Ackerman, F., and Blevins, J. P.. 2008. Syntax: The state of the art. In van Sterkenberg, P. (ed.), Unity and Diversity of Languages, 215–29. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Ackerman, F., and Bonami, O.. In press. Systemic polyfunctionality and morphology-syntax interdependencies. In Hippisley, A. and Gisborne, N. (eds.), Defaults in Morphological Theory. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Ackerman, F., and Malouf, R.. 2013. Morphological organization: The low conditional entropy conjecture. Language 89, 429–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ackerman, F., and Malouf, R.. 2015. The No Blur Principle effects as an emergent property of language. In Jurgensen, A. E., Sande, H., Lamoureux, S., Baclawski, K., and Zerbe, A. (eds.), Proceedings of the 41st meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar

Ackerman, F., and Stump, G.. 2004. Paradigms and periphrasis: A study in realization-based lexicalism. In Sadler, L. and Spencer, A. (eds.), Projecting Morphology, 111–57. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Ackerman, F.; Blevins, J. P., and Malouf, R.. 2009. Parts and wholes: Patterns of relatedness in complex morphological systems and why they matter. In Blevins, J. P. and Blevins, J. (eds.), Analogy in Grammar: Form and Acquisition, 54–82. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Albright, A., and Hayes, B.. 2003. Rules vs. analogy in English past tenses: A computational/experimental study. Cognition 90, 119–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Andersen, T. 2014. Number in Dinka. In Storch, A. and Dimmendaal, G. J. (eds.), Number: Constructions and Semantics, 221–64. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Anderson, P. W. 1972. More is different. Science 177, 393–396.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Anttila, R. 1989. Historical and comparative linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aronoff, M. 1994. Morphology by Itself: Stems and Inflectional Classes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Arthur, W. 2010. Evolution: A Developmental Approach. New York: Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar

Baayen, R. H., and Ramscar, M.. 2015. Abstraction, storage, and naive discriminative learning. In Dabrowska, E. and Divjak, D. (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Baerman, M. 2012. Paradigmatic chaos in Nuer. Language 88, 467–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baerman, M. 2014a. Covert systematicity in a distributionally complex system. Journal of Linguistics 50, 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baerman, M. 2014b. Floating morphological paradigms in Seri. Paper presented at the Sixteenth International Morphology Meeting, Budapest.Google Scholar

Baerman, M. In press. Seri verb classes: morphosyntactic motivation and morphological autonomy. Language.Google Scholar

Baerman, M.; Brown, D., and Corbett, G.. 2015. Understanding and measuring morphological complexity: An introduction. In Baerman, M., Brown, D., and Corbett, G. (eds.), Understanding and Measuring Morphological Complexity, 3–10. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bateson, P., and Gluckman, P.. 2011. Plasticity, Robustness, Development and Evolution. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beard, R. 1995. Lexeme-morpheme Base Morphology: A General Theory of Inflection and Word Formation. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar

Beltrame, G. 1880. Grammatica e vocabularia della lingua denka. Rome: Guiseppe Civelli.Google Scholar

Benítez-Burraco, A., and Longa, V. M.. 2010. Evo-devo: Of course, but which one? Some comments on Chomsky’s analogies between the biolinguistic approach and evo-devo. Biolinguistics 4, 308–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bickel, B., and Nichols, J.. 2013a. Exponence of selected inflectional formatives. In Dryer, M. S. and Haspelmath, M. (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/21 (accessed April 4, 2016).Google Scholar

Bickel, B., and Nichols, J.. 2013b. Fusion of selected inflectional formatives. In Dryer, M. S., and Haspelmath, M. (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/20 (accessed April 4, 2016).Google Scholar

Blazej, L. J., and Cohen-Goldberg, A. M.. 2015. Can we hear morphological complexity before words are complex? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 41, 50–68.Google ScholarPubMed

Blevins, J. P. 2006. Word-based morphology. Journal of Linguistics 42, 531–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blevins, J. P. 2016. Word and Paradigm Morphology. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bochner, H. 1993. Simplicity in Generative Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bonami, O. 2014. La Structure fine des paradigmes de flexion. Ph.D. dissertation, Université Paris Diderot.Google Scholar

Bonami, O. 2015. Periphrasis as collocation. Morphology 25, 63–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bonami, O., and Beniamine, S.. 2015. Implicative structure and joint predictiveness. In Pirelli, V., Marzi, C., and Ferro, M. (eds.), Word Structure and Word Usage: Proceedings of the Networds Final Conference.Google Scholar

Bonami, O., and Boyé, G.. 2014. De formes en thèmes. In Villoing, F., Leroy, S., and David, S. (eds.), Foisonnements morphologiques: Études en hommage à Françoise Kerleroux, 17–45. Presses Universitaires de Paris Ouest.Google Scholar

Bonami, O., and Henri, F.. 2010. Assessing empirically the inflectional complexity of Mauritian Creole. Paper presented at workshop on Formal Aspects of Creole Studies, Berlin. Available online at www.llf.cnrs.fr/Gens/Bonami/presentations/BoHen-FACS-10.pdf.Google Scholar

Bonami, O., and Luís, A. R.. 2014. Sur la morphologie implicative dans la conjugaison du portugais: Une étude quantitative. In Léonard, J.-L. (ed.), Morphologie flexionnelle et dialectologie romane: Typologie(s) et modélisation(s), Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 22, 111–51. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar

Bybee, J. L. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Philadelphia: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Camazine, S.; Deneubourg, J.-L., Franks, N.R., Sneyd, J., Theraulaz, G., and Bonabeau, E.. 2001. Self-Organization in Biological Systems. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Corbett, G. G. 2013. The unique challenge of the Archi paradigm. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: Special Session on Languages of the Caucasus, 52–67. Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar

Cover, T. M., and Thomas, J. A. 2006. Elements of Information Theory, 2nd edn. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar

Cruschina, S.; Maiden, M., and Smith, J. C. (eds.) 2013. The Boundaries of Pure Morphology: Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Davies, A. M. 1998. History of Linguistics, vol. 4: Nineteenth-Century Linguistics. New York: Longman.Google Scholar

Davison, A. C., and Hinkley, D. V.. 1997. Bootstrap Methods and Their Application. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Elman, J. L.; Bates, E. A., Johnson, M. H., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D., and Plunkett, 1996. Rethinking Innateness: A Connectionist Perspective on Development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Esper, E. A. 1925. A Technique for the Experiment Investigation of Associative Interference in Artificial Linguistic Material. Language monographs.Google Scholar

Esper, E. A. 1966. Social transmission of an artificial language. Language 42, 575–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Esper, E. A. 1973. Analogy and Association in Linguistics and Psychology. Athens: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar

Fertig, D. 2013. Analogy and Morphological Change. Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gabbard, K. 2015. South Saami Vowel Alternations. Master’s thesis, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar

Gentner, D.; Holyoak, K. J., and Kokinov, B. N.. 2001. The Analogical Mind: Perspectives from Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gilbert, S. F., and Epel, D.. 2008. Ecological Developmental Biology. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar

Gilbert, S. F., and Sarkar, S.. 2000. Embracing complexity: Organicism for the 21st century. Developmental Dynamics 219, 1–9.3.0.CO;2-A>CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gottlieb, G. 1997. Synthesizing Nature-nurture: The Prenatal Roots of Instinctive Behavior. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Gurevich, O. I. 2006. Constructional Morphology: The Georgian Version. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar

Hay, J., and Baayen, R. H.. 2005. Shifting paradigms: Gradient structure in morphology. Trends in Cognitive Science 9, 342–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Hockett, C. F. 1987. Refurbishing our Foundations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hofstadter, D., and Sander, E.. 2014. Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Hood, K. E.; Halpern, C. T., Greenberg, G., and Lerner, R. M. (eds.) 2010. Handbook of Developmental Science, Behavior, and Genetics. Hoboken: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jablonka, E., and Lamb, M. J. 2006. Four Dimensions of Evolution: Genetic, Epigenetic, Behavioral and Symbolic Variation in the History of Life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Karmiloff-Smith, A. 1994. Precis of beyond modularity: A developmental perspective on cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 17, 693–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kemps, R. J. J. K.; Wurm, L. H.; Ernestus, M.; Schreuder, R., and Baayen, R. H.. 2005. Prosodic cues for morphological complexity in Dutch and English. Language and Cognitive Processes 20, 43–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kibrik, A. E. 1991. Organising principles for nominal paradigms in Daghestanian languages: Comparative and typological observations. In Plank, F. (ed.), Paradigms: The Economy of Inflection, 255–274, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ladd, D. R.; Remijsen, B., and Manyang, A.. 2009. On the distinction between regular and irregular inflectional morphology: Evidence from Dinka. Language 85, 659–70.Google Scholar

Laland, K. N.; Odling-Smee, J., and Myles, S. 2010. How culture shaped the human genome: Bringing genetics and the human sciences together. Nature Reviews Genetics 11, 137–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Lee, L. 2013. Event structure and grammatical patterns: resultative constructions. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar

Lehiste, I. 1972. The timing of utterances and linguistic boundaries. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 51, 2018–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lehrman, D. S. 1953. A critique of Konrad Lorenz’s theory of instinctive behavior. Quarterly Review of Biology 28, 337–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Lehrman, D. S. 1970. Semantic and conceptual issues in the nature-nurture problem. In Aronson, L. R. and Schneirla, T. C. (eds.), Development and Evolution of Behavior, 17–52. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co.Google Scholar

Lepic, R. 2015. Motivation in morphology: lexical patterns in ASL and English. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar

Lounsbury, F. 1953. Oneida verb morphology. Yale University Publications in Anthropology 48. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Marantz, A. 2013. No escape from morphemes in morphological processing. Language and Cognitive Processes 28, 905–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Marlett, S. A. 2009. A grammar of Seri. Available online at http://arts-sciences.und.edu/summer-institute-of-linguistics/faculty/marlett-steve/marlett-seri-grammar-latest-draft.pdf.Google Scholar

Matthews, P. H. 1991. Morphology. Cambridge Univesity Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Miestamo, M.; Sinnemäki, K., and Karlsson, F. (eds.) 2008. Language Complexity: Typology, Contact, Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mitterutzner, J. C. 1866. Die Dinka-Sprache in Central-Africa: Kurze grammatik, text und wörterbuch. Brixen: Verlag von A. Weger’s Buchhandlung.Google Scholar

Nikolaeva, I. 2015. On the expression of TAM on nouns: Evidence from Tundra Nenets. Lingua 166, 99–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Oudeyer, P.-Y. 2006. Self-Organization in the Evolution of Speech. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Overton, W. F. 2010. Life-span development: Concepts and issues. Handbook of Life-span Development 1, 1–29.Google Scholar

Oyama, S.; Gray, R. D., and Griffiths, P. E. 2001. Cycles of Contingency: Developmental Systems Theory and Evolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Paul, H. 1891. Principles of the History of Language, translated from the 2nd edition into English by Strong, H. A.. London: Longmans, Green and Co.Google Scholar

Paunonen, H. 1976. Allomorfien dynamiikkaa [The dynamics of allomorphs]. Virittäjä 79, 82–107.Google Scholar

Peirce, J. R. 1980. An Introduction to Information Theory: Symbols, Signals and Noise. Mineola, NY: Dover.Google Scholar

Pihel, K., and Pikamäe, A.. 1999. Soome-eesti sõnaraamat. Tallinn: Valgus.Google Scholar

Plag, I.; Hormann, J., and Kunter, G.. 2015. Homophony and morphology: The acoustics of word-final S in English. Journal of Linguistics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ramscar, M.; Dye, M., Blevins, J. P., and Baayen, R. H. 2015. Morphological development. In Bar On, A., and Rabvit, D. (eds.), Handbook of Communication Disorders. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Robins, R. H. 1959. In defense of WP. Transactions of the Philological Society 116–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Russell, E. 1930. The Interpretation of Development and Heredity. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar

Sampson, G. B., Gil, D., and Trudgill, P. (eds.) 2010. Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Sapir, E. 1921. Language. San Diego: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar

Seyfarth, S., and Myslin, M.. 2014. Discriminative learning predicts human recognition of English blend sources. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar

Seyfarth, S.; Ackerman, F., and Malouf, R.. 2015. Acoustic differences in morphologically-distinct homophones. Presentation at American International Morphology Meeting, Amherst, MA.Google Scholar

Seyfarth, S.; Garellek, M., Gillingham, G., Ackerman, F., and Malouf, R.. 2016. Acoustic differences in morphologically distinct homophones. Ms. UCSD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Shannon, C. 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal 27, 379–423, 623–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sims, A. D. 2015. Inflectional Defectiveness. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sims, A., and Parker, J.. 2016. How inflection class systems work: On the informativity of implicative structure. Ackerman, F. and Malouf, R.. Special volume of Word Structure 9.2: 215–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Spencer, J. P.; Blumberg, M. S., McMurray, B., Robinson, S. R., Samuelson, L. K., and Tomblin, J. B.. 2009. Short arms and talking eggs: Why we should no longer abide the nativist-empiricist debate. Child Development Perspectives 3, 79–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Stiles, J. 2008. The Fundamentals of Brain Development: Integrating Nature and Nurture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stump, G., and Finkel, R.. 2009. Principal parts and degrees of paradigmatic transparency. In Blevins, J. P., and Blevins, J. (eds.), Analogy in Grammar: Form and Acquisition, 13–54. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Stump, G., and Finkel, R.. 2013. Morphological Typology: From Word to Paradigm. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stump, G., and Finkel, R.. 2015. Contrasting modes of representation for inflectional systems: Some implications for computing morphological complexity. In Baerman, M.; Brown, D., and Corbett, G. G. (eds.), Understanding and Measuring Morphological Complexity, 119–40. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Thymé, A. 1993. Connectionist Approach to Nominal Inflection: Paradigm Patterning and Analogy in Finnish. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar

von Bertalanffy, L. 1973. General System Theory: Foundations, Development, Applications, revised edn. New York: Braziller.Google Scholar

Wilbur, J. 2014. A Grammar of Pite Saami. Berlin: Language Science Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wurzel, W. U. 1986. Die wiederholte Klassifikation von Substantiven. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 39, 76–96.Google Scholar

Wurzel, W. U. 1989. Inflectional Morphology and Naturalness. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar