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-848d4c4894-wzw2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-05T09:01:34.441Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

14 - Natural Morphology

from Part IV - Morphological Frameworks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 January 2017

By
Wolfgang U. Dressler  and
Marianne Kilani-Schoch
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. 356 - 389
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

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.CrossRefGoogle 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

Save book to Kindle

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

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

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

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

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

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

Available formats
×