References

Gregory Stump

doi:10.1017/9781009168205.015

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 November 2022

Gregory Stump

Show author details

Gregory Stump: Affiliation:
University of Kentucky

Book contents

Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Type: Chapter
Information: Morphotactics
A Rule-Combining Approach
, pp. 406 - 414

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009168205.015 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alhoniemi, Alho. (2010). Marin kielioppi, 2nd ed. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar

Ambrazas, Vytautas, Geniušienė, Emma, Girdenis, Aleksas, Sližienė, Nijolė, Tekorienė, Dalija, Valeckienė, Adelė, & Valiulytė, Elena. (1997). Lithuanian grammar. Vilnius: Baltos lankos.Google Scholar

Anderson, Stephen R. (1992). A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Anderson, Stephen R. (1995). Rules and constraints in describing the morphology of phrases. In Dainora, A., Hemphill, R., Luka, B., Need, B., & Pargman, S. (eds.), Papers from the 31st Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, volume 2: The parasession on clitics. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 15–31.Google Scholar

Arkadiev, Peter. (2010). Notes on the Lithuanian restrictive. Baltic Linguistics 1, 9–49.CrossRef Google Scholar

Arkadiev, Peter. (2011a). Aspect and actionality in Lithuanian on a typological background. In Petit, Daniel, Le Feuvre, Claire, & Menantaud, Henri (eds.), Langues baltiques, langues slaves. Paris: CNRS Editions, pp. 61–92.Google Scholar

Arkadiev, Peter. (2011b). On the aspectual uses of the prefix be- in Lithuanian. Baltic Linguistics 2, 37–78.CrossRef Google Scholar

Arkadiev, Peter. (2012a). “External” verbal prefixes in Lithuanian. Paper presented at the Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, December 14, 2012.Google Scholar

Arkadiev, Peter. (2012b). Stems in Lithuanian verbal inflection (with remarks on derivation). Word Structure 5(1), 7–27.Google Scholar

Arnon, Inbal & Snider, Neal. (2010). More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language 62, 67–82.Google Scholar

Arnott, D. W. (1970). The nominal and verbal systems of Fula. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Aronoff, Mark. (1976). Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Aronoff, Mark. (1994). Morphology by itself. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Arregi, Karlos & Nevins, Andrew. (2012). Morphotactics: Basque auxiliaries and the structure of Spellout (Studies in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 86). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Ashton, E. O. (1947). Swahili grammar, 2nd ed. Essex: Longman.Google Scholar

Bach, Emmon. (1979). Control in Montague Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 10(4), 515–531.Google Scholar

Badrulhisham, Heikal. (2019). Formulaicity of affixes in Turkish. Master’s thesis, Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar

Barrett-Keach, Camillia N. (1986). Word-internal evidence from Swahili for Aux/Infl. Linguistic Inquiry 17(3), 559–564.Google Scholar

Bauer, Laurie. (1988). A descriptive gap in morphology. In Booij, Geert & van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 17–27.Google Scholar

Bauer, Laurie. (2014). Concatenative derivation. In Lieber, Rochelle & Štekauer, Pavol (eds.), The Oxford handbook of derivational morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 118–135.Google Scholar

Bauer, Laurie, Lieber, Rochelle, & Plag, Ingo. (2013). The Oxford reference guide to English morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Becker, Thomas. (1993). Back-formation, cross-formation, and “bracketing paradoxes” in paradigmatic morphology. In Booij, Geert & van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1993. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 1–25.Google Scholar

Beckett, Eleanor. (1974). A linguistic analysis of Gurma. Master’s thesis, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar

Bickel, Balthasar, Banjade, Goma, Gaenzle, Martin, Lieven, Elena, Prasad Paudyal, Netra, Rai, Ichchha Purna, Rai, Manoj, Rai, Novel Kishore, & Stoll, Sabine. (2007). Free prefix ordering in Chintang. Language 83, 43–73.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bilgin, Orhan. (2016). Frequency effects in the processing of morphologically complex Turkish words. Master’s thesis, Boğaziçi University.Google Scholar

Bisetto, Antonietta & Melloni, Chiara. (2007). Parasynthetic compounding. Lingue e Linguaggio 7(2), 233–260.Google Scholar

Blythe, Joe, Nordlinger, Rachel, & Reid, Nicholas. (2007). Murriny Patha finite verb paradigms. Wadeye, NT: Unpublished MS.Google Scholar

Bochner, Harry. (1993). Simplicity in generative morphology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRef Google Scholar

Booij, Geert. (1979). Semantic regularities in word formation. Linguistics 17, 985–1001.Google Scholar

Booij, Geert. (2005). The grammar of words: An introduction to linguistic morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Booij, Geert. (2007). Construction Morphology and the lexicon. In Montermini, Fabio, Boyé, Gilles, & Hathout, Nabil (eds.), Selected proceedings of the 5th Décembrettes: Morphology in Toulouse. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 34–44.Google Scholar

Booij, Geert. (2010). Construction Morphology. Oxford and New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Booij, Geert. (2018). The construction of words: Introduction and overview. In Booij, Geert (ed.), The construction of words: Advances in Construction Morphology. Berlin: Springer, pp. 3–16.Google Scholar

Booij, Geert & Masini, Francesca. (2015). The role of second order schemas in the construction of complex words. In Bauer, Laurie, Körtvélyessy, Lívia, & Štekauer, Pavol (eds.), Semantics of complex words. Cham: Springer, pp. 47–66.Google Scholar

Brook, George Leslie. (1955). An introduction to Old English. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar

Brown, Dunstan, Chumakina, Marina, & Corbett, Greville G. (eds.) (2013). Canonical morphology and syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Burrow, Thomas & Sudhibhushan, Bhattacharya. (1970). The Pengo language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan. (1985). Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Carrol, Gareth & Conklin, Kathy. (2020). Is all formulaic language created equal? Unpacking the processing advantage for different types of formulaic sequences. Language and Speech 63(1), 95–122.Google Scholar

Clark, Eve V. & Clark, Herbert H.. (1979). When nouns surface as verbs. Language 55(4), 767–811.CrossRef Google Scholar

Conklin, Kathy & Schmitt, Norbert. (2012). The processing of formulaic language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 32, 45–61.CrossRef Google Scholar

Contini-Morava, Ellen. (2007). Swahili morphology. In Kaye, Alan S. (ed.), Morphologies of Asia and Africa, vol. 2. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, pp. 1129–1158.Google Scholar

Corbett, Greville G. (2005). The canonical approach in typology. In Frajzyngier, Zygmunt, Hodges, Adam, & Rood, David S. (eds.), Linguistic diversity and language theories (Studies in Language Companion Series 72). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 25–49.Google Scholar

Corbett, Greville G. (2015). Morphosyntactic complexity: A typology of lexical splits. Language 91, 145–193.Google Scholar

Corbett, Greville G. & Fraser, Norman M.. (1993). Network Morphology: A DATR account of Russian nominal inflection. Journal of Linguistics 29, 113–142.Google Scholar

Corbin, Danielle. (1980). Contradictions et inadéquations de l’analyse parasynthétique en morphologie dérivationnelle. In Dessaux-Berthonneau, A.-M. (ed.), Théories linguistiques et traditions grammaticales. Lille: Presses Universitaires de Lille, pp. 181–224.Google Scholar

Crysmann, Berthold & Bonami, Olivier. (2016). Variable morphotactics in Information-based Morphology. Journal of Linguistics 52, 311–374.Google Scholar

Cyffer, Norbert. (2007). Kanuri morphology. In Kaye, Alan S. (ed.), Morphologies of Asia and Africa, vol. 2. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, pp. 1089–1126.Google Scholar

Dambriūnas, Leonardas, Klimas, Antanas, & Schmalstieg, William R.. (1972). Introduction to modern Lithuanian. New York, NY: Franciscan Fathers.Google Scholar

Darmesteter, Arsène. (1874). Traité de la formation des mots composés dans la langue française comparée aux autres langues romanes et au latin. Paris: Franck.Google Scholar

Deshpande, Madhav M. (1997). Saṃskṛtasubodhinī: A Sanskrit primer. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for South and Southeast Asian Studies, University of Michigan.Google Scholar

Dixon, R. M. W. (2014). Making new words: Morphological derivation in English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Durrant, Philip. (2013). Formulaicity in an agglutinating language: The case of Turkish. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 9, 1–38.Google Scholar

Durrant, Philip. (2016). Formulaicity within Turkish words. Mersin Üniversitesi Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi 13(2), 35–52.Google Scholar

Embick, David & Noyer, Rolf. (2001). Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32(4), 555–595.Google Scholar

Fábregas, Antonio & Scalise, Sergio. (2012). Morphology: From data to theories. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Fradin, Bernard. (2003). Nouvelles approches en morphologie. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar

Gazdar, Gerald, Klein, Ewan, Pullum, Geoffrey, & Sag, Ivan. (1985). Generalized phrase structure grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Gibbs, Raymond W. & Gonzales, Gayle P.. (1985). Syntactic frozenness in processing and remembering idioms. Cognition 20(3), 243–259.Google Scholar

Gibbs, Raymond W., Nayak, Nandini P., & Cutting, Cooper. (1989). How to kick the bucket and not decompose: Analyzability and idiom processing. Journal of Memory and Language 28(5), 576–593.Google Scholar

Good, Jeff. (2016). The linguistic typology of templates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Greenberg, Joseph H. (1977). Niger-Congo noun class markers: Prefixes, suffixes, both, or neither. Studies in African Linguistics S7, 97–104.Google Scholar

Greenberg, Joseph H. (1978). How does a language acquire gender markers? Universals of human language, vol. 2, ed. Greenberg, J., Ferguson, C. A., & Moravcsik, Edith A.. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 47–82.Google Scholar

Halle, Morris & Marantz, Alec. (1993). Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, Kenneth & Keyser, Samuel J. (eds.), The view from Building 20: Linguistic essays in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 111–176.Google Scholar

Hamp, E. P. (1959). Zuara Berber personals. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 22(1), 140–141.Google Scholar

Hanks, Patrick. (2013). Lexical analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Harris, Alice C. (2017). Multiple exponence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin. (1995). The growth of affixes in morphological reanalysis. In Booij, Geert & van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1994. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 1–29.Google Scholar

Holvoet, Axel. (2020). The middle voice in Baltic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Hutchison, John P. (1981). A reference grammar of the Kanuri language. Madison, WI: African Studies Program, University of Wisconsin and Boston: African Studies Center, Boston University.Google Scholar

Hyman, Larry. (2003). Suffix ordering in Bantu: A morphocentric approach. In Booij, Geert & van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2002. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 245–281.Google Scholar

Hyman, Larry. (2018). The first person singular subject negative portmanteau in Luganda and Lusoga. Berkeley Papers in Formal Linguistics, 1(1), https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6qq6j48w.Google Scholar

Iacobini, Claudio. (2020). Parasynthesis in Morphology. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics, ed. by Aronoff, Mark. Oxford: Oxford University Press, http://linguistics.oxfordre.com.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, Ray & Audring, Jenny. (2020). The texture of the lexicon. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Kempf, Luise & Hartmann, Stefan. (2018). Schema unification and morphological productivity: A diachronic perspective. In Booij, Geert E. (ed.), The construction of words: Advances in Construction Morphology. Berlin: Springer, pp. 441–474.Google Scholar

Kervella, Frañsez. (1976). Yezhadur bras ar brezhoneg. Brest: Al Liamm.Google Scholar

Kipacha, Ahmadi. (2006). The impact of the morphological alternation of subject markers on tense/aspect: The case of Swahili. In Downing, Laura J., Zerbian, Sabine, & Marten, Lutz (eds.), Papers in Bantu grammar and description (ZAS Papers in Linguistics 43). Berlin: ZAS, pp. 81–96.Google Scholar

Lieber, Rochelle. (1992). Deconstructing morphology: Word formation in syntactic theory. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Lieber, Rochelle. (2016). English nouns: The ecology of nominalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Loogman, Alfons. (1965). Swahili grammar and syntax. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.Google Scholar

Luís, Ana & Otoguro, Ryo. (2004). Proclitic contexts and their effect on clitic placement. In Butt, Miriam & Holloway King, Tracy (eds.), Proceedings of Lexical-Functional Grammar 2004. Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 334–352.Google Scholar

Luís, Ana & Otoguro, Ryo. (2011). Inflectional morphology and syntax in correspondence: Evidence from European Portuguese. In Galani, Alexandra, Hicks, Glyn & Tsoulas, George (eds.), Morphology and its interfaces. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 97–135.Google Scholar

Luís, Ana & Spencer, Andrew. (2005). A paradigm function account of ‘mesoclisis’ in European Portuguese. In Booij, Geert & van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2004. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 177–228.Google Scholar

Luutonen, Jorma. (1997). The variation of morpheme order in Mari declension. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar

Maganga, Clement. (1990). A study of the morphophonology of Standard Swahili, Kipemba, Kitumbatu and Kimakunduchi. PhD dissertation, University of Dar es Salaam.Google Scholar

Mansfield, John. (2019). Murrinhpatha morphology and phonology. Boston, MA and Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Mansfield, John, Stoll, Sabine, & Bickel, Balthasar. (2020). Category clustering: A probabilistic bias in the morphology of verbal agreement marking. Language 96(2), 255–293.Google Scholar

Marchand, Hans. (1966). The categories and types of present-day English word-formation: A synchronic-diachronic approach. University, AL: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar

Masini, Francesca & Iacobini, Claudio. (2018). Schemas and discontinuity in Italian: The view from Construction Morphology. In Booij, Geert (ed.), The construction of words, 81–109. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRef Google Scholar

Matthews, Peter Hugoe. (1972). Inflectional morphology: A theoretical study based on aspects of Latin verb conjugation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Matthews, P. H. (1974). Morphology: An introduction to the theory of word structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

McIntosh, Mary. (1984). Fulfulde syntax and verbal morphology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Meier-Brügger, Michael. (2003). Indo-European linguistics, trans. by Gertmenian, Charles. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Meinhof, Carl. (1906). Grundzüge einer vergleichenden Grammatik der Bantusprachen. Berlin: Reimer.Google Scholar

Mohammed, Mohammed Abdulla. (2001). Modern Swahili grammar. Nairobi, Kampala, and Dar es Salaam: East African Educational Publishers.Google Scholar

Monachesi, Paola. (1995). A grammar of Italian clitics. PhD dissertation, Tilburg University.Google Scholar

Monachesi, Paola. (1999). A lexical approach to Italian cliticization. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Naba, Jean-Claude. (1994). Le Gulmancema: Essai de systématisation. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag.Google Scholar

Nevins, Andrew. (2015). Lectures on postsyntactic morphology. Manuscript of July 21, 2015, LSA Summer Language Institute, University of Michigan.Google Scholar

Nevis, Joel A. & Joseph, Brian D.. (1992). Wackernagel affixes: Evidence from Balto-Slavic. In Booij, Geert & van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 3. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 93–111.Google Scholar

Nordlinger, Rachel. (2010). Verbal morphology in Murrinh-Patha: Evidence for templates. Morphology 20, 321–341.Google Scholar

Nordlinger, Rachel. (2015). Inflection in Murrinh-Patha. In Baerman, Matthew (ed.), The Oxford handbook of inflection. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 491–519.Google Scholar

Nordlinger, Rachel & Caudal, Patrick. (2012). The tense, aspect and modality system in Murrinh-Patha. Australian Journal of Linguistics 32, 113–173.Google Scholar

Nordlinger, Rachel & Mansfield, John. (2021). Positional dependency in Murrinhpatha: Expanding the typology of non-canonical morphotactics. Linguistics Vanguard 7(1), 1–11.Google Scholar

Noyer, Robert Rolf. (1992). Features, positions and affixes in autonomous morphological structure. PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar

Özel, Selma Ayşe, Bektaş, Yasin, & Yilmazer, Hakan. (2016). Formulaicity in Turkish: Evidence from the Turkish National Corpus. Mersin Üniversitesi Dil ve Edebiyat Dergisi 13(2), 1–33.Google Scholar

Pakerys, Jurgis. (2011). On derivational suffixes and inflection classes of verbs in Modern Lithuanian. Lietuvių kalba 5, 1–17.Google Scholar

Pakerys, Jurgis. (2021). Obligatory features of Lithuanian verbal inflection classes. In Arkadiev, Peter, Pakerys, Jurgis, Šeškauskienė, Inesa, & Žeimantienė, Vaiva (eds.), Studies in Baltic and other languages. A Festschrift for Axel Holvoet on the occasion of his 65th birthday (Vilnius University Open Series, vol. 16). Vilnius: Vilnius University Press, pp. 268–290.Google Scholar

Plag, Ingo. (2003). Word-formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Quirk, Randolph & Wrenn, C. L.. (1955). An Old English grammar. London: Methuen & Co.Google Scholar

Rácz, Péter, Mitchell, Alice, & Blythe, Joe. (2018). Egocentric and allocentric learning of social-indexical meaning in American English, Datooga, and Murrinhpatha. In Rogers, T. T., Rau, M., Zhu, X., & Kalish, C. W. (eds.), Proceedings of the 40th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society, pp. 2303–2308.Google Scholar

Raffelsiefen, Renate. (1992). A nonconfigurational approach to morphology. In Aronoff, Mark (ed.), Morphology now. Albany: SUNY Press, pp. 133–162.Google Scholar

Rainer, Franz. (2012). Morphological metaphysics: Virtual, potential, and actual words. Word Structure 5, 165–182.Google Scholar

Renou, Louis. (1996). Grammaire sanscrite (3rd ed., revised, corrected and augmented). Paris: Librairie d’Amérique et d’Orient, Jean Maisonneuve Successeur.Google Scholar

Salminen, Tapani. (1997). Tundra Nenets inflection. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar

Scalise, Sergio. (1986). Generative morphology, 2nd ed. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar

Schadeberg, Thilo C. (1989). The three relative constructions in Swahili (kisanifu). In Rombi, Marie-Françoise (ed.), Le swahili et ses limites: Ambigüité des notions reçues. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, pp. 33–40.Google Scholar

Selkirk, Elisabeth O. (1982). The syntax of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Šereikaitė, Milena. (2017). The reanalysis of Lithuanian reflexive -si-: A DM approach. In Kaplan, Aaron et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 34th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 447–453.Google Scholar

Serrano-Dolader, D. (2015). Parasynthesis in Romance. In Müller, P. O., Ohnheiser, I., Olsen, S., & Rainer, F. (eds.), Word-formation: An international handbook of the languages of Europe, vol. 1. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 524–536.Google Scholar

Sievers, Eduard & Cook, Albert S.. (1903). An Old English grammar, 3rd ed. Boston, MA: Ginn.Google Scholar

Soukka, Maria. (2000). A descriptive grammar of Noon: A Cangin language of Senegal. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar

Spencer, Andrew. (2005). Inflecting clitics in Generalized Paradigm Function Morphology. Lingue e Linguaggio IV(2), 179–193.Google Scholar

Spencer, Andrew. (2013). Lexical relatedness: A paradigm-based model. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Spencer, Andrew & Stump, Gregory. (2013). Hungarian pronominal case and the dichotomy of content and form in inflectional morphology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31, 1207–1248.Google Scholar

Steere, Edward. (1919). A handbook of the Swahili language as spoken at Zanzibar, revised and enlarged by Madan, A. C.. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.Google Scholar

Steever, Sanford B. (1993). Analysis to synthesis: The development of complex verb morphology in the Dravidian languages. Oxford and New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Štekauer, Pavol, Valera, Salvador, & Körtvélyessy, Lívia. (2012). Word-formation in the world’s languages: A typological survey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Stewart, Tom & Stump, Gregory. (2007). Paradigm Function Morphology and the morphology/syntax interface. In Ramchand, Gillian & Reiss, Charles (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 383–421.Google Scholar

Stump, Gregory. (1990). La morphologie bretonne et la frontière entre la flexion et la dérivation. La Bretagne linguistique 6, 185–237.Google Scholar

Stump, Gregory. (1991). A paradigm‑based theory of morphosemantic mismatches. Language 67, 675–725.Google Scholar

Stump, Gregory. (1993). Position classes and morphological theory. In Booij, Geert & van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1992. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 129–180.Google Scholar

Stump, Gregory. (2001). Inflectional morphology: A theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Stump, Gregory. (2005). Delineating the boundary between inflection-class marking and derivational marking: The case of Sanskrit -aya. In Dressler, Wolfgang U., Kastovsky, Dieter, Pfeiffer, Oskar E., & Rainer, Franz (eds.), Morphology and its demarcations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 293–309.Google Scholar

Stump, Gregory. (2010). The derivation of compound ordinal numerals: Implications for morphological theory. Word Structure 3(2), 205–233.Google Scholar

Stump, Gregory. (2012). The formal and functional architecture of inflectional morphology. In Ralli, Angela, Booij, Geert, Scalise, Sergio, & Karasimos, Athanasios (eds.), Morphology and the architecture of grammar: On‑line Proceedings of the Eighth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (MMM8), Cagliari, Italy, 14–17 September 2011, 254–270.Google Scholar

Stump, Gregory. (2016). Inflectional paradigms: Content and form at the syntax‑morphology interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Stump, Gregory. (2017a). Polyfunctionality and the variety of inflectional exponence relations. In Kiefer, Ferenc, Blevins, James P., & Bartos, Huba (eds.), Perspectives on morphological organization: Data and analyses. Leiden: Brill, pp. 11–30.Google Scholar

Stump, Gregory. (2017b). Rule conflation in an inferential‑realizational theory of morphotactics. Acta Linguistica Academica 64(1), 79–124.Google Scholar

Stump, Gregory. (2017c). Rules and blocks. In Bowern, Claire, Horn, Laurence, & Zanuttini, Raffaella (eds.), On looking into words (and beyond). Berlin: Language Science Press, pp. 421–440.Google Scholar

Stump, Gregory. (2017d). The nature and dimensions of complexity in morphology. Annual Review of Linguistics 3, 65–83.Google Scholar

Stump, Gregory. (2019a). An apparently noncanonical pattern of morphotactic competition. In Rainer, Franz, Gardani, Francesco, Dressler, Wolfgang, & Luschützky, Hans Christian (eds.), Competition in inflection and word-formation. Berlin: Springer, pp. 259–278.Google Scholar

Stump, Gregory. (2019b). Paradigm Function Morphology. In Audring, Jenny & Masini, Francesca (eds.), The Oxford handbook of morphological theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 285–304.Google Scholar

Stump, Gregory. (2019c). Some sources of apparent gaps in derivational paradigms. Morphology 29, 271–292.Google Scholar

Stump, Gregory. (2020a). Complex exponents. In Körtvélyessy, Lívia & Štekauer, Pavol (eds.), Complex words: Advances in morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 159–174.Google Scholar

Stump, Gregory. (2020b). Paradigm Function Morphology: Assumptions and innovations. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics, ed. by Aronoff, Mark. Oxford: Oxford University Press, http://linguistics.oxfordre.com.Google Scholar

Stump, Gregory. (2021). Conditional exponence. In Moradi, Sedigheh, Haag, Marcia, Rees-Miller, Janie, & Petrovic, Andrija (eds.), All things morphology: Its independence and its interfaces. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 255–278.Google Scholar

Stump, Gregory. (2022). Rule combination, potentiation, affix telescoping. In Sims, Andrea, Ussishkin, Adam, Parker, Jeff, & Wray, Samantha (eds.), Morphological typology and linguistic cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 282–306.Google Scholar

Stump, Gregory & Finkel, Raphael. (2013). Morphological typology: From word to paradigm. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Swinney, David A. & Cutler, Anne. (1979). The access and processing of idiomatic expressions. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18, 523–534.Google Scholar

Tremblay, Antoine, Derwing, Bruce, Libben, Gary, & Westbury, Chris F.. (2011). Processing advantages of lexical bundles: Evidence from self-paced reading and sentence recall tasks. Language Learning 61, 569–613.Google Scholar

Trépos, Pierre. (1957). Le pluriel breton. Brest: Emgleo Breiz.Google Scholar

Trépos, Pierre. (1968). Grammaire bretonne [1980 reprint]. Rennes: Ouest France.Google Scholar

Underwood, Geoffrey, Schmitt, Norbert, & Galpin, Adam. (2004). The eyes have it: An eye‑movement study into the processing of formulaic sequences. In Schmitt, Norbert (ed.), Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing, and use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 153–172.Google Scholar

van Driem, George. (1987). A grammar of Limbu. Berlin and New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

van Driem, George. (1996). A new analysis of the Limbu verb. In Bradley, David (ed.), Tibeto-Burman languages of the Himalayas. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, pp. 157–173.Google Scholar

van Marle, Jaap. (1990). Rule‑creating creativity: Analogy as a synchronic morphological process. In Dressler, W. U., Luschützky, Hans C., Pfeiffer, Oskar E., & Rennison, John R. (eds.), Contemporary morphology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 267–273.Google Scholar

Whitney, William Dwight. (1885). The roots, verb-forms, and primary derivatives of the Sanskrit language. London: Trübner & Co.Google Scholar

Whitney, William Dwight. (1889). Sanskrit grammar, 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Williams, Edwin. (1981). On the notions “lexically related” and “head of a word”. Linguistic Inquiry 12, 245–274.Google Scholar

Winkler, Eberhard. (2001). Udmurt. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar

Winkler, Eberhard. (2011). Udmurtische Grammatik. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar

Wray, Alison. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Wray, Alison. (2012). What do we (think we) know about formulaic language? An evaluation of the current state of play. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 32, 231–254.Google Scholar

Zimmermann, Eva. (2012). Affix copying in Kiranti. In Boone, Enrico, Linke, Kathrin, & Schulpen, Maartje (eds.), Proceedings of the ConSOLE XIX. Leiden: Leiden University, pp. 343–367.Google Scholar

Zimmermann, Eva. (2016). Copy affixes in Kiranti. In Barnickel, Katja, Guzmán Naranjo, Matías, Johannes, Hein, Sampson, Korsah, Murphy, Andrew, Paschen, Ludger, Puškar, Zorica, & Zaleska, Joanna (eds.), Replicative processes in grammar. Leipzig: Universität Leipzig, pp. 1–34.Google Scholar

Book contents

References

Summary

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive