References
Andersen, H.
(1980) “Morphological change: towards a typology”. In J. Fisiak (Ed.), Recent developments in historical morphology (pp. 1–50). The Hague: Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1987) From auxiliary to desinence. In: M. Harris & P. Ramat. (Eds.). Historical development of auxiliaries (pp. 21-52). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Grammaticalization in a speaker-oriented theory of change. In Thórhallur Eythórsson (Ed.), Grammatical change and linguistic theory. The Rosendal Papers (pp. 11–44). (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 113.) Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2010) From morphologization to demorphologization. In V. Bubenik & S. Luraghi (Eds.), Companion to historical linguistics (pp. 117–146). London: Continuum Companions in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. R.
(1992) A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Anttila, R.
(1975) The indexical element in morphology. Innsbuck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Aronoff, M.
(1994) Morphology by itself. Stems and inflectional classes. Cambridge, MA & London, England: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Avanesov, R. & Orlova, V.
(1965) Russkaja dialektologija. Moskow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Awbery, G. M.
(1983a) Moves towards a simpler, binary mutation system in Welsh. In H. Andersen (Ed.). Sandhi phenomena in the languages of Europe. (pp. 161–166). Berlin & New York & Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(1983b) Survey of sandhi types in Welsh. In H. Andersen (Ed.). Sandhi phenomena in the languages of Europe. (pp. 415–434). Berlin / New York / Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Blevins, J.
(2016) Word and Paradigm morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, L.
(1935) Language. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Carstairs-McCarthy, A.
(2002) How stems and affixes interact: Stem alternants as morphological signata. In Bendjaballah et al. (Eds.) Morphology 2000. Selected papers from the 9th Morphology Meeting, Vienna, 2000. (pp. 49–58). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, G.
(2016) Morphomic splits. In A. Luís & R. Bermúdez-Otero (Eds.), The morphome debate (pp. 64–88). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Coseriu, E.
(1970) Synchronie, Diachronie und Typologie. In his Sprache. Strukturen und Funktionen. 12 Aufsätze zur allgemeinen und romanischen Sprachwissenschaft. Ed. by U. Petersen, H. Bertsch & G. Köhler (pp. 91–108). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Dahl, Ö.
(2004) The growth and maintenance of linguistic complexity. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dochartaigh, C.
(1990) The Irish language. In D. Macaulay (Ed.), The Celtic languages (pp. 11–99). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dressler, W.
(1977) Grundfragen der Morphonologie. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
(1985) Morphonology. The dynamics of derivation. Ed. by Kenneth C. Hill. Ann Arbor: Karoma.Google Scholar
Embick, D.
(2015) Morpheme. A theoretical introduction. Boston: DeGruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, J.
(1960) A quantitative approach to the morphological typology of languages. International Journal of American Linguistics 26, 178–194. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hodge, C.
(1970) The linguistic cycle. Language Sciences 13, 1–7.Google Scholar
Huntley, D.
(1993) Old Church Slavonic. In B. Comrie & G. C. Corbett (Eds.), The Slavonic languages (pp. 125–187). London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R.
(1971) Shifters, verbal categories and the Russian verb. In his Selected Writings, 2. Word and Language (pp. 130–147). The Hague & Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar
(1990) On language. Ed. by Linda R. Waugh & Monique Monville-Burston. Cambridge, MA & London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Korhonen, M.
(1969) Die Entwicklung der morphologischen Methode im Lappischen. Finnisch-ugrische Forschungen 37 (pp. 203–362). Reprinted as Die Entwicklung der morphologischen Technik im Lappischen. In: Korhonen (1996, pp. 17–142).Google Scholar
(1982) Reductive phonetic developments as the trigger to typological change: Two examples from the Finno-Ugrian languages. In A. Ahlqvist (Ed.), Papers from the 5th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Galway, April 6–10, 1981. (pp. 207–212). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Reprinted in Korhonen (1996, pp. 207–212). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1996) Typological and historical studies in language. A memorial volume published on the 60th anniversary of his birth. Ed. by T. Salminen. Helsinki: Suomalais-ugrilaisen Seura.Google Scholar
Matthews, P.
(1972) Inflectional morphology. A theoretical study based on aspects of Latin verb conjugation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(1974) Morphology: An introduction to the theory of word structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(1991) Morphology. (Expanded and revised version of Matthews 1974.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mel’čuk, I.
(2002) Towards a formal concept of ’zero linguistic sign’. Applications in typology. In S. Bendjaballah et al. (Eds.) Morphology 2000. Selected papers from the 9th Morphology Meeting, Vienna, 2000. (pp. 241–258). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Aspects of the theory of morphology. Ed. by D. Beck. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nöth, W.
(1990) Handbook of semiotics. Bloomington / Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pierce, C. S.
(1960–1966) Collected papers, 1–8. Ed. by C. Hartshorne & P. Weiss. (Second Printing.) Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Saussure, F. de
(1973) Cours de linguistique générale. Ed. by C. Bally & A. Sechehaye with A. Riedlinger. Critical edition by T. de Mauro. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Shapiro, M.
(1969) Aspects of Russian morphology: A semiotic investigation. Cambridge, MA: Slavica.Google Scholar
(1991) The sense of change: Language as history. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Spencer, A.
(2016) Stems, the morpheme, and meaning-bearing inflection. In A. Luís & R. Bermúdez-Otero (Eds.). The morpheme debate (pp. 207–227). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Steriade, D.
(2016) The morphome vs. similarity-based syncretism. In A. Luis & R. Bermúdez-Otero (Eds.), The morphome debate (pp. 112–172). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, T.
(2016) Contemporary morphological theory: A user’s guide. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Stump, G.
(2001) Inflectional morphology. A theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trubetzkoy, N.
(1958) Grundzüge der Phonologie, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Werner, O.
(1987) The aim of morphological change is a good mixture, not a uniform language type. In A. Giacalone Ramat, O. Carruba & G. Bernini (Eds.), Papers from the 7th International Conference on Historical Linguistics (pp. 591–606). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar