Chapter published in:
Perspectives on Language Structure and Language Change: Studies in honor of Henning Andersen
Edited by Lars Heltoft, Iván Igartua, Brian D. Joseph, Kirsten Jeppesen Kragh and Lene Schøsler
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 345] 2019
► pp. 81106
References

References

Andersen, Henning
1980Morphological change: Towards a typology. Historical morphology, ed. by Jacek Fisiak, 1–50. The Hague: Mouton.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baerman, Matthew
2007Morphological reversals. Journal of Linguistics 43. 33–61.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baerman, Matthew, Dunstan Brown & Greville G. Corbett
2005The syntax-morphology interface: A study of syncretism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, James P.
2005Word-based declensions in Estonian. Yearbook of Morphology 2005, ed. by Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle, 1–25. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bräuer, Herbert
1969Slavische Sprachwissenschaft. III. Formenlehre. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Carstairs, Andrew
1987Allomorphy in inflexion. New York: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G.
2000Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007Canonical typology, suppletion, and possible words. Language 83. 8–42.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012Features. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dardel, Robert de & Paul A. Gaeng
1992La déclinaison nominale du latin non classique: essai d’une méthode de synthèse. Probus 4. 91–125.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
de Lacy, Paul
2012Morphophonological polarity. The morphology and phonology of exponence , ed. by Jochen Trommer, 121–159. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U.
1985Suppletion in word formation. Historical semantics – historical word formation , ed. by Jacek Fisiak, 97–112. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2003Naturalness and morphological change. The handbook of historical linguistics, ed. by Brian D. Joseph & Richard D. Janda, 461–471. London: Blackwell.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Enger, Hans-Olav
2005Do affixes have meaning? Polarity in the Toten dialect of Norwegian meets morphological theory. Yearbook of Morphology 2005, ed. by Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle, 27–47. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, Victor A.
1986Evidentiality in the Balkans: Bulgarian, Macedonian, and Albanian. Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology (Advances in discourse processes 20), ed. by Johanna Nichols & Wallace Chafe, 168–187. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
2010The age of the Albanian admirative: A problem in historical semantics. Ex Anatolia Lux: Anatolian and Indo-European studies in honor of H. Craig Melchert on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday, ed. by Ronald Kim, Norbert Oettinger, Elisabeth Rieken & Michael Weiss, 31–38. Ann Arbor & New York: Beech Stave Press.Google Scholar
Gaeng, Paul A.
1984Collapse and reorganization of the Latin nominal flection as reflected in epigraphic sources. Potomac: Scripta Humanistica.Google Scholar
Grandgent, Charles H.
1962An introduction to Vulgar Latin. New York: Hafner.Google Scholar
Grimm, Scott
2012Individuation and inverse number marking in Dagaare. Count and mass across languages, ed. by Diane Massam, 75–98. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harbour, Daniel
2008Morphosemantic number: From Kiowa noun classes to UG number features. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
2011Valence and atomic number. Linguistic Inquiry 42. 561–596.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2006Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42. 25–70.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A.
2011Processing efficiency and complexity in typological patterns. The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology, ed. by Jae Jung Song, 206–226. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hetzron, Robert
1967Agaw numerals and incongruence in Semitic. Journal of Semitic Studies 12. 169–193.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Igartua, Iván
2005aOn the origin of the genitive dual in Lower Sorbian. Historische Sprachforschung 118. 294–302.Google Scholar
2005bOrigen y evolución de la flexión nominal eslava. Bilbao: Universidad del País Vasco.Google Scholar
2016Review of: Tore Nesset, How Russian came to be the way it is: A student’s guide to the history of the Russian language (2015). Journal of Historical Linguistics 6. 114–123.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, Brian D.
2013Multiple sources and multiple causes multiply explored. Studies in Language 37. 675–691.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kihm, Alain
2017Old French declension: A Word and Paradigm approach and the role of syncretisms and defaults in its rise and fall. Defaults in morphological theory, ed. by Nikolas Gisborne & Andrew Hippisley, 40–72. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Krause, Thomas & Wolfgang Thomas
1960 Tocharisches Elementarbuch. I. Grammatik. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Lahne, Antje
2007On deriving polarity effects. 1-2-many (Linguistische Arbeitsberichte 85), ed. by Jochen Trommer & Andreas Opitz, 1–22.Leipzig: Universität Leipzig.Google Scholar
Lecarme, Jacqueline
2002Gender “polarity”: Theoretical aspects of Somali nominal morphology. Many Morphologies, ed. by Paul Boucher & Marc Plénat, 109–141. Somerville, Mass.: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Matthews, Peter H.
1972 Inflectional morphology. A theoretical study based on aspects of Latin verb conjugation . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Meier-Brügger, Michael
2003Indo-European linguistics (with contributions by Matthias Fritz & Manfred Mayrhofer). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Merrifield, William R.
1959Classification of Kiowa nouns. International Journal of American Linguistics 25:4.269–271.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mohl, F. George
1899Introduction à la chronologie du latin vulgaire. Paris: Bouillon (Reprint: Hildesheim-New York: Georg Olms 1974).Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Edith A.
2013Introducing linguistic typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mosel, Ulrike & Ruth Spriggs
2000Gender in Teop (Bougainville, Papua New Guinea). Gender in grammar and cognition. I: Approaches to gender (Trends in Linguistics: Studies and Monographs 124), ed. by Barbara Unterbeck, Matti Rissanen, Terttu Nevalainen & Mirja Saari, 321–349. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nahtigal, Rajko
1961Die slavischen Sprachen. Abriss der vergleichenden Grammatik. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Nilsson, Morgan
2016Somali gender polarity revisited. Diversity in African languages, ed. by Doris L. Payne, Sara Pacchiarotti & Mokaya Bosire, 451–466. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Peyrot, Michaël
2008Variation and change in Tocharian B. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Piantadosi, Steven T., Harry Tily & Edward Gibson
2012The communicative function of ambiguity in language. Cognition 122. 280–291.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pinault, Georges-Jean
2008Chrestomathie tokharienne. Textes et grammaire. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
Plank, Frans
1979The functional basis of case systems and declension classes: From Latin to Old French. Linguistics 17. 611–640.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Plungian, Vladimir A.
2010Počemu jazyki takie raznye [Why are languages so different?]. 2nd edn. Moscow: Ast-Press.Google Scholar
Priestly, Tom M. S.
1993Slovene. The Slavonic languages, ed. by Bernard Comrie & Greville G. Corbett, 388–451. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ross, Malcolm D.
1988Proto Oceanic and the Austronesian languages of eastern Melanesia (Pacific Linguistics, series C, no. 98). Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Saeed, John
1999Somali (London Oriental and African language library 10). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schøsler, Lene
2013The development of the declension system. Research on Old French: The state of the art, ed. by Deborah Arteaga, 167–186. Heidelberg: Springer.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Serzisko, Fritz
1982Numerus/Genus-Kongruenz und das Phänomen der Polarität am Beispiel einiger ostkuschitischen Sprachen. Apprehension: Das sprachliche Erfassen von Gegenständen. Teil II: Die Techniken und ihr Zusammenhung in Einzelsprachen, ed. by Hansjakob Seiler & Franz Josef Stachowiak, 179–200. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Šewc-Schuster, Hinc
1984Gramatika hornjoserbskeje rěče. I. Fonologija, fonetika, morfologija [Upper Sorbian grammar. I. Phonology, phonetics, morphology]. Bautzen: Domowina.Google Scholar
Smith, Lawrence R.
1979Labrador Inuttut inverted number marking, exchange rules and morphological markedness. Linguistics 17. 153–167.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Speiser, Ephraim A.
1938The pitfalls of polarity. Language 14. 187–202.Google Scholar
Šul´ga, Marija V.
1985K istorii grammatičeskogo vyraženija značenija parnosti v russkom jazyke [Towards a history of the grammatical expression of the paral meaning in Russian]. Obščeslavjanskij lingvističeskij atlas. Materialy i issledovanija 1982, 218–247.Google Scholar
Tiersma, Peter
1982Local and general markedness. Language 58. 832–849.Google Scholar
Timberlake, Alan
2004A reference grammar of Russian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Trommer, Jochen
2008The formal typology of morphological polarity. Ms., Universität Leipzig (http://​www​.uni​-leipzig​.de​/~jtrommer​/Mutation​/typology​.pdf).
Van Windekens, Albert J.
1979Le tokharien confronté avec les autres langues indo-eruropéennes. Vol II,1:. Louvain: Centre International de Dialectologie Générale.Google Scholar
Velupillai, Viveka
2012An introduction to linguistic typology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wasow, Thomas, Amy Perfors & David Beaver
2005The puzzle of ambiguity. Morphology and the web of grammar. Essays in memory of Steven G. Lapointe, ed. by C. Orhan Orgun & Peter Sells, 265–282. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Watters, David E.
2002A grammar of Kham. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Weigel, William F.
1993Morphosyntactic toggles. Papers from the 29th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Vol 1. (CLS 29). 467–478.Google Scholar
Winter, Werner
1962Nominal and pronominal dual in Tocharian. Language 38.111–134 (= Kleine Schriften / Selected Writings , ed. by Olav Hackstein, Vol. I, 69–92. Bremen: Hempen).Google Scholar
Wonderly, William L., Lorna F. Gibson & Paul L. Kirk
1954Number in Kiowa: Nouns, demonstratives, and adjectives. International Journal of American Linguistics 20. 1–7.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wunderlich, Dieter
2012Polarity and constraints on paradigmatic distinctness. The morphology and phonology of exponence, ed. by Jochen Trommer, 160–194. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wurzel, Wolfgang U.
1989Inflectional morphology and naturalness. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Žolobov, Oleg F.
1998Symbolik und historische Dynamik des slavischen Duals. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Žukova, Alevtina N.
1972Grammatika korjakskogo jazyka: Fonetika, morfologija [Grammar of the Koryak language: Phonetics, morphology]. Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar