The Morphome

Literature Cited

1. Ackerman F, Blevins J, Malouf R 2009. Parts and wholes: implicative patterns in inflectional paradigms. Analogy in Grammar J Blevins, J Blevins 54–82 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
   [Google Scholar]
2. Andersen H. 2010. From morphologization to demorphologization. The Bloomsbury Companion to Historical Linguistics S Luraghi, V Bubeník 117–46 London, UK: Continuum
   [Google Scholar]
3. Arkadiev P. 2017. Stems in Lithuanian verbal inflection (with remarks on derivation). Word Struct 5:7–27
   [Google Scholar]
4. Aronoff M. 1994. Morphology by Itself Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
5. Aronoff M. 2016a. A fox knows many things but a hedgehog one big thing. The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology A Hippisley, G Stump 186–205 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
   [Google Scholar]
6. Aronoff M. 2016b. Unnatural kinds. See Luís & Bermúdez-Otero 2016 11–32
7. Bermúdez-Otero R, Luís A. 2016. A view of the morphome debate. See Luís & Bermúdez-Otero 2016 309–40
8. Blevins J. 2016. Word and Paradigm Morphology Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
9. Corbett G. 2016. Morphomic splits. See Luís & Bermúdez-Otero 2016 65–88
10. Embick D. 2016. On the distribution of stem alternants: separation and its limits. See Luís & Bermúdez-Otero 2016 276–305
11. Enger HO. 2019. In defence of morphomic analyses. Acta Linguist. Hafniensia 51:31–59
    [Google Scholar]
12. Esher L. 2013. Future and conditional in Occitan: a non-canonical morphome. The Boundaries of Pure Morphology: Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives S Cruschina, M Maiden, JC Smith 95–115 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
13. Esher L. 2014. Autonomous morphology and extramorphological coherence. Morphology 24:325–50
    [Google Scholar]
14. Esher L. 2015a. Formal asymmetries between the Romance synthetic future and conditional in the Occitan varieties of the western Languedoc. Trans. Philol. Soc. 113:249–70
    [Google Scholar]
15. Esher L. 2015b. Morphomes and predictability in the history of Romance perfects. Diachronica 32:494–529
    [Google Scholar]
16. Esher L. 2016. Morphomic distribution of augments in varieties of Occitan. Rev. Romane 51:271–306
    [Google Scholar]
17. Esher L. 2017. Morphome death and transfiguration in the history of French. J. Linguist. 53:51–84
    [Google Scholar]
18. Gaglia S. 2011. Representational aspects of morphomic vowel variation in southern Italy. See Maiden et al. 2011 95–118
19. Herce B. 2019. Morphome interactions. Morphology 29:109–32
    [Google Scholar]
20. Herce B. 2020. A typological approach to the morphome PhD Thesis, Univ. Surrey, Surrey, UK/Univ. Basque Country Leioa, Spain:
21. Kaye S. 2013. Morphomic stems in the Northern Talyshi verb: diachrony and synchrony. The Boundaries of Pure Morphology: Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives S Cruschina, M Maiden, JC Smith 181–208 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
22. Koontz-Garboden A. 2016. Thoughts on diagnosing morphomicity: a case study from Ulwa. See Luís & Bermúdez-Otero 2016 89–111
23. Lombard A. 1955. Le verbe roumain: étude morphologique 2 Lund, Swed: Gleerup
24. Luís A, Bermúdez-Otero R. 2016. The Morphome Debate Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
25. Maiden M. 2001. A strange affinity: “perfecto y tiempos afines. Bull. Hisp. Stud. 78:441–64
    [Google Scholar]
26. Maiden M. 2005. Morphological autonomy and diachrony. Yearbook of Morphology 2004 G Booij, J van Marle 137–75 Dordrecht, Neth: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
27. Maiden M. 2008. Lexical nonsense and morphological sense: on the real importance of “folk etymology” and related phenomena for historical linguists. Grammatical Change and Linguistic Theory: The Rosendal Papers T Eythórsson 307–28 Amsterdam: Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
28. Maiden M. 2011a. Allomorphy, autonomous morphology and phonological conditioning in the history of the Daco-Romance present and subjunctive. Trans. Philol. Soc. 109:59–91
    [Google Scholar]
29. Maiden M. 2011b. Morphophonological persistence. The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages, Vol. 1: Structures M Maiden, JC Smith, A Ledgeway 155–215, 699–706 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
30. Maiden M. 2013. The Latin “third stem” and its Romance descendants. Diachronica 30:492–530
    [Google Scholar]
31. Maiden M. 2016. Some lessons from history: morphomes in diachrony. See Luís & Bermúdez-Otero 33–63
32. Maiden M. 2018a. The Romance Verb: Morphomic Structure and Diachrony Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
33. Maiden M. 2018b. Romanian iotacization and the morphology of second person singular verb-forms. The type (tu) vii, (tu) rămâi. . Rev. Roum. Linguist 63:325–40
    [Google Scholar]
34. Maiden M. 2020a. Establishing contact: Slavonic influence on Romanian morphology. J. Lang. Contact. In press
    [Google Scholar]
35. Maiden M. 2020b. Un problema trascurato di morfologia storica: la terza persona plurale del presente indicativo nell'italoromanzo. Tra etimologia romanza e dialettologia P del Puente, F Guazzelli, L Molinu, S Pisano pp. 245–59 Alessandria, Italy: dell'Orso
    [Google Scholar]
36. Maiden M, Smith JC, Goldbach M, Hinzelin MO 2011. Morphological Autonomy: Perspectives from Romance Inflectional Morphology Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
37. Maschi R. 2007. Analogy and irregularity in Romance verbal morphology. Proceedings of the Fifth Mediterranean Morphology Meeting (MMM5) Fréjus 15–18 September 2005 G Booij et al.125–39 Bologna, Italy: Univ. Bologna
    [Google Scholar]
38. Nevins A, Rodrigues C, Tang K 2015. The rise and fall of the L-shaped morphome: diachronic and experimental. Probus 27:101–55
    [Google Scholar]
39. Nielsen PJ. 2019. Diachronic morphology, indexical function and a critique of the morphome analysis: the content and expression of Danish forstå. Perspectives on Language Structure and Language Change L Heltoft, I Igartua, B Joseph, K Jeppesen Kragh, L Schøsler 125–50 Amsterdam: Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
40. Nishiyama K. 2016. The theoretical status of ren'yoo (stem) in Japanese verbal morphology. Morphology 26:65–90
    [Google Scholar]
41. O'Neill P. 2011a. The evolution of the pretérito y tiempos afines in Ibero-Romance. Bull. Hisp. Stud. 88:851–78
    [Google Scholar]
42. O'Neill P. 2011b. The notion of the morphome. See Maiden et al. 2011 70–94
43. O'Neill P. 2014. The morphome in constructive and abstractive models of morphology. Morphology 24:25–70
    [Google Scholar]
44. O'Neill P. 2015. The origin and spread of velar allomorphy in the Spanish verb. Bull. Hisp. Stud. 92:489–518
    [Google Scholar]
45. Pușcariu S. 1937. Considérations sur le système phonétique et phonologique de la langue roumaine. Etudes de linguistique roumaine S Puşcariu 203–59 Cluj, Rom: Impr. Natl.
    [Google Scholar]
46. Round E. 2015. Rhizomorphomes, meromorphomes, and metamorphomes. Understanding and Measuring Morphological Complexity M Baerman, D Brown, G Corbett 29–52 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
47. Round E. 2016. Kayardild inflectional morphotactics is morphomic. See Luís & Bermúdez-Otero 2016 228–47
48. Santamarina A, Fernández Rei F, García Pérez C 1990–2005. Atlas lingüístico galego, Vol. 1: Morfoloxía verbal Corunna, Spain: Fund. Pedro Barrie de la Maza, Conde de Fenosa
    [Google Scholar]
49. Saramandu N. 1992. Iotacizarea verbelor și structura dialectală a dacoromânei. Limba Română 41:83–87
    [Google Scholar]
50. Sims-Williams H. 2016. Analogical levelling and optimisation: the treatment of pointless lexical allomorphy in Greek. Trans. Philol. Soc. 114:315–38
    [Google Scholar]
51. Wälchli B. 2018. The morphologization of negation constructions in Nalca (Mek, Tanah Papua), or, how nothing easily moves to the middle of a word. Linguistics 56:1413–61
    [Google Scholar]