Article published in:
Morphological Metatheory
Edited by Daniel Siddiqi and Heidi Harley
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 229] 2016
► pp. 5994
References

References

Albright, Adam & Fuß, Eric
2012Syncretism. In The Morphology and Phonology of Exponence, Jochen Trommer (ed.), 236–288. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R.
1992A-Morphous Morphology. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark
1994Morphology by Itself: Stems and Inflectional Classes. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Arregi, Karlos & Nevins, Andrew
2012Morphotactics: Basque Auxiliaries and the Structure of Spellout. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Arsenault, Paul
2007Marking the unmarked: Exceptional patterns of syncretism in English and Hindi. In Proceedings of the 2007 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, Milica Radišić (ed.). http://​homes​.chass​.utoronto​.ca​/~cla​-acl​/actes2007​/Arsenault​.pdfGoogle Scholar
Baerman, Matthew, Brown, Dunstan & Corbett, Greville
2005The Syntax-Morphology Interface: A Study of Syncretism. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie
2003Introducing Linguistic Morphology. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
2004A Glossary of Morphology. Edinburgh: EUP.Google Scholar
Béjar, Susana & Hall, Daniel Currie
1999Marking markedness: The underlying order of diagonal syncretisms. Paper delivered at the Eastern States Conference on Linguistics.
Berko, Jean
1958The child’s learning of English morphology. Word 14: 150–177. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bierwisch, Manfred
1967Syntactic features in morphology: General problems of so called pronominal inflection in German. In To Honor Roman Jakobson: Essays on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday, 11 October 1966 [Janua Linguarum. Series Maior 31–33], 239–270. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard
1962The Menomini Language. New Haven CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan D.
2012Universals in Comparative Morphology: Suppletion, Superlatives, and the Structure of Words. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2008Paradigms, optimal and otherwise: A case for skepticism. In Inflectional Identity, Asaf Bachrach & Andrew Ira Nevins (eds), 29–44. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan D., Nevins, Andrew & Sauerland, Uli
2011Preface: on the morphosemantics of agreement features. In Markedness and Underspecification in the Morphology and Semantics of Agreement, Jonathan D. Bobaljik, Andrew Nevins & Uli Sauerland (eds). Special issue of Morphology 21(2): 131–140. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan D.
2002Syncretism without paradigms: Remarks on Williams 1981, 1994. Yearbook of Morphology 2001: 53–85. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bonet, Eulàlia & Harbour, Daniel
2012Contextual allomorphy. In The Morphology and Phonology of Exponence – The State-of-the-Art, Jochen Trommer (ed.), 195–235. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Dunstan
& Hippisley, Andrew 2012Network Morphology A Defaults-based Theory of Word Structure. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Caha, Pavel
2013Explaining the structure of case paradigms by the mechanisms of Nanosyntax. The Classical Armenian nominal declension. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3: 1015–1066. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam & Halle, Morris
1968The Sound Pattern of English. New York NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Cysouw, Michael
2003The Paradigmatic Structure of Person Marking. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Embick, David
1998Voice systems and the syntax/morphology interface. In Papers from the UPenn/MIT Roundtable on Argument Structure and Aspect [MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 34], Heidi Harley (ed.), 41–72. Cambridge MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
2000Features, syntax, and categories in the Latin perfect. Linguistic Inquiry 31(4): 185–230. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010Localism versus Globalism in Morphology and Phonology. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013Morphemes and morphophonological loci. In Distributed Morphology Today: Morphemes for Morris Halle, Alec Marantz & Ora Matushansky (eds), 151–166. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015On the distribution of stem alternants: Separation and its limits. In The Morphome Debate: Diagnosing and Analyzing Morphomic Patterns, Ricardo Bermudez Otero & Ana Luis (eds). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Embick, David & Halle, Morris
2005On the status of stems in morphological theory. In Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 2003 [Current Issue in Linguistic Theory 270], Twan Geerts, Ivo van Ginneken & Haike Jacobs (eds), 37–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frampton, John
2002Syncretism, impoverishment, and the structure of person features. In Papers from the 2002, Chicago Linguistic Society Meeting [CLS 38], Mary Andronis, Erin Debenport, Anne Pycha & Keiko Yoshimura (eds), 207–222. Chicago IL: CLS.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec
1993Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In The View from Building 20. Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Kenneth Hale & S. Jay Keyser (eds), 111–176. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1994Some key features of Distributed Morphology. In Papers on Phonology and Morphology [MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 21], Andrew Carnie & Heidi Harley (eds), 275–288. Cambridge MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris & Vaux, Bert
1998Theoretical aspects of Indo-European nominal morphology: The nominal declensions of Latin and Armenian. In Mir Curad: Studies in Honor of Clavert Watkins, Jay Jasanoff, H. Craig Melchert & Lisi Olivier (eds), 223–240. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beitraege zur Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Harbour, Daniel
2006Person hierarchies and geometries without hierarchies or geometries. Handout of a talk at the University of Toronto Colloquium, October 20.
2011Valence and atomic number. Linguistic Inquiry 42(4): 561–594. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Harley, Heidi
2008When is a syncretism more than a syncretism? Impoverishment, metasyncretism and underspecification. In Phi-theory: Phi-Features across Modules and Interfaces, Daniel Harbour, David Adger & Susana Béjar (eds), 251–294. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi & Noyer, Rolf
1998Licensing in the non-lexicalist lexicon: Nominalizations, vocabulary items and the encyclopedia. In Papers from the Roundtable on Argument Structure and Aspect [MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 32], Heidi Harley (ed.), 119–137. Cambridge MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
1999State-of-the-Article: Distributed Morphology. GLOT 4(4): 3–9.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi & Ritter, Elizabeth
2002A feature-geometric analysis of person and number. Language 78(3): 482–526. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, Ruth
2014Gender in Amharic: A morphosyntactic approach to natural and grammatical gender. Language Sciences 43: 102–115. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maiden, Martin
2005Morphological autonomy and diachrony. In Yearbook of Morphology 2004, Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds), 137–175. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marantz, Alec
1991Case and licensing. In Proceedings of ESCOL ‘91, German Westphal, Benjamin Ao & Hee- Rahk Chae (eds), 234–253. Ithaca NY: Cornell Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Matthews, Peter H.
1974Morphology. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Moskal, Beata
2014The curious case of Archi’s ‘father’. In The Proceedings of BLS 39 . Berkeley CA: BLS.
Müller, Gereon
2008A review of “The Syntax-Morphology Interface. A Study of Syncretism” by Matthew Baerman, Dunstan Brown & Greville G. Corbett. Word Structure 1(2): 199–232. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Neeleman, Ad & Szendröi, Kriszta
2007Radical pro drop and the morphology of pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 38(4): 671–714. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nevins, Andrew
2007The representation of third person and its consequences for person-case effects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 25(2): 273–313. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011aMarked triggers vs. marked targets and impoverishment of the dual. Linguistic Inquiry 42: 413–444. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011bMultiple agree with clitics: Person complementarity vs. omnivorous number. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29(4): 939–971. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nevins, Andrew & Rodrigues, Cilene
2013Naturalness biases, morphomes, and the romance first person singular. In The Morphome Debate: Diagnosing and Analysing Morphomic Patterns (forthcoming), Ricardo Bermudez Otero & Ana Luis (eds), Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Noyer, Rolf
1992Features, Positions and Affixes in Autonomous Morphological Structure. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
1998Impoverishment Theory and morphosyntactic markedness. In Morphology and its Relation to Phonology and Syntax, Diane K. Brentari, Steven G. Lapointe & Patrick M. Farrell (eds), 264–286. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara Hall, ter Meulen, Alice & Wall, Robert E.
1990Mathematical Methods in Linguistics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Pereira, Fernando C.N. & Shieber, Stuart M.
2002Prolog and Natural Language Analysis. Brookline MA: Microtome Publishing.Google Scholar
Pertsova, Katya
2011Grounding systematic syncretism in learning. Linguistic Inquiry 42(2): 225–266. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pesetsky, David & Torrego, Esther
2007The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features. In Phrasal and Clausal Architecture [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 101], Vida Samiian Simin Karimi & Wendy K. Wilkins (eds), 262–294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Radkevich, Nina V.
2010On Location: The Structure of Case and Adpositions. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.
Spencer, Andrew & Sadler, Louisa
2001Syntax as an exponent of morphological features. In Yearbook of Morphology 2000, Gert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds), 71–96. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Starke, Michal
2005Nanosyntax. Seminar taught at CASTL, University of Tromsø.
2009Nanosyntax. A short primer to a new approach to language. In Nordlyd 36: Special Issue on Nanosyntax, Peter Svenonius, Gillian Ramchand, Michal Starke & Tarald Taraldsen (eds), 1–6. Tromsø: University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Steriade, Donca
2010Constraint interactions derive morphomic identity. Talk at the Workshop ‘Perspectives on the Morphome’, Coimbra, October 29–30.
Stonham, John
1994Combinatorial Morphology [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 120]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stump, Gregory T.
2001Inflectional Morphology. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, Peter
2007Interpreting uninterpretable features. Linguistic Analysis 33: 375–413.Google Scholar
Taraldsen, Tarald
2010The Nanosyntax of Nguni noun class prefixes and concords. Lingua 120(6): 1522–1548. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tosco, Mauro
2001The Dhaasanac Language. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.Google Scholar
Trommer, Jochen
1999Morphology consuming syntax’ resources: Generation and parsing in a minimalist version of Distributed Morphology. In Proceedings of the ESSLI Workshop on Resource Logics and Minimalist Grammars , Christian Retoré & Edward Stabler (eds), 115–125. Utrecht.
2002The post-syntactic morphology of the Albanian preposed article: Evidence for Distributed Morphology. Balkanistica 15: 349–364.Google Scholar
2003aDistributed Optimality. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Potsdam.
2003bFeature (non-)insertion in a minimalist approach to spellout. Proceedings of CLS 39: 469–480.Google Scholar
2003cHungarian has no portmanteau agreement. In Approaches to Hungarian 9, Peter Siptár & Christopher Pinón (eds), 283–302. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
2005Die formale Repräsentation von Markierheit in der Flexion des Deutschen. Talk given at the Köln Linguistic Circle, December. http://​www​.uni​-leipzig​.de​/_jtrommer​/papers​/koeln05​.pdf
2006Direction marking and case in Menominee. In Case, Valence and Transitivity [Studies in Language Companion Series 77], Leonid Kulikov, Andrej Malchukov & Peter de Swart (eds), 91–114. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008aA feature-geometric approach to Amharic verb classes. In Inflectional Identity, Asaf Bachrach & Andrew Nevins (eds), 206–236. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2008bThird-person marking in Menominee. In Phi-theory: Phi-Features across Modules and Interfaces, Daniel Harbour, Susanna Béjar & David Adger (eds), 221–250. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Walther, Géraldine
2011Measuring morphological canonicity. In Internal and External Boundaries of Morphology, Gregor Perko (ed.), Linguistica 51: 157–179.Google Scholar
Wunderlich, Dieter
2003A minimalist view on inflectional paradigms: The expression of person and number in subjects and objects. Ms, Universität Düsseldorf. http://​web​.phil​-fak​.uni​-duesseldorf​.de​/_wdl​/min​-view2​.pdf
2011Polarity and constraints on paradigmatic distinctness. In The Morphology and Phonology of Exponence, Jochen Trommer (ed.), Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Kramer, Ruth
2016.  In Morphological Metatheory [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 229],  pp. 95 ff. Crossref logo
Spencer, Andrew
2019. Manufacturing consent over Distributed Morphology. Word Structure 12:2  pp. 208 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 04 april 2021. 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.