Article published in:
Morphological Metatheory
Edited by Daniel Siddiqi and Heidi Harley
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 229] 2016
► pp. 271302
References

References

Ackerman, Farrell & Blevins, James P.
2008Syntax: The state of the art. In Unity and Diversity of Languages, Piet van Sterkenberg (ed.), 215–229. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ackerman, Farrell, Blevins, James P. & Malouf, Robert
2009Parts and wholes: Implicative patterns in inflectional paradigms. In Analogy in Grammar: Form and Acquisition, James P. Blevins & Juliette Blevins (eds), 54–81. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ackerman, Farrell, Bonami, Olivier & Nikolaeva, Irina
2012Systemic polyfunctionality and morphology-syntax interdependencies. Defaults in Morphological Theory, Lexington KY.
Ackerman, Farrell & Malouf, Robert
2013Morphological organization: The Low Conditional Entropy Conjecture. Language 89: 429–464. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ackerman, Farrell, Malouf, Robert & Blevins, James P.
2008Inflectional morphology as a complex adaptive system. Paper presented at the First Annual Complex Systems and Language Workshop, University of Arizona, Tucson.
Ackerman, Farrell & Stump, Gregory T.
2004Paradigms and periphrasis: A study in realization-based lexicalism. In Projecting Morphology, Louisa Sadler & Andrew Spencer (eds), 111–157. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Ackerman, Farrell & Webelhuth, Gert
1998A Theory of Predicates. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Anderson, Philip W.
1972More is different. Science 177(4047): 393–396. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R.
1992A-Morphous Morphology. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015The morpheme: Its nature and use. In The Oxford Handbook of Inflection, Matthew Baerman (ed.), 11–33. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Arnon, Inbal & Ramscar, Michael
2012Granularity and the acquisition of grammatical gender: How order-of-acquisition affects what gets learned. Cognition 122: 292–305. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark
1994Morphology by Itself: Stems and Inflectional Classes. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald, McQueen, James M., Dijkstra, Ton & Schreuder, Robert
2003Frequency effects in regular inflectional morphology: Revisiting Dutch plurals. In Morphological Structure in Language Processing, R. Harald Baayen & Robert Schreuder (eds), 355–370. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald, Milin, Petar, Filipović Ðurđević, Dusica, Hendrix, Peter & Marelli, Marco
2011An amorphous model for morphological processing in visual comprehension based on naive discriminative learning. Psychological Review 118: 438–481. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baerman, Matthew, Brown, Dunstan & Corbett, Greville G.
(eds) 2015Understanding and Measuring Morphological Complexity. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bateson, Patrick & Gluckman, Peter
2011Plasticity, Robustness, Development and Evolution. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beard, Robert & Volpe, Mark
2005Lexeme-Morpheme Base Morphology. In Handbook of English Word-Formation, Pavel Štekauer & Rochelle Lieber (eds), 189–205. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beckner, Clay, Blythe, Richard, Bybee, Joan L., Chrisiansen, Morton H., Croft, William, Ellis, Nick C., Holland, John, Ke, Jinyun, Larsen-Freeman, Diane & Schoenemann, Thomas
2009Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning 59: 1–26. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blazej, Laura J. & Cohen-Goldberg, Ariel M.
2015Can we hear morphological complexity before words are complex? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance 41(1): 50–68. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, James P.
2006Word-based morphology. Journal of Linguistics 42: 531–573. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008Declension classes in Estonian. Linguistica Uralica 44(4): 241–267. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013aThe information-theoretic turn. Psihologija 46(3): 355–375. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013bWord-based morphology from Aristotle to modern WP. In Oxford Handbook of the History of Linguistics, Ch. 16, Keith Allan (ed.), 396–417. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2016Word and Paradigm Morphology. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Blevins, James P., Milin, Petar & Ramscar, Michael
2016The Zipfian Paradigm Cell Filling Problem. In Morphological paradigms and functions, Ferenc Kiefer, James P. Blevins & Huba Bartos (eds), in press. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Bloch, Bernard
1947English verb inflection. Language 23: 399–418. Reprinted in Joos 1957, 243–254. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard
1914[1983] An Introduction to the Study of Language, new edn [Classics in Psycholinguistics 3]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1926A set of postulates for the science of language. Language 2: 153–164. Reprinted in Joos 1957, 26–37. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1929Review of Konkordanz Panini-Candra by Bruno Liebich. Language 5: 267–276. Reprinted in Hockett 1970, 219–226. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1933Language. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bochner, Harry
1993Simplicity in Generative Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, Cedric, Leivada, Evelina & Tiago Martins, Pedro
2013Language and complexity considerations: A biolinguistic perspective. Llengua, Societat i Comunicació 11: 20–26.Google Scholar
Bonami, Olivier
2015Periphrasis as collocation. Morphology 25: 63–110. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bonami, Olivier & Henri, Fabiola
2010Assessing empirically the inflectional complexity of Mauritian Creole. Paper presented at workshop on Formal Aspects of Creole Studies, Berlin. http://​www​.llf​.cnrs​.fr​/Gens​/Bonami​/presentations​/BoHen​-FACS​-10​.pdf
Bonami, Olivier & Samvelian, Pollet
2015The diversity of inflectional periphrasis in Persian. Journal of Linguistics 51(2): 327–382. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Börjars, Kersti, Vincent, Nigel & Chapman, Carol
1997Paradigms, periphrases, and pronominal inflection: A featurebased account. In Yearbook of Morphology 1996, Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds), 155–180. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Dunstan, Chumakina, Marina, Corbett, Greville, Popova, Gergana & Spencer, Andrew
2012Defining ‘periphrasis’: Key notions. Morphology 22(2): 233–275. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cable, Seth
2014Average conditional entropy of the Tlingit verbal inflection paradigm: A brief report. Ms, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Capra, Fritjof & Luisi, Pier Luigi
2014The Systems View of Life. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Östen
2004The Growth and Maintenance of Linguistic Complexity [Studies in Language Companion Series 71]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Matthew H., Marslen-Wilson, William D. & Gaskell, M Gareth
2002Leading up the lexical garden-path: Segmentation and ambiguity in spoken word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance 28: 218–244. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Elman, Jeffrey L., Bates, Elizabeth A., Johnson, Mark H., Karmiloff-Smith, Annette, Parisi, Domenico & Plunkett, Kim
1996Rethinking Innateness: A Connectionist Perspective on Development. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Erelt, Tiu, Leemets, Tiina, Mäearu, Sirje & Raadik, Maire
(eds) 2013Eesti keele õigekeelsussõnaraamat ÕS 2013. Tallinn: Eesti Keele Sihtasutus.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas & Levinson, Stephen C.
2009The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32(5): 429–492. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fertig, David
2013Analogy and Morphological Change. Edinburgh: EUP.Google Scholar
Gilbert, Scott F. & Epel, David
2008Ecological Developmental Biology. Sunderland MA: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
Gottlieb, G.
1997Synthesizing Nature-nurture: The Prenatal Roots of Instinctive Behavior. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Gukhman, M.M.
1955Glagolnye analaticheskie konstruksii kak osobyj sochetanij chastichnogo i polnogo slova (na materiale istorii nemetskogo iazyka). In Voprosy grammatischeskogo stoia, V.V. Vonogradov (ed.). Moscow: Academic Sciences.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 Silvain Bromberger, Kenneth Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds), 111–176. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harris, Zelig S.
1942Morpheme alternants in linguistic analysis. Language 18: 169–180. Reprinted in Joos 1957, 109–115.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer B. & Baayen, R. Harald
2005Shifting paradigms: Gradient structure in morphology. Trends in Cognitive Science 9(73): 342–348. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hockett, Charles F.
1947Problems of morphemic analysis. Language 23: 321–343. Reprinted in Joos 1957, 229–242. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1954Two models of grammatical description. Word 10: 210–231. Reprinted in Joos 1957, 386–399. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(ed.) 1970A Leonard Bloomfield Anthology. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1987Refurbishing our Foundations: Elementary Linguistics from an Advanced Point of View [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 56]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hofstadter, Douglas & Sander, Emmanuel
2014Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking. New York NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Jablonka, Eva & Lamb, Marion J.
2006Four Dimensions of Evolution: Genetic, Epigenetic, Behavioral and Symbolic Variation in the History of Life. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray
1997The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Joos, Martin
(ed.) 1957Readings in Linguistics I. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Ronald M. & Bresnan, Joan
1982Lexical-functional grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation. In The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, Joan Bresnan (ed.). Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri
2003Computing with realizational morphology. In Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing [Lecture Notes in Computer Science Vol. 2588], Alexander Gelbukh (ed.), 205–216. Heidelberg: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri & Beesley, Kenneth R.
2003Finite State Morphology. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Kemps, Rachèl, Ernestus, Mirjam, Schreuder, Robert & Baayen, R. Harald
2005Prosodic cues for morphological complexity: The case of Dutch plural nouns. Memory & Cognition 33(3): 430–446. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koskenniemi, Kimmo Matti
1983Two-level morphology: A general computational model for word-form recognition and production. Technical Report 11, Department of General Linguistics, University of Helsinki.
Kostić, Aleksandar, Marković, Tania & Baucal, Aleksandar
2003Inflectional morphology and word meaning: Orthogonal or coimplicative domains? In Morphological Structure in Language Processing, R. Harald Baayen & Robert Schreuder (eds), 1–44. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langendoen, D. Terence
1981The generative capacity of word-formation components. Linguistic Inquiry 12(2): 320–322.Google Scholar
Lounsbury, Floyd
1953Oneida Verb Morphology [Yale University Publications in Anthropology 48]. New Haven CT: Yale University Press. Chapter 1 reprinted in Joos 1957, 379–385.Google 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
2013No escape from morphemes in morphological processing. Language and Cognitive Processes 28(7): 905–916. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, Peter H.
1965The inflectional component of a word-and-paradigm grammar. Journal of Linguistics 1: 139–171. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1970Recent developments in morphology. In New Horizon in Linguistics, John Lyons (ed.), Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
1974Morphology. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
1991Morphology. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1993Grammatical Theory in the United States: From Bloomfield to Chomsky. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Michel, George F. & Moore, Celia L.
1995Developmental Psychobiology. Cambridge MA: Bradford Books.Google Scholar
Milin, Petar, Filipović Ðurđević, Dusica & Moscoso del Prado Martín, Fermín
2009aThe simultaneous effects of inflectional paradigms and classes on lexical recognition: Evidence from Serbian. Journal of Memory and Language 60: 50–64. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Milin, Petar, Kuperman, Victor, Kostić, Aleksandar & Baayen, R. Harald
2009bWords and paradigms bit by bit: An information-theoretic approach to the processing of inflection and derivation. In Analogy in Grammar: Form and Acquisition, James P. Blevins & Juliette Blevins (eds), 214–253. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Morpurgo Davies, Anna
1978Analogy, segmentation and the early Neogrammarians. Transactions of the Philological Society 76(1): 36–60. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Moscoso del Prado Martín, Fermín, Kostić, Aleksandar & Baayen, R. Harald
2004Putting the bits together: An information-theoretical perspective on morphological processing. Cognition 94: 1–18. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mürk, Harri William
1997A Handbook of Estonian: Nouns, Adjectives and Verbs [Indiana University Uralic and Altaic Series 163]. Bloomington IN: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Overton, Willis F.
2010Life-span development: Concepts and issues. In The Handbook of Life-span Development, Vol. 1: Cognition, Biology and Methods, Richard M. Lerner & Willis F. Overton (eds), 1–29. Hoboken NJ: Wiley and Sons. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Oyama, Susan, Gray, Russell D. & Griffiths, Paul E.
2001Cycles of Contingency: Developmental Systems Theory and Evolution. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Plag, Ingo
2014Phonological and phonetic variability in complex words: An uncharted territory. Italian Journal of Linguistics 26(2): 209–228.Google Scholar
Rácz, Péter, Pierrehumbert, Janet B., Hay, Jennifer B. & Papp, Victora
2014Morphological emergence. In The Handbook of Language Emergence, Brian MacWhinney & William O’Grady (eds). Hoboken NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ramscar, Michael, Dye, Melody & McCauley, Stewart M.
2013aError and expectation in language learning: The curious absence of mouses in adult speech. Language 89(4): 760–793. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ramscar, Michael, Hendrix, Peter, Love, Bradley & Baayen, R. Harald
2013bLearning is not decline: The mental lexicon as a window into cognition across the lifespan. The Mental Lexicon 3: 450–481. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ramscar, Michael, Yarlett, Daniel, Dye, Melody, Denny, Katie & Thorpe, Kirsten
2010The effects of feature-label-order and their implications for symbolic learning. Cognititive Science 34: 909–957. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Robins, Robert H.
1959In defence of WP. Transactions of the Philological Society 58: 116–144. Reprinted in Transactions of the Philological Society 99(2001): 116–144. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1997A Short History of Linguistics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Sadler, Louisa & Spencer, Andrew
2001Syntax as an exponent of morphological features. In Yearbook of Morphology 2001, Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds), 71–97. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sampson, Geoffrey, Gil, David & Trudgill, Peter
(eds) 2009Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward
1921Language. San Diego CA: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Seyfarth, Scott, Ackerman, Farrell & Malouf, Robert
2014Implicative organization facilitates morphological learning. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Herman Leung, Zachary O’Hagan, Sarah Bakst, Auburn Lutzross, Jonathan Manker, Nicholas Rolle & Katie Sardinha (eds). Berkeley CA: BLS. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sims, Andrea
2015Inflectional Defectiveness. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, Andrew J.
2012Identifying stems. Word Structure 5: 88–108. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sproat, Richard
2005Current morphological theory. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 2(2): 63–75.Google Scholar
Stankiewicz, Edward
(ed.) 1972A Baudouin de Courtenay Anthology. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory & Finkel, Raphael
2013Morphological Typology: From Word to Paradigm. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thelen, Esther & Bates, Elizabeth
2003Connectionism and dynamic systems: Are they really different? Developmental Science 6(4): 378–391. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tuldava, Juhan
1994Estonian Textbook [Indiana University Uralic and Altaic Series 159]. Bloomington IN: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Weaver, Warren
1948Science and complexity. American Scientist 36: 536–544.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel
1967On arguing with Mr. Katz: A brief rejoinder. Foundations of Language 11(1): 284–287.Google Scholar
Wurzel, Wolfgang U.
1984Studien zur deutschen Lautstruktur. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
1989Inflectional Morphology and Naturalness. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Boyé, Gilles & Gauvain Schalchli
2019. Realistic data and paradigms: the paradigm cell finding problem. Morphology 29:2  pp. 199 ff. Crossref logo
Lepic, Ryan
2016. Motivation in morphology. Sign Language & Linguistics 19:2  pp. 285 ff. Crossref logo
Lepic, Ryan & Corrine Occhino
2018.  In The Construction of Words [Studies in Morphology, 4],  pp. 141 ff. Crossref logo
Sims, Andrea D. & Jeff Parker
2016. How inflection class systems work: On the informativity of implicative structure. Word Structure 9:2  pp. 215 ff. Crossref logo
TOMASCHEK, FABIAN, INGO PLAG, MIRJAM ERNESTUS & R. HARALD BAAYEN
2019. Phonetic effects of morphology and context: Modeling the duration of word-final S in English with naïve discriminative learning. Journal of Linguistics  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 september 2020. 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.