Chapter published in:
Morphological Variation: Theoretical and empirical perspectives
Edited by Antje Dammel and Oliver Schallert
[Studies in Language Companion Series 207] 2019
► pp. 159196


Ackerman, Farrell & Malouf, Robert
2013Morphological organization: The low conditional entropy conjecture. Language 89(3): 429–464.Google Scholar
Andersen, Henning
2010From morphologization to de-morphologization. In The Continuum Companion to Historical Linguistics, Silvia Luraghi & Vit Bubenik (eds), 117–146. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R.
1992A-morphous Morphology [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 62]. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
2011Stress-conditioned allomorphy in Surmiran (Rumantsch). In Morphological Autonomy, Martin Maiden, John Charles Smith, Maria Goldbach & Marc-Olivier Hinzelin (eds), 13–34. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2013Stem alternations in Swiss Rumantsch. In The Boundaries of Pure Morphology: Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives, Silvio Cruschina, Martin Maiden & John Charles Smith (eds), 8–23. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2017Words and paradigms. Transactions of the Philological Society 115(1): 1–13.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark
1994Morphology by Itself [Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 22]. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
2012Morphological stems: What William of Ockham really said. Word Structure 5(1): 28–51.Google Scholar
2014Face the facts. In Foisonnements morphologiques: études en homage à Francoise Kerleroux, Florence Villoing & Sophie David (eds), 307–324. Paris: PUPO.Google Scholar
2016Unnatural kinds. In The Morphome Debate, Ana R. Luís & Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero (eds), 11–32. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Baerman, Matthew
2015Chapter 1: Introduction. In The Oxford Handbook of Inflection, Matthew Baerman (ed.), 1–11. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2016Seri verb classes: Morphosyntactic motivation and morphological autonomy. Language 92(4): 792–823.Google Scholar
Bates, Elizabeth & MacWhinney, Brian
1989Functionalism and the competition model. In The Crosslinguistic Study of Sentence Processing, Brian MacWhinney & Elizabeth Bates (eds), 3–76. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Beard, Robert
1995Lexeme-morpheme-base Morphology. Albany NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Beito, Olav Toreson
1954Genusskifte i nynorsk (Gender Change in New Norwegian). Oslo: Jacob Dybwad.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo
2013The Spanish lexicon stores stems with theme vowels, not roots with inflectional class features. Probus 25(1): 3–103.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, Ricardo & Luís, Ana
2016A view of the morphome debate. In The Morphome Debate, Ana Luís & Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero (eds), 309–340. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Blevins, James P.
2003Stems and paradigms. Language 79(2): 737–767.Google Scholar
2016Word and Paradigm Morphology. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Blevins, Juliette & Blevins, James P.
2009Analogy: An introduction. In Analogy in Grammar: Form and Acquisition, Juliette Blevins & James P. Blevins (eds), 1–12. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Bonami, Olivier & Beniamine, Sarah
2016Joint predictiveness in inflectional paradigms. Word Structure 9(2): 156–182.Google Scholar
Bowern, Claire
2015Diachrony. In The Oxford Handbook of Inflection, Matthew Baerman (ed.), 233–250. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L.
2001Phonology and Language Use [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 94]. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Bye, Patrik & Svenonius, Peter
2012Non-concatenative morphology as epiphenomenon. In The Morphology and Phonology of Exponence, Jochen Trommer (ed.), 427–495. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Carstairs, Andrew
1987Allomorphy in Inflexion. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew
1994Inflection classes, Gender and the principle of contrast. Language 70(4): 737–788.Google Scholar
2001Umlaut as signans and signatum: Synchronic and diachronic aspects. In Yearbook of Morphology 1999, Geert E. Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds), 1–23. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
2002How stems and affixes interact. In Morphology 2000 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 218], Sabrina Bendjaballah, Wolfgang Ulrich Dressler, Oskar E. Pfeiffer & Maria D. Voeikova (eds), 49–57. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2005Basic terminology. In Handbook of Word-Formation , Pavol Štekauer & Rochelle Lieber (eds), 5–25. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
2008System-congruity and violable constraints in German weak declension. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26(4): 775–793.Google Scholar
2010The Evolution of Morphology. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Clark, Eve E.
1993The Lexicon in Acquisition [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 65]. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Croft, William
1995Autonomy and functionalist linguistics. Language 71(3): 490–532.Google Scholar
Dabrowska, Ewa
2004Language, Mind and Brain. Edinburgh: EUP.Google Scholar
2006Low-level schemas or general rules? Language Sciences 28(1): 120–135.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen
2004The Growth and Maintenance of Linguistic Complexity [Studies in Language Companion Series 71]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dammel, Antje
2011Konjugationsklassenwandel (Change in Verb Inflection Classes) [Studia Linguistica Germanica 103]. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Demske, Ulrike
2008Von morphomischen Stämmen und morphologischen Paradigmen (Of morphomic stems and morphological paradigms). In Studien zu Literatur, Sprache und Geschichte, Albrecht Greule, Hans-Walter Herrmann, Klaus Ridder & Andreas Schor (eds), 247–260. St. Ingbert: Röhrig Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W.
2015Edible Gender, Mother-in-Law Style and Other Grammatical Wonders. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang Ullrich
2003Naturalness and morphological change. In Handbook of Historical Linguistics, Brian D. Joseph & Richard Janda (eds), 461–472. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Endresen, Rolf Theil
1990Vikværsk. In Den store dialektboka (The Big Dialect Book), Ernst Håkon Jahr (ed.), 89–99. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Enger, Hans-Olav
2009The role of core and non-core semantic rules in gender assignment. Lingua 119(9): 1281–1299.Google Scholar
2011Gender and contact: A natural morphology perspective on Scandinavian examples. In Linguistic Universals and Language Variation, Peter Siemund (ed.), 171–203. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2012Fire kroppsdelssubstantiver og en sammensvergelse (Four body part nouns and a conspiracy). In Germansk filologi og norske ord: Festskrift til Harald Bjorvand, John Ole Askedal, Tom Schmidt & Rolf Theil (eds), 94–108. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
2013Inflectional change, ‘sound laws’ and the autonomy of morphology. Diachronica 30(1): 1–26.Google Scholar
2014Reinforcement in inflection classes. Word Structure 7(2): 153–181.Google Scholar
Esher, Louise
2015aMorphomes and predictability in the history of Romance perfects. Diachronica 32(4): 494–529.Google Scholar
2015bFormal asymmetries between the Romance synthetic future and conditional in the Occitan varieties of the western Languedoc. Transactions of the Philological Society 113(2): 249–270.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas & Levinson, Stephen C.
2009The myth of language universals. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32: 429–448.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele
2006Constructions at Work. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2008Parametric versus functional explanations of syntactic universals. In The Limits of Syntactic Variation [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 132], Theresa Biberauer (ed.), 75–107. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Haugen, Tor Arne
2014Adjectival predicators and approaches to complement realisation. Lingua 140: 83–99.Google Scholar
Hock, Hans Henrich
1991Principles of Historical Linguistics, 2nd edn. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hoff, Ingeborg
1946Skjetvemålet (The Dialect of Skiptvet). Oslo: Jacob Dybwad.Google Scholar
1965Bygdemålet i Heggen og Frøland (The Dialect of Heggen and Frøland). Askim. (No publisher given).Google Scholar
1968Målet i Aurskog og Blaker (The Dialect of Aurskog and Blaker). Oslo. (No publisher given).Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard A.
1996Sociolinguistics, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
2010An Introduction to Word Grammar. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray
2002Foundations of Language. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D.
2011A localistic approach to universals and variation. In Linguistic Universals and Language Variation, Peter Siemund (ed.), 404–424. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kågerman, Elisabeth
1985Plural av neutral på obetonat –e (Plural of neuters ending in unstressed –e) [Lundastudier i nordisk språkvetenskap A 36]. Malmö: Gleerup.Google Scholar
Kristoffersen, Gjert
1992Kvantitet i norsk. Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift 10: 187–208.Google Scholar
2000The Phonology of Norwegian. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Kürschner, Sebastian
2008Deklinationsklassenwandel (Change in Noun Inflection Classes) [Studia Linguistica Germanica 92]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2016Die Interaktion von Deklinationsklasse und Genus in oberdeutschen Dialekten. In Formen und Funktionen, Andreas Bittner & Constanze Spieß (eds), 35–60. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George
1987Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. Chicago IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
1987Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2008Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Larsen, Amund B.
1907Kristiania bymaal (The Urban Dialect of Kristiania). Kristiania [= Oslo]: Cammermeyer.Google Scholar
1917 “Nabo-opposition – knot.” (Neighbour opposition). Reprinted 1993 in Historisk språkvitenskap/Historical Linguistics, Ernst Håkon Jahr & Ove Lorentz (eds), 97–110. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger
1984Phonology. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Leiss, Elisabeth
1997Synkretismus und Natürlichkeit. Folia Linguistica XXXI (31): 133–160.Google Scholar
Loporcaro, Michele
2013Morphomes in Sardinian verb inflection. In The Boundaries of Pure Morphology: Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives, Silvio Cruschina, Martin Maiden & John Charles Smith (eds), 137–160. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Maiden, Martin
1991Interactive Morphonology: Metaphony in Italian. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
1992Irregularity as a determinant of morphological change. Journal of Linguistics 28(2): 285–312.Google Scholar
2001What sort of thing is a derivational affix? In Yearbook of Morphology 1999, Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds), 25–52.Google Scholar
2005Morphological autonomy and diachrony. In Yearbook of Morphology 2004, Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds), 137–175. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
2009Where does heteroclisis come from? Evidence from Romanian dialects. Morphology 19(1): 59–86.Google Scholar
2011aAllomorphy, autonomous morphology and phonological conditioning in the history of the Daco-Romance present and subjunctive. Transactions of the Philological Society 109(1): 59–91.Google Scholar
2011bMorphomes and ‘stress-conditioned’ allomorphy in Romansh. In Morphological Autonomy, Martin Maiden, John Charles Smith, Maria Goldbach & Marc-Olivier Hinzelin (eds), 36–50. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2013aThe Latin ‘third stem’ and its Romance descendants. Diachronica 30(4): 492–530.Google Scholar
2013b ‘Semi-autonomous’ morphology. In The Boundaries of Pure Morphology: Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives, Silvio Cruschina, Martin Maiden & John Charles Smith (eds), 24–45. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2016aSome lessons from history: Morphomes in diachrony. In The Morphome Debate, Ana R. Luís & Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero (eds), 33–63. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2016bChapter 3: Morphomes. In The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages, Adam Ledgeway & Martin Maiden (eds), 708–722. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2017Romansh allomorphy (again!) In On Looking into Words (and Beyond): Structures, Relations, Analyses, Claire Bowern, Laurence Horn & Raffaella Zanuttini (eds), 169–188. Berlin: Language Sciences Press.Google Scholar
2018The Romance Verb: Morphomic Structure and Diachrony. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Matthews, Peter H.
1993Grammatical Theory in the United States from Bloomfield to Chomsky [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 67]. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
2001A Short History of Structural Linguistics. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Mayerthaler, Willi
1981Morphologische Natürlichkeit. Wiesbaden: Athenaion.Google Scholar
Meul, Claire
2013The fate of the -ID(I)- morpheme in the Central Dolomitic Ladin varieties of Northern Italy. In The Boundaries of Pure Morphology: Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives ,Silvio Cruschina, Martin Maiden & John Charles Smith (eds), 68–95. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Mugdan, Joachim
1986Was ist eigentlich ein Morphem? [What is a morpheme, really?] Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 39(1): 29–42.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J.
1983Grammatical Theory. Chicago IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Nielsen, Peter Juul
2016Functional Structure in Morphology and the Case of Nonfinite Verbs Theoretical Issues and the Description of the Danish Verb System. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Nilsen, Marianne B.
2012Sterke verb og semantiske fellestrekk (Strong Verbs and Semantic Common Features). MA thesis, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Nübling, Damaris
2000Prinzipien der Irregularisierung (Principles of Irregularisation) [Linguistische Arbeiten 415]. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
2008Was tun mit Flexionsklassen? (What to do with inflection classes?) Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik LXXV(3): 282–331.Google Scholar
O’Neill, Paul
2013The morphome and morphosyntactic/semantic features. In The Boundaries of Pure Morphology: Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives, Silvio Cruschina, Martin Maiden & John Charles Smith (eds), 221–247. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Odden, Oda R.
2013Om bøyingsklassers liv som en følge av generelle kognitive prosesser (On the life of inflection classes in consequence of general cognitive processes). Student paper, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Papazian, Eric
2002Flertall av intetkjønnsord i bokmål og østlandske dialekter – noen utviklingstendenser (Plural of neuters in Bokmål and East Norwegian dialects – some tendencies). In MONS 9. Utvalgte artikler fra Det niende møtet om norsk språk i Oslo 2001 ,Inger Moen, Hanne Gram Simonsen, Arne Torp & Kjell Ivar Vannebo (eds), 156–166. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Paul, Hermann
1880Principien der Sprachgeschichte (Principles of Language History). Halle (Saale): Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Pinker, Stephen
1994The Language Instinct. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Plaster, Keith & Polinsky, Maria
2007Women are not dangerous things. Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics 12: 1–44.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl
1972The Logic of Scientific Discoveries. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Ragnhildstveit, Silje
2016Genus og transfer når norsk er andrespråk (Gender and Transfer when Norwegian is L2). PhD dissertation, University of Bergen.Google Scholar
Round, Erich
2016Kayardild inflectional morphotactics is morphomic. In The Morphome Debate, Ricardo Bermudez-Otero & Ana R. Luis (eds), 228–247. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Røyneland, Unn
2009Dialects in Norway: Catching up with the rest of Europe? International Journal of the Sociology of Language 196-197, 7–30.Google Scholar
Sameien, Marianne B., Spilling, Eivor F. & Enger, Hans-Olav
2018Reorganising grammatical variation in Norwegian. In Reorganising Grammatical Variation [Studies in Language Companion Series 203], Antje Dammel, Mattias Eitelmann & Mirjam Schmuck (eds), 209–230. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sampson, Geoffrey
2013A counterexample to homonymy avoidance. Diachronica 30(4): 579–591.Google Scholar
Sims, Andrea D. & Parker, Jeff
2016How inflection class systems work: On the informativity of implicational structure. Word Structure 9(2): 215–239.Google Scholar
Sims-Williams, Helen
2016Analogical levelling and optimization: The treatment of pointless lexical allomorphy in Greek. Transactions of the Philological Society 114(3): 315–338.Google Scholar
Skjekkeland, Martin
2005Dialektar i Noreg: Tradisjon og fornying (Dialects in Norway: Tradition and renewal). Kristiansand: Høyskoleforlaget.Google Scholar
Smith, John Charles
2011Variable analyses of a verbal inflection in (mainly) Canadian French. In Morphological Autonomy: Perspectives from Romance Inflectional Morphology , Martin Maiden, John Charles Smith, Maria Goldbach & Marc-Olivier Hinzelin (eds), 311–326. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2013The morphome as a gradient phenomenon. In The Boundaries of Pure Morphology: Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives, Silvio Cruschina, Martin Maiden & John Charles Smith (eds), 247–262. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew & Zwicky, Arnold M.
1998Introduction. In Handbook of Morphology, Andrew Spencer & Arnold M. Zwicky (eds), 1–10. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory T.
1993On rules of referral. Language 69(3): 449–479.Google Scholar
2001Inflectional Morphology: A Theory of Paradigm Structure [Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 93]. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
2006Heteroclisis and paradigm linkage. Language 82(2): 279–322.Google Scholar
Tiersma, Pieter Meijes
1982Local and general markedness. Language 58(4): 832–849.Google Scholar
Vincent, Nigel
2013Compositionality and change in conditionals and counterfactuals. In The Boundaries of Pure Morphology: Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives, Silvio Cruschina, Martin Maiden & John Charles Smith (eds), 116–136. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Wurzel, Wolfgang Ullrich
1980Ways of morphologizing phonological rules. In Historical Morphology, Jacek Fisiak (ed.), 443–463. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
1984 Flexionsmorphologie und Natürlichkeit. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. (English translation 1989. Inflectional Morphology and Naturalness. Dordrecht: Kluwer).Google Scholar
1989Von der Inadäquatheit einer Affixmorphologie (On the inadequacy of an affixal morphology). Linguistische Studien Series A 194: 277–298.Google Scholar
Zingler, Tim
2017Evidence against the morpheme: The history of English phonaesthemes. Language Sciences 62: 76–90.Google Scholar