Ackema, Peter, and Neeleman, Ad. 2001. “Competition between syntax and morphology.” In Optimality-theoretic syntax, ed. Legendre, Géraldine, Grimshaw, Jane, and Vikner, Sten, 29–60. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ackerman, Farrell, Blevins, James P., and Malouf, Robert. 2009. “Parts and wholes: Implicative patterns in inflectional paradigms.” In Analogy in grammar: Form and acquisition, ed. Blevins, James P. and Blevins, Juliette, 54–82. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ackerman, Farrell, and Malouf, Robert. 2011. “Paradigmatics, syntagmatics, and the agglutinative ideal.” Paper presented at Workshop on Quantitative Measures in Morphology and Morphological Development. San Diego, CA, January 15–16, 2011.Google Scholar

Ackerman, Farrell, and Malouf, Robert. 2013. “Morphological organization: The Low Conditional Entropy Conjecture.” Language 89(3): 429–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ackerman, Farrell, and Stump, Gregory T.. 2004. “Paradigms and periphrastic expression: A study in realization-based lexicalism.” In Projecting morphology, ed. Sadler, Louisa and Spencer, Andrew, 111–158. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar

Akhtar, Nameera, Callanan, Maureen, Pullum, Geoffrey K., and Scholz, Barbara C.. 2004. “Learning antecedents for anaphoric one.” Cognition 93: 141–145.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Aksenčuk, Ivan (Dir.). 1977. Kak griby s goroxom voevali [How the mushrooms fought with the peas]. Sojusmul'tfil'm.Google Scholar

Albright, Adam. 2002a. “The identification of bases in morphological paradigms.” Ph.D. dissertation, Linguistics Department, UCLA.Google Scholar

Albright, Adam. 2002b. “Islands of reliability for regular morphology: Evidence from Italian.” Language 78(4): 684–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Albright, Adam. 2003. “A quantitative study of Spanish paradigm gaps.” In West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 22 proceedings, ed. Garding, Gina and Tsujimura, Mimu, 1–14. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar

Albright, Adam. 2009. “Lexical and morphological conditioning of paradigm gaps.” In Rice and Blaho (eds.), 117–164.Google Scholar

Albright, Adam, and Hayes, Bruce. 2002. “Modeling English past tense intuitions with minimal generalization.” In Proceedings of the sixth meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics Special Interest Group in Computational Phonology in Philadelphia, July 2002, ed. Maxwell, Michael, 58–69. Cambridge, MA: ACL.Google Scholar

Alegre, Maria, and Gordon, Peter. 1998. “Frequency effects and the representational status of regular inflections.” Journal of Memory and Language 40: 41–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Alegre, Maria, and Gordon, Peter. 1999. “Rule-based versus associate processes in derivational morphology.” Brain and Language 68(2): 347–354.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Alley, Maria, Sims, Andrea, and Brookes, Bryan. 2006. “On Russian verbal gaps and non-optimality in language.” Paper presented at the first meeting of the Slavic Linguistics Society. Bloomington, IN, September 7–10, 2006.Google Scholar

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

Anderson, Stephen R. 2008. “Phonologically conditioned allomorphy in Surmiran (Rumantsch).” Word Structure 1(2): 109–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anderson, Stephen R. 2010. “Failing one's obligations: Defectiveness in Rumantsch reflexives of DĒBĒRE.” In Baerman et al. (eds.), 19–34.Google Scholar

Anderson, Stephen R. 2011. “Stress-conditioned allomorphy in Surmiran (Rumantsch).” In Maiden et al. (eds.), 17–35.Google Scholar

Andrews, Avery D. 1982. “The representation of case in Modern Icelandic.” In The mental representation of grammatical relations, ed. Bresnan, Joan, 427–503. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Andrews, Avery D. 1990. “Unification and morphological blocking.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8: 507–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aristar, Anthony. 1997. “Marking and hierarchy: Types and the grammaticalization of case-markers.” Studies in Language 21(2): 313–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aronoff, Mark. 1980. “The relevance of productivity in a synchronic description of word formation.” In Historical morphology, ed. Fisiak, Jacek, 71–82. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Aronoff, Mark, and Anshen, Frank. 1998. “Morphology and the lexicon: Lexicalization and productivity.” In The handbook of morphology, ed. Spencer, Andrew and Zwicky, Arnold M., 237–247. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Aski, Janice. 1995. “Verbal suppletion: An analysis of Italian, French, and Spanish to go.” Linguistics 33: 403–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aslin, Richard N., and Newport, Elissa L.. 2008. “What statistical learning can and can't tell us about language acquisition.” In Infant pathways to language: Methods, models, and research disorders, ed. Colombo, John, McCardie, Peggy, and Freund, Lisa, 15–29. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald, Dijkstra, Ton, and Schreuder, Robert. 1997. “Singulars and plurals in Dutch: Evidence for a parallel dual route model.” Journal of Memory and Language 36: 94–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald, and del Prado Martín, Fermín Moscoso. 2005. “Semantic density and past-tense formation in three Germanic languages.” Language 81(3): 666–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald, and Schreuder, Robert. 1999. “War and peace: Morphemes and full forms in a noninteractive activation parallel dual-route model.” Brain and Language 68(1–2): 27–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Babiniotis, Georgios. 1998. Lexikó tīs néas ellīnikī́s glóssas. Athens: Kentro Lexikologias.Google Scholar

Bachrach, Asaf, and Nevins, Andrew. 2008. “Introduction: Approaching inflectional identity.” In Inflectional identity, ed. Bachrach, Asaf and Nevins, Andrew, 1–28. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baerman, Matthew. 2008. “Historical observations on defectiveness: The first singular non-past.” Russian Linguistics 32(1): 81–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baerman, Matthew. 2009. “Martuthunira.” In A typology of defectiveness: Online 100-language survey. Available at www.defectiveness.surrey.ac.uk/WALK/Martuthunira.html (accessed October 27, 2013).Google Scholar

Baerman, Matthew. 2011. “Defectiveness and homophony avoidance.” Journal of Linguistics 47(1): 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baerman, Matthew, Brown, Dunstan, and Corbett, Greville. 2005. The syntax-morphology interface: A study of syncretism. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baerman, Matthew, and Corbett, Greville G.. 2010. “Introduction: Defectiveness: Typology and diachrony.” In Baerman et al. (eds.), 1–18.Google Scholar

Baerman, Matthew, Corbett, Greville G., and Brown, Dunstan, eds. 2010. Defective paradigms: Missing forms and what they tell us. London: Oxford University Press, in coordination with British Academy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bailyn, John F., and Nevins, Andrew. 2008. “Russian genitive plurals are impostors.” In Inflectional identity, ed. Bachrach, Asaf and Nevins, Andrew, 237–270. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baker, C. L. 1978. Introduction to generative-transformational syntax. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Baker, Mark. 1985. “The Mirror Principle and morphosyntactic explanation.” Linguistic Inquiry 16(3): 373–415.Google Scholar

Baronian, Luc V. 2005. “North of phonology.” Ph.D. dissertation, Linguistics Department, Stanford University.Google Scholar

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

Beard, Robert. 1995. Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morphology: A general theory of inflection and word formation. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar

Benveniste, Émile. 1968. “Mutations of linguistic categories.” In Directions for historical linguistics: A symposium, ed. Lehmann, W. P. and Malkiel, Yakov, 85–95. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

Bergen, Benjamin K. 2004. “The psychological reality of phonaesthemes.” Language 80(2): 290–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Berko, Jean. 1958. “The child's learning of English morphology.” Word 14: 150–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bertram, Raymond, Laine, Matti, Baayen, R. Harald, Schreuder, Robert, and Hyönä, Jukka. 2000a. “Affixal homonymy triggers full-form storage, even with inflected words, even in a morphologically rich language.” Cognition 74(2): B12–B25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bertram, Raymond, Schreuder, Robert, and Baayen, R. Harald. 2000b. “The balance of storage and computation in morphological processing: The role of word formation type, affixal homonymy and productivity.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 26(2): 489–511.Google ScholarPubMed

Bickel, Balthasar, and Nichols, Johanna. 2007. “Inflectional morphology.” In Language typology and syntactic description, vol. III: Grammatical categories and the lexicon, ed. Shopen, Timothy, 169–240. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blevins, James P. 1995. “Syncretism and paradigmatic opposition.” Linguistics and Philosophy 18(2): 113–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blevins, James P. 2004. “Inflection classes and economy.” In Müller et al. (eds.), 51–95.Google Scholar

Blevins, James P. 2006. “Word-based morphology.” Journal of Linguistics 42(3): 531–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2002. “Syncretism without paradigms: Remarks on Williams 1981, 1994.” In Booij and van Marle (eds.), 53–85.Google Scholar

Bobaljik, Jonathan David. 2008. “Paradigms (optimal and otherwise): A case for skepticism.” In Inflectional identity, ed. Bachrach, Asaf and Nevins, Andrew, 29–54. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bochner, Harry. 1993. Simplicity in generative morphology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boeckx, Cedric. 2008. Bare syntax. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bonami, Olivier. 2013. “Towards a robust assessment of implicative relations in inflectional systems.” Paper presented at Workshop on Computational Approaches to Morphological Complexity. Paris, February 22, 2013.Google Scholar

Bonami, Olivier, and Boyé, Gilles. 2002. “Suppletion and dependency in inflectional morphology.” In Proceedings of the eighth International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, ed. van Eynde, Frank, Hellan, Lars, and Beermann, Dorothee, 51–70. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar

Bonami, Olivier, and Boyé, Gilles. 2003. “Supplétion et classes flexionnelles dans la conjugaison du français.” Langages 152(Dec.): 102–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bonami, Olivier, Boyé, Gilles, and Henri, Fabiola. 2011. “Measuring inflectional complexity: French and Mauritian.” Paper presented at Workshop on Quantitative Measures in Morphology and Morphological Development. San Diego, CA, January 15–16, 2011.Google Scholar

Bonami, Olivier, and Samvelian, Pollet. 2009. “Inflectional periphrasis in Persian.” In Proceedings of the sixteenth International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, ed. Müller, Stefan, 26–46. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar

Bonami, Olivier, and Webelhuth, Gert. 2013. “The phrase-structural diversity of periphrasis: A lexicalist account.” In Periphrasis: The role of syntax and morphology in paradigms, ed. Chumakina, Marina and Corbett, Greville G., 141–167. Oxford University Press and British Academy.Google Scholar

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

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. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Booij, Geert, and van Marle, Jaap, eds. 2002. Yearbook of morphology 2001. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Börjars, Kersti, Vincent, Nigel, and Chapman, Carol. 1997. “Paradigms, periphrases and pronominal inflection: A feature-based account.” In Yearbook of morphology 1996, ed. Booij, Geert and van Marle, Jaap, 155–180. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boyé, Gilles. 2000. “Problèmes de morpho-phonologie verbale en français, en espagnol et en italien.” Ph.D. dissertation, U.F.R. de Linguistique, Université Paris VII – Denis Diderot, Paris.Google Scholar

Boyé, Gilles, and Hofherr, Patricia Cabredo. 2006. “The structure of allomorphy in Spanish verbal inflection.” Cuadernos de Lingüística del Instituto Universitario Ortega y Gasset 13: 9–24.Google Scholar

Boyé, Gilles, and Hofherr, Patricia Cabredo. 2010. “Defectiveness as stem suppletion in French and Spanish verbs.” In Baerman et al. (eds.), 35–52.Google Scholar

Bresnan, Joan. 2001. “Explaining morphosyntactic competition.” In The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, ed. Baltin, Mark and Collins, Chris, 11–44. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Broadbent, Judith M. 2009. “The ^*amn't gap: The view from West Yorkshire.” Journal of Linguistics 45(2): 251–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Brown, Dunstan, Chumakina, Marina, Corbett, Greville, Popova, Gergana, and Spencer, Andrew. 2012. “Defining ‘periphrasis’: Key notions.” Morphology 22(2): 233–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brown, Dunstan, Corbett, Greville, Fraser, Norman, Hippisley, Andrew, and Timberlake, Alan. 1996. “Russian noun stress and Network Morphology.” Linguistics 34: 53–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Burani, Cristina, Barca, Laura, and Ellis, Andrew W.. 2006. “Orthographic complexity and word naming in Italian: Some words are more transparent than others.” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 13(2): 346–352.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Burani, Cristina, and Thornton, Anna M.. 2003. “The interplay of root, suffix and whole-word frequency in processing derived words.” In Morphological structure in language processing, ed. Baayen, R. Harald and Schreuder, Robert, 157–207. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Butterworth, Brian. 1983. “Lexical representation.” In Language production, vol. II: Development, writing and other language processes, ed. Butterworth, Brian, 257–294. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan, and Moder, Carol. 1983. “Morphological classes as natural categories.” Language 59(2): 251–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Joan, and Newman, Jean E.. 1995. “Are stem changes as natural as affixes?” Linguistics 33(4): 633–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Joan, and Slobin, Dan. 1982. “Rules and schemas in the development and use of the English past tense.” Language 58(2): 265–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Calderone, Basilio, and Celata, Chiara. 2011. “Paradigm-aware morphological categorizations.” Lingue e Linguaggio 10(2): 183–207.Google Scholar

Cameron-Faulkner, Thea, and Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 2000. “Stem alternants as morphological signata: Evidence from blur avoidance in Polish nouns.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18(4): 813–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Caramazza, Alfonso, Laudanna, Alessandro, and Romani, Christina. 1988. “Lexical access and inflectional morphology.” Cognition 28(3): 297–332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Carroll, John M., Bever, Thomas G., and Pollack, Chava R.. 1981. “The non-uniqueness of linguistic intuitions.” Language 57(2): 368–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carstairs, Andrew. 1983. “Paradigm economy.” Journal of Linguistics 19(1): 115–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 1994. “Inflection classes, gender and the principle of contrast.” Language 70(4): 737–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Chouinard, Michelle M., and Clark, Eve V.. 2003. “Adult reformulations of child errors as negative evidence.” Journal of Child Language 30(3): 637–669.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Chumakina, Marina. 2011. “Nominal periphrasis: A canonical approach.” Studies in Language 35(2): 247–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chumakina, Marina, Kibort, Anna, and Corbett, Greville G.. 2007. “Determining a language's feature inventory: Person in Archi.” In Endangered languages [special issue of Linguistische Berichte], ed. Austin, Peter K. and Simpson, Andrew, 143–172. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar

Clahsen, Harald, Eisenbeiss, Sonja, and Sonnenstuhl-Henning, Ingrid. 1997. “Morphological structure and the processing of inflected words.” Theoretical Linguistics 23(3): 201–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Comrie, Bernard. 1986. “On delimiting cases.” In Case in Slavic, ed. Brecht, Richard D. and Levine, James S., 86–106. Columbus, OH: Slavica.Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard. 1991. “Form and function in identifying cases.” In Paradigms: The economy of inflection, ed. Plank, Frans, 41–55. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Corbett, Greville G. 2000. Number. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Corbett, Greville G. 2008. “Determining morphosyntactic feature values: The case of case.” In Case and grammatical relations: Studies in honor of Bernard Comrie, ed. Corbett, Greville G. and Noonan, Michael, 1–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Corbett, Greville G. 2010. “Features: Essential notions.” In Features: Perspectives on a key notion in linguistics, ed. Kibort, Anna and Corbett, Greville G., 17–36. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Corbett, Greville G. 2011. “The penumbra of morphosyntactic feature systems.” Morphology 21(2): 445–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Corbett, Greville G. 2012. “Canonical morphosyntactic features.” In Canonical morphology and syntax, ed. Brown, Dunstan, Corbett, Greville G., and Chumakina, Marina, 48–65. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Corbett, Greville G., Hippisley, Andrew, Brown, Dunstan, and Marriott, Paul. 2001. “Frequency, regularity and the paradigm: A perspective from Russian on a complex relation.” In Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, ed. Bybee, Joan and Hopper, Paul J., 201–226. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cover, Thomas M., and Thomas, Joy A.. 2006. Elements of information theory. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Interscience.Google Scholar

Daland, Robert, Sims, Andrea D., and Pierrehumbert, Janet. 2007. “Much ado about nothing: A social network model of Russian paradigmatic gaps.” In Proceedings of the forty-fifth annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics in Prague, Czech Republic, June 24th–29th, 2007, ed. Zaenen, Annie and van den Bosch, Antal, 936–943. Prague: ACL.Google Scholar

Daugherty, Kim G., and Seidenberg, Mark S.. 1994. “Beyond rules and exceptions: A connectionist approach to inflectional morphology.” In The reality of linguistic rules, ed. Lima, Susan D., Corrigan, Roberta L., and Iverson, Gregory, 353–388. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

De Jong, Nivja H., Schreuder, Robert, and Baayen, R. Harald. 2000. “The morphological family size effect and morphology.” Language and Cognitive Processes 15(4–5): 329–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Demetras, M. J., Post, Kathryn Nolan, and Snow, Catherine E.. 1986. “Feedback to first language learners: The role of repetitions and clarification questions.” Journal of Child Language 13(2): 275–292.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Dench, Alan Charles. 1995. Martuthunira: A language of the Pilbara region of Western Australia. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar

di Sciullo, Anna Maria, and Williams, Edwin. 1987. On the definition of word. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Dixon, R. M. W. 1977. “Where have all the adjectives gone?” Studies in Language 1(1): 19–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Egenes, Thomas. 1989. Introduction to Sanskrit, vol. II. San Diego, CA: Point Loma.Google Scholar

Elman, Jeffrey L., Bates, Elizabeth A., Johnson, Mark, Karmiloff-Smith, Annette, Parisi, Domenico, and Plunkett, Kim. 1996. Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Embick, David. 2000. “Features, syntax, and categories in the Latin perfect.” Linguistic Inquiry 31(2): 185–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Embick, David. 2007. “Blocking effects and analytic/synthetic alternations.” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25(1): 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Evans, Nicholas, and Levinson, Stephen C.. 2009a. “The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32: 429–448.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Evans, Nicholas, and Levinson, Stephen C.. 2009b. “With diversity in mind: Freeing the language sciences from Universal Grammar.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32(5): 472–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fanselow, Gisbert, and Féry, Caroline. 2002. “Ineffability in grammar.” In Resolving conflicts in grammars: Optimality theory in syntax, morphology and phonology, ed. Fanselow, Gisbert and Féry, Caroline, 265–307. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar

Feldman, Laurie Beth, Barac-Cikoja, Dragana, and Kostić, Aleksandar. 2002. “Semantic aspects of morphological processing: Transparency effects in Serbian.” Memory and Cognition 30(4): 629–636.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Feldman, Laurie Beth, and Pastizzo, Matthew John. 2003. “Morphological facilitation: The role of semantic transparency and family size.” In Morphological structure in language processing, ed. Baayen, R. Harald and Schreuder, Robert, 233–258. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fennell, Trevor G., and Gelsen, Henry. 1980. A grammar of modern Latvian. 3 vols. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Finkel, Raphael, and Stump, Gregory T.. 2007. “Principal parts and morphological typology.” Morphology 17(1): 39–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fodor, Janet D. 1972. “Beware.” Linguistic Inquiry 3(4): 528–535.Google Scholar

Foraker, Stephani, Regier, Terry, Khetarpal, Naveen, Perfors, Amy, and Tenenbaum, Joshua B.. 2009. “Indirect evidence and the poverty of the stimulus: The case of anaphoric one.” Cognitive Science 33(2): 287–300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Frampton, John. 2001. “The amn't gap, ineffability, and anomalous aren't: Against morphosyntactic competition.” In CLS 37: Papers from the thirty-seventh regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, vol. II, ed. Andronis, Mary, Ball, Christopher, Elston, Heidi, and Neuvel, Sylvain, 399–412. Chicago: CLS.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

Geist, Ljudmila. 2007. “Predication and equation in copular sentences: Russian vs. English.” In Existence: Semantics and syntax, ed. Comorovski, Ileana and von Heusinger, Klaus, 79–105. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Givón, T. 1971. “Historical syntax and synchronic morphology: An archaeologist's field trip.” In Papers from the seventh regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 394–415. Chicago: CLS.Google Scholar

Goddard, Cliff. 1982. “Case systems and case marking in Australian languages: A new interpretation.” Australian Journal of Linguistics 2: 167–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goldsmith, John, and O'Brien, Jeremy. 2006. “Learning inflectional classes.” Language Learning and Development 2(4): 219–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gómez, Rebecca L. 2002. “Variability and detection of invariant structure.” Psychological Science 13(5): 431–436.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Gonda, J. 1956. “A critical survey of the publications on the periphrastic future in Sanskrit.” Lingua 6: 158–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Groos, Anneke, and van Riemsdijk, Henk. 1981. “Matching effect in free relatives: A parameter of core grammar.” In The theory of markedness in generative grammar: Proceedings of the 1979 GLOW conference, ed. Belletti, Adriana, Brandi, Luciana, and Rizzi, Luigi, 171–216. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superioredi Pisa.Google Scholar

Guimerà, Roger, Uzzi, Brian, Spiro, Jarrett, and Amaral, Luís A. N.. 2005. “Team assembly mechanisms determine collaboration network structure and team performance.” Science 308: 697–702.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Halle, Morris. 1973. “Prolegomena to a theory of word formation.” Linguistic Inquiry 4: 3–16.Google Scholar

Hansson, Gunnar Olafur. 1999. “‘When in doubt…’: Intraparadigmatic dependencies and gaps in Icelandic.” In NELS 29: Proceedings of the twenty-ninth meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, ed. Tamanji, Pius, Hirotani, Masako, and Hall, Nancy, 105–119. Amherst, MA: GLSA Publications, The University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar

Hare, Mary, and Elman, Jeffrey. 1995. “Learning and morphological change.” Cognition 56: 61–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Hare, Mary, Elman, Jeffrey L., and Daugherty, Kim G.. 1995. “Default generalisation in connectionist networks.” Language and Cognitive Processes 10(6): 601–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hargus, Sharon. 2007. Witsuwit'en grammar: Phonetics, phonology, morphology. Vancouver: UBC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harris, Alice C. 2008. “On the explanation of typologically unusual structures.” In Linguistic universals and language change, ed. Good, Jeff, 54–76. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harris, Alice C., and Campbell, Lyle. 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hippisley, Andrew, Chumakina, Marina, Corbett, Greville, and Brown, Dunstan. 2004. “Suppletion: Frequency, categories and distribution of stems.” Studies in Language 28(2): 387–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hirsh-Pasek, Kathy, Treiman, Rebecca, and Schneiderman, Maita. 1984. “Brown & Hanlon revisited: Mother's sensitivity to ungrammatical forms.” Journal of Child Language 11: 81–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Haspelmath, Martin. 2001. “Word classes and parts of speech.” In International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences, ed. Baltes, Paul B. and Smelser, Neil J., 16538–16545. Amsterdam: Pergamon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin, and Sims, Andrea D.. 2010. Understanding morphology, 2nd edn. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Hawkins, Peter. 1979. “Greek diglossia and variation theory.” General Linguistics 19(4): 169–187.Google Scholar

Hay, Jennifer. 2003. Causes and consequences of word structure. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Hay, Jennifer, and Baayen, R. Harald. 2002. “Parsing and productivity.” In Booij and van Marle (eds.), 203–235.Google Scholar

Hetzron, Robert. 1975. “Where the grammar fails.” Language 51: 859–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hewitt, B. G. 1995. Georgian: A structural reference grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hippisley, Andrew, Chumakina, Marina, Corbett, Greville, and Brown, Dunstan. 2004. “Suppletion: Frequency, categories and distribution of stems.” Studies in Language 28(2): 387–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hockett, Charles F. 1954. “Two models of grammatical description.” Word 10: 210–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Holton, David, Mackridge, Peter A., and Philippaki-Warburton, Irene. 1997. Greek: A comprehensive grammar of the modern language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Horrocks, Geoffrey. 1997. Greek: A history of the language and its speakers. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Hudson, Richard. 2000. “^*I amn't.” Language 76(2): 297–323.Google Scholar

Inkelas, Sharon, and Orgun, Cemil Orhan. 1995. “Level ordering and economy in the lexical phonology of Turkish.” Language 71(4): 763–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ito, Junko, and Hankamer, Jorge. 1989. “Notes on monosyllabism in Turkish.” Phonology at Santa Cruz 1: 61–69.Google Scholar

Jakobson, Roman. 1984[1939]. “Contributions to the general theory of case: General meanings of the Russian cases.” In Russian and Slavic grammar: Studies 1931–1981, ed. Waugh, Linda and Halle, Morris, 59–104. Berlin: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jakobson, Roman. 1984[1958]. “Morphological observations on Slavic declension (the structure of Russian case forms).” In Russian and Slavic grammar: Studies 1931–1981, ed. Waugh, Linda and Halle, Morris, 105–133. Berlin: Mouton Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jamieson, Carole Ann. 1982. “Conflated subsystems marking person and aspect in Chiquihuitlán Mazatec verb.” International Journal of American Linguistics 48(2): 139–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Janda, Laura. 1996. Back from the brink: A study of how relic forms in languages serve as source material for analogical extension. Munich: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar

Janda, Richard D. 1982. “On limiting the form of morphological rules: German umlaut, diacritics, and the ‘cluster constraint’.” Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistics Society 12: 140–152.Google Scholar

Janda, Richard D. 1983. “‘Morphemes’ aren't something that grows on trees: Morphology as more the phonology than the syntax of words.” In Proceedings of the nineteenth annual meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society: Papers from the parasession on the interplay of phonology, morphology, and syntax, ed. Richardson, John F., Marks, Mitchell, and Chukerman, Amy, 79–95. Chicago: CLS.Google Scholar

Janda, Richard D. 1984. “Why morphological metathesis rules are rare: On the possibility of historical explanation in linguistics.” Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 10: 87–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Janda, Richard D. 2003. “‘Phonologization’ as the start of dephoneticization – or, on sound change and its aftermath: Of extension, generalization, lexicalization, and morphologization.” In The handbook of historical linguistics, ed. Joseph, Brian D. and Janda, Richard D., 401–422. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Janda, Richard D., and Joseph, Brian D.. 1999. “The Modern Greek negator μη(ν)(-) as a morphological constellation.” In Greek linguistics: Proceedings of the third international conference on Greek linguistics, ed. Babiniotis, G., 341–351. Athens: Elinika Gramata.Google Scholar

Jannaris, Antonius N. 1987. An historical Greek grammar chiefly of the Attic dialect, as written and spoken from classical antiquity down to the present time, founded upon the ancient texts, inscriptions, papyri and present popular Greek. Hildesheim: Georg Olms.Google Scholar

Järvikivi, Juhani, Bertram, Raymond, and Niemi, Jussi. 2006. “Affixal salience and the processing of derivational morphology: The role of suffix allomorphy.” Language and Cognitive Processes 21(4): 394–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jelinek, Eloise, and Demers, Richard A.. 1994. “Predicates and pronominal arguments in Straits Salish.” Language 70(4): 697–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jescheniak, Jorg D., and Levelt, Willem J. M.. 1994. “Word frequency effects in speech production: Retrieval of syntactic information and of phonological form.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 20(4): 824–843.Google Scholar

Johansson, Christer. 1999. “Learning what cannot be by failing expectations.” Nordic Journal of Linguistics 22(1): 61–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jörg, Christine. 1989. Isländische Konjugationstabellen / Icelandic conjugation tables / Tableaux de conjugaison islandaise / Beygingatöflur íslenskra sagna. Hamburg: H. Buske.Google Scholar

Joseph, Brian D. 1983. The synchrony and diachrony of the Balkan infinitive: A study in areal, general, and historical linguistics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Joseph, Brian D. 1987. “Greek.” In The world's major languages, ed. Comrie, Bernard, 410–439. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar

Joseph, Brian D. 1997. “How general are our generalizations? What speakers actually know and what they actually do.” In ESCOL '96: Proceedings of the thirteenth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, ed. Green, Anthony D. and Motopanyane, Virginia, 148–160. Ithaca, NY: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar

Joseph, Brian D. 2003. “Morphologization from syntax.” In Handbook of historical linguistics, ed. Joseph, Brian D. and Janda, Richard D., 472–492. Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Joseph, Brian D. 2011. “A localistic approach to universals and variation.” In Linguistic universals and language variation, ed. Siemund, Peter, 394–414. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Joseph, Brian D., and Janda, Richard D.. 1988. “The how and why of diachronic morphologization and demorphologization.” In Theoretical morphology: Approaches in modern linguistics, ed. Hammond, Michael and Noonan, Michael, 193–210. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Joseph, Brian D., and Philippaki-Warburton, Irene. 1987. Modern Greek. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar

Juge, Matthew. 1999. “On the rise of suppletion in verbal paradigms.” Proceedings of the twenty-fifth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 25(1): 183–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Juge, Matthew. 2013. “Dynamic defectiveness and the development of suppletion.” Paper presented at Societas Linguistica Europaea. Split, Croatia, September 18–21, 2013.Google Scholar

Kalnača, Andra, and Lokmane, Ilze. 2010. “Defective paradigms of reflexive nouns and participles in Latvian.” In Baerman et al. (eds.), 53–67.Google Scholar

Karlsson, Fred. 2000. “Defectivity.” In Booij et al. (eds.), 647–654.Google Scholar

Katz, Leonard, Rexer, Karl, and Lukatela, Georgije. 2004. “The processing of inflected words.” Psychological Research 53(1): 25–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kibort, Anna. 2010. “Toward a typology of grammatical features.” In Features: Perspectives on a key notion in linguistics, ed. Kibort, Anna and Corbett, Greville G., 64–106. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kibrik, Aleksandr E. 1998. “Archi.” In The handbook of morphology, ed. Spencer, Andrew and Zwicky, Arnold M., 455–476. Maiden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Kiefer, Ferenc. 2000. “Regularity.” In Booij et al. (eds.), 296–302.Google Scholar

Kimball, Geoffrey. 1991. Koasati grammar. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, in cooperation with the American Indian Studies Research Institute, Indiana University.Google Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul. 2001. “Structural case in Finnish.” Lingua 111: 315–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul. 2005. “Blocking and periphrasis in inflectional paradigms.” In Yearbook of morphology 2004, ed. Booij, Geert and van Marle, Jaap, 113–135. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Klausenburger, Jurgen. 1976. “(De)morphologization in Latin.” Lingua 40: 305–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kostić, Aleksandar. 1991. “Informational approach to the processing of inflected morphology: Standard data reconsidered.” Psychological Research 53(1): 62–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kostić, Aleksandar, Marković, Tanja, and Baucal, Aleksandar. 2003. “Inflectional morphology and word meaning: Orthogonal or co-implicative cognitive domains?” In Morphological structure in language processing, ed. Baayen, R. Harald and Schreuder, Robert, 1–43. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 1977. “Syntactic reanalysis.” In Mechanisms of syntactic change, ed. Li, Charles N., 57–139. Austin: University of Texas Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lass, Roger. 1990. “How to do things with junk: Exaptation in language evolution.” Journal of Linguistics 26: 79–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levelt, Willem J. M., Roelofs, Ardi, and Meyer, Antje S.. 1999. “A theory of lexical access in speech production.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22(1): 1–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Lewis, M. Paul, Simons, Gary F., and Fennig, Charles D.. 2013. Ethnologue: Languages of the world, 17th edn. Dallas, TX: SIL International. Available at www.ethnologue.com (accessed September 1, 2013).Google Scholar

Lexikó tīs koinī́s neoellīnikī́s. 1998. Thessaloniki: Triantafillidis Institute, Aristoteleio Panepistimio Thessalonikis.Google Scholar

Lidz, Jeffrey, and Waxman, Sandra. 2004. “Reaffirming the poverty of the stimulus argument: A reply to the replies.” Cognition 93: 157–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lidz, Jeffrey, Waxman, Sandra, and Freedman, Jennifer. 2003. “What infants know about syntax but couldn't have learned: Experimental evidence for syntactic structure at 18-months.” Cognition 89: B65–B73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Lieber, Rochelle. 1980. On the organization of the lexicon. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar

Luce, Paul A. 1986. Neighborhoods of words in the mental lexicon: Research on speech perception technical report No. 6. Bloomington: Speech Research Laboratory, Department of Psychology, Indiana University.Google Scholar

Luce, Paul A., and Pisoni, David B.. 1998. “Recognizing spoken words: The Neighborhood Activation Model.” Ear and Hearing 19(1): 1–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Lukács, Ágnes, Rebrus, Péter, and Törkenczy, Miklós. 2010. “Paradigmatic space and defectiveness in Hungarian: Description and experimental study.” In Baerman et al. (eds.), 85–102.Google Scholar

Lunt, Horace G. 2001. Old Church Slavonic grammar, 7th rev. edn. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Macdonell, Arthur Anthony. 1910. Vedic grammar (2000 reprint). New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

MacWhinney, Brian, Leinbach, Jared, Taraban, Roman, and McDonald, Janet. 1989. “Language learning: Cues or rules?” Journal of Memory and Language 28(3): 255–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Maiden, Martin. 2004. “When lexemes become allomorphs: On the genesis of suppletion.” Folia Linguistica 38(3–4): 227–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Maiden, Martin. 2005. “Morphological autonomy and diachrony.” In Yearbook of morphology 2004, ed. Booij, Geert and van Marle, Jaap, 137–175. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Maiden, Martin. 2009. “From pure phonology to pure morphology: The reshaping of the Romance verb.” Recherches linguistiques de Vincennes 38: 45–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Maiden, Martin. 2011. “Morphomes and ʻstress-conditioned allomorphyʼ in Romansh.” In Maiden et al. (eds.), 36–50.Google Scholar

Maiden, Martin, and O'Neill, Paul. 2010. “On morphomic defectiveness: Evidence from the Romance languages of the Iberian Peninsula.” In Baerman et al. (eds.), 103–124.Google Scholar

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

Mailhammer, Robert. 2007. “Islands of resilience: The history of the German strong verbs from a systemic point of view.” Morphology 17(1): 77–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Maling, Joan. 2001. “Dative: The heterogeneity of the mapping among morphological case, grammatical functions, and thematic roles.” Lingua 111(4–7): 419–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Maye, Jessica, Werker, Janet, and Gerken, LouAnn. 2002. “Infant sensitivity to distributional information can affect phonetic discrimination.” Cognition 82(3): B101–B111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

McCarthy, John J., and Wolf, Matthew. 2005. “Less than zero: Correspondence and the null output.” Ms. University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Available on Rutgers Optimality Archive (ROA), 722, http://roa.rutgers.edu/article/view/732 (accessed August 21, 2014).Google Scholar

McClendon, Sally. 1977. A grammar of Eastern Pomo. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Mel'čuk, Igor A. 1986. “Toward a definition of case.” In Case in Slavic, ed. Brecht, Richard D and Levine, James S., 35–85. Columbus, OH: Slavica.Google Scholar

Milin, Petar, Kuperman, Victor, Kostić, Aleksandar, and Baayen, R. Harald. 2009. “Words and paradigms bit by bit: An information-theoretic approach to the processing of inflection and derivation.” In Analogy in grammar: Form and acquisition, ed. Blevins, James P. and Blevins, Juliette, 214–252. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Milne, A. A. 1965. Vinni-Pux i vse-vse-vse [Russian translation of The world of Pooh]. Trans.Zaxoder, Boris. Moskva: Detskaja literatura.Google Scholar

Mithun, Marianne. 2010. “The search for regularity in irregularity: Defectiveness and its implications for our knowledge of words.” In Baerman et al. (eds.), 125–149.Google Scholar

Morin, Yves-Charles. 1987. “Remarques sur l'organisation de la flexion des verbes français.” ITL: Review of Applied Linguistics 77–78: 13–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

del Prado Martín, Moscoso, Fermín, Aleksandar Kostić, and Baayen, R. Harald. 2004. “Putting the bits together: An information theoretical perspective on morphological processing.” Cognition 94: 1–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Müller, Gereon. 2004. “On decomposing inflection class features: Syncretism in Russian noun inflection.” In Müller et al. (eds.), 189–227.Google Scholar

Müller, Gereon. 2007. “Notes on paradigm economy.” Morphology 17(1): 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Müller, Gereon. 2011. “Syncretism without underspecification: The role of leading forms.” Word Structure 4(1): 53–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Müller, Gereon, Gunkel, Lutz, and Zifonun, Gisela, eds. 2004. Explorations in nominal inflection. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Munro, Pamela. 2005. “Chickasaw.” In Native languages of the Southeastern United States ed. Hardy, Heather K. and Scancarelli, Janine, 114–156. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar

Munro, Pamela, and Gordon, Lynn. 1982. “Syntactic relations in Western Muskogean: A typological perspective.” Language 58(1): 81–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nau, Nicole. 1998. Latvian. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar

Newmark, Leonard, Hubbard, Philip, and Prifti, Peter R.. 1982. Standard Albanian: A reference grammar for students. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1998. Language form and language function. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Niswander, Elizabeth, Pollatsek, Alexander, and Rayner, Keith. 2000. “The processing of derived and inflected suffixed words during reading.” Language and Cognitive Processes 15(4–5): 389–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Noyer, Rolf. 1998. “Impoverishment theory and morphosyntactic markedness.” In Morphology and its relation to phonology and syntax, ed. Lapointe, Steven G., Brentari, Diane K., and Farrell, Patrick M., 264–285. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar

Nübling, Damaris. 2011. “How do exceptions arise? On different paths to morphological irregularity.” In Expecting the unexpected: Exceptions in grammar, ed. Simon, Horst J. and Wiese, Heike, 149–172. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Orgun, Cemil Orhan, and Sprouse, Ronald L.. 1999. “From MPARSE to CONTROL: Deriving ungrammaticality.” Phonology 16: 191–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Oxford English Dictionary online. Oxford University Press. Available at www.oed.com.Google Scholar

Pearl, Lisa, and Goldwater, Sharon. Forthcoming. “Statistical learning, inductive bias, and Bayesian inference in language acquisition.” In Oxford handbook of developmental linguistics, ed. Jeffrey Lidz. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Peperkamp, Sharon, Calvez, Rozenn Le, Nadal, Jean-Pierre, and Dupoux, Emmanuel. 2006. “The acquisition of allophonic rules: Statistical learning with linguistic constraints.” Cognition 101(3): B31–B41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Perfors, Amy, Tenenbaum, Joshua B., and Regier, Terry. 2011. “The learnability of abstract syntactic principles.” Cognition 118: 306–338.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Perlmutter, David, and Moore, John. 2002. “Language-internal explanation: The distribution of Russian impersonals.” Language 78(4): 619–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pertsova, Katya. 2005. “How lexical conservatism can lead to paradigm gaps.” UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 11: 13–38.Google Scholar

Pierrehumbert, Janet. 2012. “The dynamic lexicon.” In The Oxford handbook of laboratory phonology, ed. Cohn, Abigail C., Fougeron, Cécile, and Huffman, Marie K., 173–183. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Pinker, Steven. 1991. “Rules of language.” Science 253(5019): 530–535.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Pinker, Steven, and Prince, Alan. 1988. “On language and connectionism: Analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition.” Cognition 28(1): 73–193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Plag, Ingo, and Baayen, R. Harald. 2009. “Suffix ordering and morphological processing.” Language 85(1): 109–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Plank, Frans. 1994. “Inflection and derivation.” In The encyclopedia of language and linguistics, vol. III, ed. Asher, R. E., 1671–1678. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar

Plaut, David C., and Gonnerman, Laura M.. 2000. “Are non-semantic morphological effects incompatible with a distributed connectionist approach to lexical processing?” Language and Cognitive Processes 15(4–5): 445–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Plunkett, Kim, and Marchman, Virginia. 1991. “U-shaped learning and frequency effects in a multi-layered perceptron: Implications for child language acquisition.” Cognition 38: 43–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pollard, Carl, and Sag, Ivan. 1994. Head-driven phrase structure grammar. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Poser, William J. 1992. “Blocking of phrasal constructions by lexical items.” In Lexical matters, ed. Sag, Ivan A. and Szabolcsi, Anna, 111–130. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar

Prasada, Sandeep, and Pinker, Steven. 1993. “Generalisation of regular and irregular morphological patterns.” Language and Cognitive Processes 8(1): 1–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Prince, Alan, and Smolensky, Paul. 2002[1993]. “Optimality Theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar.” Ms. Available on Rutgers Optimality Archive (ROA 537-0802), http://roa.rutgers.edu/article/view/537 (accessed August 12, 2014).Google Scholar

Pullum, Geoffrey K., and Scholz, Barbara C.. 2002. “Empirical assessment of stimulus poverty arguments.” The Linguistic Review 19(1–2): 9–50.Google Scholar

Pullum, Geoffrey K., and Zwicky, Arnold M.. 1986. “Phonological resolution of syntactic feature conflict.” Language 62(4): 751–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ralli, Angela. 1994. “Feature representations and feature-passing operations in Greek nominal inflection.” In Proceedings of the Eighth Symposium on English and Greek Linguistics, 19–46. English Department, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.Google Scholar

Ralli, Angela. 2002. “The role of morphology in gender determination: Evidence from Modern Greek.” Linguistics 40(3): 519–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Raveh, Michal. 2002. “The contribution of frequency and semantic similarity to morphological processing.” Brain and Language 81(1–3): 312–325.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Reali, Florencia, and Christiansen, Morten H.. 2005. “Uncovering the richness of the stimulus: Structure dependence and indirect statistical evidence.” Cognitive Science 29(6): 1007–1028.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Rebuschat, Patrick, and Williams, John N.. 2011. Statistical learning and language acquisition. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Regier, Terry, and Gahl, Susanne. 2004. “Learning the unlearnable: The role of missing evidence.” Cognition 93: 147–155.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Rice, Curt. 2003. “Dialectal variation in Norwegian imperatives.” Nordlyd 31: 372–384.Google Scholar

Rice, Curt. 2005. “Optimal gaps in optimal paradigms.” Catalan Journal of Linguistics 4(1): 155–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rice, Curt. 2007. “Gaps and repairs at the phonology–morphology interface.” Journal of Linguistics 43(1): 197–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rice, Curt, and Blaho, Sylvia, eds. 2009. Modeling ungrammaticality in Optimality Theory. London: Equinox Publishing.Google Scholar

Robins, Robert H. 2001[1959]. “In defense of WP.” Transactions of the Philological Society 99: 1–36.Google Scholar

Rounds, Carol. 2001. Hungarian: An essential grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Rueckl, Jay G., and Raveh, Michal. 1999. “The influence of morphological regularities on the dynamics of a connectionist network.” Brain and Language 68: 110–117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Rumelhart, David E., and McClelland, James L.. 1986. “On learning the past tenses of English verbs.” In Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition, vol. II: Psychological and biological models, ed. McClelland, James L., Rumelhart, David E., and PDP Research Group, 216–271. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rumelhart, David E., McClelland, James L., and PDP Research Group, eds. 1986. Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition, 2 vols. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sadler, Louisa, and Spencer, Andrew. 2000. “Syntax as an exponent of morphological features.” In Yearbook of morphology 2000, ed. Booij, Geert and van Marle, Jaap, 71–96. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Saffran, Jenny R., Aslin, Richard N., and Newport, Elissa L.. 1996. “Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants.” Science 274: 1926–1928.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Saffran, Jenny R., Newport, Elissa L., and Aslin, Richard N.. 1996. “Word segmentation: The role of distributional cues.” Journal of Memory and Language 35: 606–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schirmeier, Matthias K., Derwing, Bruce L., and Libben, Gary. 2004. “Lexicality, morphological structure, and semantic transparency in the processing of German verbs: The complementarity of on-line and off-line evidence.” Brain and Language 90(1–3): 74–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Shi, Lei, Griffiths, Thomas L., Feldman, Naomi H., and Sanborn, Adam N.. 2010. “Exemplar models as a mechanism for performing Bayesian inference.” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 17(4): 443–464.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Sims, Andrea D. 2006. “Minding the gaps: Inflectional defectiveness in paradigmatic morphology.” Ph.D. thesis, Linguistics Department, The Ohio State University.Google Scholar

Sims, Andrea D. 2009. “Why paradigmatic gaps are, and aren't, the result of competing morphological patterns.” In Proceedings of the forty-third annual meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, vol. II, ed. Elliott, Malcolm, Kirby, James, Sawada, Osamu, Staraki, Eleni, and Yoon, Suwon, 267–281. Chicago: CLS.Google Scholar

Sims, Andrea D., Daland, Robert, and Pierrehumbert, Janet. In prep. “Inflectional defectiveness: A ‘paradigm’ case of implicit learning.” Ms. The Ohio State University.Google Scholar

Smolensky, Paul. 1996. “On the comprehension/production dilemma in child language.” Linguistic Inquiry 27(4): 720–731.Google Scholar

Spencer, Andrew. 1999. “Analytic tenses in Slavic: An LFG approach.” Paper presented at Conference on Generative linguistics in Poland, Warsaw.Google Scholar

Spencer, Andrew. 2004. “Morphology: An overview of central concepts.” In Projecting morphology, ed. Sadler, Louisa and Spencer, Andrew, 67–106. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar

Spencer, Andrew. 2005. “Towards a typology of ‘mixed categories’.” In Morphology and the web of grammar: Essays in memory of Steven G. Lapointe, ed. Orgun, Cemil Orhan and Sells, Peter, 95–138. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar

Spencer, Andrew. 2009. “Realization-based morphosyntax: The German genitive.” In On inflection, ed. Steinkrüger, Patrick O. and Krifka, Manfred, 173–218. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stassen, Leon. 2011. “Zero copula for predicate nominals.” In The world atlas of language structures online, ed. Dryer, Matthew S. and Haspelmath, Martin. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library. Available at http://wals.info/chapter/120 (accessed April 9, 2015).Google Scholar

Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2008. “Negative entrenchment: A usage-based approach to negative evidence.” Cognitive Linguistics 19(3): 513–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Steriade, Donca. 1999. “Lexical conservatism.” In Linguistics in the morning calm: Selected papers from SICOL-'97, 157–179. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co.Google Scholar

Stewart, Thomas W., and Stump, Gregory T.. 2007. “Paradigm Function Morphology and the morphology–syntax interface.” In The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, ed. Ramchand, Gillian and Reiss, Charles, 383–421. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Stump, Gregory T. 2001. Inflectional morphology: A theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stump, Gregory T. 2002. “Morphological and syntactic paradigms: Arguments for a theory of paradigm linkage.” In Booij and van Marle (eds.), 147–180.Google Scholar

Stump, Gregory T. 2005. “Some criticisms of Carstairs-McCarthy's conclusions.” In Yearbook of morphology 2005, ed. Booij, Geert and van Marle, Jaap, 283–303. Amsterdam: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stump, Gregory T. 2006. “Heteroclisis and paradigm linkage.” Language 82(2): 279–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stump, Gregory T. 2010. “Interactions between defectiveness and syncretism.” In Baerman et al. (eds.), 181–210.Google Scholar

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

Sulkala, Helena, and Karjalainen, Merja. 1992. Finnish. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Švedova, Julja. 1982. Grammatika sovremennogo russkogo literaturnogo jayzka. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar

Taft, Marcus. 1979. “Recognition of affixed words and the word frequency effect.” Memory and Cognition 7(4): 263–272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Taft, Marcus, and Forster, Kenneth. 1975. “Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 14(6): 638–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tenenbaum, Joshua B., and Griffiths, Thomas L.. 2001. “Generalization, similarity, and Bayesian inference.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24: 629–640.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Thornton, Anna Maria. 2011. “Overabundance (multiple forms realizing the same cell): A non-canonical phenomenon in Italian verb morphology.” In Maiden et al. (eds.), 358–381.Google Scholar

Thymé, Ann, Ackerman, Farrell, and Elman, Jeffrey L.. 1994. “Finnish nominal inflection: Paradigmatic patterns and token analogy.” In The reality of linguistic rules, ed. Lima, Susan D., Corrigan, Roberta L., and Iverson, Gregory K., 445–466. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Timberlake, Alan. 1977. “Reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change.” In Mechanisms of syntactic change, ed. Li, Charles N., 141–177. Austin: University of Texas Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Timberlake, Alan. 2004. A reference grammar of Russian. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Tomasello, Michael. 2000. “First steps toward a usage-based theory of language acquisition.” Cognitive Linguistics 11: 61–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Tomasello, Michael. 2004. “Syntax or semantics? Response to Lidz et al.” Cognition 93(2): 139–140.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Tonnet, Henri. 1993. Histoire du grec moderne. Paris: L'Asiathèque.Google Scholar

Törkenczy, Miklós. 2002. “Absolute phonological ungrammaticality in output-based phonology.” In Approaches to Hungarian, vol. VIII: Papers from the Budapest conference, ed. Kenesi, Istvan and Síptar, Péter, 311–324. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar

Trubetzkoy, N. S. 1969[1939]. Principles of phonology. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Unbegaun, B. O. 1935. La langue russe au XVIe siècle (1500–1550): 1 La flexion des noms. Paris.Google Scholar

Ušakov, D. N., ed 1974. Tolkovyj slovar′ russkogo jazyka. Cambridge, MA: Slavica Publishers.Google Scholar

Valentine, J. Randolph. 2001. Nishnaabemwin reference grammar. University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar

Wechsler, Stephen, and Zlatić, Larisa. 2001. “Case realization and identity.” Lingua 111(4–7): 539–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wedel, Andrew. 2007. “Feedback and regularity in the lexicon.” Phonology 24(1): 147–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Wunderlich, Dieter. 2001. “How gaps and substitutions can become optimal: the pronominal affix paradigms of Yimas.” Transactions of the Philological Society 99: 315–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wunderlich, Dieter. 2004. “Is there any need for the concept of directional syncretism?” In Müller et al. (eds.), 373–395.Google Scholar

Wurzel, Wolfgang U. 1989. Inflectional morphology and naturalness. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Young, Katherine M. 1984. “Multiple case assignments.” Ph.D. thesis, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT.Google Scholar

Zaenen, Annie, and Karttunen, Lauri. 1984. “Morphological non-distinctiveness and coordination.” In Proceedings of the First Eastern States Conference on Linguistics, ed. Alvarez, Gloria, Brodie, Belinda, and McCoy, Terry, 309–320. Columbus: Ohio State University, Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar

Zaliznjak, A. A. 1967. Russkoe imennoe slovoizmenenie. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar

Zaliznjak, A.A. 1973. “O ponimanii termina ‘padež’ v lingvističeskix opisanijax.” In Problemy grammatičeskogo modelirovanija, ed. Zaliznjak, A. A., 53–87. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar

Zaliznjak, A.A. ed. 1977. Grammatičeskij slovar' russkogo jazyka: Slovoizmenenie. Moskva: Russkij-jazyk.Google Scholar

Zubin, David A., and Köpcke, Klaus-Michael. 1981. “Gender: A less than arbitrary grammatical category.” In Proceedings of the seventeenth regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 439–449. Chicago: CLS.Google Scholar

Zwicky, Arnold M. 1985. “How to describe inflection.” In Proceedings of the eleventh annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. Niepokuj, Mary, VanClay, Mary, Nikiforidou, Vassiliki, and Feder, Deborah, 371–386. University of California at Berkeley, Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar

Zwicky, Arnold M. 1991. “Systematic versus accidental phonological identity.” In Paradigms: The economy of inflection, ed. Plank, Frans, 113–131. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zwicky, Arnold M. 1992. “Some choices in the theory of morphology.” In Formal grammar: Theory and implementation, ed. Levine, Robert, 327–371. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zwicky, Arnold M. 1996. “Syntax and phonology.” In Concise encyclopedia of syntactic theories, ed. Brown, Keith and Miller, Jim, 300–305. Oxford: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar

Zwicky, Arnold M. 2000. “Describing syncretism: Rules of referral after fifteen years.” Paper presented at twenty-sixth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar

Zwicky, Arnold M., and Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 1983. “Cliticization vs. inflection: English n't.” Language 59(3): 502–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar