Cover not available
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
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.33.4.01fer
References (165)
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logo
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Alderete, John R. 2001. Dominance effects as transderivational anti-faithfulness. Phonology 181. 201–253. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Inflection classes and economy. In Gereon Müller, Lutz Gunkel & Gisela Zifonun (eds.), Explorations in nominal inflection, 41–85. New York: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Word-based morphology. Journal of Linguistics 42(3). 531–5. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blevins, James P. & Juliette Blevins. 2009a. Introduction: Analogy in grammar. In Blevins & Blevins (2009b), 1–12. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(eds.). 2009b. Analogy in grammar: Form and acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blevins, Juliette. 2004. Evolutionary phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. & Carol Lynn Moder. 1983. Morphological classes as natural categories. Language 591. 251–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. & Jean E. Newman. 1995. Are stem changes as natural as affixes? Linguistics 331, 633–654. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fertig, David. 1998. Suppletion, natural morphology, and diagrammaticity. Linguistics 361. 1065–1091. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. Morphological change up close. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gerken, LouAnn, Rachel Wilson, Rebecca Gómez & Erika Nurmsoo. 2009. The relation between linguistic analogies and lexical categories. In Blevins & Blevins (2009b), 101–117. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Good, Jeff. 2008a. Introduction. In Good (2008b), 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed.). 2008b. Linguistic universals and language change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1966. Synchronic and diachronic universals in phonology. Language 421. 508–517. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hempen, Ute. 1988. Die starken Verben im Deutschen und Niederländischen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle 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
Hock, Hans Henrich. 1991. Principles of historical linguistics, 2nd edn. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hock, Hans H. & Brian D. Joseph. 2009. Language history, language change, and language relationship, 2nd edn. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle 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.]. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed.). 2000b. Analogy, levelling, markedness: Principles of change in phonology and morphology. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maiden, Martin. 2005. Morphological autonomy and diachrony. In Booij & van Marle (2005), 137–175. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mańczak, Witold. 1958. Tendences générales des changements analogiques. Lingua 71. 298–325, 387–420. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olschansky, Heike. 1996. Volksetymologie. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robins, Robert H. 1959. In defence of WP. Transactions of the Philological Society 581. 116–144. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salmons, Joseph. 2012. A history of German. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Samuels, M.L. 1972. Linguistic evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Inflectional paradigms: Content and form at the syntax-morphology interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trask, R.L. 1996. Historical linguistics. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Trommer, Jochen. 2012. Constraints on multiple-feature mutation. Lingua 1221. 1182–1192. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (10)

Cited by ten other publications

ESHER, LOUISE
2024. The intricate inflectional relationships underpinning morphological analogy. Journal of Linguistics 60:2 ► pp. 285 ff. DOI logo
Kiparsky, Paul
2023. Retrospect and Prospect. Annual Review of Linguistics 9:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Melloni, Chiara & Serena Dal Maso
2022. Chapter 2. For a topology of derivational paradigms. In Paradigms in Word Formation [Studies in Language Companion Series, 225], ► pp. 21 ff. DOI 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. DOI logo
de Chene, Brent
2020.  r-Epenthesis and the bigrade alternation. Diachronica 37:2 ► pp. 178 ff. DOI logo
Nkollo, Mikołaj & Alexandra Fiéis
2020. Thenãointerpolation 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. DOI logo
Axelsdóttir, Katrín
2019. Áhrifsbreytingar í þágufalli nafnsins Þórarinn. Orð og tunga 21 ► pp. 27 ff. DOI logo
Fertig, David
2019. Morphological Change Through Phonological Analogy: 2nd Person Singular -s→ -stand Related Developments in Germanic. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 31:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Haugen, Tor Arne & Hans-Olav Enger
2019. The semantics of Scandinavian pancake constructions. Linguistics 57:3 ► pp. 531 ff. DOI logo
Hill, Eugen
2019. Inflectional Suppletion and Heteroclite Inflection from a Diachronic Perspective. Transactions of the Philological Society 117:3 ► pp. 372 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 6 september 2024. 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.