1887
Volume 33, Issue 4
  • ISSN 0176-4225
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9714
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Historical linguists have long been divided in their views about the mechanisms behind paradigm leveling, with many invoking a special mechanism related to a universal preference for paradigm uniformity while others attribute leveling to the same mechanism responsible for other types of analogical change. I argue that although ‘proportional’ analogical innovation plays a major role in paradigm leveling, it cannot account for all cases, and that something akin to the ‘interference’ mechanisms commonly associated with contamination and folk etymology account well for the non-proportional instances. I further show that all of the mechanisms involved in paradigm leveling are also implicated in other types of analogical change, and I argue against the need to posit any universal bias against (stem) allomorphy.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/dia.33.4.01fer
2016-12-19
2019-10-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ackerman, Farrell , James P. Blevins & Robert Malouf
    2009 Parts and wholes: Patterns of relatedness in complex morphological systems and why they matter. In Blevins & Blevins (2009b), Analogy in grammar: Form and acquisition,54–82.
  2. Ackerman, Farrell & Robert Malouf
    . Forthcoming. Implicative relations in word-based morphological systems. In Andrew Hippisley & Gregory Stump (eds.) The Cambridge handbook of morphology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Albright, Adam C
    2002The identification of bases in morphological paradigms. Ph.D. diss., University of California Los Angeles.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Albright, Adam
    2005 The morphological basis of paradigm leveling. In Downing et al. (2005b), Paradigms in phonological theory,17–43.
  5. 2010 Base-driven leveling in Yiddish verb paradigms. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory28. 475–537. doi: 10.1007/s11049‑010‑9107‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-010-9107-z [Google Scholar]
  6. 2011 Paradigms. In Marc van Oostendorp , Colin J. Ewen , Elizabeth Hume & Keren Rice (eds.), The Blackwell companion to phonology, vol. 4: Phonological interfaces 1972–2001 Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Alderete, John R
    2001 Dominance effects as transderivational anti-faithfulness. Phonology18. 201–253. doi: 10.1017/S0952675701004067
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952675701004067 [Google Scholar]
  8. Andersen, Henning
    1980 Morphological change: Towards a typology. In Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Historical morphology, 1–50. New York: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Anderson, Stephen R
    1992A-morphous morphology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 2005 Morphological universals and diachrony. In Booij & van Marle (2005), 1–17.
  11. Andersson, Erik
    1994 Swedish. In König & van der Auwera (1994), The Germanic languages,271–312.
  12. Anttila, Raimo
    1989Historical and comparative linguistics, 2nd edn. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.6
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.6 [Google Scholar]
  13. Aronoff, Mark
    1998 Isomorphism and monotonicity: Or the disease model of morphology. In Steven G. Lapointe , Diane K. Brentari & Patrick M. Farrell (eds.), Morphology and its relation to phonology and syntax, 411–418. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 1994Morphology by itself. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Aronoff, Mark & Kirsten Fudeman
    2005What is morphology?Malden, MA: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Askedal, John Ole
    1994 Norwegian. In König & van der Auwera (1994), The Germanic languages,219–270.
  17. Bauer, Laurie
    2003Introducing linguistic morphology, 2nd edn. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Bebermeyer, Renate
    1974 Zur Volksetymologie: Wesen und Formen. In Jochen Möckelmann (ed.), Sprache und Sprachhandeln: Festschrift für Gustav Bebermeyer, 156–187. Hildesheim: Olms.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Becker, Thomas
    1990Analogie und morphologische Theorie. München: Fink.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Behaghel, Otto
    1886Die deutsche Sprache. Leipzig: Freytag.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Bierwisch, Manfred
    1987 A structural paradox in lexical knowledge. In Elke van der Meer & Joachim Hoffmann (eds.), Knowledge aided information processing, 141–172. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Blevins, James P
    2003 Stems and paradigms. Language79. 737–767. doi: 10.1353/lan.2003.0206
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2003.0206 [Google Scholar]
  23. 2004 Inflection classes and economy. In Gereon Müller , Lutz Gunkel & Gisela Zifonun (eds.), Explorations in nominal inflection, 41–85. New York: de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110197501.51
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197501.51 [Google Scholar]
  24. 2006 Word-based morphology. Journal of Linguistics42(3). 531–5. doi: 10.1017/S0022226706004191
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226706004191 [Google Scholar]
  25. Blevins, James P. & Juliette Blevins
    2009a Introduction: Analogy in grammar. In Blevins & Blevins (2009b), Analogy in grammar: Form and acquisition,1–12.
  26. (eds.) 2009bAnalogy in grammar: Form and acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Blevins, Juliette
    2004Evolutionary phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486357
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486357 [Google Scholar]
  28. Bloomfield, Leonard
    1933Language. New York: Holt.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Bobaljik, Jonathan David
    2002 Syncretism without paradigms: Remarks on Williams 1981, 1994. In Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 2001, 53–85. Berlin: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Booij, Geert
    2002The morphology of Dutch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Booij, Geert & Jaap van Marle
    (eds.) 2005Yearbook of Morphology 2004. Dordrecht: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Broe, Michael & Janet Pierrehumbert
    (eds.) 2000Papers in Laboratory Phonology 5. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Brugmann, Karl
    1876 Nasalis Sonans in der indogermanischen Grundsprache. In Georg Curtius & Karl Brugmann (eds.), Studien zur griechischen und lateinischen Grammatik, vol. 9, 285–338. Leipzig: Hirzel.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Burzio, Luigi
    2005 Sources of paradigm uniformity. In Downing et al. (2005b), Paradigms in phonological theory,65–106.
  35. Bybee, Joan
    1980 Morphophonemic change from inside and outside the paradigm. Lingua50. 45–59. doi: 10.1016/0024‑3841(80)90079‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(80)90079-0 [Google Scholar]
  36. 1988 Morphology as lexical organization. In Michael Hammond & Michael Noonan (eds.), Theoretical morphology, 119–141. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 1991 Natural morphology: The organization of paradigms and language acquisition. In Thom Huebner & Charles A. Ferguson (eds.), Crosscurrents in second language acquisition and linguistic theories, 67–91. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/lald.2.08byb
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.2.08byb [Google Scholar]
  38. 2000 Lexicalization of sound change and alternating environments. In Broe & Pierrehumbert (2000), Papers in Laboratory Phonology 5,250–268.
  39. 2001Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511612886
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511612886 [Google Scholar]
  40. 2015Language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Bybee, Joan L. & Carol Lynn Moder
    1983 Morphological classes as natural categories. Language59. 251–270. doi: 10.2307/413574
    https://doi.org/10.2307/413574 [Google Scholar]
  42. Bybee, Joan L. & Jean E. Newman
    1995 Are stem changes as natural as affixes?Linguistics33, 633–654. doi: 10.1515/ling.1995.33.4.633
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1995.33.4.633 [Google Scholar]
  43. Bybee, Joan , Revere Perkins & William Pagliuca
    1994The evolution of grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Bynon, Theodora
    1977Historical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Campbell, Alistair
    1959Old English grammar. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Campbell, Lyle
    2004Historical linguistics: An introduction, 2nd edn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Carstairs-McCarthy, Andrew
    2008 System-congruity and violable constraints in German weak declension. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory26. 775–793. doi: 10.1007/s11049‑008‑9055‑z
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-008-9055-z [Google Scholar]
  48. 2010The evolution of morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Chirita, Diana
    1988Der Ausgleich des Ablauts im starken Präteritum im Frühneuhochdeutschen. New York: Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Chomsky, Noam & Morris Halle
    1968The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Christmann, Ernst
    1937 Zur Frage der Volksetymologie. Zeitschrift für Mundartforschung13(1). 1–8.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Clark, Eve V
    1987 The principle of contrast: A constraint on language acquisition. In Brian MacWhinney (ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition, 1–33. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Coates, Richard
    1987 Pragmatic sources of analogical reformation. Journal of Linguistics23. 319–340. doi: 10.1017/S0022226700011294
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700011294 [Google Scholar]
  54. Curtius, Georg
    1860 Das dreisilbengesetz der griechischen und lateinischen betonung. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung9. 321–338.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Davies, Anna Morpurgo
    1978 Analogy, segmentation, and the early Neogrammarians. Transactions of the Philological Society76(1). 36–60. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑968X.1978.tb01025.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-968X.1978.tb01025.x [Google Scholar]
  56. Davis, Stuart
    2005 Capitalistic v. militaristic: The paradigm uniformity effect reconsidered. In Downing et al. (2005b), Paradigms in phonological theory,107–121.
  57. Downing, Laura J. , Tracy A. Hall & Renate Raffelsiefen
    2005a Introduction: The role of paradigms in phonological theory. In Downing et al. (2005b), Paradigms in phonological theory,1–16.
  58. (eds.) 2005bParadigms in phonological theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Dresher, B. Elan
    2000 Analogical levelling of vowel length in West Germanic. In Lahiri (2000b), Analogy, levelling, markedness: Principles of change in phonology and morphology,47–70.
  60. Ducháček, Otto
    1964 L’attraction lexicale. Philologica Pragensia7. 65–76.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Embick, David
    2013 Morphemes and morphophonological loci. In Ora Matushansky & Alec Marantz (eds.), Distributed morphology today: Morphemes for Morris Halle, 151–166. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. doi: 10.7551/mitpress/9780262019675.003.0009
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262019675.003.0009 [Google Scholar]
  62. Fertig, David
    1998 Suppletion, natural morphology, and diagrammaticity. Linguistics36. 1065–1091. doi: 10.1515/ling.1998.36.6.1065
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1998.36.6.1065 [Google Scholar]
  63. 1999 Analogical ‘leveling’ from outside the paradigm: Stem-vowel changes in the German modals. Diachronica16. 233–260. doi: 10.1075/dia.16.2.02fer
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.16.2.02fer [Google Scholar]
  64. 2000Morphological change up close. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. 2013Analogy and morphological change. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. 2015 Two conceptions of analogical innovation/change. In Peter Auer & Robert W. Murray (eds.), Hermann Paul’s ‘Principles of language history’ revisited, 209–236. Berlin: de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. 2016 Staying weird: Analogical change in high-frequency forms. Talk presented at the 22nd Germanic Linguistics Annual Conference , Reykjavík, Iceland, May 20, 2016.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Flemming, Edward
    2002Auditory representations in phonology. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Gaeta, Livio
    2007 Is analogy economic?In Fabio Montermini , Gilles Boyé & Nabil Hathout (eds.), Selected proceedings of the 5th Décembrettes: Morphology in Toulouse, 20–33. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. 2010 Analogical change. In Silvia Luraghi & Vit Bubenik (eds.), The Continuum companion to historical linguistics, 147–160. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Garrett, Andrew
    2008 Paradigmatic uniformity and markedness. In Good (2008b), Linguistic universals and language change,125–143.
  72. Garrett, Andrew & Keith Johnson
    2013 Phonetic bias in sound change. In Alan C.L. Yu (ed.), Origins of sound change, 51–97. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199573745.003.0003
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199573745.003.0003 [Google Scholar]
  73. Gerken, LouAnn , Rachel Wilson , Rebecca Gómez & Erika Nurmsoo
    2009 The relation between linguistic analogies and lexical categories. In Blevins & Blevins (2009b), Analogy in grammar: Form and acquisition,101–117.
  74. Godfrey, Elizabeth & Sali Tagliamonte
    1999 Another piece for the verbal s story: Evidence from Devon in southwest England. Language Variation and Change11. 87–121. doi: 10.1017/S0954394599111050
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394599111050 [Google Scholar]
  75. Good, Jeff
    2008a Introduction. In Good (2008b), Linguistic universals and language change,1–19.
  76. (ed.) 2008bLinguistic universals and language change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Greenberg, Joseph H
    1966 Synchronic and diachronic universals in phonology. Language42. 508–517. doi: 10.2307/411706
    https://doi.org/10.2307/411706 [Google Scholar]
  78. Haberland, Hartmut
    1994 Danish. In König & van der Auwera (1994), The Germanic languages,313–348.
  79. Hale, Mark & Charles Reiss
    2008The phonological enterprise. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Halle, Morris & Alec Marantz
    1993 Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Kenneth Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), The view from Building20, 111–171. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Harris, James W
    1973 On the order of certain phonological rules in Spanish. In Stephen R. Anderson & Paul Kiparsky (eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle, 59–76. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Haspelmath, Martin
    2006 Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics42(1). 25–70. doi: 10.1017/S0022226705003683
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226705003683 [Google Scholar]
  83. Hempen, Ute
    1988Die starken Verben im Deutschen und Niederländischen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. doi: 10.1515/9783111358420
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111358420 [Google Scholar]
  84. Hermann, Eduard
    1931Lautgesetz und Analogie (Abhandlungen der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Philologisch-Historische Klasse, neue Folge 23, 3). Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung.
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Hill, Eugen
    2007 Proportionale Analogie, paradigmatischer Ausgleich und Formerweiterung: ein Beitrag zur Typologie des morphologischen Wandels. Diachronica24. 81–118. doi: 10.1075/dia.24.1.05hil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.24.1.05hil [Google Scholar]
  86. Hock, Hans Henrich
    1991Principles of historical linguistics, 2nd edn. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110219135
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219135 [Google Scholar]
  87. Hock, Hans H. & Brian D. Joseph
    2009Language history, language change, and language relationship, 2nd edn. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110214307
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214307 [Google Scholar]
  88. Hockett, Charles F
    1954 Two models of grammatical description. Word10. 210–234. [Reprinted in Martin Joos (ed.). 1963. Readings in linguistics, 386–399. New York: American Council of Learned Societies.]. doi: 10.1080/00437956.1954.11659524
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1954.11659524 [Google Scholar]
  89. Iverson, Gregory K. & Joseph C. Salmons
    2004 The conundrum of Old Norse umlaut: Sound change versus crisis analogy. Journal of Germanic Linguistics16. 77–110. doi: 10.1017/S1470542704000364
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1470542704000364 [Google Scholar]
  90. Jeffers, Robert J. & Ilse Lehiste
    1979Principles and methods for historical linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Jespersen, Otto
    1887 Zur Lautgesetzfrage. Internationale Zeitschrift für allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft3. 188–216.
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Joseph, Brian D
    1998 Diachronic morphology. In Andrew Spencer & Arnold M. Zwicky (eds.), The handbook of morphology, 351–373. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Kapatsinski, Vsevolod
    2013 Conspiring to mean: Experimental and computational evidence for a usage-based harmonic approach to morphophonology. Language89. 110–148. doi: 10.1353/lan.2013.0003
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2013.0003 [Google Scholar]
  94. Kenstowicz, Michael & Charles Kisseberth
    1977Topics in phonological theory. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Kenstowicz, Michael
    2005 Paradigmatic uniformity and contrast. In Downing et al. (2005b), Paradigms in phonological theory,145–169.
  96. King, Robert D
    1973 Rule insertion. Language49. 551–578. doi: 10.2307/412351
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412351 [Google Scholar]
  97. Kiparsky, Paul
    1968 Linguistic universals and linguistic change. In Emmon Bach & Robert T. Harms (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory, 170–202. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
  98. 1972 Explanation in phonology. In Stanley Peters (ed.), Goals of lingusitic theory, 189–227. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  99. 1978 Analogical change as a problem for linguistic theory. In Braj B. Kachru (ed.), Linguistics in the seventies: Directions and prospects, 77–96. Urbana: Dept. of Linguistics, University of Illinois.
    [Google Scholar]
  100. 1992 Analogy. In William Bright (ed.), International encyclopedia of linguistics, vol. 1, 56–61. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  101. 2000 Opacity and cyclicity. The Linguistic Review17. 351–366. doi: 10.1515/tlir.2000.17.2‑4.351
    https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.2000.17.2-4.351 [Google Scholar]
  102. König, Ekkehard & Johan van der Auwera
    (eds.) 1994The Germanic languages. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Krahe, Hans & Wolfgang Meid
    1969Germanische Sprachwissenschaft II: Formenlehre. Berlin: de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Kruszewski, Mikołaj
    1884–1890 Prinzipien der Sprachentwickelung. Internationale Zeitschrift für allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft1(1884). 295–307; 2(1885). 258–268; 3(1887). 145–187; 5(1890). 133–144, 339–360.
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Lahiri, Aditi
    2000a Introduction. In Lahiri (2000b), Analogy, levelling, markedness: Principles of change in phonology and morphology,1–14.
  106. (ed.) 2000bAnalogy, levelling, markedness: Principles of change in phonology and morphology. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Lehmann, Winfried
    1962Historical linguistics: An introduction. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Lieber, Rochelle
    1992Deconstructing morphology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Linell, Per
    1979Psychological reality in phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Luiten, Tyler , Andrea Menz , John M. Lindner & Joseph Salmons
    2013 Beyond the handbooks: A quantitative approach to Old High German phonology and morphology. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur135(1). 2–20.
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Maiden, Martin
    2005 Morphological autonomy and diachrony. In Booij & van Marle (2005), Yearbook of Morphology 2004,137–175.
  112. 2008 Lexical nonsense and morphological sense: On the real importance of ‘folk etymology’ and related phenomena for historical linguists. In Þórhallur Eyþórsson (ed.), Grammatical change and linguistic theory, 307–328. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/la.113.12mai
    https://doi.org/10.1075/la.113.12mai [Google Scholar]
  113. Mańczak, Witold
    1958 Tendences générales des changements analogiques. Lingua7. 298–325, 387–420. doi: 10.1016/0024‑3841(57)90101‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(57)90101-8 [Google Scholar]
  114. Matthews, Peter H
    1972Inflectional morphology: A theoretical study based on aspects of Latin verb conjugation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Mayerthaler, Willi
    1981Morphologische Natürlichkeit. Wiesbaden: Athenaion.
    [Google Scholar]
  116. McCarthy, John J
    2005 Optimal paradigms. In Downing et al. (2005b), Paradigms in phonological theory,170–210.
  117. Mengden, Ferdinand von
    2011 Ablaut or transfixation? On the Old English strong verbs. In Renate Bauer & Ulrike Krischke (eds.), More than words: English lexicography and lexicology past and present, 123–139. New York: Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Misteli, Franz
    1880 Lautgesetz und Analogie. Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft11. 365–475.
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Nübling, Damaris
    2000Prinzipien der Irregularisierung. Tübingen: Niemeyer. doi: 10.1515/9783110915082
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110915082 [Google Scholar]
  120. 2008 Was tun mit Flexionsklassen? Deklinationsklassen und ihr Wandel im Deutschen und seinen Dialekten. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik75. 282–331.
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Oertel, Hanns
    1901Lectures on the study of language. New York: Scribner’s.
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Ohala, John J
    1981 The listener as a source of sound change. In Carrie S. Masek , Roberta A. Hendrick & Mary Frances Miller (eds.), Papers from the Parasession on Language and Behavior, 178–203. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  123. 2012 The listener as a source of sound change: An update. In Solé & Recasens (2012), The initiation of sound change,21–35.
  124. Olschansky, Heike
    1996Volksetymologie. Berlin: de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Osthoff, Hermann
    1878 Kleine beiträge zur declinationslehre der indogermanischen sprachen, pt. 1. In Hermann Osthoff & Karl Brugmann (eds.), Morphologische Untersuchungen auf dem Gebiete der Indogermanischen Sprachen, vol. 1, 207–290. Leipzig: Hirzel.
    [Google Scholar]
  126. 1879a Das physiologische und psychologische Moment in der sprachlichen Formenbildung. In Rudolf Birchow & Franz von Holtzendorff (eds.), Sammlung gemeinverständlicher wissenschaftlicher Vorträge, vol. 14, no. 337, 505–552. Berlin: Habel.
    [Google Scholar]
  127. 1879b Kleine beiträge zur declinationslehre der indogermanischen sprachen II. In Hermann Osthoff & Karl Brugmann (eds.), Morphologische Untersuchungen auf dem Gebiete der Indogermanischen Sprachen, vol. 2, 1–147. Leipzig: Hirzel.
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Panagl, Oswald
    1982Aspekte der Volksetymologie (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, Vorträge und Kleinere Schriften 30). Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck.
    [Google Scholar]
  129. Paul, Hermann
    1877 Die Vocale der Flexions- und Ableitungs-Silben in den aeltesten germanischen Dialecten. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur4. 315–475.
    [Google Scholar]
  130. 1886Principien der Sprachgeschichte, 2nd edn. Halle: Niemeyer.
    [Google Scholar]
  131. 1917Deutsche Grammatik, vol. 2. Halle: Niemeyer.
    [Google Scholar]
  132. 1920Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte, 5th edn. Halle: Niemeyer.
    [Google Scholar]
  133. 1989Mittelhochdeutsche Grammatik, 23rd edn., ed. by Peter Wiehl & Siegfried Grosse . Tübingen: Niemeyer.
    [Google Scholar]
  134. Pinker, Steven
    1999Words and rules. New York: HarperCollins.
    [Google Scholar]
  135. Prokosch, Edward
    1939A comparative Germanic grammar. Philadelphia: Linguistic Society of America.
    [Google Scholar]
  136. Ringe, Don
    2006A linguistic history of English, vol. 1: From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  137. Robins, Robert H
    1959 In defence of WP. Transactions of the Philological Society58. 116–144. doi: 10.1111/j.1467‑968X.1959.tb00301.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-968X.1959.tb00301.x [Google Scholar]
  138. Ronneberger-Sibold, Elke
    2002 Volksetymologie und Paronomasie als lautnachahmende Wortschöpfung. In Mechthild Habermann , Peter O. Müller & Horst Haider Munske (eds.), Historische Wortbildung des Deutschen, 105–127. Berlin: de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110940756.105
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110940756.105 [Google Scholar]
  139. Rundblad, Gabriella & David B. Kronenfeld
    2003 The inevitability of folk etymology: A case of collective reality and invisible hands. Journal of Pragmatics35. 119–138. doi: 10.1515/9783110940756.105
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110940756.105 [Google Scholar]
  140. Salmons, Joseph
    2012A history of German. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  141. Samuels, M.L
    1972Linguistic evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139086707
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139086707 [Google Scholar]
  142. Sapir, Edward
    1921Language. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
    [Google Scholar]
  143. Saussure, Ferdinand de
    1995 [1916]Cours de linguistique générale, ed. by Charles Bally & Albert Sechehaye . Paris: Payot.
    [Google Scholar]
  144. Schirmunski, V.M
    1962Deutsche Mundartkunde. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  145. Schuchardt, Hugo
    1885Über die Lautgesetze: Gegen die Junggrammatiker. Berlin: Robert Oppenheim. [Reprinted in Vennemann & Wilbur (1972), 1–38; English translation 41–72.].
    [Google Scholar]
  146. Solé, Maria-Josep & Daniel Recasens
    (eds.) 2012The initiation of sound change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.323
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.323 [Google Scholar]
  147. Steriade, Donca
    2000 Paradigm uniformity and the phonetics–phonology boundary. In Broe & Pierrehumbert (2000), Papers in Laboratory Phonology 5,313–334.
  148. Stump, Gregory T
    2001Inflectional morphology: A theory of paradigm structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511486333
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486333 [Google Scholar]
  149. 2016Inflectional paradigms: Content and form at the syntax-morphology interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781316105290
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316105290 [Google Scholar]
  150. Sturtevant, Edgar H
    1917Linguistic change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  151. Thomason, Sarah G
    1974 On the analysis of inflectional change. Papers in Linguistics7. 351–379. doi: 10.1080/08351817409370378
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351817409370378 [Google Scholar]
  152. Trask, R.L
    1996Historical linguistics. London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  153. Trommer, Jochen
    2012 Constraints on multiple-feature mutation. Lingua122. 1182–1192. doi: 10.1016/j.lingua.2012.05.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.05.007 [Google Scholar]
  154. Ullmann, Stephen
    1957The principles of semantics, 2nd edn. New York: Barnes and Noble.
    [Google Scholar]
  155. Vennemann, Theo
    1974 Words and syllables in natural generative grammar. In Anthony Bruck , Robert A. Fox & Michael W. LaGaly (eds.), Papers from the Parasession on Natural Phonology, 346–374. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  156. 1999 Volksetymologie und Ortsnamenforschung. Beiträge zur Namenforschung34(3). 269–322.
    [Google Scholar]
  157. Vennemann, Theo & Terence H. Wilbur
    (eds.) 1972Schuchardt, the Neogrammarians, and the transformational theory of phonological change. Frankfurt: Athenäum.
    [Google Scholar]
  158. Wheeler, Benjamin Ide
    1887Analogy and the scope of its application in language. Ithaca, NY: John Wilson and Son University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  159. Wolf, Matthew
    2007 For an autosegmental theory of mutation. In Leah Bateman , Adam Werle , Michael O’Keefe & Ehren Reilly (eds.), University of Massachusetts Occasional Working Papers in Linguistics32, 315–404. Amherst, MA: GLSA.
    [Google Scholar]
  160. Wundt, Wilhelm
    1900Völkerpsychologie, vol. 1: Die Sprache, part 1. Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann.
    [Google Scholar]
  161. Wurzel, Wolfgang Ullrich
    1984Flexionsmorphologie und Natürlichkeit. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  162. 1989aInflectional Morphology and Naturalness. Boston: Kluwer [Translation of Wurzel 1984].
    [Google Scholar]
  163. 1989b Von der Inadäquatheit einer Affixmorphologie. Linguistische Studien, Reihe A194. 277–298.
    [Google Scholar]
  164. Zager, David
    1980A real time process model of morphological change. Ph.D. diss., University at Buffalo (SUNY).
    [Google Scholar]
  165. Zwicky, Arnold M
    1990 Inflectional morphology as a (sub)component of grammar. In Wolfgang U. Dressler , Hans C. Luschützky , Oskar E. Pfeiffer & John R. Rennison (eds.), Contemporary morphology, 217–236. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/dia.33.4.01fer
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error