Chapter in:
Linguistic Categories, Language Description and Linguistic Typology
Edited by Luca Alfieri, Giorgio Francesco Arcodia and Paolo Ramat
[Typological Studies in Language 132] 2021
References

References

Beck, David
2016Some language-particular terms are comparative concepts. Linguistic Typology 20(2):995–402.Google Scholar
Belardi, Walter
1990Contrasti teorici nella linguistica del Novecento. In Linguistica, filologia e critica dell’espressione, Belardi Walter (ed.), 93–154. Roma: Il Calamo.Google Scholar
Bossong, Georg
1992Reflections on the history of the study of universals. The case of the partes orationis . In Meaning and Grammar. Cross-linguistic Perspectives [Belgian Journal of Linguistics 4], Michel Kefer & Johan van der Auwera (eds), 3–16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Botha, Rudolph
2016Language Evolution. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan
1985Morphology. A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form [Typological Studies in Language 9]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2010Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Perkins, Revere & Pagliuca, William
1994The Evolution of Grammar. Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1976Aspect. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
1978Ergativity. In Syntactic Typology: Studies in the Phenomenology of Language, Winfred P. Lehmann (ed.), 329–394. Austin TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
1981[1989]Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cristofaro, Sonia
2014Competing motivation models and diachrony: What evidence for what motivations? In Competing Motivations in Grammar and Usage, Brian MacWhinney, Andrej L. Malchukov & Edith A. Moravcsik (eds), 282–298. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Croft, William
1990[2003]Typology and Universals. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
2000Parts of speech as language universals and language-particular categories. In Approaches to the Typology of Word-Classes, Petra M. Vogel & Comrie Bernard (eds), 65–102. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2001Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2005Word-classes, parts of speech and syntactic argumentation. Linguistic Typology 9: 431–441.Google Scholar
2016Comparative concepts and language-specific categories: Theory and practice. Linguistic Typology 20(2): 377–393.Google Scholar
Croft, William & van Lier, Eva
2012Language universals without universal categories. Theoretical Linguistics 38(1–2): 57–72.Google Scholar
Cysouw, Michael & Good, Jeff
2000Languoid, doculect and glossonym: Formalizing the notion ‘language’. Language Documentation and Conservation 7: 331–359.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen
2016Thoughts on language-specific and cross-linguistic entities. Linguistic Typology 20(2): 427–437.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W.
1977Where have all adjectives gone? Studies in Languages 1: 19–77. (Repr. 1982. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter).Google Scholar
1979Ergativity. Language 55: 59–138.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S.
1992The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language 68(1): 81–138.Google Scholar
1997Are grammatical relations universal? In Essays on Language Function and Language Type: Dedicated to T. Givón, Joan Bybee, John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 115–143. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2016Cross-linguistic categories, comparative concepts, and the Walman diminutive. Linguistic Typology 20(2): 305–331.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas
2013Language diversity as a resource for understanding cultural evolution. In Cultural Evolution: Society, Technology, Language, Religion, Peter J. Richerson & Morten H. Christiansen (eds), 233–268. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas & Levinson, Stephen C.
2009The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32: 429–492.Google Scholar
Gil, David
2016Describing languoids: When incommensurability meets the language-dialect continuum. Linguistic Typology 20(2): 439–462.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy
1979On Understanding Grammar. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Graffi, Giorgio
2001200 Years of Syntax. A Critical Survey [Studies in the History of the Language Sciences 98]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2011The pioneers of linguistic typology. In Song (ed.), 25–42.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H.
1966[1963]Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Universals of Language, 2nd edn, Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), 73–113. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2004Does linguistic explanation presuppose linguistic description? Studies in Language 28(3): 554–579.Google Scholar
2007Pre-established categories don’t exist – Consequence for language description and typology. Linguistic Typology 11: 119–132.Google Scholar
2010aComparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies. Language 86: 663–687.Google Scholar
2010bThe interplay between comparative concepts and descriptive categories (Reply to Newmeyer). Language 86(3): 696–699.Google Scholar
2011The indeterminacy of word segmentation and the nature of morphology and syntax. Folia Linguistica 45(1): 31–80.Google Scholar
2012How to compare major word classes across languages. In Theories of Everything in Honor of Edward Keenan [UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics Volume 17, Article 16], Thomas Graf, Denis Paperno, Anna Szabolcsi & Jos Tellings (eds), 109–130. Los Angeles CA: UCLA. http://​phonetics​.linguistics​.ucla​.edu​/wpl​/issues​/wpl17​/wpl17​.html (11 November 2020).Google Scholar
2016The challenge of making language description and comparison mutually beneficial. Linguistic Typology 20(2): 299–303.Google Scholar
2018How comparative concepts and descriptive linguistic categories are different. In Aspects of Linguistic Variations: Studies in Honour of Johan van der Auwera, Daniël Van Olmen, Tanja Mortelmans & Frank Brisard (eds), 83–113. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
2019Can cross-linguistic regularities be explained by constraints on change? In Explanation in Typology: Diachronic Sources, Functional Motivations and the Nature of the Evidence, Karsten Schmidtke-Bode, Natalia Levshina, Susanne M. Michaelis & Ilja A. Seržant (eds), 1–23. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin, Dryer, Matthew S., Gil, David & Comrie, Bernard
(eds) 2005The World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: OUP. (On line edition 2013: Haspelmath Martin & Dryer, Matthew S. (eds). Leipzig: Max Plank Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology).Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A.
1983Word Order Universals: Quantitative analyses of linguistic structure. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hjelmslev, Louis
1968[1928]Principes de grammaire générale. København: Munsgaard.Google Scholar
Hurford, James R.
2007–2012Language in the Light of Evolution, Vol. 1 (2007), Vol. 2 (2012) Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. & Comrie, Bernard
1977Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 63–99.Google Scholar
Kuteva, Tania, Heine, Bernd, Hong, Bo, Long, Haiping, Narrog, Heiko & Rhee, Seongha
2019World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman
1958Typological studies and their contribution to historical comparative linguistics. In Actes du 8ème Congr. Intern. des Linguistes, Eva Siversten (ed.), 17–25. Oslo: Oslo University Press.Google Scholar
Lander, Yury & Arkadiev, Peter
2016On the right of being a comparative concept. Linguistic Typology 20(2): 403–416.Google Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert
1975La catégorie de l’éventuel. In Mélanges linguistiques offerts à Emile Benveniste, Georges Dumézil, Claude Hagège & Emmanuel Laroche (eds), 347–358. Louvain: Peeters.Google Scholar
1992Y a-t-il des catégories interlanguagières? In Texte, Sätze, Wörter und Moneme. Festschrift für Klaus Heger zum 65. Geburtstag, Susanne R. Anschüz (ed.), 427–434. Heidelberger: Orientverlag.Google Scholar
1997Pour une terminologie rigoureuse: Quelques principes et propositions. Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris (nouvelle série) 6: 111–133.Google Scholar
2001aOn the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 359–367.Google Scholar
2001bTransitivity revisited as an example of a more strict approach in typological research. Folia Linguistica 36: 141–200.Google Scholar
2004On the status of linguistics with particular regards to typology. The Linguistic Review 21: 389–411.Google Scholar
2012The case for pure linguistics. Studies in Language 36(2): 241–259.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J.
2016On categorization: Stick to the facts of the languages. Linguistic Typology 20(2): 365–375.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian
2018Linguistic concepts and categories in language description and comparison. In Typology, Acquisition, Grammaticalization Studies, Marina Chini & Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds.). 27–50. Milano: FrancoAngeli.Google Scholar
Maddieson, Ian
2018Is phonological typology possible without (universal) categories? In Phonological Typology, Larry M. Hyman & Franz Plank (eds), 107–125. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Susanne M., Maurer, P., Haspelmath, M. & Huber, M.
(eds) 2013The Survey of Pidgin and Creole Languages, 4 Vols. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Moravcisik, Edith A.
2016On linguistic categories. Linguistic Typology 20(2): 417–425.Google Scholar
Morpurgo Davies, Anna
1994La linguistica dell’Ottocento. In Storia della linguistica, Vol. 3, Giulio C. Lepschy (ed.), 11–399. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick
2007Linguistic typology requires crosslinguistic formal categories. Linguistic Typology 11(1): 133–157.Google Scholar
2010On comparative concepts and descriptive categories: A reply to Haspelmath. Language 86(3): 688–695.Google Scholar
Plank, Frans
2007Extent and limit of linguistic diversity as the remit of typology – But through constraints on what is diversity limited? Linguistic Typology 11: 43–68.Google Scholar
2016Of categories: Language-particular – Comparative – Universal. Linguistic Typology 20(2): 297–298.Google Scholar
Ramat, Paolo
1990Da Humboldt ai neogrammatici: Continuità e fratture. In Leibniz, Humboldt, and the Origins of Comparativism, Tullio De Mauro & Lia Formigari (eds), 199–210. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
1999Linguistic categories and linguists’ categorizations. Linguistics 37(1): 157–180.Google Scholar
2011The (early) history of linguistic typology. In Song (ed.), 9–24.Google Scholar
Rijkhoff, Jan
2004[2002]The Noun Phrase. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2016Crosslinguistic categories in morphosyntactic typology: Problems and prospects. Linguistic Typology 20(2): 333–363.Google Scholar
de Saussure, Ferdinand
1922Course de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot. Italian edn. by De Mauro, Tullio 1997 Corso di linguistica generale. Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar
Seiler, Hansjakob
1995Cognitive-conceptual structure and linguistic encoding: Language universals and typology in the UNITYP framework. In Shibatani & Bynon (eds), 273–325.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi & Bynon, Theodora
(eds) 1995Approaches to Language Typology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Sommerfelt, Alf
1971[1962]Diachronic and Synchronic Aspects of Language. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Song, Jae Jung
(ed.) 2011The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Stassen, Leon
1985Comparison and Universal Grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael
1999The Cultural Origin of Human Cognition. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
2003Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan & Sahoo, Kalyanamalini
2015On comparative concepts and descriptive categories, such as they are. Acta linguistica Hafniensia 47(2): 136–173.Google Scholar
Wiltschko, Martina
2014The Universal Structure of Categories. Towards a Formal Typology. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar