Ackerman, F., and Stump, G. T.. 2004. Paradigms and periphrastic expression. 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: Implicative patterns in inflectional paradigms. In Blevins, J. P. and Blevins, J. (eds.), Analogy in Grammar: Form and Acquisition, 54–82. Oxford Scholarship Online.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Albright, A. 2002. The Identification of Bases in Morphological Paradigms. Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar

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

Anderson, S. R. 1992. A-morphous Morphology. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 62. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aronoff, M. 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Aronoff, M. 1994. Morphology by Itself. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Baerman, M., and Corbett, G. G.. 2010. Defectiveness: Typology and diachrony. In Baerman, M., Corbett, G. G., and Brown, D. (eds.), Defective Paradigms: Missing Forms and What They Tell Us, Proceedings of the British Academy 163, 1–18, Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baerman, M.; Brown, D., and Corbett, G. G.. 2005. The Syntax-Morphology Interface: A Study of Syncretism. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baerman, M.; Corbett, G. G., Brown, D., and Hippisley, A.. 2007. Deponency and Morphological Mismatches. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bauer, L. 1997. Derivational paradigms. Yearbook of Morphology 1996, 243–56.Google Scholar

Becker, T. 1993. Back-formation, cross-formation, and “bracketing paradoxes” in paradigmatic morphology. Yearbook of Morphology 1993, 1–25.Google Scholar

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

Bloomfield, L. 1926. A set of postulates for the science of language. Language 1, 153–64.Google Scholar

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

Bonami, O., and Beniamine, S.. 2015. Implicative structure and joint predictiveness. In Pirrelli, V., Marzi, C., and Ferro, M. (eds.), Word Structure and Word Usage: Proceedings of the NetWordS Final Conference. Pisa: Institute for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar

Bonami, O., and Boyé, G. 2003. Supplétion et classes flexionnelles dans la conjugaison du français. Langages 152, 102–26.Google Scholar

Bonami, O., and Boyé, G.. 2007a. French pronominal clitics and the design of paradigm function morphology. In Booij, G., Ducceschi, L., Fradin, B., Ralli, A., Guevara, E., and Scalise, S. (eds.), On-line Proceedings of the Fifth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting, 291–322. Università degli Studi di Bologna.Google Scholar

Bonami, O., and Boyé, G.. 2007b. Remarques sur les bases de la conjugaison. In Delais-Roussarie, E. and Labrune, L. (eds.), Des sons et des sens: Données et modèles en phonologie et en morphologie, 77–90. Paris: Hermès Science Publications.Google Scholar

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

Bonami, O., and Luís, A. R.. 2014. Sur la morphologie implicative dans la conjugaison du portugais: Une étude quantitative. Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 22, 111–51.Google Scholar

Booij, G. 1997. Autonomous morphology and paradigmatic relations. Yearbook of Morphology 1996, 35–53.Google Scholar

Boyé, G. 2011. Régularités et classes flexionnelles dans la conjugaison du français. In Roché, M., Boyé, G., Hathout, N., Lignon, S., and Plénat, M. (eds.), Des unités morphologiques au lexique, langues et syntaxe, 41–68. Plymouth: Hermes Science Publishing.Google Scholar

Brown, D., and Hippisley, A.. 2012. Network Morphology: A Defaults-based Theory of Word Structure, Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 133. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carstairs-McCarthy, A. 1994. Inflection classes, gender, and the principle of contrast. Language, 737–88.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N., and Halle, M.. 1968. The Sound Patterns of English. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Corbett, G. G. 2007. Canonical typology, suppletion, and possible words. Language, 8–42.Google Scholar

Corbett, G. G. 2012. Features. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Corbett, G. G., and Fraser, N. M.. 1993. Network morphology: A datr account of Russian nominal inflection. Journal of Linguistics 29.1, 113–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Corbin, D. 1987. Morphologie dérivationnelle et structuration du lexique. Sens et Structures. Presses Universitaires de Lille.Google Scholar

Dressler, W. U.; Mayerthaler, W., Panagl, O., and Wurzel, W. U.. 1987. Leitmotifs in Natural Morphology, Studies in Language Companion Series 10. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gazdar, G.; Klein, E., Pullum, G., and Sag, I.. 1985. Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Halle, M., and Marantz, A.. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, K. and Keyser, S. J. (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, 111–76, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Hathout, N. 2011. Morphonette: A paradigm-based morphological network. Lingue e Linguaggio 2, 243–62.Google Scholar

Henri, F. 2010. A Constraint-Based Approach to Verbal Constructions in Mauritian: Morphological, Syntactic and Discourse-Based Aspects. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Mauritius and Paris 7.Google Scholar

Henri, F.; Marandin, J.-M., and Abeillé, A.. 2008. Long forms as verum focus exponents in Mauritian. Workshop at “Predicate Focus, Verum Focus, Verb Focus: Similarities and Differences,” Potsdam, November 14–15.Google Scholar

Hockett, C. F. 1954. Two models of grammatical description. Word 10, 210–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Höhle, T. 1992. Über verum-fokus im deutschen. In Jacobs, J. (ed.), Informationsstruktur und Grammatik, Linguistische Berichte Sonderhefte 4, 112–41. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar

Kilani-Schoch, M., and Dressler, W. U. 2005. Morphologie naturelle et flexion du verbe français. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar

Lieber, R. 1982. On the Organization of the Lexicon. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar

Lignon, S.; Namer, F., and Villoing, F.. 2014. De l’agglutination à la triangulation ou comment expliquer certaines séries morphologiques. In Neveu, F., Blumenthal, P., Hriba, L., Gerstenberg, A., Meinschaefer, J., and Prévost, S. (eds.), Actes du 4ème Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française, Vol. 8, 1813–35, Berlin. ILF.Google Scholar

Nida, E. A. 1949. Morphology: The Descriptive Analysis of Words. 2nd edn. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar

Noyer, R., and Harley, H.. 1999. State-of-the-article: Distributed morphology. GLOT 4.4, 3–9.Google Scholar

Pirrelli, V., and Battista, M.. 2000. The paradigmatic dimension of stem allomorphy in Italian verb inflection. Rivista di linguistica, 12.2, 307–80.Google Scholar

Roché, M. 2004. Mot construit? Mot non construit? Quelques réflexions à partir des dérivés en -ier(e). Verbum, 26.4, 459–80.Google Scholar

Roché, M. 2009. Pour une morphologie lexicale. Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris, n.s. 17, 65–87.Google Scholar

Roché, M. 2011. Quelle morphologie? In Roché, M., Boyé, G., Hathout, N., Lignon, S., and Plénat, M. (eds.), Des unités morphologiques au lexique, langues et syntaxe, 15–39. Plymouth: Hermes Science Publishing.Google Scholar

Roché, M. 2015. Interfixes in romance. In Müller, P. O., Ohnheiser, I., Olsen, S., and Rainer, F. (eds.), Word-Formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe, Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Sciences, 551–67. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Saussure, F. de. 1916. Cours de linguistique générale. Lausanne-Paris: Payot.Google Scholar

Stump, G. T. 2001. Inflectional Morphology. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stump, G. T. 2006. Heteroclisis and paradigm linkage. Language, 279–322.Google Scholar

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

Thornton, A. M. 2011. Overabundance (multiple forms realizing the same cell): A non-canonical phenomenon in Italian verb morphology. In Maiden, M., Smith, J. C., Goldbach, M., and Hinzelin, M.-O. (eds.), Morphological Autonomy: Perspectives from Romance Inflectional Morphology, 358–81. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Van Marle, J. 1985. On the Paradigmatic Dimension of Morphological Creativity. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar

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

Zwicky, A. M., and Pullum, G. K.. 1983. Cliticization vs. inflection: English n’t. Language, 502–13.Google Scholar