1932

Abstract

Analogy has returned to prominence in the field of inflectional morphology as a basis for new explanations of inflectional productivity. Here we review the rising profile of analogy, identifying key theoretical and methodological developments, areas of success, and priorities for future work. In morphological theory, work within so-called abstractive approaches places analogy at the center of productive processes, though significant conceptual and technical details remain to be settled. The computational modeling of inflectional analogy has a rich and diverse history, and attention is now increasingly directed to understanding inflectional systems through their internal complexity and cross-linguistic diversity. A tension exists between the prima facie promise of analogy to lead to new explanations and its relative lack of theoretical articulation. We bring this to light as we examine questions regarding inflectional defectiveness and whether analogy is reducible to grammar optimization resulting from simplicity biases in learning and language use.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030521-040935
2024-01-16
2024-06-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/10/1/annurev-linguistics-030521-040935.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030521-040935&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Ackerman F, Blevins JP, Malouf R 2009. Parts and wholes: implicative patterns in inflectional paradigms. Analogy in Grammar JP Blevins, J Blevins 54–82. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Ackerman F, Malouf R. 2013. Morphological organization: the low conditional entropy conjecture. Language 89:429–64
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Ackerman F, Malouf R 2015. The No Blur Principle effects as an emergent property of language systems. Proceedings of the Forty-First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS 41) AE Jurgensen, H Sande, S Lamoureux, K Baclawski, A Zerbe 1–14. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguist. Soc.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Ahlberg M, Forsberg M, Hulden M. 2014. Semi-supervised learning of morphological paradigms and lexicons. Proceedings of the 14th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics569–78. Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Ahlberg M, Forsberg M, Hulden M. 2015. Paradigm classification in supervised learning of morphology. Proceedings of the 2015 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies1024–29. Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Albright A 2003. A quantitative study of Spanish paradigm gaps. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 22 Proceedings G Garding, M Tsujimura 1–14. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Albright A. 2009. Lexical and morphological conditioning of paradigm gaps. Modeling Ungrammaticality in Optimality Theory117–64. London, UK: Equinox
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Albright A, Hayes B. 2002. Modeling English past tense intuitions with minimal generalization. Proceedings of the ACL-02 Workshop on Morphological and Phonological Learning, Vol. 658–69. Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Albright A, Hayes B. 2003. Rules versus analogy in English past tenses: a computational/experimental study. Cognition 90:2119–61
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Baayen RH, Chuang YY, Shafaei-Bajestan E, Blevins JP. 2019. The discriminative lexicon: a unified computational model for the lexicon and lexical processing in comprehension and production grounded not in (de)composition but in linear discriminative learning. Complexity 2019:4895891
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Baayen RH, Dijkstra T, Schreuder R. 1997. Singulars and plurals in Dutch: evidence for a parallel dual-route model. J. Mem. Lang. 37:194–117
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Baayen RH, McQueen JM, Dijkstra T, Schreuder R 2003. Frequency effects in regular inflectional morphology: revisiting Dutch plurals. Morphological Structure in Language Processing RH Baayen, R Schreuder 355–90. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Baerman M. 2008. Historical observations on defectiveness: the first singular non-past. Russ. Linguist. 32:81–97
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Baerman M. 2015. Paradigmatic deviations. The Oxford Handbook of Inflection M Baerman 141–59. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Baerman M, Corbett GG. 2010. Introduction: defectiveness: typology and diachrony. See Baerman et al. 2010 1–18
  16. Baerman M, Corbett GG, Brown D, eds. 2010. Defective Paradigms: Missing Forms and What They Tell Us Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Batali J. 2002. The negotiation and acquisition of recursive grammars as a result of competition among exemplars. Linguistic Evolution Through Language Acquisition: Formal and Computational Models T Briscoe 111–72. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Beckner C, Wedel A 2009. The roles of acquisition and usage in morphological change. Proceedings of the Thirty-Fifth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS 35): General Session and Parasession on Negation I Kwon, H Pritchett, J Spence 1–12. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguist. Soc.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Beniamine S. 2017. Un algorithme universel pour l'abstraction automatique d'alternances morphophonologiques. Actes de Traitement Automatique des Langues Naturelles (TALN'2017), Vol. 277–85. Paris: ATALA
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Beniamine S. 2018. Classifications flexionnelles: étude quantitative des structures de paradigmes PhD Thesis Univ. Sorbonne Paris Cité/Univ. Paris Diderot Paris:
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Beniamine S, Bonami O, Luís AR. 2021. The fine implicative structure of European Portuguese conjugation. Isogloss 7:9 https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/isogloss.109
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Beniamine S, Guzmán Naranjo M. 2021. Multiple alignments of inflectional paradigms. Proceedings of the Society for Computation in Linguistics 2021216–27. Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Berko J. 1958. The child's learning of English morphology. Word 14:2–3150–77
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Blevins JP. 2006. Word-based morphology. J. Linguist. 42:3531–73
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Blevins JP. 2016. Word and Paradigm Morphology Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Blevins JP, Milin P, Ramscar M 2017. The Zipfian Paradigm Cell Filling Problem. Morphological Paradigms and Functions F Kiefer, JP Blevins, H Bartos 141–58. Leiden, Neth.: Brill
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Bobaljik JD 2017. Distributed morphology. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics M Aronoff et al. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.131
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Bonami O, Beniamine S. 2016. Joint predictiveness in inflectional paradigms. Word Struct. 9:2156–82
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Bonami O, Boyé G 2014. De formes en thèmes. Foisonnements morphologiques. Etudes en hommage à Francoise Kerleroux F Villoing, S Leroy, S David 17–45. Nanterre, Fr.: Presses Univ. Paris Ouest
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Boyé G. 2016. Small world inflection morphology: a fragment for French conjugation Paper presented at the Computational Methods for Descriptive and Theoretical Morphology Workshop Vienna: Feb. 18–21
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Boyé G, Hofherr PC. 2010. Defectiveness as stem suppletion in French and Spanish verbs. See Baerman et al. 2010 35–52
  32. Boyé G, Schalchli G. 2019. Realistic data and paradigms: the paradigm cell finding problem. Morphology 29:199–248
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Burzio L. 1994. Principles of English Stress Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Bybee J. 2006. From usage to grammar: the mind's response to repetition. Language 82:4711–33
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Bybee J, McClelland JL. 2005. Alternatives to the combinatorial paradigm of linguistic theory based on domain general principles of human cognition. Linguist. Rev. 22:2–4381–410
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Bybee JL, Moder CL. 1983. Morphological classes as natural categories. Language 59:251–70
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Bybee JL, Slobin DI. 1982. Rules and schemas in the development and use of the English past tense. Language 58:2265–89
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Carstairs AD. 1987. Allomorphy in Inflexion London: Croom Helm
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Cotterell R, Kirov C, Hulden M, Eisner J. 2019. On the complexity and typology of inflectional morphological systems. Trans. Assoc. Comput. Linguist. 7:327–42
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Cotterell R, Kirov C, Sylak-Glassman J, Yarowsky D, Eisner J, Hulden M. 2016. The SIGMORPHON 2016 shared task—morphological reinflection. Proceedings of the 14th SIGMORPHON Workshop on Computational Research in Phonetics, Phonology, and Morphology10–22. Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Culbertson J, Kirby S. 2016. Simplicity and specificity in language: Domain-general biases have domain-specific effects. Front. Psychol. 6:1964
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Dąbrowska E. 2004. Rules or schemas? Evidence from Polish. Lang. Cogn. Process. 19:2225–71
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Dąbrowska E. 2008. The effects of frequency and neighbourhood density on adult speakers' productivity with Polish case inflections: an empirical test of usage-based approaches to morphology. J. Mem. Lang. 58:4931–51
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Daelemans W 2002. A comparison of analogical modeling to memory-based language processing. Analogical Modeling: An Exemplar-Based Approach to Language R Skousen, D Lonsdale, DB Parkinson 157–79. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Daelemans W, Gillis S, Durieux G. 1994. The acquisition of stress: a data-oriented approach. Comput. Linguist. 20:3421–53
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Daelemans W, van den Bosch A. 2005. Memory-Based Language Processing Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Davies AM. 1978. Analogy, segmentation and the early neogrammarians. Trans. Philol. Soc. 76:136–60
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Durrett G, DeNero J. 2013. Supervised learning of complete morphological paradigms. Proceedings of the 2013 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies1185–95. Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Eddington D. 2000. Analogy and the dual-route model of morphology. Lingua 110:4281–98
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Embick D. 2000. Features, syntax and categories in the Latin perfect. Linguist. Inq. 2:31185–230
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Frank MC, Goodman ND, Tenenbaum JB. 2009. Using speakers' referential intentions to model early cross-situational word learning. Psychol. Sci. 20:5578–85
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Garrett A. 2008. Paradigmatic uniformity and markedness. Linguistic Universals and Language Change J Good 125–43. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Gentner D, Forbus KD. 2011. Computational models of analogy. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Cogn. Sci. 2:3266–76
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Gentner D, Maravilla F. 2018. Analogical reasoning. The Routledge International Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning L Ball, V Thompson 186–203. London: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Guzmán Naranjo M. 2018. Analogical Classification in Formal Grammar Berlin: Lang. Sci. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Guzmán Naranjo M. 2020. Analogy, complexity and predictability in the Russian nominal inflection system. Morphology 30:3219–62
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Hahn U, Nakisa RC. 2000. German inflection: single route or dual route?. Cogn. Psychol. 41:4313–60
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Halle M. 1973. Prolegomena to a theory of word formation. Linguist. Inq. 4:3–16
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Hargus S. 2007. Witsuwit'en Grammar: Phonetics, Phonology, Morphology Vancouver, Can.: Univ. B.C. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Hockett CF. 1967. The Yawelmani basic verb. Language 43:1208–22
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Hooper JB 1976. Word frequency in lexical diffusion and the source of morphophonological change. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Historical Linguistics W Christie Amsterdam: North-Holland
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Joseph BD 2011. A localistic approach to universals and variation. Linguistic Universals and Language Variation P Siemund 404–24. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Kann K, Schütze H. 2016. MED: the LMU system for the SIGMORPHON 2016 shared task on morphological reinflection. In Proceedings of the 14th SIGMORPHON Workshop on Computational Research in Phonetics, Phonology, and Morphology62–70. Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Karlsson F 2000. Defectivity. Morphologie: ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung/Morphology: An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation G Booij, C Lehmann, J Mugdan 647–54. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Kenstowicz M 1996. Base-identity and uniform exponence: alternatives to cyclicity. Current Trends in Phonology: Models and Methods J Durand, BL Laks 363–93. Salford, UK: Univ. Salford Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Kibrik AE 2017. Archi (Caucasian – Daghestanian). The Handbook of Morphology A Spencer, AM Zwicky 453–76. Malden, MA: Blackwell
    [Google Scholar]
  67. King RD. 1969. Historical Linguistics and Generative Grammar Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Kiparsky P 1968. Linguistic universals and linguistic change. Universals in Linguistic Theory E Bach, R Harms 171–202. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Kiparsky P. 1970. Historical linguistics. New Horizons in Linguistics J Lyons 302–15. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Kiparsky P. 1971. Historical linguistics. A Survey of Linguistic Science WO Dingwall 576–649. College Park: Univ. Md.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Kiparsky P. 1974. On the evaluation measure. Proceedings of the Parasession on Natural Phonology A Bruck 328–37. Chicago: Chicago Linguist. Soc.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Kiparsky P. 1978. Analogical change as a problem for linguistic theory. Linguistics in the Seventies: Directions and Prospects: Forum Lectures Presented at the 1978 Linguistic Institute of the Linguistic Society of America B Kachru 77–96. Urbana: Univ. Ill.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Kirby S 2000. Syntax without natural selection: how compositionality emerges from vocabulary in a population of learners. The Evolutionary Emergence of Language: Social Function and the Origins of Linguistic Form C Knight, M Studdert-Kennedy, J Hurford 303–23. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Kirby S. 2001. Spontaneous evolution of linguistic structure—an iterated learning model of the emergence of regularity and irregularity. IEEE Trans. Evol. Comput. 5:2102–10
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Kirby S, Cornish H, Smith K. 2008. Cumulative cultural evolution in the laboratory: an experimental approach to the origins of structure in human language. PNAS 105:3110681–86
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Kirby S, Tamariz M, Cornish H, Smith K. 2015. Compression and communication in the cultural evolution of linguistic structure. Cognition 141:87–102
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Kirov C, Cotterell R. 2018. Recurrent neural networks in linguistic theory: revisiting Pinker and Prince (1988) and the past tense debate. Trans. Assoc. Comput. Linguist. 6:651–65
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Kirov C, Sylak-Glassman J, Que R, Yarowsky D 2016. Very-large scale parsing and normalization of wiktionary morphological paradigms. Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2016) N Calzolari et al. 3121–26. Paris: Eur. Lang. Res. Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Lepage Y. 1998. Solving analogies on words: an algorithm. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING 1998), Vol. 1728–34. Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Ling CX, Marinov M. 1993. Answering the connectionist challenge: a symbolic model of learning the past tenses of English verbs. Cognition 49:3235–90
    [Google Scholar]
  81. MacWhinney B, Leinbach J. 1991. Implementations are not conceptualizations: revising the verb learning model. Cognition 40:1–2121–57
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Maiden M. 2018. The Romance Verb: Morphomic Structure and Diachrony Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Maiden M, O'Neill P. 2010. On morphomic defectiveness: evidence from the Romance languages of the Iberian Peninsula. See Baerman et al. 2010 103–24
  84. Mooney RJ, Califf ME. 1995. Induction of first-order decision lists: results on learning the past tense of English verbs. J. Artif. Intel. Res. 3:1–24
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Newmeyer FJ. 2002. Uniformitarian assumptions and language evolution research. The Transition to Language A Wray 359–75. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Nicolai G, Cherry C, Kondrak G. 2015. Inflection generation as discriminative string transduction. Proceedings of the 2015 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies922–31. Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Nieder J, Tomaschek F, Cohrs E, van de Vijver R. 2022. Modelling Maltese noun plural classes without morphemes. Lang. Cogn. Neurosci. 37:3381–402
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Nosofsky RM. 1986. Attention, similarity, and the identification–categorization relationship. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 115:139–57
    [Google Scholar]
  89. O'Neill P. 2014. The morphome in constructive and abstractive models of morphology. Morphology 24:125–70
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Paul H. 1880. Principien der sprachgeschichte Halle, Ger.: Niemeyer
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Pellegrini M. 2019. Predictability in Latin inflection: an entropy-based approach PhD Thesis Univ. Stud. Bergamo Bergamo, Italy:
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Pirrelli V, Marzi C, Ferro M, Cardillo FA, Baayen HR, Milin P 2020. Psycho-computational modelling of the mental lexicon. Word Knowledge and Word Usage: A Cross-Disciplinary Guide to the Mental Lexicon V Pirrelli, I Plag, WU Dressler 223–82. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Plunkett K, Marchman V. 1993. From rote learning to system building: acquiring verb morphology in children and connectionist nets. Cognition 48:121–69
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Rácz P, Beckner C, Hay JB, Pierrehumbert JB. 2020. Morphological convergence as on-line lexical analogy. Language 96:4735–70
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Ramscar M. 2002. The role of meaning in inflection: why the past tense does not require a rule. Cogn. Psychol. 45:145–94
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Round ER 2015. Rhizomorphomes, meromorphomes and metamorphomes. Understanding and Measuring Morphological Complexity M Baerman, D Brown, GG Corbett 29–52. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Round ER, Beniamine S, Esher L. 2021. The role of attraction-repulsion dynamics in simulating the emergence of inflectional class systems. arXiv:2111.08465 [cs.CL]
  98. Round ER, Beniamine S, Esher L. 2023. The role of paradigm-external anchoring in simulating the emergence of inflection class systems Paper presented at the International Symposium of Morphology 2023 Nancy, Fr.: Sept. 13–15. https://ismo2023.ovh/fichiers/abstracts/33_ISMo_2023_Round_et_al.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Rumelhart DE, McClelland JL. 1986. On learning the past tenses of English verbs. Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition, Vol. 2 Psychological and Biological Models216–71. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Seidenberg MS, Plaut DC. 2014. Quasiregularity and its discontents: the legacy of the past tense debate. Cogn. Sci. 38:61190–228
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Sereno JA, Jongman A. 1997. Processing of English inflectional morphology. Mem. Cogn. 25:4425–37
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Sims A. 2006. Minding the gaps: inflectional defectiveness in paradigmatic morphology PhD Thesis Ohio State Univ. Columbus:
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Sims A. 2015. Inflectional Defectiveness Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Sims-Williams H. 2016. Analogical levelling and optimisation: the treatment of pointless lexical allomorphy in Greek. Trans. Philol. Soc. 114:3315–38
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Sims-Williams H. 2022. Token frequency as a determinant of morphological change. J. Linguist. 58:3571–607
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Sims-Williams H, Enger HO. 2021. The loss of inflection as grammar complication: evidence from Mainland Scandinavian. Diachronica 38:1111–50
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Skousen R. 1989. Analogical Modeling of Language Dordrecht, Neth.: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Skousen R. 1992. Analogy and Structure Dordrecht, Neth.: Kluwer
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Slobin DI 2004. From ontogenesis to phylogenesis: What can child language tell us about language evolution?. Biology and Knowledge Revisited: From Neurogenesis to Psychogenesis ST Parker, J Langer, C Milbrath 255–85. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Smith K, Kirby S, Brighton H. 2003. Iterated learning: a framework for the emergence of language. Artif. Life 9:4371–86
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Spencer A 2016. How are words related?. Morphological Metatheory D Siddiqi, H Harley 1–26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Stump G. 2016. Inflectional Paradigms: Content and Form at the Syntax-Morphology Interface Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Stump G, Finkel RA. 2013. Morphological Typology: From Word to Paradigm Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Taft M, Forster KI. 1975. Lexical storage and retrieval of prefixed words. J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav. 14:6638–47
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Thomason SG. 1976. Analogic change as grammar complication. Current Progress in Historical Linguistics: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Historical Linguistics401–9. Amsterdam: North-Holland
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Uchihara H, Tiburicio Cano G. 2020. A phonological account of Tlapanec (Mè'phàà) tonal alternation. J. Linguist. 56:4807–63
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Vincent N. 1974. Analogy reconsidered. Historical Linguistics JM Anderson, C Jones 427–45. Amsterdam: North-Holland
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Wulf DJ 2002. Applying analogical modeling to the German plural. Analogical Modeling: An Exemplar-Based Approach to Language R Skousen, D Lonsdale, DB Parkinson 109–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Wurzel WU. 1989. Inflectional Morphology and Naturalness Dordrecht, Neth.: Kluwer
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Yang C. 2016. The Price of Linguistic Productivity: How Children Learn to Break the Rules of Language Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030521-040935
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030521-040935
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error