Article published in:
Diachronica
Vol. 33:4 (2016) ► pp. 423–460

Mechanisms of paradigm leveling and the role of universal preferences in morphophonological change

Historical linguists have long been divided in their views about the mechanisms behind paradigm leveling, with many invoking a special mechanism related to a universal preference for paradigm uniformity while others attribute leveling to the same mechanism responsible for other types of analogical change. I argue that although ‘proportional’ analogical innovation plays a major role in paradigm leveling, it cannot account for all cases, and that something akin to the ‘interference’ mechanisms commonly associated with contamination and folk etymology account well for the non-proportional instances. I further show that all of the mechanisms involved in paradigm leveling are also implicated in other types of analogical change, and I argue against the need to posit any universal bias against (stem) allomorphy.
Keywords: contamination, folk etymology, stem alternation, paradigm uniformity, leveling, analogical innovation, morphophonological change, system congruity
Published online: 31 December 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.33.4.01fer
References
Ackerman, Farrell, James P. Blevins & Robert Malouf
2009 Parts 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
2002 The identification of bases in morphological paradigms. Ph.D. diss., University of California Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Albright, Adam
2005 The morphological basis of paradigm leveling. In Downing et al. (2005b), 17–43.Google Scholar
2010 Base-driven leveling in Yiddish verb paradigms. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 281. 475–537. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 Paradigms. 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
2001 Dominance effects as transderivational anti-faithfulness. Phonology 181. 201–253. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, Henning
1980 Morphological change: Towards a typology. In Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Historical morphology, 1–50. New York: Mouton.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R
1992 A-morphous morphology. New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005 Morphological universals and diachrony. In Booij & van Marle (2005), 1–17.Google Scholar
Andersson, Erik
1994 Swedish. In König & van der Auwera (1994), 271–312.Google Scholar
Anttila, Raimo
1989 Historical and comparative linguistics, 2nd edn. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark
1998 Isomorphism 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
1994 Morphology by itself. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark & Kirsten Fudeman
2005 What is morphology? Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Askedal, John Ole
1994 Norwegian. In König & van der Auwera (1994), 219–270.Google Scholar
Bauer, Laurie
2003 Introducing linguistic morphology, 2nd edn. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Bebermeyer, Renate
1974 Zur Volksetymologie: Wesen und Formen. In Jochen Möckelmann (ed.), Sprache und Sprachhandeln: Festschrift für Gustav Bebermeyer, 156–187. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
Becker, Thomas
1990 Analogie und morphologische Theorie. München: Fink.Google Scholar
Behaghel, Otto
1886 Die deutsche Sprache. Leipzig: Freytag.Google Scholar
Bierwisch, Manfred
1987 A 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
2003 Stems and paradigms. Language 791. 737–767. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004 Inflection classes and economy. In Gereon Müller, Lutz Gunkel & Gisela Zifonun (eds.), Explorations in nominal inflection, 41–85. New York: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 Word-based morphology. Journal of Linguistics 42(3). 531–5. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, James P. & Juliette Blevins
2009a Introduction: Analogy in grammar. In Blevins & Blevins (2009b), 1–12. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(eds.) 2009b Analogy in grammar: Form and acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, Juliette
2004 Evolutionary phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard
1933 Language. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David
2002 Syncretism 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
2002 The morphology of Dutch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert & Jaap van Marle
(eds.) 2005 Yearbook of Morphology 2004. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Broe, Michael & Janet Pierrehumbert
(eds.) 2000 Papers in Laboratory Phonology 5. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brugmann, Karl
1876 Nasalis 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
2005 Sources of paradigm uniformity. In Downing et al. (2005b), 65–106.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan
1980 Morphophonemic change from inside and outside the paradigm. Lingua 501. 45–59. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1988 Morphology as lexical organization. In Michael Hammond & Michael Noonan (eds.), Theoretical morphology, 119–141. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1991 Natural 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
2000 Lexicalization of sound change and alternating environments. In Broe & Pierrehumbert (2000), 250–268.Google Scholar
2001 Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015 Language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. & Carol Lynn Moder
1983 Morphological classes as natural categories. Language 591. 251–270. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. & Jean E. Newman
1995 Are stem changes as natural as affixes? Linguistics 331, 633–654. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca
1994 The evolution of grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bynon, Theodora
1977 Historical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Alistair
1959 Old English grammar. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, Lyle
2004 Historical linguistics: An introduction, 2nd edn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew
2008 System-congruity and violable constraints in German weak declension. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 261. 775–793. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 The evolution of morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chirita, Diana
1988 Der Ausgleich des Ablauts im starken Präteritum im Frühneuhochdeutschen. New York: Lang.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Morris Halle
1968 The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Christmann, Ernst
1937 Zur Frage der Volksetymologie. Zeitschrift für Mundartforschung 13(1). 1–8.Google Scholar
Clark, Eve V
1987 The 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
1987 Pragmatic sources of analogical reformation. Journal of Linguistics 231. 319–340. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Curtius, Georg
1860 Das dreisilbengesetz der griechischen und lateinischen betonung. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 91. 321–338.Google Scholar
Davies, Anna Morpurgo
1978 Analogy, segmentation, and the early Neogrammarians. Transactions of the Philological Society 76(1). 36–60. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Stuart
2005 Capitalistic v. militaristic: The paradigm uniformity effect reconsidered. In Downing et al. (2005b), 107–121.Google Scholar
Downing, Laura J., Tracy A. Hall & Renate Raffelsiefen
2005a Introduction: The role of paradigms in phonological theory. In Downing et al. (2005b), 1–16.Google Scholar
(eds.) 2005b Paradigms in phonological theory. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dresher, B. Elan
2000 Analogical levelling of vowel length in West Germanic. In Lahiri (2000b), 47–70. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ducháček, Otto
1964 L’attraction lexicale. Philologica Pragensia 71. 65–76.Google Scholar
Embick, David
2013 Morphemes 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
1998 Suppletion, natural morphology, and diagrammaticity. Linguistics 361. 1065–1091. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1999 Analogical ‘leveling’ from outside the paradigm: Stem-vowel changes in the German modals. Diachronica 161. 233–260. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000 Morphological change up close. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 Analogy and morphological change. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
2015 Two 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
2016 Staying weird: Analogical change in high-frequency forms. Talk presented at the 22nd Germanic Linguistics Annual Conference , Reykjavík, Iceland, May 20, 2016.
Flemming, Edward
2002 Auditory representations in phonology. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gaeta, Livio
2007 Is 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
2010 Analogical change. In Silvia Luraghi & Vit Bubenik (eds.), The Continuum companion to historical linguistics, 147–160. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Garrett, Andrew
2008 Paradigmatic uniformity and markedness. In Good (2008b), 125–143. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Garrett, Andrew & Keith Johnson
2013 Phonetic 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
2009 The relation between linguistic analogies and lexical categories. In Blevins & Blevins (2009b), 101–117. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Godfrey, Elizabeth & Sali Tagliamonte
1999 Another piece for the verbal s story: Evidence from Devon in southwest England. Language Variation and Change 111. 87–121. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Good, Jeff
2008a Introduction. In Good (2008b), 1–19. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(ed.) 2008b Linguistic universals and language change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H
1966 Synchronic and diachronic universals in phonology. Language 421. 508–517. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haberland, Hartmut
1994 Danish. In König & van der Auwera (1994), 313–348.Google Scholar
Hale, Mark & Charles Reiss
2008 The phonological enterprise. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz
1993 Distributed 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
1973 On 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
2006 Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42(1). 25–70. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hempen, Ute
1988 Die starken Verben im Deutschen und Niederländischen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hermann, Eduard
1931 Lautgesetz und Analogie (Abhandlungen der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Philologisch-Historische Klasse, neue Folge 23, 3). Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
Hill, Eugen
2007 Proportionale Analogie, paradigmatischer Ausgleich und Formerweiterung: ein Beitrag zur Typologie des morphologischen Wandels. Diachronica 241. 81–118. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich
1991 Principles of historical linguistics, 2nd edn. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hock, Hans H. & Brian D. Joseph
2009 Language history, language change, and language relationship, 2nd edn. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hockett, Charles F
1954 Two 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
2004 The conundrum of Old Norse umlaut: Sound change versus crisis analogy. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 161. 77–110. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jeffers, Robert J. & Ilse Lehiste
1979 Principles and methods for historical linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto
1887 Zur Lautgesetzfrage. Internationale Zeitschrift für allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft 31. 188–216.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D
1998 Diachronic morphology. In Andrew Spencer & Arnold M. Zwicky (eds.), The handbook of morphology, 351–373. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kapatsinski, Vsevolod
2013 Conspiring to mean: Experimental and computational evidence for a usage-based harmonic approach to morphophonology. Language 891. 110–148. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael & Charles Kisseberth
1977 Topics in phonological theory. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kenstowicz, Michael
2005 Paradigmatic uniformity and contrast. In Downing et al. (2005b), 145–169.Google Scholar
King, Robert D
1973 Rule insertion. Language 491. 551–578. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul
1968 Linguistic 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
1972 Explanation in phonology. In Stanley Peters (ed.), Goals of lingusitic theory, 189–227. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
1978 Analogical 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
1992 Analogy. In William Bright (ed.), International encyclopedia of linguistics, vol. 11, 56–61. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2000 Opacity and cyclicity. The Linguistic Review 171. 351–366. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard & Johan van der Auwera
(eds.) 1994 The Germanic languages. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Krahe, Hans & Wolfgang Meid
1969 Germanische Sprachwissenschaft II: Formenlehre. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kruszewski, Mikołaj
1884–1890 Prinzipien 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
2000a Introduction. In Lahiri (2000b), 1–14. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(ed.) 2000b Analogy, levelling, markedness: Principles of change in phonology and morphology. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann, Winfried
1962 Historical linguistics: An introduction. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle
1992 Deconstructing morphology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Linell, Per
1979 Psychological reality in phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Luiten, Tyler, Andrea Menz, John M. Lindner & Joseph Salmons
2013 Beyond 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
2005 Morphological autonomy and diachrony. In Booij & van Marle (2005), 137–175. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008 Lexical 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
1958 Tendences générales des changements analogiques. Lingua 71. 298–325, 387–420. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, Peter H
1972 Inflectional morphology: A theoretical study based on aspects of Latin verb conjugation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mayerthaler, Willi
1981 Morphologische Natürlichkeit. Wiesbaden: Athenaion.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J
2005 Optimal paradigms. In Downing et al. (2005b), 170–210.Google Scholar
Mengden, Ferdinand von
2011 Ablaut 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
1880 Lautgesetz und Analogie. Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft 111. 365–475.Google Scholar
Nübling, Damaris
2000 Prinzipien der Irregularisierung. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008 Was tun mit Flexionsklassen? Deklinationsklassen und ihr Wandel im Deutschen und seinen Dialekten. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik 751. 282–331.Google Scholar
Oertel, Hanns
1901 Lectures on the study of language. New York: Scribner’s.Google Scholar
Ohala, John J
1981 The 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
2012 The listener as a source of sound change: An update. In Solé & Recasens (20121), 21–35. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Olschansky, Heike
1996 Volksetymologie. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Osthoff, Hermann
1878 Kleine 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
1879a Das 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
1879b Kleine 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
1982 Aspekte der Volksetymologie (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, Vorträge und Kleinere Schriften 30). Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck.Google Scholar
Paul, Hermann
1877 Die Vocale der Flexions- und Ableitungs-Silben in den aeltesten germanischen Dialecten. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 41. 315–475.Google Scholar
1886 Principien der Sprachgeschichte, 2nd edn. Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
1917 Deutsche Grammatik, vol. 21. Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
1920 Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte, 5th edn. Halle: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
1989 Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik, 23rd edn., ed. by Peter Wiehl & Siegfried Grosse. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven
1999 Words and rules. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Prokosch, Edward
1939 A comparative Germanic grammar. Philadelphia: Linguistic Society of America.Google Scholar
Ringe, Don
2006 A linguistic history of English, vol. 1: From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Robins, Robert H
1959 In defence of WP. Transactions of the Philological Society 581. 116–144. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ronneberger-Sibold, Elke
2002 Volksetymologie 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
2003 The inevitability of folk etymology: A case of collective reality and invisible hands. Journal of Pragmatics 351. 119–138. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Salmons, Joseph
2012 A history of German. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Samuels, M.L
1972 Linguistic evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sapir, Edward
1921 Language. 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
1962 Deutsche Mundartkunde. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Schuchardt, Hugo
1885 Über 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.) 2012 The initiation of sound change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Steriade, Donca
2000 Paradigm uniformity and the phonetics–phonology boundary. In Broe & Pierrehumbert (2000), 313–334.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory T
2001 Inflectional morphology: A theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016 Inflectional paradigms: Content and form at the syntax-morphology interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sturtevant, Edgar H
1917 Linguistic change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah G
1974 On the analysis of inflectional change. Papers in Linguistics 71. 351–379. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trask, R.L
1996 Historical linguistics. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Trommer, Jochen
2012 Constraints on multiple-feature mutation. Lingua 1221. 1182–1192. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ullmann, Stephen
1957 The principles of semantics, 2nd edn. New York: Barnes and Noble.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo
1974 Words 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
1999 Volksetymologie und Ortsnamenforschung. Beiträge zur Namenforschung 34(3). 269–322.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo & Terence H. Wilbur
(eds.) 1972 Schuchardt, the Neogrammarians, and the transformational theory of phonological change. Frankfurt: Athenäum.Google Scholar
Wheeler, Benjamin Ide
1887 Analogy and the scope of its application in language. Ithaca, NY: John Wilson and Son University Press.Google Scholar
Wolf, Matthew
2007 For 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
1900 Völkerpsychologie, vol. 1: Die Sprache, part 1. Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann.Google Scholar
Wurzel, Wolfgang Ullrich
1984 Flexionsmorphologie und Natürlichkeit. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
1989a Inflectional Morphology and Naturalness. Boston: Kluwer [Translation of Wurzel 1984].Google Scholar
1989b Von der Inadäquatheit einer Affixmorphologie. Linguistische Studien, Reihe A 1941. 277–298.Google Scholar
Zager, David
1980 A real time process model of morphological change. Ph.D. diss., University at Buffalo (SUNY).Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M
1990 Inflectional 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.