Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T21:59:39.172Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Canonical typology, suppletion, and possible words

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Greville G. Corbett
Greville G. Corbett*
Affiliation:
University of Surrey
*
Surrey Morphology Group, Faculty of Human Sciences and Humanities, University of Surrey Guilford, Surrey GU2 7XH, United Kingdom, [g.corbett@surrey.ac.uk]
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I specify a typology for the extreme of inflectional morphology, namely suppletion (as in go ~ went). This is an unusual enterprise within typology, and it requires a ‘canonical’ approach. That is, I define the canonical or best instance, through a set of converging criteria, and use this point in theoretical space to locate the various occurring types. Thus the criteria establish the dimensions along which specific instances of suppletion are found, allowing me to calibrate examples out from the canonical. The criteria fall into two main areas, those internal to the lexeme and those external to it. Moreover, I find interactions with other morphological phenomena and discuss four of them: syncretism, periphrasis, overdifferentiation, and reduplication. These remarkable instances of suppletion, particularly when in interaction with other phenomena, extend the boundary of the notion ‘possible word’. Besides laying out the possibilities for the specific phenomenon of suppletion, I show how a canonical approach allows progress in typology, even in the most challenging areas.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 83 , Issue 1 , March 2007, pp. 8 - 42
Copyright
Copyright © 2007 by the Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anceaux, Johannes C. 1965. The Nimboran language: Phonology and morphology. (Verhandelingen van het Koninklijk Instituut voor Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 44.) The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by itself: Stems and inflectional classes. (Linguistic Inquiry monographs 22.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Aski, Janice. 1995. Verbal suppletion: An analysis of Italian, French and Spanish to go. Linguistics 33. 403–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baerman, Matthew, Brown, Dunstan; and Corbett, Greville G. 2005. The syntax-morphology interface: A study of syncretism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckmann, Werner. 2002. Suppletion im Niederdeutschen. (Niederdeutsche Studien 47.) Cologne: Böhlau.Google Scholar
Bhat, D. N. Shankara. 1967. Lexical suppletion in baby talk. Anthropological Linguistics 9.5.33–36.Google Scholar
Bittner, Andreas. 1988. Reguläre Irregularitäten: Zur Suppletion im Konzept der Natürlichen Morphologic Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 41. 416–25.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Maurice. 1925. On a case of Indo-European suppletive affixes. Language 1. 88–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan D. 2006. The ABCs of comparative suppletion. Paper presented at the Jersey Syntax Circle, Princeton, 14 April 2006.Google Scholar
Bonami, Olivier, and Boyé, Gilles. 2002. Suppletion and dependency in inflectional morphology. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, ed. by Eynde, Frank Van, Hellan, Lars, and Beermann, Dorothee, 51–70. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Online: http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/HPSG/2/hpsg01.html.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 1994. Against split morphology. Yearbook of Morphology 1993. 27–49.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 1996. Inherent versus contextual inflection and the split morphology hypothesis. Yearbook of Morphology 1995. 1–15.Google Scholar
Börjars, Kersti, Chapman, Carol; and Vincent, Nigel. 1997. Paradigms, periphrases and pronominal inflection: A feature-based account. Yearbook of Morphology 1996. 155–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bortnik, Ninel'. 1978. Nekotorye osobennosti osnov, obrazujuščix dvojnye formy množest-vennogo čisla. Russian Language Journal 32.112.43–58.Google Scholar
Brown, Dunstan, Chumakina, Marina, Corbett, Greville G.; and Hippisley, Andrew. 2004. The Surrey suppletion database. Online: http://www.smg.surrey.ac.uk/.Google Scholar
Brown, Dunstan, Corbett, Greville G., Fraser, Norman M., Hippisley, Andrew; and Timberlake, Alan. 1996. Russian noun stress and network morphology. Linguistics 34. 53–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. (Typological studies in language 9.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carstairs, Andrew. 1988. Some implications of phonologically conditioned suppletion. Yearbook of Morphology 1988. 67–94.Google Scholar
Carstairs, Andrew. 1990. Phonologically conditioned suppletion. Contemporary morphology, ed. by Dressler, Wolfgang U., Luschützky, Hans C., Pfeiffer, Oskar E., and Rennison, John R., 17–23. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 1994. Suppletion. Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, vol. 8, ed. by Asher, Ron E., 4410–11. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Chumakina, Marina. 2004. An annotated bibliography of suppletion. Online: http://www.surrey.ac.uk/LIS/SMG/Suppletion_BIB/WebBibliography.htm.Google Scholar
Chumakina, Marina, Hippisley, Andrew; and Corbett, Greville G. 2004. Istoričeskie izmenenija v russkoj leksike: Slučaj čeredujuščegosja suppletivizma. Russian Linguistics 28. 281–315.Google Scholar
Collins, Chris. 2001. Aspects of plurality in ≠Hoan. Language 77. 456–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1978. On the go ~ went alternation: A contribution (?) to the generative phonology of English. Lingua pranca, ed. by Ernst, Tom and Smith, Evan, 59–63. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1979. On being further tempted from go to went. Son of lingua pranca, ed. by Ernst, Tom and Smith, Evan, 5–6. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 2002. Supletivismo según la persona del receptor en el verbo ‘dar’. VI Encuentro Internacional de Lingüística en el Noroeste, vol. 2, ed. by Ciscomani, Rosa María Ortiz and Fernández, Zarina Estrada, 15–35. Hermosillo, Sonora: Editorial UniSon.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 2003. Recipient person suppletion in the verb ‘give’. Language and life: Essays in memory of Kenneth L. Pike, ed. by Wise, Mary Ruth, Headland, Thomas N., and Brend, Ruth M., 265–81. Dallas: SIL International and University of Texas at Arlington.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard, and Aldai, Gontzal. 2002. Suppletion in the Old Basque verb ‘to give’: A typological perspective. Erramu bonata: Festschrift for Rudolf P. G. de Rijk, ed. by Artiagoitia, Xabier, Goenaga, Patxi, and Lakarra, Joseba A., 145–51. Bilbao/Bilbo: University of País Vasco/Euskal Herriko University.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 1991. Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 1999. Defectiveness, syncretism, suppletion, ‘deponency’: Four dimensions for a typology of inflectional systems. Paper presented at the second Mediterranean Meeting on Morphology, September 1999, Malta.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2000. Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2001. Suppletion: Typology, markedness, complexity. Paper presented at the conference Wolfgang Ulrich Wurzel in memoriam: Typologische Aspekte von Markierkeit und Komplexität, Berlin, December 2001. [To appear in On inflection: In memory of Wolfgang U. Wurzel, ed. by Manfred Krifka and Patrick Steinkrüger. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.]Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2003. Agreement: Canonical instances and the extent of the phenomenon. Topics in morphology: Selected papers from the third Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (Barcelona, September 20–22, 2001), ed. by Booij, Geert, DeCesaris, Janet, Ralli, Angela, and Scalise, Sergio, 109–28. Barcelona: University Pompeu Fabra. Online: http://www.surrey.ac.uk/LIS/SMG/projects/agreement/.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2005a. The canonical approach in typology. Linguistic diversity and language theories (Studies in language companion series 72), ed. by Frajzyngier, Zygmunt, Hodges, Adam, and Rood, David S., 25–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2005b. Suppletion in personal pronouns: Theory versus practice, and the place of reproducibility in typology. Linguistic Typology 9. 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2006. Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G., and Fraser, Norman M. 1993. Network morphology: A DATR account of Russian inflectional morphology. Journal of Linguistics 29. 113–42. [Reprinted in Morphology: Critical concepts in linguistics, vol. 6: Morphology: Its place in the wider context, ed. by Francis X. Katamba, 364–96. London: Routledge, 2003.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G., and Fraser, Norman. 1997. Vyčislitel'naja lingvistika i tipologija. Vestnik MGU: Serija 9: Filologija 2. 122–40.Google 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. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, ed. by Bybee, Joan and Hopper, Paul, 201–26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Degtjarev, Vladimir I. 1982. Kategorija čisla v slavjanskix jazykax (istoriko-semantičeskoe issledovanie). Rostov-na-Donu: Izdatel'stvo Rostovskogo universiteta.Google Scholar
Deshpande, Madhav M. 1992. Justification for verb-root suppletion in Sanskrit. Historische Sprachforschung 105.1.18–49.Google Scholar
Dirr, Adolph. 1928. Udische Texte. Caucasica 5. 60–72.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W., and Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (eds.) 2002. Word: A cross-linguistic typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dobrova, Galina. 1993. Morphological characteristics of Russian nouns referring to men in child language: Personal names, professions, terms of family relations etc. (abstract). Crosslinguistic Workshop on the Acquisition of Slavic and Baltic Languages by Children, Cracow, 8–14 July, 1993, 8. Cracow: Jagiellonian University, Department of General and Indo-European Linguistics.Google Scholar
Donohue, Mark. 2001. Animacy, class and gender in Burmeso. The boy from Bundaberg: Studies in Melanesian linguistics in honour of Tom Dutton (Pacific linguistics 514), ed. by Pawley, Andrew, Ross, Malcolm, and Tryon, Darrell, 97–115. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Donohue, Mark. 2002. Which sounds change: Descent and borrowing in the Skou family. Oceanic Linguistics 41. 157–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1985a. On the predictiveness of natural morphology. Journal of Linguistics 21. 321–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1985b. Sur le statut de la suppléance dans la morphologie naturelle. Langages 78. 41–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1985c. Suppletion in word formation. Historical semantics—historical word-formation, ed. by Fisiak, Jacek, 97–112. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1986. Inflectional suppletion in natural morphology. Languages in global perspective, ed. by Elson, Benjamin F., 97–111. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1990. Sketching submorphemes within natural morphology. Naturalists at Krems: Papers from the Workshop on Natural Phonology and Natural Morphology (Krems, 1–7 July 1988), ed. by Dosuna, Julián Méndez and Pensado, Carmen, 33–41. Salamanca: University of Salamanca.Google Scholar
Emeneau, Murray B. 1955. Kolami: A Dravidian language. (University of California publications in linguistics 12.) Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Enger, Hans-Olav, and Kristoffersen, Kristian E. 2000. Innføring i norsk grammatikk: Morfologi og syntaks. Oslo: Landlaget for Norskundervisning/Cappelen Akademisk.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 2003. Bininj Gun-wok: A pan-dialectal grammar of Mayali, Kunwinjku and Kune. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas, Brown, Dunstan; and Corbett, Greville G. 2001. Dalabon pronominal prefixes and the typology of syncretism: A network morphology analysis. Yearbook of Morphology 2000. 187–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas, Brown, Dunstan; and Corbett, Greville G. 2002. The semantics of gender in Mayali: Partially parallel systems and formal implementation. Language 78. 111–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fertig, David. 1998. Suppletion, natural morphology and diagrammaticity. Linguistics 36. 1065–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fertig, David. 2000. Morphological change up close: Two and a half centuries of verbal inflection in Nuremburg. (Linguistische Arbeiten 422.) Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gorbačevskij, A. A. 1967. K voprosu o putjax vozniknovenija suppletivnyx form v slavjanskix jazykax. [Abstract of kandidat dissertation.] Dušanbe: Tadžiksij gosudarstvennyj universitet im. V. I. Lenina.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth, Jeanne, La Verne M.; and Pranka, Paula M. 1991. On suppletion, selection, and agreement. Interdisciplinary approaches to language: Essays in honor of S.-Y. Kuroda, ed. by Georgopoulos, Carol and Ishihara, Roberta, 255–70. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C. 2002. Endoclitics and the origins of Udi morphosyntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2000. Periphrasis. Morphologie/Morphology: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung/An international handbook on inflection and word-formation 1, ed. by Booij, Geert, Lehmann, Christian, and Mugdan, Joachim, 654–64. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Heath, Jeffrey. 1981. Basic materials in Mara: Grammar, texts and dictionary. (Pacific linguistics C-60.) Canberra: Department of Linguistics, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Henderson, James. 1995. Phonology and grammar of Yele, Papua New Guinea. (Pacific linguistics B-112.) Canberra: Department of Linguistics, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Hendrick, Randall. 1996. Some syntactic effects of suppletion in the Celtic copulas. The syntax of the Celtic languages: A comparative perspective, ed. by Borsley, Robert and Roberts, Ian, 75–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hewitt, B. George. 1995. Georgian: A structural reference grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hippisley, Andrew. 2001. Suppletion, frequency and lexical storage. Chicago Linguistic Society 37. 201–14.Google Scholar
Hippisley, Andrew, Chumakina, Marina, Corbett, Greville G.; and Brown, Dunstan. 2004. Suppletion: Frequency, categories and distribution of stems. Studies in Language 28. 387–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1958. A course in modern linguistics. New York: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hualde, José, and Ortiz, Jon Urbina, de (eds.) 2003. A grammar of Basque. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isačenko, Aleksandr V. 1962. Die russische Sprache der Gegenwart I: Formenlehre. Halle (Saale): Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Itkin, Il'ja B. 2002. K tipologii suppletivnyx paradigm. Paper presented at the third Winter Typological School, Moscow District, 29 January-6 February 2002.Google Scholar
Jeiranišvili, Evgeni. 1971. Udiuri ena. [The Udi language.] Tbilisi: Tbilisi University.Google Scholar
Juge, Matthew L. 1999. On the rise of suppletion in verbal paradigms. Berkeley Linguistics Society 25. 183–94.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Benjamin H. 1955. The revised Latin primer (ed. and further revised by Sir James Mountford), new impression. London: Longmans, Green and Co.Google Scholar
Kibrik, Aleksandr E. 1977. Opyt strukturnogo opisanija arčinskogo jazyka, vol. 2: Taksonomičeskaja grammatika. (Publikacii otdelenija strukturnoj i prikladnoj lingvistiki 12.) Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Moskovskogo universiteta.Google Scholar
Kimball, Geoffrey D. 1991. Koasati grammar. Lincoln: University of Nebraska.Google Scholar
Koneckaja, Vera P. 1973. Suppletivizm v germanskix jazykax. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Lamarche, Jacques. 1996. Gender agreement and suppletion in French. Grammatical theory and Romance languages: Selected papers from the 25th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL XXV), Seattle, 2–4 March 1995 (Current issues in linguistic theory 133), ed. by Zagona, Karen, 145–57. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Françoise, Létoublon. 1985. Il allait, pareil à la nuit: Les verbs de mouvement en grec: Supplétisme et aspect verbal. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2007. A grammar of Yélî Dnye, the Papuan language of Rossel Island. Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, to appear.Google Scholar
L'Hermitte, René. 1978. La phrase nominale en russe. Paris: Institut d'études slaves.Google Scholar
Ljunggren, Karl G. 1944. Adjektiven liten och små. Arkiv för nordisk filologi 58. 47–61.Google Scholar
Loi Corvetto, Ines. 1989. Anomalie e paradigmi: Il suppletivismo nelle lingue romanze. (Annali della Facoltà di Magistero 34.) Cagliari: University of Cagliari.Google Scholar
MacKay, Carolyn J. 1991. A grammar of Misantla Totonac. Austin: University of Texas at Austin dissertation.Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin. 1992. Irregularity as a determinant of linguistic change. Journal of Linguistics 28. 285–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maiden, Martin. 1995. A proposito dell'alternanza esce, usciva, in italiano. Lingua nostra 56. 37–41.Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin. 2001. Sound change, morphemic structure and the rise of suppletion in the Romance verb. Paper presented at the Surrey Linguistic Circle, University of Surrey, 10 May 2001.Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin. 2003. Verb augments and meaninglessness in early Romance morphology. Studi di grammatica italiana 22. 1–61.Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin. 2004. When lexemes become allomorphs—On the genesis of suppletion. Folia Linguistica 38. 227–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mańczak, Witold. 1966. La nature du supplétivisme. Linguistics 28. 82–89.Google Scholar
Margetts, Anna. 2007. Learning verbs without boots and straps? The problem of ‘give’ in Saliba. Cross-linguistic perspectives on argument structure: Implications for learnability, ed. by Bowerman, Melissa and Brown, Penelope. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, to appear.Google Scholar
Markey, Thomas L. 1969. The verbs varda and bliva in Scandinavian: With special emphasis on Swedish. (Studia philologiae Scandinavicae Upsaliensia 7.) Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Markey, Thomas L. 1985. On suppletion. Diachronica 2. 51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, Peter H. 1972. Inflectional morphology: A theoretical study based on aspects of Latin verb conjugation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Matthews, Peter H. 1981. Present stem alternations in Italian. Logos semantikos: Studia linguistica in honorem Eugenio Coseriu, 1921–1981, vol. 4, ed. by Rohrer, Christian, 57–65. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mel'čuk, Igor A. 1983. Suppletivologičeskie ètjudy. Russian Linguistics 7. 207–18.Google Scholar
Mel'čuk, Igor A. 1985. Poverxnostnyj sintaksis russkix čislovyx vyraženij. (Wiener Slawistischer Almanach 16.) Vienna: Institut für Slawistik der Universität Wien.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mel'čuk, Igor A. 1994. Suppletion: Toward a logical analysis of the concept. Studies in Language 18. 339–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mel'čuk, Igor A. 1997. Cours de morphologie générale (théorique et descriptive), vol. 4: Cinquième partie: Signes morphologiques. Montreal: Les Presses de l'Université de Montréal.Google Scholar
Mel'čuk, Igor A. 2000. Suppletion. Morphologie/Morphology: Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung/An international handbook on inflection and word-formation 1, ed. by Booij, Geert, Lehmann, Christian, and Mugdan, Joachim, 510–22. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mel‘čuk, Igor A. 2006. Aspects of the theory of morphology, ed. by Beck, David. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. [Ch. 8 is a revision of Mel‘čuk 1994.]Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1988. Lexical categories and number in Central Pomo. In honor of Mary Haas: From the Haas Festival Conference on Native American Linguistics, ed. by Shipley, William, 517–37. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Myhill, John. 2001. Suppletion, lexical meaning, semantic primitives, and translation data. Linguistics 39. 761–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholson, John Greer. 1989. The incidence of suppletion within inflection. Lacus Forum 16. 250–59.Google Scholar
Nübling, Damaris. 1998. Zur Funktionalität von Suppletion. Germanistische Linguistik 141–42.77–101.Google Scholar
Nübling, Damaris. 2000. Principien der Irregularisierung: Eine kontrastive Analyse von zehn Verben in zehn germanischen Sprache. (Linguistische Arbeiten 415.) Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osthoff, Hermann. 1899. Vom Suppletivwesen der indogermanischen Sprachen. Heidelberg: Kommissionsverlag von Alfred Wolff.Google Scholar
Pančviʒe, Vl. 1974. Uduri enis gramat'ik'uli analizi. [A grammatical analysis of the Udi language.] Tbilisi: Mecniereba.Google Scholar
Plank, Frans. 1994. Homonymy vs. suppletion: A riddle (and how it happens to be solved in …). Agreement gender number genitive & (EUROTYP working papers 7/23), 81–86. Konstanz: University of Konstanz.Google Scholar
Plank, Frans. 1996. Patterns of suppletion in inflection. Paper presented at the 7th International Morphology Meeting, University of Vienna, February 16–18, 1996.Google Scholar
Priestly, T. M. S. 1993. Slovene. The Slavonic languages, ed. by Comrie, Bernard and Corbett, Greville G., 388–451. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K., and Zwicky, Arnold. 1988. The syntax-phonology interface. Linguistics: The Cambridge survey, vol. 1: Linguistic theory: Foundations, ed. by Newmeyer, Frederick J., 255–80. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, John R. 1987. Amele. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Roberts, John R. 1997. GIVE in Amele. The linguistics of giving, ed. by Newman, John, 1–33. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ronneberger-Sibold, Elke. 1988. Entstehung von Suppletion und Natürliche Morphologic Zeitschrift fur Phonetik, Sprachwissenshaft und Kommunikationforschung 41. 453–62.Google Scholar
Rothstein, Robert A. 1993. Polish. The Slavonic languages, ed. by Comrie, Bernard and Corbett, Greville G., 686–758. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rudes, Blair A. 1980. On the nature of verbal suppletion. Linguistics 18. 655–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiefner, A. 1863. Versuch über die Sprache der Uden. (Mémoires de l'Akadémie-impériale des sciences de St.-Pétersbourg 7.6.8.) St. Petersburg: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Seifart, Frank. 2005. The structure and use of shape-based noun classes in Miraña (North West Amazon). Nijmegen: Radboud University dissertation.Google Scholar
Sokolova, M. A. 1952. Iz istorii slov osnovnogo slovarnogo fonda russkogo jazyka. Doklady i soobščenija Instituta Jazykoznanija AN SSSR 2. 8–19.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew. 2003. Periphrastic paradigms in Bulgarian. Syntactic structures and morphological information (Interface explorations 7), ed. by Junghanns, Uwe and Szucsich, Luka, 249–82. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Strunk, Klaus. 1977. Überlegungen zu Defektivität und Suppletion im Griechischen und Indogermanischen. Glotta 55. 2–34.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 2001. Inflectional morphology: A theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 2002. Morphological and syntactic paradigms: Arguments for a theory of paradigm linkage. Yearbook of Morphology 2001. 147–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 2005. Comparison. Lexicology: An international handbook on the nature and structure of words and vocabularies 2, ed. by Cruse, D. Alan, Hundsnurscher, Franz, Job, Michael, and Lutzeier, Peter Rolf, 1655–57. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 2006. Heteroclisis and paradigm linkage. Language 82. 279–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suthar, Babubhai Kohyabhai. 2006. Agreement in Gujarati. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania dissertation.Google Scholar
Swiggers, Pierre. 1985. How to order eggs in French. Folia Linguistica 19. 63–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanaka, Toshiya. 2002. The origin and development of the ∗es vs. ∗wes suppletion in the Germanic copula: From a non-Brugmannian standpoint. NOWELE 40(April). 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Testen, David. 1997. The suppletive imperative of Arabic ‘come’. Perspectives on Arabic linguistics 10: Papers from the tenth annual Symposium on Arabic Linguistics, ed. by Eid, Mushira and Ratcliffe, Robert R., 173–87. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Theakston, Anna L., Lieven, Elena V. M., Pine, Julian M.; and Rowland, Caroline F. 2002. Going, going, gone: The acquisition of the verb ‘go’. Journal of Child Language 29. 783–811.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tranel, Bernard. 1992. On suppletion and French liaison. Romance languages and modern linguistic theory: Papers from the 20th Linguistic symposium on Romance languages (LRSL XX), Ottawa, 10–14 April 1990 (Current issues in linguistic theory 91.), ed. by Hirschbühler, Paul and Koerner, Konrad, 269–308. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Unbegaun, Boris. 1969. Les anciens Russes vus par eux-mêmes. Selected papers on Russian and Slavonic philology, by Unbegaun, Boris, 272–86. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo. 1972. Phonetic analogy and conceptual analogy. Schuchardt, the neogrammarians, and the transformational theory of phonological change, ed. by Vennemann, Theo and Wilbur, Terence H., 181–204. Frankfurt: Athenäum.Google Scholar
Veselinova, Ljuba N. 2000. Suppletion in the paradigms of copula verbs. Cognition and function in language, ed. by Fox, Barbara A., Jurafsky, Dan, and Michaelis, Laura A. 65–83. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Veselinova, Ljuba N. 2003. Suppletion in verb paradigms: Bits and pieces of a puzzle. Stockholm: Stockholm University dissertation. [Published, Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2006.]Google Scholar
Veselinova, Ljuba N. 2005a. Suppletion according to tense and aspect. The world atlas of language structures, ed. by Haspelmath, Martin, Dryer, Matthew S., Gil, David, and Comrie, Bernard, 322–25. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Veselinova, Ljuba N. 2005b. Verbal number and suppletion. The world atlas of language structures, ed. by Haspelmath, Martin, Dryer, Matthew S., Gil, David, and Comrie, Bernard, 326–29. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Veselinovič, Elvira M. 2003. Suppletion im irischen Verb. (Philologia 55.) Hamburg: Verlag Dr. Kovač.Google Scholar
Vincent, Nigel. 1988. Italian. The Romance languages, ed. by Harris, Martin and Vincent, Nigel, 279–313. London: Croom Helm/Routledge.Google Scholar
Vincent, Nigel, and Börjars, Kersti. 1996. Suppletion and syntactic theory. Papers from the 1st LFG colloquium, Grenoble, August 1996, ed. by Butt, Miriam and King, Tracy Holloway, 448–62.Google Scholar
Vincent, Nigel, and Börjars, Kersti. 2000. The pre-conditions for suppletion. Paper presented at Suppletion 2000: International Workshop on Suppletion, Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University, 26–27 May 2000.Google Scholar
Wełna, Jerzy. 2001. Suppletion for suppletion, or the replacement of ēode by went in English. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 36. 95–110.Google Scholar
Werner, Otmar. 1987. The aim of morphological change is a good mixture—not a uniform language type. Papers from the 7th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Pavia, Italy, ed. by Ramat, Anna Giacalone, Carruba, Onofrio, and Bernini, Giuliano, 591–606. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werner, Otmar. 1991. The incorporation of Old Norse pronouns into Middle English: Suppletion by loan. Language contact in the British Isles: Proceedings of the eighth International Symposium on Language Contact in Europe, Douglas, Isle of Man, ed. by Ureland, Sture and Broderick, George, 369–401. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werner, Otmar. 1996. Is suppletion a borderline phenomenon of morphology? Paper presented at the workshop on ‘Extragrammatical and marginal morphology’ at the 7th International Morphology Meeting, Vienna, February 1996.Google Scholar
Wurzel, Wolfgang U. 1990. Gedanken zu Suppletion und Natürlichkeit. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 43. 86–91.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold. 1996. Syntax and phonology. Concise encyclopedia of syntactic theories, ed. by Brown, Keith and Miller, Jim, 300–305. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar