Review published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 15:1 (1991) ► pp.149174
Aarsleff, Hans
1970 “The history of linguistics and Professor Chomsky”. Language 461: 570–585. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anttila, Raimo
1985 “Language, cognition, and linguistics”. In: Makkai and Melby (eds) 1985: 11–22.Google Scholar
Bluhme, Hermann; and Hammarström, Göran
(eds) 1987Descriptio linguistica: Proceedings of the first conference on descriptive and structural linguistics, Antwerp 9–10 September 1985. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight
1965 “The atomization of meaning”. Language 411: 555–573. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brugman, Claudia
1981Story of Over. M.A. Thesis, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Diver, William
1975 “Introduction”. Columbia University Working Papers in Linguistics 21: 1–20. (Second, corrected printing 1980).Google Scholar
1977 “A concise grammar of Modern English I”. Columbia University Working Papers in Linguistics 41: 1–20.Google Scholar
1981 “On defining the discipline”. Columbia University Working Papers in Linguistics 61: 59–117.Google Scholar
1982 “The focus-control interlock in Latin”. Columbia University Working Papers in Linguistics 71: 13–31.Google Scholar
1986 “The history of linguistics in the West. How the study of language went wrong in the Western tradition”. Helicon 111: 43–68. Nara City, Japan: Tezukayama College English Department.Google Scholar
García, Erica C.
1975The role of theory in linguistic analysis: The Spanish pronoun system. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk
1986Woordbetekenis: Een overzicht van de lexicale semantiek. Leuven: Uitgeverij Acco.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H.
(ed.) 1963Universals of language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Haiman, John
(ed.) 1985Iconicity in syntax. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1985 “Introduction”. In: Haiman (ed.) 1985: 1–7. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoekstra, Teun; Hulst, Harry van der; and Moortgat, Michael
(eds) 1981Perspectives on functional grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Kirsner, Robert S.
1975 “On the mechanism of the restriction of the Dutch ‘pseudo-passive’ to human actions”. Columbia University Working Papers in Linguistics 21: 93–125. (Second, corrected printing 1980).Google Scholar
1979The problem of presentative sentences in Modern Dutch. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
1983 “On the use of quantitative discourse data to determine inferential mechanisms in grammar”. In: Klein-Andreu (ed.) 1983: 237–257.Google Scholar
Klein-Andreu, Flora
(ed.) 1983Discourse perspectives on syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1983 “Preface”. In: Klein-Andreu (ed.) 1983: xvxvii.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George
1987Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George; and Johnson, Mark
1980Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
1982 “Space grammar, analysability, and the English passive”. Language 581: 22–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1987Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume I1. Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, Cal: Stanford University PresGoogle Scholar
Makkai, Adam; and Melby, Alan K.
(eds) 1985Linguistics and philosophy: Essays in honor of Rulon S. Wells. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Otheguy, Ricardo L.
1977The meaning of Spanish EL, LA, and LO. Ph.D. dissertation, The City University of New York.Google Scholar
Reid, Wallis
1974 “The Saussurean sign as a control in linguistic analysis”. Semiotext[e] 11: 31–53.Google Scholar
1991English verb and noun number: A functional explanation. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan; and Wilson, Deidre
1986Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.Google Scholar
Tobin, Yishai
1987 “Three sign-oriented theories: A contrastive approach”. In: Bluhme and Hammarstrm (eds) 1987: 51–75.Google Scholar
(ed.) 1989From sign to text: A semiotic view of communication. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1989 “Introduction”. In: Tobin (ed.) 1989: 1–19.Google Scholar
1990Semiotics and linguistics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel
1963 “On the semantic structure of language”. In: Greenberg (ed.) 1963: 114–171.Google Scholar
Zubin, David A.
1972The German case system: Exploitation of the Dative Accusative opposition for comment. Manuscript, Columbia University.Google Scholar
1975 “On the distributional properties of surface morphology and their consequences for semantic analysis”. Columbia University Working Papers in Linguistics 21: 169–195. (Second, corrected printing 1980).Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Foolen, Ad
1992. From etymology to pragmatics: Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Lingua 88:1  pp. 76 ff. DOI logo
Glynn, Dylan
2014. Polysemy and synonymy. In Corpus Methods for Semantics [Human Cognitive Processing, 43],  pp. 7 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 february 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.