Ackerman, Farrell, and Stump, Gregory. 2004. Paradigms and periphrastic expression. In Sadler, Louisa and Spencer, Andrew (eds.), Projecting Morphology, 111–57. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Ackerman, Farrell, and Webelhuth, Gert. 1998. A Theory of Predicates. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Alcoba, Santiago 1999. La flexión verbal. In Muñoz, Ignacio Bosque and Barreto, Violeta Demonte (eds.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española: Entre la oración y el discurso, vol. 3: Morfología, 4915–91. Madrid: Editorial Espasa Calpe.Google Scholar

Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-morphous Morphology. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

Aronoff, Mark, and Xu, Zheng. 2010. A realization optimality-theoretic approach to affix order. Morphology 20, 381–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baerman, Matthew. 2007. Morphological reversals. Journal of Linguistics 43, 33–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baerman, Matthew; Brown, Dunstan, and Corbett, Greville G.. 2005. The Syntax-morphology Interface: A Study of Syncretism. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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

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

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

Bonami, Olivier, and Boyé, Gilles. 2002. Suppletion and dependency in inflectional morphology. In van Eynde, Frank, Hellan, Lars, and Beermann, Dorothee (eds.), Proceedings of the HPSG 2001 Conference, Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Bonami, Olivier, and Boyé, Gilles. 2007. French pronominal clitics and the design of Paradigm Function Morphology. In Booij, G., Ducceschi, L., Fradin, B., Guevara, E., Ralli, A., and Scalise, S. (eds.), On-line Proceedings of the Fifth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting, 291–322. Università degli Studi di Bologna. https://geertbooij.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/mmm5-proceedings.pdf (accessed April 30, 2016).Google Scholar

Bonami, Olivier, and Samvelian, Pollet. 2008. Sorani Kurdish person markers and the typology of agreement. Paper read at the Thirteenth International Morphology Meeting, February 3, 2008. Vienna.Google Scholar

Bonami, Olivier, and Samvelian, Pollet. 2009. Inflectional periphrasis in Persian. In Müller, Stefan (ed.), Proceedings of the HPSG 2009 Conference, 26–46. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Bonami, Olivier, and Webelhuth, Gert. 2013. The phrase-structural diversity of periphrasis: A lexicalist account. In Chumakina, Marina and Corbett, Greville G., Periphrasis: The Role of Syntax and Morphology in Paradigms, 141–67. London and Oxford: British Academy and Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Börjars, Kersti; Vincent, Nigel, and Chapman, Carol. 1997. Paradigms, periphrases and pronominal inflection: A feature-based account. Yearbook of Morphology 1996, 155–80.Google Scholar

Brown, Dunstan, and Hippisley, Andrew. 2012. Network Morphology. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Crysmann, Berthold. 2002. Portuguese Cliticisation and Morphology-syntax Interaction in HPSG. Doctoral dissertation, Universität des Saarlandes.Google Scholar

Finkel, Raphael, and Stump, Gregory. 2007. Principal parts and morphological typology. Morphology 17, 39–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Finkel, Raphael, and Stump, Gregory. 2009. Principal parts and degrees of paradigmatic transparency. In Blevins, James P. and Blevins, Juliette (eds.), Analogy in Grammar: Form and Acquisition, 13–53. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Halle, Morris, and Marantz, Alec. 1993. Distributed Morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, Kenneth and Keyser, Samuel J. (eds.), The View from Building 20, 111–76. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Hippisley, Andrew. 2007. Declarative deponency: A Network Morphology account of morphological mismatches. In Baerman, Matthew, Corbett, Greville, Brown, Dunstan, and Hippisley, Andrew (eds.), Deponency and Morphological Mismatches, 145–73. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hockett, Charles F. 1954. Two models of grammatical description. Word 10, 210–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Janda, Richard D. 1983, “Morphemes” aren’t something that grows on trees: Morphology as more the phonology than the syntax of words. In Richardson, J. F., Marks, M., and Chukerman, A. (eds.), Papers from the Parasession on the Interplay of Phonology, Morphology, and Syntax, 79–95. Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar

Jörg, Christine. 1989. Isländische Konjugationstabellen. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.Google Scholar

Luís, Ana, and Spencer, Andrew. 2005. A paradigm function account of “mesoclisis” in European Portuguese. Yearbook of Morphology 2004, 177–228.Google Scholar

Luutonen, Jorma. 1997. The Variation of Morpheme Order in Mari Declension. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar

McFarland, Teresa Ann. 2009. The Phonology and Morphology of Filomeno Mata Totonac. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar

MacKenzie, David N. 1961–2. Kurdish Dialect Studies. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Monachesi, Paola. 1999. A Lexical Approach to Italian Cliticization. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Nevis, Joel A., and Joseph, Brian D.. 1992. Wackernagel affixes: Evidence from Balto-Slavic. Yearbook of Morphology 3, 93–111.Google Scholar

Pirelli, Vito, and Battista, Marco. 2000. The paradigmatic dimension of stem allomorphy in Italian verb inflection. Rivista di linguistica 12, 307–80.Google Scholar

Rice, Keren. 2000. Morpheme Order and Semantic Scope: Word Formation in the Athapaskan Verb. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Riggs, Stephen Return. 1893. Dakota Grammar, Texts, and Ethnography Contributions to North American Ethnology 9. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar

Round, Erich R. 2013. Kayardild Morphology and Syntax. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Sadler, Louisa, and Spencer, Andrew. 2001. Syntax as an exponent of morphological features. Yearbook of Morphology 2000, 71–96.Google Scholar

Samvelian, Pollet. 2007. What Sorani Kurdish absolute prepositions tell us about cliticization. In Hoyt, Frederic, Seifert, Nikki, Teodorescu, Alexandra, and White, Jessica (eds.), Texas Linguistics Society IX: The morphosyntax of understudied languages, 263–83. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar

Spencer, Andrew. 2003. The order of morphemes. In Fábregas, Antonio and Zurdo, Almudena (eds.), Cuadernos de Lingüística X, 53–64. Madrid: Instituto Universitario Ortega y Gasset.Google Scholar

Spencer, Andrew, and Stump, Gregory. 2013. Hungarian pronominal case and the dichotomy of content and form in inflectional morphology. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 31.4, 1207–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stewart, Tom, and Stump, Gregory. 2007. Paradigm Function Morphology and the morphology/syntax interface. In Ramchand, Gillian and Reiss, Charles (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Interfaces, 383–421. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Stump, Gregory T. 1993a. How peculiar is evaluative morphology? Journal of Linguistics 29, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stump, Gregory T. 1993b. Position classes and morphological theory. Yearbook of Morphology 1992, 129–80.Google Scholar

Stump, Gregory T. 1995. The uniformity of head marking in inflectional morphology. Yearbook of Morphology 1994, 245–96.Google Scholar

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

Stump, Gregory T. 2002. Morphological and syntactic paradigms: Arguments for a theory of paradigm linkage. Yearbook of Morphology 2001, 147–80.Google Scholar

Stump, Gregory T. 2006. Heteroclisis and paradigm linkage. Language 82, 279–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stump, Gregory T. 2010. Interactions between defectiveness and syncretism. In Baerman, Matthew, Corbett, Greville, and Brown, Dunstan (eds.), Defective Paradigms: Missing Forms and What They Tell Us, Proceedings of the British Academy 163, 181–210. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Stump, Gregory T. 2012. Variable affix ordering and the amorphousness hypothesis. Paper presented at the First American International Morphology Meeting (AIMM), University of Massachusetts, Amherst, September 22, 2012.Google Scholar

Stump, Gregory. 2016. Inflectional Paradigms: Content and Form at the Syntax-morphology Interface. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

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

Stump, Gregory, and Hippisley, Andrew. 2011. Valence sensitivity in Pamirian past-tense inflection: A realizational analysis. In Korn, Agnes, Haig, Geoffrey, Karimi, Simin, and Samvelian, Pollet (eds.), Topics in Iranian Linguistics, 103–15. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag.Google Scholar

Thornton, Anna M. 2012. Reduction and maintenance of overabundance: A case study on Italian verb paradigms. Word Structure 5.2, 183–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Walther, Géraldine. 2012. Fitting into morphological structure: Accounting for Sorani Kurdish endoclitics. In Ralli, Angela, Booij, Geert, Scalise, Sergio, and Karasimos, Athanasios (eds.), Proceedings of the 8th Mediterranean Morphology Meeting, Cagliari, Italy, 300–21. University of Patras.Google Scholar

Whitney, William Dwight. 1889. Sanskrit Grammar, 2nd edn. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Yu, Alan C. L. 2007. A Natural History of Infixation. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Zwicky, Arnold M. 1994, Morphological metageneralizations: Morphology, phonology, and morphonology. Paper presented at the Kentucky Foreign Language Conference, University of Kentucky, April 1994.Google Scholar