Article published in:
Vol. 33:4 (2016) ► pp. 423460
Ackerman, Farrell, James P. Blevins & Robert Malouf
2009Parts and wholes: Patterns of relatedness in complex morphological systems and why they matter. In Blevins & Blevins (2009b), 54–82. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ackerman, Farrell & Robert Malouf
Forthcoming. Implicative relations in word-based morphological systems. In Andrew Hippisley & Gregory Stump (eds.) The Cambridge handbook of morphology New York Cambridge University Press Crossref
Albright, Adam C
2002The identification of bases in morphological paradigms. Ph.D. diss., University of California Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Albright, Adam
2005The morphological basis of paradigm leveling. In Downing et al. (2005b), 17–43.Google Scholar
2010Base-driven leveling in Yiddish verb paradigms. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 281. 475–537. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011Paradigms. In Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth Hume & Keren Rice (eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology, vol. 4: Phonological interfaces 1972–2001 Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Alderete, John R
2001Dominance effects as transderivational anti-faithfulness. Phonology 181. 201–253. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, Henning
1980Morphological change: Towards a typology. In Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Historical morphology, 1–50. New York: Mouton.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R
1992A-morphous morphology. New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005Morphological universals and diachrony. In Booij & van Marle (2005), 1–17.Google Scholar
Andersson, Erik
1994Swedish. In König & van der Auwera (1994), 271–312.Google Scholar
Anttila, Raimo
1989Historical and comparative linguistics, 2nd edn. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark
1998Isomorphism and monotonicity: Or the disease model of morphology. In Steven G. Lapointe, Diane K. Brentari & Patrick M. Farrell (eds.), Morphology and its relation to phonology and syntax, 411–418. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
1994Morphology by itself. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark & Kirsten Fudeman
2005What is morphology? Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Askedal, John Ole
1994Norwegian. In König & van der Auwera (1994), 219–270.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie
2003Introducing linguistic morphology, 2nd edn. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Bebermeyer, Renate
1974Zur Volksetymologie: Wesen und Formen. In Jochen Möckelmann (ed.), Sprache und Sprachhandeln: Festschrift für Gustav Bebermeyer, 156–187. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
Becker, Thomas
1990Analogie und morphologische Theorie. München: Fink.Google Scholar
Behaghel, Otto
1886Die deutsche Sprache. Leipzig: Freytag.Google Scholar
Bierwisch, Manfred
1987A structural paradox in lexical knowledge. In Elke van der Meer & Joachim Hoffmann (eds.), Knowledge aided information processing, 141–172. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Blevins, James P
2003Stems and paradigms. Language 791. 737–767. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004Inflection classes and economy. In Gereon Müller, Lutz Gunkel & Gisela Zifonun (eds.), Explorations in nominal inflection, 41–85. New York: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006Word-based morphology. Journal of Linguistics 42(3). 531–5. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, James P. & Juliette Blevins
2009aIntroduction: Analogy in grammar. In Blevins & Blevins (2009b), 1–12. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(eds.) 2009bAnalogy in grammar: Form and acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, Juliette
2004Evolutionary phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard
1933Language. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David
2002Syncretism without paradigms: Remarks on Williams 1981, 1994. In Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 2001, 53–85. Berlin: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert
2002The morphology of Dutch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert & Jaap van Marle
(eds.) 2005Yearbook of Morphology 2004. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Broe, Michael & Janet Pierrehumbert
(eds.) 2000Papers in Laboratory Phonology 5. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brugmann, Karl
1876Nasalis Sonans in der indogermanischen Grundsprache. In Georg Curtius & Karl Brugmann (eds.), Studien zur griechischen und lateinischen Grammatik, vol. 91, 285–338. Leipzig: Hirzel.Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi
2005Sources of paradigm uniformity. In Downing et al. (2005b), 65–106.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan
1980Morphophonemic change from inside and outside the paradigm. Lingua 501. 45–59. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1988Morphology as lexical organization. In Michael Hammond & Michael Noonan (eds.), Theoretical morphology, 119–141. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1991Natural morphology: The organization of paradigms and language acquisition. In Thom Huebner & Charles A. Ferguson (eds.), Crosscurrents in second language acquisition and linguistic theories, 67–91. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000Lexicalization of sound change and alternating environments. In Broe & Pierrehumbert (2000), 250–268.Google Scholar
2001Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015Language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. & Carol Lynn Moder
1983Morphological classes as natural categories. Language 591. 251–270. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. & Jean E. Newman
1995Are stem changes as natural as affixes? Linguistics 331, 633–654. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca
1994The evolution of grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bynon, Theodora
1977Historical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Alistair
1959Old English grammar. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle
2004Historical linguistics: An introduction, 2nd edn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew
2008System-congruity and violable constraints in German weak declension. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 261. 775–793. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010The evolution of morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chirita, Diana
1988Der Ausgleich des Ablauts im starken Präteritum im Frühneuhochdeutschen. New York: Lang.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Morris Halle
1968The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Christmann, Ernst
1937Zur Frage der Volksetymologie. Zeitschrift für Mundartforschung 13(1). 1–8.Google Scholar
Clark, Eve V
1987The principle of contrast: A constraint on language acquisition. In Brian MacWhinney (ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition, 1–33. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Coates, Richard
1987Pragmatic sources of analogical reformation. Journal of Linguistics 231. 319–340. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Curtius, Georg
1860Das dreisilbengesetz der griechischen und lateinischen betonung. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 91. 321–338.Google Scholar
Davies, Anna Morpurgo
1978Analogy, segmentation, and the early Neogrammarians. Transactions of the Philological Society 76(1). 36–60. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Stuart
2005Capitalistic v. militaristic: The paradigm uniformity effect reconsidered. In Downing et al. (2005b), 107–121.Google Scholar
Downing, Laura J., Tracy A. Hall & Renate Raffelsiefen
2005aIntroduction: The role of paradigms in phonological theory. In Downing et al. (2005b), 1–16.Google Scholar
(eds.) 2005bParadigms in phonological theory. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dresher, B. Elan
2000Analogical levelling of vowel length in West Germanic. In Lahiri (2000b), 47–70. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ducháček, Otto
1964L’attraction lexicale. Philologica Pragensia 71. 65–76.Google Scholar
Embick, David
2013Morphemes and morphophonological loci. In Ora Matushansky & Alec Marantz (eds.), Distributed morphology today: Morphemes for Morris Halle, 151–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fertig, David
1998Suppletion, natural morphology, and diagrammaticity. Linguistics 361. 1065–1091. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1999Analogical ‘leveling’ from outside the paradigm: Stem-vowel changes in the German modals. Diachronica 161. 233–260. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000Morphological change up close. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013Analogy and morphological change. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
2015Two conceptions of analogical innovation/change. In Peter Auer & Robert W. Murray (eds.), Hermann Paul’s ‘Principles of language history’ revisited, 209–236. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2016Staying weird: Analogical change in high-frequency forms. Talk presented at the 22nd Germanic Linguistics Annual Conference , Reykjavík, Iceland, May 20, 2016.
Flemming, Edward
2002Auditory representations in phonology. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gaeta, Livio
2007Is analogy economic? In Fabio Montermini, Gilles Boyé & Nabil Hathout (eds.), Selected proceedings of the 5th Décembrettes: Morphology in Toulouse, 20–33. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
2010Analogical change. In Silvia Luraghi & Vit Bubenik (eds.), The Continuum companion to historical linguistics, 147–160. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Garrett, Andrew
2008Paradigmatic uniformity and markedness. In Good (2008b), 125–143. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Garrett, Andrew & Keith Johnson
2013Phonetic bias in sound change. In Alan C.L. Yu (ed.), Origins of sound change, 51–97. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gerken, LouAnn, Rachel Wilson, Rebecca Gómez & Erika Nurmsoo
2009The relation between linguistic analogies and lexical categories. In Blevins & Blevins (2009b), 101–117. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Godfrey, Elizabeth & Sali Tagliamonte
1999Another piece for the verbal s story: Evidence from Devon in southwest England. Language Variation and Change 111. 87–121. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Good, Jeff
2008aIntroduction. In Good (2008b), 1–19. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(ed.) 2008bLinguistic universals and language change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H
1966Synchronic and diachronic universals in phonology. Language 421. 508–517. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haberland, Hartmut
1994Danish. In König & van der Auwera (1994), 313–348.Google Scholar
Hale, Mark & Charles Reiss
2008The phonological enterprise. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz
1993Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Kenneth Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), The view from Building 201, 111–171. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harris, James W
1973On the order of certain phonological rules in Spanish. In Stephen R. Anderson & Paul Kiparsky (eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle, 59–76. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2006Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42(1). 25–70. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hempen, Ute
1988Die starken Verben im Deutschen und Niederländischen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hermann, Eduard
1931Lautgesetz und Analogie (Abhandlungen der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Philologisch-Historische Klasse, neue Folge 23, 3). Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
Hill, Eugen
2007Proportionale Analogie, paradigmatischer Ausgleich und Formerweiterung: ein Beitrag zur Typologie des morphologischen Wandels. Diachronica 241. 81–118. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich
1991Principles of historical linguistics, 2nd edn. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hock, Hans H. & Brian D. Joseph
2009Language history, language change, and language relationship, 2nd edn. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hockett, Charles F
1954Two models of grammatical description. Word 101. 210–234. [Reprinted in Martin Joos (ed.). 1963. Readings in linguistics, 386–399. New York: American Council of Learned Societies.]. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Iverson, Gregory K. & Joseph C. Salmons
2004The conundrum of Old Norse umlaut: Sound change versus crisis analogy. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 161. 77–110. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jeffers, Robert J. & Ilse Lehiste
1979Principles and methods for historical linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto
1887Zur Lautgesetzfrage. Internationale Zeitschrift für allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft 31. 188–216.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D
1998Diachronic morphology. In Andrew Spencer & Arnold M. Zwicky (eds.), The handbook of morphology, 351–373. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kapatsinski, Vsevolod
2013Conspiring to mean: Experimental and computational evidence for a usage-based harmonic approach to morphophonology. Language 891. 110–148. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael & Charles Kisseberth
1977Topics in phonological theory. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael
2005Paradigmatic uniformity and contrast. In Downing et al. (2005b), 145–169.Google Scholar
King, Robert D
1973Rule insertion. Language 491. 551–578. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul
1968Linguistic universals and linguistic change. In Emmon Bach & Robert T. Harms (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory, 170–202. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
1972Explanation in phonology. In Stanley Peters (ed.), Goals of lingusitic theory, 189–227. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
1978Analogical change as a problem for linguistic theory. In Braj B. Kachru (ed.), Linguistics in the seventies: Directions and prospects, 77–96. Urbana: Dept. of Linguistics, University of Illinois.Google Scholar
1992Analogy. In William Bright (ed.), International encyclopedia of linguistics, vol. 11, 56–61. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2000Opacity and cyclicity. The Linguistic Review 171. 351–366. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Johan van der Auwera
(eds.) 1994The Germanic languages. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Krahe, Hans & Wolfgang Meid
1969Germanische Sprachwissenschaft II: Formenlehre. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kruszewski, Mikołaj
1884–1890Prinzipien der Sprachentwickelung. Internationale Zeitschrift für allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft 1(1884). 295–307; 2(1885). 258–268; 3(1887). 145–187; 5(1890). 133–144, 339–360.Google Scholar
Lahiri, Aditi
2000aIntroduction. In Lahiri (2000b), 1–14. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(ed.) 2000bAnalogy, levelling, markedness: Principles of change in phonology and morphology. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Winfried
1962Historical linguistics: An introduction. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle
1992Deconstructing morphology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Linell, Per
1979Psychological reality in phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Luiten, Tyler, Andrea Menz, John M. Lindner & Joseph Salmons
2013Beyond the handbooks: A quantitative approach to Old High German phonology and morphology. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 135(1). 2–20. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maiden, Martin
2005Morphological autonomy and diachrony. In Booij & van Marle (2005), 137–175. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008Lexical nonsense and morphological sense: On the real importance of ‘folk etymology’ and related phenomena for historical linguists. In Þórhallur Eyþórsson (ed.), Grammatical change and linguistic theory, 307–328. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mańczak, Witold
1958Tendences générales des changements analogiques. Lingua 71. 298–325, 387–420. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, Peter H
1972Inflectional morphology: A theoretical study based on aspects of Latin verb conjugation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mayerthaler, Willi
1981Morphologische Natürlichkeit. Wiesbaden: Athenaion.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J
2005Optimal paradigms. In Downing et al. (2005b), 170–210.Google Scholar
Mengden, Ferdinand von
2011Ablaut or transfixation? On the Old English strong verbs. In Renate Bauer & Ulrike Krischke (eds.), More than words: English lexicography and lexicology past and present, 123–139. New York: Lang.Google Scholar
Misteli, Franz
1880Lautgesetz und Analogie. Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft 111. 365–475.Google Scholar
Nübling, Damaris
2000Prinzipien der Irregularisierung. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008Was tun mit Flexionsklassen? Deklinationsklassen und ihr Wandel im Deutschen und seinen Dialekten. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 751. 282–331.Google Scholar
Oertel, Hanns
1901Lectures on the study of language. New York: Scribner’s.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J
1981The listener as a source of sound change. In Carrie S. Masek, Roberta A. Hendrick & Mary Frances Miller (eds.), Papers from the Parasession on Language and Behavior, 178–203. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
2012The listener as a source of sound change: An update. In Solé & Recasens (20121), 21–35. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Olschansky, Heike
1996Volksetymologie. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Osthoff, Hermann
1878Kleine beiträge zur declinationslehre der indogermanischen sprachen, pt. 1. In Hermann Osthoff & Karl Brugmann (eds.), Morphologische Untersuchungen auf dem Gebiete der Indogermanischen Sprachen, vol. 11, 207–290. Leipzig: Hirzel.Google Scholar
1879aDas physiologische und psychologische Moment in der sprachlichen Formenbildung. In Rudolf Birchow & Franz von Holtzendorff (eds.), Sammlung gemeinverständlicher wissenschaftlicher Vorträge, vol. 14, no. 337, 505–552. Berlin: Habel.Google Scholar
1879bKleine beiträge zur declinationslehre der indogermanischen sprachen II. In Hermann Osthoff & Karl Brugmann (eds.), Morphologische Untersuchungen auf dem Gebiete der Indogermanischen Sprachen, vol. 21, 1–147. Leipzig: Hirzel.Google Scholar
Panagl, Oswald
1982Aspekte der Volksetymologie (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, Vorträge und Kleinere Schriften 30). Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck.Google Scholar
Paul, Hermann
1877Die Vocale der Flexions- und Ableitungs-Silben in den aeltesten germanischen Dialecten. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 41. 315–475.Google Scholar
1886Principien der Sprachgeschichte, 2nd edn. Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
1917Deutsche Grammatik, vol. 21. Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
1920Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte, 5th edn. Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
1989Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik, 23rd edn., ed. by Peter Wiehl & Siegfried Grosse. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven
1999Words and rules. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Prokosch, Edward
1939A comparative Germanic grammar. Philadelphia: Linguistic Society of America.Google Scholar
Ringe, Don
2006A linguistic history of English, vol. 1: From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Robins, Robert H
1959In defence of WP. Transactions of the Philological Society 581. 116–144. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ronneberger-Sibold, Elke
2002Volksetymologie und Paronomasie als lautnachahmende Wortschöpfung. In Mechthild Habermann, Peter O. Müller & Horst Haider Munske (eds.), Historische Wortbildung des Deutschen, 105–127. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rundblad, Gabriella & David B. Kronenfeld
2003The inevitability of folk etymology: A case of collective reality and invisible hands. Journal of Pragmatics 351. 119–138. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Salmons, Joseph
2012A history of German. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Samuels, M.L
1972Linguistic evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sapir, Edward
1921Language. New York: Harcourt, Brace.Google Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de
1995 [1916]Cours de linguistique générale, ed. by Charles Bally & Albert Sechehaye. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Schirmunski, V.M
1962Deutsche Mundartkunde. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Schuchardt, Hugo
1885Über die Lautgesetze: Gegen die Junggrammatiker. Berlin: Robert Oppenheim. [Reprinted in Vennemann & Wilbur (1972), 1–38; English translation 41–72.].Google Scholar
Solé, Maria-Josep & Daniel Recasens
(eds.) 2012The initiation of sound change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Steriade, Donca
2000Paradigm uniformity and the phonetics–phonology boundary. In Broe & Pierrehumbert (2000), 313–334.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory T
2001Inflectional morphology: A theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016Inflectional paradigms: Content and form at the syntax-morphology interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sturtevant, Edgar H
1917Linguistic change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah G
1974On the analysis of inflectional change. Papers in Linguistics 71. 351–379. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trask, R.L
1996Historical linguistics. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Trommer, Jochen
2012Constraints on multiple-feature mutation. Lingua 1221. 1182–1192. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ullmann, Stephen
1957The principles of semantics, 2nd edn. New York: Barnes and Noble.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo
1974Words and syllables in natural generative grammar. In Anthony Bruck, Robert A. Fox & Michael W. LaGaly (eds.), Papers from the Parasession on Natural Phonology, 346–374. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
1999Volksetymologie und Ortsnamenforschung. Beiträge zur Namenforschung 34(3). 269–322.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo & Terence H. Wilbur
(eds.) 1972Schuchardt, the Neogrammarians, and the transformational theory of phonological change. Frankfurt: Athenäum.Google Scholar
Wheeler, Benjamin Ide
1887Analogy and the scope of its application in language. Ithaca, NY: John Wilson and Son University Press.Google Scholar
Wolf, Matthew
2007For an autosegmental theory of mutation. In Leah Bateman, Adam Werle, Michael O’Keefe & Ehren Reilly (eds.), University of Massachusetts Occasional Working Papers in Linguistics 321, 315–404. Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Wundt, Wilhelm
1900Völkerpsychologie, vol. 1: Die Sprache, part 1. Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann.Google Scholar
Wurzel, Wolfgang Ullrich
1984Flexionsmorphologie und Natürlichkeit. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
1989aInflectional Morphology and Naturalness. Boston: Kluwer [Translation of Wurzel 1984].Google Scholar
1989bVon der Inadäquatheit einer Affixmorphologie. Linguistische Studien, Reihe A 1941. 277–298.Google Scholar
Zager, David
1980A real time process model of morphological change. Ph.D. diss., University at Buffalo (SUNY).Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M
1990Inflectional morphology as a (sub)component of grammar. In Wolfgang U. Dressler, Hans C. Luschützky, Oskar E. Pfeiffer & John R. Rennison (eds.), Contemporary morphology, 217–236. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 7 other publications

Axelsdóttir, Katrín
2019. Áhrifsbreytingar í þágufalli nafnsins Þórarinn. Orð og tunga 21  pp. 27 ff. Crossref logo
de Chene, Brent
2020.  r-Epenthesis and the bigrade alternation. Diachronica 37:2  pp. 178 ff. Crossref logo
Fertig, David
2019. Morphological Change Through Phonological Analogy: 2nd Person Singular -s → -st and Related Developments in Germanic. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 31:1  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Haugen, Tor Arne & Hans-Olav Enger
2019. The semantics of Scandinavian pancake constructions . Linguistics 57:3  pp. 531 ff. Crossref logo
Heinemann, Sabine
2021. Hochfrequenz und Irregularität – zur Stammallomorphie bei (a)frz. al(l)er/(a)it. andare, (a)frz. venir/(a)it. venire und afrz. ester/(a)it. stare . Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 137:4  pp. 961 ff. Crossref logo
Hill, Eugen
2019. Inflectional Suppletion and Heteroclite Inflection from a Diachronic Perspective. Transactions of the Philological Society 117:3  pp. 372 ff. Crossref logo
Nkollo, Mikołaj & Alexandra Fiéis
2020. The não interpolation in Classical and early Modern European Portuguese and the mapping between syntactic and phonological structures: An empirical study . Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 13:1  pp. 115 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 08 april 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.