradient structure in morphology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9.7, 342–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Hay, Jennifer B., Jannedy, Stefanie, and Bod, Rens (eds.) 2003. Probabilistic Linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Hilpert, Martin. 2011. Diachronic collostructional analysis: How to use it and how to deal with confounding factors. In Allan, Kathryn and Robinson, Justyna A. (eds.), Current Methods in Historical Semantics, Topics in English Linguistics 73, 133–60. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Hilpert, Martin, and Gries, Stefan T.. 2009. Assessing frequency changes in multistage diachronic corpora: Applications for historical corpus linguistics and the study of language acquisition. Literary and Linguistic Computing 24.4, 385–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hinneburg, Alexander; Mannila, Heikki, Kaislaniemi, Samuli, Nevalainen, Terttu, and Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 2007. How to handle small samples: Bootstrap and Bayesian methods in the analysis of linguistic change. Literary and Linguistic Computing 22.2, 137–50.Google Scholar

Johnston, Robert, and Barry, Christopher. 2006. Age of acquisition and lexical processing. Visual Cognition 13, 789–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kaunisto, Mark. 2009. The rivalry between English adjectives ending in -ive and -ory. In McConchie, R. W., Honkapohja, Alpo, and Tyrkko, Jukka (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 2008 Symposium on New Approaches in English Historical Lexis (HEL-LEX 2), 74–87. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar

Kennedy, Alan; Hill, Robin, and Pynte, Joel. 2003. The Dundee Corpus. In Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Eye Movement. University of Dundee.Google Scholar

Kilgarriff, Adam, and Grefenstette, Gregory. 2003. Introduction to the special issue on the web as corpus. Computational Linguistics 29.3, 333–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Köpcke, Klaus-Michael. 1988. Schemas in German plural formation. Lingua 74, 303–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kostić, Aleksandar. 1995. Information load constraints on processing inflected morphology. In Feldman, Laurie Beth (ed.), Morphological Aspects of Language Processing, 317–44. Hillsdale, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Kostić, Aleksandar; Markovic, Tanja, and Baucal, Aleksandar. 2003. Inflectional morphology and word meaning: Orthogonal or co-implicative cognitive domains? In Harald Baayen, R. and Schreuder, Robert (eds.), Morphological Structure in Language Processing, Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs (TiLSM) 151, 1–44. Amsterdam: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Kuc̆era, Henry, and Francis, Winthrop Nelson. 1967. Computational Analysis of Present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University.Google Scholar

Kuc̆era, Karol. 2007. Mapping the time continuum: A major raison d’être for diachronic corpora. In Proceedings of Corpus Linguistics Birmingham 2007, University of Birmingham.Google Scholar

Laitinen, Mikko. 2008. Sociolinguistic patterns in grammaticalization: He, they, and those in human indefinite reference. Language Variation and Change 20, 155–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites, vol. 1. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Lüdeling, Anke, and Evert, Stefan. 2005. The emergence of non-medical -itis: Corpus evidence and qualitative analysis. In Kepser, S. and Reis, M. (eds.), Linguistic Evidence. Empirical, Theoretical, and Computational Perspectives, 315–33. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Manning, Christopher D., and Schütze, Hinrich. 1999. Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Medina Urrea, Alfonso. 2009. Toward a comparison of unsupervised diachronic morphological profiles. Language and Computers 71, 29–45.Google Scholar

Milin, Petar; Kuperman, Victor, Kostic, Aleksandar, and Harald Baayen, R.. 2009. Paradigms bit by bit: An information theoretic approach to the processing of paradigmatic structure in inflection and derivation. In Blevins, James P. and Blevins, Juliette (eds.), Analogy in Grammar: Form and Acquisition, 214–52. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Moscoso del Prado Martín, Fermin; Bertram, Raymond, Haikio, Tuomo, Schreuder, Robert, and Harald Baayen, R.. 2004a. Morphological family size in a morphologically rich language: The case of Finnish compared to Dutch and Hebrew. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 30, 1271–8.Google Scholar

Moscoso del Prado Martín, Fermin; Bertram, Raymond, Kostic, Aleksandar, and Harald Baayen, R.. 2004b. Putting the bits together: An information theoretical perspective on morphological processing. Cognition 94.1, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nevalainen, Terttu. 2000. Gender differences in the evolution of Standard English: Evidence from the Corpus of Early English Correspondence. Journal of English Linguistics 28.1, 38–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nevalainen, Terttu, and Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 2003. Historical Sociolinguistics: Language Change in Tudor and Stuart England. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Pappas, Panayiotis A. 2001. The microcosm of a morphological change: Variation in thelo + infinitive futures and ethela + infinitive counterfactuals in Early Modern Greek. Diachronica 18.1, 59–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 2012. Burstiness of verbs and derived nouns. In Santos, Diana, Lindén, Krister, and Ng’ang’a, Wanjiku (eds.), Shall We Play the Festschrift Game? Essays on the Occasion of Lauri Carlson’s 6Oth Birthday, 99–115. Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Plag, Ingo. 1999. Morphological Productivity: Structural Constraints in English Derivation, Topics in English Linguistics 28. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Plag, Ingo, and Harald Baayen, R.. 2009. Suffix ordering and morphological processing. Language 85, 106–49.Google Scholar

Plag, Ingo; Dalton-Puffer, Christiane, Harald Baayen, R., et al. 1999. Morphological productivity across speech and writing. English Language and Linguistics 3.2, 209–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Prasada, S., and Pinker, S., 1993. Generalisation of regular and irregular morphological patterns. Language and Cognitive Processes 8.1, 1–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena, 2005. The diffusion of subject you: A case in historical sociolinguistics. Language Variation and Change 17.1, 55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Saffran, Jenny R.; Newport, Elissa L., and Aslin, Richard N.. 1996. Word segmentation: The role of distributional cues. Journal of Memory and Language 35.4, 606–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Säily, Tanja. 2008. Productivity of the Suffixes -ness and -ity in 17th Century English Letters: A Sociolinguistic Approach. Master’s thesis, Helsinki University of Helsinki.Google Scholar

Säily, Tanja 2011. Variation in morphological productivity in the BNC: Sociolinguistic and methodological considerations. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 7.1, 119–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Säily, Tanja, and Suomela, Jukka. 2009. Comparing type counts: The case of women, men and -ty in early English letters. In Renouf, Antoinette and Kehoe, A. (eds.), Corpus Linguistics: Refinements and Reassessments, 87–109. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schreuder, Robert, and Harald Baayen, R.. 1995. Modeling morphological processing. In Feldman, Laurie (ed.), Morphological Aspects of Language Processing, 131–54. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Schreuder, Robert, and R. Harald Baayen, . 1997. How complex simplex words can be. Journal of Memory and Language 37.1, 118–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Skousen, Royal. 2002. Analogical Modeling: An Exemplar-based Approach to Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stichauer, Pavel. 2009. Morphological productivity in diachrony: The case of deverbal nouns in -mento, -zione and -gione in Old Italian from the 13th to the 16th century. In Montermini, Fabio, Boy, Gilles, and Tseng, Jesse (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 6th Décembrettes: Morphology in Bordeaux, 138–47. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar

Taft, Marcus. 1979. Recognition of affixed words and the word frequency effect. Memory and Cognition 7.4, 263–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Tily, Harry; Gabi, Susanne, Arnon, Jubal, Snider, Neal, Kothari, Anubha, and Bresnan, Joan. 2009. Syntactic probabilities affect pronunciation variation in spontaneous speech. Language and Cognition 1.2, 147–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Trips, Carola. 2009. Lexical Semantics and Diachronic Morphology: The Development of -hood, -dom and -ship in the History of English, Linguistische Arbeiten 527. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walker, Abby, and Hay, Jennifer B.. 2011. Congruence between “word age” and “voice age” facilitates lexical access. Laboratory Phonology 2.1, 219–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Witten, I. H.; Frank, E., Trigg, L., Hall, M., Holmes, G., and Cunningham, S. J.. 1999. Weka: Practical machine learning tools and techniques with Java implementations. ICONIP/ANZIIS/ANNES, 99, 192–6.Google Scholar

Zipf, George Kingsley. 1935. The Psycho-biology of Language: An Introduction to Dynamic Philology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Zséder, Attila; Recski, Gabor, Varga, Daniel, and Kornai, Andras. 2012. Rapid creation of large-scale corpora and frequency dictionaries. In Calzolari, Nicoletta (ed.), Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’12), 1462–5. Istanbul: European Language Resources Association (ELBA).Google Scholar

Aissen, Judith. 1997. On the syntax of obviation. Language 73,705–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aissen, Judith. 1999. Markedness and subject choice in Optimality Theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17, 673–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21, 435–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ansaldo, Umberto; Don, Jan, and Pfau, Roland (eds.) 2010. Parts of Speech: Empirical and Theoretical Advances. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Arkad’ev, P. M.; Lander, J. A., Letuchij, A. B., Sumbatova, N. R., and Testelec, J. G.. 2009. Vvedenie: Osnovnye svedenija ob adygejskom jazyke. In Arkad’ev, P. M., Lander, J. A., Letuchij, A. B., Sumbatova, N. R., and Testelec, J. G. (eds.), Aspekty polisintetizma: Ocherki po grammatike adygejskogo jazyka, 17–120. Moscow: Rossijskij gosudarstvennyj gumanitarnyj universitet.Google Scholar

Atkinson, Quentin D. 2011. Phonemic diversity supports a serial founder effect model of language expansion from Africa. Science 332, 346–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Baker, Mark C. 2003. Lexical Categories: Verbs, Nouns, and Adjectives. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beck, David. 2013. Unidirectional flexibility and the noun-verb distinction in Lushootseed. In Rijkhoff, Jan, and van Lier, Eva (eds.), Flexible Word Classes: Typological Studies of Underspecified Parts of Speech, 185–220. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Berge, Anna. 2015. Reexamining the Linguistic Prehistory of Aleut. Paper presented at N-TAG XV, Copenhagen.Google Scholar

Bickel, Balthasar. 2007. Typology in the 21st century: Major current developments. Linguistic Typology 11, 239–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bickel, Balthasar. 2011. Grammatical relations typology. In Song, Jae Jung (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology, 399–444. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bickel, Balthasar. 2013. Distributional biases in language families. In Bickel, et al. (eds.), Linguistic Typology and Historical Contingency, 415–44. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bickel, Balthasar, and Nichols, Johanna. 2007. Inflectional morphology. In Shopen, Tim (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, 3, 169–240. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bickel, Balthasar, and Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena. 2008. Referential scales and case alignment: Reviewing the typological evidence. In Malchukov, Andrej L. and Richards, Marc (eds.), Scales, 1–37. Leipzig: Institut für Linguistik.Google Scholar

Bickel, Balthasar; Hildebrandt, Kristine A., and Schiering, René. 2009. The distribution of phonological word domains: A probabilistic typology. In Grijzenhout, Janet and Kabak, Bariş (eds.), Phonological Domains: Universals and Deviations, 47–75. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bickel, Balthasar; Zakharko, Taras, Bierkandt, Lennart, and Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena. 2014. Semantic role clustering: An empirical assessment of semantic role types in non-default case assignment. Studies in Language 38.3, 485–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boas, Frans. 1911. Introduction: Handbook of American Indian Languages, vol. 1, 1–83. Washington, DC.Google Scholar

Bond, Oliver. 2013. A base for canonical negation. In Brown, Dunstan, Chumakina, Marina, and Corbett, Greville (eds.), Canonical Morphology and Syntax, 20–47. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina; Malchukov, Andrej L., and Richards, Marc D. (eds.) 2015. Scales and Hierarchies: A Cross-disciplinary Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brown, Dunstan; Chumakina, Marina, and Corbett, Greville (eds.) 2013. Canonical Morphology and Syntax. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Brown, Roger, and Gilman, Albert. 1972. The pronouns of solidarity and power. In Giglioli, Pier Paolo (ed.), Language and Social Context, 252–82. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Corbett, Greville. 2001. Number. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Corbett, Greville. 2004. The Russian adjective: A pervasive yet elusive category. In Dixon, R. M. W. and Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (eds.), Adjective Classes: A Cross-linguistic Typology, 199–222. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Corbett, Greville. 2007. Canonical typology, suppletion, and possible words. Language 83.1, 8–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Corbett, Greville. 2010. Canonical derivational morphology. Word Structure, 3.2. 141–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Corbett, Greville G. 2013a. Canonical morphosyntactic features. In Brown, Dunstan, Chumakina, Marina, and Corbett, Greville (eds.), Canonical Morphology and Syntax, 48–65. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Corbett, Greville G. 2013b. The unique challenge of the Archi paradigm. In Cathcart, Chundra, Kang, Shinae, and Sandy, Clare S. (eds.), Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting, Berkeley Linguistics Society: Special Session on Languages of the Caucasus, 52–67. Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar

Corbett, Greville G. 2015. Morphosyntactic complexity: A typology of lexical splits. Language 91.1, 145–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Creissels, Denis. 2008. Remarks on So-called “Conjunct/Disjunct” Systems. Paper presented in Syntax Of The World’s Languages III. Berlin.Google Scholar

Curnow, Timothy J. 1997. A Grammar of Awa Pit (Cuaiquer): An Indigenous Language of Southwestern Colombia. Ph.D. dissertation, Australian National University.Google Scholar

Curnow, Timothy J. 2002. Conjunct/disjunct marking in Awa Pit. Linguistics 40, 611–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cysouw, Michael. 2003. The Paradigmatic Structure of Person Marking. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dahl, Östen. 2004. The Growth and Maintenance of Linguistic Complexity. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Denny, J. Peter. 1989. The nature of polysynthesis in Algonquian and Eskimo. In Gerdts, Donna B. and Michelson, Karin (eds.), Theoretical Perspectives on Native American Languages, 230–58. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar

Dickinson, Connie. 2000. Mirativity in Tsafiki. Studies in Language 24, 379–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dixon, R. M. W. 1977. A Grammar of Yidiny. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dixon, R. M. W. and Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (eds.) 2002. Word: A Cross-linguistic Typology. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Donohue, Mark. 2008. Complex predicate and bipartite stems in Skou. Studies in Language 32, 279–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Donohue, Mark, and Wichmann, Søren (eds.) 2008. The Typology of Semantic Alignment Systems. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dryer, Matthew S., and Haspelmath, Martin (eds.) 2013. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library, http://wals.info (accessed May 1, 2016).Google Scholar

Evans, Nicholas, and Osada, Toshiki. 2005. Mundari: The myth of a language without word classes. Linguistic Typology 9, 351–90.Google Scholar

Fillmore, Charles J. 1997. Lectures on Deixis. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Floyd, Simeon; Norcliffe, Elisabeth, and Roque, Lila San (eds.) 2016. Egophoricity. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Foley, William A. 1998. Symmetrical voice systems and precategoriality in Philippine languages. Presentation at LFG 3 Conference, Brisbane.Google Scholar

Foley, William A. Forthcoming. The Epidemiology of Language: The Evolution of Word Class Categorialization in the Austronesian Languages.Google Scholar

Foley, William A., and Nichols, Johanna. In preparation. Rigid, flexible, precategorical: A wordlist-based part-of-speech typology.Google Scholar

Fortescue, Michael. 2013. Polysynthesis in the Subarctic: How recent is it? In Bickel, Balthasar, Grenoble, Lenore, Peterson, David A., and Timberlake, Alan (eds.), Language Typology and Historical Contingency, 241–64. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Fortescue, Michael. In press. What are the limits of polysynthesis? In Nicholas Evans, Marianne Mithun, and Michael Fortescue (eds.), Polysynthesis, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Garrett, Andrew. 1990. Hittite enclitic subjects and transitive verbs. Journal of Cuneiform Studies 42.2, 227–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gil, David. 2013. Riau Indonesian: A language without nouns and verbs. In Rijkhoff, Jan, and van Lier, Eva (eds.), Flexible Word Classes: Typological Studies of Underspecified Parts of Speech, 89–130. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Good, Jeffrey C. (ed.) 2008. Linguistic Universals and Language Change. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Good, Jeff. 2016. The Linguistic Typology of Templates. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. Some universals of language with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Greenberg, Joseph H. (ed.), Universals of Language, 73–113. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Hale, Austin. 1980. Person markers: Finite conjunct and disjunct verb forms in Newari. In Trail, Ron (ed.), Papers in Southeast Asian Linguistics, no. 7, 95–106. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar

Hanks, William. 1990. Referential Practice. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 1996. Word-class-changing inflection and morphological theory. Yearbook of Morphology 1995, 43–66.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 2011. The indeterminacy of word segmentation and the nature of morphology and syntax. Folia Linguistica 45.1, 31–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heath, Jeffrey. 1991. Pragmatic disguise in pronominal-affix paradigms. In Plank, Frans (ed.), Paradigms: The Economy of Inflection, 75–89. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heath, Jeffrey. 1998. Pragmatic skewing in 1 < > 2 pronominal combinations in Native American languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 64.2, 83–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Helmbrecht, Johannes. 2003. Politeness distinctions in second person pronouns. In Lenz, Friedrich (ed.), Deictic Conceptualization of Space, Time, and Person, 185–202. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Helmbrecht, Johannes. 2013. Politeness distinctions in pronouns. In Dryer, Matthew S. and Haspelmath, Martin (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/45 (accessed May 29, 2015).Google Scholar

Hengeveld, Kees; Rijkhoff, Jan, and Siewierska, Anna. 2004. Parts-of-speech systems and word order. Journal of Linguistics 40, 527–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hildebrandt, Kristine. 2007. Prosodic and grammatical domains in Limbu. Himalayan Linguistics 8, 1–34.Google Scholar

Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 1991. The Philippine Challenge to Universal Grammar. Universität zu Köln. Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar

Hyman, Larry. 2008. Directional asymmetries in the morphology and phonology of words, with special reference to Bantu. Linguistics 46, 309–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jacobsen, William H. Jr. 1979. Noun and verb in Nootkan. In Efrat, Barbara (ed.), The Victoria Conference on Northwestern Languages, 83–153. Victoria: British Columbia Provincial Museum.Google Scholar

Janhunen, Juha. 2002. On the chronology of the Ainu ethnic complex. Bulletin of the Hokkaido Museum of Northern Peoples 11, 1–20.Google Scholar

Janunan, Juha. 2012. Mongolian. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jelinek, Eloise. 1984. Empty categories, case, and configurationality. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 2, 36–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Juola, Patrick. 2008. Assessing linguistic complexity. In Miestamo, Matti, Sinnemäki, Kaius, and Karlsson, Fred (eds.), Language Complexity: Typology, Contact, Change, 89–108. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Keenan, Edward L., and Comrie, Bernard. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 63–99.Google Scholar

Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. The Middle Voice. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kibrik, Andrej A. 2011. Reference in Discourse. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kinkade, M. Dale. 1983. Salish evidence against the universality of “Noun” and “Verb.” Lingua 60, 25–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Klaiman, M. H. 1991. Grammatical Voice. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kusters, Wouter. 2003. Linguistic Complexity: The Influence of Social Change on Verbal Inflection. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Leiden.Google Scholar

Leipzig Valence Classes Project. n.d. Available online at www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/valency/index.php (accessed April 12, 2016)Google Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lieber, Rochelle, and Štekauer, Pavol (eds.) 2014. The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Miestamo, Matti. 2008. Grammatical complexity in cross-linguistic perspective. In Miestamo, Matti, Sinnemäki, Kaius, and Karlsson, Fred (eds.), Language Complexity: Typology, Contact, Change, 23–41. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Miestamo, Matti, and Wälchli, Bernhard (eds.) 2007. New Challenges in Typology. Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Miestamo, Matti; Sinnemäki, Kaius, and Karlsson, Fred (eds.) 2008. Language Complexity: Typology, Contact, Change. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Miller, Wick R. 1965. Acoma Grammar and Texts. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Mosel, Ulrike, and Hovdhaugen, Even. 1992. Samoan Reference Grammar. Oslo: Scandinavia University Press.Google Scholar

Newmeyer, Frederick J., and Preston, Laurel B. (eds.) 2014. Measuring Grammatical Complexity. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nichols, Johanna. 2009. Linguistic complexity: A comprehensive definition and survey. In Sampson, Geoffrey, Gil, David, and Trudgill, Peter (eds.), Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable, 110–25. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Nichols, Johanna. 2011. Forerunners to globalization: The Eurasian steppe and its periphery. In Hasselblatt, Cornelius, Houtzagers, Peter, and van Pareren, Remco (eds.), Language Contact in Times of Globalization, 177–95. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar

Nichols, Johanna. 2013a. The origin and evolution of case-suppletive pronouns: Eurasian evidence. In Bakker, Dik and Haspelmath, Martin (eds.), Languages across Boundaries: Studies in Memory of Anna Siewierska, 313–45. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Nichols, Johanna. 2013b. The vertical archipelago: Adding the third dimension to linguistic geography. In Auer, Peter, Hilpert, Martin, Stukenbrock, Anja, and Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt (eds.), Space in Language and Linguistics, 38–60. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nichols, Johanna. 2016. Verb-based and noun-based languages. Presentation at Societas Linguistica Europaea annual meeting, Naples.Google Scholar

Nichols, Johanna. In press. Polysynthesis and head marking. In Nicholas Evans, Marianne Mithun, and Michael Fortescue (eds.), Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Nichols, Johanna, and Nichols, Lynn. 2007. Lexical derivational properties resist diffusion. Workshop on Language Contact and Morphosyntactic Variation and Change, ALT 7, Paris.Google Scholar

Nichols, Johanna, and Peterson, David A.. 2013. M-T pronouns: N-M pronouns. In Dryer, Matthew S. and Haspelmath, Martin (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/136 (accessed May 29, 2015).Google Scholar

Öztürk, Balkiz, and Pöchtrager, Markus A. (eds.) 2011. Pazar Laz. LW/Materials. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar

Pakendorf, Brigitte. 2014. Paradigm copying in Tungusic: The Lamunkhin dialect of Èven. In Robbeets, Martine and Bisang, Walter (eds.), Paradigm Change in the Transeurasian Languages and Beyond, 287–310. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Peterson, John. 2011. A Grammar of Kharia: A South Munda Language. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Peterson, John. 2013. Parts of speech in Kharia: A formal account. In Rijkhoff, Jan and van Lier, Eva (eds.), Flexible Word Classes: Typological Studies of Underspecified Parts of Speech, 131–68. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Plank, Frans (ed.) 2011. The vanishing phonemes debate, apropos of Atkinson 2011. Linguistic Typology 15.2, 147–332.Google Scholar

Rice, Keren. 1989. A Grammar of Slave. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rice, Keren. 2000. Morpheme Order and Semantic Scope: Word Formation in the Athapaskan Verb. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rice, Keren. 2011. Principles of affix ordering: An overview. Word Structure 4.2, 169–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rijkhoff, Jan, and van Lier, Eva (eds.) 2013. Flexible Word Classes: Typological Studies of Underspecified Parts of Speech. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rose, Françoise 2009. A hierarchical indexation system: The example of Emerillon (Teko). In Epps, Patience and Arkhipov, Alexandre (eds.), New Challenges in Typology: Transcending the Borders and Refining the Distinctions, 63–83. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sampson, Geoffrey; Gil, David, and Trudgill, Peter (eds.) 2009. Linguistic Complexity as an Evolving Variable. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sapir, Edward, and Swadesh, Morris. 1939. Nootka Texts: Tales and Ethnological Narratives with Grammatical Notes and Lexical Materials. Philadelphia: LSA and University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar

Sapir, Edward, and Swadesh, Morris. 1946. American Indian grammatical categories. Word 2, 103–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schiering, René. 2009. Stress-timed = word-based? Testing a hypothesis in prosodic typology. Presented at 8th Biannual Meeting of the Association for Linguistic Typology, Berkeley.Google Scholar

Schiering, Rene; Bickel, Balthasar, and Hildebrandt, Kristine. 2010. The prosodic word is not universal but emergent. Journal of Linguistics 46, 657–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Seifart, Frank. 2012. The principle of morphosyntactic subsystem integrity in language contact: Evidence from morphological borrowing in Resígaro (Arawakan). Diachronica 29.4, 471–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Seifart, Frank. 2013. AfBo: A worldwide survey of affix borrowing. Available online at http://afbo.info (accessed April 6, 2015).Google Scholar

Shosted, Ryan K. 2006. Correlating complexity: A typological approach. Linguistic Typology 10, 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Siewierska, Anna. 2004. Person. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Siewierska, Anna. 2011. Person marking. In Song, Jae Jung (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology, 322–45. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Siewierska, Anna, and Bakker, Dik. 2013. Suppletion in person forms: The role of iconicity and frequency. In Bakker, Dik and Haspelmath, Martin (eds.), Languages across Boundaries: Studies in Memory of Anna Siewierska, 347–95. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Dixon, R. M. W. (ed.), Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, 112–71. Canberra and Atlantic Highlands: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies and Humanities Press.Google Scholar

Sinnemäki, Kaius. 2011. Language Universals and Linguistic Complexity: Three Case Studies in Core Argument Marking. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar

Sinnemäki, Kaius. 2009. Complexity in core argument marking and population size. In Sampson, Geoffrey, Gil, David, and Trudgill, Peter (eds.), Linguistic Complexity as an Evolving Vvariable, 126–40. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Sinnemäki, Kaius. 2014. Global optimization and complexity tradeoffs. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 50.2, 179–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Spencer, Andrew, and Luís, Ana. 2013. The canonical clitic. In Brown, Dunstan, Chumakina, Marina, and Corbett, Greville (eds.), Canonical Morphology and Syntax, 123–50. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Štekauer, Pavol, and Lieber, Rochelle (eds.) 2005. Handbook of Word Formation. Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stump, Gregory, and Finkel, Raphael A.. 2013. Morphological Typology: From Word to Paradigm. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Svantesson, Jan-Olof. 2003. Khalkha. In Janhunen, Juha (ed.), The Mongolic Languages, 154–73. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Tchekhoff, Claude. 1984. Une langue sans opposition verbo-nominale: Le Tongien. Modèles linguistiques 6, 125–32.Google Scholar

Thompson, Laurence C., and Thompson, M. Terry. 1992. The Thompson Language. Missoula: University of Montana.Google Scholar

Thompson, Laurence C., and Thompson, M. Terry. 1996. Thompson River Salish Dictionary. Missoula: University of Montana.Google Scholar

Trudgill, Peter. 2011. Sociolinguistic Typology: Social Determinants of Linguistic Structure and Complexity. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Vajda, Edward, and Nichols, Johanna (co-organizers); Anderson, Gregory D. S., Aronoff, Mark, Hyman, Larry M., Rhodes, Richard, and Rice, Keren. 2012. The diachronic stability of complex templatic morphology. Organized symposium, LSA Annual Meeting, Portland.Google Scholar

van Gijn, Rik, and Zúñiga, Fernando (eds.) 2014. Wordhood: Theory and typology from an Americanist perspective. Morphology 24.3, special issue.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena. 2010. Typological Variation in Grammatical Relations. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Leipzig.Google Scholar

Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena; Zakharko, Taras, Bierkandt, Lennart, Zúñiga, Fernando, and Bickel, Balthasar. 2016. Decomposing hierarchical alignment: Co-arguments as conditions on alignment and the limits of referential hierarchies as explanations in verb agreement. Linguistics. Published online. DOI: 10.1515/ling-2016-0011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wolfart, H. C., and Carroll, J. F.. 1981. Meet Cree: A Guide to the Cree Language, 2nd edn. Edmonton: University of Alberta Press.Google Scholar

Zúñiga, Fernando. 2007. From the typology of inversion to the typology of alignment. In Miestamo, Matti and Wälchli, Bernhard (eds.), New Challenges in Typology, 199–221. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zúñiga, Fernando. 2006. Deixis and Alignment: Inverse Systems in Indigenous Languages of the Americas. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anttila, Raimo. 1977. Analogy. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beard, Robert. 1995. Lexeme-morpheme Base Morphology: A General Theory of Inflection and Word Formation. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar

Grannes, Alf. 1977. The use of the Turkish pluralizer -lx²r in South Slavic and Albanian. The New Zealand Slavonic Journal 3.2, 83–93.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 2004. On directionality in language change with particular reference to grammaticalization. In Fischer, Olga, Norde, Muriel, and Perridson, Harry (eds.), Up and Down the Cline: The Nature of Grammaticalization, 7–44. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Hock, Hans Henrich. 1991. Principles of Historical Linguistics [1986], 2nd edn. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hogg, Richard. 1980. Analogy as a source of morphological complexity. Folia Linguistica Historica 1.2, 277–84.Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul. 1994. Phonogenesis. In Pagliuca, William (ed.), Perspectives on Grammaticalization, 29–45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hopper, Paul, and Traugott, Elizabeth C.. 2003. Grammaticalization [1993], 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Janda, Richard D. 1985. From agreement affix to subject “clitic”—and bound root: mos > -nos vs. (-)nos(-) and nos-otros in New Mexican and other regional Spanish dialects. Chicago Linguistic Society 31.1, 118–39.Google Scholar

Janda, Richard D., and Joseph, Brian D.. 2003a. Reconsidering the canons of sound change: Towards a Big Bang Theory. In Blake, Barry, and Burridge, Kate (eds.), Historical Linguistics 2001: Selected Papers from the 15th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Melbourne, 13–17 August 2001, 205–19. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Janda, Richard D., and Joseph, Brian D.. 2003b. On language, change, and language change—Or, of history, linguistics, and historical linguistics. In Joseph, Brian D. and Janda, Richard D. (eds.), Handbook of Historical Linguistics, 3–180. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Janse, Mark. 2009. Watkins’ Law and the development of agglutinative inflections in Asia Minor Greek. Journal of Greek Linguistics 9, 93–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Joseph, Brian D. 2001. Defining “Word” in Modern Greek: A Response to Philippaki-Warburton and Spyropoulos 1999. Yearbook of Morphology 2001, 87–114.Google Scholar

Joseph, Brian D. 2004. Rescuing traditional (historical) linguistics from grammaticalization “theory.” In Fischer, Olga, Norde, Muriel, and Perridon, Harry (eds.), Up and Down the Cline: The Nature of Grammaticalization, 44–71. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Joseph, Brian D. 2011. Grammaticalization: A general critique. In Narrog, Heiko and Heine, Bernd (eds.), Handbook of Grammaticalization, 193–205. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Joseph, Brian D. 2014. What counts as (an instance of) grammaticalization? Folia Linguistica, 48.2, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Joseph, Brian D., and Janda, Richard D.. 1988. The how and why of diachronic morphologization and demorphologization. In Hammond, Michael and Noonan, Michael (eds.), Theoretical Morphology: Approaches in Modern Linguistics, 193–210. San Diego: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1945–9. La nature des procès dits “analogiques.” Acta Linguistica 5, 15–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lightner, Theodore. 1975. The role of derivational morphology in generative grammar. Language 51, 617–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lightner, Theodore. 1983. Introduction to English Derivational Morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mańczak, Witold. 1957. Tendences générales des changements analogiques. Lingua 7, 298–325, 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Méndez Dosuna, Julian. 1997. Fusion, fission, and relevance in language change: Deuniverbation in Greek verb morphology. Studies in Language 21, 577–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Norde, Muriel. 2009. Degrammaticalization. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Thurneysen, Rudolph. 1946. A Grammar of Old Irish, translated from the German by Binchy, D. A. and Bergin, Osborn. The Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies.Google Scholar

Watkins, Calvert W. 1962. Indo-European Origins of the Celtic Verb I: The Sigmatic Aorist. The Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies.Google Scholar

Winters, Margaret E. 1995. Jerzy Kurylowicz: the so-called laws of analogy. Diachronica 12, 113–45.Google Scholar

Zwicky, Arnold. 1994. What is a clitic? In Nevis, Joel A., Joseph, Brian D., Wanner, Dieter, and Zwicky, Arnold M. (eds.), Clitics: A Comprehensive Bibliography, 1892–1991, xii–xx. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Albright, A. 2005. The morphological basis of paradigm leveling. In Downing, L. J., Hall, T. A., and Raffelsiefen, R. (eds.), Paradigms in Phonological Theory, 17–43. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Albright, A., and Hayes, B.. 2002. Modeling English past tense intuitions with minimal generalization. In Proceedings of the ACL-02 Workshop on Morphological and Phonological Learning, 58–69. Association for Computational Linguistics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Albright, A., and Hayes, B. 2003. Rules vs. analogy in English past tenses: A computational/experimental study. Cognition 90.2, 119–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Allen, M., and Badecker, W.. 2002. Inflectional regularity: Probing the nature of lexical representation in a cross-modal priming task. Journal of Memory and Language 46.4, 705–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anderwald, L. 2009. The Morphology of English Dialects: Verb-formation in Non-Standard English. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Armstrong, S. L.; Gleitman, L. R., and Gleitman, H.. 1983. What some concepts might not be. Cognition 13.3, 263–308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Atserias, J.; Casas, B., Comelles, E., González, M., Padró, L., and Padró, M.. 2006. Freeling 1.3: Syntactic and semantic services in an open-source NLP library. In Proceedings of LREC 6, 48–55.Google Scholar

Baerman, M.; Corbett, G. G., and Brown, D. (eds.) 2010. Defective Paradigms: Missing Forms and What They Tell Us. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Becker, M.; Ketrez, N., and Nevins, A.. 2011. The surfeit of the stimulus: Analytic biases filter lexical statistics in Turkish laryngeal alternations. Language 87.1, 84–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Berko, J. 1958. The child’s learning of English morphology. Word 14, 150–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bloch, B. 1947. English verb inflection. Language 23.4, 399–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bowerman, M. 1982. Reorganizational process in lexical and syntactic development. In Wanner, E. and Gleitman, L. R. (eds.), Language Acquisition: The State of the Art, 319–46. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Brent, M.; Murthy, S., and Lundberg, A.. 1995. Discovering morphemic suffixes: A case study in minimum description length induction. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, 264–71.Google Scholar

Brown, R. 1973. A First Language: The Early Stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brown, R., and Hanlon, C.. 1970. Derivational complexity and the order of acquisition in child speech. In Hayes, J. R. (ed.), Cognition and the Development of Language, 11–53. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Bybee, J. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, J., and Moder, C. L.. 1983. Morphological classes as natural categories. Language 59.2, 251–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, J. L., and Slobin, D.. 1982. Rules and schemas in the development and use of the English past tense. Language 58.2, 265–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Caprin, C., and Guasti, M. T.. 2009. The acquisition of morphosyntax in Italian: A cross-sectional study. Applied Psycholinguistics 30.1, 23–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chan, E. 2008. Structures and Distributions in Morphology Learning. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N., and Halle, M.. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Clahsen, H. 1999. Lexical entries and rules of language: A multidisciplinary study of German inflection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22.6, 991–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clahsen, H.; Aveledo, F., and Roca, I.. 2002. The development of regular and irregular verb inflection in Spanish child language. Journal of Child Language 29.3, 591–622.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Clahsen, H., and Penke, M.. 1992. The acquisition of agreement morphology and its syntactic consequences: New evidence on German child language from the simone corpus. In Meisel, J. (ed.), The Acquisition of Verb Placement 181–234. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clahsen, H., and Rothweiler, M.. 1993. Inflectional rules in children’s grammars: Evidence from German participles. Yearbook of Morphology 1992, 1–34.Google Scholar

Creutz, M., and Lagus, K.. 2005. Unsupervised Morpheme Segmentation and Morphology Induction from Text Corpora Using Morfessor 1.0. Technical report, Helsinki University of Technology.Google Scholar

Dąbrowska, E. 2001. Learning a morphological system without a default: The Polish genitive. Journal of Child Language 28.3, 545–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Deen, K. U. 2005. The Acquisition of Swahili, Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 40. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Demuth, K. 2003. The acquisition of Bantu languages. In Nurse, D. and Philippson, G. (eds.), The Bantu Languages, 209–22. Richmond: Curzon Press.Google Scholar

Eddington, D. 1996. Diphthongization in Spanish derivational morphology: An empirical investigation. Hispanic Linguistics 8.1, 1–13.Google Scholar

Ervin, S. M., and Miller, W. R.. 1963. Language development. Child Psychology 62.1, 108–43.Google Scholar

Gerken, L.; Wilson, R., and Lewis, W.. 2005. Infants can use distributional cues to form syntactic categories. Journal of Child Language 32.2, 249–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Goldsmith, J. 2001. Unsupervised learning of the morphology of a natural language. Computational Linguistics 27.2, 153–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goldsmith, J. 2006. An algorithm for the unsupervised learning of morphology. Natural Language Engineering 12.4, 353–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goldwater, S.; Griffiths, T., and Johnson, M.. 2006. Interpolating between types and tokens by estimating power-law generators. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 18, 459–66.Google Scholar

Gómez, R. L., and Lakusta, L.. 2004. A first step in form-based category abstraction by 12-month-old infants. Developmental Science 7.5, 567–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Guasti, M. T. 1993. Verb syntax in Italian child grammar: Finite and nonfinite verbs. Language Acquisition 3.1, 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gxilishe, S.; de Villiers, P., de Villiers, J., Belikova, A., Meroni, L., and Umeda, M.. 2007. The acquisition of subject agreement in Xhosa. In Belikova, A., Meroni, L., and Umeda, M. (eds.), Proceedings of the Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition (GALANA), Vol. 2, 114–23. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar

Hafer, M. A., and Weiss, S. F.. 1974. Word segmentation by letter successor varieties. Information Storage and Retrieval 10.11, 371–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hahn, U., and Nakisa, R. C.. 2000. German inflection: Single route or dual route? Cognitive Psychology 41.4, 313–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Halle, M. 1973. Prolegomena to a theory of word formation. Linguistic Inquiry 4.1, 3–16.Google Scholar

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, 111–76. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Halle, M., and Mohanan, K. P.. 1985. Segmental phonology of Modern English. Linguistic Inquiry, 16.1, 57–116.Google Scholar

Harris, J. W. 1969. Spanish Phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Harris, Z. S. 1955. From phoneme to morpheme. Language 31.2, 190–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hart, B., and Risley, T. R.. 2003. The early catastrophe: The 30 million word gap by age 3. American Educator 27.1, 4–9.Google Scholar

Hay, J., and Baayen, R. H.. 2005. Shifting paradigms: Gradient structure in morphology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9.7, 342–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Hayes, B.; Zuraw, K., Siptár, P., and Londe, Z.. 2009. Natural and unnatural constraints in Hungarian vowel harmony. Language 85.4, 822–63.Google Scholar

Herman, L., and Herman, M. S.. 2014. American Dialects: A Manual for Actors, Directors, and Writers. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jarmulowicz, L. 2002. English derivational suffix frequency and children’s stress judgments. Brain and Language 81.1–3, 192–204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Johnson, M.; Griffiths, T., and Goldwater, S.. 2007a. Bayesian inference for PCFGs via Markov Chain Monte Carlo. In Proceedings of NAACL HLT 2007, 139–46. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar

Johnson, M.; Griffiths, T. L., and Goldwater, S.. 2007b. Adaptor grammars: A framework for specifying compositional nonparametric bayesian models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 19, 641–48.Google Scholar

Keshava, S., and Pitler, E.. 2006. A simpler, intuitive approach to morpheme induction. In Proceedings of The 2nd Pascal Challenges Workshop, 31–5.Google Scholar

Kuçera, H., and Francis, W. N.. 1967. Computational Analysis of Present-Day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.Google Scholar

Labov, W. 1989. The child as linguistic historian. Language Variation and Change 1.1, 85–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Legate, J. A., and Yang, C.. 2007. Morphosyntactic learning and the development of tense. Language Acquisition 14.3, 315–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lignos, C.; Chan, E., Marcus, M. P., and Yang, C.. 2009. A rule-based unsupervised morphology learning framework. In Working Notes of the 10th Workshop of the Cross-language Evaluation Forum (CLEF2009). Available online at www.clef-initiative.eu/edition/clef2009/working-notes (accessed May 1, 2016).Google Scholar

MacWhinney, B. 2000. The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Maratsos, M. 2000. More overregularizations after all: New data and discussion on Marcus, Pinker, Ullman, Hollander, Rosen and Xu. Journal of Child Language 27.1, 183–212.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Marcus, G.; Pinker, S., Ullman, M. T., Hollander, M., Rosen, J., and Xu, F.. 1992. Over-Regularization in Language Acquisition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Marcus, G. F. 1993. Negative evidence in language acquisition. Cognition 46.1, 53–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Marcus, G. F.; Brinkmann, U., Clahsen, H., Wiese, R., and Pinker, S.. 1995. German inflection: The exception that proves the rule. Cognitive Psychology 29.3, 189–256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Marcus, M. P.; Santorini, B., Marcinkiewicz, M. A., and Taylor, A.. 1999. Treebank-3. Linguistic Data Consortium: LDC99T42.Google Scholar

Maslen, R.; Theakston, A. L., Lieven, E. V., and Tomasello, M.. 2004. A dense corpus study of past tense and plural overregularization in English. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research 47.6, 1319–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Mayol, L. 2007. Acquisition of irregular patterns in Spanish verbal morphology. In Nurmi, V. V. and Sustretov, D. (eds.), Proceedings of the Twelfth ESSLLI Student Session, 185–96.Google Scholar

McClelland, J. L., and Patterson, K.. 2002. Rules or connections in past-tense inflections: What does the evidence rule out? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6.11, 465–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Monson, C. 2008. ParaMor: From Paradigm Structure to Natural Language Morphology Induction. Ph.D. thesis, Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar

Mooney, R. J., and Califf, M. E.. 1995. Induction of first-order decision lists: Results on learning the past tense of English. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 3.1, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Morris, J., and Stockall, L.. 2012. Early, equivalent ERP masked priming effects for regular and irregular morphology. Brain and language 123.2, 81–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Myers, S. 1987. Vowel shortening in English. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5.4, 485–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Naradowsky, J., and Goldwater, S.. 2009. Improving morphology induction by learning spelling rules. In Proceedings of the Twenty-first International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1531–6. IJCAI Organization.Google Scholar

O’Donnell, T. 2011. Productivity and Reuse in Language. Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University.Google Scholar

Parkes, C.; Malek, A., and Marcus, M.. 1998. Towards unsupervised extraction of verb paradigms from large corpora. In Charniak, Eugene (ed.), Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop on Very Large Corpora, 110–17. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar

Phillips, C. 1995. Syntax at age two: Cross-linguistic differences. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 26, 325–82.Google Scholar

Pinker, S. 1989. Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Pinker, S. 1995. Why the child holded the baby rabbit: A case study in language acquisition. In Gleitman, L. R. and Liberman, M. (eds.), An Invitation to Cognitive Science, vol. 1: Language, 107–33. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Pinker, S. 1999. Words and Rules: The Ingredients of Language. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Pinker, S., and Prince, A.. 1988. On language and connectionism: Analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition. Cognition 28.1, 73–193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Pinker, S., and Ullman, M. T.. 2002. The past and future of the past tense. Trends in Cognitive Science 6.11, 456–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Pizzuto, E., and Caselli, M. C.. 1994. The acquisition of Italian verb morphology in a cross-linguistic perspective. In Levy, Y. (ed.), Other Children, Other Languages: Issues in the Theory of Language Acquisition, 137–87. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar

Plunkett, K., and Juola, P.. 1999. A connectionist model of English past tense and plural morphology. Cognitive Science 23.4, 463–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Prince, A., and Smolensky, P.. 2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Real Academia Española 1992. Diccionario de la lengua española, 21st edn. Madrid: Real Academia Española.Google Scholar

Rumelhart, D. E., and McClelland, J. L.. 1986. On learning the past tenses of English verbs. In McClelland, J. L., Rumelhart, D. E., and the PDP Research Group (eds.), Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations into the Microstructure of Cognition, vol. 2: Psychological and Biological Models, 216–71. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Schütze, C. T. 2005. Thinking about what we are asking speakers to do. In Kepser, S. and Reis, M. (eds.), Linguistic Evidence: Empirical, Theoretical, and Computational Perspectives, 457–85. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Sims, A. D. 2006. Minding the Gap: Inflectional Defectiveness in a Paradigmatic Theory. Ph.D. thesis, Ohio State University.Google Scholar

Spiegler, S.; Golénia, B., and Flach, P.. 2009. Promodes: A probabilistic generative model for word decomposition. In Working Notes of the 10th Workshop of the Cross-language Evaluation Forum (CLEF2009). Available online at www.clef-initiative.eu/edition/clef2009/working-notes (accessed May 2, 2016).Google Scholar

Stockall, L., and Marantz, A.. 2006. A single route, full decomposition model of morphological complexity: MEG evidence. The Mental Lexicon 1.1, 85–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Taylor, J. R. 2003. Linguistic Categorization. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tomasello, M. 2000. Do young children have adult syntactic competence? Cognition 74.3, 209–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tomasello, M. 2003. Constructing a Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Westfal, S. 1956. A Study in Polish Morphology: The Genitive Singular Masculine. The Hague: Mouton and Co.Google Scholar

Weyerts, H., and Clahsen, H.. 1994. Netzwerke und symbolische Regeln im Spracher werb: Experimentelle Ergebnisse zur Entwicklung der Flexionsmorphologie. Linguistische Berichte 154, 430–60.Google Scholar

Wicentowski, R. 2002. Modeling and Learning Multilingual Inflectional Morphology in a Minimally Supervised Framework. Ph.D. dissertation, Johns Hopkins University.Google Scholar

Wiese, R. 1996. The Phonology of German. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Wiese, R. 1999. On default rules and other rules. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22.6, 1043–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wunderlich, D. 1999. German noun plural reconsidered. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22, 1044–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Xu, F., and Pinker, S.. 1995. Weird past tense forms. Journal of Child Language 22.3, 531–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Yang, C. 2002. Knowledge and Learning in Natural Language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Yang, C. 2004. Universal grammar, statistics or both? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8.10, 451–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Yang, C. 2005. On productivity. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 5, 333–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Yang, C. 2013. Ontogeny and phylogeny of language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110.16, 6324–7.Google ScholarPubMed

Yang, C. 2016. The Price of Linguistic Productivity: How Children Learn to Break the Rules of Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Yip, K., and Sussman, G. J.. 1997. Sparse representations for fast, one-shot learning. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 521–7. AAAI Press.Google Scholar

Zhang, J., and Lai, Y.. 2010. Testing the role of phonetic knowledge in Mandarin tone sandhi. Phonology 27.1, 153–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zipf, G. K. 1949. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort: An Introduction to Human Ecology. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Albright, A. 2002. Islands of reliability for regular morphology: Evidence from Italian. Language 78, 684–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Albright, A., and Hayes, B.. 2003. Rules vs. analogy in English past tenses: A computational/experimental study. Cognition 90, 119–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Alegre, M., and Gordon, P.. 1999. Frequency effects and the representational status of regular inflections. Journal of Memory and Language 40, 41–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Álvareza, C.; Urrutiaa, M., Domínguez, A., and Sánchez-Casas, R.. 2011. Processing inflectional and derivational morphology: Electrophysiological evidence from Spanish. Neuroscience Letters 490, 6–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anderson, S. 1992. A-morphous Morphology. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aronoff, M. 1994. Morphology by Itself: Stems and Inflectional Classes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Aronoff, M. 2012. Morphological stems: What William of Ockham really said. Word Structure 5, 28–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baayen, H., and Neijt, N.. 1997. Productivity in context: A case study of Dutch suffix. Linguistics 35, 565–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baayen, H.; Milin, P., Ðurdević, D. Filipović´, Hendrix, P., and Marelli, M.. 2011. An amorphous model for morphological processing in visual comprehension based on naive discriminative learning. Psychological Review 118, 438–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Baayen, H.; Feldman, L., and Schreuder, R.. 2006. Morphological influences on the recognition of monosyllabic monomorphemic words. Journal of Memory and Language 55, 290–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baayen, H.; Wurm, L., and Aycock, J.. 2007. Lexical dynamics for low-frequency complex words: A regression study across tasks and modalities. The Mental Lexicon 2, 419–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baayen, H.; McQueen, J., Dijstra, T., and Schreuder, R.. 2003. Frequency effects in regular inflectional morphology: Revisiting Dutch plurals. In Baayen, H. and Schreuder, R. (eds.), Morphological Structure in Language Processing, 355–90. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beedham, C. 1994. The role of consonants in marking strong verb conjugation in German and English. Folia Linguistica 28, 279–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Berent, I.; Vaknin, V., and Marcus, G.. 2007. Roots, stems, and the universality of lexical representations: Evidence from Hebrew. Cognition 104, 254–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Berko, J. G. 1958. The child’s learning of English morphology. Word 14, 150–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bien, H.; Baayen, H., and Levelt, W.. 2011. Frequency effects in the production of Dutch deverbal adjectives and inflected verbs. Language and Cognitive Processes 26, 683–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bittner, A., and Köpcke, K.-M.. 2007. Überlegungen zur Repräsentation grammatischen Wissens am Beispiel der Verbmorphologie des Deutschen. In Di Meola, C. (ed.), Perspektiven Zwei. Akten der 2. Tagung Deutsche Sprachwissenschaft in Italien, 3–15. Rome: Istituto Italiano di Studi Germanici.Google Scholar

Blevins, J. 2006. Word-based morphology. Journal of Linguistics 42, 531–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bonami, O.; Boyé, G., Giraudo, H., and Voga, M.. 2008. Quels verbes sont réguliers en français? In Durand, J., Habert, B., and Laks, B. (eds.), Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française: CMLF’08, 1511–23. Paris: Institut de Linguistique Française.Google Scholar

Božić, M.; Tyler, L., Su, L., Wingfield, C., and Marslen-Wilson, W.. 2013. Neurobiological systems for lexical representation and analysis in English. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 25, 1678–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Božić, M., and Marslen‐Wilson, W.. 2010. Neurocognitive contexts for morphological complexity: Dissociating inflection and derivation. Language and Linguistics Compass 4, 1063–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, J., and Moder, C.. 1983. Morphological classes as natural categories. Language 59, 251–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, J., and Pardo, E.. 1981. On lexical and morphological conditioning of alternations: A nonce-probe experiment with Spanish verbs. Linguistics 19, 937–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, J., and Hopper, P.. 2001. Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carstairs, A. 1987. Allomorphy in Inflexion. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar

Clahsen, H. 1997. The representation of participles in the German mental lexicon: Evidence for the dual-mechanism model. Yearbook of Morphology 1996, 73–96.Google Scholar

Clahsen, H. 2006. Dual-mechanism morphology. In Brown, K. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, vol. 4, 1–5. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Clahsen, H.; Eisenbeiss, S., Hadler, M., and Sonnenstuhl, I.. 2001a. The mental representation of inflected words: An experimental study of adjectives and verbs in German. Language 77, 510–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clahsen, H.; Sonnenstuhl, I., Hadler, M., and Eisenbeiss, S.. 2001b. Morphological paradigms in language processing and language disorders. Transactions of the Philological Society 99, 247–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clahsen, H.; Prüfert, P., Eisenbeiss, S., and Cholin, J.. 2002. Strong stems in the German mental lexicon: Evidence from child language acquisition and adult processing. In Kaufmann, I. and Stiebels, B. (eds.), More than Words: A Festschrift for Dieter Wunderlich, 91–112. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar

Clahsen, H.; Sonnenstuhl, I., and Blevins, J.. 2003. Derivational morphology in the German mental lexicon: A dual-mechanism account. In Baayen, H. and Schreuder, R. (eds.), Morphological Structure in Language Processing, 125–55. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Clahsen, H., and Neubauer, K.. 2010. Morphology, frequency, and the processing of derived words in native and non-native speakers. Lingua 120, 2627–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clahsen, H., and Ikemoto, Y.. 2012. The mental representation of derived words: An experimental study of -sa and -mi nominals in Japanese. The Mental Lexicon 7, 147–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clahsen, H., and Fleischhauer, E.. 2014. Morphological priming in child German. Journal of Child Language, 41, 1305–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Clahsen, H., and Veríssimo, J.. 2015. Morphology in the mental lexicon: Experimental evidence from the acquisition and processing of different languages. In Guijarro-Fuentes, P. et al. (eds.), The Acquisition of Romance Languages. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Colombo, L., and Burani, C.. 2002. The influence of age of acquisition, root frequency, and context availability in processing nouns and verbs. Brain and Language 81, 398–411.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Colombo, L.; Stoianov, I., Pasini, M., and Zorzi, M.. 2006. The role of phonology in the inflection of Italian verbs: A connectionist investigation. The Mental Lexicon 1, 147–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Corbett, G., and Fraser, N.. 1993. Network Morphology: A DATR account of Russian nominal inflection. Journal of Linguistics 29, 113–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Davis, M.; van Casteren, M., and Marslen-Wilson, W.. 2003. Frequency effects in processing inflected Dutch nouns: A distributed connectionist account. In Baayen, H. and Schreuder, R. (eds.), Morphological Structure in Language Processing, 427–62. Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Eddington, D. 2002. Dissociation in Italian conjugations: A single-route account. Brain and Language 81, 291–302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Embick, D., and Halle, M. 2005. On the status of stems in morphological theory. In Geerts, T., van Ginneken, I., and Jacobs, H. (eds.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2003: Selected Papers from “Going Romance” Nijmegen, 37–62. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fanselow, G., and Frisch, S.. 2006. Effects of processing difficulty on judgments of acceptability. In Fanselow, G., Féry, C., Schlesewsky, M., and Vogel, R. (eds.), Gradience in Grammar: Generative Perspectives, 291–316. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Feldman, L., and Weber, K.. 2012. Morphological processing: A comparison of graded and categorical accounts. In Adelman, J. (ed.), Visual Word Recognition: Meaning and Context, Individuals and Development, vol. 2, 2–23. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Fiorentino, R.; Naito-Billen, Y., and Minai, U.. 2015. Morphological decomposition in Japanese de-adjectival nominals: Masked and overt priming evidence. To appear in: Journal of Psycholinguistic Research; doi 10.1007/s10936-015–9349-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fruchter, J.; Stockall, L., and Marantz, A.. 2013. MEG masked priming evidence for form-based decomposition of irregular verbs. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 7, 798.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Goldsmith, J., and O’Brien, J.. 2006. Learning inflectional classes. Language Learning and Development 2, 219–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gonnerman, L.; Seidenberg, M., and Andersen, E. S.. 2007. Graded semantic and phonological similarity effects in priming: Evidence for a distributed connectionist approach to morphology. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 136, 323–45.Google ScholarPubMed

Halle, M., and Marantz, A.. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, K. and Keyser, J. (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 111–76. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Hare, M.; Elman, J., and Daugherty, K.. 1995. Default generalisation in connectionist networks. Language and Cognitive Processes 10, 601–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Havas, V.; Rodríguez-Fornells, A., and Clahsen, H.. 2012. Brain potentials for derivational morphology: An ERP study of deadjectival nominalizations in Spanish. Brain and Language 120, 332–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Jacob, G., Fleischhauer, E., and Clahsen, H.. 2013. Stem allomorphy and affixation in morphological processing: A cross-modal priming study with late bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 16, 924–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Janssen, U.; Eisenbeiss, S., and Penke, M.. 2001. Agreement features in sentence processing: A sentence-matching study on subject-verb and NP-internal agreement in German. Poster presented at the 14th CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar

Järvikivi, J.; Bertram, R., and Niemi, J.. 2006. Affixal salience and the processing of derivational morphology: The role of suffix allomorphy. Language and Cognitive Processes 21, 394–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar