Cover not available
Review published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 8:2 (1984) ► pp.259–286
Book review

Bernard Comrie. Language universals and linguistic typology. Syntax and morphology. Basil Blackwell, 1981. xii + 252 pp. £6.50andGraham Mallinson & Barry J. Blake. Language typology. Cross-linguistic studies in syntax [North-Holland Linguistic Series, 46]. North-Holland, 1981. xviii + 486 pp. Hfl. 125,--.

Reviewed by
| Universität Köln
Published online: 1 January 1984
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.8.2.11leh
References (29)
References
Anderson, John M. 1980. “Essential criteria for the establishment of linguistic typologies. Discussion”. TCLC 201:179–193.Google Scholar
Andrews, Avery Delano III. 1975. Studies in the syntax of relative and comparative clauses. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Ph.D. diss.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1976. “Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view”. Li, Ch. N. (ed.), Subject and topic. New York etc.: Academic Press; 25–55.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard/Smith, Norval. 1977. “Lingua Descriptive Studies: Questionnaire”. Lingua 42/1. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coseriu, Eugenio. 1972. “Über die Sprachtypologie Wilhelm von Humboldts”. Hösle, J./Eitel, W. (eds.), Beiträge zur vergleichenden Literaturgeschichte. Tübingen: Niemeyer; 107–135.Google Scholar
. 1980. “Introduction: Der Sinn der Sprachtypologie”. TCLC201:157–170.Google Scholar
Drossard, Werner. 1983. Das Tagalog als Repräsentant des aktivischen Sprachbaus. Köln: Inst. f. Sprachwiss. d. Univ. (unpublished Ph.D. diss.).Google Scholar
Foley, William August. 1976. Comparative syntax in Austronesian. Berkeley: Univ. of California (unpublished Ph.D. diss.)Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara A. 1982. [Review of Mallinson/Blake 1981]. AJL 21:261–265.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1954. “A quantitative approach to the morphological typology of language”. UAL 261 (1960):178–194.Google Scholar
1963. “Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements”. Greenberg, J. H. (ed.), Universals of language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press; 58–90.Google Scholar
1978. “How does a language acquire gender markers?” Greenberg (ed.) 1978, 31:47–82.Google Scholar
1978. “Typology and cross-linguistic generalizations”. Greenberg (ed.) 1978, 11:33–59.Google Scholar
(ed.) 1978. Universals of human language. 41 vols. Stanford: Stanford U.P.Google Scholar
Humboldt, Wilhelm von. 1836. “Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues und ihren Einfluβ auf die geistige Entwickelung des Menschengeschlechtes”. Humboldt, W. v. 1972, Werke in funf Banden, Darmstadt: Wiss. Buchgesellschaft vol. III1.; 368–756.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L./Comrie, Bernard. 1977. “Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar”. LI 81:63–99.Google Scholar
Klimov, G. A. 1977. Tipologija jazykov aktivnogo stroja. Moskva: Nauka.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1984. Der Relativsatz. Typologie seiner Strukturen, Theorie seiner Funktionen, Kompendium seiner Grammatik. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
. 1981. “Zur Universaliendiskussion in der italienischen Linguistik”. FoL 151:443–458.Google Scholar
. 1982. [Answers to the questions]. Lehmann, Ch. (ed.), Twenty-four questions on linguistic typology and a collection of answers. Koln: Inst. f. Sprachwiss. d. Univ. (akup, 461); 32–41.Google Scholar
. 1982. “Directions for interlinear morphemic translations”. FoL 161:199–224.Google Scholar
. 1982. “Some current views of the language universal”. LeSt 171:91–111.Google Scholar
. 1983. “Ergative (and active) traits in Latin”. Glossologia (Athens) 11:57–66.Google Scholar
. 1983. “Rektion und syntaktische Relationen”. FoL 171:339–378.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Edith. 1979. “Typology in Linguistics”. ALHung 291:315–337.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Edith A./Wirth, Jessica (eds.). 1980. Current approaches to syntax. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language. An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co.Google Scholar
Seiler, Hansjakob. 1972. “Universals of language”. Leuv. Bijdr. 611:371–391.Google Scholar
Smith, Neill V. 1982. [Review of Comrie 1981]. AJL 21:253–261.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Lehmann, Christian
1988. A survey of general comparative grammar. Journal of Linguistics 24:1 ► pp. 175 ff. DOI logo
van der Auwera, Johan
1986. Review of Lehmann (1984): Der Relativsatz. Typologie seiner Strukturen – Theorie seiner Funktionen – Kompendium seiner Grammatik. Studies in Language 10:1 ► pp. 151 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 july 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.