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: Form and acquisition, 54–82. Oxford University Press.Google 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 Publications.Google Scholar

Ackerman, Farrell, Stump, Gregory and Webelhuth, Gert. 2011. Lexicalism, periphrasis and implicative morphology. In Borsley, B. and Börjars, K. (eds.), Non-transformational theories of grammar, 325–58. Oxford: Blackwell.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. iii: Morfología, 4915–91. Madrid: Editorial Espasa Calpe.Google Scholar

Anderson, Stephen R. 1985. Inflectional morphology. In Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description, vol. iii, 150–201. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

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

Anderson, Stephen R. 2005. Aspects of the theory of clitics. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anderson, Stephen R. 2008. Phonologically conditioned allomorphy in Surmiran (Rumantsch). Word Structure 1: 109–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by itself: Stems and inflectional classes. Cambridge, MA, and London: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Ashton, E. O. 1944. Swahili grammar. Essex: Longman.Google Scholar

Asudeh, Ash, and Klein, Ewan. 2002. Shape conditions and phonological context. In Eynde, Frank van, Hellan, Lars and Beermann, Dorothee (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International HPSG Conference, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (August 3–5, 2001), 20–30. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald and Schreuder, Robert (eds.). 2003. Morphological structure in language processing. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.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

Baerman, Matthew, Corbett, Greville G. and Brown, Dunstan (eds.). 2010. Defective paradigms: Missing forms and what they tell us. Proceedings of the British Academy 163. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baerman, Matthew, Corbett, Greville G, Brown, Dunstan, and Hippisley, Andrew (eds.). 2007. Deponency and morphological mismatches. Proceedings of the British Academy 145. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bane, Max. 2008. Quantifying and measuring morphological complexity. In Chang, Charles B and Haynie, Hannah J (eds.), Proceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 69–76. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar

Bauer, Laurie. 2000. Word. In Booij, et al. (eds.), Morphologie, 247–57.Google Scholar

Beesley, Kenneth R. and Karttunen, Lauri. 2003. Finite state morphology. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Bittner, Dagmar, Dressler, Wolfgang U and Kilani-Schoch, Marianne (eds.). 2003. Development of verb inflection in first language acquisition. Studies on Language Acquisition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blevins, James. 2000. Stems and paradigms. Manuscript.

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

Bloch, Bernard. 1947. English verb inflection. Language 23: 399–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2002. Syncretism without paradigms: Remarks on Williams 1981, 1994. Yearbook of Morphology 2001, 53–85.Google Scholar

Bonami, Olivier and Webelhuth, Gert. 2012. The phrase-structural diversity of periphrasis: A lexicalist account. In Chumakina, M et Corbett, G (eds.), Periphrasis: The role of syntax and morphology in paradigms, 141–67. London: British Academy; Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bonami, Olivier and Boyé, Gilles. 2007. French pronominal clitics and the design of Paradigm Function Morphology. In Booij, Geert et al. (eds.), On-line proceedings of the Fifth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (MMM5), Fréjus, September 15–18, 2005. University of Bologna.Google Scholar

Bonami, Olivier and Boyé, Gilles 2008. Paradigm shape is morphomic in Nepali. Paper presented at the 13th International Morphology Meeting, Vienna.

Bonami, Olivier and Boyé, Gilles 2010. Opaque paradigms, transparent forms in Nepali conjugation. Paper presented at the Workshop on Theoretical Morphology 5, June 25–26, 2010, Lutherstadt Wittenberg, Germany.

Bonami, Olivier, Boyé, Gilles and Henri, Fabiola. 2011. Measuring inflectional complexity: French and Mauritian. Paper presented at the Workshop on Quantitative Measures in Morphology and Morphological Development, Center for Human Development, UC San Diego, January 15–16, 2011.

Bonet, Eulàlia. 1991. Morphology after syntax: Pronominal clitics in Romance. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.

Booij, Geert. 1994. Against split morphology. Yearbook of Morphology 1993, 27–50.

Booij, Geert 1996. Inherent versus contextual inflection and the Split Morphology Hypothesis. Yearbook of Morphology 1995, 1–16.

Booij, Geert 2000. Inflection and derivation. In Booij et al. (eds.), Morphologie, 360–69.

Booij, Geert, Lehmann, Christian and Mugdan, Joachim (eds.). 2000. Morphologie: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung / Morphology: An international handbook on inflection and word formation, vol. i. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Börjars, Kersti, Vincent, Nigel and Chapman, Carol. 1997. Paradigms, periphrases and pronominal inflection: A feature-based account. Yearbook of Morphology 1996, 155–180.

Boyé, Gilles. 2000. Problèmes de morpho-phonologie verbale en français, en espagnol et en italien. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Paris VII.

Brown, Dunstan. 2007. Peripheral functions and overdifferentiation: The Russian second locative. Russian Linguistics 31/1: 61–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brown, Dunstan, and Hippisley, Andrew. 2012. Network Morphology: A defaults-based theory of word structure. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brown, Dunstan and Chumakina, Marina. 2013. What there might be and what there is: An introduction to canonical typology. In Brown, Chumakina and Corbett (eds.), Canonical morphology and syntax, 1–19.

Brown, Dunstan, Chumakina, Marina and Corbett, Greville G (eds.). 2013. Canonical morphology and syntax. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Carstairs, Andrew 1988. Some implications of phonologically conditioned suppletion. Yearbook of Morphology 1988, 67–94.

Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 2000. Inflection classes. In Booij et al. (eds.), Morphologie, 630–37.

Chumakina, Marina and Corbett, Greville G (eds.). 2013. Periphrasis: The role of syntax and morphology in paradigms. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Clahsen, H. 1999. Lexical entries and rules of language: A multidisciplinary study of German inflection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22: 991–1013.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Corbett, Greville G. 2005. The canonical approach in typology. In Frajzyngier, Zygmunt, Hodges, Adam and Rood, David S (eds.), Linguistic diversity and language theories, Studies in Language Companion Series 72, 25–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

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

Corbett, Greville G. 2009. Canonical inflectional classes. In Montermini, Fabio, Boyé, Gilles and Tseng, Jesse (eds.), Selected proceedings of the 6th Décembrettes, 1–11. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar

Corbett, Greville G. 2012. Features. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Corbett, Greville G. and Baerman, Matthew. 2006. Prolegomena to a typology of morphological features. Morphology 16/2: 231–46.Google Scholar

Cruschina, Silvio, Maiden, Martin, and Smith, John Charles (eds.). 2013. The boundaries of pure morphology: Diachronic and synchronic perspectives. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Danielsen, Swintha. 2007. Baure: An Arawak language of Bolivia. Leiden: CNWS Publications.Google Scholar

Danielsen, Swintha and Granadillo, Tania. 2008. Agreement in two Arawak languages: Baure and Kurripako. In Donohue, Mark and Wichmann, Søren (eds.), The typology of semantic alignment, 396–411. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Di Sciullo, Anna Maria and Williams, Edwin. 1987. On the definition of word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Faarlund, Jan Terje. 2004. The syntax of Old Norse. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Fertig, David L. 2013. Analogy and morphological change. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Fuß, Eric. 2005. The rise of agreement: A formal approach to the syntax and grammaticalization of verbal inflection. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gardani, Francesco. 2013. Dynamics of morphological productivity: The evolution of noun classes from Latin to Italian. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gardani, Francesco 2014. Emergence and decay of inflectional class systems – An evolutionary perspective. Paper presented at the 16th International Morphology Meeting, Budapest, Hungary.

Gazdar, Gerald, Klein, Ewan, Pullum, Geoffrey and Sag, Ivan. 1985. Generalized phrase structure grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Gazdar, Gerald, Pullum, Geoffrey K and Sag, Ivan A. 1982. Auxiliaries and related phenomena in a restrictive theory of grammar. Language 58: 591–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gazdar, Gerald, Pullum, Geoffrey K, Carpenter, Robert, Klein, Ewan, Hukari, Thomas E and Levine, Robert D. 1988. Category structures. Computational Linguistics 14: 1–19.Google Scholar

Geiger, Wilhelm. 1994. A Pāli Grammar, trans. Ghosh, Batakrishna, rev. and ed. Norman, K. R.. Oxford: Pali Text Society.Google Scholar

Gerner, Matthias. 2014. Noncompositional scopal morphology in Yi. Morphology 24: 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Göksel, A. and Kerslake, C. 2005. Turkish: A comprehensive grammar. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Greenberg, Joseph H. 1960. A quantitative approach to the morphological typology of language. International Journal of American Linguistics 26: 178–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Greenberg, Joseph H. 1966. Language universals, with special reference to feature hierarchies. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Grierson, George A. 1899. On the Kāçmırı verb. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 68/1: 1–92.Google Scholar

Grierson, George A. 1911. A manual of the Kāshmırı language. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Haegeman, Liliane. 1992. Theory and description in generative syntax: A case study in West Flemish. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Haiman, John. 1980. Hua: A Papuan language of the eastern highlands of New Guinea. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle 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: Linguistic essays in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 111–76. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Halpern, Aaron. 1995. On the placement and morphology of clitics. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Harley, Heidi and Noyer, Rolf. 1999. State-of-the-article: Distributed Morphology. GLOT International 4/4: 3–9.Google Scholar

Harris, Zellig S. 1942. Morpheme alternants in linguistic analysis. Language 18: 169–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hockett, Charles F. 1947. Problems of morphemic analysis. Language 23: 321–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Humboldt, Wilhelm von. 1836. Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues und ihren Einfluss auf die geistige Entwickelung des Menschengeschlechts. Berlin: F. Dümmler.Google Scholar

Hyman, Larry. 2003. Suffix ordering in Bantu: A morphocentric approach. Yearbook of morphology 2002, 245–81.

Jakobson, Roman. 1984. Morphological observations on Slavic declension (the structure of Russian case forms). In Waugh, Linda R and Halle, Morris (eds.), Roman Jakobson: Russian and Slavic Grammar, Studies 1931–1981, 105–33. Berlin: Mouton. [Translation of Roman Jakobson, Morfologicˇeskie nabljudenija nad slavjanskim skloneniem (sostav russkix padežnyx form). In American contributions to the Fourth International Congress of Slavicists, Moscow, September 1958, 127–56. The Hague: Mouton, 1958.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Juola, Patrick. 1998. Measuring linguistic complexity: The morphological tier. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 5/3: 206–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kasper, Robert T. and Rounds, William C. 1986. A logical semantics for feature structures. In Proceedings of the 24th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 257–266. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar

Keine, Stefan. 2012. How complex are complex words? Evidence from linearization. Lingua 122: 1268–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kogian, S. L. 1949. Armenian grammar (west dialect). Vienna: Mechitharist Press.Google Scholar

Lieber, Rochelle. 1992. Deconstructing morphology. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Maiden, Martin. 2005. Morphological autonomy and diachrony. Yearbook of Morphology 2004, 137–75.

Maiden, Martin, Smith, John Charles, Goldbach, Maria and Hinzelin, Marc-Olivier (eds.). 2011. Morphological autonomy: Perspectives from romance inflectional morphology. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Matthews, P. H. 1972. Inflectional morphology: A theoretical study based on aspects of Latin verb conjugation. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Matthews, P. H. 1991. Morphology. 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McCreight, Katherine and Chvany, Catherine V. 1991. Geometric representation of paradigms in a modular theory of grammar. In Plank (ed.), Paradigms, 91–111.

Milin, Petar, Kuperman, Victor, Kostic´, Aleksandar and Baayen, R. Harald. 2009. Words and paradigms bit by bit: An information-theoretic approach to the processing of paradigmatic structure in inflection and derivation. In Blevins, James P and Blevins, Juliette (eds.), Analogy in grammar: Form and acquisition, 214–52. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Miller, Philip. 1992. Clitics and constituents in phrase structure grammar. New York: Garland.Google Scholar

Montague, Richard. 1973. The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In Hintikka, Jaakko, Moravcsik, Julius and Suppes, Patrick (eds.), Approaches to natural language, 221–42. Dordrecht: Reidel. [Repr. in Richmond Thomason (ed.), Formal philosophy: Selected papers by Richard Montague. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1974.]Google Scholar

Moscoso del Prado Martín, Fermín, Kostic, Aleksandar and Baayen, R. Harald. 2004. Putting the bits together: An information-theoretical perspective on morphological processing. Cognition 94/1: 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Müller, Gereon. 2002. Remarks on nominal inflection in German. In Kaufmann, Ingrid and Stiebels, Barbara (eds.), More than words: A Festschrift for Dieter Wunderlich, 113–45. Berlin: AkademieVerlag.Google Scholar

Müller, Gereon 2007. Extended exponence by enrichment: Argument encoding in German, Archi, and Timucua. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 13/1: 253–66.Google Scholar

Müller, Gereon 2013. Approaches to deponency. Language and Linguistics Compass 7/6: 351–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nesset, Tore and Janda, Laura A. 2010. Paradigm structure: Evidence from Russian suffix shift. Cognitive Linguistics 21/4: 699–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nikolaeva, Irina. 1999. Ostyak. Munich: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar

Noyer, Robert Rolf. 1992. Features, positions and affixes in autonomous morphological structure. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.

O'Neill, Paul. 2011. The notion of the morphome. In Maiden et al. (eds.), Morphological Autonomy, 70–94.

O'Neill, Paul 2013. The morphome and morphosyntactic/semantic features. In Cruschina et al. (eds.), Boundaries of pure morphology, 221–46.

O'Neill, Paul 2014. The morphome in constructive and abstractive theories of morphology. Morphology 24: 25–70.Google Scholar

Partee, Barbara. 1977. John is easy to please. In Zampolli, A (ed.), Linguistic structures processing, 281–312. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing.Google Scholar

Paster, Mary. 2006. Phonological conditions on affixation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.

Paster, Mary 2009. Explaining phonological conditions on affixation: Evidence from suppletive allomorphy and affix ordering. Word Structure 2/1: 18–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Paster, Mary 2010. The verbal morphology and phonology of Asante Twi. Studies in African Linguistics 39/1: 77–120.Google Scholar

Paster, Mary 2015. Phonologically conditioned suppletive allomorphy: Cross-linguistic results and theoretical consequences. In Bonet, Eulàlia, Lloret, Maria-Rosa and Mascaro, Joan (eds.), Understanding allomorphy: Perspectives from OT. London: Equinox.Google Scholar

Perniola, Vito. 1997. Pali grammar. Oxford: Pali Text Society.Google Scholar

Pinker, Steven. 1999. Words and rules. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Pirrelli, Vito, Ferro, Marcello and Marzi, Claudia. 2015. Computational complexity of abstractive morphology. In Baerman, Matthew, Brown, Dunstan and Corbett, Greville G. (eds.), Understanding and measuring morphological complexity, 141–66. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Plank, Frans (ed.). 1990. Paradigms: The economy of inflection. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Round, Erich R. 2009. Kayardild morphology, phonology and morphosyntax. Ph.D dissertation, Yale University.

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.

Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language: An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co.Google Scholar

Schlegel, Friedrich von. 1808. Über die Sprache und Weisheit der Indier: Ein Beitrag zur Begründung der Alterthumskunde. Heidelberg: Mohr und Zimmer.Google Scholar

Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1982. The syntax of Words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Shukla, Shaligram. 1981. Bhojpuri grammar. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

Soukka, Maria. 2000. A descriptive grammar of Noon: A Cangin language of Senegal. Munich: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar

Spencer, Andrew. 2003. Periphrastic paradigms in Bulgarian. In Junghanns, Uwe and Szucsich, Luka (eds.), Syntactic structures and morphological information, 249–82. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

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

Spencer, Andrew and Luís, Ana R. 2012. Clitics: An introduction. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle 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: 1207–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stemberger, Joseph Paul and MacWhinney, Brian. 1988. Are inflected forms stored in the lexicon? In Hammond, Michael T and Noonan, Michael P (eds.), Theoretical morphology: Approaches in modern linguistics, 101–16. San Diego: Academic Press.Google 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. 1985. The semantic variability of absolute constructions. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stump, Gregory 1988. Nonlocal spirantization in Breton. Journal of Linguistics 24: 457–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stump, Gregory 1993a. On rules of referral. Language 69: 449–79. [Repr. in Katamba, Francis (ed.), Morphology: Critical concepts in linguistics, vol. ii: Primes, phenomena and processes, 94–129. London: Routledge, 2004.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Stump, Gregory 1998. Inflection. In Spencer, Andrew and Zwicky, Arnold M (eds.), The handbook of morphology, 13–43. Oxford and Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Stump, Gregory 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.

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

Stump, Gregory 2007. A noncanonical pattern of deponency and its theoretical implications. In Baerman et al. (eds.), Deponency and morphological mismatches, 71–95.

Stump, Gregory 2009. Cells and paradigms in inflectional semantics. In Hinrichs, Erhard and Nerbonne, John (eds.), Theory and evidence in semantics, 215–33. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Stump, Gregory 2010. Interactions between defectiveness and syncretism. In Baerman et al. (eds.), Defective paradigms, 181–210.

Stump, Gregory 2012. The formal and functional architecture of inflectional morphology. In Angela Ralli, Geert Booij, Sergio Scalise and Athanasios Karasimos (eds.), Morphology and the Architecture of Grammar: On-line Proceedings of the Eighth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (MMM8), Cagliari, Italy, 14–17 September 2011, 254–70. https://geertbooij.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/mmm8_proceedings.pdf.

Stump, Gregory 2014a. Morphosyntactic property sets at the interface of inflectional morphology, syntax and semantics. Lingvisticæ Investigationes 37/2 [special issue: Morphology and its interfaces – Syntax, semantics and the lexicon, ed. Dany Amiot, Delphine Tribout, Natalia Grabar, Cédric Patin and Fayssal Tayalati], 290–305.Google Scholar

Stump, Gregory 2014b. Polyfunctionality and inflectional economy. Linguistic Issues in Language Technology 11/3 [special issue: Theoretical and computational morphology: New trends and synergies, ed. Bruno Cartoni, Delphine Bernhard and Delphine Tribout], 73–93. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Stump, Gregory 2014c. Polyfunctionality and the variety of inflectional exponence relations. Paper presented at the 16th International Morphology Meeting, May 29 – June 1, 2014, Budapest, Hungary.

Stump, Gregory 2015. The interface of semantic interpretation and inflectional realization. In Bauer, Laurie, Körtvélyessy, Lívia and Štekauer, Pavol (eds.), Semantics of complex words, 27–45. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Stump, Gregory To appear a. Morphomic categories and the realization of morphosyntactic properties. Forthcoming in Ana Luís and Ricardo Bermudez-Otero (eds.), The morphome debate. Oxford University Press.

Stump, Gregory To appear b. Paradigms at the interface of a lexeme's syntax and semantics with its inflectional morphology. Forthcoming in Daniel Siddiqi and Heidi Harley (eds.), Morphological metatheory.

Stump, Gregory and Finkel, Raphael A. 2013. Morphological typology: From word to paradigm. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle 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

Trommer, Jochen. 2012. Introduction. In Trommer, Jochen (ed.), The morphology and phonology of exponence, 1–7. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tucker, A. N. 1940. The Eastern Sudanic languages. London, New York and Toronto: Oxford University Press, for the International Institute of African Languages and Cultures.Google Scholar

Walther, Géraldine. 2013. Sur la canonicité en morphologie: Perspective empirique, formelle et computationnelle. Ph.D. dissertation, Université Paris Diderot.

Weiss, Helmut. 2005. Inflected complementizers in continental West Germanic dialects. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik, 72/2: 148–66.Google Scholar

Whitney, William Dwight. 1885. The roots, verb-forms, and primary derivatives of the Sanskrit language. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.Google Scholar

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

Wolf, Matthew. 2013. Candidate chains, unfaithful spell-out, and outwards-looking phonologically-conditioned allomorphy. Morphology 23: 145–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wunderlich, Dieter. 2004. Is there any need for the concept of directional syncretism? In Müller, Gereon, Gunkel, Lutz and Zifonun, Gisela (eds.), Explorations in nominal inflection, 373–95. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Xu, Zheng, Aronoff, Mark and Anshen, Frank. 2007. Deponency in Latin. In Baerman et al. (eds.), Deponency and morphological mismatches, 127–43.

Zwicky, Arnold M. 1985. How to describe inflection. In Niepokuj, Mary, Clay, Mary Van, Nikiforidou, Vassiliki and Feder, Deborah (eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 372–386. Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar

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

Zwicky, Arnold M. 1990. Syntactic representations and phonological shapes. In Inkelas, Sharon and Zec, Draga (eds.), The phonology–syntax connection, 379–97. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Zwicky, Arnold M. 1992. Some choices in the theory of morphology. In Levine, Robert (ed.), Formal grammar: Theory and implementation, 327–71. Vancouver: University of British Columbia.Google Scholar

Zwicky, Arnold M. and Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1983. Cliticization vs. inflection: English n't. Language 59/3: 502–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar