Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T20:37:19.608Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

22 - Morphology in Constraint-based Lexicalist Approaches to Grammar

from Part V - The Role of Morphology in Theories of Phonology and Syntax

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 January 2017

By
Olivier Bonami  and
Berthold Crysmann
Edited by
Andrew Hippisley  and
Gregory Stump
Andrew Hippisley
Affiliation:
University of Kentucky
Gregory Stump
Affiliation:
University of Kentucky
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology , pp. 609 - 656
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

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

Abeillé, A., and Godard, D.. 2002. The syntactic structure of French auxiliaries. Language 78, 404–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abeillé, A.; Bonami, O., Godard, D., and Tseng, J.. 2003. The syntax of French à and de: An HPSG analysis. In Sain-Dizier, Patrick (ed.), Proceedings of the ACL-SIGSEM Workshop on the Linguistic Dimensions of Prepositions, 133–44. Toulouse: IRIT.Google Scholar
Ackerman, F., and Bonami, O.. In press. Systemic polyfunctionality and morphology-syntax interdependencies. In Hippisley, A. and Gisborne, N. (eds.), Defaults in Morphological Theory. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ackerman, F., and Webelhuth, G.. 1998. A Theory of Predicates. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Ackerman, F.; Stump, G. T., and Webelhuth, G.. 2011. Lexicalism, periphrasis and implicative morphology. In Borsley, R. D. and Börjars, K. (eds.), Non-transformational Syntax: Formal and Explicit Models of Grammar, 325–58. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. R. 1992. A-morphous Morphology. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, A. D. 1990. Unification and morphological blocking. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8, 507–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, M. 1994. Morphology by Itself. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Aronoff, M., and Xu, Z.. 2010. A realization optimality-theoretic approach to affix order. Morphology 20, 388–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barwise, J., and Perry, J.. 1983. Situations and Attitudes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Becker, T. 1993. Back-formation, cross-formation, and “bracketing paradoxes” in paradigmatic morphology. Yearbook of Morphology 1993, 1–25.Google Scholar
Bender, E., and Sag, I. A.. 2000. Incorporating contracted auxiliaries in English. In Cann, R., Grover, C., and Miller, P. (eds.), Grammatical Interfaces in HPSG, 17–32. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Bertram, R.; Schreuder, R., and Baayen, R. H.. 2000. The balance of storage and computation in morphological processing: The role of word formation type, affixal homonymy, and productivity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 26, 489–511.Google ScholarPubMed
Bickel, B.; Banjade, G., Gaenzle, M., Lieven, E., Paudya, N. P., Rai, I. P., Manoj, R., Rai, N., and Stoll, S.. 2007. Free prefix ordering in Chintang. Language 83, 43–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bird, S. 1995. Computational Phonology: A Constraint-based Approach. Studies in Natural Language Processing. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bird, S., and Ellison, T. M.. 1992. One Level Phonology: Autosegmental Representations and Rules as Finite State Automata. Technical Report 51, University of Edinburgh, Center for Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
Bird, S., and Klein, E.. 1994. Phonological analysis in typed feature systems. Computational Linguistics 20, 455–91.Google Scholar
Boas, H., and Sag, I. A. (eds.) 2012. Sign-based Construction Grammar. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Bochner, H. 1993. Simplicity in Generative Morphology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonami, O. 2011. Reconstructing HPSG morphology. Presentation given at the 18th International Conference on HPSG, Seattle.Google Scholar
Bonami, O. (ed.) 2012. Word Structure 5.1: Stems in Inflection and Lexeme Formation. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Bonami, O. 2015. Periphrasis as collocation. Morphology 25, 63–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonami, O., and Boyé, G.. 2002. Suppletion and stem dependency in inflectional morphology. In Van Eynde, F., Hellan, L., and Beerman, D. (eds.), The Proceedings of the HPSG’01 Conference, 51–70. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Bonami, O., and Boyé, G.. 2006. Deriving inflectional irregularity. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on HPSG, 39–59. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Bonami, O., and Boyé, G.. 2007. French pronominal clitics and the design of Paradigm Function Morphology. In Booij, G., Ducceschi, L., Fradin, B., Guevara, E., Ralli, A., and Scalise, S. (eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting, 291–322. Università degli Studi di Bologna.Google Scholar
Bonami, O., and Crysmann, B.. 2013. Morphotactics in an information-based model of realisational morphology. In Müller, S. (ed.), Proceedings of HPSG 2013, 27–47. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Bonami, O., and Samvelian, P.. 2008. Sorani Kurdish person markers and the typology of agreement. Presentation given at the 13th International Morphology Meeting, Vienna.Google Scholar
Bonami, O., and Samvelian, P.. 2009. Inflectional periphrasis in Persian. In Müller, S. (ed.), Proceedings of the HPSG 2009 Conference, 26–46. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Bonami, O., and Samvelian, P.. 2015. The diversity of inflectional periphrasis in Persian. Journal of Linguistics 51, 327–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booij, G. 2010. Construction Morphology. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Borsley, R. D. 1999. Weak auxiliaries, complex verbs and inflected complementizers in Polish. In Borsley, R. D. and Przepiórkowski, A. (eds.), Slavic in Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Studies in Constraint-based Lexicalism, 29–59. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Borsley, R. D., and Börjars, K. (eds.) 2011. Non-transformational Syntax: Formal and Explicit Models of Grammar. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J. 1982. The passive in lexical theory. In Bresnan, J. (ed.), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, 3–86. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. 2001. Lexical-functional Syntax. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J., and Mchombo, S.. 1995. The lexical integrity principle: Evidence from Bantu. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13, 181–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broadwell, G. A. 2008. Turkish suspended affixation is lexical sharing. In Butt, M. and King, T. Holloway (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG08 Conference, 198–213. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Brown, D., and Hippisley, A.. 2012. Network Morphology: A Defaults Based Theory of Word Structure. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, B. 1992. The Logic of Typed Feature Structures with Applications to Unification-based Grammars, Logic Programming and Constraint Resolution, Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science 32. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carstairs, A. 1987. Allomorphy in Inflection. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. 1985. The geometry of phonological features. Phonology Yearbook 2, 223–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copestake, A.; Flickinger, D., Pollard, C., and Sag, I.. 2005. Minimal recursion semantics: An introduction. Research on Language and Computation 3, 281–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crysmann, B. 1999. Morphosyntactic paradoxa in Fox. In Bouma, G., Hinrichs, E., Kruiff, G.-J., and Oehrle, R. (eds.), Constraints and Resources in Natural Language Syntax and Semantics, Studies in Constraint-based Lexicalism, 41–61. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Crysmann, B. 2003a. Clitic climbing revisited. In Kim, J.-B. and Wechsler, S. (eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, 5–7 August, 2002, 67–89 Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Crysmann, B. 2003b. Constraint-based Coanalysis: Portuguese Cliticisation and Morphology–Syntax Interaction in HPSG. Saarbrücken Dissertations in Computational Linguistics and Language Technology 15. Saarbrücken: Computational Linguistics, Saarland University and DFKI LT Lab.Google Scholar
Crysmann, B. 2009. Underspecification and neutrality: A unified approach to syncretism. In Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Formal Grammar and Mathematics of Language (FG-MOL) 2005, Aug 5–7, Edinburgh, 1–12. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Crysmann, B. 2010a. A coanalysis approach to Polish past tense agreement. In Nolda, A., and Teuber, O. (eds.), Syntax and Morphology Multi-dimensional, Interface Explorations, 77–100. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Crysmann, B. 2010b. Discontinuous negation in Hausa. In Müller, S. (ed.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Morphology and Formal Grammar at the 17th International Conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG 2010), 269–87. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Crysmann, B. In press. Inferential-realisational morphology without rule blocks: an information-based approach. In Hippisley, A. and Gisborne, N. (eds.), Defaults in Morphological Theory. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Crysmann, B., and Bonami, O.. 2012. Establishing order in type-based realisational morphology. In Müller, R. (ed.), Proceedings of HPSG 2012, 123–43. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Crysmann, B., and Bonami, O.. 2016. Variable morphotactics in Information-based Morphology. Journal of Linguistics 52, 311–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, M., and Kaplan, R. M.. 2000. Feature indeterminacy and feature resolution. Language 76, 759–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, M.; King, T. Holloway, and Sadler, L.. 2009. Indeterminacy by underspecification. Journal of Linguistics 45, 31–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniels, M. W. 2002. On a type-based analysis of feature neutrality and the coordination of unlikes. In Van Eynde, F., Hellan, L., and Beermann, D. (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 137–47. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Desmets, M., and Villoing, F.. 2009. French VN lexemes: Morphological compounding in HPSG. In Proceedings of the HPSG 2009 Conference, 89–109. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Engdahl, E., and Vallduví, E. 1994. Information packaging and grammar architecture: A constraint-based approach. In Engdahl, E. (ed.), Integrating Information Structure into Constraint-based and Categorial Approaches, DYANA-2 Report R.1.3.B, 39–79. Amsterdam: ILLC.Google Scholar
Erjavec, T. 1994. Formalizing realizational morphology in typed feature structures. In Bouma, G. and van Noord, G. (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth CLIN Meeting, 47–58. Groningen.Google Scholar
Evans, R., and Gazdar, G. 1996. DATR: A language for lexical knowledge representation. Computational Linguistics 22, 167–216.Google Scholar
Flickinger, D. 1987. Lexical Rules in the Hierarchical Lexicon. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Fokkens, A.; Poulson, L., and Bender, E. M.. 2009. Inflectional morphology in Turkish VP coordination. In Müller, S. (ed.), Proceedings of HPSG 2009, 110–30. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Frank, A., and Reyle, U.. 1995. Principle based semantics for HPSG. In Proceedings of EACL, 9–16. Dublin.Google Scholar
Frank, A., and Zaenen, A.. 2004. Tense in LFG: Syntax and morphology. In Sadler, L. and Spencer, A. (eds.), Projecting Morphology. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Ginzburg, J., and Sag, I. A.. 2000. Interrogative Investigations: The Form, Meaning, and Use of English Interrogatives. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, J. A. 1976. Autosegmental Phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Goodman, M. W., and Bender, E. M.. 2010. What’s in a word? refining the morphotactic infrastructure in the LinGO Grammar Matrix customization system. Poster presented at the HPSG 2010 Conference.Google Scholar
Hathout, N.; Plénat, M., and Tanguy, L.. 2003. Enquête sur les dérivés en -able. Cahiers de grammaire 28, 49–90.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, E., and Nakazawa, T.. 1989. Subcategorization and VP structure in German. In Aspects of German VP Structure. Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar
Hockett, C. F. 1954. Two models of grammatical description. Word 10, 210–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huygue, R., and Tribout, D.. 2015. Noms d’agent et noms d’instrument: le cas des déverbaux en -eur. Langue française 185, 99–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingria, R. J. P. 1990. The limits of unification. In Proceedings of the Twenty-eighth Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 194–204. Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
Kaplan, R. M., and Bresnan, J.. 1982. Lexical-functional grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation. In Bresnan, J. (ed.), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, 173–281. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kaplan, R. M., and Kay, M.. 1994. Regular models of phonological rule systems. Computational Linguistics 20, 331–78.Google Scholar
Karttunen, L.; Kaplan, R. M., and Zaenen, A.. 1992. Two-level morphology with composition. In Proceedings of Coling 1992, 141–8. Nantes.Google Scholar
Kasper, R., and Rounds, W.. 1986. A logical semantics for feature structures. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics (ACL), 257–66. Morristown, NJ: ACL.Google Scholar
Kathol, A. 1994. Passives without lexical rules. In Nerbonne, J., Netter, K., and Pollard, C. J. (eds.), German in HPSG, 237–72. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Kathol, A. 1999. Agreement and the syntax-morphology interface in HPSG. In Green, G. M. and Levine, R. D. (eds.), Studies in Contemporary Phrase Structure Grammar. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kathol, A. 2000. Linear Syntax. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, P. 2002. An informal sketch of a formal architecture for construction grammar. Grammars 5, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, P. 1989. A Logical Formalism for Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 1982. Lexical phonology and morphology. In Yang, In-Seok (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm, 3–91. Seoul: Hansin.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 1985. Some consequences of lexical phonology. Phonology Yearbook 2, 83–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koenig, J.-P. 1994. Lexical Underspecification and the Syntax-semantics Interface. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Koenig, J.-P. 1999. Lexical Relations. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Koenig, J.-P., and Jurafsky, D.. 1994. Type underspecification and on-line type construction. In Aranovich, Raul, Byrne, William, Preuss, Susanne, and Senturia, Martha (eds.), Proceedings of WCCFL XIII. 270–85. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Koskenniemi, K. 1983. Two-level Morphology: A General Computational Model for Word Recognition and Production. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Helsinki.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krieger, H.-U. 1994. Derivation without lexical rules. In Rupp, C. J., Rosner, M. A., and Johnson, R. (eds.), Constraints, Language, and Computation. London: Academic Press. Previously published in Proceedings of the Workshop on Constraint Propagation, Linguistic Description, and Computation, IDSIA Working Paper No. 5, Lugano, November, 1991. Also published as DFKI Research Report RR-93-27.Google Scholar
Krieger, H.-U. 1996. TDL: A Type Description Language for Constraint-based Grammars, Saarbrücken Dissertations in Computational Linguistics and Language Technology 2. Saarbrücken: DFKI GmbH.Google Scholar
Krieger, H.-U., and Nerbonne, J.. 1993. Feature-based inheritance networks for computational lexicons. In Briscoe, T., Copestake, A., and de Paiva, V. (eds.), Default Inheritance Within Unification-based Approaches to the Lexicon. Cambridge University Press, 90–136. Also published as Report RR-91-31, DFKI, Saarbrücken.Google Scholar
Krieger, H.-U.; Pirker, H., and Nerbonne, J.. 1993. Feature-based allomorphy. In Proceedings of the Thirty-first Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 140–7. Columbus.Google Scholar
Kupść, A., and Tseng, J. 2005. A new HPSG approach to Polish auxiliary constructions. In Proceedings of HPSG 2005, 253–73. Stanford: CSLI. Available online at http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/HPSG/6 (accessed April 16, 2016)Google Scholar
Leben, W. 1973. Suprasegmental Phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Levy, R., and Pollard, C.. 2002. Coordination and neutralization in HPSG. In Van Eynde, F., Hellan, L., and Beermann, D. (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 221–30. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Luschützky, H. C., and Rainer, F.. 2013. Instrument and place nouns: A typological and diachronic perspective. Linguistics 51, 1301–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luutonen, J. 1997. The Variation of Morpheme Order in Mari Declension. Helsinki: Suomalaisugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Maiden, M. 2005. Morphological autonomy and diachrony. Yearbook of Morphology 2004, 137–75.Google Scholar
Malouf, R. 2000. A head-driven account of long-distance case assignment. In Cann, R., Grover, C., and Miller, P. (eds.), Grammatical Interfaces in Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Studies in Constraint-based Lexicalism, 201–14. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Maxwell, J. T. III, and Kaplan, R. M.. 1993. The interface between phrasal and functional constraints. Computational Linguistics 19, 571–89.Google Scholar
Meurers, W. D. 2002. On expressing lexical generalizations in HPSG. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 24, 161–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, P. 1992. Clitics and Constituents in Phrase Structure Grammar. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Miller, P., and Sag, I. A.. 1997. French clitic movement without clitics or movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15, 573–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monachesi, P. 1999. A Lexical Approach to Italian Cliticization. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Monachesi, P. 2000. Clitic placement in the Romanian verbal complex. In Gerlach, B. and Grijzenhout, J. (eds.), Clitics in Phonology, Morphology and Syntax, Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 36, 255–293. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Müller, S. 2002. Complex Predicates: Verbal Complexes, Resultative Constructions, and Particle Verbs in German. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Müller, S. 2003. The morphology of German particle verbs: Solving the bracketing paradox. Journal of Linguistics 39, 275–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Namer, F., and Villoing, F.. 2008. Interpréter les noms déverbaux: quelle relation avec la structure argumentale du verbe base? Le cas des noms en -oir du français. In Actes du premier Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française, 1551–69. Paris.Google Scholar
Nordlinger, R. 1998. Constructive Case. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Nordlinger, R., and Sadler, L.. Forthcoming. Morphology in HPSG and LFG. In Audring, J. and Masini, F. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Morphological Theory. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Noyer, R. 1992. Features, Positions and Affixes in Autonomous Morphological Structure. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Orgun, C. O. 1996. Sign-based Morphology and Phonology. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Penn, G. 1999. A generalized-domain-based approach to Serbo-Croatian second position clitic placement. In Bouma, G., Hinrichs, E., Kruijff, G.-J., and Oehrle, R. T. (eds.), Constraints and Resources in Natural Language Semantics, Studies in Constraint-based Lexicalism, 119–36. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. M. 1988. The split morphology hypothesis: Evidence from Yiddish. In Hammond, M. and Noonan, M. (eds.), Theoretical Morphology: Approaches in Modern Linguistics, 79–100. San Diego: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plag, I. 1999. Morphological Productivity. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pollard, C., and Sag, I. A.. 1987. Information-based Syntax and Semantics. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Pollard, C., and Sag, I. A.. 1994. Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Stanford and Chicago: CSLI and The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Prince, A., and Smolensky, P.. 1993. Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Unpublished manuscript, available online at http://roa.rutgers.edu/files/537-0802/537-0802-PRINCE-0-0.PDF (accessed May 1, 2016).Google Scholar
Reyle, U. 1993. Dealing with ambiguities by underspecification. Journal of Semantics 10, 123–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richter, F. 2000. A Mathematical Formalism for Linguistic Theories with an Application in Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Ph.D. dissertation, Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar
Richter, F., and Sailer, M.. 2003. Basic concepts of lexical resource semantics. In Beckmann, A. and Preining, N. (eds.), European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information: Course material, Collegium Logicum 5, 87–143. Vienna: Kurt Gödel Society.Google Scholar
Riehemann, S. 1993. Word Formation in Lexical Type Hierarchies: A Case Study of Bar-adjectives in German. Master’s thesis, Universität Tübingen.Google Scholar
Riehemann, S. 1998. Type-based derivational morphology. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 2, 49–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riehemann, S. 2001. A Constructional Approach to Idioms and Word Formation. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Rogers, J. 1998. A Descriptive Approach to Language-theoretic Complexity. CSLI.Google Scholar
Round, E. 2013. Kayardild Morphology and Syntax. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ryan, K. M. 2010. Variable affix order: Grammar and learning. Language 86, 758–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadler, L., and Nordlinger, R.. 2004. Relating morphology to syntax. In Sadler, L. and Spencer, A. (eds.), Projecting Morphology, 159–83. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Sadler, L., and Nordlinger, R.. 2006. Case stacking in realizational morphology. Linguistics 44, 459–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadler, L., and Spencer, A.. 2001. Syntax as an exponent of morphological features. Yearbook of Morphology 2000, 71–96.Google Scholar
Sag, I. A. 1997. English relative clause constructions. Journal of Linguistics 33, 431–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sag, I. A. 2003. Coordination and underspecification. In Müller, Stefan (ed.), Proceedings of the 9th HPSG Conference, 267–91. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Sag, I. A. 2012. Sign-based construction grammar: An informal synopsis. In Boas, H. and Sag, I. A. (eds.), Sign-based Construction Grammar, 69–202. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Sag, I. A.; Wasow, T., and Bender, E.. 2003. Syntactic Theory: A Formal Introduction, 2nd ed. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Samvelian, P., and Tseng, J.. 2010. Persian object clitics and the syntax-morphology interface. In Müller, Stefan (ed.), Proceedings of HPSG 2010, 212–32. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Scobbie, J. 1991. Attribute-value Phonology. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Scobbie, J. M. 1993. Constraint violation and conflict from the perspective of declarative phonology. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 38, 155–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, J. 1991. Warlpiri Morphosyntax: A Lexicalist Approach. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Smolensky, P., and Legendre, G.. 2006. The Harmonic Mind: From Neural Computation to Optimality-theoretic Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Spencer, A. 2003. Periphrastic paradigms in Bulgarian. In Junghanns, U. and Szucsich, L. (eds.), Syntactic Structures and Morphological Information, 249–82. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Spencer, A. 2013. Lexical Relatedness: A Paradigm-based Model. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, G. T. 1993. Position classes and morphological theory. Yearbook of Morphology 1992, 129–80.Google Scholar
Stump, G. T. 2001. Inflectional Morphology: A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tribout, D. 2010. Les Conversions de nom à verbe et de verbe à nom en français. Ph.D. dissertation, Université Paris Diderot.Google Scholar
Tribout, D. 2012. Verbal stem space and verb to noun conversion in French. Word Structure 5, 109–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trueswell, J., and Tanenhaus, M. K.. 1994. Toward a lexical framework of constraint-based syntactic ambiguity resolution. In Clifton, C., Frazier, L., and Rayner, K. (eds.), Perspectives on Sentence Processing, 155–79. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
van Marle, J. 1984. On the Paradigmatic Dimension of Morphological Creativity. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Villoing, F. 2002. Les Mots composés VN du français: Réflexions épistémologiques et propositions d’analyse. Ph.D. dissertation, Université Paris X-Nanterre.Google Scholar
Vincent, N., and Börjars, K.. 1996. Suppletion and syntactic theory. In Butt, M. and King, T. Holloway (eds.), Proceedings of the first LFG conference, 1–16. Grenoble: Rank Xerox.Google Scholar
Walther, M. 1999. Deklarative Prosodische Morphologie, Linguistische Arbeiten 399. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webelhuth, G.; Koenig, J.-P., and Kathol, A. (eds.) 1999. Lexical and Constructional Aspects of Linguistic Explanation. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Wechsler, S., and Zlatić, L.. 2003. The Many Faces of Agreement. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Wescoat, M. 2002. On Lexical Sharing. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Wescoat, M. 2007. Preposition-determiner contractions: An analysis in optimality-theoretic lexical-functional grammar with lexical sharing. In Butt, M. and King, T. Holloway (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG07 Conference. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. 1991. Some choices in the theory of morphology. In Levine, R. (ed.), Formal Grammar: Theory and Implementation, 327–71. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] 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
×