, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 445–480 | Cite as

The penumbra of morphosyntactic feature systems

Original Paper


  1. Baerman, M. (2002a). Armenian. In Surrey syncretisms database.
  2. Baerman, M. (2002b). Surrey person syncretism database.
  3. Baerman, M., Brown, D., & Corbett, G. G. (2002). The Surrey syncretism database.
  4. Baerman M., Brown D., Corbett G.G. (2005) The syntax-morphology interface: A study of syncretism. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bechhaus-Gerst M. (1996) Sprachwandel durch Sprachkontakt am Beispiel des Nubischen im Niltal: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen einer diachronen Soziolinguistik. Cologne, Rüdiger KöppeGoogle Scholar
  6. Bickel B., Nichols J. (2005) Inclusive-exclusive as person vs. number categories worldwide. In: Filimonova E. (eds) Clusivity: Typology and case studies of the inclusive–exclusive distinction Typological Studies in Language 63. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 49–72Google Scholar
  7. Blake B.J. (1994) Case. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Bliss, H. (2005). Constructing dual number in Hopi. In M.-O. Junker, M. McGinnis & Y. Roberge (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2004 Canadian linguistics association annual conference.
  9. Bloomfield L. (1933) Language. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Bobaljik J.D. (2008) Missing persons: A case study in morphological universals. The Linguistic Review 25: 203–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brehmer, B. (2009). Changes and persistencies in the use of Russian masculine genitives in –u: New evidence from corpus linguistics. In S. Birzer, M. Finkelstein, & I. Mendoza (Eds.), Proceedings of the second international perspectives on slavistics conference: Regensburg 2006 (=Die Welt der Slaven special volume 36 (pp. 53–67). Munich: Otto Sagner.Google Scholar
  12. Brown, D. (1998a). From the general to the exceptional: A network morphology account of Russian nominal inflection. PhD thesis, University of Surrey.Google Scholar
  13. Brown D. (1998) Defining ‘subgender’: Virile and devirilized nouns in Polish. Lingua 104: 187–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brown D. (2007) Peripheral functions and overdifferentiation: The Russian second locative. Russian Linguistics 31: 61–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brown D., Tiberius C., Corbett G.G. (2007) The alignment of form and function: Corpus-based evidence. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 12: 511–534Google Scholar
  16. Brown, L., & Dryer, M. S. (Ms.). Diminutive as an inflectional category in Walman. Ms. University at Buffalo. Accessed 1 January 19, 2009.Google Scholar
  17. Browne G.M. (2002) Old Nubian grammar (Languages of the World/Materials 330). Lincom Europa, MunichGoogle Scholar
  18. Bybee J.L. (1985) Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. John Benjamins, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  19. Carstairs-McCarthy A. (1994) Inflection classes, gender, and the principle of contrast. Language 70: 737–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chumakina, M., Kibort, A., & Corbett, G. G. (2007). Determining a language’s feature inventory: Person in Archi. In P. K. Austin & A. Simpson (Eds.), Endangered languages (special issue of Linguistische Berichte, number 14) (pp. 143–172). Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
  21. Comrie B. (1986) On delimiting cases. In: Brecht R.D., Levine J. (eds) Case in Slavic. Slavica, Columbus, OH, pp 86–106Google Scholar
  22. Comrie B. (1991) Form and function in identifying cases. In: Plank F. (eds) Paradigms: The economy of inflection (Empirical approaches to language typology 9). Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 41–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Comrie, B. (2003). When agreement gets trigger-happy. In D. Brown, G. Corbett & C. Tiberius (Eds.), Agreement: A typological perspective. (Special issue of Transactions of the Philological Society 101 no. 2) (pp. 313–373). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  24. Comrie B., Stone G., Polinsky M. (1996) The Russian language in the twentieth century. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  25. Corbett G.G. (1991) Gender. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. Corbett G.G. (2000) Number. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  27. Corbett G.G. (2003) Agreement: Canonical instances and the extent of the phenomenon. In: Booij G., DeCesaris J., Ralli A., Scalise S. (eds) Topics in Morphology: Selected papers from the third Mediterranean morphology meeting (Barcelona, September 20–22, 2001). Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, pp 109–128Google Scholar
  28. Corbett G.G. (2006) Agreement. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. Corbett G.G. (2007) Canonical typology, suppletion and possible words. Language 83: 8–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Corbett, G. G. (2007b). Deponency, syncretism and what lies between. In M. Baerman, G. G. Corbett, D. Brown, & A. Hippisley (Eds.), Deponency and morphological mismatches (Proceedings of the British Academy, 145) (pp. 21–43). Oxford: British Academy and Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Corbett G.G. (2007) Gender and noun classes. In: Shopen T. (eds) Language typology and syntactic description: III: Grammatical categories and the lexicon (2nd ed). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 241–279Google Scholar
  32. Corbett G.G. (2008) Determining morphosyntactic feature values: The case of case. In: Corbett G.G., Noonan M. (eds) Case and grammatical relations: Papers in honor of Bernard Comrie. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 1–34Google Scholar
  33. Corbett, G. G. (Forthcoming a). Higher order exceptionality in inflectional morphology. To appear In H. J. Simon & H. Wiese (Eds.), Expecting the unexpected: Exceptions in grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter [With comments by Stephen Anderson.].Google Scholar
  34. Corbett, G. G. (Forthcoming b). Features: Some key concepts. To appear In A. Kibort & G. G. Corbett (Eds.), Features: Perspectives on a key notion in linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Corbett, G. G. (Forthcoming c). Canonical morphosyntactic features. To appear In D. Brown, G. G. Corbett & M. Chumakina (Eds.), Canonical morphology and syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Corbett G.G., Baerman M. (2006) Prolegomena to a typology of morphological features. Morphology 16: 231–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Corbett, G. G., & Fraser, N. M. (1993). Network morphology: A DATR account of Russian inflectional morphology. Journal of Linguistics, 29, 113–142. (Reprinted in Morphology: Critical concepts in Linguistics, VI: Morphology: Its Place in the Wider Context, pp. 364–396, by F. X. Katamba, Ed., 2003, London: Routledge.)Google Scholar
  38. Cysouw, M. (2003). The paradigmatic structure of person marking. (Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory). Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  39. Cysouw, M. (2005). Syncretisms involving clusivity. In E. Filimonova (Ed.), Clusivity: Typology and case studies of the inclusive–exclusive distinction (Typological Studies in Language 63) (pp. 73– 111). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  40. Daniel, M. (2005). Understanding inclusives. In E. Filimonova (Ed.), Clusivity: Typology and case studies of the inclusive–exclusive distinction (Typological Studies in Language 63) (pp. 3–48). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  41. Dol, P. (2007). A grammar of Maybrat: A language of the Bird’s Head Penisula, Papua Province, Indonesia (Pacific Linguistics, 586). Canberra: Pacific Linguistics, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University.Google Scholar
  42. Evans, N. (2003). Typologies of agreement: some problems from Kayardild. In D. Brown, G. G. Corbett, & C. Tiberius (Eds.), Agreement: A typological perspective (Special issue of Transactions of the Philological Society 101, no. 2) (pp. 203–34). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  43. Evans N., Brown D., Corbett G.G. (2002) The semantics of gender in Mayali: Partially parallel systems and formal implementation. Language 78: 111–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Fankhauser F. (1911) Das Patois von Val d’Illiez (Unterwallis). Halle (Saale), Ehrhardt KarrasGoogle Scholar
  45. Fenech E. (1996) Functions of the dual suffix in Maltese. Rivista di Linguistica 8: 89–99Google Scholar
  46. Foley W.A. (1986) The Papuan languages of New Guinea. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  47. Foley W.A. (1991) The Yimas language of New Guinea. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  48. Friedman V.A. (1993) Macedonian. In: Comrie B., Corbett G.G. (eds) The Slavonic Languages. Routledge, London, pp 249–305Google Scholar
  49. Gibson L., Bartholomew D. (1979) Pame noun inflection. International Journal of American Linguistics 45: 309–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Gladkij A.V. (2007) O točnyx i matematičeskix metodax v lingvistike i drugix gumanitarnyx naukax. Voprosy jazykoznanija 5: 22–38Google Scholar
  51. Goddard C. (1982) Case systems and case marking in Australian languages: A new interpretation. Australian Journal of Linguistics 2: 167–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Graudina L.K., Ickovič V.A., Katlinskaja L.P. (1976) Grammatičeskaja pravil′nost′russkoj reči: opyt častotno-stilističeskogo slovarja variantov. Nauka, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  53. Greenberg J.H. (1963) Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In: Greenberg J.H. (eds) Universals of Language. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 73–113Google Scholar
  54. Haiman J. (1974) Targets and syntactic change. Mouton, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  55. Harbour, D. (2007). Morphosemantic number: From Kiowa noun classes to UG number features (Studies in natural language and linguistic theory 69). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  56. Haviland J. (1979) Guugu Yimidhirr. In: Dixon R.M.W., Blake B.J. (eds) Handbook of Australian languages. Australian National University Press, Canberra, pp 27–180Google Scholar
  57. Heine, B. (1968). Die Verbreitung und Gliederung der Togorestsprachen (Kölner Beiträge zur Afrikanistik 1). Berlin: Reimer.Google Scholar
  58. Hutchisson D. (1986) Sursurunga pronouns and the special uses of quadral number. In: Wiesemann U. (eds) Pronominal systems (Continuum 5). Tübingen, Narr, pp 217–255Google Scholar
  59. Igartua I. (2006) Genus alternans in Indo-European. Indogermanische Forschungen 111: 56–70Google Scholar
  60. Iggesen O.A. (2005) Case-Asymmetry: A world-wide typological study on lexeme-class-dependent deviations in morphological case inventories. Lincom Europa, MunichGoogle Scholar
  61. Ilola, E., & Mustajoki, A. (1989). Report on Russian morphology as it appears in Zaliznyak’s Grammatical Dictionary (=Slavica Helsingiensia 7). Helsinki: Department of Slavonic Languages, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
  62. Jakobson, R. O. (1958/1971). Morfologičeskie nabljudenija nad slavjanskim skloneniem (sostav russkix padežnyx form). In American contributions to the Fourth International Congress of Slavists, Moscow, September 1958. The Hague: Mouton, 127–156. (Reprinted from Selected Writings II, pp. 154–183, by R. Jakobson Ed., 1971, The Hague: Mouton. Translated as Morphological observations on Slavic declension (the structure of Russian case forms). In L. R. Waugh & M. Halle (Eds.), Roman Jakobson. Russian and Slavic grammar: Studies 1931–1981. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 105–133).Google Scholar
  63. Mel′čuk, I. (1986). Toward a definition of case. In R. D. Brecht & J. Levine (Eds.), Case in Slavic (pp. 35–85). Columbus, OH: Slavica. (Revised version in I. Mel′čuk, Aspects of the theory of Morphology, pp. 110–179, by D. Beck, Ed., 2006, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.)Google Scholar
  64. Meyer, P. (1994). Grammatical categories and the methodology of linguistics: Review article on van Helden, W. Andries: 1993, Case and gender: Concept formation between morphology and syntax. Russian Linguistics, 18, 341–377.Google Scholar
  65. Nikolaeva, I., Spencer, A. (2008). Nouns as adjectives and adjectives as Nouns. Ms.Google Scholar
  66. Panov, M. V. (Ed.). (1968). Morfologija i sintaksis sovremennogo russkogo literaturnogo jazyka (Russkij jazyk i sovetskoe obščestvo: Sociologo-lingvističeskoe issledovanie: III). Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
  67. Pasch H. (1985) Possession and possessive classifiers in ’Dongo-ko. Afrika und übersee 68: 69–85Google Scholar
  68. Pasch, H. (1986). Die Mba-Sprachen: Die Nominalklassensysteme und die genetische Gliederung einer Gruppe von Ubangi-Sprachen (Sprache und Geschichte in Afrika 6). Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
  69. Patri, S. (2007). L’alignement syntaxique dans les langues indo-européennes d’Anatolie (Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten: herausgegeben von der Kommission für den Alten Orient der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Mainz, 49). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
  70. Paus C. (1994) Social and pragmatic conditioning in the decline of the Russian partitive case. Russian Linguistics 18: 249–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Plungian [Plungjan] V.A. (2002) K semantike russkogo lokativa. Semiotika i informatika 37: 229–254Google Scholar
  72. Polinsky, M. (2003). Non-canonical agreement is canonical. In D. Brown, G. Corbett, & C. Tiberius (Eds.), Agreement: A typological perspective (Special issue of Transactions of the Philological Society 101 no. 2), (pp. 279–312). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  73. Pullum, G. K., Tiede, H.-J. (forthcoming). Inessential features and expressive power of descriptive metalanguages. To appear in A. Kibort & G. G. Corbett (Eds.), Features: Perspectives on a key notion in linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Rapold C.J. (2007) From demonstratives to verb agreement in Benchnon: A diachronic perspective. In: Amha A., Mous M., Savà G. (eds) Omotic and Cushitic language studies: Papers from the fourth Cushitic Omotic conference, Leiden, 10–12 April 2003. Rüdiger Köppe Verlag, Cologne, pp 69–88Google Scholar
  75. Ross, M. D. (1988). Proto Oceanic and the Austronesian languages of Western Melanesia (Pacific Linguistics, series C, no. 98). Canberra: Department of Linguistics, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University.Google Scholar
  76. Seifart, F. (2005). The structure and use of shape-based noun classes in Miraña (North West Amazon). PhD thesis, Radboud University, Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  77. Sparing-Chávez M.W. (1998) Amahuaca (Panoan). In: Derbyshire D.C., Pullum G.K. (eds) Handbook of Amazonian languages: IV. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 441–485Google Scholar
  78. Spencer, A. (2005). Extending deponency. In M. Baerman, G. G. Corbett, D. Brown, & A. Hippisley (Eds.), Deponency and Morphological Mismatches (Proceedings of the British Academy, 145), (pp. 45–70). Oxford: British Academy and Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  79. Steinhauer H. (1985) Number in Biak: Counterevidence to two alleged language universals. Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 141: 462–485Google Scholar
  80. Stump, G. T. (2005). A non-canonical pattern of deponency and its implications. In M. Baerman, G. G. Corbett, D. Brown, & A. Hippisley (Eds.), Deponency and morphological mismatches (Proceedings of the British Academy, 145), (pp. 71–95). Oxford: British Academy and Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  81. Stump G.T. (2006) Heteroclisis and paradigm linkage. Language 82: 279–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Stump, G. T., & Finkel, R. (2008). Stem alternations and principal parts in French verb inflection. Paper presented at Décembrettes 6: Colloque International de Morphologie, Morphologie et classes flexionnelles, December 4–5, 2008, Université de Bordeaux, France.Google Scholar
  83. Suthar, B. K. (2006). Agreement in Gujarati. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  84. Thornton, A. (2008). A non-canonical phenomenon in Italian verb morphology: double forms realizing the same cell. Paper read at the First Oxford Workshop On Romance verb morphology, 27–28 August, Oxford.Google Scholar
  85. Tucker, A. N., & Bryan, M. A. (1966). Linguistic analyses: The Non-Bantu languages of North-Eastern Africa (With a supplement on the Ethiopic Languages by Wolf Leslau). London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  86. Uspenskij, B. A. (2004). Čast′i celoe v russkoj grammatike. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul′tury.Google Scholar
  87. van Helden, W. A. (1993). Case and gender: Concept formation between morphology and syntax (II volumes) (Studies in Slavic and general linguistics 20). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  88. van den Heuvel, W. (2006). Biak: Description of an Austronesian language of Papua. PhD thesis, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam,
  89. Wierzbicka A. (1983) The semantics of case marking. Studies in Language 7: 247–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Worth D.S. (1984) Russian gen2, loc2 revisited. In: Baak J.J. (eds) Signs of friendship: To honour A. G. F van Holk, Slavist, Linguist, Semiotician. Rodopi, Amsterdam, pp 295–306Google Scholar
  91. Xalilov, M. Š. (1985). Ob ograničennom množestvennom čisle suščestvitel′nyx bežtinskogo jazyka. In K. Š. Mikailov (Ed.), Kategorija čisla v dagestanskix jazykax: sbornik statej, (pp. 136–143). Makhachkala: Dagestanskij filial AN SSSR.Google Scholar
  92. Xalilov, M. Š. (1995). Bežtinsko-russkij slovar′. Makhachkala: Dagestanskij naučnyj centr Rossijskoj akademii nauk.Google Scholar
  93. Zaliznjak, A. A. (1967). Russkoe imennoe slovoizmenenie Moscow: Nauka. (Reprinted in Russkoe imennoe slovoizmenenie: s priloženiem izbrannyx rabot po sovremennomu russkomu jazyku i obščemu jazykoznaniju, (pp. 1–370), by. A. A. Zaliznjak , Ed., 2002, Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul′tury.)Google Scholar
  94. Zaliznjak, A. A. (1973). O ponimanii termina ‘padež’ v lingvističeskix opisanijax. In Andrej A. Zaliznjak (Ed.), Problemy grammatičeskogo modelirovanija (pp. 53–87). Moscow: Nauka, [Reprinted in: Andrej A. Zaliznjak. 2002. Russkoe imennoe slovoizmenenie: s priloženiem izbrannyx rabot po sovremennomu russkomu jazyku i obščemu jazykoznaniju. Moscow: Jazyki slavjanskoj kul′tury. 613–47.].Google Scholar
  95. Zaliznjak, A. A. (1977). Grammatičeskij slovarrusskogo jazyka: slovoizmenenie. Moscow: Russkij jazyk. [A fourth, corrected edition appeared in 2003, Moscow: Russkie slovari.].Google Scholar
  96. Zwicky A. (1996) Syntax and phonology. In: Brown K., Miller J. (eds) Concise Encyclopedia of syntactic theories. Elsevier Science, Oxford, pp 300–305Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Surrey Morphology GroupUniversity of SurreyGuildford, SurreyUK

Personalised recommendations