Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-cnmwb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T17:37:57.235Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 January 2010

Ricardo Mairal
Affiliation:
Universidad National de Educación a Distancia, Madrid
Juana Gil
Affiliation:
Universidad National de Educación a Distancia, Madrid
Get access

Summary

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Linguistic Universals , pp. 195 - 212
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aarsleff, H. 1982. From Locke to Saussure. Essays on the Study of Language and Intellectual History. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Abbot, M. 1991. Macushi. In Derbyshire, C. D. and Pullum, G. K. (eds.), Handbook of Amazonian Languages, Volume III. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 23–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abdoulaye, M. L. 1992. Aspects of Hausa morphosyntax in Role and Reference grammar. Ph. D. dissertation, University at Buffalo. (Available on Role and Reference Grammar website.)
Acero, J. J. 1993. Lenguaje y filosofía. Barcelona: Octaedro.Google Scholar
Ackema, P., and Schoorlemmer, M.. 1994. The middle construction and the syntax–semantics interface, Lingua 93: 59–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackerman, F., and P. LeSourd. 1997. Toward a lexical representation of phrasal predicates. In Alsina, A., Bresan, J., and Sells, P. (eds.), Complex Predicates. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 67–106.Google Scholar
Ackerman, F., and Webelhuth, G.. 1998. A Theory of Predicates. Stanford University: CSLI.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, A. Y. 2002. Typological parameters for the study of clitics, with special reference to Tariana. In Dixon and Aikhenvald (2002b), 42–78.
Aksu-Koç, A. A., and D. I. Slobin. 1985. Acquisition of Turkish. In Dan, Slobin (ed.), The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition. Volume I: The Data. Hillsdale, N.J.: Laurence Erlbaum Associates. 3–24.Google Scholar
Alexandrova, G., and Arnaudova, O. (eds.). 2001. The Minimalist Parameter. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous. 1980. Ute Reference Grammar. Ignacio, Colo.: Ute Press.
Arens, H. 1969. Sprachwissenschaft. Der Gang ihrer Entwicklung von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart. Munich: Verlag Karl Alber.Google Scholar
Aronoff, M., and Sridhar, S.. 1983. Morphological levels in English and Kannada; or atarizing Reagan, Papers from the Parasession on the Interplay of Phonology, Morphology, and Syntax. Chicago Linguistic Society 19: 3–16.Google Scholar
Ashton, E. 1944. Swahili Grammar. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bach, E., and Harris, R. T. (eds.). 1968. Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Baker, M. C. 1985. The Mirror Principle and morphosyntactic explanation, Linguistic Inquiry 16: 373–416.Google Scholar
Baker, M. C. 1988. Incorporation. A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baker, M. C. 1996. The Polysynthesis Parameter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, M. C. 2001. The Atoms of Language: The Mind's Hidden Rules of Grammar. New York: Basic Books.
Bakker, D., and Hengeveld, K.. 1999. Relatieve zinnen in typologisch perspectief, Gramma/TTT 7. 3: 191–214.Google Scholar
Barlow, M., and , C. A. Ferguson (eds.). 1988. Agreement in Natural Language. Approaches, Theories, Descriptions. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Barnes, J. 1984. Evidentials in the Tuyuca verb, International Journal of American Linguistics 50: 255–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartlett, B. E. 1987. The grammarian's contribution to the study of semantics. Renaissance to Enlightenment. In Buzzetti, D. and Ferriani, M. (eds.), Speculative Grammar, Universal Grammar, and Philosophical Analysis of Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 23–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, E., and B. MacWhinney. 1982. Functionalist approaches to grammar. In Wanner, E. and Gleitman, L. (eds.), Language Acquisition: The State of the Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 173–218.Google Scholar
Beard, R. 1995. Lexeme Morpheme Base Morphology. Stony Brook, N.Y. : SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Berlin, B., and Kay, P.. 1969. Basic Color Terms. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Berrah, A. R., and Laboissiere, R.. 1997. Phonetic code emergence in a society of speech robots: explaining vowel systems and the MUAF Principle, Proceedings Eurospeech 97 (Rhodes, Greece): 2395–2398.Google Scholar
Bickel, B. 1995. Aspect, Mood and Time in Belhare: Studies in the Semantics–Pragmatics Interface of a Himalayan Language.Zurich: Zurich University Press.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, L. 1933. Language. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C., and Piattelli-Palmarini, M.. 2005. Language as a natural object, linguistics as a natural science, Linguistic Review 22: 351–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, C., and J. Uriagereka. In press. Minimalism. In Ramchand, G. and Reiss, C. (eds.), Handbook of Interfaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boer, B de. 2000. The emergence of sound systems through self-organization. In Hurford, J. R., Knight, C., and Studdert-Kennedy, M. (eds.), The Evolutionary Emergence of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 177–198.Google Scholar
Boersma, P. 1997. The Elements of Functional Phonology, ROA-173, Rutgers Optimality Archive, http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/roa.html.
Booij, G. 1987. Lexical Phonology and the organisation of the morphological component. In Gussmann, E. (ed.), Rules and the Lexicon. Lublin: Redakcja Wydawnictw Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego. 43–66.Google Scholar
Booij, G. 1994. Against split morphology. In Booij, G. and Marle, J. (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1993. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 27–49.Google Scholar
Booij, G. 1996. Inherent versus contextual inflection and the split morphology hypothesis. In Booij, G. and Marle, J. (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1995. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 1–16.Google Scholar
Booij, G., , C. Lehmann, Mugdan, J., and S. Skopetas (eds.). 2004. Morphologie. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung. Halbband. / Morphology. An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation, Volume II. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borgman, D. M. 1989. Sanuma. In Derbyshire and Pullum (1989), 15–248.
Börjars, K. 1998. Feature Distribution in Swedish Noun Phrases. Publications of the Philological Society, 32. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Botha, R. 1992. Twentieth-Century Conceptions of Language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Botne, R. 2003. To die across languages: toward a typology of achievement verbs, Linguistic Typology 7: 233–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boutin, M. 1994. Aspect in Bonggi. Ph. D. thesis, University of Florida.
Boyland, J. T. 1996. Morphosyntactic change in progress: a psycholinguistic approach. Ph. D. thesis, University of California at Berkeley.
Bracken, H. M. 1983. Mind and Language. Essays on Descartes and Chomsky. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Bright, W. 1957. The Karok Language. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Browman, C. P., and Goldstein, L. M.. 1992. Articulatory phonology: an overview, Phonetica 49: 155–180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, P. L. 2001. A grammar of Nias Selatan. Ph. D. thesis, University of Sydney.
Brucart, J. M. 2002. Los estudios de sintaxis en el generativismo: balance y perspectivas. In Presente y futuro de la lingüística en España. La Sociedad de Lingüística 30 años después, Actas del II Congreso de la Sociedad Española de Lingüística (Madrid, 2000). Madrid: Gredos. 21–51.Google Scholar
Butler, C. 2003. Structure and Function – A Guide to Three Major Structural–Functional Theories.Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. 1985. Morphology. A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L. 1988. The diachronic dimension in explanation. In Hawkins, J. (ed.), Explaining Language Universals. Oxford: Blackwell. 350–379.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. 1997. Semantic aspects of morphological typology. In Bybee, J., Haiman, J., and Thompson, S. (eds.), Essays on Language Function and Language Type. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 25–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L. 1998. A functionalist approach to grammar and its evolution, Evolution of Communication 2. 2: 249–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L. 2001. Phonology and Language Use.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L. 2002a. Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: the role of repetition. In Janda, R. and Joseph, B. (eds.), Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. 602–623.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. 2002b. Word frequency and context of use in the lexical diffusion of phonetically-conditioned sound change, Language Variation and Change 14: 261–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L., and Dahl, Ö.. 1989. The creation of tense and aspect systems in the languages of the world, Studies in Language 13. 1: 51–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L., and W. Pagliuca. 1987. The evolution of future meaning. In RamatCarruba, A. G. O., and Bernini, G. (eds.), Papers from the VIIth International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 109–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L., W. Pagliuca, and R. D. Perkins. 1991. Back to the future. In Traugott and Heine (1991), Vol. II, 17–58.
Bybee, J. L., Perkins, R., and Pagliuca, W.. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cameron-Faulkner, T., and Carstairs-McCarthy, A.. 2000. Stem alternants as morphological signata: evidence from blur avoidance in Polish nouns, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 813–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, L. 1985. The Pipil Language of El Salvador. Mouton Grammar Library, 1. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cantarino, V. 1975. Syntax of Modern Arabic Prose: The Compound Sentence. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Carlson, G. 1977. Reference to kinds in English. Ph. D. thesis, University of Massachusetts.
Carnie, A., and Guilfoyle, E. (eds.). 2000. The Syntax of Verb-Initial Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carstairs, A. 1987. Allomorphy in Inflexion. Beckenham: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Carstairs-McCarthy, A. 1994. Inflection classes, gender and the Principle of Contrast, Language 70: 737–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Centineo, G. 1996. A lexical theory of auxiliary selection in Italian, Probus 8: 223–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1966. Cartesian Linguistics: A Chapter in the History of Rationalist Thought. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1972. Studies on Semantics in Generative Grammar. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1973. Reflections on Language. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1993. A Minimalist Program for syntax. In Hale and Keyser (1993), 1–37.
Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1998. Noam Chomsky's minimalist program and the philosophy of mind. An interview [with] C. J. Cela-Conde and G. Marty, Syntax 1: 19–36.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2000a. New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2000b. The Architecture of Language. Ed. Mukherji, N., Narayan, B. Patnaik, and Kant, R. Agnihotri. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 1–52.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2003. La arquitectura del lenguaje. Barcelona: Ed. Kairós.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Belletti, A. (ed.), Structures and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 104–131.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2005. Three factors in language design, Linguistic Inquiry 36. 1: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N., and Halle, M.. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N., and H. Lasnik. 1993. Principles and parameters theory. In Jacobs, J., Stechow, A., Sternefeld, W., and Vennemann, T. (eds.), Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Berlin: de Gruyter. 506–569. (Reprinted in Chomsky, , 1995, 13–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, G. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads. A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 2000. On Greenberg's Universal 20 and the Semitic DP, University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 10. 2: 45–61.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. 1990. The role of sonority in core syllabification. In Kingston, J. and Beckman, M. (eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology I. Between the Grammar and the Physics of Speech. New York: Cambridge University Press. 283–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clements, G. N., and E. V. Hume. 1995. The internal organization of speech sounds. In Goldsmith, J. A. (ed.), Handbook of Phonological Theory.Oxford: Blackwell. 245–306.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Comrie, B.Comrie, B. 1997. Turkic languages and linguistic typology, Turkic Languages 1: 14–24.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. 1998. Rethinking the typology of relative clauses, Language Design 1: 59–86.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. 2001. Languages of the world. In Aronoff, M. and Rees-Miller, J. (eds.), The Handbook of Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. 19–42.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. 2003. On explaining language universals. In Tomasello, M. (ed.), The New Psychology of Language (Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language), Volume II. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 195–209.Google Scholar
Comrie, B., and Haspelmath, M.. 2001. The Library of Babel. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Comrie, B., and T. Kuteva. 2005. Relative clause formation. In Dryer, M., Haspelmath, M., Gil, D., and Comrie, B. (eds.), World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Copleston, F. 1971. Historia de la filosofía. Volumen IV: De Descartes a Leibniz. Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar
Corbett, G. G. 1983. Hierarchies, Targets and Controllers: Agreement Patterns in Slavonic. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Corbett, G. G. 1991. Gender.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, G. G. 2000. Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coseriu, E. 1978. Los universales del lenguaje (y los otros). In Coseriu, E., Gramática, semántica y universales. Madrid: Gredos. 148–205.Google Scholar
Cowie, F. 1998. What's Within?: Nativism Reconsidered. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Crain, S., and Nakayama, M.. 1987. Structure dependence in grammar formation, Language 63: 522–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cram, D., and Maat, J. (eds.). 2001. George Dalgarno on Universal Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. 1990. Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective.Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. 2002. Typology and Universals. Second edition. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. 2004. Logical and typological arguments for Radical Construction Grammar. In Fried, M. and Östman, J. (eds.), Construction Grammar(s): Cognitive and Cross-Language Dimensions. Constructional Approaches to Language, 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 273–314.Google Scholar
Croft, W., Denning, K., and Kemmers, S. (eds.). 1990. Studies in Typology and Diachrony. Papers Presented to Joseph H. Greenberg on his 75th Birthday. Typological Studies in Language, 20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuenca, M. J., and Hilferty, J.. 1999. Introducción a la lingüística cognitiva. Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar
Dahl, Ö. 1985. Tense and Aspect Systems.Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dahm-Draksic, T. 1998. A Role and Reference Grammar analysis of case marking in Croatian. MA project, University at Buffalo.
Darnell, M., Noonan, M., and Wheatley, K. (eds.). 1999. Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics. Volume I: General Papers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Deacon, T. W. 1997. The Symbolic Species: The Co-evolution of Language and the Brain.New York: W. W. Norton and Co.Google Scholar
Mauro, T., and Formigari, L. (eds.). 1990. Leibniz, Humboldt and the Origins of Comparativism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derbyshire, D., and Pullum, G. (eds.). 1989. Handbook of Amazonian Languages, Volume II. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Di Cesare, D. 1990. The philosophical and anthropological place of Wilhelm von Humboldt's linguistic typology. Linguistic comparison as a means to compare the different processes of human thought. In De Mauro and Formigari (1990), 156–181.
Dik, S. C. 1978. Stepwise Lexical Decomposition. Lisse: The Peter de Ridder Press.Google Scholar
Dik, S. C. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part I: The Hierarchical Structure of the Clause. Ed. Kees, Hengeveld. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1972. The Dyirbal Language of North Queensland.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W., and A. Y. Aikhenvald. 2002a. Word: a typological framework. In Dixon and Aikhenvald (2002b), 1–41.
Dixon, R. M. W., and A. Y. Aikhenvald. (eds.). 2002b. Word. A Cross-Linguistic Typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Doke, C. M. 1973 [1927]. Textbook of Zulu Grammar. Cape Town: Longman Southern Africa (PTY) Limited.Google Scholar
Donohue, M. 1999. A Grammar of Tukang Besi. Berlin: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar.Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, M. S. 1989. Large linguistic areas and language sampling, Studies in Language 13: 257–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, M. S. 1997. Are grammatical relations universal? In Bybee, J., Haiman, J., and Thompson, S. (eds.), Essays on Language Function and Language Type. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 115–144.Google Scholar
Eco, U. 1994. La búsqueda de la lengua perfecta.Barcelona: Crítica.Google Scholar
Ekmekci, O. F. 1979. Acquisition of Turkish: a longitudinal study on the early language development of a Turkish child. Ph. D. thesis, University of Texas.
Enç, M. 1987. Anchoring conditions for tense, Linguistic Inquiry 18: 633–657.Google Scholar
Everett, D. 1986. Pirahã. In Derbyshire, D. and Pullum, G. (eds.), Handbook of Amazonian Languages.Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Vol. I, 200–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fabb, N. 1988. English suffixation is constrained only by selectional restrictions, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 527–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Facundes, S. da Silva. 2000. The language of the Apurinã people of Brazil (Maipure/Arawak). Ph. D. thesis, State University of New York at Buffalo.
Ferguson, C. A. 1966. Assumptions about nasals: a sample study in phonological universals. In Greenberg, J. H. (ed.), Universals of Language.Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 53–60.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. A. 1978. Historical background of universals research. In Greenberg (1978a), 7– 31.
Feynman, R. 1963. The Feynman Lectures in Physics, Volume I. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. 1987. Lectures Held at the Stanford Summer Linguistics Institute.Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C., Kay, P., Michaelis, L., and Sag, I.. To appear. Construction Grammar.Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. D. 1977. Semantics. Theories of Meaning in Generative Grammar. Sussex: The Harvester Press.Google Scholar
Foley, W., and Van, R. Valin. 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Forsyth, J. 1970. A Grammar of Aspect. Usage and Meaning in the Russian Verb. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Frank, T. 1979. Segno e significato. John Wilkins e la lingua filosofica. Naples: Guida.Google Scholar
Freidin, R., and Vergnaud, J. R.. 2001. Exquisite connections: some remarks on the evolution of linguistic theory, Lingua 111: 639–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Genetti, C. 1992. Semantic and grammatical categories of relative clause morphology in the languages of Nepal, Studies in Language 16: 405–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. 1979. On Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Givón, T. 1984. Syntax: A Functional–Typological Introduction. Volume I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. 1990. Syntax: A Functional–Typological Introduction. Volume II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Givón, T. 1995. Functionalism and Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glinert, L. 1989. The Grammar of Modern Hebrew. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goddard, C. 1998. Semantic Analysis. A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goddard, C. 2002. The search for the shared semantic core of all languages. In Goddard and Wierzbicka (2002), 5–40.
Goddard, C., and Wierzbicka, A. (eds.). 1994. Semantic and Lexical Universals. Theory and Empirical Findings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goddard, C., and Wierzbicka, A. 2002. Meaning and Universal Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. 1995. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. 1998. Semantic principles of predication. In Koenig, J. P. (ed.), Discourse and Cognition. Bridging the Gap. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. 2003. Constructions: a new theoretical approach to language, Trends in Cognitive Science 7. 5: 219–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González Orta, M. M. 2002. Lexical templates and syntactic variation: the syntax–semantics interface of the Old English speech verb secgan. In Mairal and Pérez Quintero (2002), 281–302.
Gonzálvez-García, F. 2003. Reconstructing object complements in English and Spanish. In Vázquez, M. Martínez (ed.), Gramática de Construcciones. Contrastes entre el inglés y el español. Huelva: Universidad de Huelva. 17–58.Google Scholar
Gorbet, L. P. 1976. A Grammar of Diegueño Nominals. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 2002. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Grady, J. 1998. The ‘Conduit Metaphor’ revisited: a reassessment of metaphors for communication. In Koenig, J. P. (ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language II. Buffalo: CSLI Publications. 205–218.Google Scholar
Grady, J., T. Oakley, and S. Coulson. 1999. Blending and metaphor. In Gibbs, R. and Steen, G. (eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 101–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. 1957. Order of affixing: a study in general linguistics. In Greenberg, J. (ed.), Essays in Linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 86– 94.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. 1963a. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Greenberg (1963b). 73–113.
Greenberg, J. H. (ed.). 1963b. Universals of Language. 2nd edition. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Greenberg, J. H. 1966. Language Universals with Special Reference to Feature Hierarchies. The Hague: Mouton.
Greenberg, J. H. 1969. Some methods of dynamic comparison in linguistics. In Puhvel, J. (ed.), Substance and Structure of Language. Berkeley: University of California Press. 147–203.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. (ed.). 1978a. Universals of Human Language. Volume I: Method and Theory. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Greenberg, J. H. 1978b. How does a language acquire gender markers? In Greenberg, J., Ferguson, C., and Moravcsik, E. (eds.), Universals of Human Language. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Vol. III, 47–82.Google Scholar
Grimes, B. 1992. Ethnologue: Languages of the World. 12th edition. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J. 1986. A morphosyntactic explanation for the Mirror Principle, Linguistic Inquiry 17: 745–750.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. 1995. Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Haiman, J. 1985. Natural Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haiman, J. 1994. Ritualization and the development of language. In Pagliuca, W. (ed.), Perspectives on Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 3–28.Google Scholar
Hale, K., and Keyser, S. J. (eds.). 1993. The View from Building 20. Essays Presented to Silvain Bromberger on his 50th Birthday. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hall, C. J. 1992. Morphology and Mind. A Unified Approach to Explanation in Linguistics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Halle, M., and A. Marantz. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale and Keyser (1993), 111–176.
Harris, J. W. 1983. Syllable Structure and Stress in Spanish: A Nonlinear Analysis. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harvey, D. 1989. The Condition of Postmodernity. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hasegawa, Y. 1996. A Study of Japanese Clause Linkage: The Connective TE in Japanese. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 1996. Word-class-changing inflection and morphological theory. In Booij, G. and Marle, J. (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1995. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 43–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 1997. Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M., König, E., Oesterreicher, W., and Raible, W. (eds.). 2001. Language Typology and Language Universals. An International Handbook. Volume 1. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. 1988. Explaining language universals. In Hawkins, J. A. (ed.), Explaining Language Universals. Oxford: Blackwell. 3–28.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. 1994. A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hawkins, J. A., and A. Cutler. 1988. Psycholinguistic factors in morphological asymmetry. In Hawkins, J. A. (ed.), Explaining Language Universals. Oxford: Blackwell. 280–317.Google Scholar
Hayes, B. P. 1999. Phonetically driven phonology: the role of Optimality Theory and Inductive Grounding. In Darnell, M.et al. (eds.), Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics. Volume I: General Papers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 243–285.Google Scholar
Heath, J. 1999. A Grammar of Koyra Chiini. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, B., and Reh, M.. 1984. Grammaticalization and Reanalysis in African Languages. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
Heine, B., U. Claudi, and F. Hünnemeyer. 1991. From cognition to grammar: evidence from African languages. In Traugott and Heine (1991), Vol. I, 149–187.
Heine, B., and Kuteva, T.. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holz, Heinz H. 1970. Leibniz. Madrid: Tecnos.Google Scholar
Hekking, E., and P. Muysken. 1995. Otomí y Quechua: una comparación de los elementos gramaticales prestados del español. In Zimmermann, K. (ed.), Lenguas en contacto en Hispanoamérica: nuevos enfoques. Frankfurt am Main: Vervuert. 101–118.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, K. 1989. Layers and operators in Functional Grammar, Journal of Linguistics 25. 1: 127–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, K. 1992. Non-verbal Predication: Theory, Typology, Diachrony. Functional Grammar Series, 15. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, K. 1998. Adverbial clauses in the languages of Europe. In Auwera, J. (ed.), Adverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe. Empirical Approaches to Language Typology / Eurotyp 20–3. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 335–419.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, K., Rijkhoff, J., and Siewierska, A.. 2004. Parts-of-speech systems and word order, Journal of Linguistics 40. 3: 527–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hjelmslev, L. 1971. Prolegómenos a una teoría del lenguaje. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Hockett, C. F. 1963. The problem of universals in language. In J. H. Greenberg (1963b), 1–29.
Holisky, D. 1981a. Aspect and Georgian Medial Verbs. New York: Caravan.Google Scholar
Holisky, D. 1981b. Speech theory and Georgian aspect. In Tedeschi, P. and Zaenen, A. (eds.), Tense and Aspect. Syntax and Semantics, 14. New York: Academic Press. 127–144.Google Scholar
Holton, D., Mackridge, P., and Philippaki-Warburton, I.. 1997. Greek. A Comprehensive Grammar of the Modern Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hopper, P., and Traugott, E.. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hurford, J. R., Studdert-Kennedy, M., and Knight, C.. 1998. Approaches to the Evolution of Language: Social and Cognitive Bases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huybregts, R., and Riemsdijk, H.. 1982. Noam Chomsky on the Generative Enterprise. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Hyman, L. M. 1984. Form and substance in language universals. In Butterworth, B., Comrie, B., and Dahl, Ö. (eds.), Explanations for Language Universals. The Hague: Mouton. 67–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyman, L. M. 2003. Suffix ordering in Bantu. In Booij, G. and Marle, J. (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 2002. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 245–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hymes, D. H. 1983. Essays in the History of Linguistic Anthropology.Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1977. X′ Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1994. Patterns in the Mind. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 2002. Foundations of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 2003. Foundations of language: brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Unpublished manuscript.
Jenkins, L. 2000. Biolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M. 1987. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Reason and Imagination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Johnston, R. L. 1980. Nakanai of New Britain. Pacific Linguistics Series B, no. 70. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Joseph, B. D., and Smirniotopoulos, J. C.. 1993. The morphosyntax of the Modern Greek verb as morphology and not syntax, Linguistic Inquiry 24: 388–398.Google Scholar
Kauffman, S. 1993. The Origins of Order. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kay, P., and , C. Fillmore. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: the What's X doing Y? construction, Language 75. 1: 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, R. 1975. French Syntax: The Transformational Cycle. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. 2003. Some notes on comparative syntax, with special reference to English and French. Ms., New York University.
Keenan, E. L. 1972. The logical status of deep structures. In Heilmann, L. (ed.), Proceedings of the Eleventh International Congress of Linguists, Bologna: le Mulino. (Re-edited in Keenan, E. L.. 1987. Universal Grammar: 15 Essays. London: Croom Helm.)Google Scholar
Keenan, E., and Comrie, B.. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar, Linguistic Inquiry 8: 63–99.Google Scholar
Keyser, S. J. 1978. Recent Transformational Studies in European Languages. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 1982. From Cyclic Phonology to Lexical Phonology. In Hulst, H. and Smith, N. H. S. (eds.), The Structure of Phonological Representations. Dordrecht: Foris. Part 1, 131–175.Google Scholar
Kirsch, B., Skorge, S., and Magona, S.. 1999. Teach Yourself Xhosa. London: Hodder and Stoughton Educational.Google Scholar
Kita, S. 1999. Japanese enter/exit verbs without motion semantics. Studies in Language, 23: 317–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klamer, M. 1998. A Grammar of Kambera. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koerner, E. F. K., and Asher, R. E. (eds.). 1995. Concise History of the Language Sciences. From the Sumerians to the Cognitivists. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Kohler, K. J. 1998. The development of sound systems in human language. In Hurford, J. R., Studdert-Kennedy, M., and Knight, C. (eds.). 1998. Approaches to the Evolution of Language: Social and Cognitive Bases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 265–278.Google Scholar
Kolesnikova, V. D. 1966. Sintaksis èvenkijskogo jazyka. Moscow/Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. 1993. Nominalizations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, J. 1997. Turkish. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kossmann, M. 1997. Grammaire du parler berbère de Figuig (Maroc oriental). Louvain, Paris: Peeters.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z., and Radden, G.. 1998. Metonymy: developing a cognitive linguistic view, Cognitive Linguistics 9. 1: 37–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladefoged, P. 1971. Preliminaries to Linguistic Phonetics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, P., and Maddieson, I.. 1996. The Sounds of the World's Languages. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lafont, C. 1993. La razón como lenguaje. Madrid: Visor.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., and Johnson, M.. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., and Johnson, M. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. 1969. Review of Grammaire générale et raisonnée, Language 45: 343–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lecarme, J. 1996. Tense in the nominal system: the Somali DP. In Lecarme, J., Lowenstamm, J., and Shlonsky, U. (eds.), Studies in Afroasiatic Grammar. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics. 159–178.Google Scholar
Lefebvre, C., and Muysken, P.. 1988. Mixed Categories: Nominalizations in Quechua. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Legate, J., and , C. Yang. 2002. Empirical re-assessment of stimulus poverty arguments, Linguistic Review, 19: 151–162.Google Scholar
Lehmann, C. 1984. Der Relativsatz: Typologie seiner Strukturen, Theorie seiner Funktionen, Kompendium seiner Grammatik. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Lehmann, W. P. 1974. Proto-Indo-European Syntax. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Levin, B. 1989. The Basque verbal inventory and configurationality. In Marácz, L. and Muysken, P. (eds.), Configurationality: The Typology of Asymmetries. Dordrecht: Foris. 39–62.Google Scholar
Lewontin, R. 2000. The Triple Helix. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lier, E. van. 2005. The explanatory power of typological hierarchies: developmental perspectives on non-verbal predication. In Groot, C. and Hengeveld, K. (eds.), Morphosyntactic Expression in Functional Grammar. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, D. 1999. The Development of Language. Acquisition, Change, and Evolution. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lindblom, B. 1983. Economy of speech gestures. In MacNeilage, P. F. (ed.), The Production of Speech. New York: Springer Verlag. 217–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindblom, B. 1986. Phonetic universals in vowel systems. In Ohala, J. J. and Jaeger, J. J. (eds.), Experimental Phonology. Orlando: Academic Press. 13–44.Google Scholar
Lindblom, B. 1990. Explaining phonetic variation: a sketch of the H & H theory. In Hardcastle, W. J. and Marchal, A. (eds.), Speech Production and Speech Modelling. The Hague: Kluwer. 403–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindblom, B. 1998. Systemic constraints and adaptive change in the formation of sound structure. In Hurford, J. R., Studdert-Kennedy, M., and Knight, C. (eds.), Approaches to the Evolution of Language: Social and Cognitive Bases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 242–264.Google Scholar
Lindblom, B., P. F. MacNeilage, and M. Studdert-Kennedy. 1984. Self-organizing processes and the explanation of phonological universals. In Butterworth, B., Comrie, B., and Dahl, Ö (eds.), Explanations for Language Universals. Berlin: Mouton. 181–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindblom, B., and I. Maddieson. 1988. Phonetic universals in consonant systems. In Hyman, L. M. and , C. N. Li (eds.), Language, Speech and Mind. London: Routledge. 62–78.Google Scholar
Lindblom, B., Brownlee, S., Davis, B., and Moon, S.-J.. 1992. Speech transforms, Speech Communication 11: 357–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locke, J. L. 1998. Social sound-making as a precursor to language. In Hurford, J. R., Studdert-Kennedy, M., and Knight, C. (eds.), Approaches to the Evolution of Language: Social and Cognitive Bases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 190– 201.Google Scholar
Louali, N., and I. Maddieson. 1999. Phonological contrast and phonetic realization: the case of Berber steps. 14th ICPhSubject 1999, San Francisco: 603–606.
Luís, A. R., and A. Spencer. 2005. A Paradigm Function account of ‘mesoclisis’ in European Portuguese. In Booij, G. and Marle, J. (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 2004. Dordrecht: Springer. 177–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, J., and McGurk, H.. 1978. Visual influences on speech perception process. Perception and Psychophysics, 24: 253–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacNeilage, P. 1998. The frame/content theory of evolution of speech production, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21: 499–546.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maddieson, I. 1984. Patterns of Sounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maddieson, I. 1997. Phonetic universals. In Hardcastle, W. and Laver, J. (eds.), The Handbook of Phonetic Sciences. Oxford: Blackwell. 619–639.Google Scholar
Mairal, R., and P. Faber. 2002. Functional Grammar and lexical templates. In Mairal and Pérez Quintero (2002), 39–94.
Mairal, R., and Pérez, M. J. Quintero (eds.). 2002. New Perspectives on Argument Structure in Functional Grammar. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mairal, R., and Gil, J.. 2003. En torno a los universales lingüísticos. Madrid: Cambridge University Press /AKAL.Google Scholar
Marchese, L. 1986. Tense/Aspect and the Development of Auxiliaries in Kru Languages. Arlington, Tex.: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Massam, D. 2001. Pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 153–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, G. H. 1963. Hidatsa Syntax. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. J. 2002. A Thematic Guide to Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. D. 1968. The role of semantics in grammar. In Bach, E. and Harms, R. T. (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston. 124–170.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. D. 1974. English as a VSO language. In Seuren, P. A. M. (ed.), Semantic Syntax. London: Oxford University Press. 75–95.Google Scholar
McGhee, G. 1998. Theoretical Morphology. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Mchombo, S. 1993. Reflexive and Reciprocal in Chichewa. In Mchombo, S. (ed.), Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar I. Stanford: CSLI. 181–208.Google Scholar
McNeill, D. 1966. Developmental psycholinguistics. In Smith, F. and Miller, G. (eds.), The Genesis of Language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 15–84.Google Scholar
McNeill, D. 1970. The Acquisition of Language. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Meillet, A. 1958 [1912]. L'évolution des formes grammaticales. Reprint in Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. Paris: H. Champion.Google Scholar
Méndez Dosuna, J. 1996. Can weakening changes start in initial position? In Hurch, B. and Rhodes, R. (eds.), Natural Phonology: The State of the Art. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 97–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giro, Mendívil J. L. 2003. Gramática Natural. La Gramática Generativa y la Tercera Cultura. Madrid: Machado Libros.Google Scholar
Miner, K. L. 1986. Noun stripping and loose incorporation in Zuni, International Journal of American Linguistics 52: 242–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mithun, M. 1999. The status of tense within inflection. In Booij, G. and Marle, J. (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1998. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 23–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cabrera, Moreno J. C. 1990. Lenguas del mundo. Madrid: Visor.Google Scholar
Cabrera, Moreno J. C. 1995. La lingüística teórico-tipológica. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Morin, Y. C. 1997. Remarques sur l'organisation de la flexion des verbes français, Review of Applied Linguistics 77/78: 13–91.Google Scholar
Moure, T. 2001. Universales del lenguaje y linguo-diversidad. Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar
Mowrey, R., and Pagliuca, W.. 1995. The reductive character of articulatory evolution, Rivista di Linguistica 7. 1: 37–124.Google Scholar
Mulder, J. G. 1994. Ergativity in Coast Tsimshian (Sm'algyax). Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Musan, R. 1995. On the temporal interpretation of Noun Phrases. Ph. D. thesis, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Newmeyer, F. J. 1998. Language Form and Language Function. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. 2004. Grammar is grammar and usage is usage, Language 79. 4: 682–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, J. 1984. Functional theories of grammar, Annual Review of Anthropology 13: 97–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, J. 1986. Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar. Language, 62: 56–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noonan, M. 1999. Non-structuralist syntax. In Newmeyer, F., Noonan, M., and Wheatley, K. (eds.), Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics. Volume I: General Papers. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 11–31.Google Scholar
Nordlinger, R., and A. Saulwick. 2002. Infinitives in polysynthesis: the case of Rembarrnga. In Evans, N. and Sasse, H.-J. (eds.), Problems of Polysynthesis. Studia Typologica, vol. 4. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. 185–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordlinger, R., and A. Saulwick. 1981. The listener as a source of sound change. In Masek, C. S.et al. (eds.), Papers from the Parasession on Language and Behavior. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 178–203.Google Scholar
Nordlinger, R., and A. Saulwick. 1983. The origin of sound patterns in vocal tract constraints. In MacNeilage, P. (ed.), The Production of Speech. New York: Springer. 189–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordlinger, R., and Saulwick, A.. 1990. There is no interface between phonology and phonetics: a personal view, Journal of Phonetics 18: 153–171.Google Scholar
Nordlinger, R., and A. Saulwick. 1997. The relation between phonetics and phonology. In Hardcastle, W. J. and Laver, J. (eds.), The Handbook of Phonetic Sciences. Oxford: Blackwell. 674–694.Google Scholar
Ohala, J. J., and H. Kawasaki. 1984. Prosodic phonology and phonetics. In Ewen, C. and Anderson, J. (eds.), Phonology Yearbook 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 113–127.Google Scholar
Olson, M. 1981. Barai clause junctures: toward a functional theory of interclausal relations. Ph. D. thesis, Australian National University, Canberra.
Ouhalla, J. 1991. Functional Categories and Parametric Variation. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panther, K. U., and Radden, G. (eds.). 1999. Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, D., and T. Payne. 1989. Yagua. In Derbyshire and Pullum (1989), 249–474.
Penny, R. 1991. A History of the Spanish Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pensado, C. 1993. Sobre el contexto del cambio F > h en Castellano, Romance Philology 48: 147–176.Google Scholar
Quintero, Pérez M. J. 2002. Adverbial Subordination in English. Language and Computers; Studies in Practical Linguistics, 41. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, B. S. 1984. Word frequency and the actuation of sound change, Language 60: 320–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinillos, J. L. 1997. El corazón del laberinto. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. 1994. The Language Instinct. New York: Morrowo.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plank, F. 1994. Inflection and derivation. In Asher, R. E. (ed.), The Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Vol. III, 1671–1678.Google Scholar
Plank, F. 1999. Split morphology: how agglutination and flexion mix, Linguistic Typology 3: 279–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plank, F., and Filiminova, E.. 2000. The Universals Archive: a brief introduction for prospective users, Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 53: 97–111.Google Scholar
Pollock, J. Y. 1989. Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP, Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365–424.Google Scholar
Pollock, J. Y. 1997. Langage et cognition. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Posner, R. 1996. The Romance Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Price, G. 2000. Encyclopedia of the Languages of Europe. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, A., and P. Smolensky. 1993. Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in Generative Grammar. Ms., Rutgers University and University of Colorado.
Prince, A. 1997. Optimality: from neural networks to universal grammar, Science 275: 1604–1610.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pullum, G. 1996. Learnability, hyperlearning, and the poverty of the stimulus. Paper presented at the parasession on learnability, 22nd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society.
Pullum, G., and Scholz, B.. 2002. Empirical assessment of stimulus poverty arguments, Linguistic Review 19: 9–50.Google Scholar
Radden, G. 1992. The cognitive approach to natural language. In Pütz, M. (ed.), Thirty Years of Linguistic Evolution. Studies in Honour of René Dirven on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 513–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radford, A. 1988. Transformational Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radford, A. 1997. Syntax. A Minimalist Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rappaport, H. M., and B. Levin. 1998. Building verb meanings. In Butt, M. and Geuder, W. (eds.), The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 97–134.Google Scholar
Rice, K. D. 2000. Morpheme Order and Semantic Scope. Word Formation in the Athabaskan Verb. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rijkhoff, J., Bakker, D., Hengeveld, K., and Kahrel, P.. 1993. A method of language sampling, Studies in Language 17. 1: 169–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rijkhoff, J., and Bakker, D.. 1998. Language sampling, Linguistic Typology 2–3: 263–314.Google Scholar
Ritter, E. 1991. Two functional categories in noun phrases: evidence from Modern Hebrew. In Rothstein, S. D. (ed.), Perspectives on Phrase Structure: Heads and Licensing. Syntax and Semantics, 25. San Diego: Academic Press. 37–62.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Romaine, S. 1995. The grammaticalization of irrealis in Tok Pisin. In Bybee, J. and Fleischman, S. (eds.), Modality in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 385–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romero-Figueroa, A. 1997. A Reference Grammar of Warao. Lincom Studies in Native American Linguistics, 6. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Ph. D. thesis, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Ruhlen, M. 1987. A Guide to the World's Languages, Volume I: Classification. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., and O. Díez Velasco. 2003. On metonymic thinking: some notes on the role of high-level metonymies in English. In Inchaurralde, C. and Florén, C. (eds.), Interaction and Cognition in Linguistics. Frankfurt, New York: Peter Lang. 189–210.Google Scholar
Sadler, L., and A. Spencer. 2001. Syntax as an exponent of morphological features. In Booij, G. and Marle, J. (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 2000. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 71–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, V. 1969. Review of Cartesian Linguistics by Noam Chomsky, Journal of Linguistics 5: 165–187.CrossRef
Sampson, G. 1999. Educating Eve: The Language Instinct Debate. London: Cassel Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Sapir, E. 1921. Language. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.Google Scholar
Schwartz, J.-L., Boë, L.-J., Vallée, N., and Abry, C.. 1997. The dispersion–focalization theory of vowel systems, Journal of Phonetics 25: 255–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, D. 1974. Topics in English morphology. Ph. D. thesis, MIT. (Published by Garland Publishing, Inc., New York, 1979.)
Siegel, D. 1977. The Adjacency Condition and the theory of morphology. In Proceedings of the Eighth Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistics Society. Amherst: University of Massachusetts. 189–197.Google Scholar
Slaughter, M. M. 1982. Universal Languages and Scientific Taxonomy in the Seventeenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, C. 1997. The Parameter of Aspect. 2nd edition. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, A. 1991. Morphological Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Spencer, A. 1992. Nominal inflection and the nature of functional categories, Journal of Linguistics 28: 313–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, A.Spencer, A. 1999. Chukchee and polysynthesis. In Raxilina, V. E. and Testelec, J. G. (eds.), Tipologija i Teorija Jazyka – ot opisanija k ob”jasneniju. K 60-letiju Aleksandra Evgen'evicha Kibrika. Moscow: Jazyki russkoj kul'tury. 106–113.Google Scholar
Spencer, A. 2000. Morphology. In Aronoff, M. and Rees-Miller, J. (eds.), Handbook of Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. 213–237.Google Scholar
Spencer, A. 2001. The paradigm-based model of morphosyntax, Transactions of the Philological Society 99: 279–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, A. 2003a. Periphrastic paradigms in Bulgarian. In Junghanns, U. and Szucsich, L. (eds.), Syntactic Structures and Morphological Information. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 249–282.Google Scholar
Spencer, A. 2003b. Putting some order into morphology: reflections on Rice (2000) and Stump (2001), Journal of Linguistics 39: 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, A. 2005. Towards a typology of ‘mixed categories.’ In Orhan, C. Orgun and Peter, Sells (eds.), Morphology and the Web of Grammar: Essays in Memory of Steven G. Lapointe. Stanford University: CSLI. 95–138.Google Scholar
Stahlke, H. 1970. Serial verbs, Studies in African Linguistics 1: 60–99.Google Scholar
Studdert-Kennedy, M. 1998. The particulate origins of language generativity. In Hurford, J. R., Studdert-Kennedy, M., and Knight, C. (eds.), Approaches to the Evolution of Language: Social and Cognitive Bases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 202–221.Google Scholar
Stump, G. T. 1998. Inflection. In Spencer, A. and Zwicky, A. (eds.), Handbook of Morphology. Oxford: Blackwell. 13–43.Google Scholar
Stump, G. T. 2001. Inflectional Morphology. A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stump, G. T. 2005. Some criticisms of Carstairs–McCarthy's conclusions. In Booij, G. and Marle, J. (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 2005. Dordrecht: Springer Verlag, 283–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. 2001. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. 2003. Concept structuring systems in language. In Tomasello, M. (ed.), The New Psychology of Language (Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure). Volume II. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. 15–46.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. 2003. Constructing a Language: A Usage-based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomcsányi, J. 1988. Roles y Referencia en Bribri: aspectos de la determinación funcional en las estructuras sintácticas. Ph. D. thesis, Universidad Nacional de Costa Rica.
Toratani, K. 1998. Lexical aspect and split intransitivity in Japanese, CLS 34: 377–391.Google Scholar
Tournadre, N. 1996. L'ergativité en tibétain: approche morphosyntaxique de la langue parlée. Louvain, Paris: Peeters.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: an example of subjectification in semantic change, Language 65: 31–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C., and Heine, B. (eds.). 1991. Approaches to Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., and Dasher, R. B.. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Travis, L. 1989. Parameters of phrase structure. In Baltin, M. and Kroch, A. S. (eds.), Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 263–279.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, N. S. 1939. Grundzüge der Phonologie. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague, 7. Prague: Cerde Linguistique de Prague.Google Scholar
Ulbaek, I. 1998. The origin of language and cognition. In Hurford, J. R., Studdert-Kennedy, M., and Knight, C. (eds.), Approaches to the Evolution of Language: Social and Cognitive Bases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 30–43.Google Scholar
United Nations. 1948. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. General Assembly Resolution 217 A(III), December 10, 1948. Page 2528. ICPhS99. San Francisco.
Auwera, J., and Plungian, V. A.. 1998. Modality's semantic map, Linguistic Typology 2: 79–124.Google Scholar
Valin, R. D. 1991. Another look at Icelandic case marking and grammatical relations, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9: 145–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valin, R. D. 2001a. An Introduction to Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valin, R. D. 2001b. Functional linguistics. In Aronoff, M. and Miller, J. R. (eds.), The Handbook of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 319–336.Google Scholar
Valin, R. D. 2005. The Syntax–Semantics–Pragmatics Interface: An Introduction to Role and Reference Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valin, R. D., and LaPolla, R.. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning & Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, R. D., and D. Wilkins. 1993. Predicting syntactic structure from semantic representations: remember in English and Mparntwe Arrernte. In Van, R. Valin (ed.), Advances in Role and Reference Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 499–534.Google Scholar
Vendler, Z. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Verkuyl, H. 1973. A Theory of Aspectuality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Voeltz, F. K. E. 1980. The etymology of the Bantu perfect. In Bouquiaux, L. (ed.), L'expansion bantoue. Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. 487–492.Google Scholar
Walton, C. 1986. Sama Verbal Semantics: Classification, Derivation and Inflection. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.Google Scholar
Watters, J. K. 1988. Topics in Tepehua grammar. Ph. D. thesis, University of California, Berkeley.
Weber, D. J. 1989. A Grammar of Huallaga (Huanuco) Quechua. University of California Publications in Linguistics, 112. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Weist, R. M. 2002. The first language acquisition of tense and aspect: a review. In Salaberry, R. and Shirai, Y. (eds.), Tense–aspect Morphology in L2 Acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 21–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. 1972. Semantic Primitives. Frankfurt: Athenäum.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. 1980. Lingua mentalis. Sydney: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. 1988. The Semantics of Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. 1992. In search of tradition: the semantic ideas of Leibniz. Lexicografica 8: 10–25.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. 1995. Universal semantic primitives as a basis for lexical semantics, Folia Lingüística 30. 1–2: 149–169.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. 1996. Semantics, Primes and Universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. 2001. Leibnizian linguistics. In Kenesei, I. and Harnish, R. M. (eds.), Perspectives on Semantics, Pragmatics, and Discourse. A Festschrift for Ferenc Kiefer. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 229–253.Google Scholar
Wilkins, D. 1989. Mparntwe Arrernte (Aranda): studies in the structure and semantics of grammar. Ph. D. thesis, Australian National University.
Williams, E. 1981. Argument structure and morphology, Linguistic Review 1: 18–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wurm, S. A., Mühlhäusler, P., and Bynon, D. T. (eds.). 2003. Atlas of Languages of Intercultural Communication in the Pacific, Asia and the Americas. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Yang, B. 1994. Morphosyntactic phenomena of Korean in Role and Reference Grammar: psych-verb constructions, inflectional verb morphemes, complex sentences, and relative clauses. Seoul: Hankuk Publishers.Google Scholar
Yang, C. 2002. Knowledge and Learning in Natural Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A., and Pullum, G. K.. 1983. Cliticization vs. inflection: English n't, Language 59: 502–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aarsleff, H. 1982. From Locke to Saussure. Essays on the Study of Language and Intellectual History. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Abbot, M. 1991. Macushi. In Derbyshire, C. D. and Pullum, G. K. (eds.), Handbook of Amazonian Languages, Volume III. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 23–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abdoulaye, M. L. 1992. Aspects of Hausa morphosyntax in Role and Reference grammar. Ph. D. dissertation, University at Buffalo. (Available on Role and Reference Grammar website.)
Acero, J. J. 1993. Lenguaje y filosofía. Barcelona: Octaedro.Google Scholar
Ackema, P., and Schoorlemmer, M.. 1994. The middle construction and the syntax–semantics interface, Lingua 93: 59–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ackerman, F., and P. LeSourd. 1997. Toward a lexical representation of phrasal predicates. In Alsina, A., Bresan, J., and Sells, P. (eds.), Complex Predicates. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 67–106.Google Scholar
Ackerman, F., and Webelhuth, G.. 1998. A Theory of Predicates. Stanford University: CSLI.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, A. Y. 2002. Typological parameters for the study of clitics, with special reference to Tariana. In Dixon and Aikhenvald (2002b), 42–78.
Aksu-Koç, A. A., and D. I. Slobin. 1985. Acquisition of Turkish. In Dan, Slobin (ed.), The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition. Volume I: The Data. Hillsdale, N.J.: Laurence Erlbaum Associates. 3–24.Google Scholar
Alexandrova, G., and Arnaudova, O. (eds.). 2001. The Minimalist Parameter. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous. 1980. Ute Reference Grammar. Ignacio, Colo.: Ute Press.
Arens, H. 1969. Sprachwissenschaft. Der Gang ihrer Entwicklung von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart. Munich: Verlag Karl Alber.Google Scholar
Aronoff, M., and Sridhar, S.. 1983. Morphological levels in English and Kannada; or atarizing Reagan, Papers from the Parasession on the Interplay of Phonology, Morphology, and Syntax. Chicago Linguistic Society 19: 3–16.Google Scholar
Ashton, E. 1944. Swahili Grammar. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bach, E., and Harris, R. T. (eds.). 1968. Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Baker, M. C. 1985. The Mirror Principle and morphosyntactic explanation, Linguistic Inquiry 16: 373–416.Google Scholar
Baker, M. C. 1988. Incorporation. A Theory of Grammatical Function Changing.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baker, M. C. 1996. The Polysynthesis Parameter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, M. C. 2001. The Atoms of Language: The Mind's Hidden Rules of Grammar. New York: Basic Books.
Bakker, D., and Hengeveld, K.. 1999. Relatieve zinnen in typologisch perspectief, Gramma/TTT 7. 3: 191–214.Google Scholar
Barlow, M., and , C. A. Ferguson (eds.). 1988. Agreement in Natural Language. Approaches, Theories, Descriptions. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Barnes, J. 1984. Evidentials in the Tuyuca verb, International Journal of American Linguistics 50: 255–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartlett, B. E. 1987. The grammarian's contribution to the study of semantics. Renaissance to Enlightenment. In Buzzetti, D. and Ferriani, M. (eds.), Speculative Grammar, Universal Grammar, and Philosophical Analysis of Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 23–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, E., and B. MacWhinney. 1982. Functionalist approaches to grammar. In Wanner, E. and Gleitman, L. (eds.), Language Acquisition: The State of the Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 173–218.Google Scholar
Beard, R. 1995. Lexeme Morpheme Base Morphology. Stony Brook, N.Y. : SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Berlin, B., and Kay, P.. 1969. Basic Color Terms. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Berrah, A. R., and Laboissiere, R.. 1997. Phonetic code emergence in a society of speech robots: explaining vowel systems and the MUAF Principle, Proceedings Eurospeech 97 (Rhodes, Greece): 2395–2398.Google Scholar
Bickel, B. 1995. Aspect, Mood and Time in Belhare: Studies in the Semantics–Pragmatics Interface of a Himalayan Language.Zurich: Zurich University Press.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, L. 1933. Language. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C., and Piattelli-Palmarini, M.. 2005. Language as a natural object, linguistics as a natural science, Linguistic Review 22: 351–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boeckx, C., and J. Uriagereka. In press. Minimalism. In Ramchand, G. and Reiss, C. (eds.), Handbook of Interfaces. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boer, B de. 2000. The emergence of sound systems through self-organization. In Hurford, J. R., Knight, C., and Studdert-Kennedy, M. (eds.), The Evolutionary Emergence of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 177–198.Google Scholar
Boersma, P. 1997. The Elements of Functional Phonology, ROA-173, Rutgers Optimality Archive, http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/roa.html.
Booij, G. 1987. Lexical Phonology and the organisation of the morphological component. In Gussmann, E. (ed.), Rules and the Lexicon. Lublin: Redakcja Wydawnictw Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego. 43–66.Google Scholar
Booij, G. 1994. Against split morphology. In Booij, G. and Marle, J. (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1993. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 27–49.Google Scholar
Booij, G. 1996. Inherent versus contextual inflection and the split morphology hypothesis. In Booij, G. and Marle, J. (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1995. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 1–16.Google Scholar
Booij, G., , C. Lehmann, Mugdan, J., and S. Skopetas (eds.). 2004. Morphologie. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung. Halbband. / Morphology. An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation, Volume II. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borgman, D. M. 1989. Sanuma. In Derbyshire and Pullum (1989), 15–248.
Börjars, K. 1998. Feature Distribution in Swedish Noun Phrases. Publications of the Philological Society, 32. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Botha, R. 1992. Twentieth-Century Conceptions of Language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Botne, R. 2003. To die across languages: toward a typology of achievement verbs, Linguistic Typology 7: 233–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boutin, M. 1994. Aspect in Bonggi. Ph. D. thesis, University of Florida.
Boyland, J. T. 1996. Morphosyntactic change in progress: a psycholinguistic approach. Ph. D. thesis, University of California at Berkeley.
Bracken, H. M. 1983. Mind and Language. Essays on Descartes and Chomsky. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Bright, W. 1957. The Karok Language. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Browman, C. P., and Goldstein, L. M.. 1992. Articulatory phonology: an overview, Phonetica 49: 155–180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, P. L. 2001. A grammar of Nias Selatan. Ph. D. thesis, University of Sydney.
Brucart, J. M. 2002. Los estudios de sintaxis en el generativismo: balance y perspectivas. In Presente y futuro de la lingüística en España. La Sociedad de Lingüística 30 años después, Actas del II Congreso de la Sociedad Española de Lingüística (Madrid, 2000). Madrid: Gredos. 21–51.Google Scholar
Butler, C. 2003. Structure and Function – A Guide to Three Major Structural–Functional Theories.Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. 1985. Morphology. A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L. 1988. The diachronic dimension in explanation. In Hawkins, J. (ed.), Explaining Language Universals. Oxford: Blackwell. 350–379.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. 1997. Semantic aspects of morphological typology. In Bybee, J., Haiman, J., and Thompson, S. (eds.), Essays on Language Function and Language Type. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 25–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L. 1998. A functionalist approach to grammar and its evolution, Evolution of Communication 2. 2: 249–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L. 2001. Phonology and Language Use.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L. 2002a. Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: the role of repetition. In Janda, R. and Joseph, B. (eds.), Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. 602–623.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. 2002b. Word frequency and context of use in the lexical diffusion of phonetically-conditioned sound change, Language Variation and Change 14: 261–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L., and Dahl, Ö.. 1989. The creation of tense and aspect systems in the languages of the world, Studies in Language 13. 1: 51–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L., and W. Pagliuca. 1987. The evolution of future meaning. In RamatCarruba, A. G. O., and Bernini, G. (eds.), Papers from the VIIth International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 109–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L., W. Pagliuca, and R. D. Perkins. 1991. Back to the future. In Traugott and Heine (1991), Vol. II, 17–58.
Bybee, J. L., Perkins, R., and Pagliuca, W.. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cameron-Faulkner, T., and Carstairs-McCarthy, A.. 2000. Stem alternants as morphological signata: evidence from blur avoidance in Polish nouns, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 18: 813–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, L. 1985. The Pipil Language of El Salvador. Mouton Grammar Library, 1. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cantarino, V. 1975. Syntax of Modern Arabic Prose: The Compound Sentence. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Carlson, G. 1977. Reference to kinds in English. Ph. D. thesis, University of Massachusetts.
Carnie, A., and Guilfoyle, E. (eds.). 2000. The Syntax of Verb-Initial Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carstairs, A. 1987. Allomorphy in Inflexion. Beckenham: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Carstairs-McCarthy, A. 1994. Inflection classes, gender and the Principle of Contrast, Language 70: 737–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Centineo, G. 1996. A lexical theory of auxiliary selection in Italian, Probus 8: 223–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1966. Cartesian Linguistics: A Chapter in the History of Rationalist Thought. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1972. Studies on Semantics in Generative Grammar. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1973. Reflections on Language. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1993. A Minimalist Program for syntax. In Hale and Keyser (1993), 1–37.
Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1998. Noam Chomsky's minimalist program and the philosophy of mind. An interview [with] C. J. Cela-Conde and G. Marty, Syntax 1: 19–36.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2000a. New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2000b. The Architecture of Language. Ed. Mukherji, N., Narayan, B. Patnaik, and Kant, R. Agnihotri. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2001. Derivation by phase. In Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 1–52.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2003. La arquitectura del lenguaje. Barcelona: Ed. Kairós.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2004. Beyond explanatory adequacy. In Belletti, A. (ed.), Structures and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 104–131.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 2005. Three factors in language design, Linguistic Inquiry 36. 1: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N., and Halle, M.. 1968. The Sound Pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N., and H. Lasnik. 1993. Principles and parameters theory. In Jacobs, J., Stechow, A., Sternefeld, W., and Vennemann, T. (eds.), Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Berlin: de Gruyter. 506–569. (Reprinted in Chomsky, , 1995, 13–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, G. 1999. Adverbs and Functional Heads. A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 2000. On Greenberg's Universal 20 and the Semitic DP, University of Venice Working Papers in Linguistics 10. 2: 45–61.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. 1990. The role of sonority in core syllabification. In Kingston, J. and Beckman, M. (eds.), Papers in Laboratory Phonology I. Between the Grammar and the Physics of Speech. New York: Cambridge University Press. 283–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clements, G. N., and E. V. Hume. 1995. The internal organization of speech sounds. In Goldsmith, J. A. (ed.), Handbook of Phonological Theory.Oxford: Blackwell. 245–306.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Comrie, B.Comrie, B. 1997. Turkic languages and linguistic typology, Turkic Languages 1: 14–24.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. 1998. Rethinking the typology of relative clauses, Language Design 1: 59–86.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. 2001. Languages of the world. In Aronoff, M. and Rees-Miller, J. (eds.), The Handbook of Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. 19–42.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. 2003. On explaining language universals. In Tomasello, M. (ed.), The New Psychology of Language (Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language), Volume II. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 195–209.Google Scholar
Comrie, B., and Haspelmath, M.. 2001. The Library of Babel. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Comrie, B., and T. Kuteva. 2005. Relative clause formation. In Dryer, M., Haspelmath, M., Gil, D., and Comrie, B. (eds.), World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Copleston, F. 1971. Historia de la filosofía. Volumen IV: De Descartes a Leibniz. Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar
Corbett, G. G. 1983. Hierarchies, Targets and Controllers: Agreement Patterns in Slavonic. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Corbett, G. G. 1991. Gender.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, G. G. 2000. Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coseriu, E. 1978. Los universales del lenguaje (y los otros). In Coseriu, E., Gramática, semántica y universales. Madrid: Gredos. 148–205.Google Scholar
Cowie, F. 1998. What's Within?: Nativism Reconsidered. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Crain, S., and Nakayama, M.. 1987. Structure dependence in grammar formation, Language 63: 522–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cram, D., and Maat, J. (eds.). 2001. George Dalgarno on Universal Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. 1990. Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective.Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. 2002. Typology and Universals. Second edition. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. 2004. Logical and typological arguments for Radical Construction Grammar. In Fried, M. and Östman, J. (eds.), Construction Grammar(s): Cognitive and Cross-Language Dimensions. Constructional Approaches to Language, 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 273–314.Google Scholar
Croft, W., Denning, K., and Kemmers, S. (eds.). 1990. Studies in Typology and Diachrony. Papers Presented to Joseph H. Greenberg on his 75th Birthday. Typological Studies in Language, 20. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cuenca, M. J., and Hilferty, J.. 1999. Introducción a la lingüística cognitiva. Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar
Dahl, Ö. 1985. Tense and Aspect Systems.Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dahm-Draksic, T. 1998. A Role and Reference Grammar analysis of case marking in Croatian. MA project, University at Buffalo.
Darnell, M., Noonan, M., and Wheatley, K. (eds.). 1999. Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics. Volume I: General Papers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Deacon, T. W. 1997. The Symbolic Species: The Co-evolution of Language and the Brain.New York: W. W. Norton and Co.Google Scholar
Mauro, T., and Formigari, L. (eds.). 1990. Leibniz, Humboldt and the Origins of Comparativism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derbyshire, D., and Pullum, G. (eds.). 1989. Handbook of Amazonian Languages, Volume II. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Di Cesare, D. 1990. The philosophical and anthropological place of Wilhelm von Humboldt's linguistic typology. Linguistic comparison as a means to compare the different processes of human thought. In De Mauro and Formigari (1990), 156–181.
Dik, S. C. 1978. Stepwise Lexical Decomposition. Lisse: The Peter de Ridder Press.Google Scholar
Dik, S. C. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part I: The Hierarchical Structure of the Clause. Ed. Kees, Hengeveld. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 1972. The Dyirbal Language of North Queensland.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W., and A. Y. Aikhenvald. 2002a. Word: a typological framework. In Dixon and Aikhenvald (2002b), 1–41.
Dixon, R. M. W., and A. Y. Aikhenvald. (eds.). 2002b. Word. A Cross-Linguistic Typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Doke, C. M. 1973 [1927]. Textbook of Zulu Grammar. Cape Town: Longman Southern Africa (PTY) Limited.Google Scholar
Donohue, M. 1999. A Grammar of Tukang Besi. Berlin: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar.Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, M. S. 1989. Large linguistic areas and language sampling, Studies in Language 13: 257–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, M. S. 1997. Are grammatical relations universal? In Bybee, J., Haiman, J., and Thompson, S. (eds.), Essays on Language Function and Language Type. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 115–144.Google Scholar
Eco, U. 1994. La búsqueda de la lengua perfecta.Barcelona: Crítica.Google Scholar
Ekmekci, O. F. 1979. Acquisition of Turkish: a longitudinal study on the early language development of a Turkish child. Ph. D. thesis, University of Texas.
Enç, M. 1987. Anchoring conditions for tense, Linguistic Inquiry 18: 633–657.Google Scholar
Everett, D. 1986. Pirahã. In Derbyshire, D. and Pullum, G. (eds.), Handbook of Amazonian Languages.Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Vol. I, 200–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fabb, N. 1988. English suffixation is constrained only by selectional restrictions, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6: 527–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Facundes, S. da Silva. 2000. The language of the Apurinã people of Brazil (Maipure/Arawak). Ph. D. thesis, State University of New York at Buffalo.
Ferguson, C. A. 1966. Assumptions about nasals: a sample study in phonological universals. In Greenberg, J. H. (ed.), Universals of Language.Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 53–60.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. A. 1978. Historical background of universals research. In Greenberg (1978a), 7– 31.
Feynman, R. 1963. The Feynman Lectures in Physics, Volume I. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. 1987. Lectures Held at the Stanford Summer Linguistics Institute.Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C., Kay, P., Michaelis, L., and Sag, I.. To appear. Construction Grammar.Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. D. 1977. Semantics. Theories of Meaning in Generative Grammar. Sussex: The Harvester Press.Google Scholar
Foley, W., and Van, R. Valin. 1984. Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Forsyth, J. 1970. A Grammar of Aspect. Usage and Meaning in the Russian Verb. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Frank, T. 1979. Segno e significato. John Wilkins e la lingua filosofica. Naples: Guida.Google Scholar
Freidin, R., and Vergnaud, J. R.. 2001. Exquisite connections: some remarks on the evolution of linguistic theory, Lingua 111: 639–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Genetti, C. 1992. Semantic and grammatical categories of relative clause morphology in the languages of Nepal, Studies in Language 16: 405–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. 1979. On Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Givón, T. 1984. Syntax: A Functional–Typological Introduction. Volume I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. 1990. Syntax: A Functional–Typological Introduction. Volume II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Givón, T. 1995. Functionalism and Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glinert, L. 1989. The Grammar of Modern Hebrew. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goddard, C. 1998. Semantic Analysis. A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goddard, C. 2002. The search for the shared semantic core of all languages. In Goddard and Wierzbicka (2002), 5–40.
Goddard, C., and Wierzbicka, A. (eds.). 1994. Semantic and Lexical Universals. Theory and Empirical Findings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goddard, C., and Wierzbicka, A. 2002. Meaning and Universal Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. 1995. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. 1998. Semantic principles of predication. In Koenig, J. P. (ed.), Discourse and Cognition. Bridging the Gap. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. 2003. Constructions: a new theoretical approach to language, Trends in Cognitive Science 7. 5: 219–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
González Orta, M. M. 2002. Lexical templates and syntactic variation: the syntax–semantics interface of the Old English speech verb secgan. In Mairal and Pérez Quintero (2002), 281–302.
Gonzálvez-García, F. 2003. Reconstructing object complements in English and Spanish. In Vázquez, M. Martínez (ed.), Gramática de Construcciones. Contrastes entre el inglés y el español. Huelva: Universidad de Huelva. 17–58.Google Scholar
Gorbet, L. P. 1976. A Grammar of Diegueño Nominals. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. 2002. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Grady, J. 1998. The ‘Conduit Metaphor’ revisited: a reassessment of metaphors for communication. In Koenig, J. P. (ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language II. Buffalo: CSLI Publications. 205–218.Google Scholar
Grady, J., T. Oakley, and S. Coulson. 1999. Blending and metaphor. In Gibbs, R. and Steen, G. (eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 101–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. 1957. Order of affixing: a study in general linguistics. In Greenberg, J. (ed.), Essays in Linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 86– 94.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. 1963a. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Greenberg (1963b). 73–113.
Greenberg, J. H. (ed.). 1963b. Universals of Language. 2nd edition. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Greenberg, J. H. 1966. Language Universals with Special Reference to Feature Hierarchies. The Hague: Mouton.
Greenberg, J. H. 1969. Some methods of dynamic comparison in linguistics. In Puhvel, J. (ed.), Substance and Structure of Language. Berkeley: University of California Press. 147–203.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. (ed.). 1978a. Universals of Human Language. Volume I: Method and Theory. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Greenberg, J. H. 1978b. How does a language acquire gender markers? In Greenberg, J., Ferguson, C., and Moravcsik, E. (eds.), Universals of Human Language. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Vol. III, 47–82.Google Scholar
Grimes, B. 1992. Ethnologue: Languages of the World. 12th edition. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J. 1986. A morphosyntactic explanation for the Mirror Principle, Linguistic Inquiry 17: 745–750.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. 1995. Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Haiman, J. 1985. Natural Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haiman, J. 1994. Ritualization and the development of language. In Pagliuca, W. (ed.), Perspectives on Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 3–28.Google Scholar
Hale, K., and Keyser, S. J. (eds.). 1993. The View from Building 20. Essays Presented to Silvain Bromberger on his 50th Birthday. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hall, C. J. 1992. Morphology and Mind. A Unified Approach to Explanation in Linguistics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Halle, M., and A. Marantz. 1993. Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale and Keyser (1993), 111–176.
Harris, J. W. 1983. Syllable Structure and Stress in Spanish: A Nonlinear Analysis. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harvey, D. 1989. The Condition of Postmodernity. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hasegawa, Y. 1996. A Study of Japanese Clause Linkage: The Connective TE in Japanese. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 1996. Word-class-changing inflection and morphological theory. In Booij, G. and Marle, J. (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1995. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 43–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, M. 1997. Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M., König, E., Oesterreicher, W., and Raible, W. (eds.). 2001. Language Typology and Language Universals. An International Handbook. Volume 1. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. 1988. Explaining language universals. In Hawkins, J. A. (ed.), Explaining Language Universals. Oxford: Blackwell. 3–28.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. 1994. A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hawkins, J. A., and A. Cutler. 1988. Psycholinguistic factors in morphological asymmetry. In Hawkins, J. A. (ed.), Explaining Language Universals. Oxford: Blackwell. 280–317.Google Scholar
Hayes, B. P. 1999. Phonetically driven phonology: the role of Optimality Theory and Inductive Grounding. In Darnell, M.et al. (eds.), Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics. Volume I: General Papers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 243–285.Google Scholar
Heath, J. 1999. A Grammar of Koyra Chiini. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, B., and Reh, M.. 1984. Grammaticalization and Reanalysis in African Languages. Hamburg: Helmut Buske.Google Scholar
Heine, B., U. Claudi, and F. Hünnemeyer. 1991. From cognition to grammar: evidence from African languages. In Traugott and Heine (1991), Vol. I, 149–187.
Heine, B., and Kuteva, T.. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holz, Heinz H. 1970. Leibniz. Madrid: Tecnos.Google Scholar
Hekking, E., and P. Muysken. 1995. Otomí y Quechua: una comparación de los elementos gramaticales prestados del español. In Zimmermann, K. (ed.), Lenguas en contacto en Hispanoamérica: nuevos enfoques. Frankfurt am Main: Vervuert. 101–118.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, K. 1989. Layers and operators in Functional Grammar, Journal of Linguistics 25. 1: 127–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, K. 1992. Non-verbal Predication: Theory, Typology, Diachrony. Functional Grammar Series, 15. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, K. 1998. Adverbial clauses in the languages of Europe. In Auwera, J. (ed.), Adverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe. Empirical Approaches to Language Typology / Eurotyp 20–3. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 335–419.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, K., Rijkhoff, J., and Siewierska, A.. 2004. Parts-of-speech systems and word order, Journal of Linguistics 40. 3: 527–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hjelmslev, L. 1971. Prolegómenos a una teoría del lenguaje. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Hockett, C. F. 1963. The problem of universals in language. In J. H. Greenberg (1963b), 1–29.
Holisky, D. 1981a. Aspect and Georgian Medial Verbs. New York: Caravan.Google Scholar
Holisky, D. 1981b. Speech theory and Georgian aspect. In Tedeschi, P. and Zaenen, A. (eds.), Tense and Aspect. Syntax and Semantics, 14. New York: Academic Press. 127–144.Google Scholar
Holton, D., Mackridge, P., and Philippaki-Warburton, I.. 1997. Greek. A Comprehensive Grammar of the Modern Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hopper, P., and Traugott, E.. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hurford, J. R., Studdert-Kennedy, M., and Knight, C.. 1998. Approaches to the Evolution of Language: Social and Cognitive Bases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huybregts, R., and Riemsdijk, H.. 1982. Noam Chomsky on the Generative Enterprise. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Hyman, L. M. 1984. Form and substance in language universals. In Butterworth, B., Comrie, B., and Dahl, Ö. (eds.), Explanations for Language Universals. The Hague: Mouton. 67–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyman, L. M. 2003. Suffix ordering in Bantu. In Booij, G. and Marle, J. (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 2002. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 245–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hymes, D. H. 1983. Essays in the History of Linguistic Anthropology.Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1977. X′ Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1994. Patterns in the Mind. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 2002. Foundations of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 2003. Foundations of language: brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Unpublished manuscript.
Jenkins, L. 2000. Biolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M. 1987. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Reason and Imagination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Johnston, R. L. 1980. Nakanai of New Britain. Pacific Linguistics Series B, no. 70. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Joseph, B. D., and Smirniotopoulos, J. C.. 1993. The morphosyntax of the Modern Greek verb as morphology and not syntax, Linguistic Inquiry 24: 388–398.Google Scholar
Kauffman, S. 1993. The Origins of Order. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kay, P., and , C. Fillmore. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: the What's X doing Y? construction, Language 75. 1: 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, R. 1975. French Syntax: The Transformational Cycle. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. 1994. The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. 2003. Some notes on comparative syntax, with special reference to English and French. Ms., New York University.
Keenan, E. L. 1972. The logical status of deep structures. In Heilmann, L. (ed.), Proceedings of the Eleventh International Congress of Linguists, Bologna: le Mulino. (Re-edited in Keenan, E. L.. 1987. Universal Grammar: 15 Essays. London: Croom Helm.)Google Scholar
Keenan, E., and Comrie, B.. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar, Linguistic Inquiry 8: 63–99.Google Scholar
Keyser, S. J. 1978. Recent Transformational Studies in European Languages. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. 1982. From Cyclic Phonology to Lexical Phonology. In Hulst, H. and Smith, N. H. S. (eds.), The Structure of Phonological Representations. Dordrecht: Foris. Part 1, 131–175.Google Scholar
Kirsch, B., Skorge, S., and Magona, S.. 1999. Teach Yourself Xhosa. London: Hodder and Stoughton Educational.Google Scholar
Kita, S. 1999. Japanese enter/exit verbs without motion semantics. Studies in Language, 23: 317–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klamer, M. 1998. A Grammar of Kambera. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koerner, E. F. K., and Asher, R. E. (eds.). 1995. Concise History of the Language Sciences. From the Sumerians to the Cognitivists. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Kohler, K. J. 1998. The development of sound systems in human language. In Hurford, J. R., Studdert-Kennedy, M., and Knight, C. (eds.). 1998. Approaches to the Evolution of Language: Social and Cognitive Bases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 265–278.Google Scholar
Kolesnikova, V. D. 1966. Sintaksis èvenkijskogo jazyka. Moscow/Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. 1993. Nominalizations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, J. 1997. Turkish. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kossmann, M. 1997. Grammaire du parler berbère de Figuig (Maroc oriental). Louvain, Paris: Peeters.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Z., and Radden, G.. 1998. Metonymy: developing a cognitive linguistic view, Cognitive Linguistics 9. 1: 37–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladefoged, P. 1971. Preliminaries to Linguistic Phonetics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, P., and Maddieson, I.. 1996. The Sounds of the World's Languages. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lafont, C. 1993. La razón como lenguaje. Madrid: Visor.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., and Johnson, M.. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., and Johnson, M. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. 1969. Review of Grammaire générale et raisonnée, Language 45: 343–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lecarme, J. 1996. Tense in the nominal system: the Somali DP. In Lecarme, J., Lowenstamm, J., and Shlonsky, U. (eds.), Studies in Afroasiatic Grammar. The Hague: Holland Academic Graphics. 159–178.Google Scholar
Lefebvre, C., and Muysken, P.. 1988. Mixed Categories: Nominalizations in Quechua. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Legate, J., and , C. Yang. 2002. Empirical re-assessment of stimulus poverty arguments, Linguistic Review, 19: 151–162.Google Scholar
Lehmann, C. 1984. Der Relativsatz: Typologie seiner Strukturen, Theorie seiner Funktionen, Kompendium seiner Grammatik. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Lehmann, W. P. 1974. Proto-Indo-European Syntax. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Levin, B. 1989. The Basque verbal inventory and configurationality. In Marácz, L. and Muysken, P. (eds.), Configurationality: The Typology of Asymmetries. Dordrecht: Foris. 39–62.Google Scholar
Lewontin, R. 2000. The Triple Helix. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lier, E. van. 2005. The explanatory power of typological hierarchies: developmental perspectives on non-verbal predication. In Groot, C. and Hengeveld, K. (eds.), Morphosyntactic Expression in Functional Grammar. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, D. 1999. The Development of Language. Acquisition, Change, and Evolution. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lindblom, B. 1983. Economy of speech gestures. In MacNeilage, P. F. (ed.), The Production of Speech. New York: Springer Verlag. 217–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindblom, B. 1986. Phonetic universals in vowel systems. In Ohala, J. J. and Jaeger, J. J. (eds.), Experimental Phonology. Orlando: Academic Press. 13–44.Google Scholar
Lindblom, B. 1990. Explaining phonetic variation: a sketch of the H & H theory. In Hardcastle, W. J. and Marchal, A. (eds.), Speech Production and Speech Modelling. The Hague: Kluwer. 403–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindblom, B. 1998. Systemic constraints and adaptive change in the formation of sound structure. In Hurford, J. R., Studdert-Kennedy, M., and Knight, C. (eds.), Approaches to the Evolution of Language: Social and Cognitive Bases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 242–264.Google Scholar
Lindblom, B., P. F. MacNeilage, and M. Studdert-Kennedy. 1984. Self-organizing processes and the explanation of phonological universals. In Butterworth, B., Comrie, B., and Dahl, Ö (eds.), Explanations for Language Universals. Berlin: Mouton. 181–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindblom, B., and I. Maddieson. 1988. Phonetic universals in consonant systems. In Hyman, L. M. and , C. N. Li (eds.), Language, Speech and Mind. London: Routledge. 62–78.Google Scholar
Lindblom, B., Brownlee, S., Davis, B., and Moon, S.-J.. 1992. Speech transforms, Speech Communication 11: 357–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locke, J. L. 1998. Social sound-making as a precursor to language. In Hurford, J. R., Studdert-Kennedy, M., and Knight, C. (eds.), Approaches to the Evolution of Language: Social and Cognitive Bases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 190– 201.Google Scholar
Louali, N., and I. Maddieson. 1999. Phonological contrast and phonetic realization: the case of Berber steps. 14th ICPhSubject 1999, San Francisco: 603–606.
Luís, A. R., and A. Spencer. 2005. A Paradigm Function account of ‘mesoclisis’ in European Portuguese. In Booij, G. and Marle, J. (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 2004. Dordrecht: Springer. 177–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, J., and McGurk, H.. 1978. Visual influences on speech perception process. Perception and Psychophysics, 24: 253–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacNeilage, P. 1998. The frame/content theory of evolution of speech production, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21: 499–546.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maddieson, I. 1984. Patterns of Sounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maddieson, I. 1997. Phonetic universals. In Hardcastle, W. and Laver, J. (eds.), The Handbook of Phonetic Sciences. Oxford: Blackwell. 619–639.Google Scholar
Mairal, R., and P. Faber. 2002. Functional Grammar and lexical templates. In Mairal and Pérez Quintero (2002), 39–94.
Mairal, R., and Pérez, M. J. Quintero (eds.). 2002. New Perspectives on Argument Structure in Functional Grammar. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mairal, R., and Gil, J.. 2003. En torno a los universales lingüísticos. Madrid: Cambridge University Press /AKAL.Google Scholar
Marchese, L. 1986. Tense/Aspect and the Development of Auxiliaries in Kru Languages. Arlington, Tex.: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Massam, D. 2001. Pseudo noun incorporation in Niuean, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19: 153–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, G. H. 1963. Hidatsa Syntax. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. J. 2002. A Thematic Guide to Optimality Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. D. 1968. The role of semantics in grammar. In Bach, E. and Harms, R. T. (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston. 124–170.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. D. 1974. English as a VSO language. In Seuren, P. A. M. (ed.), Semantic Syntax. London: Oxford University Press. 75–95.Google Scholar
McGhee, G. 1998. Theoretical Morphology. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Mchombo, S. 1993. Reflexive and Reciprocal in Chichewa. In Mchombo, S. (ed.), Theoretical Aspects of Bantu Grammar I. Stanford: CSLI. 181–208.Google Scholar
McNeill, D. 1966. Developmental psycholinguistics. In Smith, F. and Miller, G. (eds.), The Genesis of Language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 15–84.Google Scholar
McNeill, D. 1970. The Acquisition of Language. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Meillet, A. 1958 [1912]. L'évolution des formes grammaticales. Reprint in Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. Paris: H. Champion.Google Scholar
Méndez Dosuna, J. 1996. Can weakening changes start in initial position? In Hurch, B. and Rhodes, R. (eds.), Natural Phonology: The State of the Art. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 97–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giro, Mendívil J. L. 2003. Gramática Natural. La Gramática Generativa y la Tercera Cultura. Madrid: Machado Libros.Google Scholar
Miner, K. L. 1986. Noun stripping and loose incorporation in Zuni, International Journal of American Linguistics 52: 242–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mithun, M. 1999. The status of tense within inflection. In Booij, G. and Marle, J. (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1998. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 23–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cabrera, Moreno J. C. 1990. Lenguas del mundo. Madrid: Visor.Google Scholar
Cabrera, Moreno J. C. 1995. La lingüística teórico-tipológica. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Morin, Y. C. 1997. Remarques sur l'organisation de la flexion des verbes français, Review of Applied Linguistics 77/78: 13–91.Google Scholar
Moure, T. 2001. Universales del lenguaje y linguo-diversidad. Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar
Mowrey, R., and Pagliuca, W.. 1995. The reductive character of articulatory evolution, Rivista di Linguistica 7. 1: 37–124.Google Scholar
Mulder, J. G. 1994. Ergativity in Coast Tsimshian (Sm'algyax). Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Musan, R. 1995. On the temporal interpretation of Noun Phrases. Ph. D. thesis, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Newmeyer, F. J. 1998. Language Form and Language Function. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. J. 2004. Grammar is grammar and usage is usage, Language 79. 4: 682–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, J. 1984. Functional theories of grammar, Annual Review of Anthropology 13: 97–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, J. 1986. Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar. Language, 62: 56–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noonan, M. 1999. Non-structuralist syntax. In Newmeyer, F., Noonan, M., and Wheatley, K. (eds.), Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics. Volume I: General Papers. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 11–31.Google Scholar
Nordlinger, R., and A. Saulwick. 2002. Infinitives in polysynthesis: the case of Rembarrnga. In Evans, N. and Sasse, H.-J. (eds.), Problems of Polysynthesis. Studia Typologica, vol. 4. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. 185–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordlinger, R., and A. Saulwick. 1981. The listener as a source of sound change. In Masek, C. S.et al. (eds.), Papers from the Parasession on Language and Behavior. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 178–203.Google Scholar
Nordlinger, R., and A. Saulwick. 1983. The origin of sound patterns in vocal tract constraints. In MacNeilage, P. (ed.), The Production of Speech. New York: Springer. 189–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordlinger, R., and Saulwick, A.. 1990. There is no interface between phonology and phonetics: a personal view, Journal of Phonetics 18: 153–171.Google Scholar
Nordlinger, R., and A. Saulwick. 1997. The relation between phonetics and phonology. In Hardcastle, W. J. and Laver, J. (eds.), The Handbook of Phonetic Sciences. Oxford: Blackwell. 674–694.Google Scholar
Ohala, J. J., and H. Kawasaki. 1984. Prosodic phonology and phonetics. In Ewen, C. and Anderson, J. (eds.), Phonology Yearbook 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 113–127.Google Scholar
Olson, M. 1981. Barai clause junctures: toward a functional theory of interclausal relations. Ph. D. thesis, Australian National University, Canberra.
Ouhalla, J. 1991. Functional Categories and Parametric Variation. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panther, K. U., and Radden, G. (eds.). 1999. Metonymy in Language and Thought. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, D., and T. Payne. 1989. Yagua. In Derbyshire and Pullum (1989), 249–474.
Penny, R. 1991. A History of the Spanish Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pensado, C. 1993. Sobre el contexto del cambio F > h en Castellano, Romance Philology 48: 147–176.Google Scholar
Quintero, Pérez M. J. 2002. Adverbial Subordination in English. Language and Computers; Studies in Practical Linguistics, 41. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, B. S. 1984. Word frequency and the actuation of sound change, Language 60: 320–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinillos, J. L. 1997. El corazón del laberinto. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. 1994. The Language Instinct. New York: Morrowo.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plank, F. 1994. Inflection and derivation. In Asher, R. E. (ed.), The Encyclopaedia of Language and Linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Vol. III, 1671–1678.Google Scholar
Plank, F. 1999. Split morphology: how agglutination and flexion mix, Linguistic Typology 3: 279–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plank, F., and Filiminova, E.. 2000. The Universals Archive: a brief introduction for prospective users, Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 53: 97–111.Google Scholar
Pollock, J. Y. 1989. Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP, Linguistic Inquiry 20: 365–424.Google Scholar
Pollock, J. Y. 1997. Langage et cognition. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Posner, R. 1996. The Romance Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Price, G. 2000. Encyclopedia of the Languages of Europe. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, A., and P. Smolensky. 1993. Optimality Theory: constraint interaction in Generative Grammar. Ms., Rutgers University and University of Colorado.
Prince, A. 1997. Optimality: from neural networks to universal grammar, Science 275: 1604–1610.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pullum, G. 1996. Learnability, hyperlearning, and the poverty of the stimulus. Paper presented at the parasession on learnability, 22nd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society.
Pullum, G., and Scholz, B.. 2002. Empirical assessment of stimulus poverty arguments, Linguistic Review 19: 9–50.Google Scholar
Radden, G. 1992. The cognitive approach to natural language. In Pütz, M. (ed.), Thirty Years of Linguistic Evolution. Studies in Honour of René Dirven on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 513–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radford, A. 1988. Transformational Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radford, A. 1997. Syntax. A Minimalist Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rappaport, H. M., and B. Levin. 1998. Building verb meanings. In Butt, M. and Geuder, W. (eds.), The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors. Stanford: CSLI Publications. 97–134.Google Scholar
Rice, K. D. 2000. Morpheme Order and Semantic Scope. Word Formation in the Athabaskan Verb. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rijkhoff, J., Bakker, D., Hengeveld, K., and Kahrel, P.. 1993. A method of language sampling, Studies in Language 17. 1: 169–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rijkhoff, J., and Bakker, D.. 1998. Language sampling, Linguistic Typology 2–3: 263–314.Google Scholar
Ritter, E. 1991. Two functional categories in noun phrases: evidence from Modern Hebrew. In Rothstein, S. D. (ed.), Perspectives on Phrase Structure: Heads and Licensing. Syntax and Semantics, 25. San Diego: Academic Press. 37–62.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. 1990. Relativized Minimality. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Romaine, S. 1995. The grammaticalization of irrealis in Tok Pisin. In Bybee, J. and Fleischman, S. (eds.), Modality in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 385–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romero-Figueroa, A. 1997. A Reference Grammar of Warao. Lincom Studies in Native American Linguistics, 6. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Ph. D. thesis, MIT, Cambridge, Mass.
Ruhlen, M. 1987. A Guide to the World's Languages, Volume I: Classification. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. J., and O. Díez Velasco. 2003. On metonymic thinking: some notes on the role of high-level metonymies in English. In Inchaurralde, C. and Florén, C. (eds.), Interaction and Cognition in Linguistics. Frankfurt, New York: Peter Lang. 189–210.Google Scholar
Sadler, L., and A. Spencer. 2001. Syntax as an exponent of morphological features. In Booij, G. and Marle, J. (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 2000. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 71–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, V. 1969. Review of Cartesian Linguistics by Noam Chomsky, Journal of Linguistics 5: 165–187.CrossRef
Sampson, G. 1999. Educating Eve: The Language Instinct Debate. London: Cassel Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Sapir, E. 1921. Language. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.Google Scholar
Schwartz, J.-L., Boë, L.-J., Vallée, N., and Abry, C.. 1997. The dispersion–focalization theory of vowel systems, Journal of Phonetics 25: 255–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, D. 1974. Topics in English morphology. Ph. D. thesis, MIT. (Published by Garland Publishing, Inc., New York, 1979.)
Siegel, D. 1977. The Adjacency Condition and the theory of morphology. In Proceedings of the Eighth Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistics Society. Amherst: University of Massachusetts. 189–197.Google Scholar
Slaughter, M. M. 1982. Universal Languages and Scientific Taxonomy in the Seventeenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, C. 1997. The Parameter of Aspect. 2nd edition. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, A. 1991. Morphological Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Spencer, A. 1992. Nominal inflection and the nature of functional categories, Journal of Linguistics 28: 313–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, A.Spencer, A. 1999. Chukchee and polysynthesis. In Raxilina, V. E. and Testelec, J. G. (eds.), Tipologija i Teorija Jazyka – ot opisanija k ob”jasneniju. K 60-letiju Aleksandra Evgen'evicha Kibrika. Moscow: Jazyki russkoj kul'tury. 106–113.Google Scholar
Spencer, A. 2000. Morphology. In Aronoff, M. and Rees-Miller, J. (eds.), Handbook of Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. 213–237.Google Scholar
Spencer, A. 2001. The paradigm-based model of morphosyntax, Transactions of the Philological Society 99: 279–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, A. 2003a. Periphrastic paradigms in Bulgarian. In Junghanns, U. and Szucsich, L. (eds.), Syntactic Structures and Morphological Information. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 249–282.Google Scholar
Spencer, A. 2003b. Putting some order into morphology: reflections on Rice (2000) and Stump (2001), Journal of Linguistics 39: 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, A. 2005. Towards a typology of ‘mixed categories.’ In Orhan, C. Orgun and Peter, Sells (eds.), Morphology and the Web of Grammar: Essays in Memory of Steven G. Lapointe. Stanford University: CSLI. 95–138.Google Scholar
Stahlke, H. 1970. Serial verbs, Studies in African Linguistics 1: 60–99.Google Scholar
Studdert-Kennedy, M. 1998. The particulate origins of language generativity. In Hurford, J. R., Studdert-Kennedy, M., and Knight, C. (eds.), Approaches to the Evolution of Language: Social and Cognitive Bases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 202–221.Google Scholar
Stump, G. T. 1998. Inflection. In Spencer, A. and Zwicky, A. (eds.), Handbook of Morphology. Oxford: Blackwell. 13–43.Google Scholar
Stump, G. T. 2001. Inflectional Morphology. A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stump, G. T. 2005. Some criticisms of Carstairs–McCarthy's conclusions. In Booij, G. and Marle, J. (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 2005. Dordrecht: Springer Verlag, 283–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. 2001. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. 2003. Concept structuring systems in language. In Tomasello, M. (ed.), The New Psychology of Language (Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure). Volume II. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. 15–46.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. 2003. Constructing a Language: A Usage-based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomcsányi, J. 1988. Roles y Referencia en Bribri: aspectos de la determinación funcional en las estructuras sintácticas. Ph. D. thesis, Universidad Nacional de Costa Rica.
Toratani, K. 1998. Lexical aspect and split intransitivity in Japanese, CLS 34: 377–391.Google Scholar
Tournadre, N. 1996. L'ergativité en tibétain: approche morphosyntaxique de la langue parlée. Louvain, Paris: Peeters.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: an example of subjectification in semantic change, Language 65: 31–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C., and Heine, B. (eds.). 1991. Approaches to Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., and Dasher, R. B.. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Travis, L. 1989. Parameters of phrase structure. In Baltin, M. and Kroch, A. S. (eds.), Alternative Conceptions of Phrase Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 263–279.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, N. S. 1939. Grundzüge der Phonologie. Travaux du Cercle Linguistique de Prague, 7. Prague: Cerde Linguistique de Prague.Google Scholar
Ulbaek, I. 1998. The origin of language and cognition. In Hurford, J. R., Studdert-Kennedy, M., and Knight, C. (eds.), Approaches to the Evolution of Language: Social and Cognitive Bases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 30–43.Google Scholar
United Nations. 1948. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. General Assembly Resolution 217 A(III), December 10, 1948. Page 2528. ICPhS99. San Francisco.
Auwera, J., and Plungian, V. A.. 1998. Modality's semantic map, Linguistic Typology 2: 79–124.Google Scholar
Valin, R. D. 1991. Another look at Icelandic case marking and grammatical relations, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 9: 145–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valin, R. D. 2001a. An Introduction to Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valin, R. D. 2001b. Functional linguistics. In Aronoff, M. and Miller, J. R. (eds.), The Handbook of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 319–336.Google Scholar
Valin, R. D. 2005. The Syntax–Semantics–Pragmatics Interface: An Introduction to Role and Reference Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valin, R. D., and LaPolla, R.. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning & Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, R. D., and D. Wilkins. 1993. Predicting syntactic structure from semantic representations: remember in English and Mparntwe Arrernte. In Van, R. Valin (ed.), Advances in Role and Reference Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 499–534.Google Scholar
Vendler, Z. 1967. Linguistics in Philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Verkuyl, H. 1973. A Theory of Aspectuality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Voeltz, F. K. E. 1980. The etymology of the Bantu perfect. In Bouquiaux, L. (ed.), L'expansion bantoue. Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. 487–492.Google Scholar
Walton, C. 1986. Sama Verbal Semantics: Classification, Derivation and Inflection. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines.Google Scholar
Watters, J. K. 1988. Topics in Tepehua grammar. Ph. D. thesis, University of California, Berkeley.
Weber, D. J. 1989. A Grammar of Huallaga (Huanuco) Quechua. University of California Publications in Linguistics, 112. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Weist, R. M. 2002. The first language acquisition of tense and aspect: a review. In Salaberry, R. and Shirai, Y. (eds.), Tense–aspect Morphology in L2 Acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 21–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. 1972. Semantic Primitives. Frankfurt: Athenäum.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. 1980. Lingua mentalis. Sydney: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. 1988. The Semantics of Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. 1992. In search of tradition: the semantic ideas of Leibniz. Lexicografica 8: 10–25.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. 1995. Universal semantic primitives as a basis for lexical semantics, Folia Lingüística 30. 1–2: 149–169.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. 1996. Semantics, Primes and Universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. 2001. Leibnizian linguistics. In Kenesei, I. and Harnish, R. M. (eds.), Perspectives on Semantics, Pragmatics, and Discourse. A Festschrift for Ferenc Kiefer. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 229–253.Google Scholar
Wilkins, D. 1989. Mparntwe Arrernte (Aranda): studies in the structure and semantics of grammar. Ph. D. thesis, Australian National University.
Williams, E. 1981. Argument structure and morphology, Linguistic Review 1: 18–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wurm, S. A., Mühlhäusler, P., and Bynon, D. T. (eds.). 2003. Atlas of Languages of Intercultural Communication in the Pacific, Asia and the Americas. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Yang, B. 1994. Morphosyntactic phenomena of Korean in Role and Reference Grammar: psych-verb constructions, inflectional verb morphemes, complex sentences, and relative clauses. Seoul: Hankuk Publishers.Google Scholar
Yang, C. 2002. Knowledge and Learning in Natural Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A., and Pullum, G. K.. 1983. Cliticization vs. inflection: English n't, Language 59: 502–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar