Ackerman, Farrell & Malouf, Robert. 2013. Morphological organization: The low conditional entropy conjecture. Language 89. 429–464.Google Scholar

Albright, Adam. 2002. Islands of reliability for regular morphology: Evidence from Italian. Language 78. 684–709.Google Scholar

Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-Morphous Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Anderson, Stephen R. 2008. Phonologically conditioned allomorphy in the morphology of Surmiran (Rumantsch). Word Structure 1. 109–134.Google Scholar

Aoki, Haruo. 1994. Nez Perce Dictionary. (University of California Publications in Linguistics 122). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Arensen, Jon. 1982. Murle Grammar (Occasional papers in the study of Sudanese languages 2). Juba: University of Juba and SIL.Google Scholar

Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by Itself: Stems and Inflectional Classes (Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 22). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Austin, Peter. 1981/2013. A Grammar of Diyari, South Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2nd edn., version 2.5, 2013, School of Oriental and African Studies, London. [Page references to the 2013 edition.]Google Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald. 2008. Analyzing Linguistic Data. A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Baerman, Matthew. 2001. Unnatural classes in morphological change. Russian Linguistics 25. 281–284.Google Scholar

Baerman, Matthew. 2012. Paradigmatic chaos in Nuer. Language 88(3). 467–494.Google Scholar

Baerman, Matthew. 2014. Covert systematicity in a distributionally complex system. Journal of Linguistics 50. 1–47.Google Scholar

Baerman, Matthew. 2016. Seri verb classes: morphosyntactic motivation and morphological autonomy. Language 92(4). 792–823.Google Scholar

Baerman, Matthew, Brown, Dunstan, & Corbett, Greville G. 2005. The Syntax-Morphology Interface: A Study of Syncretism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Baerman, Matthew & Corbett, Greville G.. 2012. Stem alternations and multiple exponence. Word Structure 5.1. 52–68.Google Scholar

Baerman, Matthew, Corbett, Greville G., & Brown, Dunstan (eds). 2010. Defective Paradigms: Missing Forms and What They Tell Us (Proceedings of the British Academy, 163). Oxford: British Academy and Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Baerman, Matthew, Corbett, Greville, Brown, Dunstan, & Hippisley, Andrew (eds). 2007 . Deponency and Morphological Mismatches (Proceedings of the British Academy, 145). Oxford: British Academy and Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Baerman, Matthew & Palancar, Enrique L.. 2014. The organization of Chinantec tone paradigms. Carnets de Grammaire 22: Proceedings of Les Décembrettes, 8th International Conference on Morphology, 46–59. Toulouse: CNRS & Université Toulouse – Jean Jaurès.Google Scholar

Blevins, James P. 2003. Stems and paradigms. Language 79 (4). 737–767.Google Scholar

Blevins, James P. 2004. Inflection classes and economy. In: Müller, Gereon, Gunkel, Lutz & Zifonun, Gisela (eds) Explorations in Nominal Inflection, 41–85. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Blevins, James P. 2006. Word-based morphology. Journal of Linguistics 42. 531–573.Google Scholar

Blevins, James P., Ackerman, Farrell, Malouf, Robert, & Ramscar, Michael. 2016. Morphology as an adaptive discriminative system. In: Siddiqi, Daniel & Harley, Heidi (eds) Morphological Metatheory, 271–301. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

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

Bond, Oliver. 2013. A base for canonical negation. In: Brown, Dunstan, Chumakina, Marina & Corbett, Greville G. (eds) Canonical Morphology and Syntax, 20–47. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Briley, David. 1997. Four grammatical marking systems in Bauzi. In: Franklin, Karl J. (ed.) Papers in Papuan Linguistics, 2, 1–131. Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University.Google Scholar

Brown, Dunstan. 1998. From the general to the exceptional: A network morphology account of Russian nominal inflection. PhD thesis, University of Surrey.Google Scholar

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

Brown, Dunstan & Evans, Roger. 2012. Morphological complexity and unsupervised learning: Validating Russian inflectional classes using high frequency data. In: Kiefer, Ferenc, Ladányi, Mária & Siptár, Péter (eds) Current Issues in Morphological Theory: (Ir)regularity, Analogy and Frequency. Selected Papers from the 14th International Morphology Meeting, Budapest, 13–16 May 2010, 135–162. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

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

Browne, Wayles. 1993. Serbo-Croat. In: Comrie, Bernard & Corbett, Greville G. (eds) The Slavonic Languages, 306–387. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Bugarski, Ranko. 2012. Language, identity and borders in the former Serbo-Croatian area. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 33. 219–235.Google Scholar

Bunn, Gordon. 1974. Golin Grammar. Ukarumpa: SIL. Online: www.sil.org/pacific/png/abstract.asp?id=10339.Google Scholar

Bye, Patrik. 2015. The nature of allomorphy and exceptionality: Evidence from Burushaski plurals. In: Bonet, Eulàlia, Lloret, Maria-Rosa & Mascaró, Joan (eds) Understanding Allomorphy: Perspectives from Optimality Theory, 107–176. London: Equinox.Google Scholar

Caballero, Gabriela. 2011. Morphologically conditioned stress assignment in Choguita Rarámuri (Tarahumara). Linguistics 49(4). 749–790.Google Scholar

Campbell, Eric. 2011. Zenzontepec Chatino aspect morphology and Zapotecan verb classes. International Journal of American Linguistics 77(2). 219–246.Google Scholar

Carleton, Troi & Waksler, Rachelle. 2000. Pronominal markers in Zenzontepec Chatino. International Journal of American Linguistics 66(3). 383–397.Google Scholar

Carstairs, Andrew. 1983. Paradigm economy. Journal of Linguistics 19. 115–128.Google Scholar

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

Carstairs, Andrew. 1988. Some implications of phonologically conditioned suppletion. In: Booij, Geert & van Marle, Jaap (eds) Yearbook of Morphology 1988, 67–94. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Carstairs, Andrew. 1990. Phonologically conditioned suppletion. In: Dressler, Wolfgang U., Luschützky, Hans C., Pfeiffer, Oskar E., & Rennison, John R. (eds) Contemporary Morphology, 17–23. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 1994. Inflection classes, gender, and the principle of contrast. Language 70. 737–788.Google Scholar

Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 2010. The Evolution of Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Cerrón-Palomino, Rodolfo. 2006. El chipaya o la lengua de los hombres del agua. Lima: Pontificia Univ. Católica del Perú.Google Scholar

Chumakina, Marina & Corbett, Greville G.. 2015. Gender-number marking in Archi: Small is complex. In: Baerman, Matthew, Brown, Dunstan, & Corbett, Greville G. (eds) Understanding and Measuring Morphological Complexity, 93–116. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Chumakina, Marina, Brown, Dunstan, Corbett, Greville G., & Quilliam, Harley. 2007 . Archi: A Dictionary of the Archi villages, Southern Daghestan, Caucasus. Online: www.smg.surrey.ac.uk/archi/linguists/.Google Scholar

Ciucci, Luca. 2007. Indagini sulla morfologia verbale nella lingua ayoreo. Quaderni del Laboratorio di Linguistica 7. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore.Google Scholar

Ciucci, Luca & Bertinetto, Pier Marco. 2015. A diachronic view of Zamucoan verb inflection. Folia Linguistica 36. 19–87.Google Scholar

Coler, Matt. 2015. Aymara inflection. In: Baerman, Matthew (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Inflection, 521–542. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Corbett, Greville G. 1982. Gender in Russian: An account of gender specification and its relationship to declension. Russian Linguistics 6. 197–232.Google Scholar

Corbett, Greville G. 1991. Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Corbett, Greville G. 2000. Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Corbett, Greville G. 2006. Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Corbett, Greville G. 2009a. Canonical inflectional classes. In: Montermini, Fabio, Boyé, Gilles & Tseng, Jesse (eds) Selected Proceedings of the 6th Décembrettes: Morphology in Bordeaux, 1–11. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Online: www.lingref.com/cpp/decemb/6/abstract2231.html.Google Scholar

Corbett, Greville G. 2009b. Morphology-free syntax: Two potential counter-examples from Serbo-Croat. In: Franks, Steven, Chidambaram, Vrinda, & Joseph, Brian (eds) A Linguist’s Linguist: Studies in South Slavic Linguistics in Honor of E. Wayles Browne, 149–166. Bloomington, IN: Slavica.Google Scholar

Corbett, Greville G. 2010. Classic problems at the syntax-morphology interface: Whose are they? In: Müller, Stefan (ed.) Proceedings of the HPSG 2010 Conference, 255–268. Paris: Université Paris Diderot, Paris 7. CSLI Publications. Online: http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/HPSG/2010/toc.shtml.Google Scholar

Corbett, Greville G. 2012. Features. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Corbett, Greville G. 2013. Paradigm conventions. Paper presented at the 46th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea, Split, 18–21 September 2013. Online: www.academia.edu/9055930/Paradigm_conventions.Google Scholar

Corbett, Greville G. 2014. Lexicalization and paradigmatic structure: Key instances in Slavonic. In: Nomachi, Motoki, Danylenko, Andrii, & Piper, Predrag (eds) Grammaticalization and Lexicalization in the Slavic Languages: Proceedings from the 36th meeting of the Commission on the Grammatical Structure of the Slavic Languages of the International Committee of Slavists (Die Welt der Slaven: Sammelbände – Sborniki, 55), 266–274. Munich: Otto Sagner.Google Scholar

Corbett, Greville G. 2015. Morphosyntactic complexity: A typology of lexical splits. Language 91. 145–193.Google Scholar

Corbett, Greville G. 2016. Morphomic splits. In: Luís, Ana & Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo (eds) The Morphome Debate: Diagnosing and analysing morphomic patterns, 64–88. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Corbett, Greville G. & Baerman, Matthew. 2006. Prolegomena to a typology of morphological features. Morphology 16. 231–246.Google Scholar

Corbett, Greville G. & Browne, Wayles. 2009. Serbo-Croat: Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, Serbian (=Chapter 18). In: Comrie, Bernard (ed.) The World’s Major Languages, 2nd edn., 330–346. London: Routledge. [Revised and updated version of 1987 chapter.]Google Scholar

Corbett, Greville G. & Fraser, Norman M.. 1993. Network Morphology: A DATR account of Russian inflectional morphology. Journal of Linguistics 29. 113–42. [Reprinted 2003 in: Francis X. Katamba, (ed.) Morphology: Critical Concepts in Linguistics: VI: Morphology: Its Place in the Wider Context, 364–396. (London: Routledge.)]Google Scholar

Corbett, Greville G. 1997. Vyčislitel´naja lingvistika i tipologija. Vestnik MGU: Serija 9: Filologija no. 2, 122–140.Google Scholar

Corbett, Greville G. 2000. Gender assignment: A typology and a model. In: Senft, Gunter (ed.) Systems of Nominal Classification (Language, Culture and Cognition 4), 293–325. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Crowell, Thomas Harris. 1979. A grammar of Bororo. PhD thesis, Cornell University.Google Scholar

Crysmann, Berthold & Bonami, Olivier. 2016. Variable morphotactics in information-based morphology. Journal of Linguistics 52. 311–374.Google Scholar

Davidson, Matthew. 2002. Studies in southern Wakashan (Nootkan) grammar. PhD thesis, State University of New York at Buffalo. Online: http://wings.buffalo.edu/linguistics/people/students/dissertations/davidson.PDF.Google Scholar

Davies, John. 1981. Kobon. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Davis, Irvine. 1964. The Language of Santa Ana Pueblo. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 191, Anthropological Papers No. 69. 53–190. Washington, DC, US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar

Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. 2000. Number marking and noun categorization in Nilo-Saharan languages. Anthropological Linguistics 42. 214–261.Google Scholar

Donohue, Mark. 2001. Animacy, class and gender in Burmeso. In: Pawley, Andrew, Ross, Malcolm, & Tryon, Darrell (eds) The Boy from Bundaberg: Studies in Melanesian Linguistics in Honour of Tom Dutton (Pacific linguistics 514), 97–115. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar

Dressler, Wolfgang U. 2003. Degrees of grammatical productivity in inflectional morphology. Rivista di Linguistica 15. 31–62.Google Scholar

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

Dum-Tragut, Jasmine. 2009. Armenian: Modern Eastern Armenian. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Dybo, Vladimir A. 2000. Morfonologizovannye paradigmatičeskie akcentnye sistemy: Tipologija i genezis. Moscow: Jazyki russkoj kul´tury.Google Scholar

Embick, David. 2003. Locality, listedness, and morphological information. Studia Linguistica 57. 143–169.Google Scholar

Embick, David & Noyer, Rolf. 2007. Distributed morphology and the syntax—morphology interface. In: Ramchand, Gillian & Reiss, Charles (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, 289–324. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Erelt, Mati, Erelt, Tiiu, & Ross, Kristiina. 1997. Eesti keele käsiraamat. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus. Online: www.eki.ee/books/ekkr/.Google Scholar

Evans, Nicholas, Besold, Jutta, Stoakes, Hywel, & Lee, Alan (eds). 2005. Materials on Golin: Grammar, texts and dictionary. Melbourne: Deptartment of Linguistics and Applied Linguistics, The University of Melbourne.Google Scholar

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

Fähnrich, Heinz. 2012. Die georgische Sprache. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

Feist, Timothy & Palancar, Enrique L.. 2015. Oto-Manguean Inflectional Class Database: Tlatepuzco Chinantec. University of Surrey. Online: http://dx.doi.org/10.15126/SMG.28/1.01.Google Scholar

Feldstein, Ronald. 2001. A Concise Polish Grammar. Durham and Chapel Hill: Slavic and East European Language Resource Center.Google Scholar

Foley, William A. 1986. The Papuan Languages of New Guinea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Franks, Steven L. 1990. Vowel-zero alternations and syllable-counting morphology. Indiana Slavic Studies 5. 79–96.Google Scholar

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

Gershenson, Carlos & Fernández, Nelson. 2012. Complexity and information: Measuring emergence, self-organization, and homeostasis at multiple scales. Complexity 18. 29–44.Google Scholar

Gorbov, Andrej A. 2014. Čislovye paradigmy abstraknyx suščestvitel´nyx v russkom jazyke XX veka: tendencii razvitija i vlijanie anglijskogo jazyka. [Number paradigms of abstract nouns in twentieth-century Russian: Development trends and the influence of English] Russian Linguistics 38. 23–46.Google Scholar

Hernández-Green, Néstor. 2015. Morfosintaxis del otomí de Acazulco. PhD thesis, CIESAS, Mexico.Google Scholar

Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2014. Asymmetries in the prosodic phrasing of function words: Another look at the suffixing preference. Language 90(4). 927–960.Google Scholar

Huntley, David. 1980. The evolution of genitive-accusative animate and personal nouns in Slavic dialects. In: Fisiak, Jacek (ed.) Historical Morphology (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 17), 189–212. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Isačenko, Alexander V. 1962. Die russische Sprache der Gegenwart (Teil I. Formenlehre). Halle: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar

Iva, Sulev. 2007. Võru kirjakeele sõnamuutmissüsteem. PhD thesis, University of Tartu.Google Scholar

Ivić, Pavle. 1972. Sistema padežnyx okončanij suščestvitel´nyx v serboxorvatskom literaturnom jazyke. In: Filin, F. P. (ed.) Russkoe i slavjanskoe jazykoznanie: K 70-letiju člena-korrespondenta AN SSSR R. I .Avanesova, 106–121. Moscow: Nauka. [Republished as Sistem padežnih nastavaka imenica u srpskohrvatskom književnom jeziku, in Pavle Ivić (1990) O jeziku nekadašnjem i sadašnjem, 286–309. Belgrade: BIGS-Jedinstvo.]Google Scholar

Janda, Laura A. & Townsend, Charles E.. 2002. Czech. SEELRC. Online: www.seelrc.org:8080/grammar/mainframe.jsp?nLanguageID=2.Google Scholar

Kemmer, Susanne. 1993. The Middle Voice. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Kibrik, Aleksandr E. 1977. Opyt strukturnogo opisanija arčinskogo jazyka: II: Taksonomičeskaja grammatika. (Publikacii otdelenija strukturnoj i prikladnoj lingvistiki 12). Moscow: Izdatel´stvo Moskovskogo universiteta.Google Scholar

Kibrik, Aleksandr E. 2003. Nominal inflection galore: Daghestanian, with side glances at Europe and the world. In: Plank, Frans (ed.) Noun Phrase Structure in the Languages of Europe, 37–112. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Kibrik, Aleksandr E., Kodzasov, S. V., Olovjannikova, I. P., & Samedov, D. S.. 1977. Opyt strukturnogo opisanija arčinskogo jazyka: I: Leksika, fonetika. (Publikacii otdelenija strukturnoj i prikladnoj lingvistiki, 11). Moscow: Izdatel´stvo Moskovskogo universiteta.Google Scholar

Klaić, Bratoljub. 1953. O dugoj množini trosložnih i višesložnih imenica. Jezik (Zagreb) 2, no. 3. 74–77.Google Scholar

Kulikov, Leonid. 2004. Review of Number. Southwest Journal of Linguistics 23. 124–129.Google Scholar

Laskowski, Roman. 1990. The structure of the inflectional paradigm. ScandoSlavica 36. 149–154.Google Scholar

Ljaševskaja, Ol´ga N. 2004. Semantika russkogo čisla. Moscow: Jazyki Slavjanskoj Kul´tury.Google Scholar

Loporcaro, Michele. 2007. On triple auxiliation in Romance. Linguistics 45, 1, 173–222.Google Scholar

Luís, Ana & Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo (eds). 2016. The Morphome Debate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Luiten, Tyler V. 2011. Old High German nominal morphology revisited: A fresh look at old paradigms. PhD dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.Google Scholar

Maiden, Martin. 1992. Irregularity as a determinant of morphological change. Journal of Linguistics 28. 285–312.Google Scholar

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

Maiden, Martin. 2011. Morphological persistence. In: Martin Maiden, John Charles Smith & Adam Ledgeway (eds) The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages (Volume 1: Structures), 155–215. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar

Maiden, Martin. 2013. The Latin ‘third stem’ and its Romance descendants. Diachronica 30. 492–530.Google Scholar

Marlett, Stephen A. 1981. The structure of Seri. PhD dissertation, University of California at San Diego.Google Scholar

Marlett, Stephen A. 2016. Cmiique Iitom (The Seri language). Ms., University of North Dakota. Online: http://arts-sciences.und.edu/summer-institute-of-linguistics/faculty/marlett-steve/marlett-seri-grammar-latest-draft.pdf.Google Scholar

Mathiassen, Terje. 1997. A Short Grammar of Latvian. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica.Google Scholar

McElhanon, Kenneth A. 1972. Selepet Grammar; Part I: From Root to Phrase (Pacific Linguistics, Series B, No. 21). Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar

Mel´čuk, Igor´ A. 1985. Poverxnostnyj sintaksis russkix čislovyx vyraženij (Wiener Slawistischer Almanach: Sonderband 16). Vienna: Institut für Slawistik der Universität Wien.Google Scholar

Merrifield, William R. & Anderson, Alfred E.. 2007. Diccionario Chinanteco de la diáspora del pueblo antiguo de San Pedro Tlatepuzco, Oaxaca. [2nd edn.]. Mexico DF: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar

Metzger, Ronald G. 2000. Marĩ yaye mena carapana, yaia yaye mena español macãrĩcã tuti = Carapana-español, diccionario de 1000 palabras. Bogotá: Editorial Alberta Lleras Camargo.Google Scholar

Miestamo, Matti. 2006. On the feasibility of complexity metrics. In: Kerge, Krista & Sepper, Maria-Maren (eds), FinEst Linguistics: Proceedings of the Annual Finnish and Estonian Conference of Linguistics, Tallinn, 6–7 May 2004, 11–26. Tallinn: Tallinn University Department of Estonian.Google Scholar

Miestamo, Matti. 2008. Grammatical complexity in a cross-linguistic perspective. In: Miestamo, Matti, Sinnemäki, Kaius, & Karlsson, Fred (eds), Language Complexity: Typology, Contact, Change, 23–41. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Mikaelian, Irina. 2013. Cardinal numeral constructions and the category of animacy in Russian. Russian Linguistics 37. 71–90. DOI: 10.1007/s11185-012-9105-3.Google Scholar

Milanović, Branislav. 1949. Mrazovi: mrazevi; nosovi: nosevi i sl. Naš jezik (Belgrade) I/1–2. 43–53.Google Scholar

Miller, Amy. 2001. A Grammar of Jamul Tiipay. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Miller, Philip, Pullum, Geoffrey K., & Zwicky, Arnold M.. 1997. The principle of phonology-free syntax: Four apparent counterexamples in French. Journal of Linguistics 33.1. 67–90.Google Scholar

Moser, Mary B. & Marlett, Stephen A.. 2010. Comcaac quih yaza quih hant ihiip hac = Diccionario seri-español-inglés. Colección Bicentenario. Mexico City and Sonora: Plaza y Valdés Editores and Universidad de Sonora. Online: www.sil.org/resources/archives/42821.Google Scholar

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

Naba, Jean-Claude. 1994. Le Gulmancema: Essai de systèmatisation. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe.Google Scholar

Nichols, Johanna. 2011. Ingush Grammar. (University of California Publications Series.) Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Nichols, Johanna. 2015. Types of spread zones: Open and closed, horizontal and vertical. In: De Busser, Rik & LaPolla, Randy J. (eds) Language, Structure and Environment: Social, Cultural, and Natural Factors, 261–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Nikolić, Miroslav B. 2013. Imenice koje u srpskom književnom jeziku proširuju osnovu morfemom -ov- u množini. Južnoslovenski fililog 69. 277–318.Google Scholar

Olander, Thomas. 2009. Balto-Slavic Accentual Mobility. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Orlandi, Roberto. 1963. Il plurale breve e lungo in serbo-croato. Ricerche slavistiche 11.3–33.Google Scholar

Orr, Robert. 1996. Again the *ŭ-stems in common Slavic. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 4.312–343.Google Scholar

Ouoba, Bendi Benoît. 1982. Description systèmatique du gulmancema. PhD Thesis, Institut National des Langues et Civilisations Orientales (INALCO), Université de la Sorbonne Nouvelle.Google Scholar

Palancar, Enrique L. 2012. The conjugation classes of Tilapa Otomi: An approach from canonical typology. Linguistics 50.4. 783–832.Google Scholar

Palancar, Enrique L. 2014. Revisiting the complexity of the Chinantec verb conjugation classes. In: Léonard, Jean-Léo & Kihm, Alain (eds) Patterns in Mesoamerican Morphology, 77–102. Paris: Michel Houdiard.Google Scholar

Palancar, Enrique L. & Baerman, Matthew. 2014. Reaching out beyond the word form: Periphrasis and inflectional classes. Paper at the 16th International Morphology Meeting, Budapest, 31 May.Google Scholar

Paster, Mary. 2015. Phonologically conditioned suppletive allomorphy: Cross-linguistic results and theoretical consequences. In: Bonet, Eulàlia,Lloret, Maria-Rosa & Mascaró, Joan (eds) Understanding Allomorphy: Perspectives from Optimality Theory, 218–253. London: Equinox.Google Scholar

Pelletier, Francis Jeffry. 2012. Lexical nouns are both +mass and +count, but they are neither +mass nor +count. In: Massam, Diane (ed.) Count and Mass Across Languages (Oxford Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 42), 9–26. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Pešikan, Mitar. 1956. O umetku -ov- (-ev-) u množini imenica prve vrste. Naš jezik 8. 270–275.Google Scholar

Pitkin, Harvey. 1984. Wintu Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Plungian [Plungjan], Vladimir A. 2002. K semantike russkogo lokativa. Semiotika i informatika 37. 229–254.Google Scholar

Polivanova, A. K. 1983. Vybor čislovyx form suščestvitel´nogo v russkom jazyke. In: Grigor´ev, V. P. (ed.) Problemy strukturnoj lingvistiki, 130–145. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar

Rätsep, Huno. 1982. Eesti keele ajalooline morfoloogia (Vol. 1, 2nd edn.). Tartu: Tartu Riiklik Ülikool.Google Scholar

Reh, Mechthild. 1985. Die Krongo-Sprache (Nìinò Mó-Dì): Beschreibung, Texte, Wörterverzeichnis. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag.Google Scholar

Rich, Rolland. 1999. Diccionario Arabela-Castellano. (Serie Lingüística Peruana, 49.) Lima, Peru: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.Google Scholar

Robinson, Stewart. 2011. Split intransitivity in Rotokas, a Papuan language of Bougainville. PhD thesis, Radboud University.Google Scholar

Rodrigues, Aryon Dall’Igna. 1993. Uma hipótese sobre a flexão de pessoa em Boróro. Anais da 45a Reunião Anual da SBPC, Recife, p. 50. Online: http://biblio.etnolinguistica.org/rodrigues-1993-bororo.Google Scholar

Romero-Mendez, Rodrigo. 2008. A reference grammar of Ayutla Mixe. PhD thesis, State University of New York at Buffalo.Google Scholar

Rothstein, Robert A. 1993. Polish. In: Comrie, Bernard & Corbett, Greville G. (eds) The Slavonic Languages, 686–758. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Rupp, James & Rupp, Nadine. 1996. Diccionario chinanteco de San Juan Lealao, Oaxaca. Tucson: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar

Saeed, John I. 1999. Somali. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Sagna, Serge. 2012. Physical properties and culture-specific factors as principles of semantic categorisation of the Gújjolaay Eegimaa noun class system. Cognitive Linguistics 23.1. 129–163.Google Scholar

Sakhno, Sergueï. 2011. Pourquoi deux génitifs et deux locatifs en russe pour certains substantifs? Etat actuel des paradigmes et aspects diachroniques. In: Fruyt, Michèle, Mazoyer, Michel & Pardee, Dennis (eds) Grammatical Case in the Languages of the Middle East and Europe: Acts of the International Colloquium Variations, Concurrence et Evolution des Cas dans Divers Domaines Linguistiques, Paris, 2–4 April, 2007, 359–372. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Samardžija, Marko. 1988. Duga i kratka množina u hrvatskom knјiževnom jeziku. Jezik (Zagreb) XXXV/5. 129–136.Google Scholar

Sapir, Edward. 1922. The Takelma language of southwestern Oregon. In: Boas, Franz (ed.) Handbook of American Indian Languages [vol. 2], pp. 1–296. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar

Schenker, Alexander M. 1993. Proto-Slavonic. In: Comrie, Bernard & Corbett, Greville G. (eds) The Slavonic Languages, 60–121. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Seiler, Walter. 1985. Imonda: A Papuan Language (Pacific Linguistics, Series B, No. 93). Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar

Short, David. 1993a. Czech. In: Comrie, Bernard & Corbett, Greville G. (eds) The Slavonic Languages, 455–532. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Short, David. 1993b. Slovak. In: Comrie, Bernard & Corbett, Greville G. (eds) The Slavonic Languages, 533–592. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Siewierska, Anna. 2004. Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sims, Andrea. 2015. Inflectional Defectiveness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Sims, Andrea & Parker, Jeff. 2016. How inflection class systems work: On the informativity of implicative structure. Word Structure 9.2. (Special issue on Word and Pattern Morphology edited by Farrell Ackerman and Robert Malouf), 215–239.Google Scholar

Šipka, Milan. 1999. Korelacije značenja i oblika duge i kratke množine imenica muškog roda u srpskom i/ili hrvatskom jeziku. In: Tošović, Branko (ed.) Die grammatischen Korrelationen (GraLiS-1999), 165–176. Graz: Institut für Slawistik der Karl-Franzens-Universität.Google Scholar

Spencer, Andrew. 1991. Morphological Theory: An Introduction to Word Structure in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Spencer, Andrew. 2012. Identifying stems. Word Structure 5.1 (special issue on Stems edited by Olivier Bonami), 88–108.Google Scholar

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

Stebbins, Tonya N. 2011. Mali (Baining) Grammar. (Pacific Linguistics, 623.) Canberra: Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University.Google Scholar

Stebbins, Tonya N. & Tayul, Julius. 2012. Mali (Baining) Dictionary: Mali-Baining Amēthamon Angētha Thēvaik. (Asia-Pacific Linguistics Open Access Monographs, 001.) Canberra, ACT: Asia-Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar

Sterner, Joyce K. 1987. Sobei verb morphology reanalyzed to reflect POL studies. Oceanic Linguistics 26.1,2. 30–54.Google Scholar

Strange, David. 1972. Dano noun inflection. Ms, Summer Institute of Linguistics. Online: www.sil.org/pacific/png/abstract.asp?id=51968.Google Scholar

Stump, Gregory T. 2006. Heteroclisis and paradigm linkage. Language 82.2. 279–322.Google Scholar

Stump, Gregory T. 2012. The formal and functional architecture of inflectional morphology. In: Ralli, Angela, Booij, Geert, Scalise, Sergio, & Karasimos, Athanasios (eds) Morphology and the Architecture of Grammar: On-line Proceedings of the Eighth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (MMM8), Cagliari, Italy, 14–17 September 2011, 255–271. Online: http://lmgd.philology.upatras.gr/en/research/downloads/MMM8_Proceedings.pdf.Google Scholar

Stump, Gregory T. 2015. Inflection classes. In: Baerman, Matthew (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Inflection, 113–139. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Stump, Gregory T. 2016. Inflectional Paradigms: Content and form at the syntax-morphology interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Stump, Gregory T. & Finkel, Raphael. 2013. Morphological Typology: From Word to Paradigm. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Švedova, , N. Ju. (ed.) 1980. Russkaja grammatika: I: Fonetika, fonologija, udarenie, intonacija, slovoobrazovanie, morfologija. Moscow: Nauka. [relevant section written by V. A. Plotnikova]Google Scholar

Swan, Oscar E. 1988. Facultative Animacy in Polish: A Study in Grammatical Gender Formation (Carl Beck Papers in Russian and East European Studies, no. 606.) Pittsburgh.: University of Pittsburgh, Center for Russian and European Studies.Google Scholar

Swan, Oscar E. 2002. A Grammar of Contemporary Polish. Bloomington, IN: Slavica.Google Scholar

Terrill, Angela. 2003. A Grammar of Lavukaleve. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Timberlake, Alan. 2004. A Reference Grammar of Russian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Traill, Anthony. 1994. A!Xóõ dictionary. (Quellen zur Khoisan-Forschung/Research in Khoisan Studies, 9.) Köln: Rüdiger Köppe.Google Scholar

Trask, Larry. 1997. The History of Basque. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Tucker, Archibald N. 1940. The Eastern Sudanic Languages, Volume 1. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Uredništvo, Našeg jezika]. 1949. Mrazovi: mrazevi; nosovi: nosevi i sl. Naš jezik (Belgrade), I/1–2, 53–54.Google Scholar

Velie, Daniel & Velie, Virginia. 1981. Vocabulario orejón. Lima: Ministerio de Educación and Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.Google Scholar

Veríssimo, João & Clahsen, Harald. 2014. Variables and similarity in linguistic generalization: Evidence from inflectional classes in Portuguese. Journal of Memory and Language 76. 61–79.Google Scholar

von Waldenfels, Ruprecht & Eder, Maciej. 2016. A stylometric approach to the study of differences between standard variants of Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian, or: Is the Hobbit in Serbian more Hobbit or more Serbian? Russian Linguistics 40. 11–31.Google Scholar

Vuković, Jovan. 1949. Mrazovi: mrazevi; nosovi: nosevi i sl. Naš jezik (Belgrade) I/1–2. 42–43.Google Scholar

Vukušić, Stjepan, Zoričić, Ivan & Grasselli-Vukušić, Marija. 2007. Naglasak u hrvatskome književnom jeziku (Velika hrvatska gramatika: IV). Zagreb: Nakladni zavod Globus.Google Scholar

Wacke, K. 1930–1931. Formenlehre der Ono-Sprache (Neuguinea). Zeitschrift für Eingeborenen-Sprachen XXI. 161–208.Google Scholar

Wegera, Klaus-Peter & Solms, Hans-Joachim. Morphologie des Frühneuhochdeutschen. In: Werner Besch, Anne Betten, Oskar Reichmann & Stefan Sonderegger (eds) Sprachgeschichte: Ein Handbuch zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und ihrer Erforschung, 1542–54. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

West, Birdie & Welch, Betty. 2004. Gramática pedagógica del tucano. Bogotá, D.C., Colombia: Fundación para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Marginados.Google Scholar

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

Worth, Dean S. 1966. On the stem/ending boundary in Slavic indeclinables. Zbornik za filologiju i lingvistiku 9. 11–16.Google Scholar

Wurzel, Wolfgang U. 1984/1989. Flexionsmorphologie und Natürlichkeit. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. [Translated by Manfred Schentke: Wolfgang U. Wurzel. 1989. Inflectional Morphology and Naturalness (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory). Dordrecht: Kluwer. [Page references to the 1989 translation.]Google Scholar

Wurzel, Wolfgang U. 1990. The mechanism of inflection: lexicon representations, rules, and irregularities. In: Dressler, Wolfgang U., Luschützky, Hans C., Pfeiffer, Oskar E., & Rennison, John R. (eds) Contemporary Morphology, 203–216. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

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

Zaliznjak, Andrej A. 1967/2002. Russkoe imennoe slovoizmenenie Moscow: Nauka. [Reprinted in: Andrej A. Zaliznjak. 2002. Russkoe imennoe slovoizmenenie: s priloženiem izbrannyx rabot po sovremennomu russkomu jazyku i obščemu jazykoznaniju, 1–370. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul´tury.] [Page references to 2002 edition.]Google Scholar

Zwicky, Arnold M. 1992. Some choices in the theory of morphology. In: Robert Levine (ed.) Formal Grammar: Theory and Implementation, 327–371. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Zwicky, Arnold M. & Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 1983. Phonology in syntax: The Somali optional agreement rule. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1. 385–402.Google Scholar