Review published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 8:2 (1984) ► pp.259286
Anderson, John M.
1980 “Essential criteria for the establishment of linguistic typologies. Discussion”. TCLC 201:179–193.Google Scholar
Andrews, Avery Delano III
1975Studies 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
1983Das Tagalog als Repräsentant des aktivischen Sprachbaus. Köln: Inst. f. Sprachwiss. d. Univ. (unpublished Ph.D. diss.).Google Scholar
Foley, William August
1976Comparative 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 of California (unpublished Ph.D. diss.)Google Scholar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.) 1978Universals 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.
1977Tipologija jazykov aktivnogo stroja. Moskva: Nauka.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian
1984Der 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.) 1980Current approaches to syntax. New York: Academic Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sapir, Edward
1921Language. 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

Cited by 2 other publications

Lehmann, Christian
1988. A survey of general comparative grammar. Journal of Linguistics 24:1  pp. 175 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 april 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.