Abeillé, Anne, and Godard, Danièle. 2002. The syntactic structure of French auxiliaries. Language, 78(3), 404–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Abraham, Werner (ed.). 1991. Discourse Particles: Descriptive and Theoretical Investigations on the Logical, Syntactic and Pragmatic Properties of Discourse Particles in German. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef

Ackerman, Farrell, and Stump, Gregory T. 2004. Paradigms and periphrastic expression: a study in realization-based lexicalism. In Sadler, Louisa, and Spencer, Andrew (eds.), Projecting Morphology. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information, pp. 111–58.Google Scholar

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2003. The Tariana Language of Northwest Amazonia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aissen, Judith. 1974. The Syntax of Causative Constructions. PhD thesis, Harvard University. Reprinted New York: Garland Press, 1979.

Akinlabi, Akinbiyi. 1996. Featural affixation. Journal of Linguistics, 32, 239–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Akmajian, Adrian, Steele, Susan M., and Wasow, Thomas. 1979. The category AUX in Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 10(1), 1–64.Google Scholar

Alpher, Barry. 1991. Yir-Yoront Lexicon: Sketch and Dictionary of an Australian Language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Alsina, Alex. 1997. A theory of complex predicates: evidence from causatives in Bantu and Romance. In Alsina, Alex, Bresnan, Joan, and Sells, Peter (eds.), Complex Predicates. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 203–46.Google Scholar

Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 1999. Conditions on clitic doubling in Greek. In van Riemsdijk, Hendrik C. (ed.), Clitics and the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 761–98.Google Scholar

Anderson, Stephen R. 1982. Where's morphology?Lingustic Inquiry, 13(4), 571–612.Google Scholar

Anderson, Stephen R. 1984. Kwak'wala syntax and the Government-Binding theory. In Cook, E.-D., and Gerdts, Donna B. (eds.), The Syntax of Native American Languages. Syntax and Semantics 16. New York: Academic Press, pp. 21–75.Google Scholar

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

Anderson, Stephen R. 1993. Wackernagel's revenge: clitics, morphology, and the syntax of second position. Language, 69, 68–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anderson, Stephen R. 2005. Aspects of the Theory of Clitics. Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anderson, Stephen R., Brown, Lea, Gaby, Alice, and Lecarme, Jacqueline. 2006. Life on the edge: there's morphology there after all!Lingue e Linguaggio, 5(1), 1–16.Google Scholar

Andrews, Avery. 1990. Unification and morphological blocking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 8(4), 507–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Andrews, J. Richard. 1975. Introduction to Classical Nahuatl. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

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

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

Aronoff, Mark, and Sridhar, S. 1983. Morphological levels in English and Kannada; or atarizing Reagan. In Papers from the Parasession on the Interplay of Phonology, Morphology, and Syntax, vol. 19. Chicago Linguistic Society, pp.3–16.Google Scholar

Aronoff, Mark, and Sridhar, S. 1987. Morphological levels in English and Kannada; or atarizing Reagan. In Gussmann, Edmund (ed.), Rules and the Lexicon: Lublin. Redakcja Wydawnictw Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego, pp. 9–22.Google Scholar

Avgustinova, Tania. 1994. On Bulgarian verbal clitics. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 2, 29–47.Google Scholar

Avgustinova, Tania. 1997. Word Order and Clitics in Bulgarian. Saarbrücken Dissertations in Computational Linguistics and Language Technology 5. Saarbrücken: Deutsches Forschungszentrum für Künstliche Intelligenz and UniversitÃt des Saarlandes.Google Scholar

Avgustinova, Tania, and Oliva, Karel. 1995. The position of sentential clitics in the Czech clause. Technical Report 68. Universität des Saarlandes.Google Scholar

Awbery, Gwen. 1976. The Syntax of Welsh: A Transformational Study of the Passive. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Baerman, Matthew, Brown, Dunstan, and Corbett, Greville G. 2005. The Syntax-Morphology Interface: A Study of Syncretism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baker, Mark. 1996. The Polysynthesis Parameter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Baker, Mark, Johnson, Kyle, and Roberts, Ian. 1989. Passive arguments raised. Linguistic Inquiry, 20(2), 219–51.Google Scholar

Barešić, Jasna. 1988. Dobro došli: Gramatika hrvatskog ili srpskog jezika. Zagreb: Škola za Strane Jezike.Google Scholar

Barron, Julia. 1998. ‘Have’ contraction: explaining ‘trace effects’ in a theory without movement. Linguistics, 36(2), 223–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Benacchio, Rosanna, and Renzi, Lorenzo. 1987. Clitici slavi e romanzi. Padua: Dipartimento di Linguistica dell'Università di Padova e del Centro per gli Studi di Fonetica del C. N. R.Google Scholar

Bennett, David. 1986. Towards an explanation of word-order differences between Slovene and Serbo-Croatian. The Slavonic and East European Review, 64, 1–24.Google Scholar

Berendsen, Egon. 1986. The Phonology of Cliticization. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo, and Luís, Ana R. 2009a. Cyclic domains and prosodic spans in European Portuguese encliticization. Paper given at the Old World Conference in Phonology 6, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar

Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo, and Luís, Ana R. 2009b. Cyclic domains and prosodic spans in the phonology of European Portuguese functional morphs. Talk given at the Workshop on the Division of Labour between Morphology and Phonology, Meertens Instituut, Amsterdam, 16–17 January 2009.Google Scholar

Beukema, Frits, and den Dikken, Marcel (eds.). 2000. Clitic Phenomena in European Languages. Linguistik Aktuell 30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef

Bickel, Balthasar, Banjade, Goma, Gaenszle, Martin, Lieven, Elena, Paudyal, Netra Prasad, Rai, Ichchha Purna, Rai, Manoj, Rai, Novel Kishore, and Stoll, Sabine. 2007. Free prefix ordering in Chintang. Language, 83, 43–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Billings, Loren A. 2002. Phrasal clitics. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 10, 53–104.Google Scholar

Billings, Loren A. 2004. Review of Bošković 2001. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 12, 285–321.Google Scholar

Blake, Barry J. 1990. Relational Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Blakemore, Diane. 2002. Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bögel, Tina. 2010. Pashto (endo)clitics in a parallel architecture. In Butt, Miriam, and King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), The Proceedings of the LFG10 Conference. University of Stanford, CA: CSLI, pp. 85–105.Google Scholar

Bonami, Olivier, and Boyé, Gilles. 2007. French pronominal clitics and the design of Paradigm Function Morphology. In Booij, Geert, Ducceschi, Luca, Fradin, Bernard, Guevara, Emiliano, Ralli, Angela, and Scalise, Sergio (eds.), On-line Proceedings of the Fifth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (MMM5) Fréjus 15–18 September 2005. Bologna: Università degli Studi di Bologna, pp. 291–322.Google Scholar

Bonet, Eulàlia. 1991. Morphology after Syntax: Pronominal Clitics in Romance. PhD thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA.

Bonet, Eulàlia. 1995. Feature structure of Romance clitics. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 13, 603–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Booij, Geert. 1985. Coordination reduction in complex words: a case for prosodic phonology. In van der Hulst, Harry, and Smith, Norval (eds.), Advances in Non-linear Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris, pp. 143–60.Google Scholar

Booij, Geert. 1988. Review article on Nespor and Vogel 1986. Journal of Linguistics, 24, 515–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Booij, Geert. 1996a. Cliticization as prosodic integration: the case of Dutch. The Linguistic Review, 13, 219–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Booij, Geert. 1996b. Inherent versus contextual inflection and the split morphology hypothesis. In Booij, Geert, and van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1995. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Booij, Geert. 2007. The Grammar of Words: An Introduction to Morphology. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Booij, Geert, and Lieber, Rochelle. 1993. On the simultaneity of morphological and prosodic structure. In Hargus, Sharon, and Kaisse, Ellen M. (eds.), Studies in Lexical Phonology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 23–44.Google Scholar

Booij, Geert, and Rubach, Jerzy. 1987. Postcycliç versus postlexical rules in lexical phonology. Linguistic Inquiry, 18(1), 1–44.Google Scholar

Borer, Hagit. 1984. Parametric Syntax: Case Studies in Semitic and Romance Languages. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Borer, Hagit (ed.). 1986. The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics. Syntax and Semantics 19. Orlando: Academic Press.

Borer, Hagit, and Grodzinsky, Yosef. 1986. Syntactic cliticization and lexical cliticization: the case of Hebrew dative clitics. In Borer, Hagit (ed.), The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics. Syntax and Semantics 19. Orlando: Academic Press, pp. 175–217.Google Scholar

Börjars, Kersti. 1998. Clitics, affixes, and parallel correspondence. In Butt, Miriam, and King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG '98 Conference. www.CSLi-publications. stanford. edu/LFG/2/lfg 98-toc.htmlGoogle Scholar

Borsley, Robert D. 1993. On so-called verb-nouns in Welsh. Journal of Celtic Linguistics, 2, 35–64.Google Scholar

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

Bošković, Željko. 2001. On the Nature of the Syntax-Phonology Interface: Cliticization and Related Phenomena. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Bresnan, Joan. 1998. Morphology competes with syntax: explaining typological variation in weak crossover effects. In Barbosa, Pilar, Fox, Danny, Hagstrom, Paul, McGinnis, Martha, and Pesetsky, David (eds.), Is the Best Good Enough? Optimality and Competition in Syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press and MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, pp. 59–92.Google Scholar

Bresnan, Joan. 2001a. The emergence of the unmarked pronoun II. In Legendre, Geraldine, Grimshaw, Jane, and Vikner, Sten (eds.), Optimality-Theoretic Syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 113–42.Google Scholar

Bresnan, Joan. 2001b. Lexical-Functional Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar

Bresnan, Joan, and Mchombo, Sam. 1986. Grammatical and anaphoric agreement. In Farley, A.M., Farley, P.T., and McCullough, K.-E. (eds.), Papers from the Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Theory at the Twenty-Second Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 287–97.Google Scholar

Bresnan, Joan, and Mchombo, Sam A. 1987. Topic, pronoun, and agreement in Chicheŵa. Language, 63(4), 741–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Reprinted in Iida, Masayo, Wechsler, Steven, and Zec, Draga (eds.), Working Papers in Grammatical Theory and Discourse Structure: Interactions of Morphology, Syntax, and Discourse. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 1–59.

Bresnan, Joan, and Moshi, Lioba. 1990. Object asymmetries in comparative Bantu syntax. Linguistic Inquiry, 21(2), 147–85.Google Scholar

Reprinted in Mchombo, Sam A. (ed.), Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar 1. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 47–91.

Browne, Wayles. 1974. On the problem of enclitic placement in Serbo-Croatian. In Brecht, Richard D., and Chvany, Catherine V. (eds.), Slavic Transformational Syntax. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Materials, pp. 36–52.Google Scholar

Browne, Wayles. 1993. Serbo-Croat. In Comrie, Bernard, and Corbett, Greville G. (eds.), The Slavonic Languages. London: Routledge, pp. 306–87.Google Scholar

Buchholz, Oda, and Fiedler, Wilfried. 1987. Albanische Grammatik. Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar

Butt, Miriam. 1995. The Structure of Complex Predicates in Urdu. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar

Cardinaletti, Anna, and Roberts, Ian. 2002. Clause structure and X-second. In Cinque, Guglielmo (ed.), Functional Structure in DP and IP: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 123–65.Google Scholar

Cardinaletti, Anna, and Starke, Michal. 1999. The typology of structural deficiency: a case study of the three classes of pronouns. In van Riemsdijk, Hendrik C. (ed.), Clitics and the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 145–233.Google Scholar

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

Chen, Matthew Y. 1990. What must phonology know about syntax? In Inkelas, Sharon, and Zec, Draga (eds.), The Phonology-Syntax Connection. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 19–46.Google Scholar

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

Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1995a. Bare phrase structure. In Webelhuth, Gert (ed.), Government and Binding Theory and the Minimalist Program. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, pp. 383–439.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1995b. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, Michael (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 1–52.Google Scholar

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

Chung, Sandra L. 2003. The syntax and prosody of weak pronouns in Chamorro. Linguistic Inquiry, 34, 547–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Churchward, Clerk M. 1953. A Tongan Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Cole, Peter. 1982. Imbabura Quechua. Lingua Descriptive Studies 5. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Condoravdi, Cleo, and Kiparsky, Paul. 2001. Clitics and clause structure. Journal of Greek Linguistics, 2, 1–40.Google Scholar

Condoravdi, Cleo, and Kiparsky, Paul. 2004. Clitics and clause structure. The Late Medieval Greek system. Journal of Greek Linguistics, 5, 159–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Corbett, Greville G. 1991. Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Corbett, Greville G. 2003. Agreement: the range of the phenomeon and the principles of the Surrey Database of Agreement. Transactions of the Philological Society, 101(2), 154–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Corbett, Greville G. 2006. Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Corbett, Greville G. 2007. Canonical typology, suppletion, and possible words. Language, 83(1), 8–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Corbett, Greville G., and Fraser, Norman M. 1993. Network morphology. Journal of Lingustics, 29, 113–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Costa, João (ed.). 2000. Portuguese Syntax: New Comparative Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Crysmann, Berthold. 2000. Clitics and coordination in linear structure. In Gerlach, Birgit, and Grijzenhout, Janet (eds.), Clitics in Phonology, Morphology, and Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 121–59.Google Scholar

Crysmann, Berthold. 2002. Constraint-Based Coanalysis: Portuguese Cliticisation and Morphology-Syntax Interaction in HPSG. Saarbrücken Dissertations in Computational Linguistics and Language Technology 15. Saarbrücken: Deutsches Forschungszentrum für Künstliche Intelligenz and Universität des Saarlandes.Google Scholar

Culicover, Peter, and Jackendoff, Ray. 2005. Simpler Syntax. Oxford: Blackwells.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cysouw, Michael. 2005. Morphology in the wrong place: a survey of preposed enclitics. In Dressler, Wolfgang U., Kastovsky, Dieter, Pfeiffer, Oskar E., and Rainer, Franz (eds.), Morphology and its Demarcations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 17–37.Google Scholar

Dalrymple, Mary. 2001. Lexical Functional Grammar. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dalrymple, Mary, and Nikolaeva, Irina A. 2006. Syntax of natural and accidental coordination. Language, 82(4), 824–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Daniel, Michael, and Spencer, Andrew. 2009. The vocative – an outlier case. In Malchukov, Andrej, and Spencer, Andrew (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Case. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 626–34.Google Scholar

de Bruyne, Jacques. 1995. A Comprehensive Spanish Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar

Denniston, J. D. 2002. The Greek Particles. Revised edition edited by K. J., Dover. London: Bristol Classical Press.Google Scholar

Der Grosse, Duden. 2006. Die Grammatik. Band 4. Mannheim/Leipzig/Vienna/Zürich: Bibliographisches Institut & F. A. Brockhaus AG.Google Scholar

Dixon, R. M. W., and Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2002. Word: A Cross-Linguistic Typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Donnellan, Keith S. 1966. Reference and definite descriptions. The Philosophical Review, 75, 281–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Donohue, Mark. 1999. A Grammar of Tukang Besi. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Doron, Edit. 1988. On the complementarity of subject and subject-verb agreement. In Barlow, Michael, and Ferguson, Charles A. (eds.), Agreement in Natural Language: Approaches, Theories, Descriptions. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 201–18.Google Scholar

Dryer, Matthew S. 2005a. Position of case affixes. In Haspelmath, Martin, Dryer, Matthew S., Gil, David, and Comrie, Bernard (eds.), World Atlas of Linguistic Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 210–13; available at http://wals.info/.Google Scholar

Dryer, Matthew S. 2005b. Position of pronominal possessive affixes. In Haspelmath, Martin, Dryer, Matthew S., Gil, David, and Comrie, Bernard (eds.), World Atlas of Linguistic Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 234–8; available at http://wals.info/.Google Scholar

Dzokanga, A. 1979. Dictionnaire lingala-français, suivi d'une grammaire lingala. Leipzig: Verlag Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar

Embick, David, and Noyer, Robert Rolf. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry, 32, 555–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Embick, David, and Noyer, Robert Rolf. 2007. Distributed morphology and the syntax-morphology interface. In Ramchand, Gillian, and Reiss, Charles (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 239–88.Google Scholar

Erschler, David. 2009. Modularity and 2P clitics: arguments from Digor Ossetic. In Falk, Yehuda N. (ed.), Proceedings of the Israel Association for Theoretical Linguistics 25. Israel Association for Theoretical Linguistics, www.linguistics.huji.ac.il/IATl/25/TOC.htmlGoogle Scholar

Evans, Nicholas. 2003. Typologies of agreement: some problems from Kayardild. Transactions of the Philological Society, 101(2), 203–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Evans, Nicholas, Brown, Dunstan, and Corbett, Greville. 2001. Dalabon pronominal prefixes and the typology of syncretism: a Network Morphology analysis. In Booij, Geert, and van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 2000. Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 187–231.Google Scholar

Everett, Daniel L. 1987. Pirahã clitic doubling. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 5, 245–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Everett, Daniel L. 1989. Clitic doubling, reflexives, and word alternations in Yagua. Language, 65, 339–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Everett, Daniel L. 1996. Why There are No Clitics: An Alternative Perspective on Pronominal Allomorphy. Arlington, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics and University of Texas at Arlington Publications in Linguistics.Google Scholar

Fischer, Susann. 2003. Rethinking the Tobler-Mussafia Law. Data from Old Catalan. Diachronica, 20, 259–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fontana, Josep M. 1996. Phonology and syntax in the interpretation of the Tobler-Mussafia Law. In Halpern, Aaron, and Zwicky, Arnold (eds.), Approaching Second: Second Position Clitics and Related Phenomena. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 41–83.Google Scholar

Franks, Steven. 2000. Clitics at the interface: an introduction to Clitic Phenomena in European Languages. In Beukema, Frits, and den Dikken, Marcel (eds.), Clitic Phenomena in European Languages. Linguistik Aktuell 30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–46.Google Scholar

Franks, Steven. 2008. Clitic placement, prosody, and the Bulgarian verbal complex. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 16, 91–127.Google Scholar

Franks, Steven, and King, Tracy Holloway. 2000. A Handbook of Slavic Clitics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Fried, Mirjam. 1994. Second-position clitics in Czech: syntactic or phonological?Lingua, 94, 155–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Friedman, Victor A. 1994. Variation and grammaticalization in the development of Balkanisms. In Papers from the 30th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, vol. 2: The Parasession on Variation in Linguistic Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Reprinted in Studia Albanica, 32 (1995–99), 95-110.)Google Scholar

Friedrich, Johannes. 1960. Hethitisches Elementarbuch. Erster Teil: Kurzgefasste Grammatik. 2nd revised edn. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Verlag.Google Scholar

Fulmer, Sandra Lee. 1991. Dual-position affixes in Afar: an argument for phonologically-driven morphology. In Halpern, Aaron (ed.), Proceedings of the 9th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 198–203.Google Scholar

Fulmer, Sandra Lee. 1997. Parallelism and Planes in Optimality Theory: Evidence from Afar. PhD thesis, University of Arizona.

Gaby, Alice. 2005. Some participants are more equal than others: case and the composition of arguments in Kuuk Thaayorre. In Amberber, Mengistu, and de Hoop, Helen (eds.), Competition and Variation in Natural Languages: The Case for Case. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 9–40.Google Scholar

Garrett, Andrew. 1996. Wackernagel's Law and unaccusativity in Hittite. In Halpern, Aaron, and Zwicky, Arnold (eds.), Approaching Second: Second Position Clitics and Related Phenomena. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 85–133.Google Scholar

Gerlach, Birgit. 2002. Clitics between Syntax and Lexicon. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gerlach, Birgit, and Grijzenhout, Janet (eds.). 2000. Clitics from Different Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Ghomeshi, Jila. 1997. Non-projecting nouns and the ezafe construction in Persian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 15, 729–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Göksel, Aslı, and Kerslake, Celia. 2005. Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Good, Jeff C., and Yu, Alan C. 2005. Morphosyntax of two Turkish subject pronominal paradigms. In Heggie, Lorie, and Ordóñez, Francisco (eds.), Clitic and Affix Combinations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Greenough, J. B., Kittredge, G. L., Howard, A. A., and D'Ooge, B. L. 1983. Allen and Greenough's New Latin Grammar for Schools and Colleges, 1903. New Rochelle, NY: Aristide D. Caratzas.Google Scholar

Grimshaw, Jane. 1997. The best clitic: constraint conflict in morphosyntax. In Haegeman, Liliane (ed.), Elements of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 169–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grimshaw, Jane. 2001. Optimal clitic positions and the lexicon in Romance clitic systems. In Legendre, Géraldine, Grimshaw, Jane, and Vikner, Sten (eds.), Optimality-Theoretic Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 205–40.Google Scholar

Gussmann, Edmund. 2007. The Phonology of Polish. The Phonology of the World's Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hale, Mark. 1996. Deriving Wackernagel's Law: prosodic and syntactic factors determining clitic placement in the language of the Rigveda. In Halpern, Aaron, and Zwicky, Arnold (eds.), Approaching Second: Second Position Clitics and Related Phenomena. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 165–97.Google Scholar

Hall, T. Alan, and Kleinheinz, Ursula (eds.). 1999. Studies on the Phonological Word. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef

Hall, T. Alan, Hildebrandt, Kristine A., and Bickel, Balthasar (eds.). 2008. Theory and Typology of Words. Special issue of Linguistics, 46(2).

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

Halpern, Aaron. 1995. On the Placement and Morphology of Clitics. Dissertations in Linguistics. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Halpern, Aaron. 1998. Clitics. In Spencer, Andrew, and Zwicky, Arnold (eds.), The Handbook of Morphology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar

Halpern, Aaron, and Zwicky, Arnold (eds.). 1996. Approaching Second: Second Position Clitics and Related Phenomena. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

Harris, Alice. 2000. Where in the word is the Udi clitic?Language, 76, 593–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harris, Alice. 2002. Endoclitics and the Origins of Udi Morphosyntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 2000. Periphrasis. In Booij, Geert, Lehmann, Christian (in collaboration with Wolfgang, Kesselheim, Joachim, Mugdan and Stavros, Skopeteas) (eds.), Morphologie/Morphology: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung/An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-formation. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Hauge, Kjetil Rå. 1976. The Word Order of Predicate Clitics in Bulgarian. Oslo: Universitet i Oslo, Slavisk-Baltisk Institutt.Google Scholar

Hauge, Kjetil Rå. 1999. A Short Grammar of Contemporary Bulgarian. Bloomington, IN: Slavica Publishers Inc.Google Scholar

Heath, Jeffrey. 1984. Functional Grammar of Nunggubuyu. Canberra: Australian Institute for Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar

Heggie, Lorie, and Ordóñez, Francisco (eds.). 2005. Clitic and Affix Combinations. Linguistics Today 74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef

Heggie, Lorie, and Ordóñez, Francisco. 2005. Clitic ordering phenomena: the path to generalizations. In Heggie, Lorie, and Ordóñez, Francisco (eds.), Clitic and Affix Combinations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hock, Hans. 1996. Who's on first? Toward a prosodic account of P2 clitics. In Halpern, Aaron, and Zwicky, Arnold (eds.), Approaching Second: Second Position Clitics and Related Phenomena. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp.199–270.Google Scholar

Hockett, Charles F. 1965. What Algonquian is really like. International Journal of American Linguistics, 32, 59–73.Google Scholar

Holton, David, Mackridge, Peter, and Philippaki-Warburton, Irene. 1997. Greek: A Comprehensive Grammar of the Modern Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Hosokawa, Komei. 1991. The Yawuru Language of West Kimberly: A Meaning-Based Description. PhD thesis, Australian National University, Canberra.

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

Hyman, Larry M. 2003. Suffix ordering in Bantu. In Booij, Geert, and van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 2002. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 245–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Inenliqej, Pjotr I., and Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. 1967. Iz nabljudenij nad ėergativnoj konstrukcij v čukotskom jazyke. In Žirmunskij, V. M. (ed.), Ėrgativnaja konstrukcija predloženija v jazykax različnyx tipov. Issledovanija i materialy. Leningrad: Nauka, pp. 246–60.Google Scholar

Inkelas, Sharon. 1989. Prosodic Constituency in the Lexicon. PhD thesis, Stanford University.

Insler, Stanley. 1997. The phonological organization of the Rigvedic clitic chain. In Kaiser, Lizanne (ed.), Yale A-Morphous Linguistics Essays: Studies in the Morphosyntax of Clitics. New Haven, CT: Department of Linguistics, Yale University, pp. 75–88.Google Scholar

Jaeggli, Osvaldo A. 1982. Topics in Romance Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar

Jaeggli, Osvaldo A. 1986. Three issues in the theory of clitics: case, doubled NPs, and extraction. In Borer, Hagit (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 19: The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics. New York: Academic Press, pp. 15–42.Google Scholar

Jakobson, Roman. 1971. Les enclitiques slaves. In Selected Writings II: Word and Language. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 16–22.Google Scholar

Jelinek, Eloise. 1984. Empty categories, case, and configurationality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 2, 39–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Johannessen, Janne Bondi. 1998. Coordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Jones, Michael A. 1993. Sardinian Syntax. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Jones, Michael A. 1996. Foundations of French Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Joseph, Brian D. 1988. Pronominal affixes in Modern Greek: the case against clisis. In Macleod, Lynn, Larson, Gary, and Brentari, Diane (eds.), Papers from the 24th Annual Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Part One: The General Session. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 203–14.Google Scholar

Joseph, Brian D., and Philippaki-Warburton, Irene. 1987. Modern Greek. Beckenham: Croom Helm.Google Scholar

Kabak, Barış. 2007. Turkish suspended affixation. Linguistics, 45, 311–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Kaisse, Ellen M. 1981. Separating phonology from syntax: a reanalysis of Pashto cliticization. Journal of Linguistics, 17, 197–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kaisse, Ellen M. 1985. Connected Speech. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Kallulli, Dalina, and Tasmowski, Liliane (eds.). 2008. Clitic Doubling in the Balkan Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRef

Kanerva, Jonni. 1987. Morphological integrity and syntax: The evidence from Finnish possessive suffixes. Language, 63(3), 498–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Reprinted in Iida, Masayo, Wechsler, Stephen, and Zec, Draga (eds.), Working Papers in Grammatical Theory and Discourse Structure. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 1987, pp. 61–91.

Kari, Ethelbert Emmanuel. 2003. Clitics in Degema: A Meeting Point of Phonology, Morphology, and Syntax. Tokyo: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa (ILCAA), Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.Google Scholar

Karlsson, Fred. 1987. Finnish Grammar. 2nd edn. Helsinki: Werner Söderström Osakeyhtiö.Google Scholar

Kathol, Andreas. 2001. Linear Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Kayne, Richard S. 1975. French Syntax: The Transformational Cycle. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Kenesei, István. 2007. Semiwords and affixoids: the territory between word and affix. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 54, 263–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kiefer, Ferenc. 1998. Morphology and pragmatics. In Spencer, Andrew, and Zwicky, Arnold (eds.), The Handbook of Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 272–79.Google Scholar

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

Klamer, Marian. 1997. Spelling out clitics in Kambera. Linguistics, 35, 895–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Klamer, Marian. 1998a. A Grammar of Kambera. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Klamer, Marian. 1998b. Kambera intransitive argument linking. Studia Linguistica, 52, 77–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Klavans, Judith. 1979. On clitics as words. In Clyne, Paul R., Hanks, William F., and Hofbauer, Carol L., Papers from the 15th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Vol. 2: ‘The Elements’: A Parasession on Linguistic Units and Levels. Chicago: University of Chicago, pp. 68–80.Google Scholar

Klavans, Judith L. 1982. Some Problems in a Theory of Clitics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar

Klavans, Judith L. 1985. The independence of syntax and phonology in cliticization. Language, 61, 95–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Koutsoudas, Andreas, Sanders, Gerald, and Noll, Craig. 1974. The application of phonological rules. Language, 50, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kroeger, Paul. 1993. Phrase Structure and Grammatical Relations in Tagalog. Dissertations in Linguistics. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Revised and corrected version of 1991 Stanford University dissertation.

Kroeger, Paul. 2004. Analyzing Syntax: A Lexical-Functional Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kuhn, Jonas. 2001. Formal and Computational Aspects of Optimality-theoretic Syntax. PhD thesis, Universitàt Stuttgart.

Kupść, Anna. 2000. An HPSG Grammar of Polish Clitics. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Université de Paris 7 and Polish Academy of Sciences.

Kupść, Anna, and Tseng, Jesse. 2005. A new HPSG approach to Polish auxiliary constructions. In Müller, Stefan (ed.), The Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Department of Informatics, University of Lisbon. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 253–73.Google Scholar

Lapointe, Steven. 1980. A Theory of Grammatical Agreement. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

Lapointe, Steven G. 1990. EDGE Features in GPSG. In Papers from the Twenty-Sixth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 221–35.Google Scholar

Lapointe, Steven. 1992. Life on the EDGE: arguments in favor of an autolexical account of edge inflections. In Papers from the Twenty-Eighth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 318–32.Google Scholar

Lauffenburger, Olivier. 2008. Hittite Grammar.Google Scholar

Laughren, Mary. 2002. Syntactic constraints in a ‘free word order’ language. In Amberber, Mengistu, and Collins, Peter (eds.), Language Universals and Variation. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, pp. 83–130.Google Scholar

Launey, Michel. 1999. Introduction à la langue et à la littèrature aztèques. Tome 1: grammaire. Paris: L'Harmattan.Google Scholar

Legate, Julie Anne. 2008. Warlpiri and the theory of second position clitics. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 26, 3–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Legendre, Géraldine. 1996. Clitics, Verb (Non)-Movement, and Optimality in Bulgarian. Technical Report JHU-CogSci-95-5. Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.Google Scholar

Legendre, Géraldine. 2000a. Optimal Romanian clitics: a cross-linguistic perspective. In Motapanye, Virginia (ed.), Comparative Studies in Romanian Syntax. Oxford: Elsevier Publishers, pp. 227–64.Google Scholar

Legendre, Géraldine. 2000b. Positioning Romanian verbal clitics at PF: an Optimality-Theoretic analysis. In Gerlach, Birgit, and Grijzenhout, Janet (eds.), Clitics in Phonology, Morphology and Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 219–54.Google Scholar

Legendre, Géraldine. 2001. Morphological and prosodic alignment of Bulgarian clitics. In Dekkers, Joost, van der Leeuw, Frank, and van de Weijer, Jeroen (eds.), Optimality Theory: Syntax, Phonology, and Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.219–54.Google Scholar

Lema, José, and Rivero, María Luísa. 1989. Long head movement: ECP vs. HMC. Cahiers Linguistiques d'Ottawa, 18, 61–78.Google Scholar

Lenertová, Denisa. 2004. Czech pronominal clitics. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 12, 135–71.Google Scholar

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

Lidz, Jeffrey. 1995. On the non-existence of reflexive clitics. In Dainora, Audra, Hemphill, Rachel, Luka, Barbara, Need, Barbara, and Pargman, Sheri (eds.), Papers from the 31st Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Vol. 2: The Parasession on Clitics. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

Luís, Ana. 2004. Clitics as Morphology. PhD thesis, University of Essex, Department of Language and Linguistics.

Luís, Ana, and Otoguro, Ryo. 2004. Proclitic contexts in European Portuguese and their effect on clitic placement. In Butt, Miriam, and King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), The Proceedings of the LFG '04 Conference. www.csli-publications.stanford.edu/LFG/2/lfg04-toc.htmlGoogle Scholar

Luís, Ana, and Sadler, Louisa. 2003. Object clitics and marked morphology. In Beyssade, Claire, et al. (eds.), Empirical Issues in Formal Syntax and Semantics 4. Paris: Presses de l'Université de Paris, Sorbonne, pp. 133–54.Google Scholar

Luís, Ana, and Spencer, Andrew. 2005. A paradigm function account of ‘mesoclisis’ in European Portuguese. In Booij, Geert, and van Marle, Jaap (eds.), A Yearbook of Morphology 2004. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 177–228.Google Scholar

Luís, Ana R. 2009. Para uma (re)definição da sufixação no Português Europeu: a adjunção prosódica de enclíticos pronominais. Biblos: Revista da Faculdade de Letras, Universidade de Coimbra, 451–70.Google Scholar

Luís, Ana R., and Otoguro, Ryo. 2011. Inflectional morphology and syntax in correspondence: evidence from European Portuguese. In Galani, Alexandra, Tsoulas, George, and Hicks, Glyn (eds.), Morphology and its Interfaces. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 97–134.Google Scholar

Luutonen, Jorma. 1997. The Variation of Morpheme Order in Mari Declension. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar

Lyons, Christopher. 1999. Definiteness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Maiden, Martin, and Robustelli, Cecilia. 2000. A Reference Grammar of Modern Italian. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar

Marantz, Alec P. 1988. Clitics, morphological merger, and the mapping to phonological structure. In Hammond, Michael, and Noonan, Michael (eds.), Theoretical Morphology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Marten, Lutz, Kula, Nancy C., and Thwala, Nhlanhla. 2007. Parameters of morphosyntactic variation in Bantu. Transactions of the Philological Society, 105, 253–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Marušič, Franc, and Žaucer, Rok. 2010a. Clitic doubling in a determinerless language with second position clitics. In Zybatow, Gerhild, Dudchuk, Philip, Minor, Serge, and Pshehotskaya, Ekaterina (eds.), Formal Studies in Slavic Linguistics, Proceedings of FDSL 7.5. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag, pp.101–15.Google Scholar

Marušič, Franc, and Žaucer, Rok. 2010b. On clitic doubling in Gorica Slovenian. In Franks, Steven, Chidambaram, Vrinda, and Joseph, Brian (eds.), A Linguist's Linguist: Studies in South Slavic Linguistics in Honor of E. Wayles Browne. Bloomingdale, IN: Slavica Publishers, pp. 281–95.Google Scholar

Matsumoto, Yo. 1998. A reexamination of the cross-linguistic parameterization of causative predicates: Japanese perspectives. In Butt, Miriam, and King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), The Proceedings of the LFG '98 Conference. www.csli-publications.stanford.edu/LFG/2/lfg98-toc.htmlGoogle Scholar

McCarthy, John. 2002. A Thematic Guide to Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

McCloskey, James, and Hale, Ken. 1984. On the syntax of person-number inflection in modern Irish. Natural Language and Lingustic Theory, 1, 487–534.Google Scholar

Mel'čuk, Igor A. 2009. Dependency in natural language. In Polguère, Alain, and Mel'čuk, Igor A. (eds.), Dependency in Linguistic Description. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp.1–110.Google Scholar

Milićević, Jasmina. 2005. Clitics or affixes? On the morphological status of the future-tense markers in Serbian. In Dressler, Wolfgang U., Kastovsky, Dieter, Pfeiffer, Oskar E., and Rainer, Franz (eds.), Morphology and its Demarcations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 39–52.Google Scholar

Milićević, Jasmina. 2009. Linear placement of Serbian clitics in a syntactic dependency framework. In Polguère, Alain, and Mel'čuk, Igor A. (eds.), Dependency in Linguistic Description. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 235–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Miller, Philip H., and Sag, Ivan A. 1997. French clitic movement without clitics or movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 15(3), 573–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mithun, Marianne. 2003. Pronouns and agreement: the information status of pronominal affixes. Transactions of the Philological Society, 101(2), 235–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mišeska Tomić, Olga. 2006. The Balkan Sprachbund: Morpho-syntactic Features. Dordrecht: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Monachesi, Paola. 2000. Clitic placement in the Romanian verbal complex. In Gerlach, Birgit, and Grijzenhout, Janet (eds.), Clitics in Phonology, Morphology and Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 255–93.Google Scholar

Monachesi, Paola. 2005. The Verbal Complex in Romance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Monachesi, Paula. 1999. A Lexical Approach to Italian Cliticization. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Muysken, Peter. 1981. Quechua word structure. In Heny, Frank (ed.), Binding and Filtering. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 8, 279–327.Google Scholar

Neeleman, Ad, and Szendrői, Krisztina. 2007. Radical pro drop and the morphology of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry, 38, 671–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nelson, Diane. 1998. Grammatical Case Assignment in Finnish. New York: Garland Publications.Google Scholar

Nespor, Marina. 1999. The phonology of clitic groups. In van Riemsdijk, Hendrik C. (ed.), Clitics and the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Nespor, Marina, and Vogel, Irene. 1986. Prosodic Phonology. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar

Nevis, Joel A. 1986. Finnish Particle Clitics and General Clitic Theory. PhD thesis, The Ohio State University.

Nevis, Joel A. 2000. Clitics. In Booij, Geert, Lehmann, Christian, and Mugdan, Joachim (eds.), Morphology: An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation, vol. 1. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 388–404.Google Scholar

Nevis, Joel A., and Joseph, Brian D. 1993. Wackernagel affixes: evidence from Balto-Slavic. In Booij, Geert, and van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1992. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 93–111.Google Scholar

Nevis, Joel A., Joseph, Brian D., Wanner, Dieter, and Zwicky, Arnold M. 1994. Clitics: A Comprehensive Bibliography 1892–1991. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nikolaeva, Irina A. 2012. Towards a typology of finiteness: a canonical approach. In Brown, Dunstan P., Chumakina, Marina, and Corbett, Greville C. (eds.), Canonical Morphology and Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Nordlinger, Rachel, and Sadler, Louisa. 2006. Case stacking in realizational morphology. Linguistics, 44, 459–88.Google Scholar

Nordlinger, Rachel, and Saulwick, Adam. 2002. Infinitives in polysynthesis: the case of Rembarrnga. In Evans, Nicholas, and Sasse, Hans-Jürgen (eds.), Problems of Polysynthesis. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, pp. 185–201.Google Scholar

Noyer, Robert Rolf. 2001. Clitic sequences in Nunggubuyu and PF convergence. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 19, 751–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Odden, David. 1987. Kimatuumbi phrasal phonology. Phonology Yearbook, 4, 13–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Odden, David. 1990. Syntax, lexical rules, and postlexical rules in Kimatuumbi. In Inkelas, Sharon, and Zec, Draga (eds.), The Phonology-Syntax Connection. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 259–78.Google Scholar

Orgun, Cemil Orhan. 1996a. Sign-based Morphology and Phonology with Special Attention to Optimality Theory. PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley.

Orgun, Cemil Orhan. 1996b. Suspended affixation: a new look at the phonology-morphology interface. In Kleinheinz, Ursula (ed.), Interfaces in Phonology. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, pp. 251–61.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

Payne, Doris L., and Payne, Thomas E. 1990. Yagua. In Derbyshire, Desmond C., and Pullum, Geoffrey K. (eds.), Handbook of Amazonian Languages, vol. 2. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 249–74.Google Scholar

Payne, John. 2009. The English genitive and double case. Transactions of the Philological Society, 107(3), 322–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Payne, John, and Huddleston, Rodney. 2002. Nouns and noun phrases. In Huddleston, Rodney, and Pullum, Geoffrey (eds.), The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 323–523.Google Scholar

Peperkamp, Sharon. 1997. Prosodic Words. HIL dissertations 34. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics.Google Scholar

Perlmutter, David. 1970. Surface structure constraints in syntax. Linguistic Inquiry, 1, 185–255.Google Scholar

Perlmutter, David. 1971. Deep and Surface Structure Constraints in Syntax. New York: Holt, Reinhart, and Winston.Google Scholar

Pesetsky, David. 1985. Morphology and logical form. Linguistic Inquiry, 16, 193–246.Google Scholar

Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 1980. The Finnish possessive suffixes. Language, 56, 603–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Plank, Frans. 2005. The prosodic contribution of clitics: focus on Latin. Lingue e Linguaggio, 4, 281–92.Google Scholar

Poletto, Cecilia. 1997. Pronominal syntax. In Maiden, Martin, and Parry, Mair (eds.), The Dialects of Italy. London: Routledge, pp.137–44.Google Scholar

Poletto, Cecilia. 2000. The Higher Functional Field: Evidence from Northern Italian Dialects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Polinsky, Maria. 2003. Non-canonical agreement is canonical. Transactions of the Philological Society, 101(2), 279–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Polinsky, Maria, and Potsdam, Eric. 2001. Long-distance agreement and topic in Tsez. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 19, 583–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Poser, William J. 1985. Cliticization to NP and Lexical Phonology. In Goldberg, J., MacKaye, S., and Wescoat, Michael (eds.), Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 4. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 262–72.Google Scholar

Prinz, Michael. 1991. Klitisierung im Deutschen und Neugriechischen: Eine lexikalisch-phonologische Studie. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Progovac, Ljiljana. 1996. Clitics in Serbian/Croatian: Comp as the second position. In Halpern, Aaron, and Zwicky, Arnold (eds.), Approaching Second: Second Position Clitics and Related Phenomena. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 411–28.Google Scholar

Radanović-Kocić, Vesna. 1996. The placement of Serbo-Croatian clitics: a prosodic approach. In Halpern, Aaron, and Zwicky, Arnold (eds.), Approaching Second: Second Position Clitics and Related Phenomena. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 429–45.Google Scholar

Reed, Irene, Miyaoka, Osahito, Jacobson, Steven, Afcan, Paschal, and Krauss, Michael. 1977. Yup'ik Eskimo Grammar. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center/Yup'ik Language Workshop, University of Alaska.Google Scholar

Rhys Jones, T. J. 1977. Living Welsh. London: Hodder and Stoughton.Google Scholar

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

Rivas, Alberto Mario. 1977. A Theory of Clitics. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.

Rivero, María Luisa. 1991. Long head movement and negation: Serbo-Croatian vs. Slovak and Czech. The Linguistic Review, 8, 319–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rivero, María Luisa. 1994. Clause structure and V-movement in the Clause structure and V-movement in the languages of the Balkans. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 12, 63–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rizzi, Luigi. 1982a. Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rizzi, Luigi. 1982b. A restructuring rule. In Issues in Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Foris Publications, pp. 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rizzi, Luigi. 1986. On the status of subject clitics in Romance. In Jaeggli, Osvaldo A., and Silva-Corvalán, Carmen (eds.), Studies in Romance Linguistics. Dordrecht: Foris Publications, pp. 391–419.Google Scholar

Roberts, Ian. 2010. The pronominal domain: DP-NP structure, clitics and null subjects. In D'Allessandro, Roberta, Ledgeway, Adam, and Roberts, Ian (eds.), Syntactic Variation: The Dialects of Italy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–27.Google Scholar

Rosenbach, Anette. 2005. Animacy versus weight as determinants of grammatical variation in English. Language, 81, 613–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rudin, Catherine. 1997. Agr-O and Bulgarian pronominal clitics. In Lindstedt, M., and Franks, S. (eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Indiana Meeting 1996. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 224–52.Google Scholar

Ryding, Karin C. 2005. A Reference Grammar of Modern Standard Arabic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sadler, Louisa. 1988. Welsh Syntax. Beckenham: Croom Helm.Google Scholar

Sadler, Louisa. 1997. Clitics and the structure-function mapping. In Butt, Miriam, and King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), Proceedings of LFG97. Stanford, CA, CSLI Publications: www.csli-publications.stanford.edu/LFG/2/lfg97-toc.html.Google Scholar

Sadler, Louisa. 1998. English auxiliaries as tense inflections. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics, 24, 1–16.Google Scholar

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

Saeed, John. 1999. Somali. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sag, Ivan, Wasow, Thomas, and Bender, Emily. 2003. Syntactic Theory: A Formal Introduction. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar

Samvelian, Pollet. 2007. A (phrasal) affix analysis of the Persian Ezafe. Journal of Linguistics, 43(3), 605–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schachter, Paul. 1973. Constraints on clitic order in Tagalog. In Gonzalez, A. B. (ed.), Parangal kay Cecilio Lopez. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines, pp. 214–31.Google Scholar

Schachter, Paul, and Otanes, Fe T. 1972. Tagalog Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Schäufele, Steven. 1996. Now that we're all here where do we sit? Phonological ordering in the Vedic clause-initial string. In Halpern, Aaron, and Zwicky, Arnold (eds.), Approaching Second: Second Position Clitics and Related Phenomena. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 447–75.Google Scholar

Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1984. Phonology and Syntax: The Relation between Sound and Structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1995. The prosodic structure of function words. In Beckman, Jill N., Dickey, Laura W., and Urbanczyk, Suzanne (eds.), Papers in Optimality Theory, vol. 18. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics. Amherst: Graduate Linguistic Student Association (GLSA), University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar

Sells, Peter. 1995. Korean and Japanese morphology from a lexical perspective. Linguistic Inquiry, 26, 277–325.Google Scholar

Short, David. 1993. Czech. In Comrie, Bernard, and Corbett, Greville G. (eds.), The Slavonic Languages. London: Routledge, pp. 455–532.Google Scholar

Siegel, Dorothy. 1974. Topics in English Morphology. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.

Siewierska, Anna. 2012. Refining the canonical characterization of the passive. In Brown, Dunstan P., Chumakina, Marina, and Corbett, Greville C. (eds.), Canonical Morphology and Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

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

Simpson, Jane. 1991. Warlpiri Morpho-Syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Spencer, Andrew. 1989. Morpholexikalische phonologie. In Prinzhorn, Martin (ed.), Phonologie. Special Issue of Linguistische Berichte. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag, pp. 164–97.Google Scholar

Spencer, Andrew. 1991. Morphological Theory: An Introduction to Word Structure in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar

Spencer, Andrew. 1993. Review of Sadock 1991. Journal of Linguistics, 29, 143–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Spencer, Andrew. 1999. Chukchee and polysynthesis. In Raxilina, Ekaterina V., and Testelec, Jakov G. (eds.), Tipologija i teorija jazyka – ot opisanija k ob”jasneniju. K 60-letiju Aleksandra Evgen'eviča Kibrika. Moscow: Jazyki russkoj kul'tury, pp. 106–13.Google Scholar

Spencer, Andrew. 2000. Inflection and the lexeme. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 47, 335–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Spencer, Andrew. 2001. Verbal clitics in Bulgarian. A Paradigm Function Morphology approach. In Gerlach, Birgit, and Grijzenhout, Janet (eds.), Clitics in Phonology, Morphology, and Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 355–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Spencer, Andrew. 2003a. Periphrastic paradigms in Bulgarian. In Junghanns, Uwe, and Szucsich, Luka (eds.), Syntactic Structures and Morphological Information. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 249–82.Google Scholar

Spencer, Andrew. 2003b. Putting some order into morphology: reflections on Rice (2000) and Stump (2001). Journal of Linguistics, 39, 621–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Spencer, Andrew. 2005a. Inflecting clitics in Generalized Paradigm Function Morphology. Lingue e Linguaggio, 4, 179–93.Google Scholar

Spencer, Andrew. 2005b. Towards a typology of ‘mixed categories’. In Orgun, C. Orhan, and Sells, Peter (eds.), Morphology and the Web of Grammar: Essays in Memory of Steven G. Lapointe. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 95–138.Google Scholar

Spencer, Andrew. 2008. Does Hungarian have a case system? In Corbett, Greville G., and Noonan, Michael (eds.), Case and Grammatical Relations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 35–56.Google Scholar

Spencer, Andrew. 2009. Case as a morphological phenomenon. In Malchukov, Andrej, and Spencer, Andrew (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Case. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 185–99.Google Scholar

Spencer, Andrew. 2010. Lexical relatedness and the lexical entry – a formal unification. In Müller, Stefan (ed.), Proceedings of the HPSG10 conference. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 322–40.Google ScholarPubMed

Spencer, Andrew, and Luís, Ana. 2012. The canonical clitic. In Brown, Dunstan P., Chumakina, Marina, and Corbett, Greville C. (eds.), Canonical Morphology and Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Sportiche, Dominique. 1996. Clitic constructions. In Zaring, Laurie Ann, and Rooryck, Johan (eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 213–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sproat, Richard. 1998. Morphology as component or module: mapping principle approaches. In Spencer, Andrew, and Zwicky, Arnold (ed.), The Handbook of Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 335–48.Google Scholar

Steele, Susan. 1976. On the count of one. In Juilland, A. (ed.), Studies Presented to Joseph Greenberg on his 60th Birthday. Saratoga, CA: Alma Libri, pp. 591–614.Google Scholar

Steele, Susan. 1978. The category AUX as a language universal. In Greenberg, Joseph H., Ferguson, Charles, and Moravcsik, Edith A. (eds.), Universals of Human Language, vol. 3: Word Structure. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 7–45.Google Scholar

Steele, Susan, Akmajian, Adrian, Demers, Richard, Jelinek, Eloise, Kitagawa, Chisato, Oehrle, Richard, and Wasow, Thomas. 1981. An Encyclopedia of AUX. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Stjepanović, Sandra. 1998. On the placement of Serbocroatian clitics: evidence from VP-ellipsis. Linguistic Inquiry, 29, 527–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stjepanović, Sandra. 2004. Clitic climbing and restructuring with ‘finite clause’ and infinitive complements. Journal of Slavic Linguistics, 12, 173–212.Google Scholar

Stump, Gregory T. 1984. Agreement vs. incorporation in Breton. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 2, 289–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stump, Gregory T. 1993. Position classes and morphological theory. In Booij, Geert, and van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1992. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 129–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stump, Gregory T. 1997. Template morphology and inflectional morphology. In Booij, Geert, and van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1996. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 217–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stump, Gregory T. 1998. Inflection. In Spencer, Andrew, and Zwicky, Arnold (ed.), The Handbook of Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 13–43.Google Scholar

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

Sullivan, Thelma D. 1988. Thelma D. Sullivan's Compendium of Nahuatl Grammar. Translated by Thelma D., Sullivan and Neville, Stiles, edited by Wick R., Miller and Karen, Dakin. Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press.Google Scholar

Suñer, Maria. 1988. The role of agreement in clitic-doubled constructions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 6, 391–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sussex, Roland. 1980. On agreement, affixation and enclisis in Polish. In Chvany, Catherine V., and Brecht, Richard D. (eds.), Morphosyntax in Slavic. Columbus, OH: Slavica Publishers, pp. 187–203.Google Scholar

Szczegielniak, Adam. 2005. Clitic positions within the left periphery: evidence for a phonological buffer. In Heggie, Lorie, and Ordóñez, Francisco (eds.), Clitic and Affix Combinations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 283–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Taylor, Ann. 1996. A prosodic account of clitic position in Ancient Greek. In Halpern, Aaron, and Zwicky, Arnold (eds.), Approaching Second: Second Position Clitics and Related Phenomena. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 477–503.Google Scholar

Tegey, Habibullah. 1977. The Grammar of Clitics: Evidence from Pashto and Other Languages. PhD thesis, University of Illinois.

Testelets, Yakov G. 2003. Are there strong and weak pronouns in Russian? In Browne, Wayles, Kim, Ji-Yung, Partee, Barbara H., and Rothstein, Robert A. (eds.), Formal Approaches to Slavic Linguistics: The Amherst Meeting 2002. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan Slavic Publications, pp. 515–38.Google Scholar

Toivonen, Ida. 2000. The morphosyntax of Finnish possessives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 18(3), 579–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Toivonen, Ida. 2003. Non-Projecting Words: A Case Study of Swedish Particles. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Toman, Jindřích. 1986. Cliticization from NPs in Czech and comparable phenomena in French and Italian. In Borer, Hagit (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 19: The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics. New York: Academic Press, pp. 123–45.Google Scholar

Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1999. On the relation between syntactic phrases and phonological phrases. Linguistic Inquiry, 30, 219–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Uriagereka, Juan. 2000. Doubling and possession. In Gerlach, Birgit, and Grijzenhout, Janet (eds.), Clitics in Phonology, Morphology and Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 405–31.Google Scholar

van Riemsdijk, Hendrik C. 1999. Clitics: a state of the art report. In van Riemsdijk, Hendrik C. (ed.), Clitics and the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 405–31.Google Scholar

van Riemsdijk, Hendrik C. (ed.). 1999. Clitics and the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Vanelli, Laura, and Renzi, Lorenzo. 1997. Personal pronouns and demonstratives. In Maiden, Martin, and Parry, Mair (eds.), The Dialects of Italy. London: Routledge, pp. 106–15.Google Scholar

Vasil'eva, Anna Nikolaevna. 1974. Particles in Colloquial Russian (Manual for English-speaking Students of Russian). Moscow: Progress Publishers.Google Scholar

Veselovská, Ludmila. 1995. Phrasal Movement and X0 -morphology. PhD thesis, Palacky University, Olomouc.

Vigário, Marina. 2003. The Prosodic Word in European Portuguese. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Vogel, Irene. 2009. The status of the Clitic Group. In Grijzenhout, Janet, and Kabak, Barış (eds.), Phonological Domains: Universals and Deviations. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 15–46.Google Scholar

Vogel, Irene. 2010. The phonology of compounds. In Scalise, Sergio, and Vogel, Irene (eds.), Cross-disciplinary Issues in Compounding. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 145–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wackernagel, Jacob. 1892. Über ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung. Indogermanische Forschungen, 1, 333–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wälchli, Bernhard. 2005. Co-compounds and Natural Coordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Weir Smyth, Herbert. 1920. A Greek Grammar for Colleges. New York: American Book Company.Google Scholar

Werle, Adam. 2009. Word, Phrase, and Clitic Prosody in Bosnian, Serbian, and Croatian. PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, GLSA, Department of Linguistics.

Wescoat, Michael T. 2002. On Lexical Sharing. PhD thesis, Stanford University.

Wescoat, Michael T. 2009. Udi person markers and lexical integrity. In Butt, Miriam, and King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG09 Conference. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 604–22.Google Scholar

Weydt, Harald. 1969. Abtönungspartikel: Die deutschen Modalwörter und ihre französischen Entsprechungen. Berlin: Gehlen.Google Scholar

Whitman, John. 1991. Argument positions and configurationality. In Georgopoulos, Carol (ed.), Interdisciplinary Approaches to Language: Essays in Honor of S.-Y. Kuroda. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 615–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wunderlich, Dieter. 2001. A correspondence-theoretic analysis of Dalabon transitive paradigms. In Booij, Geert, and van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 2000. Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 233–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wunderlich, Dieter, and Fabri, Ray. 1995. Minimalist Morphology: an approach to inflection. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 14, 236–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zec, Draga, and Inkelas, Sharon. 1991. The place of clitics in the Prosodic Hierarchy. In Bates, Dawn (ed.), Proceedings of the 10th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 505–19.Google Scholar

Zwicky, Arnold. 1987. Suppressing the Z's. Journal of Linguistics, 23(1), 133–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zwicky, Arnold M. 1977. On Clitics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar

Zwicky, Arnold M. 1985a. Clitics and particles. Language, 61(2), 283–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zwicky, Arnold M. 1985b. How to describe inflection. In Niepokuj, Mary, Van Clay, Mary, Nikiforidou, Vassiliki, and Feder, Deborah (eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society. Berkeley: University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar

Zwicky, Arnold M. 1986. The general case: basic form versus default form. In Nikiforidou, Vassiliki, Van Clay, Mary, Niepokuj, Mary, and Feder, Deborah (eds.), Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California, pp. 305–14.Google Scholar

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

Zwicky, Arnold M., and Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1983. Cliticization vs. inflection: English n't. Language, 59, 502–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar