Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-v5vhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-14T23:44:59.235Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 July 2017

Matthew Baerman
Affiliation:
University of Surrey
Dunstan Brown
Affiliation:
University of York
Greville G. Corbett
Affiliation:
University of Surrey
Get access

Summary

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ackerman, Farrell & Malouf, Robert. 2013. Morphological organization: The low conditional entropy conjecture. Language 89. 429464.Google Scholar
Albright, Adam. 2002. Islands of reliability for regular morphology: Evidence from Italian. Language 78. 684709.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-Morphous Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 2008. Phonologically conditioned allomorphy in the morphology of Surmiran (Rumantsch). Word Structure 1. 109134.Google Scholar
Aoki, Haruo. 1994. Nez Perce Dictionary. (University of California Publications in Linguistics 122). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Arensen, Jon. 1982. Murle Grammar (Occasional papers in the study of Sudanese languages 2). Juba: University of Juba and SIL.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by Itself: Stems and Inflectional Classes (Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 22). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Austin, Peter. 1981/2013. A Grammar of Diyari, South Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2nd edn., version 2.5, 2013, School of Oriental and African Studies, London. [Page references to the 2013 edition.]Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 2008. Analyzing Linguistic Data. A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baerman, Matthew. 2001. Unnatural classes in morphological change. Russian Linguistics 25. 281284.Google Scholar
Baerman, Matthew. 2012. Paradigmatic chaos in Nuer. Language 88(3). 467494.Google Scholar
Baerman, Matthew. 2014. Covert systematicity in a distributionally complex system. Journal of Linguistics 50. 147.Google Scholar
Baerman, Matthew. 2016. Seri verb classes: morphosyntactic motivation and morphological autonomy. Language 92(4). 792823.Google Scholar
Baerman, Matthew, Brown, Dunstan, & Corbett, Greville G. 2005. The Syntax-Morphology Interface: A Study of Syncretism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baerman, Matthew & Corbett, Greville G.. 2012. Stem alternations and multiple exponence. Word Structure 5.1. 5268.Google Scholar
Baerman, Matthew, Corbett, Greville G., & Brown, Dunstan (eds). 2010. Defective Paradigms: Missing Forms and What They Tell Us (Proceedings of the British Academy, 163). Oxford: British Academy and Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baerman, Matthew, Corbett, Greville, Brown, Dunstan, & Hippisley, Andrew (eds). 2007 . Deponency and Morphological Mismatches (Proceedings of the British Academy, 145). Oxford: British Academy and Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baerman, Matthew & Palancar, Enrique L.. 2014. The organization of Chinantec tone paradigms. Carnets de Grammaire 22: Proceedings of Les Décembrettes, 8th International Conference on Morphology, 46–59. Toulouse: CNRS & Université Toulouse – Jean Jaurès.Google Scholar
Blevins, James P. 2003. Stems and paradigms. Language 79 (4). 737767.Google Scholar
Blevins, James P. 2004. Inflection classes and economy. In: Müller, Gereon, Gunkel, Lutz & Zifonun, Gisela (eds) Explorations in Nominal Inflection, 4185. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Blevins, James P. 2006. Word-based morphology. Journal of Linguistics 42. 531573.Google Scholar
Blevins, James P., Ackerman, Farrell, Malouf, Robert, & Ramscar, Michael. 2016. Morphology as an adaptive discriminative system. In: Siddiqi, Daniel & Harley, Heidi (eds) Morphological Metatheory, 271301. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2000. The ins and outs of contextual allomorphy. In: Grohmann, Kleanthes K. & Struijke, Caro (eds) University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 10. 3571.Google Scholar
Bond, Oliver. 2013. A base for canonical negation. In: Brown, Dunstan, Chumakina, Marina & Corbett, Greville G. (eds) Canonical Morphology and Syntax, 2047. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Briley, David. 1997. Four grammatical marking systems in Bauzi. In: Franklin, Karl J. (ed.) Papers in Papuan Linguistics, 2, 1131. Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Brown, Dunstan. 1998. From the general to the exceptional: A network morphology account of Russian nominal inflection. PhD thesis, University of Surrey.Google Scholar
Brown, Dunstan. 2007. Peripheral functions and overdifferentiation: The Russian second locative. Russian Linguistics 31. 6176.Google Scholar
Brown, Dunstan & Evans, Roger. 2012. Morphological complexity and unsupervised learning: Validating Russian inflectional classes using high frequency data. In: Kiefer, Ferenc, Ladányi, Mária & Siptár, Péter (eds) Current Issues in Morphological Theory: (Ir)regularity, Analogy and Frequency. Selected Papers from the 14th International Morphology Meeting, Budapest, 13–16 May 2010, 135162. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Brown, Dunstan & Hippisley, Andrew. 2012. Network Morphology: A Defaults-based Theory of Word Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Browne, Wayles. 1993. Serbo-Croat. In: Comrie, Bernard & Corbett, Greville G. (eds) The Slavonic Languages, 306387. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bugarski, Ranko. 2012. Language, identity and borders in the former Serbo-Croatian area. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 33. 219235.Google Scholar
Bunn, Gordon. 1974. Golin Grammar. Ukarumpa: SIL. Online: www.sil.org/pacific/png/abstract.asp?id=10339.Google Scholar
Bye, Patrik. 2015. The nature of allomorphy and exceptionality: Evidence from Burushaski plurals. In: Bonet, Eulàlia, Lloret, Maria-Rosa & Mascaró, Joan (eds) Understanding Allomorphy: Perspectives from Optimality Theory, 107176. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Caballero, Gabriela. 2011. Morphologically conditioned stress assignment in Choguita Rarámuri (Tarahumara). Linguistics 49(4). 749790.Google Scholar
Campbell, Eric. 2011. Zenzontepec Chatino aspect morphology and Zapotecan verb classes. International Journal of American Linguistics 77(2). 219246.Google Scholar
Carleton, Troi & Waksler, Rachelle. 2000. Pronominal markers in Zenzontepec Chatino. International Journal of American Linguistics 66(3). 383397.Google Scholar
Carstairs, Andrew. 1983. Paradigm economy. Journal of Linguistics 19. 115128.Google Scholar
Carstairs, Andrew. 1987. Allomorphy in Inflexion. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Carstairs, Andrew. 1988. Some implications of phonologically conditioned suppletion. In: Booij, Geert & van Marle, Jaap (eds) Yearbook of Morphology 1988, 6794. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Carstairs, Andrew. 1990. Phonologically conditioned suppletion. In: Dressler, Wolfgang U., Luschützky, Hans C., Pfeiffer, Oskar E., & Rennison, John R. (eds) Contemporary Morphology, 1723. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 1994. Inflection classes, gender, and the principle of contrast. Language 70. 737788.Google Scholar
Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 2010. The Evolution of Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cerrón-Palomino, Rodolfo. 2006. El chipaya o la lengua de los hombres del agua. Lima: Pontificia Univ. Católica del Perú.Google Scholar
Chumakina, Marina & Corbett, Greville G.. 2015. Gender-number marking in Archi: Small is complex. In: Baerman, Matthew, Brown, Dunstan, & Corbett, Greville G. (eds) Understanding and Measuring Morphological Complexity, 93116. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chumakina, Marina, Brown, Dunstan, Corbett, Greville G., & Quilliam, Harley. 2007 . Archi: A Dictionary of the Archi villages, Southern Daghestan, Caucasus. Online: www.smg.surrey.ac.uk/archi/linguists/.Google Scholar
Ciucci, Luca. 2007. Indagini sulla morfologia verbale nella lingua ayoreo. Quaderni del Laboratorio di Linguistica 7. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore.Google Scholar
Ciucci, Luca & Bertinetto, Pier Marco. 2015. A diachronic view of Zamucoan verb inflection. Folia Linguistica 36. 1987.Google Scholar
Coler, Matt. 2015. Aymara inflection. In: Baerman, Matthew (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Inflection, 521542. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 1982. Gender in Russian: An account of gender specification and its relationship to declension. Russian Linguistics 6. 197232.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 1991. Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2000. Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2006. Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2009a. Canonical inflectional classes. In: Montermini, Fabio, Boyé, Gilles & Tseng, Jesse (eds) Selected Proceedings of the 6th Décembrettes: Morphology in Bordeaux, 111. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Online: www.lingref.com/cpp/decemb/6/abstract2231.html.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2009b. Morphology-free syntax: Two potential counter-examples from Serbo-Croat. In: Franks, Steven, Chidambaram, Vrinda, & Joseph, Brian (eds) A Linguist’s Linguist: Studies in South Slavic Linguistics in Honor of E. Wayles Browne, 149166. Bloomington, IN: Slavica.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2010. Classic problems at the syntax-morphology interface: Whose are they? In: Müller, Stefan (ed.) Proceedings of the HPSG 2010 Conference, 255268. Paris: Université Paris Diderot, Paris 7. CSLI Publications. Online: http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/HPSG/2010/toc.shtml.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2012. Features. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2013. Paradigm conventions. Paper presented at the 46th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea, Split, 18–21 September 2013. Online: www.academia.edu/9055930/Paradigm_conventions.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2014. Lexicalization and paradigmatic structure: Key instances in Slavonic. In: Nomachi, Motoki, Danylenko, Andrii, & Piper, Predrag (eds) Grammaticalization and Lexicalization in the Slavic Languages: Proceedings from the 36th meeting of the Commission on the Grammatical Structure of the Slavic Languages of the International Committee of Slavists (Die Welt der Slaven: Sammelbände – Sborniki, 55), 266274. Munich: Otto Sagner.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2015. Morphosyntactic complexity: A typology of lexical splits. Language 91. 145193.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2016. Morphomic splits. In: Luís, Ana & Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo (eds) The Morphome Debate: Diagnosing and analysing morphomic patterns, 6488. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. & Baerman, Matthew. 2006. Prolegomena to a typology of morphological features. Morphology 16. 231246.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. & Browne, Wayles. 2009. Serbo-Croat: Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, Serbian (=Chapter 18). In: Comrie, Bernard (ed.) The World’s Major Languages, 2nd edn., 330346. London: Routledge. [Revised and updated version of 1987 chapter.]Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. & Fraser, Norman M.. 1993. Network Morphology: A DATR account of Russian inflectional morphology. Journal of Linguistics 29. 113–42. [Reprinted 2003 in: Francis X. Katamba, (ed.) Morphology: Critical Concepts in Linguistics: VI: Morphology: Its Place in the Wider Context, 364–396. (London: Routledge.)]Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 1997. Vyčislitel´naja lingvistika i tipologija. Vestnik MGU: Serija 9: Filologija no. 2, 122140.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2000. Gender assignment: A typology and a model. In: Senft, Gunter (ed.) Systems of Nominal Classification (Language, Culture and Cognition 4), 293325. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crowell, Thomas Harris. 1979. A grammar of Bororo. PhD thesis, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Crysmann, Berthold & Bonami, Olivier. 2016. Variable morphotactics in information-based morphology. Journal of Linguistics 52. 311374.Google Scholar
Davidson, Matthew. 2002. Studies in southern Wakashan (Nootkan) grammar. PhD thesis, State University of New York at Buffalo. Online: http://wings.buffalo.edu/linguistics/people/students/dissertations/davidson.PDF.Google Scholar
Davies, John. 1981. Kobon. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Davis, Irvine. 1964. The Language of Santa Ana Pueblo. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 191, Anthropological Papers No. 69. 53–190. Washington, DC, US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. 2000. Number marking and noun categorization in Nilo-Saharan languages. Anthropological Linguistics 42. 214261.Google Scholar
Donohue, Mark. 2001. Animacy, class and gender in Burmeso. In: Pawley, Andrew, Ross, Malcolm, & Tryon, Darrell (eds) The Boy from Bundaberg: Studies in Melanesian Linguistics in Honour of Tom Dutton (Pacific linguistics 514), 97115. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U. 2003. Degrees of grammatical productivity in inflectional morphology. Rivista di Linguistica 15. 3162.Google Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U., Kilani-Schoch, Marianne, Gagarina, Natalia, Pestal, Lina, & Pöchtrager, Markus. 2006. On the typology of inflection class systems. Folia Linguistica 40. 5174.Google Scholar
Dum-Tragut, Jasmine. 2009. Armenian: Modern Eastern Armenian. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dybo, Vladimir A. 2000. Morfonologizovannye paradigmatičeskie akcentnye sistemy: Tipologija i genezis. Moscow: Jazyki russkoj kul´tury.Google Scholar
Embick, David. 2003. Locality, listedness, and morphological information. Studia Linguistica 57. 143169.Google Scholar
Embick, David & Noyer, Rolf. 2007. Distributed morphology and the syntax—morphology interface. In: Ramchand, Gillian & Reiss, Charles (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, 289324. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Erelt, Mati, Erelt, Tiiu, & Ross, Kristiina. 1997. Eesti keele käsiraamat. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus. Online: www.eki.ee/books/ekkr/.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas, Besold, Jutta, Stoakes, Hywel, & Lee, Alan (eds). 2005. Materials on Golin: Grammar, texts and dictionary. Melbourne: Deptartment of Linguistics and Applied Linguistics, The University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
Evans, Roger & Gazdar, Gerald. 1996. DATR: A language for lexical knowledge representation. Computational Linguistics 22. 167216.Google Scholar
Fähnrich, Heinz. 2012. Die georgische Sprache. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Feist, Timothy & Palancar, Enrique L.. 2015. Oto-Manguean Inflectional Class Database: Tlatepuzco Chinantec. University of Surrey. Online: http://dx.doi.org/10.15126/SMG.28/1.01.Google Scholar
Feldstein, Ronald. 2001. A Concise Polish Grammar. Durham and Chapel Hill: Slavic and East European Language Resource Center.Google Scholar
Foley, William A. 1986. The Papuan Languages of New Guinea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Franks, Steven L. 1990. Vowel-zero alternations and syllable-counting morphology. Indiana Slavic Studies 5. 7996.Google Scholar
Gardani, Francesco. 2013. Dynamics of Morphological Productivity: The Evolution of Noun Classes from Latin to Italian. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Gershenson, Carlos & Fernández, Nelson. 2012. Complexity and information: Measuring emergence, self-organization, and homeostasis at multiple scales. Complexity 18. 2944.Google Scholar
Gorbov, Andrej A. 2014. Čislovye paradigmy abstraknyx suščestvitel´nyx v russkom jazyke XX veka: tendencii razvitija i vlijanie anglijskogo jazyka. [Number paradigms of abstract nouns in twentieth-century Russian: Development trends and the influence of English] Russian Linguistics 38. 2346.Google Scholar
Hernández-Green, Néstor. 2015. Morfosintaxis del otomí de Acazulco. PhD thesis, CIESAS, Mexico.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2014. Asymmetries in the prosodic phrasing of function words: Another look at the suffixing preference. Language 90(4). 927960.Google Scholar
Huntley, David. 1980. The evolution of genitive-accusative animate and personal nouns in Slavic dialects. In: Fisiak, Jacek (ed.) Historical Morphology (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 17), 189212. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Isačenko, Alexander V. 1962. Die russische Sprache der Gegenwart (Teil I. Formenlehre). Halle: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Iva, Sulev. 2007. Võru kirjakeele sõnamuutmissüsteem. PhD thesis, University of Tartu.Google Scholar
Ivić, Pavle. 1972. Sistema padežnyx okončanij suščestvitel´nyx v serboxorvatskom literaturnom jazyke. In: Filin, F. P. (ed.) Russkoe i slavjanskoe jazykoznanie: K 70-letiju člena-korrespondenta AN SSSR R. I .Avanesova, 106121. Moscow: Nauka. [Republished as Sistem padežnih nastavaka imenica u srpskohrvatskom književnom jeziku, in Pavle Ivić (1990) O jeziku nekadašnjem i sadašnjem, 286–309. Belgrade: BIGS-Jedinstvo.]Google Scholar
Janda, Laura A. & Townsend, Charles E.. 2002. Czech. SEELRC. Online: www.seelrc.org:8080/grammar/mainframe.jsp?nLanguageID=2.Google Scholar
Kemmer, Susanne. 1993. The Middle Voice. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kibrik, Aleksandr E. 1977. Opyt strukturnogo opisanija arčinskogo jazyka: II: Taksonomičeskaja grammatika. (Publikacii otdelenija strukturnoj i prikladnoj lingvistiki 12). Moscow: Izdatel´stvo Moskovskogo universiteta.Google Scholar
Kibrik, Aleksandr E. 2003. Nominal inflection galore: Daghestanian, with side glances at Europe and the world. In: Plank, Frans (ed.) Noun Phrase Structure in the Languages of Europe, 37112. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kibrik, Aleksandr E., Kodzasov, S. V., Olovjannikova, I. P., & Samedov, D. S.. 1977. Opyt strukturnogo opisanija arčinskogo jazyka: I: Leksika, fonetika. (Publikacii otdelenija strukturnoj i prikladnoj lingvistiki, 11). Moscow: Izdatel´stvo Moskovskogo universiteta.Google Scholar
Klaić, Bratoljub. 1953. O dugoj množini trosložnih i višesložnih imenica. Jezik (Zagreb) 2, no. 3. 7477.Google Scholar
Kulikov, Leonid. 2004. Review of Number. Southwest Journal of Linguistics 23. 124129.Google Scholar
Laskowski, Roman. 1990. The structure of the inflectional paradigm. ScandoSlavica 36. 149154.Google Scholar
Ljaševskaja, Ol´ga N. 2004. Semantika russkogo čisla. Moscow: Jazyki Slavjanskoj Kul´tury.Google Scholar
Loporcaro, Michele. 2007. On triple auxiliation in Romance. Linguistics 45, 1, 173222.Google Scholar
Luís, Ana & Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo (eds). 2016. The Morphome Debate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Luiten, Tyler V. 2011. Old High German nominal morphology revisited: A fresh look at old paradigms. PhD dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin. 1992. Irregularity as a determinant of morphological change. Journal of Linguistics 28. 285312.Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin. 2005. Morphological autonomy and diachrony. Yearbook of Morphology 2004, 137–75.Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin. 2011. Morphological persistence. In: Martin Maiden, John Charles Smith & Adam Ledgeway (eds) The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages (Volume 1: Structures), 155215. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin. 2013. The Latin ‘third stem’ and its Romance descendants. Diachronica 30. 492530.Google Scholar
Marlett, Stephen A. 1981. The structure of Seri. PhD dissertation, University of California at San Diego.Google Scholar
Marlett, Stephen A. 2016. Cmiique Iitom (The Seri language). Ms., University of North Dakota. Online: http://arts-sciences.und.edu/summer-institute-of-linguistics/faculty/marlett-steve/marlett-seri-grammar-latest-draft.pdf.Google Scholar
Mathiassen, Terje. 1997. A Short Grammar of Latvian. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica.Google Scholar
McElhanon, Kenneth A. 1972. Selepet Grammar; Part I: From Root to Phrase (Pacific Linguistics, Series B, No. 21). Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Mel´čuk, Igor´ A. 1985. Poverxnostnyj sintaksis russkix čislovyx vyraženij (Wiener Slawistischer Almanach: Sonderband 16). Vienna: Institut für Slawistik der Universität Wien.Google Scholar
Merrifield, William R. & Anderson, Alfred E.. 2007. Diccionario Chinanteco de la diáspora del pueblo antiguo de San Pedro Tlatepuzco, Oaxaca. [2nd edn.]. Mexico DF: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Metzger, Ronald G. 2000. Marĩ yaye mena carapana, yaia yaye mena español macãrĩcã tuti = Carapana-español, diccionario de 1000 palabras. Bogotá: Editorial Alberta Lleras Camargo.Google Scholar
Miestamo, Matti. 2006. On the feasibility of complexity metrics. In: Kerge, Krista & Sepper, Maria-Maren (eds), FinEst Linguistics: Proceedings of the Annual Finnish and Estonian Conference of Linguistics, Tallinn, 6–7 May 2004, 1126. Tallinn: Tallinn University Department of Estonian.Google Scholar
Miestamo, Matti. 2008. Grammatical complexity in a cross-linguistic perspective. In: Miestamo, Matti, Sinnemäki, Kaius, & Karlsson, Fred (eds), Language Complexity: Typology, Contact, Change, 2341. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mikaelian, Irina. 2013. Cardinal numeral constructions and the category of animacy in Russian. Russian Linguistics 37. 7190. DOI: 10.1007/s11185-012-9105-3.Google Scholar
Milanović, Branislav. 1949. Mrazovi: mrazevi; nosovi: nosevi i sl. Naš jezik (Belgrade) I/1–2. 4353.Google Scholar
Miller, Amy. 2001. A Grammar of Jamul Tiipay. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Miller, Philip, Pullum, Geoffrey K., & Zwicky, Arnold M.. 1997. The principle of phonology-free syntax: Four apparent counterexamples in French. Journal of Linguistics 33.1. 6790.Google Scholar
Moser, Mary B. & Marlett, Stephen A.. 2010. Comcaac quih yaza quih hant ihiip hac = Diccionario seri-español-inglés. Colección Bicentenario. Mexico City and Sonora: Plaza y Valdés Editores and Universidad de Sonora. Online: www.sil.org/resources/archives/42821.Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 2007. Notes on paradigm economy. Morphology 17. 138.Google Scholar
Naba, Jean-Claude. 1994. Le Gulmancema: Essai de systèmatisation. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 2011. Ingush Grammar. (University of California Publications Series.) Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 2015. Types of spread zones: Open and closed, horizontal and vertical. In: De Busser, Rik & LaPolla, Randy J. (eds) Language, Structure and Environment: Social, Cultural, and Natural Factors, 261–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nikolić, Miroslav B. 2013. Imenice koje u srpskom književnom jeziku proširuju osnovu morfemom -ov- u množini. Južnoslovenski fililog 69. 277318.Google Scholar
Olander, Thomas. 2009. Balto-Slavic Accentual Mobility. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Orlandi, Roberto. 1963. Il plurale breve e lungo in serbo-croato. Ricerche slavistiche 11.333.Google Scholar
Orr, Robert. 1996. Again the *ŭ-stems in common Slavic. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 4.312343.Google Scholar
Ouoba, Bendi Benoît. 1982. Description systèmatique du gulmancema. PhD Thesis, Institut National des Langues et Civilisations Orientales (INALCO), Université de la Sorbonne Nouvelle.Google Scholar
Palancar, Enrique L. 2012. The conjugation classes of Tilapa Otomi: An approach from canonical typology. Linguistics 50.4. 783832.Google Scholar
Palancar, Enrique L. 2014. Revisiting the complexity of the Chinantec verb conjugation classes. In: Léonard, Jean-Léo & Kihm, Alain (eds) Patterns in Mesoamerican Morphology, 77102. Paris: Michel Houdiard.Google Scholar
Palancar, Enrique L. & Baerman, Matthew. 2014. Reaching out beyond the word form: Periphrasis and inflectional classes. Paper at the 16th International Morphology Meeting, Budapest, 31 May.Google Scholar
Paster, Mary. 2015. Phonologically conditioned suppletive allomorphy: Cross-linguistic results and theoretical consequences. In: Bonet, Eulàlia,Lloret, Maria-Rosa & Mascaró, Joan (eds) Understanding Allomorphy: Perspectives from Optimality Theory, 218253. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Pelletier, Francis Jeffry. 2012. Lexical nouns are both +mass and +count, but they are neither +mass nor +count. In: Massam, Diane (ed.) Count and Mass Across Languages (Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 42), 926. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pešikan, Mitar. 1956. O umetku -ov- (-ev-) u množini imenica prve vrste. Naš jezik 8. 270275.Google Scholar
Pitkin, Harvey. 1984. Wintu Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Plungian [Plungjan], Vladimir A. 2002. K semantike russkogo lokativa. Semiotika i informatika 37. 229254.Google Scholar
Polivanova, A. K. 1983. Vybor čislovyx form suščestvitel´nogo v russkom jazyke. In: Grigor´ev, V. P. (ed.) Problemy strukturnoj lingvistiki, 130145. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Rätsep, Huno. 1982. Eesti keele ajalooline morfoloogia (Vol. 1, 2nd edn.). Tartu: Tartu Riiklik Ülikool.Google Scholar
Reh, Mechthild. 1985. Die Krongo-Sprache (Nìinò Mó-Dì): Beschreibung, Texte, Wörterverzeichnis. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag.Google Scholar
Rich, Rolland. 1999. Diccionario Arabela-Castellano. (Serie Lingüística Peruana, 49.) Lima, Peru: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.Google Scholar
Robinson, Stewart. 2011. Split intransitivity in Rotokas, a Papuan language of Bougainville. PhD thesis, Radboud University.Google Scholar
Rodrigues, Aryon Dall’Igna. 1993. Uma hipótese sobre a flexão de pessoa em Boróro. Anais da 45a Reunião Anual da SBPC, Recife, p. 50. Online: http://biblio.etnolinguistica.org/rodrigues-1993-bororo.Google Scholar
Romero-Mendez, Rodrigo. 2008. A reference grammar of Ayutla Mixe. PhD thesis, State University of New York at Buffalo.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Robert A. 1993. Polish. In: Comrie, Bernard & Corbett, Greville G. (eds) The Slavonic Languages, 686758. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rupp, James & Rupp, Nadine. 1996. Diccionario chinanteco de San Juan Lealao, Oaxaca. Tucson: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Saeed, John I. 1999. Somali. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sagna, Serge. 2012. Physical properties and culture-specific factors as principles of semantic categorisation of the Gújjolaay Eegimaa noun class system. Cognitive Linguistics 23.1. 129163.Google Scholar
Sakhno, Sergueï. 2011. Pourquoi deux génitifs et deux locatifs en russe pour certains substantifs? Etat actuel des paradigmes et aspects diachroniques. In: Fruyt, Michèle, Mazoyer, Michel & Pardee, Dennis (eds) Grammatical Case in the Languages of the Middle East and Europe: Acts of the International Colloquium Variations, Concurrence et Evolution des Cas dans Divers Domaines Linguistiques, Paris, 2–4 April, 2007, 359372. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Samardžija, Marko. 1988. Duga i kratka množina u hrvatskom knјiževnom jeziku. Jezik (Zagreb) XXXV/5. 129136.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1922. The Takelma language of southwestern Oregon. In: Boas, Franz (ed.) Handbook of American Indian Languages [vol. 2], pp. 1296. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Schenker, Alexander M. 1993. Proto-Slavonic. In: Comrie, Bernard & Corbett, Greville G. (eds) The Slavonic Languages, 60121. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Seiler, Walter. 1985. Imonda: A Papuan Language (Pacific Linguistics, Series B, No. 93). Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Short, David. 1993a. Czech. In: Comrie, Bernard & Corbett, Greville G. (eds) The Slavonic Languages, 455532. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Short, David. 1993b. Slovak. In: Comrie, Bernard & Corbett, Greville G. (eds) The Slavonic Languages, 533592. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 2004. Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sims, Andrea. 2015. Inflectional Defectiveness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sims, Andrea & Parker, Jeff. 2016. How inflection class systems work: On the informativity of implicative structure. Word Structure 9.2. (Special issue on Word and Pattern Morphology edited by Farrell Ackerman and Robert Malouf), 215–239.Google Scholar
Šipka, Milan. 1999. Korelacije značenja i oblika duge i kratke množine imenica muškog roda u srpskom i/ili hrvatskom jeziku. In: Tošović, Branko (ed.) Die grammatischen Korrelationen (GraLiS-1999), 165176. Graz: Institut für Slawistik der Karl-Franzens-Universität.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 1991. Morphological Theory: An Introduction to Word Structure in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 2012. Identifying stems. Word Structure 5.1 (special issue on Stems edited by Olivier Bonami), 88108.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 2013. Lexical Relatedness: A Paradigm-Based Model. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stebbins, Tonya N. 2011. Mali (Baining) Grammar. (Pacific Linguistics, 623.) Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Stebbins, Tonya N. & Tayul, Julius. 2012. Mali (Baining) Dictionary: Mali-Baining Amēthamon Angētha Thēvaik. (Asia-Pacific Linguistics Open Access Monographs, 001.) Canberra, ACT: Asia-Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Sterner, Joyce K. 1987. Sobei verb morphology reanalyzed to reflect POL studies. Oceanic Linguistics 26.1,2. 3054.Google Scholar
Strange, David. 1972. Dano noun inflection. Ms, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Online: www.sil.org/pacific/png/abstract.asp?id=51968.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 2006. Heteroclisis and paradigm linkage. Language 82.2. 279322.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 2012. The formal and functional architecture of inflectional morphology. In: Ralli, Angela, Booij, Geert, Scalise, Sergio, & Karasimos, Athanasios (eds) Morphology and the Architecture of Grammar: On-line Proceedings of the Eighth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (MMM8), Cagliari, Italy, 14–17 September 2011, 255271. Online: http://lmgd.philology.upatras.gr/en/research/downloads/MMM8_Proceedings.pdf.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 2015. Inflection classes. In: Baerman, Matthew (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Inflection, 113139. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 2016. Inflectional Paradigms: Content and form at the syntax-morphology interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. & Finkel, Raphael. 2013. Morphological Typology: From Word to Paradigm. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Švedova, , N. Ju. (ed.) 1980. Russkaja grammatika: I: Fonetika, fonologija, udarenie, intonacija, slovoobrazovanie, morfologija. Moscow: Nauka. [relevant section written by V. A. Plotnikova]Google Scholar
Swan, Oscar E. 1988. Facultative Animacy in Polish: A Study in Grammatical Gender Formation (Carl Beck Papers in Russian and East European Studies, no. 606.) Pittsburgh.: University of Pittsburgh, Center for Russian and European Studies.Google Scholar
Swan, Oscar E. 2002. A Grammar of Contemporary Polish. Bloomington, IN: Slavica.Google Scholar
Terrill, Angela. 2003. A Grammar of Lavukaleve. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Timberlake, Alan. 2004. A Reference Grammar of Russian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traill, Anthony. 1994. A!Xóõ dictionary. (Quellen zur Khoisan-Forschung/Research in Khoisan Studies, 9.) Köln: Rüdiger Köppe.Google Scholar
Trask, Larry. 1997. The History of Basque. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tucker, Archibald N. 1940. The Eastern Sudanic Languages, Volume 1. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Uredništvo, Našeg jezika]. 1949. Mrazovi: mrazevi; nosovi: nosevi i sl. Naš jezik (Belgrade), I/1–2, 5354.Google Scholar
Velie, Daniel & Velie, Virginia. 1981. Vocabulario orejón. Lima: Ministerio de Educación and Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.Google Scholar
Veríssimo, João & Clahsen, Harald. 2014. Variables and similarity in linguistic generalization: Evidence from inflectional classes in Portuguese. Journal of Memory and Language 76. 6179.Google Scholar
von Waldenfels, Ruprecht & Eder, Maciej. 2016. A stylometric approach to the study of differences between standard variants of Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian, or: Is the Hobbit in Serbian more Hobbit or more Serbian? Russian Linguistics 40. 1131.Google Scholar
Vuković, Jovan. 1949. Mrazovi: mrazevi; nosovi: nosevi i sl. Naš jezik (Belgrade) I/1–2. 4243.Google Scholar
Vukušić, Stjepan, Zoričić, Ivan & Grasselli-Vukušić, Marija. 2007. Naglasak u hrvatskome književnom jeziku (Velika hrvatska gramatika: IV). Zagreb: Nakladni zavod Globus.Google Scholar
Wacke, K. 1930–1931. Formenlehre der Ono-Sprache (Neuguinea). Zeitschrift für Eingeborenen-Sprachen XXI. 161–208.Google Scholar
Wegera, Klaus-Peter & Solms, Hans-Joachim. Morphologie des Frühneuhochdeutschen. In: Werner Besch, Anne Betten, Oskar Reichmann & Stefan Sonderegger (eds) Sprachgeschichte: Ein Handbuch zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und ihrer Erforschung, 1542–54. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
West, Birdie & Welch, Betty. 2004. Gramática pedagógica del tucano. Bogotá, D.C., Colombia: Fundación para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Marginados.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1994. Remarks on lexical knowledge. Lingua 92. 734.Google Scholar
Worth, Dean S. 1966. On the stem/ending boundary in Slavic indeclinables. Zbornik za filologiju i lingvistiku 9. 1116.Google Scholar
Wurzel, Wolfgang U. 1984/1989. Flexionsmorphologie und Natürlichkeit. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. [Translated by Manfred Schentke: Wolfgang U. Wurzel. 1989. Inflectional Morphology and Naturalness (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory). Dordrecht: Kluwer. [Page references to the 1989 translation.]Google Scholar
Wurzel, Wolfgang U. 1990. The mechanism of inflection: lexicon representations, rules, and irregularities. In: Dressler, Wolfgang U., Luschützky, Hans C., Pfeiffer, Oskar E., & Rennison, John R. (eds) Contemporary Morphology, 203216. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Yu, Alan C. L. 2007. A Natural History of Infixation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zaliznjak, Andrej A. 1967/2002. Russkoe imennoe slovoizmenenie Moscow: Nauka. [Reprinted in: Andrej A. Zaliznjak. 2002. Russkoe imennoe slovoizmenenie: s priloženiem izbrannyx rabot po sovremennomu russkomu jazyku i obščemu jazykoznaniju, 1–370. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul´tury.] [Page references to 2002 edition.]Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1992. Some choices in the theory of morphology. In: Robert Levine (ed.) Formal Grammar: Theory and Implementation, 327371. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. & Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 1983. Phonology in syntax: The Somali optional agreement rule. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1. 385402.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×