Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Foundations of Morphological Theory
- Part II Issues in Morphological Theory
- Part III Morphological Principles
- Part IV Morphological Frameworks
- Part V The Role of Morphology in Theories of Phonology and Syntax
- Part VI Domains for the Evaluation of Morphological Theories
- Index of languages
- Index of names
- Index of subjects
- References
Part III - Morphological Principles
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 January 2017
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Foundations of Morphological Theory
- Part II Issues in Morphological Theory
- Part III Morphological Principles
- Part IV Morphological Frameworks
- Part V The Role of Morphology in Theories of Phonology and Syntax
- Part VI Domains for the Evaluation of Morphological Theories
- Index of languages
- Index of names
- Index of subjects
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology , pp. 235 - 328Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2016
References
References
Ackema, P., and Neeleman, A.. 2002. Syntactic atomicity. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 10 6.2, 93–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackema, P., and Neeleman, A.. 2004. Beyond Morphology: Interface Conditions on Word Formation. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackema, P., and Neeleman, A.. 2007. Morphology, syntax. In Ramchand, G. and Reiss, C. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, 325–52. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Álvarez Álvarez, G. 1949. El habla de Babia y Laciana. Revista de filología española, Anejo 49.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. 2015. Dimensions of morphological complexity. In Baerman, Matthew, Brown, Dunstan, and Corbett, Greville G. (eds.), Understanding and Measuring Morphological Complexity. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Arad, M. 2003. Locality constraints on the interpretation of roots: The case of Hebrew denominal verbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. 21: 737–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, M. 2012. Morphological stems: What William of Ockham really said. Word Structure 5: 28–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baerman, M. 2004. Directionality and (un)natural classes in syncretism. Language 80, 807–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baerman, M., Brown, D., and Corbett, G.. 2005. The Syntax-morphology Interface: A Study of Syncretism. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bağrıaçık, M., and Ralli, A.. forthcoming. Phrasal vs. Morphological Compounds: Insights from Modern Greek and Turkish. In C. Trips and J. Kornfilt (eds.), Special issue of STUFGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. 1985. The Mirror Principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry 16: 373–416.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. 2001. Compounding. In Haspelmath, Martin, König, Ekkehard, Oesterreicher, Wulf, and Raible, Wolfgang (eds.), Language Universals and Language Typology, Vol. 1, 695–707. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Booij, G. 1985. Coordination reduction in complex words: A case for prosodic phonology. In van der Hulst, Harry and Smith, Neil (eds.), Advances in Nonlinear Phonology, 143–60. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Booij, G. 2005a. Compounding and derivation: Evidence for Construction Morphology. In Dressler, Wolfgang, Rainer, Franz, Kastovsky, Dieter, and Pfeiffer, Oskar (eds.), Morphology and Its Demarcations, 109–32. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Booij, G. 2009. Lexical integrity as a formal universal: A constructionist view. Universals of Language Today Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. 76: 83–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borer, H. 1998. Morphology and syntax. In Spencer, A. and Zwicky, M. (eds.), The Handbook of Morphology, 151–90. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bosque, I. 2012. On the Lexical Integrity Hypothesis and its inaccurate predictions. Iberia: An International Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 4: 140–73.Google Scholar
Bourciez, J. 1927. Recherches historiques et géographiques sur le parfait en gascon. Bordeaux: Peret.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. 1997. Mixed categories as head sharing constructions. In Butt, Miriam and King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG97 conference. Stanford: CSLI. available at http://web.stanford.edu/~bresnan/mixed-rev.ps (accessed April 10, 2016).Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. W., and Mchombo, S. A.. 1995. The lexical integrity principle. Evidence from Bantu: Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13: 181–254.Google Scholar
Brown, D., and Hippisley, A.. 2012. Network Morphology: A Defaults-based Theory of Word Structure. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browne, W. 1993. Serbo-Croat. In Comrie, B. and Corbett, G. G. (eds.), The Slavonic Languages, 306–87. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bruening, B. 2015. The Lexicalist Hypothesis: Both Wrong and Superfluous. Draft version of article, available online at http://udel.edu/~bruening/Downloads/LexicalismSuperfluous1.pdf (accessed April 10, 2016).Google Scholar
Butt, M., and King, T. Holloway. 2005. The status of case. In Dayal, V. and Mahajan, A. (eds.), Clause Structure in South Asian Languages, 153–98. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. 1995. Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 10: 425–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J., and Brewer, M.. 1980. Explanation in morphophonemics: Changes in Provençal and Spanish preterite forms. Lingua 52: 201–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cano González, A. 1981. El habla de Somiedo. Santiago de Compostela: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela.Google Scholar
Chaves, R. P. 2008. Linearization-based word-part ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 31: 261–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Jacobs, R. and Rosenbaum, P. (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Waltham, MA: Blaisdell.Google Scholar
Corbett, G., and Baerman, M.. 2006. Prolegomena to a typology of morphological features. Morphology 16.2, 231–46.Google Scholar
Díaz Castañón, M. 1966. El habla del Cabo de Peñas. Oviedo: Instituto de estudios asturianos.Google Scholar
Díaz González, O. 1986. El habla de Candamo: aspectos morfosintácticos y vocabulario . Universidad de Oviedo.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, A. M., and Williams, E.. 1987. On the Definition of Word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Embick, D., and Halle, M.. 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, D., and Noyer, R.. 2007. Distributed Morphology and the syntax/morphology interface. In Ramchand, Gillian and Reiss, Charles (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, 289–324. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Emonds, J. 2002. A common basis for syntax and morphology: Tri-level lexical insertion. In Boucher, P. (ed.), Many Morphologies, 235–62. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Esher, L. 2012. Les conditionnels temporels et modaux des parlers occitans modernes. Faits de langues 40, 101–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esher, L. 2013. Future and conditional in Occitan: A non-canonical morphome. In Cruschina, S., Maiden, M., and Smith, J. C. (eds.), The Boundaries of Pure Morphology, 95–115. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández Vior, J. A. 1997. El habla de Vegadeo a Veiga y su concejo. Oviedo: Academia de la Llingua Asturiana.Google Scholar
Grossi Fernández, M. 1962. Breve estudio de un bable central: El de Meres. Archivum 12, 445–65.Google Scholar
García Valdés, C. 1979. El habla de Santianes de Pravia. Mieres: Instituto Bernaldo de Quirós.Google Scholar
Halle, M. 1973. Prolegomena to a theory of word formation. Linguistic Enquiry 4, 3–16.Google Scholar
Halle, M., and Marantz, A.. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, S. Jay (eds.), The View from Building 20, 111–76. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Henrichsen, A. J. 1955. Les Phrases hypothétiques en ancien occitan: Étude syntaxique. Bergen: John Griegs Boktrykkeri.Google Scholar
Holvoet, A. 2012. Vocative agreement in Latvian and the principle of morphology-free syntax. Baltic Linguistics 3, 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iatriadou, S., Anagnostopulou, E., and Izvorski, R.. 2001. Observations about the form and meaning of the perfect. In Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 189–239. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S. 1975. Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon. Language 51, 639–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S., 2002. Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, J. T., and Stong-Jensen, M.. 1984. Morphology is in the lexicon! Linguistic Inquiry 15, 474–98.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 1982a. Lexical morphology and phonology. In Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm: Selected Papers from SICOL-1981, vol. 1, 3–91. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 1982b. From cyclic phonology to lexical phonology. In van der Hulst, H. and Smith, N. (eds.), The Structure of Phonological Representations, vol. 1, 131–75. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 1983. Word formation and the lexicon. In Ingeman, F. (ed.), Proceedings of the 1982 MidAmerica Linguistics Conference, 3–32. Lawrence: University of Kansas.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, J., and Whitman, J.. 2011. Afterword: Nominalizations in syntactic theory. Lingua 121, 1297–1313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lapointe, S. 1980. A Theory of Grammatical Agreement. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Leite de Vasconcellos, J. 1900. Estudos de philologia mirandesa, I. Lisbon: Imprensa nacional.Google Scholar
Lieber, R. 1992. Deconstructing Morphology: Word Formation in Syntactic Theory. Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Lieber, R., and Scalise, S.. 2006. The Lexical Integrity Hypothesis in a new theoretical universe. Lingue e linguaggio 6, 7–32.Google Scholar
Lopocarro, M. 2008. Variation and change in morphology and syntax: Romance object agreement. In Rainer, Franz, Dressler, Wolfgang U., Kastovsky, Dieter, and Luschützky, Hans Christian (eds.), Variation and Change in Morphology: Selected Papers from the 13th International Morphology Meeting, Vienna, February 2008, 167–72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Luís, A., and Otoguro, R.. 2004. Proclitic contexts in European Portuguese and their effect on clitic placement. In Butt, Miriam and Holloway King, Tracy (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG04 Conference. University of Canterbury.Google Scholar
Luís, A., and Spencer, A.. 2005. A Paradigm Function account of “mesoclisis” in European Portuguese EP. Yearbook of Morphology 2005, 177–228.Google Scholar
Luís, A., and Spencer, A.. 2006. Udi clitics: A generalised paradigm function approach. In Otoguro, Ryo, Popova, Gergana, and Spencer, Andrew (eds.), Essex Research Reports in Linguistics, vol. 48. Department of Language and Linguistics, University of Essex.Google Scholar
Maiden, M. 2001. A strange affinity: “perfecto y tiempos afines.” Bulletin of Hispanic Studies 78, 441–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maiden, M. 2004. Morphological autonomy and diachrony. Yearbook of Morphology 2003, 137–75.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In Dimitriadis, Alexis, Siegel, Laura, Sureki 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
Marantz, A. 2001. Words. Unpublished paper given at the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Santa Barbara. Available online at http://babel.ucsc.edu/~hank/mrg.readings/Phases_and_Words_Final.pdf (accessed April 10, 2016).Google Scholar
Meibauer, J. 2003. Phrasenkomposita zwischen Wortsyntax und Lexikon. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 22.2, 153–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meibauer, J. 2007. How marginal are phrasal compounds? Generalized insertion, expressivity, and I/Q- interaction. Morphology 17: 233–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menéndez García, M. 1963. El cuarto de los valles un habla del occidente asturiano. Oviedo: Instituto de estudios asturianos.Google Scholar
Millán Urdiales, J. 1966. El habla de Villacidayo León. Revista de filología española. Anejo 13.Google Scholar
Moura Santos, M. 1967. Os falares fronteriços de Trás-os-Montes. Fueyes dixerbraes de Revista Portuguesa de Filologia 12–14.Google Scholar
Muñiz, C. 1978. El habla del Valledor: Estudio descriptivo del gallego de Allande. Amsterdam: Academische.Google Scholar
Nespor, M. 1985. The phonological word in Italian. In van der Hulst, Harry and Smith, Neil (eds.), Advances in Nonlinear Phonology, 193–204. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. 2009. Current challenges to the Lexicalist Hypothesis: An overview and a critique. In Lewis, William D., Karimi, Simin, Harley, Heidi, and Farrar, Scott O. (eds.), Time and Again: Theoretical Perspectives on Formal Linguistics. In Honor of D. Terence Langendoen, 91–117. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunes, J. J. 1930. Compêndio de gramática histórica portuguesa: Fonética e morfologia. Lisbon: Livraria Clásica.Google Scholar
Olivier-Hinzelin, M. 2012. Verb morphology gone astray: Syncretism patterns in Gallo-Romance. In Gaglia, Sascha and Hinzelin, Marc-Olivier (eds.), Inflection and Word Formation in Romance Languages, 55-81. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Neill, P. 2011a. El morfoma en el asturiano: Diacronía y sincronía. In Homenaxe al profesor García Arias, vol. 1, 319–48. Oviedo: Academia de la Llingua Asturiana.Google Scholar
O’Neill, P. 2011b. The evolution of “el pretérito y tiempos afines” in Ibero-Romance. Bulletin of Hispanic Studies 88, 851–78.Google Scholar
O’Neill, P. 2014. The morphome in constructive and abstractive theories of morphology. Morphology 24, 25–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plank, F. 1991. Of abundance and scantiness in inflection: A typological prelude. In Plank, Frans (ed.), Paradigms: The Economy of Inflection, 1–39. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quint, N. 1997. L’emploi du conditionnel deuxième forme dans la deuxième partie de la canso de la crozada. Estudis Occitans 21, 2–12.Google Scholar
Ralli, A. 2010: Compounding versus derivation. In Sergio, Scalise and Irene, Vogel (eds.), Cross Disciplinary Issues in Compounding, 57–76. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez Castellano, L. 1952. La variedad dialectal del Alto Aller. Oviedo: Instituto de estudios asturianos.Google Scholar
Romieu, M., and Bianchi, A.. 1995. Gramatica de l’occitan gascon contemporanèu. Pessac: Presses universitaires de Bordeaux.Google Scholar
Scalise, S., and Guevara, E.. 2005. The lexicalist approach to word-formation and the notion of lexicon. In Štekauer, P. and Lieber, R. (eds.), Handbook of Word-formation, 147–87. Amsterdam: Springer.Google Scholar
Scalise, S., and Vogel, I.. 2010. Why compounding?, in Scalise, S. and Vogel, I. (eds.), Cross Disciplinary Issues in Compounding, 1–18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, A. 1988. “Bracketing paradoxes” and the English lexicon. Language 64, 663–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, A. 2005. Word-formation and syntax. In Štekauer, P. and Lieber, R. (eds.), Handbook of Word-formation, 73–97. Amsterdam: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, G. 2001. Inflectional Morphology: A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, G. 2014. Morphosyntactic property sets at the interface of inflectional morphology, syntax and semantics. Lingvisticæ Investigationes 37.2, 290–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, Gregory. 2015. Inflectional Paradigms: Content and Form at the Syntax-morphology Interface. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trips, C. 2012. Empirical and theoretical aspects of phrasal compounds: against the “syntax explains it all” attitude. In Ralli, Angela, Booij, Geert, Scalise, Sergio, and Karasimos, Athanasios (eds.), On-line Proceedings of the 8th Mediterranean Morphology Meeting. 322–46.Google Scholar
Urtel, H. 1902. Lothringische Studien. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 26, 670–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vallina Alonso, C. 1985. El habla del Sudeste de Parres: desde el Sella hasta El Mampodre. Gráficas Oviedo.Google Scholar
Wheeler, M. 2012. Vies d’analogia i d’explicació en l’evolució del pretèrit feble de la conjugació romànica. Estudis Romànics 34, 7–36.Google Scholar
Wiese, R. 1996. Phrasal compounds and the theory of word syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 27, 183–93.Google Scholar
Williams, E. 2007. Dumping lexicalism. In Ramchand, Gillian and Reiss, Charles (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, 353–82. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1985a. The general case: Basic form versus default form. Berkeley Linguistic Society 12, 305–14.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1985b. Rules of allomorphy and phonology-syntax interactions. Journal of Linguistics 21.2, 431–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, A. 1990. Syntactic representations and phonological shapes. In Inkelas, Sharon and Zec, Draga (eds.), The Phonology-syntax Connection, 379–97. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. 1991. Systematic versus accidental phonological identity. In Plank, Frans (eds.), Paradigms: The Economy of Inflection, 113–31. Berlin: Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, A. 1992. Some choices in the theory of morphology. In Levine, Robert (ed.), Formal Grammar: Theory and Implementation, 327–71. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
References
Albright, Adam. 2002. Islands of reliability for regular morphology: Evidence from Italian. Language 78, 684–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1969. West Scandinavian Vowel Systems and the Ordering of Phonological Rules. Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by Itself: Stems and Inflectional Classes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 1992. Quantitative aspects of morphological productivity. Yearbook of Morphology 1991, 109–49.Google Scholar
Baerman, Matthew; Brown, Dunstan, and Corbett, Greville G.. 2005. The Syntax-morphology Interface: A Study of Syncretism. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert. 1977. Dutch Morphology: A Study of Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Dunstan, and Chumakina, Marina. 2013. An introduction to canonical typology. In Brown, D., Chumakina, M., and Corbett, G. G. (eds.), Canonical Morphology and Syntax, 1–19. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Dunstan, and Evans, Roger. 2012. Morphological complexity and unsupervised learning: Validating Russian inflectional classes using high frequency data. In Kiefer, F., Ladányi, M., and Siptár, P. (eds.), Current Issues in Morphological Theory: (Ir)regularity, Analogy and Frequency. Selected Papers from the 14th International Morphology Meeting, Budapest, 13–16 May 2010, 135–62. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Brown, Dunstan, and Hippisley, Andrew. 2012. Network Morphology: A Defaults-based Theory of Word Structure. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Dunstan; Corbett, Greville G., Fraser, Norman M., Hippisley, Andrew, and Timberlake, Alan. 1996. Russian noun stress and network morphology. Linguistics 34, 53–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Dunstan; Tiberius, Carole, and Corbett, Greville G.. 2007. The alignment of form and function: Corpus-based evidence from Russian. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 12, 511–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Halle, Morris. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Clahsen, Harald. 1999. Lexical entries and rules of language: A multidisciplinary study of German inflection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22, 991–1060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, Harald. 2006. Dual-mechanism morphology. In Brown, K. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 1–5. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Collier, Scott. 2013. The Evolution of Complexity in Greek Noun Inflection. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Surrey.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2009. Canonical inflectional classes. In Montermini, F., Boyé, G., and Tseng, J. (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 6th Décembrettes: Morphology in Bordeaux, 1–11. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G., and Fraser, Norman M.. 1993. Network Morphology: A DATR account of Russian nominal inflection. Journal of Linguistics 29, 113–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G., and Fraser, Norman M.. 2000. Default genders. In Unterbeck, B., Rissanen, M., Nevalainen, T., and Saari, M. (eds.), Gender in Grammar and Cognition, Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 124, 55–97. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa. 2001. Learning a morphological system without a default: The Polish genitive. Journal of Child Language 28.3, 545–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Donohue, Mark. 2001. Animacy, class and gender in Burmeso. In Pawley, A., Ross, M., and Tryon, D. (eds.), The Boy from Bundaberg: Studies in Melanesian Linguistics in Honour of Tom Dutton, Pacific Linguistics 514. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Evans, Roger, and Gazdar, Gerald. 1996. DATR: A language for lexical knowledge representation. Computational Linguistics 22, 167–216.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas; Brown, Dunstan, and Corbett, Greville G.. 2002. The semantics of gender in Mayali: Partially parallel systems and formal implementation. Language 78, 111–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortune, Reo Franklin. 1942. Arapesh. Publications of the American Ethnological Society 19. New York: Augustin.Google Scholar
Fraser, Norman M., and Corbett, Greville G.. 1995. Gender, animacy and declensional class assignment: A unified account for Russian. Yearbook of Morphology 1994, 123–50.Google Scholar
Fraser, Norman M., and Corbett, Greville G.. 1997. Defaults in Arapesh. Lingua 103, 25–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald. 1990. An introduction to DATR: The DATR papers. In Evans, R. and Gazdar, G. (eds.), Cognitive Science Research Paper CSRP 139, 1–14. Guildford: School of Cognitive and Computing Sciences, University of Surrey.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2006. Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42, 25–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hippisley, Andrew. 2010. Paradigmatic realignment and morphological change: Diachronic deponency in Network Morphology. In Rainer, F. (ed.), Variation and Change in Morphology, 107–27. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1973. “Elsewhere” in phonology. In Anderson, S. R. and Kiparsky, P. (eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle, 93–106. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Marcus, Gary F.; Brinkmann, Ursula, Clahsen, Harald, Wiese, Richard, and Pinker, Steven. 1995. German inflection: The exception that proves the rule. Cognitive Psychology 29, 189–256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCarthy, John J. 2002. A Thematic Guide to Optimality Theory. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 2004. On decomposing inflection class features: Syncretism in Russian noun inflection. In Müller, G., Gunkel, L., and Zifonun, G. (eds.), Explorations in Nominal Inflection, 189–227. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogden, Richard 1996. Prosodies in Finnish. In Local, J. and Warner, A. (eds.), York Papers in Linguistics 17, 191–239. Department of Language and Linguistic Science, University of York.Google Scholar
Plank, Frans. 1994. Inflection and derivation. In Asher, R. E. and Simpson, J. M. Y. (eds.), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, vol. 3, 1671–8. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Poser, William J. 1992. Blocking of phrasal constructions by lexical items. In Sag, I. and Szabolcsi, A. (eds.), Lexical Matters, 111–30. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Robert A. 1993. Polish. In Comrie, B. and Corbett, G. G. (eds.), The Slavonic Languages, 686–758. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sells, Peter. 2011. Blocking and the architecture of grammar. In Bender, E. M., and Arnold, J. E. (eds.), Language from a Cognitive Perspective, 81–97. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Sharoff, Serge. 2006. Methods and tools for development of the Russian Reference Corpus. In Wilson, A., Archer, D., and Rayson, P. (eds.), Corpus Linguistics Around the World, 167–80. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Sitchinava, Dmitriy 2002. K zadače sozdanija korpusov russkogo jazyka. Available online at: www.mccme.ru/ling/mitrius/article.html (accessed on April 4, 2016).Google Scholar
Sonnenstuhl, Ingrid; Eisenbeiss, Sonja, and Clahsen, Harald. 1999. Morphological priming in the German mental lexicon. Cognition 72, 203–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stump, Gregory. 2001. Inflectional Morphology: A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, Gregory, and Finkel, Raphael. 2013. Morphological Typology: From Word to Paradigm. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suomi, Kari; Toivanen, Juhani, and Ylitalo, Riikka. 2008. Finnish Sound Structure: Phonetics, Phonology, Phonotactics and Prosody. University of Oulu.Google Scholar
Veríssimo, João, and Clahsen, Harald. 2014. Variables and similarity in linguistic generalization: Evidence from inflectional classes in Portuguese. Journal of Memory and Language 76, 61–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1985. How to describe inflection. In Niepokuj, M., van Clay, M.; Nikiforidou, V., and Feder, D. (eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 372–86. Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
References
Ackerman, F., and Blevins, J. P.. 2008. Syntax: The state of the art. In van Sterkenberg, P. (ed.), Unity and Diversity of Languages, 215–29. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ackerman, F., and Bonami, O.. In press. Systemic polyfunctionality and morphology-syntax interdependencies. In Hippisley, A. and Gisborne, N. (eds.), Defaults in Morphological Theory. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ackerman, F., and Malouf, R.. 2013. Morphological organization: The low conditional entropy conjecture. Language 89, 429–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackerman, F., and Malouf, R.. 2015. The No Blur Principle effects as an emergent property of language. In Jurgensen, A. E., Sande, H., Lamoureux, S., Baclawski, K., and Zerbe, A. (eds.), Proceedings of the 41st meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Ackerman, F., and Stump, G.. 2004. Paradigms and periphrasis: A study in realization-based lexicalism. 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: Patterns of relatedness in complex morphological systems and why they matter. In Blevins, J. P. and Blevins, J. (eds.), Analogy in Grammar: Form and Acquisition, 54–82. Oxford University Press.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
Andersen, T. 2014. Number in Dinka. In Storch, A. and Dimmendaal, G. J. (eds.), Number: Constructions and Semantics, 221–64. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Anttila, R. 1989. Historical and comparative linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, M. 1994. Morphology by Itself: Stems and Inflectional Classes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H., and Ramscar, M.. 2015. Abstraction, storage, and naive discriminative learning. In Dabrowska, E. and Divjak, D. (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Baerman, M. 2014a. Covert systematicity in a distributionally complex system. Journal of Linguistics 50, 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baerman, M. 2014b. Floating morphological paradigms in Seri. Paper presented at the Sixteenth International Morphology Meeting, Budapest.Google Scholar
Baerman, M. In press. Seri verb classes: morphosyntactic motivation and morphological autonomy. Language.Google Scholar
Baerman, M.; Brown, D., and Corbett, G.. 2015. Understanding and measuring morphological complexity: An introduction. In Baerman, M., Brown, D., and Corbett, G. (eds.), Understanding and Measuring Morphological Complexity, 3–10. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateson, P., and Gluckman, P.. 2011. Plasticity, Robustness, Development and Evolution. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beard, R. 1995. Lexeme-morpheme Base Morphology: A General Theory of Inflection and Word Formation. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Beltrame, G. 1880. Grammatica e vocabularia della lingua denka. Rome: Guiseppe Civelli.Google Scholar
Benítez-Burraco, A., and Longa, V. M.. 2010. Evo-devo: Of course, but which one? Some comments on Chomsky’s analogies between the biolinguistic approach and evo-devo. Biolinguistics 4, 308–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, B., and Nichols, J.. 2013a. Exponence of selected inflectional formatives. In Dryer, M. S. and Haspelmath, M. (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/21 (accessed April 4, 2016).Google Scholar
Bickel, B., and Nichols, J.. 2013b. Fusion of selected inflectional formatives. In Dryer, M. S., and Haspelmath, M. (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/20 (accessed April 4, 2016).Google Scholar
Blazej, L. J., and Cohen-Goldberg, A. M.. 2015. Can we hear morphological complexity before words are complex? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 41, 50–68.Google ScholarPubMed
Blevins, J. P. 2006. Word-based morphology. Journal of Linguistics 42, 531–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bochner, H. 1993. Simplicity in Generative Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonami, O. 2014. La Structure fine des paradigmes de flexion. Ph.D. dissertation, Université Paris Diderot.Google Scholar
Bonami, O., and Beniamine, S.. 2015. Implicative structure and joint predictiveness. In Pirelli, V., Marzi, C., and Ferro, M. (eds.), Word Structure and Word Usage: Proceedings of the Networds Final Conference.Google Scholar
Bonami, O., and Boyé, G.. 2014. De formes en thèmes. In Villoing, F., Leroy, S., and David, S. (eds.), Foisonnements morphologiques: Études en hommage à Françoise Kerleroux, 17–45. Presses Universitaires de Paris Ouest.Google Scholar
Bonami, O., and Henri, F.. 2010. Assessing empirically the inflectional complexity of Mauritian Creole. Paper presented at workshop on Formal Aspects of Creole Studies, Berlin. Available online at www.llf.cnrs.fr/Gens/Bonami/presentations/BoHen-FACS-10.pdf.Google Scholar
Bonami, O., and Luís, A. R.. 2014. Sur la morphologie implicative dans la conjugaison du portugais: Une étude quantitative. In Léonard, J.-L. (ed.), Morphologie flexionnelle et dialectologie romane: Typologie(s) et modélisation(s), Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 22, 111–51. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Philadelphia: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camazine, S.; Deneubourg, J.-L., Franks, N.R., Sneyd, J., Theraulaz, G., and Bonabeau, E.. 2001. Self-Organization in Biological Systems. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Corbett, G. G. 2013. The unique challenge of the Archi paradigm. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: Special Session on Languages of the Caucasus, 52–67. Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Cover, T. M., and Thomas, J. A. 2006. Elements of Information Theory, 2nd edn. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Cruschina, S.; Maiden, M., and Smith, J. C. (eds.) 2013. The Boundaries of Pure Morphology: Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, A. M. 1998. History of Linguistics, vol. 4: Nineteenth-Century Linguistics. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Davison, A. C., and Hinkley, D. V.. 1997. Bootstrap Methods and Their Application. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elman, J. L.; Bates, E. A., Johnson, M. H., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D., and Plunkett, 1996. Rethinking Innateness: A Connectionist Perspective on Development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Esper, E. A. 1925. A Technique for the Experiment Investigation of Associative Interference in Artificial Linguistic Material. Language monographs.Google Scholar
Esper, E. A. 1966. Social transmission of an artificial language. Language 42, 575–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esper, E. A. 1973. Analogy and Association in Linguistics and Psychology. Athens: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
Fertig, D. 2013. Analogy and Morphological Change. Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabbard, K. 2015. South Saami Vowel Alternations. Master’s thesis, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Gentner, D.; Holyoak, K. J., and Kokinov, B. N.. 2001. The Analogical Mind: Perspectives from Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, S. F., and Epel, D.. 2008. Ecological Developmental Biology. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
Gilbert, S. F., and Sarkar, S.. 2000. Embracing complexity: Organicism for the 21st century. Developmental Dynamics 219, 1–9.3.0.CO;2-A>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gottlieb, G. 1997. Synthesizing Nature-nurture: The Prenatal Roots of Instinctive Behavior. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Gurevich, O. I. 2006. Constructional Morphology: The Georgian Version. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Hay, J., and Baayen, R. H.. 2005. Shifting paradigms: Gradient structure in morphology. Trends in Cognitive Science 9, 342–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hofstadter, D., and Sander, E.. 2014. Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Hood, K. E.; Halpern, C. T., Greenberg, G., and Lerner, R. M. (eds.) 2010. Handbook of Developmental Science, Behavior, and Genetics. Hoboken: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jablonka, E., and Lamb, M. J. 2006. Four Dimensions of Evolution: Genetic, Epigenetic, Behavioral and Symbolic Variation in the History of Life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Karmiloff-Smith, A. 1994. Precis of beyond modularity: A developmental perspective on cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 17, 693–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemps, R. J. J. K.; Wurm, L. H.; Ernestus, M.; Schreuder, R., and Baayen, R. H.. 2005. Prosodic cues for morphological complexity in Dutch and English. Language and Cognitive Processes 20, 43–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kibrik, A. E. 1991. Organising principles for nominal paradigms in Daghestanian languages: Comparative and typological observations. In Plank, F. (ed.), Paradigms: The Economy of Inflection, 255–274, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladd, D. R.; Remijsen, B., and Manyang, A.. 2009. On the distinction between regular and irregular inflectional morphology: Evidence from Dinka. Language 85, 659–70.Google Scholar
Laland, K. N.; Odling-Smee, J., and Myles, S. 2010. How culture shaped the human genome: Bringing genetics and the human sciences together. Nature Reviews Genetics 11, 137–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, L. 2013. Event structure and grammatical patterns: resultative constructions. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Lehiste, I. 1972. The timing of utterances and linguistic boundaries. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 51, 2018–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehrman, D. S. 1953. A critique of Konrad Lorenz’s theory of instinctive behavior. Quarterly Review of Biology 28, 337–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lehrman, D. S. 1970. Semantic and conceptual issues in the nature-nurture problem. In Aronson, L. R. and Schneirla, T. C. (eds.), Development and Evolution of Behavior, 17–52. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co.Google Scholar
Lepic, R. 2015. Motivation in morphology: lexical patterns in ASL and English. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Lounsbury, F. 1953. Oneida verb morphology. Yale University Publications in Anthropology 48. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. 2013. No escape from morphemes in morphological processing. Language and Cognitive Processes 28, 905–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marlett, S. A. 2009. A grammar of Seri. Available online at http://arts-sciences.und.edu/summer-institute-of-linguistics/faculty/marlett-steve/marlett-seri-grammar-latest-draft.pdf.Google Scholar
Miestamo, M.; Sinnemäki, K., and Karlsson, F. (eds.) 2008. Language Complexity: Typology, Contact, Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitterutzner, J. C. 1866. Die Dinka-Sprache in Central-Africa: Kurze grammatik, text und wörterbuch. Brixen: Verlag von A. Weger’s Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, I. 2015. On the expression of TAM on nouns: Evidence from Tundra Nenets. Lingua 166, 99–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oudeyer, P.-Y. 2006. Self-Organization in the Evolution of Speech. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Overton, W. F. 2010. Life-span development: Concepts and issues. Handbook of Life-span Development 1, 1–29.Google Scholar
Oyama, S.; Gray, R. D., and Griffiths, P. E. 2001. Cycles of Contingency: Developmental Systems Theory and Evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Paul, H. 1891. Principles of the History of Language, translated from the 2nd edition into English by Strong, H. A.. London: Longmans, Green and Co.Google Scholar
Paunonen, H. 1976. Allomorfien dynamiikkaa [The dynamics of allomorphs]. Virittäjä 79, 82–107.Google Scholar
Peirce, J. R. 1980. An Introduction to Information Theory: Symbols, Signals and Noise. Mineola, NY: Dover.Google Scholar
Plag, I.; Hormann, J., and Kunter, G.. 2015. Homophony and morphology: The acoustics of word-final S in English. Journal of Linguistics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramscar, M.; Dye, M., Blevins, J. P., and Baayen, R. H. 2015. Morphological development. In Bar On, A., and Rabvit, D. (eds.), Handbook of Communication Disorders. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Robins, R. H. 1959. In defense of WP. Transactions of the Philological Society 116–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sampson, G. B., Gil, D., and Trudgill, P. (eds.) 2010. Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Seyfarth, S., and Myslin, M.. 2014. Discriminative learning predicts human recognition of English blend sources. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Seyfarth, S.; Ackerman, F., and Malouf, R.. 2015. Acoustic differences in morphologically-distinct homophones. Presentation at American International Morphology Meeting, Amherst, MA.Google Scholar
Seyfarth, S.; Garellek, M., Gillingham, G., Ackerman, F., and Malouf, R.. 2016. Acoustic differences in morphologically distinct homophones. Ms. UCSD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shannon, C. 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal 27, 379–423, 623–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sims, A., and Parker, J.. 2016. How inflection class systems work: On the informativity of implicative structure. Ackerman, F. and Malouf, R.. Special volume of Word Structure 9.2: 215–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, J. P.; Blumberg, M. S., McMurray, B., Robinson, S. R., Samuelson, L. K., and Tomblin, J. B.. 2009. Short arms and talking eggs: Why we should no longer abide the nativist-empiricist debate. Child Development Perspectives 3, 79–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stiles, J. 2008. The Fundamentals of Brain Development: Integrating Nature and Nurture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, G., and Finkel, R.. 2009. Principal parts and degrees of paradigmatic transparency. In Blevins, J. P., and Blevins, J. (eds.), Analogy in Grammar: Form and Acquisition, 13–54. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stump, G., and Finkel, R.. 2013. Morphological Typology: From Word to Paradigm. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, G., and Finkel, R.. 2015. Contrasting modes of representation for inflectional systems: Some implications for computing morphological complexity. In Baerman, M.; Brown, D., and Corbett, G. G. (eds.), Understanding and Measuring Morphological Complexity, 119–40. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thymé, A. 1993. Connectionist Approach to Nominal Inflection: Paradigm Patterning and Analogy in Finnish. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
von Bertalanffy, L. 1973. General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications, revised edn. New York: Braziller.Google Scholar
Wurzel, W. U. 1986. Die wiederholte Klassifikation von Substantiven. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 39, 76–96.Google Scholar