No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Morphosyntactic complexity: A typology of lexical splits
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2026
Extract
A key notion in understanding language is ‘possible word (lexeme)’. While there are lexemes that are internally homogeneous and externally consistent, we find others with splits in their internal structure (morphological paradigm) and inconsistencies in their external behavior (syntactic requirements). I first explore the characteristics of the most straightforward lexemes, in order to establish a point in the theoretical space from which we can calibrate the real examples we find. I then schematize the interesting phenomena that deviate from this idealization, including suppletion, syncretism, deponency, and defectiveness. Next I analyze the different ways in which lexemes are ‘split’ by such phenomena. I set out a typology of possible splits, along four dimensions: splits that are (i) based on the composition/feature signature of the paradigm versus those based solely on morphological form; (ii) motivated (following a boundary motivated from outside the paradigm) versus purely morphology-internal (‘morphomic’); (iii) regular (extending across the lexicon) versus irregular (lexically specified); (iv) externally relevant versus irrelevant: we expect splits to be internal to the lexeme, but some have external relevance (they require different syntactic behaviors).
I identify instances of these four dimensions separately: they are orthogonal, and therefore not dependent on each other. Their interaction gives a substantial typology, and it proves to be surprisingly complete: the possibilities specified are all attested. The typology also allows for the unexpected patterns of behavior to overlap in particular lexemes, producing some remarkable examples. Such examples show that the notion ‘possible word’ is more challenging than many linguists have realized.
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2015 Linguistic Society of America
Footnotes
*
The support of the ERC (grant ERC-2008-AdG-230268 MORPHOLOGY), the AHRC (grant AH/ I027193/1 ‘From competing theories to fieldwork: The challenge of an extreme agreement system’, and grant AH/K003194/1 ‘Combining gender and classifiers in natural language’), and the ESRC and AHRC jointly (grant ES/I029621/1 ‘Endangered complexity: Inflectional classes in Oto-Manguean languages’) is gratefully acknowledged. The analyses presented here have been well aired at different meetings, and I thank all those present who helped to clarify the typology: University of Bremen, September 2009; Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, November 2009; Matica Srpska, Novi Sad, September 2010; 29th International Conference on Lexis and Grammar, Belgrade City Library, September 2010; the Société de Linguistique de Paris, December 2010; Department of Linguistics, UC Santa Barbara, February 2011; Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures, UC Berkeley, February 2011; 6th Meeting of the Slavic Linguistics Society, Université de Provence, Aix-en-Provence, September 2011; Societas Linguistica Europaea, Universidad de la Rioja, September 2011; 8th Mediterranean Morphology Meeting, Cagliari, September 2011; Philipps-Universität Marburg, October 2011; Hokkaido University, Slavic Research Centre, Sapporo, November 2011; University of the West of England, February 2012; HSE Moscow, May 2013; CIESAS Sureste, July 2013; Association for Linguistic Typology, Leipzig, August 2013. For helpful comments on previous versions I am particularly grateful to Stephen Anderson, Matthew Baerman, Olivier Bonami, Dunstan Brown, Wayles Browne, Patricia CabredoHofherr, Marina Chumakina, Scott Collier, Nick Evans, Sebastian Fedden, Tim Feist, Alice Harris, Andrew Hippisley, Alexander Krasovitsky, Enrique Palancar, Gilles Polian, Erich Round, Greg Stump, Anna Thornton, and Claire Turner, to Greg Carlson (editor), Stanley Dubinsky (executive editor), and Adam Albright (associate editor), and to Lisa Mack and Penny Everson for help in preparing the manuscript.
References
Ackerman, Farrell, Blevins, James P.; and Malouf, Robert. 2009. Parts and wholes: Implicative patterns in inflectional paradigms. Analogy in grammar: Form and acquisition, ed. by Blevins, James P. and Blevins, Juliette, 54–82. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adamou, Evangelia. 2012. Verb morphologies in contact: Evidence from the Balkan area. Morphologies in contact, ed. by Vanhove, Martine, Stolz, Thomas, Urdze, Aina, and Otsuka, Hitomi, 143–62. Berlin: Akademie.Google Scholar
Adger, David. 2009. Gaelic: A language tutorial. Presented at the annual conference of the Linguistics Association of Great Britain, University of Edinburgh, 6-9 September 2009. Online: http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/lagb2009/.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1984. On representations in morphology: Case, agreement and inversion in Georgian. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2. 157–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 2011. Stress-conditioned allomorphy in Surmiran (Rumantsch). In Maiden, et al., 8–23.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. 2013. Stem alternations in Swiss Rumantsch. In Cruschina, et al., 262–83.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by itself: Stems and inflectional classes. (Linguistic Inquiry monographs 22.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 2012. Morphological stems: What William of Ockham really said. In Bonami 2012b, 28–51.Google Scholar
Aronson, Howard I. 1991. Modern Georgian. The Indigenous languages of the Caucasus, vol. 1: The Kartvelian languages, ed. by Harris, Alice C., 219–312. Delmar: Caravan Books.Google Scholar
Asudeh, Ash, Dalrymple, Mary; and Toivonen, Ida. 2013. Constructions with lexical integrity. Journal of Language Modelling 1. 1–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baerman, Matthew. 2006. Kayardild. Typological database on deponency, by Corbett, Greville G., Baerman, Matthew, Brown, Dunstan, and Hippisley, Andrew. Online: http://www.smg.surrey.ac.uk/deponency/. Specific page: http://www.smg.surrey.ac.uk/Deponency/WALS/Kayardild.htm#, accessed 25 April 2012.Google Scholar
Baerman, Matthew. 2008. Historical observations on defectiveness: The first singular non-past. Russian Linguistics 32. 81–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baerman, Matthew. 2013. Inflection class interactions. Morphology in Toulouse: Selected proceedings of Décembrettes 7 (Toulouse, 2-3 December 2010), ed. by Hathout, Nabil, Montermini, Fabio, and Tseng, Jesse, 11–33. Munich: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
Baerman, Matthew. 2014. Covert systematicity in a distributionally complex system. Journal of Linguistics 50. 1–47.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
Baerman, Matthew, Brown, Dunstan; and Corbett, Greville G. (eds.) 2015. Understanding and measuring morphological complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, to appear.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baerman, Matthew, and Corbett, Greville G.. 2012. Stem alternations and multiple exponence. In Bonami 2012b, 52–68.Google Scholar
Baerman, Matthew, Corbett, Greville g.; and 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baerman, Matthew, Corbett, Greville g., Brown, Dunstan; and Hippisley, Andrew (eds.) 2007. Deponency and morphological mismatches. (Proceedings of the British Academy 145.) Oxford: British Academy and Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bliese, Loren F. 1981. A generative grammar of Afar. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and University of Texas at Arlington.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan. 2002. Syncretism without paradigms: Remarks on Williams 1981, 1994. Yearbook of Morphology 2001. 53–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonami, Olivier (ed.) 2012b. Stems. (Special issue of Word Structure 5.1.) Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Bonami, Olivier, and Boyé, Gilles. 2007. French pronominal clitics and the design of paradigm function morphology. Online proceedings of the Mediterranean Morphology Meeting 5. 291–322. Online: http://www3.lingue.unibo.it/mmm2/?page_id=71.Google Scholar
Bonami, Olivier, and Boyé, Gilles. 2008. Paradigm shape is morphomic in Nepali. Paper presented at the 13th International Morphology Meeting, Vienna, February 2008.Google Scholar
Bond, Oliver. 2016. Negation through reduplication and tone: Implications for the LFG/PFM interface. Journal of Linguistics, to appear.Google Scholar
Boretzky, Norbert. 1993. Bugurdzi: Deskriptiver und historischer Abriß eines RomaniDialekts. (Balkanologische Veröffentlichungen 21.) Berlin: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Brown, Dunstan, and Chumakina, Marina. 2013. What there might be and what there is: An introduction to canonical typology. In Brown et al. 2013, 1–19.Google Scholar
Brown, Dunstan, Chumakina, Marina; and Corbett, Greville G. (eds.) 2013. Canonical morphology and syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Dunstan, Chumakina, Marina, Corbett, Greville, Popova, Gergana; and Spencer, Andrew. 2012. Defining ‘periphrasis’: Key notions. Morphology 22. 233–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Dunstan, Corbett, Greville g.; and Tiberius, Carole (eds.) 2003. Agreement: A typological perspective. (Special issue of Transactions of the Philological Society 101.2.) Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Brown, Dunstan, and Hippisley, Andrew. 2012. Network morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna, and Giusti, Giuliana. 2001. ‘Semi-lexical’ motion verbs in Romance and Germanic. Semi-lexical categories: The function of content words and the content of function words (Studies in generative grammar 59), ed. by Corver, Norbert and van Riemsdijk, Henk, 371–414. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna, and Giusti, Giuliana. 2003. Motion verbs as functional heads. The syntax of Italian dialects (Oxford studies in comparative syntax), ed. by Tortora, Christina, 31–49. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 1994. Inflection classes, gender, and the principle of contrast. Language 70. 737–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cech, Petra, and Heinschnink, Mozes F.. 1999. Sepecides-Romani: Grammatik, Texte und Glossar eines türksichen Romani-Dialekts. (Balkanologische Veröffentlichungen 34.) Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Chiu, Bonnie Hui-Chun. 1987. The morphology of the Alabama set-I affixes. Muskogean linguistics (UCLA occasional papers in linguistics 6), ed. by Munro, Pamela, 21–35. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Chumakina, Marina, and Corbett, Greville G.. 2008. Archi: The challenge of an extreme agreement system. Fonetika i nefonetika: K 70-letiju Sandro V. Kodzasova, ed. by Arxipov, Aleksandr V., Zaxarov, Leonid M., Kibrik, Andrej A., Kibrik, Aleksandr E., Kobozeva, Irina M., Krivnova, Ol'ga F., Ljutikova, Ekaterina A., and Fëdorova, Ol'ga V., 184–94. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskix kul'tur.Google Scholar
Chumakina, Marina, and Corbett, Greville G. (eds.) 2013. Periphrasis: The role of syntax and morphology in paradigms. (Proceedings of the British Academy 180.) Oxford: British Academy and Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chumakina, Marina, and Corbett, Greville G.. 2015. Gender-number marking in Archi: Small is complex. In Baerman et al. 2015, to appear.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 2003. When agreement gets trigger-happy. In Brown et al. 2003, 313–37.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard, and Corbett, Greville G. (eds.) 1993. The Slavonic languages. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 1993. The head of Russian numeral expressions. Heads in grammatical theory, ed. by Corbett, Greville G., Fraser, Norman M., and McGlashan, Scott, 11–35. 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 2nd Mediterranean Morphology Meeting, Malta, September 1999.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: Universitat Pompeu Fabra. Online: http://www3.surrey.ac.uk/LIS/SMG/corbett_publications.htm.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2007a. Canonical typology, suppletion, and possible words. Language 83. 8–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2007b. Deponency, syncretism and what lies between. In Baerman et al. 2007,21-43.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2008. Determining morphosyntactic feature values: The case of case. Case and grammatical relations: Papers in honor of Bernard Comrie, ed. by Corbett, Greville G. and Noonan, Michael, 1–34. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2009. Canonical inflectional classes. Selected proceedings of the 6th Décembrettes: Morphology in Bordeaux, 1–11. Online: http://www.lingref.com/cpp/decemb/6/abstract2231.html.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2010. Classic problems at the syntax-morphology interface: Whose are they? Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG 2010), 255–68. Online: http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/HPSG/2010/.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2011. The penumbra of morphosyntactic feature systems. Morphology (Special issue: Markedness and underspecification in the morphology and semantics of agreement, ed. by Bobaljik, Jonathan, Sauerland, Uli, and Nevins, Andrew) 21. 445–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2013a. Canonical morphosyntactic features. In Brown et al. 2013, 48–65.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2013b. The unique challenge of the Archi paradigm. Berkeley Linguistics Society (Special session on languages of the Caucasus) 37. 2. 52–67. [Dated 2011 but published April 2013.] Online: http://elanguage.net/journals/bls/article/view/3626.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2015. Morphomic splits. The morphome debate: Diagnosing and analysing morphomic patterns, ed. by Luís, Ana R. and Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo. Oxford: Oxford University Press, to appear.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville g., and Baerman, Matthew. 2010. ‘Deep irregularity’: When the expected lexical splits follow the wrong pattern. Paper presented at the 14th International Morphology Meeting, Budapest, May 2010.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville g., and Browne, Wayles. 2009. Serbo-Croat: Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, Serbian (Ch. 18). The worlds major languages, 2nd edn., ed. by Comrie, Bernard, 330–46. London: Routledge.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.].Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville g., and Fraser, Norman M.. 1997. Vycislitel'naja lingvistika i tipologija. Vestnik MGU: Serija 9, Filologija 2, 122–40.Google Scholar
Cruschina, Silvio. 2013. Beyond the stem and inflectional morphology: An irregular pattern at the level of periphrasis. In Cruschina, et al., 262–83.Google Scholar
Cruschina, Silvio, Maiden, Martin; and Smith, John Charles (eds.) 2013. The boundaries of pure morphology: Diachronic and synchronic perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cysouw, Michael. 2011. The expression of person and number: A typologist's perspective. Morphology (Special issue: Markedness and underspecification in the morphology and semantics of agreement, ed. by Bobaljik, Jonathan, Sauerland, Uli, and Nevins, Andrew) 21. 419–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniel, Michael, and Ganenkov, Dmitri. 2009. Case marking in Daghestanian: Limits of elaboration. The Oxford handbook of case, ed. by Malchukov, Andrej and Spencer, Andrew, 668–85. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
de Lacy, Paul, and Kingston, John. 2013. Synchronic explanation. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31. 287–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, Jared. 1998. Guns, germs and steel: A short history of everybody for the last 13,000 years. London: Vintage.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: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Downing, Laura J., Hall, t Alan; and Raffelsiefen, Renate (eds.) 2005. Paradigms in phonological theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang u. 1985. On the predictiveness of natural morphology. Journal of Linguistics 21. 321–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dwelly, Edward. 1902-1911. Faclair Gaidhlig: A Gaelic dictionary: Specially designed for beginners and for use in schools. Herne Bay: E. MacDonald and Co. at the Gaelic Press. Online: http://www.dwelly.info, accessed 25 April 2012.Google Scholar
Elšík, Viktor. 2000. Romani nominal paradigms: Their structure, diversity, and development. Grammatical relations in Romani: The noun phrase (Current issues in linguistic theory 211), ed. by Elšík, Viktor and Matras, Yaron, 9–30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embick, David, and Halle, Morris. 2005. On the status of stems in morphological theory. Romance languages and linguistic theory 2003: Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’ 2003, Nijmegen, 20-22 November, ed. by Geerts, Twan, van Ginneken, Ivo, and Jacobs, Haike, 37–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enger, Hans-Olav, and Corbett, Greville g.. 2012. Definiteness, gender and hybrids: Evidence from Norwegian dialects. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 24. 287–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 1995. A grammar of Kayardild: With historical-comparative notes on Tangkic. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 2003. Typologies of agreement: Some problems from Kayardild. In Brown et al. 2003, 203–34.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 2013. Some problems in the typology of quotation: A canonical approach. In Brown et al. 2013,66-98.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, Roger, and Gazdar, Gerald. 1996. DATR: A language for lexical knowledge representation. Computational Linguistics 22. 167–216.Google Scholar
Finley, Sara. 2009. Morphemic harmony as featural correspondence. Lingua 119. 478501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flemming, Edward. 2001. Scalar and categorical phenomena in a unified model of phonetics and phonology. Phonology 18. 7–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foley, William a. 2000. The languages of New Guinea. Annual Review of Anthropology 29. 357–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forker, Diana. 2012. The bi-absolutive construction in Nakh-Daghestanian. Folia Linguistica 46. 75–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortin, Antonio. 2011. The morphology and semantics of expressive affixes. Oxford: University of Oxford dissertation.Google Scholar
Gagliardia, Annie, Goncalves, Michael, Polinsky, Maria; and Radkevich, Nina. 2013. The Nakh-Daghestian biabsolutive: Unity and diversity. Paper presented at the 10th biennial meeting of the Association for Linguistic Typology, Leipzig, August 2013.Google Scholar
Graudina, Ljudmila k., Ickovič;, Viktor a. and Katlinskaja, Lija P.. 1976. Gram-matičeskaja pravilnost’ russkoj reči: Opyt častotno-stilističeskogo slovarja variantov. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi, and Ritter, Elizabeth. 2002. Person and number in pronouns: A feature-geometric analysis. Language 78. 482–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Alice c. 1981. Georgian syntax: A study in relational grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Harris, Alice c. 1985. Syntax and semantics, vol. 18: Diachronic syntax: The Kartvelian case. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Alice C. 2008. On the explanation of typologically unusual structures. Linguistic universals and language change, ed. by Good, Jeff, 54–78. Oxford: Oxford 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, vol. 1, ed. by Booij, Geert, Lehmann, Christian, and Mugdan, Joachim, in collaboration with Kesselheim, Wolfgang and Skopeteas, Stavros, 654–64. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Haugen, Jason d., and Siddiqi, Daniel. 2013. Roots and the derivation. Linguistic Inquiry 44. 493–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayward, Richard J. 1998. Qafar (East Cushitic). The handbook of morphology, ed. by Spencer, Andrew and Zwicky, Arnold M., 624–47. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hayward, Richard J., and Orwin, Martin. 1991. The prefix conjugation in Qafar-Saho: The survival and revival of a paradigm, part 1. African Languages and Cultures 4. 15776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hewitt, B. George. 1995. Georgian: A structural reference grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinzelin, Marc-Olivier. 2011. Syncretism and suppletion in Gallo-Romance verb paradigms. In Maiden, et al., 287–310.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry Μ. 2009. How (not) to do phonological typology: The case of pitch-accent. Language Sciences (Special issue: Data and theory: Papers in phonology in celebration of Charles W. Kisseberth, ed. by Kenstowicz, Michael J.) 3. 213–38.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry Μ. 2011. In defense of prosodic typology: A response to Beckman and Venditti. UC Berkeley Phonology Lab Annual Report (2011), 200–235.Google Scholar
Ivanova, V. F. 1969. Celovek s tysjac'ju lic ili celovek s tysjac'ju licami? Russkij jazyk v skole 2. 66–73.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman O. 1958. Morfologiceskie nabljudenija nad slavjanskim skloneniem (sostav russkix padeznyx form). American contributions to the fourth International Congress of Slavists, Moscow, September 1958, 127–56. The Hague: Mouton. [Reprinted in Selected writings, vol. 2: Word and language, 154-83. The Hague: Mouton, 1971. Translated as: Morphological observations on Slavic declension (the structure of Russian case forms). Roman Jakobson: Russian and Slavic grammar: Studies 1931-1981, ed. by Linda R. Waugh and Morris Halle, 105-33. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1984.]: Mouton de Gruyter, 1984.].Google Scholar
Jamieson, Carol. 1982. Conflated subsystems marking person and aspect in Chiquihuitlán Mazatec. International Journal of American Linguistics 48. 139–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, C. Douglas. 1972. Formal aspects of phonological description. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaye, Steven. 2013. Morphomic stems in the Northern Talyshi verb: Diachrony and synchrony. In Cruschina, et al., 181–208.Google Scholar
Kibrik, Aleksandr E. 1977. Opyt strukturnogo opisanija arcinskogo jazyka, vol. 3: Dinamiceskaja grammatika. (Publikacii otdelenija strukturnoj iprikladnoj lingvistiki 13.) Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Moskovskogo universiteta.Google Scholar
Kibrik, Aleksandr E. 1994. Archi. Indigenous languages of the Caucasus, vol. 4: North East Caucasian languages. Part 2: Presenting the three Nakh languages and six minor Lezgian languages, ed. by Smeets, Rieks, 297–365. Delmar, NY: Caravan Books.Google Scholar
Kibrik, Aleksandr E. 2003a. Nominal inflection galore: Daghestanian, with side glances at Europe and the world. Noun phrase structure in the languages of Europe, ed. by Plank, Frans, 37–112. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kibrik, Aleksandr E. 2003b. Konstanty i peremennye jazyka. Saint Petersburg: Aletheia.Google Scholar
Kibrik, Aleksandr e., and Kodzasov, Sandro V.. 1990. Sopostavitel'noe izucenie dagestanskix jazykov: Imja: Fonetika. Moscow: MGU.Google Scholar
Kibrik, Andrej A. 2013. Peculiarities and origins of the Russian referential system. Languages across boundaries: Studies in memory of Anna Siewierska, ed. by Bakker, Dik and Haspelmath, Martin, 227–62. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Kim, Yuni. 2010. Phonological and morphological conditions on affix order in Huave. Morphology 20. 133–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konstantopoulos, Stasinos. 1998. A morphological analyser for Scottish Gaelic. A morphological analyser for Scottish Gaelic: Department of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh master's thesis.Google Scholar
Krasovitsky, Alexander, Long, Alison, Baerman, Matthew, Brown, Dunstan; and Corbett, Greville g.. 2008. Predicate nouns in Russian. Russian Linguistics 32. 99113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamb, William. 2008. Scottish Gaelic speech and writing: Register variation in an endangered language. (Belfast studies in language, culture and politics 16.) Belfast: Cló Olls-coil na Banríona.Google Scholar
Letučij, Aleksandr b. 2013. Svojstva nulevoj svjazki v russkomjazyke v sopostavlenii so svojstvami vyražennogo glagola. Svojstva nulevoj svjazki v russkomjazyke v sopostavlenii so svojstvami vyražennogo glagola: Vinogradov Russian Language Institute, ms.Google Scholar
Luís, Ana r. 2011. Morphomic structure and loan-verb integration: Evidence from Lusophone Creoles. In Maiden, et al., 235–54.Google Scholar
Mač'avariani [Machavariani], Givi i. 1974. Asp'ekt'is k'at'egoria kartvelur enebši [The category of aspect in the Kartvelian languages]. Kartvelur Enata St'rukt'uris Sak'itxebi 4. 118–41. [Cited from Harris 1985.]Google Scholar
Mackinnon, Donald. 1910. Traces of the neuter gender in modern Scottish Gaelic. Celtic Review 6. 24. 296–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maiden, Martin. 2004. When lexemes become allomorphs—On the genesis of suppletion. Folia Linguistica 38. 227–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maiden, Martin. 2005. Morphological autonomy and diachrony. Yearbook of Morphology 2004. 137–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maiden, Martin. 2009. From pure phonology to pure morphology: The reshaping of the Romance verb. Recherches linguistiques de Vincennes 38. 45–82. Online: http://rlv.revues.org/1765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maiden, Martin. 2011. Morphomes and ‘stress-conditioned allomorphy’ in Romansh. In Maiden, et al., 36–50.Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin. 2013. The Latin ‘third stem’ and its Romance descendants. Diachronica 30. 492–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maiden, Martin, and O’Neill, Paul. 2010. On morphomic defectiveness: Evidence from the Romance languages of the Iberian Peninsula. In Baerman et al. 2010, 103–24.Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin, Smith, John Charles, Goldbach, Maria; and Hinzelin, Marc-Olivier (eds.) 2011. Morphological autonomy: Perspectives from Romance inflectional morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, William d. 2007. Morphological processes in language comprehension. The Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics, ed. by Gaskell, Gareth, 175–93. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Matthews, P. H. 1972. Inflectional morphology: A theoretical study based on aspects of Latin verb conjugation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McGinnis, Martha. 2005. On markedness asymmetries in person and number. Language 81. 699–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McShane, Marjorie. 2009. Subject ellipsis in Polish and Russian. Studia Linguistica 63. 98–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mel‘čuk, Igor. 1993. Cours de morphologie générale (théorique et descriptive), vol. 1: Introduction et première partie: Le mot. Montréal: Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal.Google Scholar
Mel‘čuk, Igor. 1996. Cours de morphologie générale (théorique et descriptive), vol. 3: Troisième partie: Moyens morphologiques; Quatrième partie: Syntactiques morphologiques. Montréal: Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal.Google Scholar
Meyer, Peter. 1994. Grammatical categories and the methodology of linguistics: Review article on van Helden 1993. Russian Linguistics 18. 341–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 2011. Syncretism without underspecification: The role of leading forms. Word Structure 4. 1. 53–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevins, Andrew. 2011. Phonologically conditioned allomorph selection. The Blackwell companion to phonology, ed. by van Oostendorp, Marc, Ewen, Colin J., Hume, Elizabeth V., and Rice, Keren, 2357–82. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, Irina, and Spencer, Andrew. 2008. Nouns as adjectives and adjectives as nouns. Nouns as adjectives and adjectives as nouns: University of Essex, ms. Online: http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/∼spena/PossMod/8adjnoun-language-revised-final-non-anon.pdf.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
O’Neill, Paul. 2013. The morphome and morphosyntactic/semantic features. In Cruschina, et al., 221–46.Google Scholar
Opitz, Andreas, Regel, Stefanie, Müller, Gereon; and Friederici, Angela d.. 2013. Neurophysiological evidence for morphological underspecification in German strong adjective inflection. Language 89. 231–64.Google Scholar
Paciaroni, Tania. 2012. Noun inflectional classes in Maceratese. Inflection and word formation in Romance languages, ed. by Gaglia, Sascha and Hinzelin, Marc-Olivier, 23170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Palancar, Enrique. 2012. The conjugation classes of Tilapa Otomi: An approach from canonical typology. Linguistics 50. 783–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paster, Mary. 2009. Explaining phonological conditions on affixation: Evidence from suppletive allomorphy and affix ordering. Word Structure 2. 1. 18–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polinsky, Maria. 2003. Non-canonical agreement is canonical. In Brown et al. 2003, 279312.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan, and Smolensky, Paul. 1993. Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Technical report 2. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science, and Boulder: University of Colorado at Boulder. [ROA 537, 2002. Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Technical report 2. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science, and Boulder: University of Colorado at Boulder. [ROA 537, 2002: Blackwell, 2004.]Google Scholar
Reh, Mechthild. 1985. Die Krongo-Sprache (Nìinò Mó-Dì): Beschreibung, Texte, Wörterverzeichnis. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer.Google Scholar
Ross, Malcolm. 2005. Pronouns as a preliminary diagnostic for grouping Papuan languages. Papuan pasts: Cultural, linguistic and biological histories of Papuan-speaking peoples (Pacific linguistics 572), ed. by Pawley, Andrew, Attenborough, Robert, Hide, Robin, and Golson, Jack, 15–66. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Round, Erich r. 2009. Kayardild morphology, phonology and morphosyntax. New Haven, CT: Yale University dissertation.Google Scholar
Round, Erich r. 2013. Kayardild morphology and syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Round, Erich r. 2015. Rhizomorphomes, meromorphomes and metamorphomes. In Baerman et al. 2015, to appear.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rucart, Pierre. 2006. Morphologie gabaritique et interface phonosyntaxique: Aspects de la morphologie verbale en afar. Paris: Université Paris Diderot (Paris 7) dissertation.Google Scholar
Sanu (Srpska Akademija Nauka i Umetnosti). 1959. Rečnik srpskohrvatskog književnog i narodnog jezika. Belgrade: SANU.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Karl h. 1963. Zu den Aspekten im Georgischen und in indogermanischen Sprachen. Bedi Kartlisa 15-16. 107–15.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Karl h. 1966. Tempora im Georgischen und in indogermanischen Sprachen. Studia Caucasica 2. 48–57.Google Scholar
Seifart, Frank. 2005. The structure and use of shape-based noun classes in Miraña (North West Amazon). Nijmegen: Radboud University, Nijmegen dissertation.Google Scholar
Siemund, Peter, and Dolberg, Florian. 2011. From lexical to referential gender: An analysis of gender change in medieval English based on two historical documents. Folia Linguistica 45. 489–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, John Charles. 2013. The morphome as a gradient phenomenon: Evidence from Romance. In Cruschina, et al., 247–61.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
Spencer, Andrew. 2007. Extending deponency: Implications for morphological mismatches. In Baerman et al. 2007, 45–70.Google Scholar
Stanislav, Ján. 1977. Slowakische Grammatik. Bratislava: Slovenské pedagogické nakladatel'stvo.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 2001. Inflectional morphology: A theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 2006. Heteroclisis and paradigm linkage. Language 82. 279–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 2007. A non-canonical pattern of deponency and its implications. In Baerman et al. 2007, 71–95.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 2009. Cells and paradigms in inflectional semantics. Theory and evidence in semantics, ed. by Hinrichs, Erhard W. and Nerbonne, John, 215–33. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 2012. The formal and functional architecture of inflectional morphology. Online proceedings of the Mediterranean Morphology Meeting 8. 255–71. Online: http ://www3.lingue.unibo.it/mmm2/?page_id=456.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 2013. Periphrasis in the Sanskrit verb system. In Chumakina & Corbett 2013, 105–38.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory T., and Finkel, Raphael A.. 2013. Morphological typology: From word to paradigm. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suthar, Babubhai Kohyabhai. 2006. Agreement in Gujarati. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania dissertation.Google Scholar
Taylor, Catherine. 2012. Formal relationships in the paradigm: A functional approach with a focus on the Romance verb. Colchester: University of Essex dissertation.Google Scholar
Thornton, Anna M. 2010-2011. La non canonicità del tipo it. Braccio//braccia/bracci: Sovrabbondanza, difettività o iperdifferenziazione? Studi di grammatical italiana 2930. 419–77.Google Scholar
Thornton, Anna M. 2011a. Overabundance (multiple forms realizing the same cell): A non-canonical phenomenon in Italian verb morphology. In Maiden, et al., 358–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornton, Anna M. 2011b. Overabundance: A non-canonical phenomenon in morphology. Overabundance: A non-canonical phenomenon in morphology: Università degli Studi dell’Aquila, ms.Google Scholar
Tosco, Mauro. 2001. The Dhaasanac language: Grammar, texts, vocabulary of a Cushitic language of Ethiopia. (Cushitic language studies 17.) Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.Google Scholar
Trommer, Jochen (ed.) 2012. The morphology and phonology of exponence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trompelt, Helena, Bordag, Denisa; and Pechmann, Thomas. 2013. (Ir)regularity of verbs revisited: Evidence for lexical entry complexity. The Mental Lexicon 8. 26–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Velde, Mark. 2013. The Bantu connective construction. The genitive (Case and grammatical relations across languages 5), ed. by Carlier, Anne and Verstraete, Jean-Christophe, 217–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
van Helden, W. Andries. 1993. Case and gender: Concept formation between morphology and syntax. (Studies in Slavic and general linguistics 20.) 2 vols. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Verkuyl, Henk, Vet, Co, Borillo, Andrée, Bras, Myriam, Draoulec, Anne Le, Molendijk, Arie, de Swart, Henriëtte, Vetters, Carl; and Vieu, Laure. 2004. Tense and aspect in sentences. Handbook of French semantics, ed. by Corblin, Francis and de Swart, Henriëtte, 233–70. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Vincent, Nigel. 2011. Non-finite forms, periphrases, and autonomous morphology in Latin and Romance. In Maiden, et al., 417–35.Google Scholar
Walther, Géraldine. 2013. Sur la canonicité en morphologie: Perspective empirique, formelle et computationnelle. Paris: Université Paris Diderot (Paris 7) dissertation.Google Scholar
Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena. 2011. Typological variation in grammatical relations. Leipzig: University of Leipzig dissertation.Google Scholar
Worth, Dean S. 1984. Russian gen2, loc2 revisited. Signs of friendship: To honour A. G. F. van Holk, Slavist, linguist, semiotician, ed. by van Baak, Joost J., 295–306. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xalilov, Madzid S. 1985. Ob ogranicennom mnozestvennom cisle suscestvitel'nyx beztinskogo jazyka. Kategorija cisla v dagestanskix jazykax: Sbornik statej, ed. by Mikailov, K. S., 136–43. Makhachkala: Dagestanskij filial AN SSSR.Google Scholar
Xu, Zheng, and Aronoff, Mark. 2011. A realizational optimality-theoretic approach to full and partial identity of forms. In Maiden, et al., 257–86.Google Scholar
Yu, Alan C. L. 2007. A natural history of infixation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaliznjak, Andrej A. 1973. O ponimanii termina ‘padez’ v lingvisticeskix opisanijax. Problemy grammaticeskogo modelirovanija, ed. by Zaliznjak, Andrej A., 53–87. Moscow: Nauka. [Reprinted as Russkoe imennoe slovoizmenenie: S prilozeniem izbrannyx rabot po sovremennomu russkomu jazyku i obscemu jazykoznaniju, ed. by Andrej A. Zaliznjak, 613-47. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul'tury, 2002.].Google Scholar
- 50
- Cited by