Cover not available
Part of
Linguistic Categories, Language Description and Linguistic Typology
Edited by Luca Alfieri, Giorgio Francesco Arcodia and Paolo Ramat
[Typological Studies in Language 132] 2021
► pp. 313–366

Chapter 9
Parts of speech, comparative concepts and Indo-European linguistics

| University of Studies Guglielmo Marconi
The paper adopts and further elaborates on the distinction between comparative concepts (CC) and descriptive categories (DC) by proposing a partly new definition of the parts of speech (PoS), and uses that definition to provide a new analysis of PoS in Latin and RV Sanskrit. More, specifically, the paper shows that in Latin three major classes of morphemes are found (nouns, adjectives and verbs), whereas in the RV only two major classes are found (verbal roots and nouns) and the typical “adjective” is a derived stem built on a verbal root meaning a quality (i.e. roughly a nominalization). The data described are then used to contribute to the CC debate in the field of PoS, by showing its relation with historical Indo-European linguistics, by critically analysing traditional labels such as noun, adjective, verb, root, stem and lexeme, and by questioning the alleged incommensurability between CCs and DCs.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The comparative concept debate in the field of the PoS
  • 3.The PoS in Latin and in Sanskrit: State of the art
    • 3.1The former (Western) classifications of Sanskrit
      • 3.1.1 Joshi (1967) and Bhat (1994, 2000)
      • 3.1.2Works following Dixon’s approach (2004)
  • 4.A relatively new PoS theory
    • 4.1PoS-concepts
    • 4.2PoS-constructions
    • 4.3PoS-lexemes
  • 5.The Latin PoS system
  • 6.The RV Sanskrit PoS system
  • 7.Discussion and conclusion
    • 7.1Historical IE linguistics
    • 7.2Linguistic terminology
    • 7.3Further research prospects
  • List of abbreviations
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 9 July 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.132.09alf
References (193)
References
Alfieri, Luca. Forthcoming. The lexicalization of the adjective as an innovative feature in the Indo-European Family. Monograhic issue of Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics , Artemij Keidan, Leonid Kulikov & Nikolaos Lavidas (eds).Google Scholar
. 2018. La definizione tipologica della radice e la teoria del segno lessicale. In Linguistica filologia e storia culturale. In ricordo di Palmira Cipriano, Alfieri Luca, Benvenuto Maria Carmela, Ciancaglini Claudia Angela, De Angelis Alessandro, Milizia Paolo & Pompeo Flavia (eds), 25–44. Roma: Il Calamo.Google Scholar
. 2017. A proposito di Thomas Lindner, 200 Jahre Indogermanistik (Salzburg-Wien 2016), ovvero la rilevanza della Grammer di Ravio (1648) per la storia della linguistica indoeuropea. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 102(2): 225–237.Google Scholar
. 2016. The typological definition of the (apparently historical) notion of root. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 102(1): 129–169.Google Scholar
. 2014a. Qualifying modifier encoding and adjectival typology. In Simone & Masini (eds), 119–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014b. The birth of a grammatical category: The case of the adjective class. Studi e Saggi Linguistici 52(1): 141–175.Google Scholar
. 2014c. The arrival of the Indian notion of root into Western linguistics. Rivista degli Studi Orientali 87(2): 59–84.Google Scholar
. 2013a. Review of: Ansaldo, Umberto, Don, Jan & Pfau, Roland (eds.). 2010. Parts of Speech: Empirical and Theoretical Advances. Special issue of Studies in Language 37(2): 425–434.Google Scholar
. 2013b. L’ipotesi indoeuropea di Bopp e il problema del contatto tra grammatiche. In Le lingue del Mediterraneo antico. Culture, mutamenti, contatti, Mancini Marco & Lorenzetti Luca (eds), 15–35. Roma: Carocci.Google Scholar
. 2009. La categoria dell’aggettivo in vedico. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 94(1): 3–41.Google Scholar
Anslado, Umberto & Don, Jan & Pfau, Roland (eds). 2010. Parts of Speech. Empirical and Theoretical Advances. Special issue of Studies in Language 32(3), 2008. See Alfieri (2013) for review.Google Scholar
Anward, Jan. 2000. A dynamic model of part-of-speech differentiation. In Vogel & Comrie (eds), 3–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anward, Jan, Moravcsik, Edith & Stassen, Leon. 1997. Parts of speech: A challenge for typology. Linguistic Typology 1(2): 167–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aronoff, Mark. 2012. Morphological stems: What William of Ockham really said. Word Structure 5: 28–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1994. Morphology by Itself. Stem and Inflectional Classes. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1976. Word-Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Backhouse, Anthony E. 2004. Inflected and uninflected adjectives in Japanese. In Dixon & Aikhenvald (eds), 50–73.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark C. 2003. Lexical Categories. Verbs, Nouns, and Adjectives. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 2003. Introducing Linguistic Morphology. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Beck, David. 2016. Some language-particular terms are comparative concepts. Linguistic Typology 20(2): 995–402. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Unidirectional flexibility and the noun-verb distinction in Lushootseed. In Rijkhoff & van Lier (eds), 185–220.Google Scholar
. 2002. The Typology of Parts of Speech Systems: The Markedness of Adjectives. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Belardi, Walter. 2008. Le “unità di lingua concrete”, la parola e la frase. Incontri Linguistici 31: 11–39.Google Scholar
Beck, David. 2002a. L’etimologia nella storia della cultura occidentale, 2 vols. Roma: Il Calamo.Google Scholar
. 2002b. Il tema del segno lessicale nella diacronia linguistica. Roma: Il Calamo.Google Scholar
. 1993. Sulla tipologia della struttura formale della parola nelle lingue indoeuropee. Rendiconti dell’Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, s. 9, v. 4, f. 4: 525–570.Google Scholar
. 1990. Genealogia, tipologia, ricostruzione, leggi fonetiche. In Linguistica, filologia e critica dell’espressione, Walter Belardi (ed.), 155–218. Roma: Il Calamo.Google Scholar
. 1985. Considerazioni sulla ricostruzione dell’indoeuropeo. In Tra linguistica storica e linguistica generale. Scritti in onore di Tristano Bolelli, Ambrosini Roberto (ed.), 39–66. Pisa: Giardini.Google Scholar
Benedetti, Marina (ed.). 2001. Fare etimologia. Passato, presente e future nella ricerca etimologica. Atti del convegno tenutosi presso l’Università per Stranieri di Siena, 2–3 ottobre 1998. Roma: il Calamo.Google Scholar
Benveniste, Émile. 19623[19361]. Origines de la formation des noms en indo-européen. Paris: Adrienne-Maisonneuve.Google Scholar
Bertram, Raymond & Schreuder, Robert & Baayen, Harald R. 2000. The balance of storage and computation in morphological processing: The role of word formation type, affixal homonymy and productivity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 26(2): 489–511.Google Scholar
Bhat, Darbhe Narayana Shankara. 2000. Word classes and sentential function. In Vogel & Comrie (eds), 47–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1994. The Adjectival Category. Criteria for Differentiation and Identification [Studies in Language Companion Series 24]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bisang, Walter. 2013. Word-classes. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology, Song Jae Jung (ed.), 280–302. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2008. Precategoriality and syntax based parts of speech: The case of Late Archaic Chinese. Studies in Language 32(3): 65–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York NY: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
Blevins, James P. 2016. Word and Paradigm Morphology. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, Gert. 2007 [2015]1. The Grammar of Words. An Introduction to Linguistic Morphology. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Booij, Gert, Lehman, Christian & Mugdan, Joachim (eds). 2000–2004. Morphology. An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-formation, Vol. 1 (2000); Vol. 2 (2004). Berlin: Mouton de Gryuter.Google Scholar
Bopp, Franz. 1827. Ausführliches Lehrgebäude der Sanscrita-Sprache. Berlin: Dümmler.Google Scholar
. 1824. Vergleichende Zergliederung des Sanskrits und der mit ihr verwandten Sprachen. Abhandlungen der Königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, philosophische-historische Klasse 1824: 117–148 (Repr. 1972. Kleine Schriften zur vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft, 1–33. Leipzig: Zentralantiquariat der deutschen demokratischen Republik).Google Scholar
Bossong, Georg. 1992. Reflections on the history of the study of universals. The case of the partes orationis . In Meaning and Grammar. Cross-linguistic Perspectives, Michel Kefer & Johan van der Auwera (eds). Belgian Journal of Linguistics 4: 27–51.Google Scholar
Bozzone, Chiara. 2016. The origin of the Caland system and the typology of adjectives. Indo-European Linguistics 4: 15–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broschart, Jürgen. 1997. Why Tongan does it differently: Categorial distinctions in a language without nouns and verbs. Linguistic Typology 1: 123–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brereton, Joel P. & Jamison, Stephanie W. 2014. The Rig-Veda. The Earliest Religious Poetry of India. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Brugmann, Karl. 1904. Kurze vergleichende Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. Straßburg: Trubner. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burrow, Thomas. 1955. The Sanskrit Language. London: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar
Cardona, George. 1997a[1988]1. Pāṇini. His Work and its Tradition. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
. 1997b[1976]1. Pāṇini. A Survey of Research. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalizations. In Readings in English Transformational Grammar, Roderick A. Jacobs & Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds), 184–221. Waltham MA: Ginn.Google Scholar
Cipriano, Palmira. 2007. Evoluzione tipologica e mutamento fonologico nell’area del persiano. Rendiconti dell’Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Classe di Scienze Morali, Storiche e Filologiche s. 9, v. 18, f. 1: 21–80.Google Scholar
. 2001. Il ruolo delle etimologie iraniche nello studio dell’indoeuropeo preistorico. In Benedetti (ed.), 107–120.Google Scholar
. 1988. Le implicazioni metodologiche e fattuali della teoria di W. Belardi sull’indoeuropeo. Studi e Saggi Linguistici 28: 101–126.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 2006. Agreement. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Coseriu, Eugenio. 2001. Les universaux linguistiques (et les autres). In L’Homme et son langage, Hiltraud Dupuy-Engelhardt, Jean-Pierre Durafour & Françoise Rastier (eds), 69–107. Louvain: Peeters.Google Scholar
Cowgill, Warren. 1963. A search for universals in Indo-European diachronic morphology. In Universals of Language, Joseph H. Greenberg (ed.), 114–141. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cristofaro, Sonia. 2009. Grammatical categories and relations: Language-universality vs. language-specificity and construction-specificity. Language and Linguistic Compass 3(1): 441–479. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2016. Comparative concepts and language-specific categories: Theory and practice. Linguistic Typology 20(2): 377–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Word-classes, parts of speech and syntactic argumentation. Linguistic Typology 9: 431–441.Google Scholar
. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. Parts of speech as language universals and language-particular categories. In Vogel & Comrie (eds), 65–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William & van Lier, Eva. 2012. Language universals without universal categories. Theoretical Linguistics 38(1): 57–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crystal, David. 1967. English word classes. Lingua 17: 24–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 2016. Thoughts on language-specific and cross-linguistic entities. Linguistic Typology 20(2): 427–437. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Time, Tense and Aspect in Early Vedic Grammar: Exploring Inflectional Semantics in the Rigveda. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delbrück, Bertold. 1888. Altindische Syntax. Halle an der Saale: Waisenhause.Google Scholar
Demirdache, Hamida & Matthewson, Lisa. 1995. On the universality of syntactic categories. Proceedings of the North-West Linguistic Society 25: 70–93.Google Scholar
Di Giovine, Paolo. 2001. Etimologia indoeuropea ed etimologia romanza: Due metodi a confronto. In Benedetti (ed.), 285–293.Google Scholar
Di Giovine, Paolo, Flamini, Sara & Pozza, Marianna. 2007. Internal structure of verbal stems in the Germanic languages. In Europe and the Mediterranean as a Linguistic Area. Convergencies from a Historical and Typological Perspective [Studies in Language Companion Series 88], Paolo Ramat & Elisa Roma (eds), 49–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W. 2004. Adjective classes in typological perspective. In Dixon & Aikhenvald (eds), 1–50.Google Scholar
1977. Where have all adjectives gone? Studies in Languages 1: 19–77. (Repr. 1982. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W. & Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (eds). 2004. Adjective Classes: A Cross-linguistic Typology. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1987. Word-formation as a part of natural morphology. In Dressler et al.. (eds), 99–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U., Mayerthaler, Willi, Panagl, Oswald & Wurzel, Wolfgang U. (eds). 1987. Leitmotivs in Natural Morphology [Studies in Language Companion Series 10]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2016. Cross-linguistic categories, comparative concepts, and the Walman diminutive. Linguistic Typology 20(2): 305–331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997. Are grammatical relations universal? Essays on Language Function and Language Type Dedicated to T. Givón, Joan L. Bybee, John Haiman, Sandra A. & Thompson (eds), 115–144. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 2000. Word classes in the world’s languages. In Booij et al.. (eds), Vol. I, 708–731.Google Scholar
Everett, Daniel L. & Kern, Barbara. 1997. Wari: The Pacaas Novos Language of Western Brazil. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
EWAia = Mayrhofer, Manfred. 1986–1996. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Floyd, Simeon. 2011. Re-discovering the Quechua adjective. Linguistic Typology 15: 25–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
von der Gabelentz, Georg. 1881. Chinesische Grammatik. Leipzig: T.O. Weigel.Google Scholar
Gil, David. 2016. Describing languoids: When incommensurability meets the language-dialect continuum. Linguistic Typology 20(2): 439–462. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Riau Indonesian: A language without nouns and verbs. In Rijkhoff & van Lier (eds), 89–130.Google Scholar
. 2000. Syntactic categories, cross-linguistic variation and Universal Grammar. In Vogel & Comrie (eds), 173–216. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grassmann, Hermann. 19765. Wörterbuch zum Rig-Veda. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Gren-Eklund, Gunilla. 1978. A Study of Nominal Sentences in the Oldest Upaniṣad. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar
Gross, Maurice. 1979. On the failure of generative grammar. Language 55(4): 859–885. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 19942. Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Halle, Morris. 1973. Prolegomena to a theory of word formation. Linguistic Inquiry 4: 3–16.Google Scholar
Harris, Zelig. 1946. From morpheme to utterance. Language 22: 161–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. Forthcoming. The morph as a minimum linguistic form. Draft, May 2019.
. 2021. Toward standardization of morphosyntactic terminology for general linguistics. In Linguistic Categories, Language Description and Linguistic Typology [Typological Studies in Language 132]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (This volume) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014[2003]1. The geometry of grammatical meanings: Semantic maps and cross-linguistic comparison. In The New Psychology of Language. Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, vol. 2, Michael Tomasello (ed.), 211–242. New York NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
. 2012. How to compare major word-classes across languages. In Theories of Everything in honor of Edward Keenan [UCLA Working Papers in Linguistics 17, Article 16], Thomas Graf, Denis Paperno, Anna Szabolcsi & Jos Tellings (eds), 109–130. Los Angeles CA: UCLA. <[URL]> (11 November 2020).Google Scholar
. 2011. The indeterminacy of word segmentation and the nature of morphology and syntax. Folia Linguistica 45(1): 31–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies. Language 86(3): 663–687. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Pre-established categories don’t exist: Consequences for language description and typology. Linguistic Typology 11: 119–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. Word-class-changing-inflection and morphological theory. In Yearbook of Morphology 1995, Geert Booij & Jaap van Marle (eds), 43–67. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees. 2013. Parts-of-speech system as a basic typological determinant. In Rijkhoff & van Lier (eds), 31–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1992. Non-verbal Predication: Theory, Typology, Diachrony. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees, Rijkhoff, Jan & Siewierska, Anna. 2004. Parts-of-speech and word-order. Journal of Linguistics 40(3): 527–570. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees & Rijkhoff, Jan. 2005. Mundari as a flexible language. Linguistic Typology 9(3): 406–431.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Thompson, Sandra A. 1984. The discourse basis for lexical categories in Universal Grammar. Language 60(4): 703–752. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janda, Richard D. & Joseph, Brian D. 2003. On language, change and language change – Or of history, linguistics and historical linguistics. In Handbook of Historical Linguistics, Richard D. Janda & Brian D. Joseph (eds), 4–113. London: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jelinek, Eloise & Deemers, Richard. 1994. Predicates and pronominal arguments in Strait Salish. Language 70(4): 697–737. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ježek, Elisabetta & Ramat, Paolo. 2009. On parts-of-speech transcategorization. Folia Linguistica 43: 391–416. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joos, Martin (ed.). 1957. Readings in Linguistics I. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Joshi, Shivaram D. 1967. Adjectives and substantives as a single class in the parts of speech. Journal of the University of Poona, Humanities Section 25: 19–30.Google Scholar
Kastovsky, Dieter. 1996. Verbal derivation in English: A historical survey. Or much ado about nothing. In English Historical Linguistics 1994 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 135], Derek Britton (ed.), 93–117. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1992. Typological reorientation as a result of level interaction: The case of English morphology. In Diachrony within Synchrony: Language History and Cognition, Günter Kellermann & Michael D. Morrissey (eds), 411–428. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Lander, Yury & Arkadiev, Peter. 2016. On the right of being a comparative concept. Linguistic Typology 20(2): 403–416. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. 2016. On categorization: Stick to the facts of the languages. Linguistic Typology 20(2): 365–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Launey, Michel. 1994. Une grammaire omnipredicative: Essai sur la morphosyntaxe du nahuatl classique. Paris: CNRS Editions.Google Scholar
Lazard, Gilbert. 2001a. On the grammaticalization of evidentiality. Journal of Pragmatics 33: 359–367. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001b. Transitivity revisited as an example of a more strict approach in typological research. Folia linguistica 36: 141–200.Google Scholar
. 1999. La question de la distinction entre nom et verbe. Folia Linguistica 33(2): 389–418. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997. Pour une terminologie rigoureuse: Quelques principes et propositions. Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris (nouvelle série) 6: 111–133.Google Scholar
. 1992. Y 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
Lazzeroni, Romano. 2013. Divagazioni sul comparativo indoeuropeo. λεξÎνδρεια – Alessandria. Rivista di Glottologia 6–7: 265–276.Google Scholar
. 2008. Il vedico tra varianti e standardizzazione. In Standard e non standard tra scelta e norma. Atti del XXX convegno della Società Italiana di Glottologia, Bergamo 20–22 ottobre 2005, Molinelli Piera (ed.), 109–116. Roma: Il Calamo.Google Scholar
. 2005. Fra mondo indiano e mondo mediterraneo: Categorie scalari e gradi di comparazione. Archivio Glottologico Italiano 95: 1–18.Google Scholar
Law, Vivien. 1993. Process of assimilation. European grammars of Sanskrit in the early decades of the nineteenth century. In La linguistique entre mythe et histoire, Daniel Droixhe & Chantal Grell (eds), 237–261. Münster: Nodus.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 2008. Roots, stems and word classes. Studies in Language 32(3): 546–567. (Reprint: Ansaldo et al.. 2010, 43–64). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lieber, Rocher. 2010. Introducing Morphology. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Lombardi Vallauri, Edoardo. 2000. Gli aggettivi giapponesi fra nome e verbo. Studi Italiani di Linguistica Teorica e Applicata 29(2): 311–345.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1977–1979. Semantics, Vol. 1 (1977), Vol. 2 (1979). Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don’t try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics 4.2. Proceedings of the 21st Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium, Alexis Dimitriadis, Laura Siegel, Clarissa Surek-Clark & Alexander Williams (eds), 201–225. Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Martinet, André. 1980[1960]1. Élements de linguistique générale. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
MacDonell, Arthur A. 1975[1910]1. Vedic Grammar. Delhi-Varanasi: Bhartiya Publishing House.Google Scholar
Matthews, Peter H. 1974. Morphology. An Introduction to the Theory of Word-Structure. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
1972. Inflectional Morphology: A Theoretical Study Based on Aspects of Latin Verb Conjugation. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
1967. Latin. Lingua 17:153–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mayerthaler, Willi. 1981. Morphologisches Natürlichkeit. Wiesbaden: Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft Athenaion.Google Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. 1903[1934]7. Introduction à l’étude comparative des langues indo-européennes. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
Mel’čuk, Igor. 1982. Towards a Language of Linguistics. A System of Formal Notions for Theoretical Morphology, Philip A. Luelsdorf (ed.). München: Fink.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 2000. Noun and verb in Iroquoian. In Vogel & Comrie (eds), 397–415.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Edith A. 2016. On linguistic categories. Linguistic Typology 20(2): 417–425. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morgenroth, Wolfgang. 19772. Lehrbuch des Sanskrit. Grammatik – Lektionen – Glossar. Leipzig: Max Hueber.Google Scholar
Mosel, Ulrike. 2017. Teop – An Oceanic language with multifunctional nouns, verbs and adjectives. Studies in Language 41(2): 255–293. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mugdan, Joachim. 2015. Units of word-formation. In Word Formation: An International Handbook of the Languages of Europe, Vol. I, Peter O. Müller, Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Susan Olsen & Franz Rainer (eds), 235–300. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1986. Was ist eigentlich ein Morphem? Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 39(1): 29–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panagl, Oswald. 2006. Zur verbale Konstruktion deverbativer Nomina. In Word-Classes and Related Topics in Ancient Greek, Emilio Crespo, Jesus de la Villa & Antonio R. Revuelta (eds), 47–57. Louvain la Neuve: Peeters.Google Scholar
. 1987. Productivity and diachronic change in morphology. In Dressler et al.. (eds), 127–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1982. Produktivität in der Wortbildung. Folia Linguistica 16: 224–240.Google Scholar
Peterson, John. 2013. Parts of Speech in Kharia: A formal account. In Rijkhoff & van Lier (eds), 131–168.Google Scholar
. 2011. A Grammar of Kharia, 2 Vols. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. There’s a grain of truth in every “myth”, or, Why the discussion on Mundari isn’t quite over yet. Linguistic Typology 9: 351–390.Google Scholar
Plank, Franz. 1997. Word classes in typology: Recommended readings (a bibliography). Linguistic Typology 1(2): 185–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pokorny, Julius. 1959. Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Bern: Francke.Google Scholar
Pontillo, Tiziana & Candotti, Maria P. 2011. Discriminare tra aggettivo e sostantivo: Appunti sulla tradizione pāṇiniana. Atti del Sodalizio Glottologico Milanese (n.s.) 6: 66–84.Google Scholar
Radicchi, Anna. 1973–1974. Le parti del discorso nella tradizione grammaticale indiana. In Materiali dell’Istituto di Glottologia dell’Università di Cagliari, 1–64. Cagliari: Pubblicazioni dell’istituto di glottologia.Google Scholar
Ramat, Paolo. 2014. Categories, features and values in the definition of word-classes. Studi e Saggi Linguistici 52(2): 9–24.Google Scholar
. 1999. Linguistic categorization and linguists’ categories. Linguistics 37(1): 157–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Renou, Louis. 1965. Remarques générales sur la phrase védique. In Symbolae linguisticae in honorem Georgii KuryÅ‚owicz, StanisÅ‚aw Drewniak (ed.), 230–234. WrocÅ‚aw: ZakÅ‚ad Narodowy Imienia OssoliÅ„skich.Google Scholar
. 1952. Grammaire de la langue védique. Lyon: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.Google Scholar
Rijkhoff, Jan. 2016. Crosslinguistic categories in morphosyntactic typology: Problems and prospects. Linguistic Typology 20(2): 333–363. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Word classes. Language and Linguistic Compass 1(6): 709–726. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rijkhoff, Jan & van Lier, Eva. 2013. Flexible word classes in linguistic typology and grammatical theory. In Rijkhoff & van Lier (eds), 1–30.Google Scholar
Rijkhoff, Jan. 2013. (ed.). Flexible Word-Classes. Typological Studies of Underspecified Parts of Speech. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Robins, Robert H. 1964. General Linguistics. An Introductory Survey. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Roth, Heinrich. 1660–1668. Grammatica linguae sanscretanae bracmanum Indiae orientalis. Facsimile edition Arnulf Camp & Jean Claude Muller. 1988. The Sanskrit Grammar and Manuscripts of Father Heinrich Roth S.J. (1620–1668). Biblioteca Nazionale, Roma, Mss. Or. 171 e 172. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Rousseau, Jean. 1984. La racine arabe et son traitement par les grammairiens européens (1505–1810). Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 79(1): 285–321.Google Scholar
Sapir, Eduard. 1921. Language. An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York NY: Harcourt, Brace and Company.Google Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen. 2001. Scales of nouniness and verbiness. In Language Typology and Linguistic Universals: An International Handbook, Vol. 2, Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Österreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds), 495–509. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 1993a. Das Nomen – Eine universale Kategorie? Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 46(3): 187–221.Google Scholar
. 1993b. Syntactic categories and sub-categories. In Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, 2 Vols, Joachim Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld & Theo Vennemann (eds), 646–686. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Saussure, Ferdinand. 1922[1916]1. Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot. [Italian translation: T. De Mauro (eds.). 1999. Corso di linguistica generale, Roma-Bari: Laterza].Google Scholar
. 1878. Mémoire sur le système primitif des voyelles dans les langues indo-européennes. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
Scalise, Sergio. 1984. Generative Morphology. Dordrecht: Foris. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schachter, Paul & Shopen, Timothy. 20072[1985]1. Parts of speech systems. In Linguistic Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. 1: Clause Structure, Timothy Shopen (ed.), 1–60. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simone, Raffaele. 2007. Constructions and categories in verbal and signed languages. In Verbal and Signed Languages. Comparing Structures, Constructs, and Methodologies, Elena Pizzuto, Paola Pietrandrea & Raffaele Simone (eds), 198–252. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Simone, Raffaele & Masini, Francesca (eds). 2014. Word Classes. Nature, Typology and Representations [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 332]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Speijer [alias Speyer], Jakob S. 1998[1886]1. Sanskrit Syntax. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
1974[1896]1. Vedische und sanskrit Syntax. Graz: Akademische Druck.Google Scholar
Stassen, Leon. 1997. Intransitive Predication. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Thieme, Paul. 1967. Kr̥ṣṭí und carṣaṇí. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 81: 233–244. (Reprint: Thieme Paul. 1971. Kleine Schriften, 2 Vols, G. Buddruss (ed.), Vol. 1, 247–258. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner).Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. 1988. A discourse approach to the cross-linguistic category ‘adjective’. In Explaining Language Universals, John Hawkins (ed.), 167–185. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Touratier, Christian. 2009. Questions surrounding the basic notions of word, lexie, morpheme and lexeme. In Form and Function in Language Research. Papers in Honor of Christian Lehmann, Trends in Linguistics. [Studies and Monographs 210], Johannes Helmbrecht (ed.), 157–166. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Trask, Robert L. 1993. A Dictionary of Grammatical Terms in Linguistics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Troupeau, Gérard. 1984. La notion de ‘racine’ chez les grammairiennes arabes ancien. In History of Language Science. An International Handbook of the Evolution of the Study of Language from the Beginnings to the Present, Vol. I, Sylvain Auroux, E.F. Konrad Koerner, Hans-Josef Niederehe & Kees Versteegh (ed.), 239–246. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Uehara, Satoshi. 1998. Syntactic Categories in Japanese: A Cognitive and Typological Introduction. Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
VIA = Werba, Chlodwig H. 1997. Verba Indoarica. Die primären und sekundären Wurzeln der Sanskrit Sprache, Pars I: Radices Primariae. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen.Google Scholar
van Lier, Eva (ed.). 2017 Lexical flexibility in Oceanic Languages. Studies in Language 41(2): 241–254 (monographic issue on Lexical Flexibility in Oceanic Languages ). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Parts of Speech and Dependent Clause. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Vogel, Petra M. 2000. Grammaticalization and part of speech systems. In Vogel & Comrie (eds), 259–284.Google Scholar
Vogel, Petra M. & Comrie, Bernard. 2000. Approaches to the Typology of Word Classes. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Völkel, Svenja. 2017. Word classes and the scope of lexical flexibility in Tongan. Studies in Language 41(2): 445–495. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wakernagel, Jakob. 1905. Altindische Grammatik, Vol. II.1: Einleitung zur Wortlehre. Nominalkomposition. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Wetzer, Harrie. 1996. The Typology of Adjectival Predication. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Whitney, William D. 2000[1979]1. Sanskrit Grammar. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
Wodtko, Dagmar S., Irslinger, Britta & Schneider, Carolin (eds). 2008. Nomina im Indogermanischen Lexikon. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Wright, William. 1979[1896]1. A Grammar of the Arabic Language, translated from the German of Caspari and edited with numerous additions and corrections by W. Wright, LL.D. 3rd ed. revised by W. Robertson Smith & M.J. de Goeje. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Reiner, Tabea
2021. Comparative concepts are not a different kind of thing. In Linguistic Categories, Language Description and Linguistic Typology [Typological Studies in Language, 132], ► pp. 211 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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.