Akinlabi, Akinbiyi. 2011. Featural affixes. In van Oostendorp, Marc, Ewen, Colin J., Hume, Elizabeth, and Rice, Keren (eds.), Companion to Phonology: Suprasegmental and Prosodic Phonology, 1945–1971. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar

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

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

Anttila, Arto. 2002. Morphologically conditioned phonological alternations. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20, 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Archangeli, Diana. 1983. The root CV-template as a property of the affix: Evidence from Yawelmani. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1, 348–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Archangeli, Diana. 1984. Underspecification in Yawelmani Phonology and Morphology. Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar

Archangeli, Diana. 1991. Syllabification and prosodic templates in Yawelmani. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9, 231–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aronoff, Mark, and Sridhar, S. N.. 1983. Morphological levels in English and Kannada, or Atarizing Reagan. Papers from the Parasession on the Interplay of Phonology, Morphology and Syntax, 3–16. Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar

Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar

Brame, Michael. 1974. The cycle in phonology: Stress in Palestinian, Maltese and Spanish. Linguistic Inquiry 5, 39–60.Google Scholar

Broadwell, George Aaron. 1993. Subtractive Morphology in Southern Muskogean. International Journal of American Linguistics 59, 416–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Broselow, Ellen, and McCarthy, John. 1983. A theory of internal reduplication. The Linguistic Review 3, 25–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bye, Patrik, and Svenonius, Peter. 2012. Exponence, phonology and non-concatenative morphology. In Trommer, Jochen (ed.), The Morphology and Phonology of Exponence, 427–95. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

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

Chomsky, Noam, and Halle, Morris. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam; Halle, Morris, and Lukoff, Fred. 1956. On accent and juncture in English. In Halle, Morris, Lunt, Horace, and McLean, Hugh (eds.), For Roman Jakobson: Essays on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday, 65–80. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Clements, G. N. 1980. Vowel Harmony in Nonlinear Generative Phonology: An Autosegmental Model. Bloomington: IULC.Google Scholar

Clements, G. N. 1985. The problem of transfer in nonlinear morphology. Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 7, 38–73.Google Scholar

Cole, Jennifer, and Kisseberth, Charles. 1995. Paradoxical strength conditions in harmony systems. Papers from the Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society 25, 17–29.Google Scholar

Conteh, Patrik; Cowper, Elizabeth, James, Deborah, Rice, Keren, and Szamosi, Michael. 1983. A reanalysis of tone in Mende. In Kaye, Jonathan, Koopman, Hilda, Sportiche, Dominique, and Dugas, André (eds.), Current Approaches to African Linguistics, vol. 2. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Corbett, Greville. 2005. The canonical approach in typology. In Frajzyngier, Zygmunt, Hodges, Adam, and Rood, David (eds.), Linguistic Diversity and Language Theories, 25–49. Studies in Language Companion Series 72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dudas, Karen Marie. 1976. The Phonology and Morphology of Modern Javanese. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois.Google Scholar

Dwyer, David. 1978. What sort of tone language is Mende? Studies in African Linguistics 9, 167–208.Google Scholar

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

Goldsmith, John. 1976. An overview of Autosegmental Phonology. Linguistic Analysis 2, 22–68.Google Scholar

Goldsmith, John. 1979. The aims of Autosegmental Phonology. In Dinnsen, D. A. (ed.), Current Approaches to Phonology Theory, 202–22. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

Goldsmith, John. 1990. Autosegmental and Metrical Phonology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

Greenberg, Joseph. 1978. The patterning of root morphemes in Semitic. In Al-Ani, S (ed.), Readings in Arabic Linguistics. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistic Club.Google Scholar

Hall, Tracy 1990. Syllable Structure and Syllable-related Processes in German. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington.Google Scholar

Halle, Morris. 1973. Prolegomena to a theory of word formation. Linguistic Inquiry 4, 3–16.Google Scholar

Halle, Morris, and Mohanan, K. P.. 1985. Segmental phonology of modern English. Linguistic Inquiry 16, 57–116.Google Scholar

Halle, Morris, and Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 1983. On the framework of Autosegmental Phonology. In van der Hulst, Harry and Smith, Norval (eds.), The Structure of Phonological Representations (Part I). Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Hansson, Gunnar 2001. Theoretical and Typological Issues in Consonant Harmony. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar

Hargus, Sharon. 1988. The Lexical Phonology of Sekani. Outstanding Dissertations in Linguistics Series. New York: Garland.Google Scholar

Hargus, Sharon. 1993. Metathesis and Domain Membership in Sekani. Talk given at Department of Linguistics, University of California Berkeley.Google Scholar

Harris, James. 1983. Syllable Structure and Stress in Spanish. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Harrison, Sheldon, and Albert, Salich Y.. 1976. Mokilese Reference Grammar. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.Google Scholar

Hetzron, R. 1971. Internal labialization in the tt-group of Outer South-Ethiopic. Journal of the American Oriental Society 91, 192–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Horne, Elinor. 1961. Beginning Javanese. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Hualde, José. 1988. A Lexical Phonology of Basque. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar

Hualde, José. 1989. The strict cycle condition and noncyclic rules. Linguistic Inquiry 20, 675–80.Google Scholar

Hyman, Larry M. 1985. Word domains and downstep in Bamileke-Dschang. Phonology Yearbook 2, 85–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hyman, Larry M. 1987. Prosodic domains in Kukuya. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 5, 311–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hyman, Larry M. 2011. The representation of tone. In Blackwell Companion to Phonology, vol. 2: Malden, MA, and Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Inkelas, Sharon. 1989. Prosodic Constituency in the Lexicon. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar

Inkelas, Sharon. 2008. The dual theory of reduplication. Linguistics 46, 351–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Inkelas, Sharon, and Zec, Draga. 1990. The Phonology-Syntax Connection. Chicago: CSLI Publications and the University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Inkelas, Sharon, and Zoll, Cheryl. 2007. Is grammar dependence real? A comparison between cophonological and indexed constraint approaches to morphologically conditioned phonology. Linguistics 45, 133–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Itô, Junko. 1990. Prosodic minimality in Japanese. In Ziolkowski, Michael, Noske, Manuela, and Deaton, Karen (eds.), Papers from the Twenty-Sixth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. vol. 2: The Parasession on the Syllable in Phonetics and Phonology, 213–39. Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar

Itô, Junko, and Mester, Armin. 1986. The phonology of voicing in Japanese: Theoretical consequences for morphological accessibility. Linguistic Inquiry 17, 49–73.Google Scholar

Iverson, Greg, and Wheeler, D. W.. 1988. Blocking and the elsewhere condition. In Hammond, Michael and Noonan, Michael (eds.), Theoretical Morphology, 325–38. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Kean, Mary-Louise. 1974. The strict cycle in phonology. Linguistic Inquiry 5, 179–203.Google Scholar

Kenstowicz, Michael, and Kisseberth, Charles. 1979. Generative Phonology: Description and Theory. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Keyser, Samuel J., and Kiparsky, Paul. 1984. Syllable structure in Finnish phonology. In Aronoff, Mark and Oehrle, Richard (eds.), Language Sound Structure, 7–31: Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul. 1973a. Phonological representations: Abstractness, opacity and global rules. In Fujimura, Osamu (ed.), Three Dimensions in Linguistic Theory, 57–86. Tokyo: TEC.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul. 1973b. Phonological representations: Sase studies. In Fujimura, Osamu (ed.), Three Dimensions in Linguistic Theory, 87–136. Tokyo: TEC.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul. 1982a. Lexical morphology and phonology. In Yang, I.-S. (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm, 3–91. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul. 1982b. Word-formation and the lexicon. In Ingemann, Frances (ed.), 1982 Mid-America Linguistics Conference Papers, 3–32. Lawrence: University of Kansas.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul. 1982c. From cyclic phonology to lexical phonology. In van der Hulst, Harry and Smith, Norval (eds.), The Structure of Phonological Representations, Part I. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul. 1984. On the lexical phonology of Icelandic. In Elert, Claes-Christian, Johansson, Iréne, and Strangert, Eva (eds.), Nordic Prosody II: Papers from a Symposium, 135–64. Umeå: University of Umeå.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul. 1993. Blocking in non-derived environments. In Hargus, Sharon and Kaisse, Ellen (eds.), Phonetics and Phonology, vol. 4: Studies in Lexical Phonology, 277–313. San Diego: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul. 2008. Fenno-Swedish Quantity: Contrast in Stratal OT. In Vaux, Bert and Nevins, Andrew (eds.), Rules, Constraints and Phonological Phenomena, 185–220. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lakoff, George. 1965. On the Nature of Syntactic Irregularity. Report to the National Science Foundation. Computation Laboratory of Harvard University.Google Scholar

Lakoff, George. 1993. Cognitive phonology. In Goldsmith, John (ed.), The Last Phonological Rule. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Leben, William. 1973. Suprasegmental Phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar

Leben, William R. 1978. The representation of tone. In Fromkin, V. A (ed.), Tone: A Linguistic Survey, 177–219. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lees, Robert. 1960. The Grammar of English Nominalizations. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Levin, Juliette. 1985. A Metrical Theory of Syllabicity. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar

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

Lightner, Theodore M. 1968. On the use of minor rules in Russian phonology. Journal of Linguistics 4, 69–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lightner, Theodore M. 1972. Remarks on exceptions and on co-existent systems in phonology. In Worth, Dean S. (ed.), The Slavic Word. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Marantz, Alec. 1982. Re reduplication. Linguistic Inquiry 13, 435–82.Google Scholar

Martin, Jack. 1988. Subtractive morphology as dissociation. In Borer, Hagit (ed.), Proceedings of the Seventh West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Stanford Linguistics Association.Google Scholar

Mascaró, Joan. 1976. Catalan Phonology and the Phonological Cycle. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar

McCarthy, John. 1979. Formal Problems in Semitic Phonology and Morphology. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar

McCarthy, John. 1981. A Prosodic Theory of Non-Concatenative Morphology. Linguistic Inquiry 12, 373–418.Google Scholar

McCarthy, John. 1983. Consonantal morphology in the Chaha verb. In Barlow, Michael, Flickinger, Daniel, Wescoat, Michael (eds.), Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 176–88. Stanford Linguistics Association.Google Scholar

McCarthy, John. 1988. Feature geometry and dependency: A review. Phonetica 43, 176–88.Google Scholar

McCarthy, John. 1999. Sympathy and phonological opacity. Phonology 16, 331–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McCarthy, John. 2003. Comparative markedness. Theoretical Linguistics 29, 1–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McCarthy, John. 2007. Hidden Generalizations: Phonological Opacity in Optimality Theory. London: Equinox.Google Scholar

McCarthy, John, and Prince, Alan. 1990. Foot and word in Prosodic Morphology: The Arabic broken plural. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8, 209–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McCarthy, John, and Prince, Alan. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In Beckman, Jill, Dickey, Laura, and Urbanczyk, Suzanne (eds.), Papers in Optimality Theory, University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 18, 249–384. Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar

McCarthy, John, and Prince, Alan. 1999. Prosodic Morphology (1986). In Goldsmith, John (ed.), Phonological Theory: The Essential Readings, 238–88. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Mester, Armin. 1986. Studies in Tier Structure. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar

Mester, Armin, and Itô, Junko. 1989. Feature predictability and underspecification: Palatal prosody in Japanese mimetics. Language 65, 258–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mohanan, K. P. 1982. Lexical Phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar

Mohanan, K. P. 1986. Lexical Phonology. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Mohanan, K. P. 1995. The organization of the grammar. In Goldsmith, John (ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar

Mohanan, K. P., and Mohanan, Tara. 1984. Lexical phonology of the consonant system in Malayalam. Linguistic Inquiry 15.4, 575–602.Google Scholar

Newman, Paul. 1986. Tone and affixation in Hausa. Studies in African Linguistics 17, 249–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Newman, Paul. 2000. The Hausa Language: An Encyclopedic Reference Grammar. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Newman, Stanley. 1944. Yokuts Language of California. New York: Viking Fund Publications.Google Scholar

Noske, Roland. 1985. Syllabification and syllable-changing processes in Yawelmani. In van der Hulst, Harry and Smith, Norval (eds.), Advances in Nonlinear Phonology, 335–61. Dordrecht: Foris.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

Pesetsky, David. 1979. Russian Morphology and Lexical Theory. Unpublished manuscript, MIT.Google Scholar

Poser, William J. 1984. The Phonetics and Phonology of Tone and Intonation in Japanese. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar

Poser, William J. 1990. Evidence for foot structure in Japanese. Language 66, 78–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Poser, William J. 1993. Are strict cycle effects derivable? In Hargus, Sharon and Kaisse, Ellen (eds.), Phonetics and Phonology, vol. 4: Studies in Lexical Phonology. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar

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

Pulleyblank, Douglas. 1986. Tone in Lexical Phonology. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pulleyblank, Douglas. 1988. Vocalic underspecification in Yoruba. Linguistic Inquiry 19, 233–70.Google Scholar

Pullum, Geoffrey, and Zwicky, Arnold. 1988. The syntax-phonology interface. In Newmeyer, Frederick J. (ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, vol. 1, 255–80. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Rose, Sharon, and Walker, Rachel. 2004. A typology of consonant agreement as correspondence. Language 80, 475–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Siegel, Dorothy. 1974. Topics in English Morphology. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar

Sproat, Richard. 1986. Malayalam compounding: A non-stratum ordered account. In Dalrymple, Mary, Goldberg, Jeffrey, Hanson, Kristin, Inman, Michael, Piñon, Chris, and Wechsler, Stephen (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 268–88. Stanford Linguistics Association.Google Scholar

Steriade, Donca. 1988. Reduplication and syllable transfer in Sanskrit. Phonology 5, 73–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Steriade, Donca. 1995. Underspecification and markedness. In Goldsmith, John (ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory, 114–74. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar

Sumukti, Rukmantoro Hadi. 1971. Javanese Morphology and Phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar

Wilbur, Ronnie. 1973. The Phonology of Reduplication. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar

Williams, Edwin. 1976. Underlying tone in Margi and Igbo. Linguistic Inquiry 7, 463–84.Google Scholar

Williamson, Kay. 1968. Deep and surface structure in tone languages. Journal of West African Languages 2, 77–81.Google Scholar

Yip, Moira. 1988. Template morphology and the direction of association. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6, 551–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Yu, Alan C.-L. 2005. Toward a typology of compensatory reduplication. In Alderete, John, Han, Chung-hye, and Kochetov, Alexei (eds.), Proceedings of the 24th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 397–405. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar

Zepeda, Ofelia. 1983. A Papago Grammar. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar

Zonneveld, Wim. 1978. A Formal Theory of Exceptions in Generative Phonology. Lisse: Peter de Ridder.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Abdel-Massih, Ernest T. 1971. A Reference Grammar of Tamazight. Ann Arbor: Center for Near Eastern and North African Studies, University of Michigan.Google Scholar

Ackema, Peter, and Neeleman, Ad. 2005. Word-formation in Optimality Theory. In Štekauer, Pavol and Lieber, Rochelle (eds.), Handbook of Word-Formation, 285–313. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anderson, Stephen R. 1982. Where’s morphology? Linguistic Inquiry 13: 571–612.Google Scholar

Anderson, Stephen R. 1986. Disjunctive ordering in inflectional morphology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 4: 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anderson, Stephen R. 2001. On some issues in morphological exponence. Yearbook of Morphology 2000: 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anderson, Stephen R. 2005a. Aspects of the Theory of Clitics. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anderson, Stephen R. 2005b. Morphological universals and diachrony. Yearbook of Morphology 2004: 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anttila, Arto. 2002. Morphologically conditioned phonological alternations. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20: 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Arnott, D. W. 1970. The nominal and verbal systems of Fula. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

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

Arregi, Karlos, and Nevins, Andrew. 2012. Morphotactics: Basque Auxiliaries and the Structure of Spell Out. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Arregi, Karlos, Myler, Neil, and Vaux, Bert. 2013. Number marking in Western Armenian: A non-argument for outwardly-sensitive phonologically conditioned allomorphy. Paper presented at the 2013 Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America.Google Scholar

Ashton, E. O. 1947. Swahili Grammar Including Intonation. London: Longmans. Second edition published in 1966.Google Scholar

Baerman, Matthew. 2004. Directionality and (un)natural classes in syncretism. Language 80: 807–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Benua, Laura. 1995. Identity effects in morphological truncation. In Beckman, Jill N., Dickey, Laura Walsh, and Urbanczyk, Suzanne (eds.), Papers in Optimality Theory, University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 18, 77–136. Amherst: GLSA, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar

Bobaljik, Jonathan D. 2000. The ins and outs of contextual allomorphy. In Grohmann, Kleanthes and Struijke, Caro (eds.), Proceedings of the Maryland Mayfest on Morphology 1999, University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 10, 35–71. College Park: University of Maryland.Google Scholar

Bobaljik, Jonathan D. 2002. Syncretism without paradigms: Remarks on Williams 1981, 1994. Yearbook of Morphology 2001, 53–85.Google Scholar

Bonet, Eulàlia. 2004. Morph insertion and allomorphy in Optimality Theory. International Journal of English Studies 4: 74–104.Google Scholar

Bonet, Eulàlia, and Harbour, Daniel. 2012. Contextual allomorphy. In Trommer, Jochen (ed.), The Morphology and Phonology of Exponence. 195–235. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bonet, Eulàlia, Lloret, Maria-Rosa, and Mascaró, Joan. 2007. Lexical specifications and ordering of allomorphs: Two case studies. Lingua 117: 903–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Buckley, Eugene. 1994. Theoretical Aspects of Kashaya Phonology and Morphology. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Bye, Patrick. 2008. Allomorphy: Selection, not optimization. In Blaho, Sylvia, Bye, Patrick, and Krämer, Martin (eds.), Freedom of Analysis?, 63–92. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Caballero, Gabriela. 2010. Scope, phonology and morphology in an agglutinating language: Choguita Rarámuri (Tarahumara) variable suffix ordering. Morphology 20: 165–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Caballero, Gabriela, and Inkelas, Sharon. 2013. Word construction: Tracing an optimal path through the lexicon. Morphology 23: 103–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carstairs, Andrew. 1988. Some implications of phonologically conditioned suppletion. Yearbook of Morphology 1988: 67–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carstairs, Andrew. 1990. Phonologically conditioned suppletion. In Dressler, Wolfgang U., Luschützky, Han C., Pfeiffer, Oskar E., and Rennison, John R. (eds.), Contemporary Morphology, 17–23. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Duden, 2006. Duden – Die Grammatik: Unentbehrlich für richtiges Deutsch (Band 4), ed. Kunkel-Razum, Kathrin and Münzberg, Franziska. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar

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

Golla, Victor. 1970. Hupa Grammar. Doctoral dissertation. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar

Haiman, John. 1980. Hua: A Papuan Language of the Eastern Highlands of New Guinea. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Halle, Morris, and Vaux, Bert. 1998. Theoretical aspects of Indo-European nominal morphology: The nominal declensions of Latin and Armenian. In Jasonoff, Jay, Melchert, Harold Craig, and Olivier, Lisi (eds.), Mír Curad: Studies in Honor of Calvert Watkins, 223–40. Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck.Google Scholar

Harris, Alice C. 2009. Exuberant exponence in Batsbi. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27: 267–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

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

Inkelas, Sharon. 1998. The theoretical status of morphologically conditioned phonology: A case study of dominance effects. Yearbook of Morphology 1997, 121–55.Google Scholar

Inkelas, Sharon. To appear. The morphology-phonology connection. Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Inkelas, Sharon, and Zoll, Cheryl. 2007. Is grammar dependence real? A comparison between cophonological and indexed constraint approaches to morphologically conditioned phonology. Linguistics 45.1: 133–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Inkelas, Sharon, Orgun, Cemil Orhan, and Zoll, Cheryl. 1997. Implications of lexical exceptions for the nature of grammar. In Roca, Iggy (ed.), Constraints and Derivations in Phonology, 393–418. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Itô, Junko, and Mester, Armin. 1999. The phonological lexicon. In Tsujimura, Natsuko (ed.), The Handbook of Japanese Linguistics, 62–100. Malden, MA, and Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar

Kager, René. 1996. On affix allomorphy and syllable counting. In Kleinheiz, Ursula (ed.), Interfaces in Phonology, 155–71. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar

Kager, René. 1999. Optimality Theory. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kenstowicz, Michael. 1996. Base-identity and uniform exponence: Alternatives to cyclicity. In Durand, Jacques and Laks, Bernard (eds.), Current Trends in Phonology: Models and Methods, 363–93. University of Salford.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul. 1968. Linguistic universals and linguistic change. In Bach, Emmon and Harms, Robert T. (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory, 170–210. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul. 1982a. Lexical morphology and phonology. In Yang, In-Seok (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm, 3–91. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul. 1982b. Word formation and the lexicon. In Ingemann, Frances (ed.), Proceedings of the 1982 Mid-America Linguistics Conference, 3–29. Lawrence: University of Kansas.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul. 2000. Opacity and cyclicity. The Linguistic Review 17: 351–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lapointe, Steven G. 2001. Stem selection and OT. Yearbook of Morphology 1999, 263–97.Google Scholar

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

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

Lieber, Rochelle. 1992. Deconstructing Morphology. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

MacBride, Alexander Ian. 2004. A Constraint-Based Approach to Morphology. Doctoral dissertation. University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar

Mascaró, Joan. 2007. External allomorphy and lexical representation. Linguistic Inquiry 38: 715–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Matthews, Peter H. 1974. Morphology. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarPubMed

Matthews, Peter H. 1991. Morphology, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McCarthy, John J. 2000. Harmonic serialism and parallelism. In Hirotani, Masako, Coetzee, Andries, Hall, Nancy, and Kim, Ji-yung (eds.), Proceedings of the North East Linguistics Society, 501–24. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar

McCarthy, John J. 2007. Hidden Generalizations: Phonological Opacity in Optimality Theory. London: Equinox.Google Scholar

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

McCarthy, John J., and Prince, Alan. 1995. Faithfulness and reduplicative identity. In Beckman, Jill N., Dickey, Laura Walsh, and Urbanczyk, Suzanne (eds.), Papers in Optimality Theory, University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 18, 249–384. Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar

McCarthy, John J., and Prince, Alan. 2001. Prosodic Morphology I: Constraint Interaction and Satisfaction [1993]. Manuscript. University of Massachusetts at Amherst and Rutgers University. Updated and enlarged 2001. Rutgers Optimality Archive 482.Google Scholar

Müller, Gereon. 2007. Extended exponence by enrichment: Argument encoding in German, Archi, and Timucua. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 13.1, 253–66.Google Scholar

Müller, Gereon. 2011. Syncretism without underspecification: The role of leading forms. Word Structure 4.1, 53–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Müller, Gereon. 2013. Approaches to deponency. Language and Linguistics Compass 7, 351–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nevins, Andrew. 2011. Phonologically conditioned allomorph selection. In van Oostendorp, Marc, Ewen, Colin J., Hume, Elizabeth, and Rice, Keren (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, 2357–82. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Noske, Manuela. 2000. [ATR] harmony in Turkana: A case of Faith Suffix >> Faith Root. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 771–812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Noyer, Rolf. 1992. Features, Positions, and Affixes in Autonomous Morphological Structure. Doctoral dissertation. MIT.Google Scholar

Noyer, Rolf. 1993. Optimal Words: Towards a Declarative Theory of Word Formation. Manuscript. Princeton University.Google Scholar

Noyer, Rolf. 1997. Features, Positions, and Affixes in Autonomous Morphological Structure. New York: Garland.Google Scholar

Noyer, Rolf. 1998. Impoverishment theory and morphosyntactic markedness. In Lapointe, Steven G., Brentari, Diane K., and Farrell, Patrick M. (eds.), Morphology and its Relation to Phonology and Syntax, 264–85. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Orgun, Cemil Orhan. 1996. Sign-Based Morphology and Phonology: With Special Attention to Optimality Theory. Doctoral dissertation. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar

Paster, Mary. 2005a. Pulaar verbal extensions and phonologically driven affix order. Yearbook of Morphology 2005, 155–99.Google Scholar

Paster, Mary. 2005b. Subcategorization vs. output optimization in syllable-counting allomorphy. In Alderete, John, Han, Chung-hye, and Kochetov, Alexei (eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-fourth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 326–33. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar

Paster, Mary. 2006. Phonological Conditions on Affixation. Doctoral 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

Pater, Joe. 2000. Non-uniformity in English secondary stress: The role of ranked and lexically specific constraints. Phonology 17.2, 237–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pater, Joe. 2007. The locus of exceptionality: Morpheme-specific phonology as constraint indexation. In Bateman, Leah, O’Keefe, Michael, Reilly, Ehren, and Werle, Adam (eds.), Papers in Optimality Theory III, University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 32, 259–96. Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar

Payne, David. 1981. The Phonology and Morphology of Axininca Campa. Arlington, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar

Prince, Alan, and Smolensky, Paul. 2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar [1993]. Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ringen, Catherine O., and Vago, Robert M.. 1998. Hungarian vowel harmony in Optimality Theory. Phonology 15, 393–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rose, Sharon. 2000. Multiple correspondence in reduplication. In Juge, Matt and Moxley, Jeri (eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-third Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 315–26. Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar

Russell, Kevin. 1995. Morphemes and Candidates in Optimality Theory. Manuscript. University of Manitoba. Rutgers Optimality Archive 44-0195.Google Scholar

Ryan, Kevin M. 2010. Variable affix order: Grammar and learning. Language 86, 758–91.CrossRefGoogle 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

Smith, Jennifer L. 1997. Noun Faithfulness: On the Privileged Behavior of Nouns in Phonology. Manuscript. Rutgers Optimality Archive 242-1098.Google Scholar

Spencer, Andrew. 2014. A Note on Blocking and Extended Exponence in Realization Optimality Theory. Manuscript. University of Essex.Google Scholar

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

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

Trommer, Jochen. 1999. Morphology consuming syntax resources: Generation and parsing in a minimalist version of distributed morphology. In Retoré, Christian and Stabler, Edward (eds.), Proceedings of the ESSLI Workshop on Resource Logics and Minimalist Grammars, pp. 37–55. Utrecht.Google Scholar

Trommer, Jochen. 2001. Distributed Optimality. Doctoral dissertation. University of Potsdam.Google Scholar

Werner, Roland. 1993. Tidn-Aal: A Study of Midob. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer.Google Scholar

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

Wolf, Matthew, and McCarthy, John J.. 2010. Less than zero: Correspondence and the null output. In Blaho, Sylvia and Rice, Curt (eds.), Modeling Ungrammaticality in Optimality Theory, 17–66. London: Equinox.Google Scholar

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

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

Xu, Zheng. 2011. Optimality Theory and morphology. Language and Linguistics Compass 5.7, 466–84.Google Scholar

Xu, Zheng, and Aronoff, Mark. 2011a. A Realization Optimality Theory approach to blocking and extended morphological exponence. Journal of Linguistics 47.3, 673–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Xu, Zheng, and Aronoff, Mark. 2011b. A Realization Optimality Theory approach to full and partial identity of forms. In Maiden, Martin, Smith, John Charles, Goldbach, Maria, and Hinzelin, Marc-Olivier (eds.), Morphological Autonomy: Perspectives from Romance Inflectional Morphology, 257–86. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Yip, Moira. 1998. Identity avoidance in phonology and morphology. In Lapointe, Steven G., Brentari, Diane K., and Farrell, Patrick M. (eds.), Morphology and Its Relation to Phonology and Syntax, 216–46. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Yu, Alan C. L. 2003. The Morphology and Phonology of Infixation. Doctoral dissertation. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar

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

Zwicky, Arnold. 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

Anderson, Stephen R. 1977. Comments on Wasow: The role of the Theme in lexical rules. In Culicover, Peter, Wasow, Thomas, and Akmajian, Adrian (eds.), Formal Syntax, 361–77. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A–Morphous Morphology. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

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

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

Chomsky, Noam. 1953. Systems of syntactic analysis. The Journal of Symbolic Logic 18, 242–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Chomsky, Noam. 1964. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. The Hague: Mouton and Co.Google Scholar

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

Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalizations. In Jacobs, R. A. and Rosenbaum, P. S. (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, 184–221. Waltham, MA: Ginn and Co.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1973. Conditions on transformations. In Anderson, Stephen R. and Kiparsky, Paul (eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle, 232–86. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1979 [1951]. The Morphophonemics of Modern Hebrew [1951]. New York: Garland Publishing. Revision of 1951 University of Pennsylvania MA thesis.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1985 [1955–6]. The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory. University of Chicago Press. Edited version of 1955–6 manuscript, with 1979 index; earlier edition published by Plenum Press, New York, copyright 1975.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A Minimalist program for linguistic theory. In Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel Jay (eds.), The View from Building 20, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam, and Halle, Morris. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar

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

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

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

Harris, Zellig. 1951. Methods in Structural Linguistics. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Hill, Archibald A. (ed.) 1962. Proceedings of the Third Texas Conference on Problems of Linguistic Analysis in English. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

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

Huck, Geoffrey J., and Goldsmith, John A.. 1995. Ideology and Linguistic Theory: Noam Chomsky and the Deep Structure Debates. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, Ray S. 1975. Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon. Language 51, 639–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jackendoff, Ray 1977. X¯ Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure. Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 2. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Joos, Martin (ed.) 1957. Readings in Linguistics: The Development of Descriptive Linguistics in America Since 1925. New York: American Council of Learned Societies.Google Scholar

Kaiser, Lizanne. 1998. The Morphosyntax of Clausal Nominalization Constructions. Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University.Google Scholar

Katz, Jerrold J., and Postal, Paul M.. 1964. An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Lasnik, Howard. 1995. Verbal morphology: Syntactic structures meets the minimalist program. In Campos, Hector and Kempchinsky, Paula (eds.), Evolution and Revolution in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Carlos Otero, 251–75. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

Lees, Robert B. 1960. The Grammar of English Nominalizations. The Hague: Mouton and Co.Google Scholar

Lieber, Rochelle, and Scalise, Sergio. 2006. The Lexical Integrity Hypothesis in a new theoretical universe. Lingue e Linguaggio 5.1, 7–32.Google Scholar

Matthews, Peter H. 1965. The inflectional component of a word-and-paradigm grammar. Journal of Linguistics 1, 139–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Matthews, Peter H. 1972. Inflectional Morphology. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Matthews, Peter H. 1993. Grammatical Theory in the United States from Bloomfield to Chomsky. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1986. Linguistic Theory in America, 2nd edn. Orlando: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Pike, Kenneth L. 1947. Grammatical prerequisites to phonemic analysis. Word 3, 155–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pike, Kenneth L. 1952. More on grammatical prerequisites. Word 8, 106–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pullum, Geoffrey K., and Wilson, Deirdre. 1977. Autonomous syntax and the analysis of auxiliaries. Language 53, 741–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

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

Wasow, Thomas. 1977. Transformations and the lexicon. In Culicover, Peter, Wasow, Thomas, and Akmajian, Adrian (eds.), Formal Syntax, 327–60. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Zwicky, Arnold M. 1992. Some choices in the theory of morphology. In Levine, Robert (ed.), Formal Grammar: Theory and Implementation, 327–71. Vancouver: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Abeillé, A., and Godard, D.. 2002. The syntactic structure of French auxiliaries. Language 78, 404–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Abeillé, A.; Bonami, O., Godard, D., and Tseng, J.. 2003. The syntax of French à and de: An HPSG analysis. In Sain-Dizier, Patrick (ed.), Proceedings of the ACL-SIGSEM Workshop on the Linguistic Dimensions of Prepositions, 133–44. Toulouse: IRIT.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 Webelhuth, G.. 1998. A Theory of Predicates. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Ackerman, F.; Stump, G. T., and Webelhuth, G.. 2011. Lexicalism, periphrasis and implicative morphology. In Borsley, R. D. and Börjars, K. (eds.), Non-transformational Syntax: Formal and Explicit Models of Grammar, 325–58. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

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

Andrews, A. D. 1990. Unification and morphological blocking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8, 507–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Aronoff, M., and Xu, Z.. 2010. A realization optimality-theoretic approach to affix order. Morphology 20, 388–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barwise, J., and Perry, J.. 1983. Situations and Attitudes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

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

Bender, E., and Sag, I. A.. 2000. Incorporating contracted auxiliaries in English. In Cann, R., Grover, C., and Miller, P. (eds.), Grammatical Interfaces in HPSG, 17–32. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Bertram, R.; Schreuder, R., and Baayen, R. H.. 2000. The balance of storage and computation in morphological processing: The role of word formation type, affixal homonymy, and productivity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 26, 489–511.Google ScholarPubMed

Bickel, B.; Banjade, G., Gaenzle, M., Lieven, E., Paudya, N. P., Rai, I. P., Manoj, R., Rai, N., and Stoll, S.. 2007. Free prefix ordering in Chintang. Language 83, 43–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bird, S. 1995. Computational Phonology: A Constraint-based Approach. Studies in Natural Language Processing. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bird, S., and Ellison, T. M.. 1992. One Level Phonology: Autosegmental Representations and Rules as Finite State Automata. Technical Report 51, University of Edinburgh, Center for Cognitive Science.Google Scholar

Bird, S., and Klein, E.. 1994. Phonological analysis in typed feature systems. Computational Linguistics 20, 455–91.Google Scholar

Boas, H., and Sag, I. A. (eds.) 2012. Sign-based Construction Grammar. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

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

Bonami, O. 2011. Reconstructing HPSG morphology. Presentation given at the 18th International Conference on HPSG, Seattle.Google Scholar

Bonami, O. (ed.) 2012. Word Structure 5.1: Stems in Inflection and Lexeme Formation. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Bonami, O. 2015. Periphrasis as collocation. Morphology 25, 63–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bonami, O., and Boyé, G.. 2002. Suppletion and stem dependency in inflectional morphology. In Van Eynde, F., Hellan, L., and Beerman, D. (eds.), The Proceedings of the HPSG’01 Conference, 51–70. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Bonami, O., and Boyé, G.. 2006. Deriving inflectional irregularity. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on HPSG, 39–59. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

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

Bonami, O., and Crysmann, B.. 2013. Morphotactics in an information-based model of realisational morphology. In Müller, S. (ed.), Proceedings of HPSG 2013, 27–47. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Bonami, O., and Samvelian, P.. 2008. Sorani Kurdish person markers and the typology of agreement. Presentation given at the 13th International Morphology Meeting, Vienna.Google Scholar

Bonami, O., and Samvelian, P.. 2009. Inflectional periphrasis in Persian. In Müller, S. (ed.), Proceedings of the HPSG 2009 Conference, 26–46. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Bonami, O., and Samvelian, P.. 2015. The diversity of inflectional periphrasis in Persian. Journal of Linguistics 51, 327–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Borsley, R. D. 1999. Weak auxiliaries, complex verbs and inflected complementizers in Polish. In Borsley, R. D. and Przepiórkowski, A. (eds.), Slavic in Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Studies in Constraint-based Lexicalism, 29–59. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Borsley, R. D., and Börjars, K. (eds.) 2011. Non-transformational Syntax: Formal and Explicit Models of Grammar. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bresnan, J. 1982. The passive in lexical theory. In Bresnan, J. (ed.), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, 3–86. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Bresnan, J. 2001. Lexical-functional Syntax. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

Bresnan, J., and Mchombo, S.. 1995. The lexical integrity principle: Evidence from Bantu. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13, 181–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Broadwell, G. A. 2008. Turkish suspended affixation is lexical sharing. In Butt, M. and King, T. Holloway (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG08 Conference, 198–213. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Brown, D., and Hippisley, A.. 2012. Network Morphology: A Defaults Based Theory of Word Structure. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carpenter, B. 1992. The Logic of Typed Feature Structures with Applications to Unification-based Grammars, Logic Programming and Constraint Resolution, Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science 32. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Clements, G. N. 1985. The geometry of phonological features. Phonology Yearbook 2, 223–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copestake, A.; Flickinger, D., Pollard, C., and Sag, I.. 2005. Minimal recursion semantics: An introduction. Research on Language and Computation 3, 281–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Crysmann, B. 1999. Morphosyntactic paradoxa in Fox. In Bouma, G., Hinrichs, E., Kruiff, G.-J., and Oehrle, R. (eds.), Constraints and Resources in Natural Language Syntax and Semantics, Studies in Constraint-based Lexicalism, 41–61. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Crysmann, B. 2003a. Clitic climbing revisited. In Kim, J.-B. and Wechsler, S. (eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, 5–7 August, 2002, 67–89 Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Crysmann, B. 2003b. Constraint-based Coanalysis: Portuguese Cliticisation and Morphology–Syntax Interaction in HPSG. Saarbrücken Dissertations in Computational Linguistics and Language Technology 15. Saarbrücken: Computational Linguistics, Saarland University and DFKI LT Lab.Google Scholar

Crysmann, B. 2009. Underspecification and neutrality: A unified approach to syncretism. In Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Formal Grammar and Mathematics of Language (FG-MOL) 2005, Aug 5–7, Edinburgh, 1–12. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Crysmann, B. 2010a. A coanalysis approach to Polish past tense agreement. In Nolda, A., and Teuber, O. (eds.), Syntax and Morphology Multi-dimensional, Interface Explorations, 77–100. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Crysmann, B. 2010b. Discontinuous negation in Hausa. In Müller, S. (ed.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Morphology and Formal Grammar at the 17th International Conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG 2010), 269–87. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Crysmann, B. In press. Inferential-realisational morphology without rule blocks: an information-based approach. In Hippisley, A. and Gisborne, N. (eds.), Defaults in Morphological Theory. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Crysmann, B., and Bonami, O.. 2012. Establishing order in type-based realisational morphology. In Müller, R. (ed.), Proceedings of HPSG 2012, 123–43. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Crysmann, B., and Bonami, O.. 2016. Variable morphotactics in Information-based Morphology. Journal of Linguistics 52, 311–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dalrymple, M., and Kaplan, R. M.. 2000. Feature indeterminacy and feature resolution. Language 76, 759–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dalrymple, M.; King, T. Holloway, and Sadler, L.. 2009. Indeterminacy by underspecification. Journal of Linguistics 45, 31–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Daniels, M. W. 2002. On a type-based analysis of feature neutrality and the coordination of unlikes. In Van Eynde, F., Hellan, L., and Beermann, D. (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 137–47. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Desmets, M., and Villoing, F.. 2009. French VN lexemes: Morphological compounding in HPSG. In Proceedings of the HPSG 2009 Conference, 89–109. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Engdahl, E., and Vallduví, E. 1994. Information packaging and grammar architecture: A constraint-based approach. In Engdahl, E. (ed.), Integrating Information Structure into Constraint-based and Categorial Approaches, DYANA-2 Report R.1.3.B, 39–79. Amsterdam: ILLC.Google Scholar

Erjavec, T. 1994. Formalizing realizational morphology in typed feature structures. In Bouma, G. and van Noord, G. (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth CLIN Meeting, 47–58. Groningen.Google Scholar

Evans, R., and Gazdar, G. 1996. DATR: A language for lexical knowledge representation. Computational Linguistics 22, 167–216.Google Scholar

Flickinger, D. 1987. Lexical Rules in the Hierarchical Lexicon. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar

Fokkens, A.; Poulson, L., and Bender, E. M.. 2009. Inflectional morphology in Turkish VP coordination. In Müller, S. (ed.), Proceedings of HPSG 2009, 110–30. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Frank, A., and Reyle, U.. 1995. Principle based semantics for HPSG. In Proceedings of EACL, 9–16. Dublin.Google Scholar

Frank, A., and Zaenen, A.. 2004. Tense in LFG: Syntax and morphology. In Sadler, L. and Spencer, A. (eds.), Projecting Morphology. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Ginzburg, J., and Sag, I. A.. 2000. Interrogative Investigations: The Form, Meaning, and Use of English Interrogatives. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Goldsmith, J. A. 1976. Autosegmental Phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar

Goodman, M. W., and Bender, E. M.. 2010. What’s in a word? refining the morphotactic infrastructure in the LinGO Grammar Matrix customization system. Poster presented at the HPSG 2010 Conference.Google Scholar

Hathout, N.; Plénat, M., and Tanguy, L.. 2003. Enquête sur les dérivés en -able. Cahiers de grammaire 28, 49–90.Google Scholar

Hinrichs, E., and Nakazawa, T.. 1989. Subcategorization and VP structure in German. In Aspects of German VP Structure. Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar

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

Huygue, R., and Tribout, D.. 2015. Noms d’agent et noms d’instrument: le cas des déverbaux en -eur. Langue française 185, 99–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ingria, R. J. P. 1990. The limits of unification. In Proceedings of the Twenty-eighth Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 194–204. Pittsburgh.Google Scholar

Kaplan, R. M., and Bresnan, J.. 1982. Lexical-functional grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation. In Bresnan, J. (ed.), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, 173–281. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Kaplan, R. M., and Kay, M.. 1994. Regular models of phonological rule systems. Computational Linguistics 20, 331–78.Google Scholar

Karttunen, L.; Kaplan, R. M., and Zaenen, A.. 1992. Two-level morphology with composition. In Proceedings of Coling 1992, 141–8. Nantes.Google Scholar

Kasper, R., and Rounds, W.. 1986. A logical semantics for feature structures. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics (ACL), 257–66. Morristown, NJ: ACL.Google Scholar

Kathol, A. 1994. Passives without lexical rules. In Nerbonne, J., Netter, K., and Pollard, C. J. (eds.), German in HPSG, 237–72. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Kathol, A. 1999. Agreement and the syntax-morphology interface in HPSG. In Green, G. M. and Levine, R. D. (eds.), Studies in Contemporary Phrase Structure Grammar. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kathol, A. 2000. Linear Syntax. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kay, P. 2002. An informal sketch of a formal architecture for construction grammar. Grammars 5, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

King, P. 1989. A Logical Formalism for Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Manchester.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, P. 1982. Lexical phonology and morphology. In Yang, In-Seok (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm, 3–91. Seoul: Hansin.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, P. 1985. Some consequences of lexical phonology. Phonology Yearbook 2, 83–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Koenig, J.-P. 1994. Lexical Underspecification and the Syntax-semantics Interface. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar

Koenig, J.-P. 1999. Lexical Relations. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Koenig, J.-P., and Jurafsky, D.. 1994. Type underspecification and on-line type construction. In Aranovich, Raul, Byrne, William, Preuss, Susanne, and Senturia, Martha (eds.), Proceedings of WCCFL XIII. 270–85. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Koskenniemi, K. 1983. Two-level Morphology: A General Computational Model for Word Recognition and Production. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Helsinki.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Krieger, H.-U. 1994. Derivation without lexical rules. In Rupp, C. J., Rosner, M. A., and Johnson, R. (eds.), Constraints, Language, and Computation. London: Academic Press. Previously published in Proceedings of the Workshop on Constraint Propagation, Linguistic Description, and Computation, IDSIA Working Paper No. 5, Lugano, November, 1991. Also published as DFKI Research Report RR-93-27.Google Scholar

Krieger, H.-U. 1996. TDL: A Type Description Language for Constraint-based Grammars, Saarbrücken Dissertations in Computational Linguistics and Language Technology 2. Saarbrücken: DFKI GmbH.Google Scholar

Krieger, H.-U., and Nerbonne, J.. 1993. Feature-based inheritance networks for computational lexicons. In Briscoe, T., Copestake, A., and de Paiva, V. (eds.), Default Inheritance Within Unification-based Approaches to the Lexicon. Cambridge University Press, 90–136. Also published as Report RR-91-31, DFKI, Saarbrücken.Google Scholar

Krieger, H.-U.; Pirker, H., and Nerbonne, J.. 1993. Feature-based allomorphy. In Proceedings of the Thirty-first Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 140–7. Columbus.Google Scholar

Kupść, A., and Tseng, J. 2005. A new HPSG approach to Polish auxiliary constructions. In Proceedings of HPSG 2005, 253–73. Stanford: CSLI. Available online at http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/HPSG/6 (accessed April 16, 2016)Google Scholar

Leben, W. 1973. Suprasegmental Phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar

Levy, R., and Pollard, C.. 2002. Coordination and neutralization in HPSG. In Van Eynde, F., Hellan, L., and Beermann, D. (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 221–30. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Luschützky, H. C., and Rainer, F.. 2013. Instrument and place nouns: A typological and diachronic perspective. Linguistics 51, 1301–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Luutonen, J. 1997. The Variation of Morpheme Order in Mari Declension. Helsinki: Suomalaisugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar

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

Malouf, R. 2000. A head-driven account of long-distance case assignment. In Cann, R., Grover, C., and Miller, P. (eds.), Grammatical Interfaces in Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Studies in Constraint-based Lexicalism, 201–14. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Maxwell, J. T. III, and Kaplan, R. M.. 1993. The interface between phrasal and functional constraints. Computational Linguistics 19, 571–89.Google Scholar

Meurers, W. D. 2002. On expressing lexical generalizations in HPSG. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 24, 161–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Miller, P. 1992. Clitics and Constituents in Phrase Structure Grammar. New York: Garland.Google Scholar

Miller, P., and Sag, I. A.. 1997. French clitic movement without clitics or movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15, 573–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Monachesi, P. 1999. A Lexical Approach to Italian Cliticization. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Monachesi, P. 2000. Clitic placement in the Romanian verbal complex. In Gerlach, B. and Grijzenhout, J. (eds.), Clitics in Phonology, Morphology and Syntax, Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 36, 255–293. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Müller, S. 2002. Complex Predicates: Verbal Complexes, Resultative Constructions, and Particle Verbs in German. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Müller, S. 2003. The morphology of German particle verbs: Solving the bracketing paradox. Journal of Linguistics 39, 275–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Namer, F., and Villoing, F.. 2008. Interpréter les noms déverbaux: quelle relation avec la structure argumentale du verbe base? Le cas des noms en -oir du français. In Actes du premier Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française, 1551–69. Paris.Google Scholar

Nordlinger, R. 1998. Constructive Case. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Nordlinger, R., and Sadler, L.. Forthcoming. Morphology in HPSG and LFG. In Audring, J. and Masini, F. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Morphological Theory. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Noyer, R. 1992. Features, Positions and Affixes in Autonomous Morphological Structure. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar

Orgun, C. O. 1996. Sign-based Morphology and Phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar

Penn, G. 1999. A generalized-domain-based approach to Serbo-Croatian second position clitic placement. In Bouma, G., Hinrichs, E., Kruijff, G.-J., and Oehrle, R. T. (eds.), Constraints and Resources in Natural Language Semantics, Studies in Constraint-based Lexicalism, 119–36. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Perlmutter, D. M. 1988. The split morphology hypothesis: Evidence from Yiddish. In Hammond, M. and Noonan, M. (eds.), Theoretical Morphology: Approaches in Modern Linguistics, 79–100. San Diego: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Plag, I. 1999. Morphological Productivity. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Pollard, C., and Sag, I. A.. 1987. Information-based Syntax and Semantics. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Pollard, C., and Sag, I. A.. 1994. Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Stanford and Chicago: CSLI and The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Prince, A., and Smolensky, P.. 1993. Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Unpublished manuscript, available online at http://roa.rutgers.edu/files/537-0802/537-0802-PRINCE-0-0.PDF (accessed May 1, 2016).Google Scholar

Reyle, U. 1993. Dealing with ambiguities by underspecification. Journal of Semantics 10, 123–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Richter, F. 2000. A Mathematical Formalism for Linguistic Theories with an Application in Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar

Richter, F., and Sailer, M.. 2003. Basic concepts of lexical resource semantics. In Beckmann, A. and Preining, N. (eds.), European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information: Course material, Collegium Logicum 5, 87–143. Vienna: Kurt Gödel Society.Google Scholar

Riehemann, S. 1993. Word Formation in Lexical Type Hierarchies: A Case Study of Bar-adjectives in German. Master’s thesis, Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar

Riehemann, S. 1998. Type-based derivational morphology. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 2, 49–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Riehemann, S. 2001. A Constructional Approach to Idioms and Word Formation. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar

Rogers, J. 1998. A Descriptive Approach to Language-theoretic Complexity. CSLI.Google Scholar

Round, E. 2013. Kayardild Morphology and Syntax. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ryan, K. M. 2010. Variable affix order: Grammar and learning. Language 86, 758–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sadler, L., and Nordlinger, R.. 2004. Relating morphology to syntax. In Sadler, L. and Spencer, A. (eds.), Projecting Morphology, 159–83. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Sadler, L., and Nordlinger, R.. 2006. Case stacking in realizational morphology. Linguistics 44, 459–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sadler, L., and Spencer, A.. 2001. Syntax as an exponent of morphological features. Yearbook of Morphology 2000, 71–96.Google Scholar

Sag, I. A. 1997. English relative clause constructions. Journal of Linguistics 33, 431–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sag, I. A. 2003. Coordination and underspecification. In Müller, Stefan (ed.), Proceedings of the 9th HPSG Conference, 267–91. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Sag, I. A. 2012. Sign-based construction grammar: An informal synopsis. In Boas, H. and Sag, I. A. (eds.), Sign-based Construction Grammar, 69–202. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Sag, I. A.; Wasow, T., and Bender, E.. 2003. Syntactic Theory: A Formal Introduction, 2nd ed. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Samvelian, P., and Tseng, J.. 2010. Persian object clitics and the syntax-morphology interface. In Müller, Stefan (ed.), Proceedings of HPSG 2010, 212–32. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Scobbie, J. 1991. Attribute-value Phonology. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar

Scobbie, J. M. 1993. Constraint violation and conflict from the perspective of declarative phonology. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 38, 155–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Simpson, J. 1991. Warlpiri Morphosyntax: A Lexicalist Approach. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Smolensky, P., and Legendre, G.. 2006. The Harmonic Mind: From Neural Computation to Optimality-theoretic Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Spencer, A. 2003. Periphrastic paradigms in Bulgarian. In Junghanns, U. and Szucsich, L. (eds.), Syntactic Structures and Morphological Information, 249–82. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Spencer, A. 2013. Lexical Relatedness: A Paradigm-based Model. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

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

Tribout, D. 2010. Les Conversions de nom à verbe et de verbe à nom en français. Ph.D. dissertation, Université Paris Diderot.Google Scholar

Tribout, D. 2012. Verbal stem space and verb to noun conversion in French. Word Structure 5, 109–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Trueswell, J., and Tanenhaus, M. K.. 1994. Toward a lexical framework of constraint-based syntactic ambiguity resolution. In Clifton, C., Frazier, L., and Rayner, K. (eds.), Perspectives on Sentence Processing, 155–79. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

van Marle, J. 1984. On the Paradigmatic Dimension of Morphological Creativity. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Villoing, F. 2002. Les Mots composés VN du français: Réflexions épistémologiques et propositions d’analyse. Ph.D. dissertation, Université Paris X-Nanterre.Google Scholar

Vincent, N., and Börjars, K.. 1996. Suppletion and syntactic theory. In Butt, M. and King, T. Holloway (eds.), Proceedings of the first LFG conference, 1–16. Grenoble: Rank Xerox.Google Scholar

Walther, M. 1999. Deklarative Prosodische Morphologie, Linguistische Arbeiten 399. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Webelhuth, G.; Koenig, J.-P., and Kathol, A. (eds.) 1999. Lexical and Constructional Aspects of Linguistic Explanation. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Wechsler, S., and Zlatić, L.. 2003. The Many Faces of Agreement. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Wescoat, M. 2002. On Lexical Sharing. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar

Wescoat, M. 2007. Preposition-determiner contractions: An analysis in optimality-theoretic lexical-functional grammar with lexical sharing. In Butt, M. and King, T. Holloway (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG07 Conference. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Zwicky, A. 1991. Some choices in the theory of morphology. In Levine, R. (ed.), Formal Grammar: Theory and Implementation, 327–71. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.Google Scholar

Anderson, John. 1977. On Case Grammar: Prolegomena to a Theory of Grammatical Relations. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar

Anderson, Stephen; Brown, Lea, Gaby, Alice, and Lecarme, Jacqueline. 2006. Life on the edge: There’s morphology there after all!, Lingue e Linguaggio 5, 33–48.Google Scholar

Barabasi, Albert L. 2009. Scale-free networks: A decade and beyond, Science 325, 412–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Borer, Hagit. 1998. Morphology and syntax. In Spencer, Andrew and Zwicky, Arnold (eds.), The Handbook of Morphology, 151–90. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Borsley, Robert; Tallerman, Maggie, and Willis, David. 2007. The Syntax of Welsh. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Camdzic, Amela, and Hudson, Richard. 2007. Serbo-Croat clitics and word grammar. Research in Language (University of Lodz) 4, 5–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Corbett, Greville. 2009. Morphology-free Syntax: Two potential counter-examples from Serbo-Croat. In Franks, Steven, Chidambaran, Vrinda, and Joseph, Brian (eds.), A Linguist’s Linguist: Studies in South Slavic Linguistics in Honor of E. Wayles Browne, 149–66. Bloomington, IN: Slavica.Google Scholar

Creider, Chet, and Hudson, Richard. 1999. Inflectional morphology in Word Grammar. Lingua 107, 163–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Debussmann, Ralph. 2006. Extensible Dependency Grammar: A Modular Grammar Formalism Based on Multigraph Description. Ph.D. dissertation, Universität des Saarlandes, Saarbrücken.Google Scholar

Diaconescu, Stefan. 2002. A Generative Dependency Grammar. In Ishizuka, Mitsuru and Sattar, Abdul (eds.), 7th Pacific Rim International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Tokyo, Japan, August 18–22, 2002 Proceedings, 605. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Duran-Eppler, Eva. 2011. Emigranto: The Syntax of German-English Code-switching. Vienna: Braumüller.Google Scholar

Ferrer i Cancho, Ramon; Solé, Ricard, and Köhler, Reinhard. 2004. Patterns in syntactic dependency networks. Physical Review E 69, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Gaifman, Haim. 1965. Dependency systems and phrase-structure systems. Information and Control 8, 304–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gisborne, Nikolas. 2010. The Event Structure of Perception Verbs. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gisborne, Nikolas. forthcoming. Word grammar and new morphology. In Andrew Hippisley and Nikolas Gisborne (eds.), Defaults in Morphological Theory. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Gisborne, Nikolas. forthcoming. Word grammar morphology. In Oxford Handbook of Morphology.Google Scholar

Gragg, G. 1994. Babylonian grammatical texts. In Asher, Ronald (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 296–8. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar

Gross, Thomas, and Osborne, Timothy. 2013. Katena und Konstruktion: Ein Vorschlag zu einer dependenziellen Konstruktionsgrammatik. Zeitschrift Für Sprachwissenschaft 32, 41–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hays, David. 1964. Dependency theory: A formalism and some observations. Language 40, 511–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heringer, Hans J. 1993. Dependency syntax: Basic ideas and the classical model. In Jacobs, Joachim, von Stechow, Arnim, Sternefeld, Wolfgang, and Venneman, Theo (eds.), Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Vol. 1, 298–316. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Hudson, Richard. 1984. Word Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Hudson, Richard. 1990. English Word Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Hudson, Richard. 2001. Clitics in word grammar, UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 13, 243–94.Google Scholar

Hudson, Richard. 2003a. The psychological reality of syntactic dependency relations. In Kahane, Sylvain and Nasr, Alexis (eds.), Proceedings of the First International Conference on Meaning-text Theory 181–92. Paris: École Normale Supérieure.Google Scholar

Hudson, Richard. 2003b. Trouble on the left periphery. Lingua 113, 607–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hudson, Richard. 2007. Language Networks: The New Word Grammar. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Hudson, Richard. 2010. An Introduction to Word Grammar. Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hudson, Richard. forthcoming. Default inheritance, word grammar morphology and French clitics. In Hippisley, Andrew and Gisborne, Nikolas (eds.), Defaults in Morphological Theory. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Joshi, Aravind, and Rambow, Owen. 2003. A formalism for Dependency Grammar based on Tree Adjoining Grammar. In Kahane, Sylvain and Nasr, Alexis (eds.), Proceedings of the First International Conference on Meaning-text Theory. Paris: École Normale Supérieure.Google Scholar

Kahane, Sylvain 2004. The Meaning-text Theory. In Àgel, Vilmos, Eichinger, Ludwig, Eroms, Hans-Werner, Hellwig, Peter, Heringer, Hans-Jürgen, and Lobin, Henning (eds.), Dependency and Valency: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Karmiloff-Smith, Annette. 1994. Precis of Beyond modularity: A developmental perspective on cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 17, 693–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kübler, Sandra; McDonald, Ryan, and Nivre, Joakim. 2009. Dependency parsing. Synthesis Lectures on Human Language Technologies 2, 1–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kunze, Jürgen. 1975. Abhängigkeitsgrammatik. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar

Mel’cuk, Igor. 1974. Opyt teorii lingvisticeskix modelej “Smysl<=>Tekst”. [Outline of a Theory of Linguistic Models of Meaning-text Type]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar

Mel’cuk, Igor. 1988. Dependency Syntax: Theory and Practice. Albany: State University Press of New York.Google Scholar

Mel’cuk, Igor. 1992–2000. Cours de morphologie générale, 5 vols. Montreal: Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal.Google Scholar

Mel’cuk, Igor. 2003. Levels of dependency in linguistic description: Concepts and problems. In Agel, Vilmos, Eichinger, Ludwig, Eroms, Hans-Werner, Hellwig, Peter, Heringer, Hans Jürgen, and Lobin, Henning (eds.), Dependency and Valency: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Vol. 1, 188–229. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Mel’cuk, Igor. 2008. Aspects of the Theory of Morphology. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Mel’cuk, Igor. 2009. Dependency in natural language. In Polguère, Alain and Mel’cuk, Igor (eds.), Dependency in Linguistic Description. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Onnis, Luca; Christiansen, Morten, and Chater, Nick. 2006. Human language processing: Connectionist models. In Brown, Keith (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn., 401–9. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Osborne, Timothy; Putnam, Michael, and Gross, Thomas. 2012. Catenae: Introducing a novel unit of syntactic analysis. Syntax 15, 354–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Reisberg, Daniel. 2007. Cognition: Exploring the Science of the Mind, 3rd edn. New York: Norton.Google Scholar

Robins, Robert. 1959. In defence of WP. Transactions of the Philological Society 99, 114–44. (Reprinted in 2001).Google Scholar

Robins, Robert. 1967. A Short History of Linguistics. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Robinson, Jane. 1970. Dependency structure and transformational rules. Language 46, 259–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rosta, Andrew. 1997. English Syntax and Word Grammar Theory. Ph.D. dissertation, UCL, London.Google Scholar

Sadock, Jerrold. 1991. Autolexical Syntax: A theory of Parallel Grammatical Representations. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Sgall, Petr; Hajicová, Eva, and Panevova, Jarmila. 1986. The Meaning of the Sentence in its Semantic and Pragmatic Aspects. Prague: Academia.Google Scholar

Sleator, Daniel D., and Temperley, David. 1993. Parsing English with a link grammar. In Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Parsing Technologies, 277–92. Tilburg.Google Scholar

Solé, Ricard; Murtra, Bernat Corominas, Valverde, Sergi, and Steels, Luc. 2010. Language networks: their structure, function and evolution. Complexity 15, 20–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar