Review published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 27:2 (2003) ► pp.415425
References (12)
References
Bowerman, M. 1996. The origins of children’s spatial semantic categories: Cognitive versus linguistic determinants. In J. J. Gumperz and S. Levinson (eds.), Rethinking Linguistic Relativity [Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundation of Language No. 171], 145–76. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. 1995. Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 10 (5): 425–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giles, H. and A. Williams. 1992. Accommodating hypercorrection: A communication model. Language and Communication 12 (3/4): 343–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, J. 1966. Language Universals, with Special Reference to Feature Hierarchies. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Hooper, J. B. 1976. Word frequency in lexical diffusion and the source of morphophonological change. In W. Christie (ed.), Current Progress in Historical Linguistics, 96–105. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. 1987. Emergent grammar: BLS 131: 139–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998. Emergent grammar. In Michael Tomasello (ed.), The New Psychology of Language, 155–175. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. and S. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 561: 251–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, R. 1960. Concluding statement: Linguistics and poetics. In T. A. Sebeok (ed.), Style in Language, 350–77. New York: John Wiley & Sons and The Technology Press of Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Labov, W. 1969. Contraction, deletion, and inherent variability of the English copula. Language 45(4): 715–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J. 1994. Subjecthood and subjectivity. In M. Yaguello (ed.), Subjecthood and Subjectivity: The Status of the Subject in Linguistic Theory, 9–17. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Sankoff, G. and W. Labov. 1985. Variation theory. Paper presented at NWAVE 14, at Georgetown University.