Part of
Italian Dialectology at the Interfaces
Edited by Silvio Cruschina, Adam Ledgeway and Eva-Maria Remberger
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 251] 2019
► pp. 4162
References (51)
References
Andersen, Henning. 1980. Morphological change: Towards a typology. In Historical Morphology, Jacek Fisiak (ed.), 1–50. Berlin: Mouton.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1989. Markedness theory – the first 150 years. In Markedness in Synchrony and Diachrony, Olga Tomić (ed.), 11–46. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 1998. Isomorphism and monotonicity: Or the disease model of morphology. In Morphology and Its Relation to Phonology and Syntax, Steven Lapointe, Diane K. Brentari & Patrick M. Farrell (eds), 411–418. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Azaretti, Emilio. 1982. L’evoluzione dei dialetti liguri esaminata attraverso la grammatica storica del ventimigliese. Sanremo: Casablanca.Google Scholar
Bender, Byron W. 1998. Markedness and iconicity. Some questions. In Case, Typology and Grammar: In Honor of Barry J. Blake [Typological Studies in Language 38], Anna Siewierska & Jae Jung Song (eds), 57–70. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benincà, Paola. 2005 [1989]. Lineamenti di grammatica friulana. In Linguistica friulana, Paola Benincà & Laura Vanelli (eds), 31–76. Padua: Unipress.Google Scholar
Benincà, Paola & Vanelli, Laura. 2005 [1975]. Morfologia del verbo friulano: Il presente indicativo. In Linguistica friulana, Paola Benincà & Laura Vanelli (eds), 273–271. Padua: Unipress.Google Scholar
Benincà Paola & Vanelli, Laura. 2016. Friulian. In The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages, Adam Ledgeway & Martin Maiden (eds), 139–153. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Blevins, James P. 2016. The minimal sign. In The The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology, Gregory Stump & Andrew Hippisley (eds), 50–69. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bloom, Paul. 2000. How Children Learn the Meanings of Words. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew. 1994. Inflection classes, gender, and the principle of contrast. Language 70(4): 737–788. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. How lexical semantics constrains inflectional allomorphy. In Yearbook of Morphology 1997, Geraart Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds), 1–24. Dordrecht: Kluwer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999. The Origins of Complex Language. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2002. Umlaut as signans and signatum: synchronic and diachronic aspects. In Yearbook of Morphology 1999, Geraart Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.), 1–23. Dordrecht: Kluwer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Basic terminology. In Handbook of Word-Formation, Pavol Štekauer & Rochelle Lieber (eds), 5–23. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. The Evolution of Morphology. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew & Cameron-Faulkner, Thea. 2000. Stem alternants as morphological signata: Evidence from blur avoidance in Polish nouns. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 813–835. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Eve. 1987. The principle of contrast: A constraint on language acquisition. In Mechanisms of Language Acquisition, Brian McWhinney (ed.), 1–33. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
. 1993. The Lexicon in Acquisition. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crocco-Galeas, Grazia. 1998. The Parameters of Natural Morphology. Padua: Unipress.Google Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang. 1987. Leitmotifs in Natural Morphology [Studies in Language Companion Series 10]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Enger, Hans-Olav. 2005. Do affixes have meaning? Polarity in the Toten dialect of Norwegian meets morphological theory. Yearbook of Morphology 2005: 27–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. The No Blur Principle meets Norwegian dialects. Studia Linguistica 61(3): 278–309. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ernout, Antoine. 1953. Morphologie historique du latin. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Fanti, Renata. 1939. Note fonetiche e morfologiche sul dialetto di Ascrea. L’Italia Dialettale 15: 111–133.Google Scholar
Francescato, Giuseppe. 1965. A propos du -i final atone en frioulan. Revue de Linguistique Romane 29: 238–248.Google Scholar
Gartner, Theodor. 1892. Die Mundart von Erto. Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie 16: 183–209.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iliescu, Maria. 1969. Sur l’origine de la désinence de la première personne du singulier de l’indicatif présent dans les langues romanes. Bulletin de la Société Roumaine de Linguistique Romane 6: 61–66.Google Scholar
. 1970. Le présent de l’indicatif et du subjunctif en frioulan et la morphologie comparée. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique 15: 335–343.Google Scholar
Iliescu, Maria & Mourin, Charles. 1991. Les analogies dans le système verbal du frioulan. In Festschrift für Giovan Battista Pellegrini, Johann Kramer (ed.), 175–194. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1971[1939]. Signe zéro. In Selected Writings II, Roman Jakobson (ed.), 211–219. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam & Alessandra Lombardi. 2014. The development of the southern subjunctive: Morphological loss and syntactic gain. In Diachrony and Dialects, Grammatical Change in the Dialects of Italy, Paola Benincà, Adam Ledgeway & Nigel Vincent (eds), 25–47. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loporcaro, Michele. 1999. Il futuro CANTARE-HABEO nell’Italia meridionale. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 80: 67–114.Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin. 2011. Morphological persistence. In The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages, Martin Maiden, John Charles Smith & Adam Ledgeway (eds), 155–215. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
. 2016. Inflectional morphology. In The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages, Adam Ledgeway & Martin Maiden (eds), 497–512. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marcato, Gianna & Ursini, Flavia. (1998). Dialetti veneti. Grammatica e storia. Padova: Unipress.Google Scholar
Marchetti, Giuseppe. 1952. Lineamenti di grammatica friulana. Udine: Società filologica friulana G.I. Ascoli.Google Scholar
Maschi, Roberta. 2000. Morfologia storica del friulano: l’Evoluzione del sistema verbale dal XIV al XVII secolo. Ce fastu? 76: 197–228.Google Scholar
Matthews, Peter. 1991 2. Morphology. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Parry, Mair. 2005. Parluma ‘d Còiri: Sociolinguistica e grammatica del dialetto di Cairo Montenotte. Savona: Società savonese di Storia Patria.Google Scholar
Pelliciardi, Ferdinando. 1977. Grammatica del dialetto romagnolo. Ravenna: Longo.Google Scholar
Rainer, Franz, Dressler, Wolfgang U., Gardani, Francesco & Luschützky, Hans Christian. 2014. Morphology and meaning: An overview. In Morphology and Meaning. Selected Papers from the 15th International Morphology Meeting, Vienna, February 2012 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 327], Franz Rainer, Wolfgang Ulrich Dressler, Francesco Gardani & Hans Christian Luschützky (eds), 3–46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanga, Glauco. 1987. Lingua e dialetti di Bergamo e delle valli. Bergamo: LubrinaGoogle Scholar
Sihler, Andrew. 1995. New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory. 2001. Inflectional Morphology. A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. Inflectional Paradigms: Content and Form at the Syntax-Morphology Interface. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vanelli, Laura. 2005 [2002]. La posizione del friulano nel dominio romanzo. In Linguistica friulana, Paola Benincà & Laura Vanelli (eds), 19–30. Padua: Unipress.Google Scholar
. 2007. Processi analogici nella flessione verbale. La reazione del sistema morfologico del friulano al cambiamento storico. In Dialetto, Memoria & Fantasia, Gianna Marcato (ed.), 51–60. Padua: Unipress.Google Scholar
Vicario, Federico. 2011. Lezioni di linguistica friulana. Udine: Forum.Google Scholar
Wurzel, Wolfgang Ulrich. 1989. Inflectional Morphology and Naturalness. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Zamboni, Alberto. 1974. Veneto. Pisa: Pacini.Google Scholar