Aranovich, Raúl; Inkelas, Sharon, Orgun, Orhan, and Sprouse, Ronald. 2005. Opacity in phonologically conditioned suppletion. Paper presented at the 13th Manchester Phonology Meeting.Google Scholar

Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by Itself. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Brown, Dunstan; Chumakina, Marina, Corbett, Greville G., and Hippisley, Andrew. 2004. The Surrey Suppletion Database. [Available online at www.smg.surrey.ac.uk.]Google Scholar

Bye, Patrik, 2007. Allomorphy: selection, not optimization. In Blaho, Sylvia, Bye, Patrik, and Krämer, Martin (eds.), Freedom of Analysis? Studies in Generative Grammar 95, 63–91. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Caballero, Gabriela, and Inkelas, Sharon. 2013. Word construction: Tracing an optimal path through the lexicon. Morphology 23.2, 103–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cahill, Michael C. 2007. Aspects of the Morphology and Phonology of Kɾnni. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Freidin, Robert, Peregrín Otero, Carlos, and Luisa Zubizarreta, Maria (eds.), Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, 133–66. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chumakina, Marina. 2004. The notion ‘possible word’ and its limits: A typology of suppletion. An annotated bibliography. [Available online at www.surrey.ac.uk/LIS/SMG/Suppletion_BIB/WebBibliography.htm (accessed March 14, 2016).]Google Scholar

Coleman, John. 1998. Phonological Representations: Their Names, Forms and Powers. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, number 85. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Da Tos, Martina 2013. The Italian FINIRE-type verbs: A case of morphomic attraction. In Cruschina, Silvio, Maiden, Martin, and Smith, John Charles (eds.), The Boundaries of Pure Morphology: Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives, 45–67. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

DiFabio, Elvira G. 1990. The Morphology of the Verbal Infix isc in Italian and Romance. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar

Embick, David. 2010. Localism versus Globalism in Morphology and Phonology. Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 60. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Embick, David, and Marantz, Alec. 2008. Architecture and blocking. Linguistic Inquiry 39.1, 1–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Golla, Victor. 1970. Hupa Grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California–Berkeley.Google Scholar

Hall, Robert A. 1948. Descriptive Italian Grammar. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press and Linguistic Society of America.Google Scholar

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

Haugen, Jason D., and Siddiqi, Daniel. 2013. Roots and the derivation. Linguistic Inquiry 44.4, 493–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hill, K. C., and Black, M. E.. 1998. A sketch of Hopi grammar. In The Hopi Dictionary Project (eds.), Hopi Dictionary: Hopìikwa Lavàytutuveni: A Hopi-English Dictionary of the Third Mesa Dialect, 861–900. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar

Hippisley, Andrew. 1998. Indexed stems and Russian word formation: A Network Morphology account of Russian personal nouns. Linguistics 36, 1039–1124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Inkelas, Sharon. 1990. Prosodic Constituency in the Lexicon. New York: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar

Kenstowicz, Michael. 1996. Base-Identity and Uniform Exponence: Alternatives to cyclicity. In Durand, J. and Laks, B. (eds.), Current Trends in Phonology: Models and Methods, vol. 1, 363–93. Salford: ESRI.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. Word-formation and the lexicon. In Ingemann, Frances (ed.), 1982 Mid-America Linguistics Conference Papers, 1–29. Lawrence: Department of Linguistics, University of Kansas.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul. 1996. Allomorphy or morphophonology? In Singh, Rajendra, ed., Trubetzkoy’s Orphan: Proceedings of the Montreal Roundtable ‘Morphophonology: Contemporary Responses,’ 13–31. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lewis, Geoffrey L. 1967. Turkish Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Lieber, Rochelle. 1980. On the Organization of the Lexicon. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar

Maiden, Martin. 2004. When lexemes become allomorphs: On the genesis of suppletion. Folia Linguistica 38.3–4, 227–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McCarthy, John J., and Prince, Alan. 1993a. Generalized alignment. Yearbook of Morphology 1993, 79–153.Google Scholar

McCarthy, John J., and Prince, Alan. 1993b. Prosodic Morphology I: Constraint interaction and satisfaction. Unpublished manuscript, University of Massachusetts, Amherst and Rutgers University.Google Scholar

Orgun, Cemil Orhan. 1996. Sign-Based Morphology and Phonology with Special Attention to Optimality Theory. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California–Berkeley.Google Scholar

Paster, Mary. 2005. Subcategorization vs. output optimization in syllable-counting allomorphy. In Alderete, John et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 24th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 326–33. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar

Paster, Mary 2006. Phonological Conditions on Affixation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California–Berkeley.Google Scholar

Paster, Mary 2009. Explaining phonological conditions on affixation: Evidence from suppletive allomorphy and affix ordering. Word Structure 2.1, 18–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Paster, Mary 2014. Allomorphy. In Lieber, Rochelle and Štekauer, Pavol (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology, 219–34. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Paster, Mary. 2015. Phonologically conditioned suppletive allomorphy: Cross-linguistic results and theoretical consequences. In Bonet, Eulàlia, Lloret, Maria-Rosa, and Mascaró, Joan (eds.), Understanding Allomorphy: Perspectives from Optimality Theory, 218–53. Advances in Optimality Theory series. London: Equinox.Google Scholar

Paster, Mary (to appear). Diachronic sources of allomorphy. In Gribanova, Vera and Shih, Stephanie (eds.), The Morphosyntax-Phonology Connection: Locality and Directionality at the Interface. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Rubach, Jerzy, and Booij, Geert E.. 2001. Allomorphy in Optimality Theory: Polish iotation. Language 77.1, 26–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schwarze, Christoph. 1999. Inflectional classes in Lexical Functional Morphology: Latin -sk- and its evolution. In Butt, Miriam and King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG ’99 Conference. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Selkirk, Elisabeth. 1982. The Syntax of Words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Sezer, Engin. 1981. The k/Ø alternation in Turkish. In Clements, G. N. (ed.), Harvard Studies in Phonology, 354–82. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar

Stockwell, Robert, and Minkova, Donka. 2001. English Words: History and Structure. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stump, Gregory. 2001. Inflectional Morphology: A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Thornton, Anna. 2007. Is there a partition in the present indicative of Italian regular verbs? Online Annali di Ferrara: Lettere 2, 43–61.Google Scholar

Wolf, Matthew A. 2008. Optimal Interleaving: Serial Phonology-Morphology Interaction in a Constraint-Based Model. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar

Wolf, Matthew A. 2013. Candidate chains, unfaithful spell-out, and outwards-looking phonologically-conditioned allomorphy. Morphology 23.2, 145–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Xu, Zheng. 2007. Inflectional Morphology in Optimality Theory. Ph.D. dissertation, Stony Brook University.Google Scholar

Yu, Alan C. L. 2003. The Morphology and Phonology of Infixation. Ph.D. dissertation, UC Berkeley.Google Scholar

Yu, Alan C. L. 2007. A Natural History of Infixation. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Acquaviva, Paolo. 2008. Lexical Plurals: A Morphosemantic Approach. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Acquaviva, Paolo. 2009. Roots, categories, and nominal concepts. Lingue e linguaggio 8.1, 25–51.Google Scholar

Acquaviva, Paolo. 2014a. Roots, concepts, and word structure: On the atoms of lexical semantics. In Rainer, Franz, Gardani, Francesco, Luschütsky, Hans Christian, and Dressler, Wolfgang (eds.), Morphology and Meaning, 49–70. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Acquaviva, Paolo. 2014b. The categories of modern Irish verbal inflection. Journal of Linguistics 50, 537–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Acquaviva, Paolo, and Panagiotidis, Phoevos. 2012. Lexical decomposition meets conceptual atomism. Lingue e Linguaggio 11.2, 165–80.Google Scholar

Alexiadou, Artemis. 2011. Plural mass nouns and the morpho-syntax of number. In Washburn, M. Byram, McKinney-Bock, K., Varis, E., Sawyer, A., and Tomaszewicz, B. (eds.), Proceedings of the 28th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 33–41. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Available at www.lingref.com/cpp/wccfl/28/paper2433.pdf (accessed March 16, 2016).Google Scholar

Alexiadou, Artemis, and Rathert, Monika (eds.) 2010. The Syntax of Nominalizations Across Languages and Frameworks. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anderson, Stephen. 1992. Amorphous Morphology. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Arad, Maya. 2003a. Locality constraints on the interpretation of roots: The case of Hebrew denominal verbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21, 737–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Arad, Maya. 2003b. Roots and Patterns: Hebrew Morphosyntax. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word Formation on Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

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

Asher, Nicholas. 2011. Lexical Meaning in Context: A Web of Words. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baker, Mark. 1985 The mirror principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry 16, 373–416.Google Scholar

Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

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

Beard, Robert. 1995. Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morphology. SUNY Press.Google Scholar

Beard, Robert, and Volpe, Mark. 2005. Lexeme-morpheme base morphology. In Štekauer, Pavol and Lieber, Rochelle (eds.), Handbook of Word-formation, 189–206. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Booij, Geert. 2010. Construction Morphology. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Borer, Hagit. 2005a. In Name Only. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Borer, Hagit. 2005b. The Normal Course of Events. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Borer, Hagit. 2013. Taking Form. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Braun, Maria, and Plag, Ingo. 2003. How transparent is creole morphology? A study of early Sranan word-formation. Yearbook of Morphology 2002, 81–104.Google Scholar

Bréal, Michel. 1868. Les Idées latentes du langage. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar

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

Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998. Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics 6, 339–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chierchia, Gennaro. 2010. Mass nouns, vagueness and semantic variation. Synthese 174, 99–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chung, Sandra. 2000. On reference to kinds in Indonesian. Natural Language Semantics 8.2, 157–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chung, Sandra. 2012. Are lexical categories universal? The view from Chamorro. Theoretical Linguistics 38.1–2, 1–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cruse, David A. 1986. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Dalrymple, Mary, and Mofu, Surial. 2012. Plural semantics, reduplication and numeral modification in Indonesian. Journal of Semantics 29: 229–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Déprez, Viviane. 2005. Morphological number, semantic number and bare nouns. Lingua 115: 857–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dressler, Wolfgang U., and Barbaresi, Lavinia Merlini. 1994. Morphopragmatics: Diminutives and Intensifiers in Italian, German, and Other Languages. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Embick, David. 2004. On the structure of resultative participles in Latin. Linguistic Inquiry 35, 355–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fábregas, Antonio, and Scalise, Sergio. 2012. Morphology: From Data to Theories. Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fodor, Jerry. 1998. Concepts: Where Cognitive Science Went Wrong. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Folli, Raffaella, and Harley, Heidi. 2007. Causation, obligation and argument structure: On the nature of little v. Linguistic Inquiry 38.2, 197–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fradin, Bernard, and Kerleroux, Françoise. 2009. L’identité lexémique. In Fradin, Bernard, Kerleroux, Françoise, and Plénat, Marc (eds.), Aperçus de morphologie du français, 83–102. Paris: Presses universitaires de Vincennes.Google Scholar

Fradin, Bernard, and Montermini, Fabio. 2009. La morphologie évaluative. In Fradin, Bernard, Kerleroux, Françoise, and Plénat, Marc (eds.), Aperçus de morphologie du français, 231–66. Paris: Presses universitaires de Vincennes.Google Scholar

Gaeta, Livio. 2004. Nomi d’azione. In Grossmann, Maria and Rainer, Franz (eds.), La formazione delle parole in italiano, 314–50. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar

Gerner, Matthias. 2014. Noncompositional scopal morphology in Yi. Morphology 24, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Hale, Kenneth, and Keyser, Samuel Jay 2002. Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Halle, Morris, and Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, Ken and Keyser, Samuel Jay (eds.), The View from Building 20, 111–76. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Harbour, Daniel. 2011a. Valence and atomic number. Linguistic Inquiry 42, 561–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harbour, Daniel. 2011b. Descriptive and explanatory markedness. Morphology 21, 223–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harbour, Daniel. 2014. Paucity, abundance, and the theory of number. Language 90, 185–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harley, Heidi. 2009. The morphology of nominalizations and the syntax of vP . In Rathert, Monika and Giannadikou, Anastasia (eds.), Quantification, Definiteness and Nominalization, 320–42. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Harley, Heidi. 2012. Semantics in Distributed Morphology. In Maienborn, Claudia, von Heusinger, Klaus, and Portner, Paul (eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, vol. 3 (HSK 33.3), 2151–72. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Harley, Heidi. 2014. On the identity of roots. Theoretical Linguistics 40, 3.4, 225–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hyman, Larry. 2003. Suffix ordering in Bantu: A morphocentric approach. Yearbook of Morphology 2002, 245–81.Google Scholar

Iatridou, Sabine. 2000. The grammatical ingredients of counterfactuality. Linguistic Inquiry 31, 231–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Inkelas, Sharon. 1993. Nimboran position class morphology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11, 559–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

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

Jackendoff, Ray. 2010. Meaning and the Lexicon: The Parallel Architecture 1975–2010. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, Ray. 2011. Conceptual semantics. In von Heusinger, Klaus, Maienborn, Claudia, and Portner, Paul (eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, vol. 1, 688–709. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Koontz-Garboden, Andrew. 2005. On the typology of state/change of state alternations. Yearbook of Morphology 2005, 83–117.Google Scholar

Koontz-Garboden, Andrew. 2009. Anticausativization. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27, 77–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Koontz-Garboden, Andrew. 2010. Only Some Lexical Semantic Roots Are Morphological Roots. Handout, LAGB conference, Leeds.Google Scholar

Koontz-Garboden, Andrew. 2011. The roots of change of state verbs. Paper presented at the conference Approaches to the lexicon (Roots III), Jerusalem. Available at http://personalpages.manchester.ac.uk/staff/andrewkg/cos-roots-jerusalem-final.pdf (accessed March 16, 2016).Google Scholar

Koontz-Garboden, Andrew. 2012a. The monotonicity hypothesis. In McNally, Louise and Demonte, Violeta (eds.), Telicity, Change, and State: A Cross-categorial View of Event Structure, 139–61. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Koontz-Garboden, Andrew. 2012b. The universality of lexical categories: Comments on Chung. Theoretical Linguistics 38.1–2, 103–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Laurence, Stephen, and Margolis, Eric (eds.) 1999. Concepts: Core Readings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Levin, Beth. 2009. Lexical semantics of verbs II: The structure of event structure. Lecture handout. Available at www.stanford.edu/~bclevin/lsa09event.pdf (accessed March 16, 2016).Google Scholar

Levin, Beth, and Hovav, Malka Rappaport. 1995. Unaccusativity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Levin, Beth, and Hovav, Malka Rappaport. 2005. Argument Realization. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levin, Beth, and Hovav, Malka Rappaport. 2011. Lexical conceptual structure. In von Heusinger, Klaus, Maienborn, Claudia, and Portner, Paul (eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning, vol. 1, 418–38. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Libben, Gary, and Weber, Silke. 2014. Semantic transparency, compounding, and the nature of independent variables. In Rainer, Franz, Gardani, Francesco, Luschütsky, Hans Christian, and Dressler, Wolfgang (eds.), Morphology and Meaning, 205–22. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

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

Link, Godehard. 1998. Quantity and number. In Algebraic Semantics in Language and Philosophy, 213–29. Stanford: Centre for the Study of Language and Information. Reprinted from Zaefferer, Dietmar (ed.), Semantic Universals and Universal Semantics, 133–149. Dordrecht: Foris, 1991.Google Scholar

Longobardi, Giuseppe. 2001. How comparative is semantics? A unified parametric theory of bare nouns and proper names. Natural Language Semantics 9.4, 335–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Luís, Ana, and Bermudez-Otero, Ricardo (eds.) In press. Perspectives on the Morphome. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Maiden, Martin. 2004. Morphological autonomy and diachrony. Yearbook of Morphology 2005, 137–75.Google Scholar

Manova, Stela, and Aronoff, Mark. 2010. Modeling affix ordering. Morphology 20, 109–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Marantz, Alec. 2007. Phrases and words. In Choe, S.-H. (ed.), Phases in the Theory of Grammar, 196–226. Seoul: Dong In.Google Scholar

Marconi, Diego. 1997. Lexical Competence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Massam, Diane (ed.) 2012. Count and Mass Across Languages. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Matthews, Peter H. 1972. Inflectional Morphology: A Theoretical Study Based on Aspects of Latin Verb Conjugation. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Nordlinger, Rachel. 2010. Verbal morphology in Murrinh-Patha: Evidence for templates. Morphology 20.2, 321–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Noyer, Rolf. 1997. Features, Positions and Affixes in Autonomous Morphological Structure. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar

O’Neill, Paul. 2014. The morphome in constructive and abstractive theories of morphology. Morphology 24, 25–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ojeda, Almerindo. 1993. Individuals. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Ojeda, Almerindo. 1998. The semantics of collectives and distributives in Papago. Natural Language Semantics 6, 245–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ouhalla, Jamal. 2012. Lexical change and the architecture of the lexicon. In Torrego, Esther (ed.), Of Grammar, Words, and Verses: Essays in Honor of Carlos Piera, 41–66. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Packard, Jerome. 2000. The Morphology of Chinese: A Linguistic and Cognitive Approach. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Perlmutter, David. 1988. The split-morphology hypothesis: Evidence from Yiddish. In Hammond, Michael and Noonan, Michael (eds.), Theoretical Morphology: Approaches in Modern Linguistics, 79–90. Orlando: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rainer, Franz; Gardani, Francesco, Luschütsky, Hans Christian, and Dressler, Wolfgang. 2014. Morphology and meaning: An overview. In Rainer, Franz, Gardani, Francesco, Luschütsky, Hans Christian, and Dressler, Wolfgang (eds.), Morphology and Meaning, 3–46. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ramchand, Gillian. 2008. Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First-phase Syntax. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rappaport Hovav, Malka, and Levin, Beth. 1998. Building verb meanings. In Butt, Miriam and Geuder, Willi (eds.), The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors, 97–134. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Remberger, Eva-Maria. 2012. Participles and nominal aspect. In Gaglia, Sascha and Hinzelin, Marc-Olivier (eds.), Inflection and Word Formation in Romance Languages, 271–94. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

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

Rijkhoff, Jan. 2002. The Noun Phrase. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rijkhoff, Jan. 2009. On the (un)suitability of semantic categories. Linguistic Typology 13, 95–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sawada, Osamu 2013. The meanings of diminutive shifts in Japanese. In Keine, Stefan and Sloggett, Shayne (eds.), Proceedings of the 42nd Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society, 163–76. Amherst: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar

Schwarze, Christoph, and Schepping, Marie-Therese. 1995. Polysemy in a two-level semantics. In Egli, Urs, Pause, Peter E., Schwarze, Christoph, von Stechow, Arnim, and Wienold, Götz (eds.), Lexical Knowledge and the Organization of the Language, 275–300. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Soare, Elena 2007. Romanian participle: 3 items with 1 morphological unit. In On-line Proceedings of the Fifth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (MMM5). Fréjus, September 15–18, 2005.Google Scholar

Stump, Gregory. 2001. Inflectional Morphology: A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Talmy, Leonard. 1985. Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. 3: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon, 57–149. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Wilhelm, Andrea. 2008. Bare nouns and number in Dëne Sųliné. Natural Language Semantics 16.1, 39–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wiltschko, Martina. 2008. The syntax of non-inflectional plural marking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26.3, 639–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wiltschko, Martina. 2012. Decomposing the mass/count distinction: Evidence from languages that lack it. In Massam, Diane (ed.), Count and Mass Across Languages, 146–71. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Xu, Zheng; Aronoff, Mark, and Anshen, Frank. 2007. Deponency in Latin. In Baerman, Matthew, Corbett, Greville G., Brown, Dunstan, and Hippisley, Andrew (eds.), Deponency and Morphological Mismatches, 127–43. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Zombolou, Katerina, and Alexiadou, Artemis. 2014. The canonical functions of the deponent verbs in modern Greek. In Rainer, Franz, Gardani, Francesco, Luschütsky, Hans Christian, and Dressler, Wolfgang (eds.), Morphology and Meaning, 331–43. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Allen, Margaret. 1978. Morphological Investigations. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar

Baker, Mark. 1985. The Mirror Principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry 16, 373–416.Google Scholar

Baker, Mark. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Beck, David. 2008. Variable ordering of affixes in Upper Necaxa Totonac. In Seok Koon, Chin and Fusheini, Hude (eds.), Proceedings of the 12th Workshop on Structure and Constituency in the Languages of the Americas, 29–38. Vancouver: UBC Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar

Booker, Karen. 1980. Comparative Muskogean: Aspects of Proto-Muskogean verb morphology. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Kansas.Google Scholar

Burrow, Thomas, and Bhattacharya, S.. 1970. The Pengo Language: Grammar, Texts, and Vocabulary. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar

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

Bybee, Joan. 1995a. Diachronic and typological properties of morphology and their implications for representation. In Feldman, Laure Beth (ed.), Morphological Aspects of Language Processing, 225–46. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

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

Bybee, Joan; Pagliuca, William, and Perkins, Revere. 1990. On the asymmetries in the affixation of grammatical material. In Croft, William, Denning, Keith, and Kemmer, Suzanne (eds.), Studies in Typology and Diachrony, 1–39. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Caballero, Gabriela. 2010. Scope, phonology and templates in an agglutinating language: Choguita Raramuri (Tarahumara) variable suffix ordering. Morphology 20.1, 165–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carlson, Barry, and Flett, Pauline. 1989. Spokane Dictionary. Occasional Papers in Linguistics 6. Missoula: University of Montana Press.Google Scholar

Cook, William H. 1979. A Grammar of North Carolina Cherokee. Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University.Google Scholar

Crippen, James. 2010. Lingít Yoo X’atángi: A Grammar of the Tlingit Language. Manuscript.Google Scholar

Cutler, Anne; Hawkins, John, and Gilligan, Gary. 1985. The suffixing preference: A processing explanation. Linguistics 23, 723–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Doak, Ivy. 1997. Coeur d’Alene Grammatical Relations. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar

Dressler, Wolfgang; Mayerthaler, Willi, Panagl, Oswald, and Wolfgang, Wurzel. 1987. Leitmotifs in Natural Morphology. Studies in Language Companion Series 10. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Egesdal, Steven, and Thompson, M. Terry. 1998. A fresh look at Tillamook (Hutéyu) inflectional morphology. In Czaykowska-Higgins, Ewa and Dale Kinkade, M. (eds.), Salish Languages and Linguistics: Theoretical and Descriptive Perspectives, 235–73. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Embick, David, and Noyer, Rolf. 2008. Distributed Morphology and the syntax-morphology interface. In Ramchand, Gillian and Reiss, Charles (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, 289–324. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Fabb, Nigel. 1988. English suffixation is constrained only by selectional restrictions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6, 527–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Feeling, Durbin. 1975. Cherokee-English Dictionary. Tahlequah: Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma.Google Scholar

García-Castillero, Carlos. 2013. Morphological externalisation and the Old Irish Verbal particle ro. Transactions of the Philological Society 111.1, 108–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gelderen, Elly van. 2011. The Linguistic Cycle: Language Change and the Language Faculty. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Geniušiene, Emma. 1987. The Typology of Reflexives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gerdts, Donna B., and Kiyosawa, Kaoru. 2007. Combinatorial properties of Salish applicatives. Papers for the 42nd International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Languages, UBCWPL 20, 176–219.Google Scholar

Giegerich, Heinz J. 1999. Lexical Strata in English: Morphological Causes, Phonological Effects. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Good, Jeff. 2005. Reconstructing morpheme order in Bantu: The case of causativization and applicativization. Diachronica 22, 55–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Good, Jeff. 2011. The typology of templates. Language and Linguistics Compass 5, 731–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Greenberg, Joseph H. 1957. Order of affixing: A study in general linguistics. In Greenberg, Joseph H., Essays in General Linguistics, 86–94. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. Some universals of grammar 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

Greenberg, Joseph H. 1966. Language Universals, with Special Reference to Feature Hierarchies. Janua Linguarum, Series Minor 59. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Hall, Christopher. 1988. Integrating diachronic and processing principles in explaining the suffixing preference. In Hawkins, John A. (ed.), Explaining Language Universals, 321–49. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Halle, Morris, and Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel J. (eds.), The View from Building 20, 111–76. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Hargus, Sharon. 1988. The Lexical Phonology of Sekani. New York: Garland.Google Scholar

Hargus, Sharon, and Tuttle, Siri. 1997. Augmentation as affixation in Athabaskan languages. Phonology 14: 177–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harley, Heidi, and Noyer, Rolf. 1999. State-of-the=Article: Distributed morphology. GLOT 4.4, 3–9.Google Scholar

Harris, Alice, and Faarlund, Jan-Terje. 2006. Trapped morphology. Journal of Linguistics 42.2, 289–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 1990. The grammaticization of passive morphology. Studies in Language 14.1, 25–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. The diachronic externalization of inflection. Linguistics 31, 279–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hawkins, John A., and Cutler, Anne. 1988. Psycholinguistic factors in morphological asymmetry. In Hawkins, John A. (ed.), Explaining Language Universals, 280–317. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Hawkins, John A., and Gilligan, Gary. 1988. Prefixing and suffixing universals in relation to basic word order. Lingua 74, 219–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hay, Jennifer. 2001. Lexical frequency in morphology: Is everything relative? Linguistics 39, 1041–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hay, Jennifer. 2002. From speech perception to morphology: Affix-ordering revisited. Language 78.3, 527–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Hay, Jennifer, and Baayen, Harald. 2002. Parsing and productivity. Yearbook of Morphology 2001, 203–55.Google Scholar

Hay, Jennifer, and Plag, Ingo. 2004. What constrains possible suffix combinations? On the interaction of grammatical and processing restrictions in derivational morphology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22, 565–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hudson, Richard. 1987. Zwicky on heads. Journal of Linguistics 23, 109–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hyman, Larry. 2003. Suffix ordering in Bantu: A morphocentric approach. Yearbook of Morphology 2002, 245–81.Google Scholar

Inkelas, Sharon. 1993. Nimboran position class morphology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11, 559–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jacobson, Steven. 2012. Yup’ik Eskimo Dictionary, 2nd edn. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center.Google Scholar

Kari, James. 1989. Affix positions and zones in the Athapaskan verb complex: Ahtna and Navajo. International Journal of American Linguistics 55, 424–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kari, James. 1992. Some concepts in Ahtna Athabaskan word formation. In Aronoff, Mark (ed.), Morphology Now, 107–32. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar

Kari, James. 1993. Diversity in morpheme order in several Athabaskan languages: Notes on the gh-qualifier. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic Society 19, 50–6.Google Scholar

King, Duane. 1975. A Grammar and Dictionary of the Cherokee Language. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Georgia.Google Scholar

Kinkade, M. Dale. 1981. Dictionary of the Moses-Columbia Language. Nespelem, WA: Colville Confederated Tribes.Google Scholar

Kinkade, M. Dale. 1982. Transitive inflection in Moses-Columbian Salish. Kansas Working Papers in Linguistics 7, 49–62.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul. 1982. Lexical morphology and phonology. In Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm, 1–91. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co.Google Scholar

Kiyosawa, Kaoru. 1999. Classification of applicatives in Salishan languages. Papers for the 34th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 112–52.Google Scholar

Kiyosawa, Kaoru. 2002. Proto-Salish applicatives. Working Papers of the Linguistics Circle 15, 61–70.Google Scholar

Kiyosawa, Kaoru. 2006. Applicatives in Salish languages. Ph.D. dissertation, Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar

Korotkova, Natalia, and Lander, Yury. 2010. Deriving affix ordering in polysynthesis: Evidence from Adyghe. Morphology 20, 299–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Krauss, Michael. 1965. Eyak: A preliminary report. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 167–187.Google Scholar

Krauss, Michael. 1973. Na-dene. In T. A. Sebeok (ed.), Linguistics in North America, 903–78. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Lacy, Paul de. 1999. A correspondence theory of morpheme order. In Norquest, Peter, Haugen, Jason D., and Bird, Sonya (eds.), WCCFl (West Coast Conference in Formal Linguistics) XVIII, 27–45. Arizona: Coyote Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar

Lakhota Language Consortium. 2008. New Lakota Dictionary. Ullrich, Jan, editor and author. Bloomington, IN: Lakhota Language Consortium.Google Scholar

Lehmann, Winfred P. 1978. English: A characteristic SVO language. In Winfred, Lehman (ed.), Syntactic Typology: Studies in the Phenomenology of Language, 169–222. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

Manova, Stela. 2010a. Suffix combinations in Bulgarian: Parsability and hierarchy-based order. Morphology 20, 267–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Manova, Stela. 2010b. Suffix order and the structure of the Slavic word. In The Fifth Annual Meeting of the Slavic Linguistic Society. University of Chicago, 57–8.Google Scholar

Manova, Stela. 2011a. A cognitive approach to Suff1-Suff2 combinations: A tribute to Carl Friedrich Gauss. Word Structure 4.2, 272–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Manova, Stela. 2011b. Suffix order in double and multiple diminutives: With data from Polish and Bulgarian. Studies in Polish Linguistics 6, 115–38Google Scholar

Manova, Stela. (ed.) 2014. Affix Ordering across Languages and Frameworks. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Manova, Stela, and Aronoff, Mark. 2010. Modeling affix order. Morphology 20, 109–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mattina, Anthony. 1994. -tuɫt, and more on Okanagan transitive forms: A working paper. Papers for the 29th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 204–31. Pablo, MT.Google Scholar

Mattina, Nancy. 1993. Some lexical properties of Colville-Okanagan ditransitives. Papers for the 28th International Conference on Salish and Neighboring Languages, 265–84. Seattle, WA.Google Scholar

McDonough, Joyce. 1990. Topics in the Phonology and Morphology of Navajo Verbs. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar

McDonough, Joyce. 2000a. Athabaskan redux: Against the position class as a morphological category. In Dressler, Wolfgang, Pfeiffer, Oskar E., Pöchtrager, Markus, and Rennison, John R. (eds.), Morphological Analysis in Comparison, 155–78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

McDonough, Joyce. 2000b. On the bipartite model of the Athabaskan verb. In Fernald, Theodore and Platero, Paul (eds.), The Athabaskan Languages: Perspectives on a Native American Language Family, 139–66. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Mithun, Marianne. 1999. The Languages of Native North America. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Mithun, M. 2000. The reordering of morphemes. In Gildea, Spike, ed., Reconstructing Grammar: Comparative Linguistics and Grammaticalization, 231–55. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Mithun, Marianne. 2002. An invisible hand at the root of causation: The role of lexicalization in the grammaticalization of causatives. In Wischer, Ilse and Diewald, Gabriele (eds.), New Reflections on Grammaticalization, 237–57. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Mithun, Marianne. 2003. Why prefixes? Acta Linguistic Hungarica 50, 155–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mithun, Marianne. 2011. Grammaticalization and explanation. In Heine, Bernd and Narrog, Heiko (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, 177–92. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Mohanan, K. P. 1986. The Theory of Lexical Phonology. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar

Montgomery-Anderson, Brad. 2008. A Reference Grammar of Oklahoma Cherokee. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Kansas.Google Scholar

Munro, Pamela. 2005. Chickasaw. In Hardy, Heather and Scancarelli, Janine (eds.), Native Languages of the Southeastern United States, 114–56. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar

Munro, Pamela, and Willmond, Catherine. 2008. Chicakashshanompa’ kilanompoli’: Let’s speak Chickasaw. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar

Muysken, Pieter. 1986. Approaches to affix order. Linguistics 24, 629–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Muysken, Pieter. 1988. Affix order and interpretation: Quechua. Morphology and Modularity: In Honor of Henk Schultink, 259–79. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Nevis, Joel, and Brian, Joseph. 1993. Wackernagel Affixes: Evidence from Balto-Slavic. Yearbook of Morphology 1992, 93–111.Google Scholar

Norde, Muriel. 1997. The History of the Genitive in Swedish: A Case Study in Degrammaticalization. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Nordlinger, Rachel. 2010. Verbal morphology in Murrinh-Patha: Evidence for templates. Morphology 20, 321–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Parks, Douglas. 1976. A Grammar of Pawnee. New York: Garland.Google Scholar

Plag, Ingo. 1996. Selectional restrictions in English suffixation revisited: A reply to Fabb (1988). Linguistics 34, 769–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Plag, Ingo. 1999. Morphological Productivity: Structural Constraints in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Plag, Ingo. 2002. The role of selectional restrictions, phonotactics and parsing in constraining suffix ordering in English. In Booij, Geert and van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 2001, 285–415.Google Scholar

Plag, Ingo, and Baayen, Harald. 2009. Suffix ordering and morphological processing. Language 85.1, 109–52.Google Scholar

Rice, Keren. 1993. The structure of the Slave (northern Athapaskan) verb. In Sharon, Hargus and Kaisse, Ellen (eds.), Issues in Lexical Phonology, 145–71. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Rice, Keren. 1998. Slave (Northern Athapaskan). In Andrew, Spencer and Arnold, Zwicky (eds.), The Handbook of Morphology, 648–89. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

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

Rood, David. 1976. Wichita Grammar. New York: Garland.Google Scholar

Ryan, Kevin M. 2010. Variable affix order: Grammar and learning. Language 86.4, 758–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World.Google Scholar

Scalise, Sergio. 1988. The notion of “head” in morphology. Yearbook of Morphology I, 229–45.Google Scholar

Selkirk, Elizabeth. 1982. The Syntax of Words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Senn, Alfred. 1966. Handbuch der litauischen Sprache. Band I: Grammatik. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar

Siddiqi, Daniel. 2010. Distributed Morphology. Language and Linguistics Compass 4.7, 524–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Siegel, Dorothy. 1974. Topics in English Morphology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Siegel, Dorothy. 1977. The Adjacency Condition and the Theory of Morphology. Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society 189–97. Amherst, MAGoogle Scholar

Simpson, Jane, and Withgott, Meg. 1986. Pronominal clitic clusters and templates. In Borer, Hagit (ed.), The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics. Syntax and Semantics 19, 149–74. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Spencer, Andrew. 1991. Morphology Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Spencer, Andrew. 2003. Putting some order into morphology: Reflections on Rice (2000) and Stump (2001). Review article. Journal of Linguistics 39, 621–46.Google Scholar

Spencer, Andrew. 2006. Morphological universals. In Mairal, Ricardo and Gil, Jeffrey (eds.), Linguistic Universals. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Stolz, Thomas. 1989. Zum Wandel der morphotaktischen Positionsregeln des baltischen Reflexivezeichens. Folia Linguistica Historica 9.1, 13–27.Google Scholar

Stump, Gregory T. 1991. A paradigm-based theory of morphosemantic mismatches. Language 67, 675–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stump, Gregory T. 1992. On the theoretical status of position class restriction in inflectional affixes. Yearbook of Morphology 1991, 211–41.Google Scholar

Stump, Gregory T. 1993. Position classes and morphological theory. Yearbook of Morphology 1992, 129–80.Google Scholar

Stump, Gregory T. 1997. Template morphology and inflectional morphology. Yearbook of Morphology 1996, 217–41.Google Scholar

Stump, Gregory T. 1998. Inflection. In Spencer, Andrew and Zwicky, Arnold M. (eds.), The Handbook of Morphology, 13–43. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Stump, Gregory T. 2001. Inflectional Morphology: A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stump, Gregory T. 2006. Template morphology. In Brown, Keith (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn., v 12, 559–62. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Vennemann, Theo. 1973. Explanation in syntax. In Kimball, John (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 2, 1–50. New York: Seminary Press.Google Scholar

Vennemann, Theo. 1974a. Topics, subjects and word order: From SXV to SVX via TVX. In Anderson, J. M. and Jones, C. (eds.), Historical Linguistics I. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar

Vennemann, Theo. 1974b. Analogy in generative grammar, the origin of word order. In Heilmann, Luigi (ed.), Proceedings of the Eleventh International Congress of Linguists, 2, 79–83. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar

Vogt, Hans. 1971. Grammaire de la langue géorgienne. Oslo: Instituttet for sammenlignende kulturforskning.Google Scholar

Watanabe, Honoré. 2003. A Morphological Description of Sliammon, Mainland Comox Salish, with a Sketch of Syntax. Endangered Languages of the Pacific Rim Publication Series A2-040. Osaka Bakuin University, Faculty of Informatics.Google Scholar

Williams, Edwin. 1981. On the notions “lexically related” and “head of a word.” Linguistic Inquiry 12, 245–74.Google Scholar

Wojdak, Rachel. 2005. The Linearization of Affixes: Evidence from Nuu-chah-nulth. Ph.D. dissertation, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar

Young, Robert W., and William, Morgan Sr. 1943. The Navajo Language: Grammar and Dictionary. Phoenix: Bureau of Indian Affairs.Google Scholar

Young, Robert W., and William, Morgan Sr. 1987. The Navajo Language: A Grammar and Colloquial Dictionary. 2nd edn. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar

Young, Robert W., and William, Morgan Sr., with Midgette, Sally. 1992. Analytical Lexicon of Navajo. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar

Zwicky, Arnold. 1985. Heads. Journal of Linguistics 21, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ackema, Peter, and Neeleman, Ad. 2013. Person features and syncretism. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31, 901–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Albright, Adam. 2008. Explaining universal tendencies and language particulars in analogical change. In Good, J. (ed.), Language Universals and Language Change, 144–81. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Arad, Maya. 2005. Roots and Patterns: Hebrew Morpho-Syntax. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

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

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

Aronoff, Mark. 2013. Face the facts. In Villoing, Florence and David, Sophie (eds.), Foisonnements morphologiques: Études en hommage à Françoise Kerleroux, 307–24. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Paris Ouest.Google Scholar

Aronoff, Mark; Meir, Irit, and Sandler, Wendy. 2005. The paradox of sign language morphology. Language 81, 301–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Berlin, Isaiah. 1953. The Hedgehog and the Fox. London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson.Google Scholar

Bloch, Bernard. 1947. English verb inflection. Language 23, 399–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar

Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2002. Syncretism without paradigms: Remarks on Williams 1981, 1984. Yearbook of Morphology 2001, 53–85.Google Scholar

Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2012. Universals of Comparative Morphology: Suppletion, Superlatives, and the Structure of Words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bonami, Olivier, and Boyé, Gilles. 2002. Suppletion and stem dependency in inflectional morphology. In Van Eyde, Franck, Hellan, Lars, and Beermann, Dorothee (eds.), Prceedings of the HPSG 2001 Conference, 51–70. Standford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Bonami, Olivier; Boyé, Gilles, and Kerleroux, Françoise. 2009. L’allomorphie radicale et la relation flexion-construction. In Fradin, Bernard, Kerleroux, Françoise, and Plénat, Marc (eds.), Aperçus de morphologie du français, 103–25. Saint-Denis: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.Google Scholar

Burns, James McGregor. 1956. Roosevelt: The Lion and the Fox. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar

Burns, James McGregor. 1970. Roosevelt: The Soldier of Freedom. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar

Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 1987. Allomorphy in Inflexion. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Jacobs, Roderick and Rosenbaum, Peter (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, 184–221. Waltham, MA: Ginn and Co.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1975. The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 2005. Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 45, 463–81.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 2012. The Science of Language: Interviews with James McGilvray. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Corbett, Greville G. 2013. Number of genders. 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/30, accessed on August 27, 2014.)Google Scholar

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

DiSciullo, Anna Maria, and Williams, Edwin. 1987. On the Definition of Word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Dixon, R. M. W. 1972. The Djirbal Language of North Queensland. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Downing, Laura J.; Alan Hall, T., and Raffelsiefen, Renate. 2004. Paradigms in Phonological Theory. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Embick, David. To appear. On the distribution of stem alternants: Separation and its limits. In Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo and Luís, Ana (eds.), The Morphome Debate: Diagnosing and Analyzing Morphomic Patterns.Google Scholar

Embick, David, and Halle, Morris. 2005. On the status of stems in morphological theory. In Geerts, Twan, van Ginneken, Ivo, and Jacobs, Haike (eds.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2003, 37–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Embick, David, and Marantz, Alec. 2005. Cognitive neuroscience and the English past tense: Comments on the paper by Ullman et al. Brain and Language 93, 243–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Gazdar, Gerald; Pullum, Geoffrey, and Sag, Ivan. 1982. Auxiliaries and related phenomena in a restrictive theory of grammar. Language 58, 591–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harbour, Daniel. 2011. Descriptive and explanatory markedness. Morphology 21, 223–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harley, Heidi, and Ritter, Elizabeth. 2002. Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language 78, 482–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harris, Randy Allan. 1993. The Linguistics Wars. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hauser, Marc; Chomsky, Noam, and Fitch, Tecumseh. 2002. The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 198, 1569–79.Google Scholar

Hebb, Donald. 1949. The Organization of Behavior. New York: Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar

Hockett, Charles. 1947. Problems of morphemic analysis. Language 23, 321–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Huddleston, Rodney, and Pullum, Geoffrey (eds.) 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Johnson, C. Douglas. 1972. Formal Aspects of Phonological Description. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Joos, Martin. 1957. Readings in Linguistics: The Development of Descriptive Linguistics in America since 1925. Washington, DC: American Council of Learned Societies.Google Scholar

Julien, Marit. 2002. Syntactic Heads and Word Formation. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kibort, Anna, and Corbett, Greville G.. 2008. Number. Grammatical Features, January 25, 2008. (Available online at www.grammaticalfeatures.net/features/number.html, accessed on March 28, 2016.)Google Scholar

Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Langendoen, D. Terence. 2013. Eugene Nida. Language 89, 163–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lindsay, Mark, and Mark, Aronoff. 2013. Natural selection in self-organizing morphological systems. In Montermini, Fabio, Boyé, Gilles, and Tseng, Jesse (eds.), Morphology in Toulouse: Selected Proceedings of Décembrettes 7, 133–53. Germany: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar

Maiden, Martin. 1992. Irregularity as a determinant of morphological change. Journal of Linguistics 28, 285–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Maiden, Martin. 2005. Morphological autonomy and diachrony. Yearbook of Morphology 2004, 137–75.Google Scholar

Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own Lexicon. In Dimitriadis, Alexis, Siegel, Laura, Surek-Clark, Clarissa, and Williams, Alexander (eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium: Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 4.2, 201–25.Google Scholar

Meir, Irit; Padden, Carol, Aronoff, Mark, and Sandler, Wendy. 2007. Body as subject. Journal of Linguistics 43, 531–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Müller, Gereon. 2013. Review of Baerman, Corbett, Brown, and Hippisley. Word Structure 6, 100–22.Google Scholar

Nida, Eugene A. 1948. The identification of morphemes. Language 24, 414–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nida, Eugene A. 1949. Morphology: The Descriptive Analysis of Words. 2nd edn. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar

Nida, Eugene A. 1969. Science of translation. Language 45, 483–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Plank, Frans. 1991. Paradigms: The Economy of Inflection. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Postal, Paul M. 1972. The best theory. In Peters, S. (ed.), Goals of Linguistic Theory, 131–70. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1879. Mémoire sur le système primitive des voyelles dans les langues indo-européennes. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar

Steriade, Donca. 2000. Paradigm uniformity and the phonetics-phonology boundary. In Broe, Michael and Pierrehumbert, Janet (eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology, vol. 5: Acquisition and the Lexicon, 313–34. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Stump, Gregory. 2001. Inflectional Morphology: A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Trager, George L. 1951. Review of Nida 1949. International Journal of American Linguistics 17, 126–31.Google Scholar

Ullman, Michael T.; Pancheva, Roumyana; Love, Tracy, Yee, Eiling, Swinney, David, and Hickok, Gregory. 2005. Neural correlates of lexicon and grammar: Evidence from the production, reading, and judgment of inflection in aphasia. Brain and Language 93, 185–238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Wechsler, Stephen. 2010. What “You” and “I” Mean to Each Other: Person Marking, Self-Ascription, and Theory of Mind. Language 86, 332–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Williams, Edwin S. 1994. Remarks on lexical theory. Lingua 92, 7–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Williams, Edwin. 2007. Dumping lexicalism. In Ramchand, Gillian and Reiss, Charles (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, 353–82. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Xu, Zheng; Aronoff, Mark, and Anshen, Frank. 2007. Deponency in Latin. In Baerman, Matthew. Corbett, Greville G.. Brown, Dunstan, and Hippisley, Andrew (eds.), Deponency and Morphological Mismatches. Proceedings of the British Academy 145, 127–43. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ackerman, F., and Stump, G. T.. 2004. Paradigms and periphrastic expression. In Sadler, L. and Spencer, A. (eds.), Projecting Morphology, 111–57. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Ackerman, F.; Blevins, J. P., and Malouf, R.. 2009. Parts and wholes: Implicative patterns in inflectional paradigms. In Blevins, J. P. and Blevins, J. (eds.), Analogy in Grammar: Form and Acquisition, 54–82. Oxford Scholarship Online.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Albright, A. 2002. The Identification of Bases in Morphological Paradigms. Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar

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

Anderson, S. R. 1992. A-morphous Morphology. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 62. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aronoff, M. 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Aronoff, M. 1994. Morphology by Itself. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Baerman, M., and Corbett, G. G.. 2010. Defectiveness: Typology and diachrony. In Baerman, M., Corbett, G. G., and Brown, D. (eds.), Defective Paradigms: Missing Forms and What They Tell Us, Proceedings of the British Academy 163, 1–18, Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baerman, M.; Brown, D., and Corbett, G. G.. 2005. The Syntax-Morphology Interface: A Study of Syncretism. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baerman, M.; Corbett, G. G., Brown, D., and Hippisley, A.. 2007. Deponency and Morphological Mismatches. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bauer, L. 1997. Derivational paradigms. Yearbook of Morphology 1996, 243–56.Google Scholar

Becker, T. 1993. Back-formation, cross-formation, and “bracketing paradoxes” in paradigmatic morphology. Yearbook of Morphology 1993, 1–25.Google Scholar

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

Bloomfield, L. 1926. A set of postulates for the science of language. Language 1, 153–64.Google Scholar

Bochner, H. 1993. Simplicity in Generative Morphology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bonami, O., and Beniamine, S.. 2015. Implicative structure and joint predictiveness. In Pirrelli, V., Marzi, C., and Ferro, M. (eds.), Word Structure and Word Usage: Proceedings of the NetWordS Final Conference. Pisa: Institute for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar

Bonami, O., and Boyé, G. 2003. Supplétion et classes flexionnelles dans la conjugaison du français. Langages 152, 102–26.Google Scholar

Bonami, O., and Boyé, G.. 2007a. French pronominal clitics and the design of paradigm function morphology. In Booij, G., Ducceschi, L., Fradin, B., Ralli, A., Guevara, E., and Scalise, S. (eds.), On-line Proceedings of the Fifth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting, 291–322. Università degli Studi di Bologna.Google Scholar

Bonami, O., and Boyé, G.. 2007b. Remarques sur les bases de la conjugaison. In Delais-Roussarie, E. and Labrune, L. (eds.), Des sons et des sens: Données et modèles en phonologie et en morphologie, 77–90. Paris: Hermès Science Publications.Google Scholar

Bonami, O., and Boyé, G.. 2014. De formes en thèmes. In Villoing, F., David, S., and Leroy, S. (eds.), Foisonnements morphologiques: Études en hommage à Françoise Kerleroux, 17–45. Presses universitaires de Paris Ouest.Google Scholar

Bonami, O., and Luís, A. R.. 2014. Sur la morphologie implicative dans la conjugaison du portugais: Une étude quantitative. Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 22, 111–51.Google Scholar

Booij, G. 1997. Autonomous morphology and paradigmatic relations. Yearbook of Morphology 1996, 35–53.Google Scholar

Boyé, G. 2011. Régularités et classes flexionnelles dans la conjugaison du français. In Roché, M., Boyé, G., Hathout, N., Lignon, S., and Plénat, M. (eds.), Des unités morphologiques au lexique, langues et syntaxe, 41–68. Plymouth: Hermes Science Publishing.Google Scholar

Brown, D., and Hippisley, A.. 2012. Network Morphology: A Defaults-based Theory of Word Structure, Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 133. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carstairs-McCarthy, A. 1994. Inflection classes, gender, and the principle of contrast. Language, 737–88.Google Scholar

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

Corbett, G. G. 2007. Canonical typology, suppletion, and possible words. Language, 8–42.Google Scholar

Corbett, G. G. 2012. Features. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Corbett, G. G., and Fraser, N. M.. 1993. Network morphology: A datr account of Russian nominal inflection. Journal of Linguistics 29.1, 113–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Corbin, D. 1987. Morphologie dérivationnelle et structuration du lexique. Sens et Structures. Presses Universitaires de Lille.Google Scholar

Dressler, W. U.; Mayerthaler, W., Panagl, O., and Wurzel, W. U.. 1987. Leitmotifs in Natural Morphology, Studies in Language Companion Series 10. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gazdar, G.; Klein, E., Pullum, G., and Sag, I.. 1985. Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.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

Hathout, N. 2011. Morphonette: A paradigm-based morphological network. Lingue e Linguaggio 2, 243–62.Google Scholar

Henri, F. 2010. A Constraint-Based Approach to Verbal Constructions in Mauritian: Morphological, Syntactic and Discourse-Based Aspects. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Mauritius and Paris 7.Google Scholar

Henri, F.; Marandin, J.-M., and Abeillé, A.. 2008. Long forms as verum focus exponents in Mauritian. Workshop at “Predicate Focus, Verum Focus, Verb Focus: Similarities and Differences,” Potsdam, November 14–15.Google Scholar

Hockett, C. F. 1954. Two models of grammatical description. Word 10, 210–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Höhle, T. 1992. Über verum-fokus im deutschen. In Jacobs, J. (ed.), Informationsstruktur und Grammatik, Linguistische Berichte Sonderhefte 4, 112–41. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar

Kilani-Schoch, M., and Dressler, W. U. 2005. Morphologie naturelle et flexion du verbe français. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar

Lieber, R. 1982. On the Organization of the Lexicon. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar

Lignon, S.; Namer, F., and Villoing, F.. 2014. De l’agglutination à la triangulation ou comment expliquer certaines séries morphologiques. In Neveu, F., Blumenthal, P., Hriba, L., Gerstenberg, A., Meinschaefer, J., and Prévost, S. (eds.), Actes du 4ème Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française, Vol. 8, 1813–35, Berlin. ILF.Google Scholar

Nida, E. A. 1949. Morphology: The Descriptive Analysis of Words. 2nd edn. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar

Noyer, R., and Harley, H.. 1999. State-of-the-article: Distributed morphology. GLOT 4.4, 3–9.Google Scholar

Pirrelli, V., and Battista, M.. 2000. The paradigmatic dimension of stem allomorphy in Italian verb inflection. Rivista di linguistica, 12.2, 307–80.Google Scholar

Roché, M. 2004. Mot construit? Mot non construit? Quelques réflexions à partir des dérivés en -ier(e). Verbum, 26.4, 459–80.Google Scholar

Roché, M. 2009. Pour une morphologie lexicale. Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris, n.s. 17, 65–87.Google Scholar

Roché, M. 2011. Quelle morphologie? In Roché, M., Boyé, G., Hathout, N., Lignon, S., and Plénat, M. (eds.), Des unités morphologiques au lexique, langues et syntaxe, 15–39. Plymouth: Hermes Science Publishing.Google Scholar

Roché, M. 2015. Interfixes in romance. In Müller, P. O., Ohnheiser, I., Olsen, S., and Rainer, F. (eds.), Word-Formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe, Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Sciences, 551–67. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Saussure, F. de. 1916. Cours de linguistique générale. Lausanne-Paris: Payot.Google Scholar

Stump, G. T. 2001. Inflectional Morphology. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stump, G. T. 2006. Heteroclisis and paradigm linkage. Language, 279–322.Google Scholar

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

Thornton, A. M. 2011. Overabundance (multiple forms realizing the same cell): A non-canonical phenomenon in Italian verb morphology. In Maiden, M., Smith, J. C., Goldbach, M., and Hinzelin, M.-O. (eds.), Morphological Autonomy: Perspectives from Romance Inflectional Morphology, 358–81. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Van Marle, J. 1985. On the Paradigmatic Dimension of Morphological Creativity. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar

Wurzel, W. U. 1989. Inflectional Morphology and Naturalness. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Zwicky, A. M., and Pullum, G. K.. 1983. Cliticization vs. inflection: English n’t. Language, 502–13.Google Scholar