Anderson, John, and Ewen, Colin. 1987. Principles of Dependency Phonology. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anderson, Stephen R. 1984. Rules as “morphemes” in a theory of inflection. In Rood, D. (ed.), Mid-America Linguistics Conference Papers, 3–21. Boulder: University of Colorado.Google Scholar

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

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

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

Baudouin de Courtenay, , Jan. 1972. An attempt at a theory of phonetic alternations. In Stankiewicz, Edward (ed.), A Baudouin de Courtenay Anthology, 141–212. Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

Bauer, Laurie. 1994. Structural analogy: An examination of some recent claims. Studies in Language 18, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bauer, Laurie; Lieber, Rochelle, and Plag, Ingo. 2013. The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

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

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

Cruschina, Silvio; Maiden, Martin, and Smith, John Charles (eds.) 2013. The Boundaries of Pure Morphology. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dressler, , Wolfgang, U.; Libben, Gary, Stark, Jacqueline, Pons, Christiane, and Jarema, Gonia. 2001. The processing of interfixed German compounds. Yearbook of Morphology 1999, 185–220.Google Scholar

Fábregas, Antonio, and Scalise, Sergio. 2012. Morphology: From Data to Theories. Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goldsmith, John. 1999. An overview of Autosegmental Phonology [1976]. In Goldsmith, John (ed.), Phonological Theory: The Essential Readings, 137–61. Malden and Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Hammer, A. E. 1991. German Grammar and Usage, 2nd edn., revised by Durrell, Martin. London: Arnold.Google Scholar

Harley, Heidi, and Noyer, Rolf. 1999. Distributed Morphology. Glot International 4.4, 3–9.Google Scholar

Harris, Zellig S. 1958 Morphemic alternants in linguistic analysis. Language 18 [1942]: 169–80. Reprinted in Joos, Martin (ed.), Readings in Linguistics, 109–15. New York: American Council of Learned Societies.Google Scholar

Haugen, Jason D. 2005. Reduplicative allomorphy and language prehistory in Uto-Aztecan. In Hurch, Bernard (ed.), Studies on Reduplication, 315–49. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Hjelmslev, Louis 1963. Sproget. Copenhagen: Berlingske.Google Scholar

Hockett, Charles F. 1958a. A Course in Modern Linguistics. New York: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hockett, Charles F. 1958b. Two models of grammatical description. Word 10 [1954]: 210–231. Reprinted in Joos, Martin (ed.), Readings in Linguistics, 386–99. New York: American Council of Learned Societies.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hockett, Charles F. 1987. Refurbishing our Foundations. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Householder, Fred W. 1952. Review of Methods in Structural Linguistics (1951), by Harris, Zellig S.. International Journal of American Linguistics 18, 260–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jensen, John T. 1990. Morphology. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kimball, Geoffrey D. 1991. Koasati Grammar. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar

Klaiman, M[imi] H. 1992. Inverse languages. Lingua 88, 227–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kubryakova, Elena S., and Mugdan, Joachim. 2000. Submorphemische Einheiten. In Booij, Geert, Lehmann, Christian, and Mugdan, Joachim (eds.), Morphologie/Morphology, 417–26. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Lappe, Sabine. 2007. English Prosodic Morphology. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lightner, Theodore M. 1983. Introduction to English Derivational Morphology. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lombardi, Linda, and McCarthy, John. 1991. Prosodic circumscription in Choctaw morphology. Phonology 8, 37–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lounsbury, Floyd G. 1953. Oneida Verb Morphology. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Luschützky, Hans Christian. 2000. Morphem, Morph und Allomorph. In Booij, Geert, Lehmann, Christian, and Mugdan, Joachim (eds.), Morphologie/Morphology, 451–62. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Manova, Stela. 2011. Understanding Morphological Rules. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Martinet, André. 1967. Éléments de linguistique générale. Paris: Colin.Google Scholar

Matthews, P[eter] H. 1972. Inflectional Morphology. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Mugdan, Joachim. 1986. Was ist eigentlich ein Morphem? Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 39, 29–43.Google Scholar

Myers, Scott. 1984. Zero-derivation and inflection. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 7: 53–69.Google Scholar

Nettle, Daniel. 1998. The Fyem language of Northern Nigeria. Munich and Newcastle: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar

Nida, Eugene A. 1958. The identification of morphemes. In Joos, Martin (ed.), Readings in Linguistics, vol. 1, 255–71. New York: American Council of Learned Societies.Google Scholar

Plag, Ingo. 1999. Morphological Productivity. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1916. Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar

Spencer, Andrew. 1991. Morphological Theory. Oxford and Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Stankiewicz, Edward. 1972. Baudouin de Courtenay: His life and work. In Stankiewicz, Edward (ed.), A Baudouin de Courtenay Anthology, 3–48. Bloomington and London: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

Tobin, Yishai. 2004. Hebrew (Semitic). In Booij, Geert, Lehmann, Christian, Mugdan, Joachim, and Skopeteas, Stavros (eds.), Morphologie/Morphology, Vol. 2, 1343–58. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Trommer, Jochen. 2012. Ø-exponence. In Trommer, Jochen (ed.), The Morphology and Phonology of Exponence, 326–54. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Acquaviva, Paolo. 2008. Lexical Plurals: A Morphosemantic Approach. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Andersen, Henning. 2008. Naturalness and markedness. In Klaas, W. and De Cuypere, L. (eds.), Naturalness and Iconicity in Language, 101–19. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

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

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

Baayen, R. Harald. 2007. Storage and computation in the mental lexicon. In Jarema, Gonia and Libben, Gary (eds.), The Mental Lexicon, 81–104. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald; McQueen, James, Dijkstra, Ton, and Schreuder, Robert. 2003. Frequency effects in regular inflectional morphology: Revisiting Dutch plurals. In Baayen, R. H. and Schreuder, R. (eds.), Morphological Structure in Language Processing, 355–90. Berlin: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald; Milin, Petar, Durdevic, Dusica Filipovic, Hendrix, Peter, and Marelli, Marco. 2011. An amorphous model for morphological processing in visual comprehension based on naive discriminative learning. Psychological Review 118, 438–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Baerman, Matthew; Brown, Dunstan, and Corbett, Greville G. (eds.) 2015. Understanding and Measuring Morphological Complexity. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baicchi, Annalisa. 2004. The cataphoric indexicality of titles. In Aijmer, Karin and Stenström, Ana-Brita (eds.), Discourse Patterns in Spoken and Written Corpora, 17–38. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bauer, Laurie. 1983. English Word-Formation. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bauer, Laurie. 2001. Morphological Productivity. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bittner, Andreas. 1988. Is anything “more natural”? Considerations on establishing a hierarchy of Naturalness Principles (NP). Linguistische Studien A, 188, 23–35.Google Scholar

Bittner, Dagmar; Dressler, Wolfgang U., and Kilani-Schoch, Marianne (eds.) 2003. Development of Verb Inflection in First Language Acquisition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Booij, Geert. 2000. Inflection and derivation. In Booij, Geert, Lehmann, Christian, and Mugdan, Joachim (eds.), Morphologie, vol. 1., 360–9. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boudelaa, Sami, and Marslen-Wilson, William. 2011. Productivity and priming: Morphemic decomposition in Arabic. Language and Cognitive Processes 26.4/5/6, 624–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 1995. Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 10.5, 425–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 2001. Phonology and Language Use. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 2011. Markedness: iconicity, economy, and frequency. In Song, Jae Jung (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology, 131–47. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 1994. Inflection classes, gender and the principle of contrast. Language 70.4, 737–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 1998. Paradigmatic structures: Inflectional paradigms and morphological classes. In Spencer, Andrew and Zwicky, Arnold, The Handbook of Morphology, 322–34. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1980. Rules and Representations. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Corbett, Greville, and Fraser, Norman. 1993. Network morphology: A DATR account of Russian inflectional morphology. Journal of Linguistics 29, 113–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Corbin, Danielle. 1987. Morphologie dérivationnelle et structuration du lexique, Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar

Crocco-Galèas, Grazia. 1990. Conversion as morphological metaphor. In Dosuna, Julián Méndez and Pensado, Carmen (eds.), Naturalists at Krems, 23–32. Universidad de Salamanca.Google Scholar

Crocco-Galèas, Grazia. 1991. Gli etnici italiani: Studio di morfologia naturale, Padua: Unipress.Google Scholar

Croft, William. 2008. On iconicity of distance. Cognitive Linguistics 19.1, 49–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cysouw, Michael. 2010. Dealing with diversity: Towards an explanation of NP-internal word frequencies. Linguistic Typology 14, 253–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Doleschal, Ursula, and Thornton, Anna M. (eds.) 2000. Extragrammatical and Marginal Morphology. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar

Donegan, Patricia, and Stampe, David. 1979. The study of Natural Phonology. In Dinnsen, Daniel A. (ed.), Current Approaches to Phonological Theory, 126–73. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

Downing, Laura J., and Stiebels, Barbara. 2012. Iconicity. In Trommer, Jochen (ed.), The Morphology and Phonology of Exponence, 379–426. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1985a. Morphonology. Ann Arbor: Karoma.Google Scholar

Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1985b. On the predictiveness of Natural Morphology. Journal of Linguistics 21, 321–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1986. Explanation in natural morphology, illustrated with comparative and agent-noun formation. Linguistics 24, 519–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1988a. Zur Bedeutung der Sprachtypologie in der Natürlichen Morphologie. In Albrecht, Jörn, Thun, Harald, and Lüdtke, Jens (eds.), Energeia und Ergon, vol. 3, 199–208. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar

Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1988b. Preferences vs. strict universals in morphology: Word based rules. In Hammond, Michael and Noonan, Michael (eds.), Theoretical Morphology, 143–54. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1989. Prototypical differences between inflection and derivation. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 42, 3–10.Google Scholar

Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1990. Sketching submorphemes within Natural Morphology. In Dosuna, Julián Méndez and Pensado, Carmen (eds.), Naturalists at Krems, 33–41. Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca.Google Scholar

Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1996. Principles of naturalness in phonology and across components. In Hurch, Bernhard and Rhodes, Richard (eds.), Natural Phonology: The State of the Art, 41–51. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1997. On productivity and potentiality in Inflectional Morphology. CLASNET Working Papers 7, 2–22.Google Scholar

Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1998. What is the core of morphology? In Niemi, Jussi, Odlin, Terence, and Heikkinen, Janne (eds.), Language Contact, Variation and Change, Studies in Languages 32, 15–32. University of Joensuu.Google Scholar

Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1999. Richezza e complessita morfologica. In Benincà, Paola, Mioni, Alberto M., and Vanelli, Laura (eds.), Fonologia e morfologia dell’italiano e dei dialetti d’Italia: Atti del XXI. congresso SLI, 587–97. Rome: Bulzoni.Google Scholar

Dressler, Wolfgang U. 2000a. Extragrammatical vs. marginal morphology. In Doleschal, Ursula and Thornton, Anna M. (eds.), Extragrammatical and Marginal Morphology, 1–10. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar

Dressler, Wolfgang U. 2000b. Subtraction. In Booij, Geert, Lehmann, Christian, and Mugdan, Joachim (eds.), Morphologie/Morphology, vol. 1, 581–8. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Dressler, Wolfgang U. 2000c. Textlinguistik und Semiotik. In Brinker, Klays, Antos, Gerd, Heinemann, Wolfgang, and Sager, Sven F. (eds.), Text- und Gesprächslinguistik, vol. 1, 762–72. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Dressler, Wolfgang U. 2002. Latin inflection classes. In Bolkenstein, Alide Machtelt, Kroon, Caroline H. M., Pinkster, Harm, Remmelink, H. W., and Risselada, Rodie (eds.), Theory and Description in Latin Linguistics, 90–110. Amsterdam: Gieben.Google Scholar

Dressler, Wolfgang U. 2003. Naturalness and morphological change. In Joseph, Brian D. and Janda, Richard D. (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, 461–71. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Dressler, Wolfgang U. 2004. Degrees of grammatical productivity in inflectional morphology. Italian Journal of Linguistics 15, 31–62.Google Scholar

Dressler, Wolfgang U. 2005. Word-formation in Natural Morphology. In Štekauer, Pavel and Lieber, Rochelle (eds.), Handbook of Word-Formation, 267–84. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Dressler, Wolfgang U. 2006. Introduction: Natural Morphology. Folia Linguistica 40, 1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dressler, Wolfgang U. 2007a. Compound types. In Libben, Gary and Jarema, Gonia (eds.), The Representation and Processing of Compound Verbs, 23–44. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dressler, Wolfgang U. 2007b. Productivity in word formation. In Jarema, Gonia and Libben, Gary (eds.), The Mental Lexicon, 159–83. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Dressler, Wolfgang U. 2010. A typological approach to first language acquisition. In Kail, Michèle and Hickmann, Maya (eds.), Language Acquisition Across Linguistic and Cognitive Systems, 109–24. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Dressler, Wolfgang U. 2011. The rise of complexity in inflectional morphology. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 47.2, 159–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dressler, Wolfgang U. 2012. On the acquisition of inflectional morphology: Introduction. Morphology 22, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dressler, Wolfgang U. 2014a. Conflicting vs. convergent vs. interdependent motivations in morphology. In MacWhinney, Brian, Malchukov, Andrei, and Moravcsik, Edith (eds.), Competing Motivations in Grammar and Usage. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Dressler, Wolfgang U. 2014b. On the morpheme-submorpheme continuum in Latin pronoun families. In Poccetti, Paolo (ed.), Proceedings of the 17th Colloquium on Latin Linguistics. In press.Google Scholar

Dressler, Wolfgang U., and Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, Katarzyna. 2006. Proposing morphonotactics. Italian Journal of Linguistics 18.2, 249–66.Google Scholar

Dressler, Wolfgang U., and Kilani-Schoch, Marianne. 2003. Hierarchy and the classification of French verbs. In Brend, Ruth, Headland, Thomas N., and Wise, Mary Ruth (eds.), Language and Life Essays in Memory of K. Pike, 551–67. Arlington: SIL.Google Scholar

Dressler, Wolfgang U., and Kilani-Schoch, Marianne. 2008. Subregularität vs. Irregularität in der französischen, italienischen, lateinischen und deutschen Verbalflexion. In Stroh, Cornelia and Urdze, Aina (eds.), Morphologische Irregularität: Neue Ansätze, Sichtweisen und Daten, 29–47. Bochum: Universitätsverlag Brockmeyer.Google Scholar

Dressler, Wolfgang U., and Kilani-Schoch, Marianne. 2009. Subregularities in Latin and Romance personal pronouns. In Sánchez Miret, Fernando (ed.), Romanística sin complejos: Homenaje a Carmen Pensado, 335–55. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Dressler, Wolfgang U., and Ladányi, Maria. 2000. Productivity in word formation: A morphological approach. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 47.1–4, 103–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dressler, Wolfgang U., and Barbaresi, Lavinia Merlini. 1994. Morphopragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dressler, Wolfgang U., and Mörth, Karlheinz. 2012. Produktive und weniger produktive Komposition in ihrer Rolle im Text an Hand der Beziehungen zwischen Titel und Text. In Gaeta, Livio and Schlücker, Barbara (eds.), Das Deutsche als kompositionsfreudige Sprache, 219–32. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Dressler, Wolfgang U.; Mayerthaler, Willi, Panagl, Oswald, and Wurzel, Wolfgang U.. 1987. Leitmotifs in Natural Morphology. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dressler, Wolfgang U., and Ladányi, Maria. 2000. Productivity in word formation (WF): A morphological approach. Acta Linguistica Hungarica, 47.1–4, 103–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dressler, Wolfgang U., Boretzky, Norbert, Orešnik, Janez, Terz˘an, K., and Wurzel, Wolfgang U. (eds.) 1995. Natürlichkeitstheorie und Sprachwandel. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar

Dressler, Wolfgang U.; Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, Katarzyna, and Spina, Rossella. 2001. Sources of markedness in language structures. Folia Linguistica Historica 22, 103–35.Google Scholar

Dressler, Wolfgang U.; Kilani-Schoch, Marianne, and Klampfer, Sabine. 2003a. How does a child detect morphology? Evidence from production. In. Baayen, Harold and Schreuder, Robert (eds.), Morphological Structure in Language Processing, 391–425. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dressler, Wolfgang U.; Kilani-Schoch, Marianne, Spina, Rossella, and Thornton, Anna M.. 2003b. Le classi di conjugazione in italiano e francese. In Giacomo-Marcellesi, Mathée and Rocchetti, Alvaro (eds.), Il verbo italiano: Atti del 35. congresso internazionale de la Società di Linguistica Italiana, 397–416. Rome: Bulzoni.Google Scholar

Dressler, Wolfgang U.; Kilani-Schoch, Marianne, Gagarina, Natalia, Pestal, Lina, and Pöchtrager, Markus. 2006. On the typology of inflection class systems. Folia Linguistica 40, 51–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dressler, Wolfgang U.; Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, Katarzyna, Gagarina, Natalia, and Kilani-Schoch, Marianne. 2014. Reduplication, repetition, hypercharacterization and other affix-doubling in child language. In Manova, Stela (ed.), Affix Ordering Across Languages and Frameworks, 259–76. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Finkel, Raphael, and Stump, Gregory T.. 2007. Principal parts and morphological typology. Morphology 17.1, 39–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fliedl, Günther. 1999. Natürlichkeitstheoretische Morphosyntax. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar

Fradin, Bernard. 2009. Romance, French. In Lieber, Rochelle and Štekauer, Pavol (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Compounding, 417–35. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Fradin, Bernard; Montermini, Fabio, and Plénat, Marc. 2009. Morphologie grammaticale et extragrammaticale. In Fradin, B., Kerleroux, Françoise, and Plénat, Marc (eds.), Aperçus de morphologie du français, 21–45. Paris: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes.Google Scholar

Gaeta, Livio. 2006. How to live naturally and not be bothered by economy? Folia Linguistica 40.1–2, 7–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gardani, Francesco. 2013. Dynamics of Morphological Productivity: The Evolution of Noun Classes From Latin to Italian. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Greenberg, J. H. (ed.), Universals of Human Language, 73–113. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Haiman, John. 2008. In defence of iconicity, Cognitive Linguistics 19.1, 35–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 2006. Against markedness. Journal of Linguistics 42, 25–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. 2008. Frequency vs. iconicity in explaining grammatical asymmetries. Cognitive Linguistics 19.1, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hayes, Bruce. 1985. Iambic and trochaic rhythm in stress rules. Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 429–46.Google Scholar

Hurch, Bernhard. 1996. Accentuations. In Hurch, B. and Rhodes, Richard (eds.), Natural Phonology: The State of the Art, 73–96. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jakobson, Roman. 1971. Selected Writings [1931]. The Hague and Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar

Jarema, Gonia, and Libben, Gary. 2007. The Mental Lexicon. Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kilani-Schoch, Marianne. 1988. Introduction à la morphologie naturelle. Bern: Lang.Google Scholar

Kilani-Schoch, Marianne, and Dressler, Wolfgang U.. 1999. Perspective morphopragmatique sur les formations en -o du français branché. In Mel’čuk, Igor (ed.), Dictionnaire explicatif et combinatoire du français contemporain: Recherches lexico-sémantiques, vol. 4, 55–66. Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kilani-Schoch, Marianne, and Dressler, Wolfgang U.. 2005. Morphologie naturelle et flexion du verbe français. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar

Kilani-Schoch, Marianne, and Dressler, Wolfgang U.. 2014a. L’iconicité dans la morphologie flexionnelle du français. Le Français moderne 1, 78–103.Google Scholar

Kilani-Schoch, Marianne, and Dressler, Wolfgang U.. 2014b. Irregular regularities in extragrammatical morphology. In Ronneberger-Sibold, Elke and Stolz, Thomas (eds.), Irregularity in Inflectional and Derivational Morphology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. To appear.Google Scholar

Klaus, Georg. 1968. Wörterbuch der Kybernetik. Berlin: Dietz.Google Scholar

Koj, Leon. 1979. The principle of transparency and semantic antinomies. In Pelc, J. (ed.), Semiotics in Poland, 376–406. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar

Korecky-Kröll, Katharina; Libben, Gary, Stempfer, Nicole, Wiesinger, Julia, Reinisch, Eva, Bertl, Johannes, and Dressler, Wolfgang U.. 2012. Helping a crocodile to learn German plurals: Children’s online judgment of actual, potential and illegal plural forms. Morphology 16, 35–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Leiss, Elisabeth. 2000. Artikel und Aspekt. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Leiss, Elisabeth. 2005. Historische Morphologie und Syntax des Deutsche. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Longtin, Catherine-Marie; Ségui, Juan, and Hallé, Pierre A.. 2003. Morphological priming without morphological relationship. Language and Cognitive Processes 18.3, 313–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Manova, Stela. 2011. Understanding Morphological Rules. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Manova, Stela, and Dressler, Wolfgang U.. 2005. The morphological technique of conversion in the inflecting-fusional type. In Bauer, Laurie and Valera, Salvador H. (eds.), Approaches to Conversion/Zero-Derivation, 67–102. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar

Marle, Jaap van. 1985. On the Paradigmatic Dimension of Morphological Creativity. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Marshall, Chloë R., and van der Lely, Heather K.. 2012. Phonological effects on inflection: Further studies of typical development and Grammatical-SLI. Morphology 22.1, 121–41.Google Scholar

Marslen-Wilson, William D. 2006. Morphology and language processing. On-line Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 295–9.Google Scholar

Marslen-Wilson, William D., and Tyler, Lorraine K.. 1998. Rules, representations and the English past tense. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2.11, 428–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Mayerthaler, Willi. 1977. Studien zur theoretischen und zur französischen Morphologie: Reduplikation, Echowörter, morphologische Natürlichkeit, Haplologie, Produktivität, Regeltelescoping, paradigmatischer Ausgleich. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mayerthaler, Wili. 1981. Morphologische Natürlichkeit. Wiesbaden: Athenaion (English translation: 1988. Morphological Naturalness. Ann Arbor: Karoma Press).Google Scholar

Mayerthaler, Willi; Fliedl, Günther, and Christian, Winkler. 1993. Infinitivprominenz in europäischen Sprachen, vol. 1. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar

Mayerthaler, Willi; Fliedl, Günther, and Winkler, Christian. 1995. Infinitivprominenz in europäischen Sprachen, vol. 2. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar

Mayerthaler, Willi; Fliedl, Günther, and Winkler, Christian. 1998. Lexikon der Natürlichkeitstheoretischen Syntax und Morphosyntax. Tübingen: Stauffenberg.Google Scholar

Meyer, Ralf. 1992. Compound Comprehension in Isolation and in Context. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar

Mel’čuk, Igor 2000. Cours de morphologie générale, vol. 5. Montreal: CNRS.Google Scholar

Mörth, Karlheinz, and Dressler, W. U.. 2014. German plural doublets with and without meaning differentiation. In Rainer, Franz, Gardani, Francesco, Luschützky, Hans Christian and Dressler, Wolfgang U. (eds.), Morphology and Meaning, 249–58. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Motsch, Wolfgang. 1981. Der kreative Aspekt in der Wortbildung. In Lipka, Leonhard (ed.), Wortbildung, 94–118. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar

Nübling, Damaris; Fahlbusch, Fabian, and Heuser, Rita. 2012. Eine Einführung in die Onomastik. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar

Orešnik, Janez. 2004. Naturalness in (Morpho)Syntax: English Examples. Ljubljana: Academia Scientiarum et Artium Slovenica.Google Scholar

Peirce, Charles S. 1965. Collected Papers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Pirrelli, Vito; Ferro, Marcello, and Calderone, Basilio. 2011. Learning paradigms in time and space: Computational evidence from Romance languages. In Maiden, Martin, Smith, John Charles, Goldbach, Maria, and Hinzelin, Marc-Olivier (eds.), Morphological Autonomy: Perspectives from Romance Inflectional Morphology, 135–57. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Plag, Ingo. 2004. Syntactic category information and the semantics of derivational morphological rules. Folia Linguistica 38.3–4, 193–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rainer, Franz. 1993. Spanische Wortbildungslehre. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rainer, Franz; Dressler, Wolfgang U., Gardani, Francesco, and Luschützky, Hans Christian. 2014. Morphology and meaning: An overview. In Rainer, F., Gardani, F., Luschützky, H. C., and Dressler, W. U. (eds.), Morphology and Meaning, 3–46. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1973. Cours de linguistique générale [1915], Paris: Payot.Google Scholar

Scherer, Bernd M. 1984. Prolegomena zu einer einheitlichen Zeichentheorie. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar

Schultink, Hendrik. 1961. Produktiviteit als morfologisch fenomeen. Forum der Letteren 2, 110–25.Google Scholar

Seiler, Hansjakob. 1991. The dimension of oppositeness. akup (Arbeiten des kölner universalien Projekts) 84.Google Scholar

Sgall, Petr. 1993. Skaličkas Sprachtypologie und ihre Fortsetzungen. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF) 46, 318–29.Google Scholar

Shimron, Joseph (ed.) 2002. Language Processing and Acquisition in Languages of Semitic, Root-based, Morphology. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Siewierska, Anna, and Bakker, Dik. 2013. Suppletion in person forms: The role of iconicity and transparency. In Bakker, Dick and Haspelmath, Martin (eds.), Languages across Boundaries, 347–95. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Siyanova-Chanturia, Anna. 2013. Eye-tracking and ERP’s in multi-word expression research. The Mental Lexicon 8.2, 245–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Skalička, Vladimir. 1979. Typologische Studien. Braunschweig: Vieweg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Skousen, Royal. 1989. Analogical Modeling of Language. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Stampe, David. 1973. On Chapter Nine. In Kenstowicz, M. and Kisseberth, C. (eds.), Issues in Phonological Theory, 44–52. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stephany, Ursula, and Voeikova, Maria (eds.) 2009. Development of Nominal Inflection in First Language Acquisition: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stump, Gregory T. 2001. Inflectional Morphology. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Thornton, Anna. 2011. Overabundance (Multiple Forms Realizing the Same Cell): A Non-Canonical Phenomenon in Italian Verb Morphology. In Maiden, Martin, Smith, John Charles, Goldbach, Maria, and Hinzelin, Marc-Olivier (eds.), Morphological Autonomy: Perspectives from Romance Inflectional Morphology, 362–85. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Thornton, Anna. 2012. Reduction and maintenance of overabundance: A case study on Italian verb paradigms. Word Structure 5, 183–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wheeler, Max W. 1993. On the hierarchy of naturalness principles in inflectional morphology. Journal of Linguistics 29, 95–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wunderlich, Dieter. 1986. Probleme der Wortstruktur. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 5, 209–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wurzel, Wolfgang U. 1984. Flexionsmorphologie und Natürlichkeit. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar

Wurzel, Wolfgang U. 1987. System-dependent morphological naturalness in inflection. In Dressler, W. U. et al., Leitmotifs in Natural Morphology, 59–96. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wurzel, Wolfgang U. 1993. Morphology, Natural. In Asher, R. E. and Simpson, J. M. Y., The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2590–8. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar

Wurzel, Wolfgang U. 1994. Grammatisch initiierter Wandel. In Jeßing, Benedict (ed.), Sprachdynamik: Auf dem Weg zu einer Typologie sprachlichen Wandels, vol. 1, 7–114. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar

Zwicky, Arnold, and Pullum, Geoffrey. 1987. Plain morphology and expressive morphology. Berkeley Linguistic Society Papers 13, 339.Google Scholar

Aissen, Judith, and Perlmutter, David. 1976. Clause reduction in Spanish. In Thompson, Henry, Whistler, Kenneth, Edge, Vicki, Jaeger, Jeri, Javkin, Ronya, Petruck, Miriam, Smeall, Christopher, and Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. (eds.), Proceedings of the Second Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society (BLS 2), 1–30. Berkeley Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

Anagnostopoulou, Elena, and Samioti, Yota. 2014. Domains within words and their meanings: A case study. In Alexiadou, Artemis, Borer, Hagit, and Schäfer, Florian (eds.), The Syntax of Roots and the Roots of Syntax, 81–111. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anderson, Stephen R. 1984. On representations in morphology: Case marking, agreement and inversion in Georgian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2, 157–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

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

Arad, Maya. 2003. Locality constraints on the interpretation of roots: The case of Hebrew denominal verbs. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21, 737–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aronoff, Mark. 1976. Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

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

Arregi, Karlos. 2001. Person and number inflection in Basque. In Fernández, Beatriz and Albizu, Pablo (eds.), On Case and Agreement, 71–111. Bilbo: Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea.Google Scholar

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

Baayen, R. Harald, and Renouf, Antoinette. 1996. Chronicling the Times: Productive lexical innovations in an English newspaper. Language 72, 69–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baker, Mark C. 1985. The Mirror Principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry 16.3, 373–415.Google Scholar

Baker, Mark C. 1988. Incorporation: A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Baker, Mark C. 1996. The Polysynthesis Parameter. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beard, Robert. 1995. Lexeme-Morpheme Based Morphology: A General Theory of Inflection and Word Formation. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar

Béjar, Susana. 2003. Phi-syntax: A Theory of Agreement. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar

Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2000. The ins and outs of contextual allomorphy. In Grohmann, Kleanthes K. and Struijke, Caro (eds.), University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics 10, 35–71. College Park: University of Maryland.Google Scholar

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

Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2002b. Realizing Germanic inflection: Why morphology does not drive syntax. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 6, 129–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2008. Paradigms, optimal and otherwise: A case for skepticism. In Bachrach, Asaf and Nevins, Andrew Ira (eds.), Inflectional Identity, 29–54. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2012. Universals in Comparative Morphology: Suppletion, Superlatives, and the Structure of Words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bobaljik, Jonathan David, and Jonas, Dianne. 1996. Subject positions and the roles of TP. Linguistic Inquiry 27, 195–236.Google Scholar

Bobaljik, Jonathan David, and Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1998. Two heads aren’t always better than one. Syntax 1, 37–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bonet, Eulàlia 1991. Morphology after Syntax: Pronominal Clitics in Romance. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar

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

Borer, Hagit. 2013. Taking Form: Structuring Sense, vol. 3. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bresnan, Joan. 2001. Explaining morphosyntactic competition. In Baltin, Mark and Collins, Chris (eds.), Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, 1–44. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Bruening, Benjamin. 2010. Ditransitive asymmetries and a theory of idiom formation. Linguistic Inquiry 41, 519–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Caha, Pavel. 2009. The Nanosyntax of Case. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar

Carstairs, Andrew. 1987. Allomorphy in Inflection. Croom Helm Linguistics Series. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar

Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 1994. Inflection classes, gender and the Principle of Contrast. Language 70, 737–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Jacobs, Roderick and Rosenbaum, Peter (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, 184–221. Waltham, MA: Blaisdell.Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, Roger, Michaels, David, and Uriagereka, Juan (eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

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

Cowper, Elizabeth. 2005. A note on number. Linguistic Inquiry 36, 441–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Embick, David. 2000. Features, syntax, and categories in the Latin perfect. Linguistic Inquiry 31, 185–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Embick, David. 2010. Localism versus Globalism in Morphology and Phonology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Embick, David, and Halle, Morris. 2005. On the status of stems in morphological theory. In Geerts, Twan, van Ginneken, Ivo, and Jacobs, Haike (eds.), Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2003, 59–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Embick, David, and Marantz, Alec. 2008. Architecture and blocking. Linguistic Inquiry 39, 1–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Fabb, Nigel. 1988. English suffixation is constrained only by selectional restrictions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6, 527–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Givón, Talmy. 1976. Some constraints on Bantu causativization. In Shibatani, Masayoshi (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, vol. 6: The Grammar of Causative Constructions, 325–51. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

González-Poot, Antonio, and McGinnis, Martha. 2006. Local versus long-distance Fission in Distributed Morphology. In Claire Gurski (ed.), Proceedings of the 2005 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association. Available online at http://westernlinguistics.ca/Publications/CLA-ACL/CLA-ACL2005.htm (accessed on April 11, 2016).Google Scholar

Hale, Kenneth, and Keyser, Samuel Jay. 1993. On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel Jay (eds.), The View from Building 20, 53–109. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Halle, Morris. 2000. Distributed Morphology: Impoverishment and fission. In Lecarme, Jacqueline, Lowenstamm, Jean, and Shlonsky, Ur (eds.), Research in Afroasiatic Grammar: Papers from the Third Conference on Afroasiatic Languages, Sophia Antipolis, 1996, 125–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

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

Halle, Morris, and Marantz, Alec. 1994. Some key features of Distributed Morphology. In Carnie, Andrew, Harley, Heidi, and Bures, Tony (eds.), MITWPL 21: Papers on Phonology and Morphology, 275–88. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT.Google Scholar

Halle, Morris, and Marantz, Alec. 2008. Clarifying ‘blur’: Paradigms, defaults, and inflectional classes. In Bachrach, Asaf and Nevins, Andrew Ira (eds.), Inflectional Identity, 55–72. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hankamer, Jorge, and Mikkelsen, Line. 2002. A morphological analysis of definite nouns in Danish. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 14, 137–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hankamer, Jorge, and Mikkelsen, Line. 2005. When movement must be blocked: A response to Embick and Noyer. Linguistic Inquiry 36, 85–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harley, Heidi. 1994. Hug a tree: Deriving the morphosyntactic feature hierarchy. In Carnie, Andrew and Harley, Heidi (eds.), MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 21: Papers on Phonology and Morphology, Working Papers in Linguistics, 289–320. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Harley, Heidi. 2013. External arguments and the Mirror Principle: On the distinctness of Voice and v. Lingua 125, 34–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harley, Heidi. 2014. On the identity of roots. Theoretical Linguistics 40, 225–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harley, Heidi, and Ritter, Elizabeth. 2002. Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language 78, 482–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harley, Heidi, and Tubino Blanco, Mercedes. 2013. Cycles, vocabulary items, and stem forms in Hiaki. In Matushansky, Ora and Marantz, Alec (eds.), Distributed Morphology Today: Morphemes for Morris Halle, 117–34. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT.Google Scholar

Harris, James. 1996. The morphology of Spanish clitics. In Campos, Hector and Kempchinsky, Paula (eds.), Evolution and Revolution in Linguistic Theory: Studies in Honor of Carlos P. Otero, 168–97. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

Haugen, Jason D., and Siddiqi, Daniel. 2013. Roots and the derivation. Linguistic Inquiry 44, 493–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hill, Kenneth C., and Black, Mary E.. 1998. A sketch of Hopi grammar. In The Hopi Dictionary Project (ed.), Hopi Dictionary/Hopìikwa Lavàytutuveni: A Hopi-English Dictionary of the Third Mesa Dialect, 861–900. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar

Hyman, Larry M. 2003. Suffix ordering in Bantu: A morphocentric approach. Yearbook of Morphology 2002, 245–281.Google Scholar

Jacobsen, Wesley M. 1992. The Transitive Structure of Events in Japanese. Tokyo: Kurioso.Google Scholar

Jaeggli, Osvaldo, and Hyams, Nina M.. 1993. On the independence and interdependence of syntactic and morphological properties: English aspectual come and go. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11, 313–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kim, Kyumin. 2011. High applicatives in Korean causatives and passives. Lingua 121, 487–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul. 2005. Blocking and periphrasis in inflectional paradigms. Yearbook of Morphology 2004, 113–35.Google Scholar

Krämer, Martin, and Wunderlich, Dieter. 1999. Transitivity alternations in Yucatec, and the correlation between aspect and argument roles. Linguistics 37, 431–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kratzer, Angelika. 1996. Severing the external argument from its verb. In Rooryck, Johan and Zaring, Laurie (eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, 109–37. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar

Kula, Nancy Chongo. 2002. The Phonology of Verbal Derivation in Bemba. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar

Legate, Julie. 2014. Voice and v: Lessons from Acehnese. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Libben, Gary. 2006. Why study compounds?: An overview of the issues. In Libben, Gary and Jarema, Gonia (eds.), The Representation and Processing of Compound Words, 1–2. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Lieber, Rochelle. 1992. Deconstructing Morphology: Word Formation in Syntactic Theory. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Lomashvili, Leila, and Harley, Heidi. 2011. Phases and templates in Georgian agreement. Studia Linguistica 65, 233–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Marantz, Alec. 1984. On the Nature of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Marantz, Alec. 1988. Clitics, morphological merger, and the mapping to phonological structure. In Hammond, Michael and Noonan, Michael (eds.), Theoretical Morphology: Approaches in Modern Linguistics, 253–70. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Marantz, Alec. 1989. Clitics and phrase structure. In Baltin, Mark and Kroch, Anthony (eds.), Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure, 99–116. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Marantz, Alec. 1995. A late note on late insertion. In Kim, Young–Sun, Lee, Byung-Choon, Lee, Kyoung-Jae, Yang, Kyun-Kwon, and Yoon, Jong-Kuri (eds.), Explorations in Generative Grammar, 396–413. Seoul: Hankuk.Google Scholar

Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In Dimitriadis, Alexis, Siegel, Laura, Surek-Clark, Clarissa, and Williams, Alexander (eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium, 201–25. Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4.2. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar

Marantz, Alec. 2001. Words. Handout of a talk, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Marantz, Alec. 2013. Locality domains for contextual allomorphy across the interfaces. In Matushansky, Ora and Marantz, Alec (eds.), Distributed Morphology Today: Morphemes for Morris Halle, 95–115. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Matushansky, Ora. 2013. More or better: On the derivation of synthetic comparatives and superlatives in English. In Matushansky, Ora and Marantz, Alec (eds.), Distributed Morphology Today: Morphemes for Morris Halle, 59–78. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McCarthy, John J. 2005. Optimal paradigms. In Downing, Laura, Hall, Tracy Alan, and Raffeleisen, Renate (eds.), Paradigms in Phonological Theory, 170–210. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

McGinnis, Martha. 2002. On the systematic aspect of idioms. Linguistic Inquiry 33, 665–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McGinnis, Martha. 2005. On markedness asymmetries in person and number. Language 81.3, 699–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McGinnis, Martha. 2008a. Phi-feature competition in morphology and syntax. In Harbour, Daniel, Adger, David, and Béjar, Susana (eds.), Phi-feature competition: Phi-features across Modules and Interfaces, 155–84. Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

McGinnis, Martha. 2008b. Applicatives. Language and Linguistic Compass 2, 1225–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McGinnis, Martha. 2013. Agree and fission in Georgian plurals. In Matushansky, Ora and Marantz, Alec (eds.), Distributed Morphology Today: Morphemes for Morris Halle, 39–58. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Müller, Gereon. 2007. Notes on paradigm economy. Morphology 17, 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nevins, Andrew, and Sandalo, Filomena. 2011. Markedness and morphotactics in Kadiwéu [+participant] agreement. Morphology 21, 351–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Noyer, Robert Rolf. 1992. Features, Positions and Affixes in Autonomous Morphological Structure. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. Revised version published by Garland, New York, 1997.Google Scholar

Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero Syntax: Experiencers and Cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Poser, William J. 1992. Blocking of phrasal constructions by lexical items. In Sag, Ivan and Szabolcsi, Anna (eds.), Lexical Matters, 111–30. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Pylkkänen, L. 2008. Introducing Arguments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rohrbacher, Bernhard. 1999. Morphology-driven Syntax: A Theory of V to I Raising and Pro-drop. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ruwet, Nicolas. 1991. On the use and abuse of idioms. In Goldsmith, John (trans.), Syntax and Human Experience, 171–251. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Siddiqi, Daniel. 2009. Syntax within the Word: Economy, Allomorphy, and Argument Selection in Distributed Morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Starke, Michal. 2009. Nanosyntax: A short primer on a new approach to language. In Svenonius, Peter, Ramchand, Gillian, Starke, Michal, and Taraldsen, Tarald (eds.), Nordlyd, Tromsø University Working Papers on Language and Linguistics 36, 1–6. University of Tromsø.Google Scholar

Stump, Gregory T. 1997. Template morphology and inflectional morphology. Yearbook of Morphology 1996, 217–41.Google Scholar

Svenonius, Peter. 2012. Look both ways: Outward-looking allomorphy in Icelandic participles. Ling Buzz. Available online at http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001519 (accessed April 30, 2016).Google Scholar

Tourabi, Abderrezzak. 2002. Arabic subject-verb agreement affixes: Morphology, specification and spell-out. In Csirmaz, Aniko, Li, Zhiqiang, Nevins, Andrew, Vaysman, Olga, and Wagner, Michael (eds.), MITWPL 42: Phonological Answers, 329–56. Cambridge, MA: MITWPL, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT.Google Scholar

Volpe, Mark. 2005. Japanese Morphology and Its Theoretical Consequences: Derivational Morphology in Distributed Morphology. Ph.D. dissertation, Stony Brook University.Google Scholar

Williams, Edwin. 1994. Remarks on lexical knowledge. Lingua 92, 7–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ackerman, Farrell, and Stump, Gregory. 2004. Paradigms and periphrastic expression: A study in realization-based lexicalism. In Sadler, Louisa and Spencer, Andrew (eds.), Projecting Morphology, 111–57. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Ackerman, Farrell; Blevins, James P., and Malouf, Robert. 2009. Parts and wholes: Implicative patterns in inflectional paradigms. In Blevins, James P. and Blevins, Juliette (eds.), Analogy in Grammar, 54–82. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aihkenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentials. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Arcodia, Giorgio F. 2011. A Construction Morphology account of derivation in Mandarin Chinese. Morphology 21, 89–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ascoop, Kristin, and Leuschner, Torsten. 2006. Affixoidhungrig? Skitbra! Comparing affixoids in Swedish and German. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 59, 241–52.Google Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald; Burani, Christina, and Schreuder, Rob. 1997. Effects of semantic markedness in the processing of regular nominal singulars and plurals in Italian. Yearbook of Morphology 1996, 13–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald; McQueen, James M., Dijkstra, Ton, and Schreuder, Rob. 2003. Frequency effects in regular inflectional morphology: Revisiting Dutch plurals. In Baayen, R. Harald and Schreuder, Rob (eds.), Morphological Structure in Language Processing, 355–90. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barðdal, Jóhanna. 2008. Productivity: Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bauer, Laurie; Lieber, Rochelle, and Plag, Ingo. 2013. The Oxford Reference Guide to English Morphology. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beck, David, and Mel’cuk, Igor. 2011. Morphological phrasemes and Totonacan verbal morphology. Linguistics 49, 175–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Benigni, Valentina, and Masini, Francesca. 2009. Compounds in Russian. Lingue e Linguaggio 8, 171–93.Google Scholar

Blevins, James P. 2006. Word-based morphology. Journal of Linguistics 42, 531–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Booij, Geert. 2002. Separable complex verbs in Dutch: A case of periphrastic word formation. In Dehé, Nicole, Jackendoff, Ray, McIntyre, Andrew, and Urban, Silke (eds.), Verb-particle Explorations, 21–42. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Booij, Geert. 2005. Compounding and derivation: Evidence for Construction Morphology. In Dressler, Wolfgang U., Kastovsky, Dieter, Pfeiffer, Oskar E., and Rainer, Franz (eds.), Morphology and Its Demarcations, 109–32. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Booij, Geert. 2008. Constructional idioms as products of language change: The aan het + INFINITIVE construction in Dutch. In Bergs, Alexander and Diewald, Gabriele (eds.), Construction Grammar and Language Change, 79–104. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Booij, Geert. 2009. Lexical integrity as a morphological universal: A constructionist view. In Scalise, Sergio, Magni, Elisabetta, and Bisetto, Antonietta (eds.), Universals of Language Today, 83–100. Dordrecht: Springer Science + Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Booij, Geert. 2012. The Grammar of Words: An Introduction to Morphology. Oxford Textbooks in Linguistics, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Booij, Geert, and Hüning, Matthias. 2014. Affixoids and constructional idioms. In Boogaart, Ronny, Colleman, Timothy, and Rutten, Gijsbert (eds.), Extending the Scope of Construction Grammar, 77–105. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Booij, Geert. In press. Inheritance and motivation in Construction Morphology. In Gisborne, Nikolas and Hippisley, Andrew (eds.), Defaults in Morphological Theory. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Caballero, Gabriela, and Inkelas, Sharon. 2013. Word construction: Tracing an optimal path through the lexicon. Morphology 23, 103–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ceccagno, Antonella, and Basciano, Bianca. 2007. Compound headedness in Chinese: An analysis of neologisms. Morphology 17, 207–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chumakina, Marina, and Corbett, Greville G. (eds.) 2013. Periphrasis: The role of Syntax and Morphology in Paradigms. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Felíu Arquiola, Elena. 2011. Las reduplicaciones léxicas nominales en Español actual. Verba 38, 95–126.Google Scholar

Finkel, Raphael, and Stump, Gregory. 2007. Principal parts and morphological typology. Morphology 17, 39–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Finkel, Raphael, and Stump, Gregory. 2009. Principal parts and degrees of paradigmatic transparency. In Blevins, James P. and Blevins, Juliette (eds.), Analogy in Grammar, 13–53. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ghomeshi, Jila; Jackendoff, Ray, Rosen, Nicole, and Russell, Kevin. 2004. Contrastive focus reduplication in English (The salad-salad paper). Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 22, 307–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

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

Heath, Jeffrey, and McPherson, Laura. 2013. Tonosyntax and reference restriction in Dogon NPs. Language 89, 265–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hilpert, Martin. 2013. Constructional Change in English: Developments in Allomorphy, Word Formation and Syntax. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hilpert, Martin. 2014. Construction Grammar and Its Application to English. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Hoeksema, Jack. 2012. Elative compounds in Dutch: Properties and developments. In Oebel, Guido (ed.), Intensivierungskonzepte bei Adjektiven und Adverben im Sprachenvergleich / Crosslinguistic Comparison of Intensified Adjectives and Adverbs, 97–142. Hamburg: Verlag dr. Kovač.Google Scholar

Hoffmann, Thomas, and Trousdale, Graeme (eds.) 2013. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hüning, Matthias, and Booij, Geert. 2014. From compounding to derivation: The emergence of derivational affixes through “constructionalization.” Folia Linguistica 48, 579–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Inkelas, Sharon. 2014. The Interplay of Morphology and Phonology. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jackendoff, Ray. 1975. Semantic and morphological regularities in the lexicon. Language 51, 639–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of Language. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jackendoff, Ray. 2011. What is the human language faculty? Two views. Language 87, 586–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kageyama, Taro. 1999. Word formation. In Tsujimura, Natsuko (ed.), The Handbook of Japanese Linguistics, 297–325. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Kageyama, Taro. 2010. Variation between endocentric and exocentric word structures. Lingua 120, 2405–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kapatsinski, Vsevolod. 2013. Conspiring to mean: Experimental and computational evidence for a usage-based harmonic approach to morphophonology. Language 89, 110–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Khanjan, Alireza, and Alinezhad, Batool. 2010. A morphological doubling approach to full reduplication in Persian. SKY Journal of Linguistics 23, 169–98.Google Scholar

Kiefer, Ferenc. 1998. Morphology and pragmatics. In Spencer, Andrew and Zwicky, Arnold (eds.), The Handbook of Morphology, 272–80. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Kishimoto, Hideki, and Booij, Geert. 2014. Negative complex adjectives in Japanese: The relation between syntactic and morphological constructions. Word Structure 7, 55–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kutsch Lojenga, Constance. 1994. Ngiti: A Central-Sudanic language of Zaire. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag.Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Lee, Seung-Ah. 2007. Ing forms and the progressive puzzle: A construction-based approach to English progressives. Journal of Linguistics 43, 153–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Leuschner, Torsten, and Decroos, Nancy. 2008. Wortbildung zwischen System und Norm. Affixoïden im Deutschen und im Niederländischen. Sprachwissenschaft 33, 1–34.Google Scholar

Los, Bettelou; Blom, Corrien, Booij, Geert, Elenbaas, Marion, and Van Kemenade, Ans. 2012. Morphosyntactic Change: A Comparative Study of Particles and Prefixes. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lúis, Ana. 2014. The layering of form and meaning in creole word-formation: A view from construction morphology. In Rainer, Franz, Dressler, Wolfgang U., Gardani, Francesco, and Lüschützky, Hans (eds.), Morphology and Meaning, 223–38. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Masini, Francesca. 2009. Phrasal lexemes, compounds and phrases: A constructionist perspective. Word Structure 2, 254–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nesset, Tore. 2008. Abstract Phonology in a Concrete Model: Cognitive Linguistics and the Morphology-phonology Interface. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Namiki, Takayasu. 2010. Morphological variation in Japanese compounds: The case of hoodai and the notion of “compound-specific meaning.” Lingua 120, 2367–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Orie, Olanike Ola. 2012. Unifying Yoruba reduplication constructions and their semantic relatives. The Linguistic Review 29, 191–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Scholz, Cosima. 2012. Romanische Verb-Nomen Komposita: Grammatiktheoretische Perspektiven auf das Verhältnis von Komposition, Kompositionalität und Exozentrizität. Ph.D. dissertation, Freie Universität Berlin].Google Scholar

Spencer, Andrew. 2013. Lexical Relatedness. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Thornton, Anna M. 2008. Italian verb-verb reduplicative action nouns. Lingue e Linguaggio 7, 209–32.Google Scholar

Traugott, Elisabeth C. and Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Van Goethem, Kristel. 2008. Oud-leerling versus ancien élève: A comparative study of adjectives grammaticalizing into prefixes in Dutch and French. Morphology 18, 27–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Van Goethem, Kristel, and Hiligsmann, Philippe. 2014. When two paths converge: Debonding and clipping of Dutch reuze. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 26, 31–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Von Heusinger, Klaus, and Schwarze, Christoph. 2013. Italian V+N compounds, inflectional features and conceptual structure. Morphology 23, 325–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wray, Alison. 2002. Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ackerman, Farrell, and Stump, Gregory. 2004. Paradigms and periphrastic expression. In Sadler, Louisa and Spencer, Andrew (eds.), Projecting Morphology, 111–57. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Ackerman, Farrell, and Webelhuth, Gert. 1998. A Theory of Predicates. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Alcoba, Santiago 1999. La flexión verbal. In Muñoz, Ignacio Bosque and Barreto, Violeta Demonte (eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española: Entre la oración y el discurso, vol. 3: Morfología, 4915–91. Madrid: Editorial Espasa Calpe.Google Scholar

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

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

Aronoff, Mark, and Xu, Zheng. 2010. A realization optimality-theoretic approach to affix order. Morphology 20, 381–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baerman, Matthew. 2007. Morphological reversals. Journal of Linguistics 43, 33–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Bickel, Balthasar; Banjade, Goma, Gaenzle, 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

Blevins, James. 2006. Word-based morphology. Journal of Linguistics 42, 531–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Bonami, Olivier, and Boyé, Gilles. 2002. Suppletion and dependency in inflectional morphology. In van Eynde, Frank, Hellan, Lars, and Beermann, Dorothee (eds.), Proceedings of the HPSG 2001 Conference, Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Bonami, Olivier, and Boyé, Gilles. 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.), On-line Proceedings of the Fifth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting, 291–322. Università degli Studi di Bologna. https://geertbooij.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/mmm5-proceedings.pdf (accessed April 30, 2016).Google Scholar

Bonami, Olivier, and Samvelian, Pollet. 2008. Sorani Kurdish person markers and the typology of agreement. Paper read at the Thirteenth International Morphology Meeting, February 3, 2008. Vienna.Google Scholar

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

Bonami, Olivier, and Webelhuth, Gert. 2013. The phrase-structural diversity of periphrasis: A lexicalist account. In Chumakina, Marina and Corbett, Greville G., Periphrasis: The Role of Syntax and Morphology in Paradigms, 141–67. London and Oxford: British Academy and Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Börjars, Kersti; Vincent, Nigel, and Chapman, Carol. 1997. Paradigms, periphrases and pronominal inflection: A feature-based account. Yearbook of Morphology 1996, 155–80.Google Scholar

Brown, Dunstan, and Hippisley, Andrew. 2012. Network Morphology. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Crysmann, Berthold. 2002. Portuguese Cliticisation and Morphology-syntax Interaction in HPSG. Doctoral dissertation, Universität des Saarlandes.Google Scholar

Finkel, Raphael, and Stump, Gregory. 2007. Principal parts and morphological typology. Morphology 17, 39–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Finkel, Raphael, and Stump, Gregory. 2009. Principal parts and degrees of paradigmatic transparency. In Blevins, James P. and Blevins, Juliette (eds.), Analogy in Grammar: Form and Acquisition, 13–53. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

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

Hippisley, Andrew. 2007. Declarative deponency: A Network Morphology account of morphological mismatches. In Baerman, Matthew, Corbett, Greville, Brown, Dunstan, and Hippisley, Andrew (eds.), Deponency and Morphological Mismatches, 145–73. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hockett, Charles F. 1954. Two models of grammatical description. Word 10, 210–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Janda, Richard D. 1983, “Morphemes” aren’t something that grows on trees: Morphology as more the phonology than the syntax of words. In Richardson, J. F., Marks, M., and Chukerman, A. (eds.), Papers from the Parasession on the Interplay of Phonology, Morphology, and Syntax, 79–95. Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

Jörg, Christine. 1989. Isländische Konjugationstabellen. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.Google Scholar

Luís, Ana, and Spencer, Andrew. 2005. A paradigm function account of “mesoclisis” in European Portuguese. Yearbook of Morphology 2004, 177–228.Google Scholar

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

McFarland, Teresa Ann. 2009. The Phonology and Morphology of Filomeno Mata Totonac. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar

MacKenzie, David N. 1961–2. Kurdish Dialect Studies. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

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

Nevis, Joel A., and Joseph, Brian D.. 1992. Wackernagel affixes: Evidence from Balto-Slavic. Yearbook of Morphology 3, 93–111.Google Scholar

Pirelli, Vito, and Battista, Marco. 2000. The paradigmatic dimension of stem allomorphy in Italian verb inflection. Rivista di linguistica 12, 307–80.Google Scholar

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

Riggs, Stephen Return. 1893. Dakota Grammar, Texts, and Ethnography Contributions to North American Ethnology 9. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar

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

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

Samvelian, Pollet. 2007. What Sorani Kurdish absolute prepositions tell us about cliticization. In Hoyt, Frederic, Seifert, Nikki, Teodorescu, Alexandra, and White, Jessica (eds.), Texas Linguistics Society IX: The morphosyntax of understudied languages, 263–83. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Spencer, Andrew. 2003. The order of morphemes. In Fábregas, Antonio and Zurdo, Almudena (eds.), Cuadernos de Lingüística X, 53–64. Madrid: Instituto Universitario Ortega y Gasset.Google Scholar

Spencer, Andrew, and Stump, Gregory. 2013. Hungarian pronominal case and the dichotomy of content and form in inflectional morphology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31.4, 1207–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stewart, Tom, and Stump, Gregory. 2007. Paradigm Function Morphology and the morphology/syntax interface. In Ramchand, Gillian and Reiss, Charles (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, 383–421. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Stump, Gregory T. 1993a. How peculiar is evaluative morphology? Journal of Linguistics 29, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Stump, Gregory T. 1995. The uniformity of head marking in inflectional morphology. Yearbook of Morphology 1994, 245–96.Google Scholar

Stump, Gregory T. 2001. Inflectional Morphology. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stump, Gregory T. 2002. Morphological and syntactic paradigms: Arguments for a theory of paradigm linkage. Yearbook of Morphology 2001, 147–80.Google Scholar

Stump, Gregory T. 2006. Heteroclisis and paradigm linkage. Language 82, 279–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stump, Gregory T. 2010. Interactions between defectiveness and syncretism. In Baerman, Matthew, Corbett, Greville, and Brown, Dunstan (eds.), Defective Paradigms: Missing Forms and What They Tell Us, Proceedings of the British Academy 163, 181–210. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Stump, Gregory T. 2012. Variable affix ordering and the amorphousness hypothesis. Paper presented at the First American International Morphology Meeting (AIMM), University of Massachusetts, Amherst, September 22, 2012.Google Scholar

Stump, Gregory. 2016. Inflectional Paradigms: Content and Form at the Syntax-morphology Interface. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Stump, Gregory, and Finkel, Raphael. 2013. Morphological Typology: From Word to Paradigm. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stump, Gregory, and Hippisley, Andrew. 2011. Valence sensitivity in Pamirian past-tense inflection: A realizational analysis. In Korn, Agnes, Haig, Geoffrey, Karimi, Simin, and Samvelian, Pollet (eds.), Topics in Iranian Linguistics, 103–15. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag.Google Scholar

Thornton, Anna M. 2012. Reduction and maintenance of overabundance: A case study on Italian verb paradigms. Word Structure 5.2, 183–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walther, Géraldine. 2012. Fitting into morphological structure: Accounting for Sorani Kurdish endoclitics. In Ralli, Angela, Booij, Geert, Scalise, Sergio, and Karasimos, Athanasios (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Mediterranean Morphology Meeting, Cagliari, Italy, 300–21. University of Patras.Google Scholar

Whitney, William Dwight. 1889. Sanskrit Grammar, 2nd edn. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

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

Zwicky, Arnold M. 1994, Morphological metageneralizations: Morphology, phonology, and morphonology. Paper presented at the Kentucky Foreign Language Conference, University of Kentucky, April 1994.Google Scholar

Babrakzai, Farooq. 1999. Topics in Pashto Syntax. Doctoral dissertation, University of Hawai’i at Manoa.Google Scholar

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

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

Brown, Dunstan, and Hippisley, Andrew. 2012. Network Morphology: A Defaults-based Theory of Word Structure. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Corbett, Greville G. 2009. Canonical inflection classes. In Montermini, Fabio F., Boyé, Gilles, and Tseng, Jesse (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the Sixth Decembrettes: Morphology in Bordeaux, 1–11. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar

Corbett, Greville G., and Fraser, Norman. 1993. Network Morphology: A DATR account of Russian nominal inflection. Journal of Linguistics 29, 113–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Flobert, Pierre. 1975. Les Verbes déponents Latins des origines à Charlemagne. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar

Hippisley, Andrew, and Stump, Gregory. 2014. Network Morphology and paradigm signatures: Modeling variation in verb-agreement categories in split-ergative alignment systems. Paper presented at Chicago Linguistics Society 50, University of Chicago, April 2014.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Khan, Emir Djeladet Bedir, and Lescot, Roger. 1991. Grammaire kurde (dialecte kurmandji). Paris: Maisonneuve.Google Scholar

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

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

Stump, Gregory. 2002. Morphological and syntactic paradigms: Arguments for a theory of paradigm linkage. Yearbook of Morphology 2001, 147–80.Google Scholar

Stump, Gregory. 2006. Heteroclisis and Paradigm linkage. Language 82, 279–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tegey, Habibullah, and Robson, Barbara. 1996. A Reference Grammar of Pashto. Washington, DC: Centre for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar

Whitney, William Dwight. 1885. The Roots, Verb-forms, and Primary Derivatives of the Sanskrit Language. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.Google Scholar