Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-13T18:11:48.164Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Morphology/Syntax Interface: Evidence from Possessive Adjectives in Slavonic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Greville G. Corbett
Greville G. Corbett*
Affiliation:
University of Surrey
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

P[ossessive] A[djective]s in Slavonic, formed from nouns via suffixation, show unusual syntactic behavior. In Upper Sorbían, the form of attributive modifiers, relative pronouns, and personal pronouns can be controlled by the syntactic features of the noun underlying the PA. Control of attributive modifiers gives rise to phrases in which word structure and phrase structure do not match. The fact that the underlying noun is available for syntactic purposes suggests that PA formation is an inflectional process, while other factors (such as change of word-class membership) point just as clearly to a derivational process. It thus appears that any sharp differentiation between inflectional and derivational morphology must be abandoned. Data presented from all thirteen Slavonic languages, based on extensive work with native speakers, show that the control possibilities of the PA vary considerably. However, control of the attributive modifier is possible only if control of the relative pronoun is also possible, and that in turn only if control of the personal pronoun is possible. This result is subsumed under the constraints of the Agreement Hierarchy.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 63 , Issue 2 , June 1987, pp. 299 - 345
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 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

Footnotes

*

Versions of this paper were read at the Spring Meeting of the Linguistics Association of Great Britain, Salford, April 1985, and in the Department of Theoretical Linguistics, Leipzig University, May 1985. I am grateful to those present for their comments, and to all the following for help of various kinds: Stephen Barbour, Jan Bosák, Wayles Browne, Catherine Chvany, Michael Colenso, N. E. Collinge, Bernard Comrie, Annabel Cormack, Francis Cornish, L'. Ďurovič, Helmut Fasske, Jan Firbas, Richard Hudson, David Huntley, Johanna Nichols, Janez Orešnik, H. Richter, H. Šewc-Schuster, Robert Slonek, Neil Smith, Christo Stamenov, Gerald Stone, A. E. Suprun, and Roland Sussex. I am also very thankful for the time and intuitions of over fifty native speakers, especially P. Asipowich, Božena Činkole, Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, Smiljka Gee, Barbara Gorayska, Ewa Jaworska, Duška Johnson, Olga Lalor, Anna Maslennikova, J. Michaluk, Magda Newman, Alexander Soloshenko, Bogusia Sussex, and Vaska Waterhouse. Errors are of course mine. The British Council provided a grant toward travel to Leipzig and Bautzen. The paper is based on research funded in part by the Economic and Social Research Council (UK), reference number C00232218. The support of both is gratefully acknowledged.

References

Anderson, Stephen R. 1982. Where's morphology? LI 13. 571–612.Google Scholar
Andrejčin, Ljubomir D. 1978. Osnovna bălgarska gramatika. Sofia: Nauka i Izkustvo. [First edn., 1944; the 1978 edn. has minor corrections.]Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1985. The mirror principle and morphosyntactic explanation. LI 16. 373–415.Google Scholar
Barbour, J. S. 1982. Productive and non-productive morphology: The case of the German strong verbs. JL 18. 331–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, J. 1960. Vývoj českého souvětí. (Studie a práce lingvistické, 4). Prague: Nakladatelství Československé Akademie Věd.Google Scholar
iBelošapkova, V. A. 1964. Izmenenija v substantivnyx slovosočetanijax. Očerki po istoričeskoj grammatike russkogo literaturnogo jazyka XIX veka, IV: Izmenenija v sisteme slovosočetanij v russkom literaturnom jazyke XIX veka, ed. by Vinogradov, V. V. & Švedova, N. Ju., 128–220. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Bezikovič, E. I., and Gordova-Rybal'čenko, T. P. 1957. Bolgarskij jazyk: Učebnik dlja vuzov. Leningrad: Izdatel'stvo Leningradskogo Universiteta.Google Scholar
Bílý, Milan. 1981. Intrasentential pronominalization and functional sentence perspective (in Czech, Russian, and English). (Lund Slavonic monographs, 1.) Lund: Slaviska Institutionen vid Lunds Universitet.Google Scholar
Bräuer, Herbert. 1986. Die possessiven Adjektiva auf -ov und -in des Russischen der Gegenwart und ihre Possessivität I. Zeitschrift für Slavische Philologie 46. 51–39.Google Scholar
Browne, Wayles. 1974. On the topology of anaphoric peninsulas. LI 4. 619–20.Google Scholar
Carlson, Greg N. 1983. Marking constituents. Linguistic categories: Auxiliaries and related puzzles, ed. by Heny, Frank & Richards, Barry, 1. 69–98. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chvany, Catherine V. 1977. Syntactically derived words in a lexicalist theory (toward a restudy of Russian morphology). Folia Slavica 1:1.42–58. [Russian translation in Novoe v zarubežnoj lingvistike XV: Sovremennaja zarubežnaja rusistika, ed. by T. V. Bulygina & A. E. Kibrik, 26–41. Moscow: Progress.]Google Scholar
Collinge, Neville E. 1953. The mental equation factor in ‘aberrant’ syntax of Greek and Latin. Greece and Rome 22. 130–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. The syntax of action nominals: A cross-language study. Lingua 40. 177–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1982. Syntactic-morphological discrepancies in Maltese sentence structure. Communication & Cognition 15. 281–306.Google Scholar
Cooper, Donald S. 1971. Studies on possessive adjectives in Old Church Slavonic. Harvard University dissertation.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 1979. The agreement hierarchy. JL 15. 203–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 1981a. Syntactically derived words: Evidence from Sorbían. Melbourne Slavonic Studies 15. 13–17.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 1981b. A note on grammatical agreement in Šinei'. Slavonic and East European Review 59. 59–61.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 1983. Hierarchies, targets and controllers: Agreement patterns in Slavic. London: Croom Helm; University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 1986. Agreement: A partial specification, based on Slavonic data. To appear in Agreement in natural language: Approaches, theories, descriptions, ed. by Michael Barlow & Charles A. Ferguson. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Cornish, Francis. 1986. Anaphoric relations in English and French: A discourse perspective. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Corum, Claudia. 1973. Anaphoric peninsulas. CLS 9. 89–97.Google Scholar
Crockett, Dina B. 1976. Agreement in Contemporary Standard Russian. Cambridge, MA: Slavica.Google Scholar
Dmitriev, P. A. 1961. Pritjažatel'nye prilagatel'nye serboxorvatskogo jazyka (K voprosu ob ix meste v sisteme častej reči). Problemy jazykoznanija: Sbornik v čest' akademika I. I. Meščaninova (Učenye zapiski Leningradskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta, 301, vyp. 60), 49–57. Leningrad: Izdatel'stvo Leningradskogo Universiteta.Google Scholar
Fasske, Helmut. 1981. Grammatik der obersorbischen Schriftsprache der Gegenwart: Morphologie. Bautzen: VEB Domowina Verlag.Google Scholar
Frolova, S. V. 1960. K voprosu o prirode i genezise pritjažatel'nyx prilagatel'nyx russkogo jazyka. Učenye zapiski Kujbyševskogo Gosudarstvennogo Pedagogičeskogo Instituta 32. 323–40.Google Scholar
Frolova, S. V. 1972. Dvojstvennost' prirody pritjažatel'nyx prilagatel'nyx v sovremennom russkom jazyke. Naučnye trudy Kujbyševskogo Gosudarstvennogo Pedagogičeskogo Instituta 103. 31–40.Google Scholar
Gebauer, Jan. 1929. Historická mluvnice jazyka českého, IV: Skladba. Prague: Nákladem České Akademie Věd a Umění.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1966. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. Universals of language, ed. by Greenberg, J. H., 2nd edn., 73–113. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1978. Diachrony, synchrony, and language universals. Universals of human language, I: Method and theory, ed. by Greenberg, J. H. et al., 61–91. Stanford: University Press.Google Scholar
Grošelj, Milan. 1955. O posesivnem adjektivu v slovanščini in toharščini. Slavistična Revija 8. 2–10.Google Scholar
Horák, Gejza. 1966. Prídavné mená. Morfológia slovenského jazyka, ed. by Ružička, Josef, 196–232. Bratislava: Vydavatel'stvo Slovenskej Akadémie Vied.Google Scholar
Huntley, David. 1984. The distribution of the denominative adjective and the adnominal genitive in Old Church Slavonic. Historical syntax, ed. by Fisiak, Jacek (Trends in linguistics: Studies and monographs, 23), 217–36. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Isačenko, A. V. 1954. Grammatičeskij stroj russkogo jazyka v sopostavlenii s slovackim: Morfologija, Čast' pervaja. Bratislava: Izdatel'stvo Slovackoj Akademii Nauk.Google Scholar
Itagaki, Nobuya, and Prideaux, Gary G. 1985. Nominal properties as determinants of subject selection. Lingua 66. 133–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ivanova, T. A. 1974. Nekotorye osobennosti upotreblenija roditel'nogo prinadležnosti v sovremennyx slavjanskix jazykax. Voprosy filologu 4 (Izdatel'stvo Leningradskogo Universiteta), 33–40.Google Scholar
Ivanova, T. A. 1976. K voprosu o sootnošenii upotrebljaemosti possessivnyx konstrukcii v sovremennyx slavjanskix jazykax. Voprosy Filologu 5 (Izdatel'stvo Leningradskogo Universiteta), 3–10.Google Scholar
Ivić, Milka. 1967. Genitivne forme srpskohrvatskih imenica i odgovarajuća pridevska obrazovanja sufiksom -ov (-ev, -ovlev, -evljev), -in u odnosu ‘kombinatoričnih varijanata’. Godišnjak Filolozofskog Fakulteta u Novom Sadu 10. 257–62.Google Scholar
Ivić, Milka. 1986. On referential strategies: Genitivization vs. adjectivization in Serbo-Croatian. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Janaš, Pětr. 1976. Niedersorbische Grammatik. Bautzen: Domowina-Verlag. [Revised, 1984.]Google Scholar
Jensen, John T., and Stong-Jensen, Margaret. 1984. Morphology is in the lexicon! LI 15. 474–98.Google Scholar
Konesli, Blaže. 1967. Gramatika namakedonskiot literaturenjazik, I—II. Skopje: Kultura. [First published, 1952–54.]Google Scholar
Lakoff, George, and Ross, John Robert. 1972. A note on anaphoric islands and causatives. LI 3. 121–5.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 1981. On the organization of the lexicon. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Löfstedt, Einar. 1928. Syntactica, Studien und Beiträge zur historischen Syntax des Lateins, I: Über einige Grundfragen der lateinischen Nominalsyntax. Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar
Löfstedt, Einar. 1933. Syntactica, Studien und Beiträge zur historischen Syntax des Lateins, II. Syntaktisch-stilistische Gesichtspunkte und Probleme. Lund: Gleerup.Google Scholar
Lötzsch, R. 1965. Das sog. Possessivadjektiv im Slawischen, speziell im Sorbischen, und seine Stellung im System der Redeteile. Forschungen und Fortschritte 39, pt. 12, 377–9;Google Scholar
Lomtev, T. P. 1956. Očerki po istoričeskomu sintaksisu russkogo jazyka. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Moskovskogo Universiteta.Google Scholar
Makarova, S. Ja. 1954. Roditel'nyj padež prinadležnosti v russkom jazyke XI-XVIII vv. Trudy Instituía Jazykoznanija AN SSSR 3. 7–31.Google Scholar
Maretić, T. 1899. Gramatika i stilistika hrvatskoga ili srpskoga književnog jezika. Zagreb: Hartman.Google Scholar
Marojević, Radmilo. 1983a. Posesivne kategorije u ruskom jeziku (u svome istorijskom razvitku i danas). Belgrade: Filološki Fakultet Beogradskog Universiteta.Google Scholar
Marojević, Radmilo. 1983b. Posesivni pridevi sa sufiksom -ińi istoriji ruskog jezika. Zbornik za Filologiju i Lingvistiku 26. 7–60.Google Scholar
Marojević, Radmilo. 1983c. Sufiks -sk- u posesivnoj funkciji u ruskom jeziku (u istorijskom razvoju i danas). Južnoslovenski Filolog 39. 159–78.Google Scholar
Marojević, Radmilo. 1983d. Possessivnye kategorii v russkom jazyke (istorija razvitija i sovremennoe sostojanie). Filologičeskie Nauki 1983:5.56–61.Google Scholar
Marojević, Radmilo. 1984a. Izražavanje posesivnosti u istoriji ruskog jezika. Crnogorska Akademija Nauka i Umjetnosti, Glasnik odelenja umjetnosti, 5. 171–9. [Closely follows Marojevic 1983d.]Google Scholar
Marojević, Radmilo. 1984b. Praslovenske tvorbeno-semanticke rekonstrukcije. Prilozi za Književnost, Jezik, Istoriju i Folklor 1980 (Belgrade 1984), 46. 53–8.Google Scholar
Marojević, Radmilo. 1985. Posesivne izvedenice u staroruskom jeziku: Antroponimski sistem, toponimija, ‘Slovo o polku Igoreve’. Belgrade: Filološki Fakultet Beogradskog Universiteta.Google Scholar
Matthews, Peter H. 1974. Morphology: An introduction to the theory of word-structure. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Michałk, F. 1974. Kratkij očerk grammatiki sovremennogo verxnelužickogo literaturnogo jazyka. Hornjoserbski-ruski slownik, compiled by K. K. Trofimovič, 472–511. Budyšin: Ludowe Nakładnistwo Domowina.Google Scholar
Miklosich, Franz. 1926. Vergleichende Grammatik der slavischen Sprachen, IV: Syntax. Heidelberg: Winter. [Reprint of the first edn., 1868–74.]Google Scholar
Miller, Jim. 1985. Semantics and syntax: Parallels and connections. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Neumann, Paul. 1910. Das Verhältnis des Genetivs zum Adjektiv im Griechischen. (Inaugural-Dissertation ... der Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität zu Münster in Westfalen). Münster in Westfalen: Westfälische Vereinsdruckerei.Google Scholar
Nilsson, Barbro. 1972. Old Russian derived nominals in -nie, -tie: A syntactical study. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Pauliny, E. 1981. Slovenská gramatika (Opis jazykového systému). Bratislava: Slovenské Pedagogické Nakladatel'stvo.Google Scholar
Pauliny, E. 1968. Slovenská gramatika. 5th edn. Bratislava: Slovenské Pedagogické Nakladatel'stvo.Google Scholar
Perkowski, Jan Louis. 1969. A Kashubian idiolect in the United States. (Language science monographs, 2). Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Petr, Jan. 1968. K charakteristice polských adjektiv. Slavica Pragensia 10. 73–86.Google Scholar
Petr, Jan. 1971. Posesívní adjektiva v současné polštině. Slavica Pragensia 13. 33–44.Google Scholar
Poliščcuk, G. G. 1972. Sinonimika atributivnyx slovosočetanij v vostočnoslavjanskix jazykax. Razvitie sintaksičeskix konstrukcij v russkom literaturnom jazyke XVIII v., ed. by Širokova, N. A., 8–14. Izdatel'stvo Kazan'skogo Universiteta.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. 1969. Anaphoric islands. CLS 5. 205–39.Google Scholar
Potebnja, A. A. 1968. Iz zapisok po russkoj grammatike, III: Ob izmenenii značenija i zamenax suščestvitel'nogo. Moscow: Prosveščenie. [First published in 1899.]Google Scholar
Revzin, I. I. 1973a. Ponjatie paradigmy i nekotorye spornye voprosy grammatiki slavjanskix jazykov. Strukturno-tipologičeskie issledovanija v oblasti grammatiki slavjanskix jazykov, ed. by Zaliznjak, A. A., 39–50. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Revzin, I. I. 1973b. Transformacionnoe issledovanie konstrukcij s sub“ektnym i ob”ektnym priimennym dopolneniem (Genitivus subjectivus i Genitivus objectivus). Problemy grammatičeskogo modelirovanija, ed. by Zaliznjak, A. A., 88–96. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Richards, Karen Rondestvedt. 1976. Toward a history of the possessive in literary Russian: The demise of the possessive adjective. Papers from the Parasession on Diachronic Syntax, ed. by Steever, Sanford B. et al., 260–73. Chicago: CLS.Google Scholar
Richter, Heinz. 1980. Die Possessivadjektive im Sorbischen unter Berücksichtigung der benachbarten slawischen Sprachen. Dissertation zur Promotion A. Karl-Marx-Universität, Leipzig.Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M. 1985. Autolexical syntax: A proposal for the treatment of noun incorporation and similar phenomena. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3. 379–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sand, Diane E. Z. 1971. Agreement of the predicate with quantitative subjects in Serbo-Croatian. University of Pennsylvania dissertation. [Distributed by University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, 72–17,420.]Google Scholar
Sannikov, V. Z. 1968. Soglasovannoe opredelenie. Sravnitel'no-istoričeskij sintaksis vostočnoslavjanskix jazykov: Členy predloženija, ed. by Borkovskij, V. I., 47–95. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Sannikov, V. Z. 1978. Soglasovannoe opredelenie. Istoričeskajagrammatika russkogo jazyka: Sintaksis, Prostoe predloženie, ed. by Borkovskij, V. I., 148–86. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Šaxmatov, A. A. 1941. Sintaksis russkogo jazyka. 2nd edn. Leningrad. [Photomechanical reprint. The Hague: Mouton, 1963.]Google Scholar
Scatton, Ernest A. 1984. A reference grammar of Modern Bulgarian. Columbus, OH: Slavica.Google Scholar
Šewc-Schuster, H. 1976. Gramatika hornjoserbskeje rěčce, II: Syntaksa. Budyšin: Ludowe Nakładnistwo Domowina.Google Scholar
Shevelov, George Y. 1963. The syntax of modern literary Ukrainian: The simple sentence. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Skorvid, S. S. 1981. O sintaksičeskix svojstvax pritjažatel'nyx prilagatel'nyx v drevnečeskom jazyke. Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta, Serija 9: Filologija, pt. 4, 43–50.Google Scholar
Stevanovič, M. 1939/40. Posesivne forme u srpskohrvatskom jeziku. Godišnjak Skopskog Filozofskog Fakulteta 4:1.3–50. [Cited from Ivić 1967.]Google Scholar
Stevanovič, M. 1974. Savremeni srpskohrvatski jezik (Gramatički sistemi i književnojezička norma), II: Sintaksa. 2nd edn. Belgrade: Naučna Knjiga.Google Scholar
Štolc, J. 1966. Vyjadrovanie posesívneho vzt'ahu v slovenčine a jeho slovanská súvislost'. Slavica Slovaca 1:3.259–67.Google Scholar
Stone, Gerald. 1986. Review of Janaš 1984. Slavonic and East European Review 64. 263–4.Google Scholar
Szlifersztejnowa, Salomea. 1960. Przymiotniki dzierżawcze w języku polskim. (Prace językoznawcze, 22.) Wrocław: Polska Akademia Nauk.Google Scholar
Topolińska, Zuzanna. 1981. Remarks on the Slavic noun phrase. (Prace Instytutu Języka Polskiego, 37.) Wrocław: Polska Akademia Nauk.Google Scholar
Trávníček, František. 1951a. Mluvnice spisovné češtiny, I: Hláskosloví, tvoření slov, tvarosloví. Prague: Slovanské Nakladatelství.Google Scholar
Trávníček, František. 1951b. Mluvnice spisovné češtiny, II. Skladba. Prague: Slovanské Nakladatelství. [First edn., 1949; pagination differs, so references are given by paragraph.]Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, N. S. 1937. O pritjažatel'nyx prilagatel'nyx (possessiva) starocerkovnoslavjanskogo jazyka. Zbornik lingvističkih i filoloških rasprava A. Beliću o četrdesetogodišnjici njegova naučnog rada posvećuju njegovi prijatelji i učenici, 15–20. Belgrade: Miada Srbija.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, N. S. 1939. Le rapport entre le déterminé, le déterminant et le défini. Mélanges de linguistique offerts à Charles Bally, 75–82. Geneva.Google Scholar
Vachek, Josef. 1954. K problematice českých posesivních adjektiv. Studie a Práce Linguistické 1. 171–89.Google Scholar
Vachek, Josef. 1961. Some less familiar aspects of the analytical trend of English. Brno Studies in English (Prague) 3. 9–78.Google Scholar
Vaillant, André. 1958. Grammaire comparée des langues slaves, II: Morphologie, deuxième partie, Flexion pronominale. Lyon: IAC.Google Scholar
Vaillant, André. 1964. Manuel du vieux slave, I: Grammaire. 2nd edn. Paris: Institut d'Études Slaves.Google Scholar
Vaillant, André. 1974. Grammaire comparée des langues slaves, IV: La formation des noms. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Večerka, R. 1957. Ke konkurenci adnominálního genitivu a adjektiva v staroslovénštině. Sbornik Prací Filosofické Fakulty Brněnské University A5.25–38.Google Scholar
Večerka, R. 1963. Sintaksis bespredložnogo roditel'nogo v staroslavjanskom jazyke. Issledovanija po sintaksisu staroslavjanskogo jazyka: Sbornik statej, 183–223. Prague: Izdatel'stvo Čexoslovackoj Akademii Nauk.Google Scholar
Wackernagel, Jacob. 1908. Genetiv und Adjektiv. Mélanges de linguistique offerts à F. de Saussure, 125–52. Paris. [Reprinted in his Kleine Schriften, 2. 1346–73. Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 1955.]Google Scholar
Watkins, Calvert. 1967. Remarks on the genitive. To honor Roman Jakobson: Essays on the occasion of his seventieth birthday, 3. 2191–8. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Zemskaja, A. E. 1964. Izmenenija v sisteme slovoobrazovanija prilagatel'nyx. Očerki po istoričeskoj grammatike russkogo literaturnogo jazyka XIX veka, I: Izmenenija v slovoobrazovanii i formax suščestvitel'nogo i prilagatel'nogo v russkom literaturnom jazyke XIX veka, ed. by Vinogradov, V. V. & Švedova, N. Ju., 277–555. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Zverev, A. D. 1981. Slovoobrazovanie v sovremmenyx vostočnoslavjanskix jazykax. Moscow: Vysšaja Škola.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1983. An expanded view of morphology in the syntax-phonology interface. Proceedings of the 13th International Congress of Linguists, ed. by Hattori, Shir⊖ et al., 198–208. Tokyo.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1986. Imposed versus inherent feature specifications, and other multiple feature markings. To appear in Indiana University Linguistics Club Twentieth Anniversary Volume.Google Scholar