Hostname: page-component-68c7f8b79f-p5c6v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-01-01T11:28:01.666Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Repartitioning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Don Daniels  and
Greville G. Corbett
Don Daniels*
Affiliation:
University of Oregon
Greville G. Corbett*
Affiliation:
University of Surrey
*
Department of Linguistics, 1290 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403, ddaniels@uoregon.edu
Surrey Morphology Group, Department of Literature and Languages, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, UK GU2 7XH, g.corbett@surrey.ac.uk
Get access

Abstract

We present a new phenomenon in inflectional morphology, ‘repartitioning’, based on data from Soq (Trans New Guinea). In repartitioning, the semantic boundary between two sets of morphological forms is redrawn in a single domain; one feature value takes over part, but not all, of the meaning of the other. In Soq the boundary is redrawn between the yesterday past tense and the hodiernal; the domain is the lexeme s- ‘stay’. For this one verb, the yesterday past takes over most of the range of the hodiernal, while the morphological forms remain regular. In clause chains the repartitioned verb surprisingly shows no syntactic effects. We demonstrate key differences from known phenomena, notably syncretism and overdifferentiation. Repartitioning is indeed new. It can be modeled in a theory based on default inheritance, but poses problems for other approaches. Finally, we present a typology of featural mismatches that situates Soq relative to known phenomena.

Keywords

inflectional morphologymorphosyntactic featuresrepartitioningclause chainingtenseTrans New Guinea languagesSoqtypology

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 95 , Issue 4 , December 2019 , pp. 711 - 750
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 Linguistic Society of America

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ackerman, Farrell, Blevins, James P.; and Malouf, Robert. 2009. Parts and wholes: Implicative patterns in inflectional paradigms. Analogy in grammar: Form and acquisition, ed. by Blevins, James P. and Blevins, Juliette, 54–82. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199547548.003.0003.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199547548.003.0003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Audring, Jenny, and Masini, Francesca (eds.) 2019. The Oxford handbook of morphological theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199668984.001.0001.Google Scholar
Baerman, Matthew. 2007. Morphological typology of deponency. In Baerman et al. 2007, 1–19.Google Scholar
Baerman, Matthew. 2015. Paradigmatic deviations. The Oxford handbook of inflection, ed. by Baerman, Matthew, 141–59. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199591428.013.7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baerman, Matthew. 2016. Seri verb classes: Morphosyntactic motivation and morphological autonomy. Language 92. 792–823. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2016.0073.10.1353/lan.2016.0073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baerman, Matthew, Bond, Oliver; and Hippisley, Andrew (eds.) 2019. Morphological perspectives: Papers in honour of Greville G. Corbett. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.10.1515/9781474446020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baerman, Matthew, Brown, Dunstan; and Corbett, Greville G.. 2005. The syntaxmorphology interface: A study of syncretism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baerman, Matthew, Corbett, Greville G., Brown, Dunstan; and Hippisley, Andrew (eds.) 2007. Deponency and morphological mismatches. (Proceedings of the British Academy 145.) Oxford: British Academy and Oxford University Press.10.5871/bacad/9780197264102.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, Barry J. 1994. Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Bloom, Douglas B. 1999. Case syncretism and word order freezing in the Russian language. Stanford, CA: Stanford University master's thesis.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2017. Distributed morphology. Oxford research encyclopedia of linguistics, ed. by Aronoff, Mark. DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.131.10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.131.10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.131.10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonami, Olivier, and Boyé, Gilles, 2019. Paradigm uniformity and the French gender system. In Baerman et al. 2019, 171–92.10.1515/9781474446020-010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, Oliver. 2019. Canonical typology. In Audring & Masini, 409–31. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199668984.013.26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2013. Morphology in construction grammar. The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, ed. by Hoffmann, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme, 255–73. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0014.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2016. Construction morphology. In Hippisley & Stump, 424–48. DOI: 10.1017/9781139814720.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyé, Gilles, and Schalchli, Gauvain. 2016. The status of paradigms. In Hippisley & Stump, 206–34. DOI: 10.1017/9781139814720.009.10.1017/9781139814720.009.10.1017/9781139814720.009.10.1017/9781139814720.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brehmer, Bernhard. 2009. Changes and persistencies in the use of Russian masculine genitives in -u: New evidence from corpus linguistics. Proceedings of the Second International Perspectives on Slavistics Conference: Regensburg 2006 (Special volume of Die Welt der Slaven 36), ed. by Birzer, Sandra, Finkelstein, Miriam, and Mendoza, Imke, 53–67. Munich: Otto Sagner.Google Scholar
Brown, Dunstan. 2019. Repartitioning tense in Soq: A DATR implementation. York: University of York, ms. DOI: 10.15124/293802f2-d04e-4789-bbc0-2242d39ff4e0.Google Scholar
Brown, Dunstan, Corbett, Greville G., Fraser, Norman M., Hippisley, Andrew; and Timberlake, Alan. 1996. Russian noun stress and network morphology. Linguistics 34. 53–107. DOI: 10.1515/ling.1996.34.1.53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Dunstan, and Hippisley, Andrew. 2012. Network morphology: A defaults-based theory of word structure. (Cambridge studies in linguistics 133.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511794346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2001. Phonology and language use. (Cambridge studies in linguistics 94.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511612886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511750526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caballero, Gabriela, and Harris, Alice C.. 2012. A working typology of multiple exponence. Current issues in morphological theory: (Ir)regularity, analogy and frequency, ed. by Kiefer, Ferenc, Ladányi, Mária, and Siptár, Péter, 163–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Caha, Pavel. 2008. The case hierarchy as functional sequence. Scales (Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 86), ed. by Richards, Marc and Malchukov, Andrej L., 247–76. Leipzig: University of Leipzig.Google Scholar
Caha, Pavel. 2013. Explaining the structure of case paradigms by the mechanisms of nanosyntax: The Classical Armenian nominal declension. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31. 1015–56. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-013-9206-8.10.1007/s11049-013-9206-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, Matthew J. 2016. The Ngkolmpu language: With special reference to distributed exponence. Canberra: Australian National University dissertation.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace (ed.) 1980. The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Chvany, Catherine V. 1982. Hierarchies in the Russian case system: For N-A-G-P-D-I, against N-G-D-A-I-P. Russian Language Journal 36. 133–47. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43674351.Google Scholar
Claassen, O. R., and McElhanon, Kenneth. 1970. Languages of the Finisterre Range. Papers in New Guinea linguistics 11 (Pacific linguistics A-23), ed. by Bunn, Gordon, Bunn, Ruth, Pence, Alan, Geary, Elaine, Bjorkman, Doris, Weimer, Harry, Weimer, Natalia, Claassen, O. R., and McElhanon, Kenneth, 45–78. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1985. Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1986. On delimiting cases. Case in Slavic, ed. by Brecht, Richard D. and Levine, James, 86–106. Columbus, OH: Slavica.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard, Stone, Gerald; and Polinsky, Maria. 1996. The Russian language in the twentieth century. Oxford: Clarendon.10.1093/oso/9780198240662.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2006. Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2010. Classic problems at the syntax-morphology interface: Whose are they? Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG 2010), 255–68. Online: http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/HPSG/2010/corbett.pdf.10.21248/hpsg.2010.14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2011. Higher order exceptionality in inflectional morphology. Expecting the unexpected: Exceptions in grammar (Trends in linguistics: Studies and monographs 216), ed. by Simon, Horst J. and Wiese, Heike, 107–26. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2012. Features. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2015. Morphosyntactic complexity: A typology of lexical splits. Language 91. 145–93. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2015.0003.10.1353/lan.2015.0003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2019. Pluralia tantum nouns and the theory of features: A typology of nouns with non-canonical number properties. Morphology 29. 51–108. DOI: 10.1007/s11525-018-9336-0.10.1007/s11525-018-9336-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G., and Fraser, Norman M.. 1993. Network morphology: A DATR account of Russian nominal inflection. Journal of Linguistics 29. 113–42. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226700000074.10.1017/S0022226700000074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniels, Don. 2015. A reconstruction of Proto-Sogeram: Phonology, lexicon, and morphosyntax. Santa Barbara: University of California, Santa Barbara dissertation.Google Scholar
Daniels, Don. 2018. Papuan languages collection. Archival collection, 960 items. Sydney: Pacific and Regional Archive for Digital Sources in Endangered Cultures (PARADISEC). Online: http://catalog.paradisec.org.au/collections/DD1.Google Scholar
Davies, John. 1981. Kobon. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Enger, Hans-Olav, and Kristoffersen, Kristian E.. 2000. Innføring i norsk grammatikk: Morfologi og syntaks [Introduction to Norwegian grammar: Morphology and syntax]. Oslo: Landlaget for Norskundervisning/Cappelen Akademisk Forlag.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 2019. Waiting for the word: Distributed deponency and the semantic interpretation of number in the Nen verb. In Baerman et al. 2019, 100–123.Google Scholar
Foley, William A. 2010. Clause linkage and nexus in Papuan languages. Clause linking and clause hierarchy: Syntax and pragmatics, ed. by Bril, Isabelle, 27–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foley, William A. 2018. The morphosyntactic typology of Papuan languages. In Palmer, 895–937. DOI: 10.1515/9783110295252-008.10.1515/9783110295252-008.10.1515/9783110295252-008.10.1515/9783110295252-008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Norman M., and Corbett, Greville G.. 1995. Gender, animacy, and declensional class assignment: A unified account for Russian. Yearbook of Morphology 1994. 123–50. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-017-3714-2_5.10.1007/978-94-017-3714-2_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Norman M., and Corbett, Greville G.. 1997. Defaults in Arapesh. Lingua 103. 25–57. DOI: 10.1016/S0024-3841(97)00012-0.10.1016/S0024-3841(97)00012-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald. 1987. Linguistic applications of default inheritance mechanisms. Linguistic theory and computer applications, ed. by Whitelock, Peter, Wood, Mary McGee, Somers, Harold L., Johnson, Rod L., and Bennett, Paul, 37–68. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goddard, Cliff. 1982. Case systems and case marking in Australian languages: A new interpretation. Australian Journal of Linguistics 2. 167–96. DOI: 10.1080/07268608208599290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E., and van, Johan Auwera, der. 2012. This is to count as a construction. Folia Linguistica 46. 109–32. DOI: 10.1515/flin.2012.4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagen, Bernhard. 1899. Unter den Papua's. Wiesbaden: C. W. Kreidel.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris, and Vaux, Bert. 1998. Theoretical aspects of Indo-European nominal morphology: The nominal declensions of Latin and Armenian. Mír curad: Studies in honor of Calvert Watkins (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 92), ed. by Jasanoff, Jay, Melchert, H. Craig, and Olivier, Lisi, 223–40. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck.Google Scholar
Hanke, August. 1905. Die Sprachverhältnisse in der Astrolabe-Bai in Deutsch-Neuguinea. Mittheilungen des Seminars für Orientalische Sprachen 8(1). 255–62.Google Scholar
Hanke, August. 1909. Grammatik und Vokabularium der Bongu-Sprache (Astrolabebai, Kaiser-Wilhelmsland). (Archiv für das Studium Deutscher Kolonialsprachen 8.) Berlin: Georg Reimer.10.1515/9783111639383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Kyle. 1990. Nend grammar essentials. Two grammatical studies (Data papers on Papua New Guinea languages 37), ed. by Roberts, John R., 73–156. Ukarumpa: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2003. The geometry of grammatical meaning: Semantic maps and cross-linguistic comparison. The new psychology of language, vol. 2, ed. by Tomasello, Michael, 211–42. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Haviland, John. 1979. Guugu Yimidhirr. Handbook of Australian languages, vol. 1, ed. by Dixon, R. M. W. and Blake, Barry J., 26–180. Canberra: Australian National University Press.Google Scholar
Hippisley, Andrew, and Stump, Gregory T. (eds.) 2016. The Cambridge handbook of morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/9781139814720.10.1017/9781139814720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holvoet, Axel. 2010. Between morphosyntax and the paradigm: Some puzzling patterns of case distribution in Baltic and their implications. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 42. 175–98. DOI: 10.1080/03740463.2010.521445.10.1080/03740463.2010.521445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingram, Andrew. 2001. Anamuxra: A language of Madang Province, Papua New Guinea. Sydney: University of Sydney dissertation.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman O. 1971 [1958]. Morfologičeskie nabljudenija nad slavjanskim skloneniem (sostav russkix padežnyx form). Selected writings, II: Word and language, 154–83. The Hague: Mouton. [Originally published in American contributions to the Fourth International Congress of Slavists, Moscow, September 1958, 127–56. The Hague: Mouton, 1958. Translated as: Morphological observations on Slavic declension (the structure of Russian case forms). Roman Jakobson: Russian and Slavic grammar: Studies 1931–1981, ed. by Waugh, Linda R. and Halle, Morris, 105–33. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1984.].Google Scholar
Jensen, Hans. 1959. Altarmenische Grammatik. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Keine, Stefan. 2013. Deconstructing switch-reference. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31. 767–826. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-013-9194-8.10.1007/s11049-013-9194-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kibort, Anna, and Corbett, Greville G.. 2008. Grammatical features inventory: Typology of grammatical features. Surrey: University of Surrey. DOI: 10.15126/SMG.18/1.16.Google Scholar
Kibrik, Aleksandr E. (ed.) 1999. Èlementy grammatiki caxurskogo jazyka v tipologičeskom osveščenii [Aspects of Tsakhur grammar from a typological perspective]. Moscow: Nasledie. [Co-editor Jakov G. Testelec.].Google Scholar
Klein, Jared. 2007. Classical Armenian morphology. Morphologies of Asia and Africa, vol. 2, ed. by Kaye, Alan B., 1051–18. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
Loporcaro, Michele. 2018. Gender from Latin to Romance: History, geography, typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780199656547.001.0001.Google Scholar
Malouf, Robert. 2017. Abstractive morphological learning with a recurrent neural network. Morphology 27. 431–58. DOI: 10.1007/s11525-017-9307-x.10.1007/s11525-017-9307-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masini, Francesca, and Audring, Jenny. 2019. Construction morphology. In Audring & Masini, 365–89. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199668984.013.25.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199668984.013.25.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199668984.013.25.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199668984.013.25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mikloucho-Maclay, Nikolai Nikolaevich. 1882. Papua-Dialekte der Maclay-Küste in Neu-Guinea. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der melanesischen, mikronesischen und papuanischen Sprachen, ed. by Meyer, Georg von der Gabelentz and Adolf Bernard, 491–503. Leipzig: S. Hirzel. [Reprinted in N. N. Mikluxo-Maklaj 1993, 133–44. Editorial notes, pp. 365–67.].Google Scholar
Mikloucho-Maclay, Nikolai Nikolaevich. 1990. = N. N. Mikluxo-Maklaj. Sobranie sočinenij v šesti tomax: I: Putešestvija 1870–1874gg.: Dnevniki, putevye zametki, otčety, compiled by Putilov, B. N., ed. by Tumarkin, D. D.. Moscow: Nauka. [English translation of the diaries available as: New Guinea diaries 1871–1883: Translated from the Russian with biographical and historical notes by C. L. Sentinella. Madang: Kristen, 1975.].Google Scholar
Mikloucho-Maclay, Nikolai Nikolaevich. 1993. = N. N. Mikluxo-Maklaj. Sobranie sočinenij v šesti tomax: III: Stat´i i materialy po antropologii i ètnografii narodov Okeanii, ed. by Anfert´ev, A. N., Putilov, B. N., Stanjukovič, M. V., and Tumarkin (main editor), D. D.. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Miljan, Merilin. 2009. Grammatical case in Estonian. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh dissertation.Google Scholar
Olsen, Birgit Anette. 2017. The morphology of Armenian. Handbook of comparative and historical Indo-European linguistics: An international handbook, vol. 2, ed. by Klein, Jared, Joseph, Brian, and Fritz, Matthias, 1080–09. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110523874-017.Google Scholar
Palmer, Bill (ed.) 2018. The languages and linguistics of the New Guinea area: A comprehensive guide. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Paus, Charles. 1994. Social and pragmatic conditioning in the decline of the Russian partitive case. Russian Linguistics 18. 249–66. DOI: 10.1007/BF01650147.10.1007/BF01650147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pawley, Andrew. 1995. C. L. Voorhoeve and the Trans New Guinea Phylum hypothesis. Tales from a concave world: Liber amicorum Bert Voorhoeve, ed. by Baak, Connie, Bakker, Mary, and van, Dick Meij, der, 83–123. Leiden: Leiden University.Google Scholar
Pawley, Andrew. 2005. The chequered career of the Trans New Guinea hypothesis: Recent research and its implications. In Pawley et al., 67–107.Google Scholar
Pawley, Andrew. 2012. On the argument structure of complex predicates in Kalam, a language of the Trans New Guinea family. Berkeley Linguistics Society 32. 83–108. DOI: 10.3765/bls.v32i2.3494.Google Scholar
Pawley, Andrew, Attenborough, Robert, Golson, Jack; and Hide, Robin (eds.) 2005. Papuan pasts: Cultural, linguistic and biological histories of Papuan-speaking peoples. (Pacific linguistics 572.) Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Pawley, Andrew, and Bulmer, Ralph. 2011. A dictionary of Kalam with ethnographic notes. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Pawley, Andrew, and Hammarström, Harald. 2018. The Trans New Guinea family. In Palmer, 21–195. DOI: 10.1515/9783110295252-002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Priestley, Carol. 2008. A grammar of Koromu (Kesawai), a Trans New Guinea language of Papua New Guinea. Canberra: Australian National University dissertation.Google Scholar
Randall, William, and Jones, Howard. 2015. On the early origins of the Germanic preterite presents. Transactions of the Philological Society 113. 137–76. DOI: 10.1111/1467-968X.12045.10.1111/1467-968X.12045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ray, Sidney H. 1919. The languages of Northern Papua. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 49. 317–41. DOI: 10.2307/2843447.10.2307/2843447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, John R. 1987. Amele. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Roberts, John R. 1990. Modality in Amele and other Papuan languages. Journal of Linguistics 26. 363–401. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226700014717.10.1017/S0022226700014717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, John R. 1997. Switch-reference in Papua New Guinea: A preliminary survey. Papers in Papuan linguistics No. 3 (Pacific linguistics A-87), ed. by Pawley, Andrew, 101–241. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Ross, Malcolm. 2000. A preliminary subgrouping of the Madang languages based on pronouns. Canberra: Australian National University, ms.Google Scholar
Ross, Malcolm. 2005. Pronouns as a preliminary diagnostic for grouping Papuan languages. In Pawley et al., 15–65.Google Scholar
Round, Erich R., and Corbett, Greville G.. 2017. The theory of feature systems: One feature versus two for Kayardild tense-aspect-mood. Morphology 27. 21–75. DOI: 10.1007/s11525-016-9294-3.10.1007/s11525-016-9294-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Round, Erich R., and Corbett, Greville G.. 2020. Comparability and measurement in typological science: The bright future for linguistics. Linguistic Typology, to appear.10.1515/lingty-2020-2060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, Wilhelm. 1900. Die Sprachlichen Verhältnisse von Deutsch-Neuguinea. Zeitschrift für afrikanische und orientalische Sprachen 5. 354–84.Google Scholar
Schmitt, Rüdiger. 1981. Grammatik des Klassisch-armenischen mit sprachenvergleichenden Erläuterungen. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 2013. Lexical relatedness: A paradigm-based model. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 2001. Inflectional morphology: A theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge: 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. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-017-3726-5_5.10.1007/978-94-017-3726-5_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 2016. Inflectional paradigms: Content and form at the syntax-morphology interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781316105290.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 2017a. Inflectional morphology. Oxford research encyclopedia of linguistics, ed. by Aronoff, Mark. DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 2017b. The nature and dimensions of complexity in morphology. Annual Review of Linguistics 3. 65–83. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011415-040752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, Robert W. 1975. An introduction to Classical Armenian. Delmar, NY: Caravan Books.Google Scholar
Thornton, Anna M. 2010–2011. La non canonicità del tipo it: Braccio // braccia / bracci: Sovrabbondanza, difettività o iperdifferenziazione? Studi di grammatical italiana 29–30.419–77.Google Scholar
Tumanjan, Èteri G. 1971. Drevnearmjanskij jazyk [Classical Armenian]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Tupper, Ian D. 2012. A grammar of Pamosu. Melbourne: La Trobe University dissertation.Google Scholar
Uspenskij, Boris A. 2004. Čast´ i celoe v russkoj grammatike [Part and whole in Russian grammar]. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul´tury.Google Scholar
Wade, Martha. 1989. A survey of the grammatical structures and semantic functions of the Apali (Emerum) language. Pioneer Bible Translators, ms.Google Scholar
Webster, Elsie May. 1984. The moon man: A biography of Nikolai Miklouho-Maclay. Carlton: Melbourne University Press.Google Scholar
Wells, Margaret A. 1979. Siroi grammar. (Pacific linguistics B-51.) Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Worth, Dean S. 1984. Russian gen2, loc2 revisited. Signs of friendship: To honour A. G. F. van Holk, Slavist, linguist, semiotician, ed. by van Baak, J. J., 295–306. Amsterdam: Rodopi.10.1163/9789004651661_016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaliznjak, Andrej A. 1973. O ponimanii termina ‘padež‘ v lingvističeskix opisanijax [Understanding the term ‘case‘ in linguistic descriptions]. Problemy grammatičeskogo modelirovanija, ed. by Zaliznjak, Andrej A., 53–87. Moscow: Nauka. [Republished in Russkoe imennoe slovoizmenenie, 613–47. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul´tury, 2002.].Google Scholar
Z'graggen, John A. 1968. A linguistic survey of the central north-east coast of New Guinea. Anthropica: Gedenkschrift zum 100. Geburtstag von P. Wilhelm Schmidt, 421–28. Bonn: Anthropos-Institut.Google Scholar
Z'graggen, John A. 1975a. The Madang-Adelbert Range subphylum. Papuan languages and the New Guinea linguistic scene (Pacific linguistics C-38), ed. by Wurm, Stephen A., 569–612. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Z'graggen, John A. 1975b. The languages of the Madang District, Papua New Guinea. (Pacific linguistics B-41.) Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Z'graggen, John A. 1980. A comparative word list of the Rai Coast languages, Madang Province, Papua New Guinea. (Pacific linguistics D-30.) Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Zöller, Hugo. 1890. Untersuchungen über 24 Sprachen aus dem Schutzgebiet der Neuguinea-Compagnie. Petermanns Geographische Mittheilungen 36. 122.ndash;28, 145–52, 181.Google Scholar
Zöller, Hugo. 1891. Deutsch-Neuguinea und meine Ersteigung des Finisterre-Gebirges. Stuttgart: Union Deutsche Verlagsgesellschaft.Google Scholar