Chapter published in:
Reorganising Grammatical Variation: Diachronic studies in the retention, redistribution and refunctionalisation of linguistic variants
Edited by Antje Dammel, Matthias Eitelmann and Mirjam Schmuck
[Studies in Language Companion Series 203] 2018
► pp. 119148
References

References

Adger, David
2006Combinatorial variability. Journal of Linguistics 43: 695–700.Google Scholar
Adger, David & Smith, Jennifer
2010Variation and the Minimalist Program. In Syntax and Variation: Reconciling the Biological and the Social [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 265], Leonie Cornips & Karen P. Corrigan (eds), 149–178. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Apollonio, Bruno
1987[1930]Grammatica del dialetto ampezzano. Cortina d’Ampezzo: Cooperativa di consumo.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark
1994Morphology by Itself: Stems and Inflectional Classes. Cambridge MA: The MIT press.Google Scholar
Barbato, Marcello
2010Il principio di dissimilazione e il plurale di I classe. Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie 126: 39–70.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bentley, Delia
2018Monotonicity in word formation: the case of Italo-Romance result state adjectives. Transactions of the Philological Society. Crossref.Google Scholar
Blevins, James
2016Word and Paradigm Morphology. Oxford: OUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bordal Hertzenberg, Mari Johanne
2015Third Person Reference in Late Latin. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cappellaro, Chiara
2013Overabundance in diachrony: A case study. In The Boundaries of Pure Morphology. Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives, Silvio Cruschina, Martin Maiden & John Charles Smith (eds), 209–220. Oxford: OUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016Tonic personal pronouns: Morphophonology. In The Oxford Guide to Romance Languages, Martin Maiden & Adam Ledgeway (eds), 722–741. Oxford: OUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017The semantic specialization of esso as [m-human] in standard Italian. Revue Romane 52(2): 113–136.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carstairs, Andrew
1987Allomorphy in Inflexion. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Chambers, Jack K.
2006Studying language variation: an informal epistemology. In The Handbook of Language Variation and Change, Jack K. Chambers, Peter Trudgill & Natalie Schilling-Estes (eds), 3–14. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville
2005The canonical approach in typology. In Linguistic Diversity and Language Theories [Studies in Language Companion Series 72], Zygmunt Frajzyngier, Adam Hodges & David S. Rood (eds), 25–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007aCanonical typology, suppletion, and possible words. Language 83(1): 8–41.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007bDeponency, syncretism, and what lies between. Proceedings of the British Academy 145: 21–43.Google Scholar
Cordin, Patrizia
2001Pronomi personali. In Grande grammatica italiana di consultazione, Lorenzo Renzi, Giampaolo Salvi & Anna Cardinaletti (eds), 549–563. Bologna: il Mulino.Google Scholar
Cornagliotti, Anna
1988Una storia biblica in antico genovese: Preliminari per una edizione. In Miscellanea di studi offerti a Giuliano Gasca Queirazza, Cornagliotti, Anna, Lucia Fontanella, Marco Piccat, Alda Rossebastiano & Alessandro Vitale Brovarone (eds), 897–909. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso.Google Scholar
D’Achille, Paolo
1990Sintassi del parlato e tradizione scritta della lingua italiana. Rome: Bonacci.Google Scholar
Delogu, Ignazio
(ed.) 1997Il condaghe di San Pietro di Silki. Testo logudorese inedito dei secoli XI-XIII. Sassari: Libreria Dessì Editrice.Google Scholar
Embick, David
2007Variation and morphosyntactic theory: Competition fractionated. Language and Linguistics Compass 2: 59–78.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ernout, Alfred & Meillet, Antoine
1932Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine. Histoire des Mots. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Faraoni, Vincenzo
2010L’origine dei plurali italiani in –e e – i. PhD dissertation, Università La Sapienza di Roma.Google Scholar
Fehringer, Carol
2004How stable are morphological doublets? A case study of/[schwa]/∼ Ø variants in Dutch and German. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 16(4): 285–329.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
García-Cervigón, Alberto Hernando
2006El participio en la GRAE (1771–1917) y en el dictamen de la Comisiò de Gramática (1861) de la Real Academia Española. Linguæ & – Rivista di Lingue e Culture Modern 4(2): 47–61.Google Scholar
Glare, Peter G. W.
1982Oxford Latin Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H.
1966[2005]Language Universals. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Huback, Ana Paula
2011Irregular plurals in Brazilian Portuguese: An exemplar model approach. Language Variation and Change 23: 245–256.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Richard
1997Inherent variability and linguistic theory. Cognitive Linguistics 8: 63–108.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred
2009Case syncretism in German feminines: Typological, functional and structural aspects. In On Inflection, Patrick Steinkrüger & Manfred Krifka (eds), 141–171. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony
1994Morphosyntactic variation. In Papers from the 30th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, Vol. 2, Katherine Beals (ed.), 180–201. Chicago IL: CLS.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
2007Constructing the meanings of personal pronouns. In Aspects of Meaning Construction, Günter Radden, Klaus-Michael Köpcke, Thomas Berg & Peter Siemund (eds), 171–187. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lass, Roger
1990How to do things with junk: Exaptation in language evolution. Journal of Linguistics 26: 79–102.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam
2012From Latin to Romance: Morphosyntactic Typology and Change. Oxford: OUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leone, Fulvio
2003I pronomi personali di terza persona. Roma: Carocci.Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin
1996On the Romance inflectional endings –i and –e. Romance Philology 50: 147–182.Google Scholar
2000Il sistema desinenziale del sostantivo italiano nell‘italoromanzo preletterario. Ricostruzione parziale a partire dai dati moderni (il significato storico del tipo ‘amici’). In La preistoria dell’italiano, József Herman & Anna Marinetti (eds), 167–179. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, Peter H.
1972Inflectional Morphology: A Theoretical Study Based on Aspects of Latin Verb Conjugation. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Meader, Clarence Linton
1901The Latin Pronouns Is, Hic, Iste, Ipse. A Semasiological Study. New York NY: Macmillan.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Monaci, Ernesto
1955Crestomazia italiana dei primi secoli. Rome: Società editrice D. Alighieri.Google Scholar
Pagnoni, Adele
1942Il dialetto di Cortina d’Ampezzo: Tesi di glottologia. Padova: Università degli studi.Google Scholar
Renzi, Lorenzo
1983Fiorentino e italiano: Storia dei pronomi personali soggetto. In Italia linguistica: Idee, storia, strutture, Federico Albano Leoni, Daniele Gambarara, Franco Lo Piparo & Raffaele Simone (eds), 223–239. Bologna: il Mulino.Google Scholar
Sen, Ranjan
2015Syllable and Segment in Latin. Oxford: OUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stoppelli, Pasquale & Picchi, Eugenio
(eds) 2001LIZ 4.0 – Letteratura Italiana Zanichelli. Bologna: Zanichelli.Google Scholar
Thornton, Anna Maria
2011Overabundance (multiple cells realising the same cell): A non-canonical phenomenon in Italian verb morphology. In Morphological Autonomy: Perspectives from Romance Inflectional Morphology, Martin Maiden, John Charles Smith, Maria Goldbach & Marc-Olivier Hinzelin (eds), 358–381. Oxford: OUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012aOverabundance in Italian verb morphology and its interactions with other non-canonical phenomena. In Irregularity in Morphology (and Beyond), Thomas Stolz, Hitomi Otsuka, Alina Urdze & Johan van der Auwera (eds), 251–269. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
2012bReduction and maintenance of overabundance. A case study on Italian verb paradigms. Word Structure 5(2): 183–207.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Forthcoming. Overabundance: A canonical typology. In Competition in Morphology, Franz Rainer, Francesco Gardani, Hans-Christian Luschütsky & Wolfgang U. Dressler eds Dordrecht Springer
Vanelli, Laura
2008La formazione del plurale in ampezzano. Ladin! V(1): 8–17.Google Scholar
Vincent, Nigel
1997The emergence of the D-system in Romance. In Parameters and Morphosyntactic Change, Ans van Kemenade & Nigel Vincent (eds), 147–169. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
2016A structural comparison of Latin and Romance. In The Oxford Guide to Romance Languages, Martin Maiden & Adam Ledgeway (eds), 37-49. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

Electronic source

Cited by

Cited by other publications

Goldstein, D. M.
2020.  Homeric ‐ phi(n) is an oblique case marker1 . Transactions of the Philological Society 118:3  pp. 343 ff. Crossref logo
Thornton, Anna M.
2019.  In Competition in Inflection and Word-Formation [Studies in Morphology, 5],  pp. 223 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 01 january 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.