Part of
All Things Morphology: Its independence and its interfaces
Edited by Sedigheh Moradi, Marcia Haag, Janie Rees-Miller and Andrija Petrovic
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 353] 2021
► pp. 349376
References (41)
Anderson, Stephen R.
2005Aspects of the theory of clitics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark
1976Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1994Morphology by itself: Stems and inflectional classes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark & Zheng Xu
2010A Realization Optimality-Theoretic approach to affix order. Morphology 20(2). 381–411. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, Goma Banjade, Martin Gaenzle, Elena Lieven, Netra Prasad Paudya, Ichchha Purna Rai, Rai Manoj, Novel Kishore Rai & Sabine Stoll
2007Free prefix ordering in Chintang. Language 83. 43–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bonet, Eulàlia & Daniel Harbour
2012Contextual allomorphy. In Jochen Trommer (ed.), The morphology and phonology of exponence, 195–235. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, Geert
2010Construction Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Caballero, Gabriella
2010Scope, phonology and morphology in an agglutinating language: Choguita Rarámuri (Tarahumara) variable suffix ordering. Morphology 20. 165–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carstairs, Andrew
1988Some implications of phonologically conditioned suppletion. In Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1988, 67–94. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
1990Phonologically conditioned suppletion. In Wolfgang. U. Dressler, Hans C. Luschützky, Oskar E. Pfeiffer & John R. Rennison (eds.), Contemporary morphology, 17–23. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crysmann, Berthold & Olivier Bonami
2016Variable morphotactics in information-based morphology. Journal of Linguistics 52. 311–374. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006Die Grammatik (Band 4). Mannheim: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Embick, David & Morris Halle
2005On the status of stems in morphological theory. In Twan Geerts, Ivo van Ginnekan & Haike Jacobs (eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2003, 37–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Golla, Victor
1970Hupa grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California dissertation.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane
1997Projection, heads, and optimality. Linguistic Inquiry 28(3). 373–422.Google Scholar
Haiman, John
Harris, Alice C.
2017Multiple exponence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon
2011The interaction between morphology and phonology. In John Goldsmith, Jason Riggle & Alan C. L. Yu (eds.), The handbook of phonological theory, 68–102. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014The interplay of morphology and phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kasak, Ryan
2019Affix ordering and templatic morphology in Mandan. New Haven, CT: Yale University dissertation.Google Scholar
Kenesei, István, Robert M. Vago & Anna Fenyvesi
1997Hungarian. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul
1968Linguistic universals and linguistic change. In Emmon Bach & Robert T. Harms (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory, 170–210. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Lapointe, Steven G.
2001Stem selection and OT. In Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 1999, 263–297. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nordlinger, Rachel
2010Verbal morphology in Murrinh-Patha: Evidence for templates. Morphology 20. 321–341. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015Inflection in Murrinh-Patha. In Matthew Baerman (ed.), The Oxford handbook of inflection, 491–519. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Noyer, Rolf
1997Features, positions, and affixes in autonomous morphological structure. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Paster, Mary
2005Pulaar verbal extensions and phonologically driven affix order. In Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of morphology 2005, 155–199. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Richardson, Matthew
1997Czech clitics: 2P or not 2P, that is the question. In Lizanne Kaiser (ed.), Yale a-morphous linguistics essays, 131–150. New Haven: Department of Linguistics, Yale University.Google Scholar
Rounds, Carol
2001Hungarian: An essential grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ryan, Kevin
2010Variable affix order: Grammar and learning. Language 86.758–791. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spencer, Andrew & Ana R. Luís
2012Clitics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stump, Gregory T.
2001Inflectional morphology: A theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vago, Robert M.
1980The sound pattern of Hungarian. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Wurzel, Wolfgang Ullrich
1989Inflectional morphology and naturalness. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Xu, Zheng
2007Inflectional morphology in Optimality Theory. Stony Brook, NY: Stony Brook University dissertation.Google Scholar
2011Optimality Theory and morphology. Language and Linguistics Compass 5(7). 466–484. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016The role of morphology in Optimality Theory. In Andrew Hippisley & Gregory T. Stump (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of morphology, 550–587. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018The word status of Chinese adjective-noun combinations. Linguistics 56(1). 207–256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019Chinese adjective-noun combinations. In Franz Rainer, Francesco Gardani, Wolfgang U. Dressler & Hans Christian Luschützky (eds.), Competition in inflection and word-formation (Studies in Morphology 5), 307–334. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xu, Zheng & Mark Aronoff
2011aA Realization Optimality Theory approach to blocking and extended morphological exponence. Journal of Linguistics 47(3). 673–707. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011bA Realization Optimality-Theoretic approach to full and partial identity of forms. In Martin Maiden, John Charles Smith, Maria Goldbach & Marc-Olivier Hinzelin (eds.), Morphological autonomy: Perspectives from Romance inflectional morphology, 257–286. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar