Aarsleff, H. 1982. From Locke to Saussure: Essays on the Study of Language in Intellectual History. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar

Abbo of Fleury. [late 10th c.] 1982. Quaestiones grammaticales. In Guerreau-Jalabert, A.(ed./trans.). Paris: Société d’Édition Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar

Abel-Rémusat, J.-P. 1822/1987. Élémens de la grammaire chinoise. Paris: Imprimerie royale. 1987: repr.: Editions Ala Productions.Google Scholar

Abramson, S. 1975. Šĕloša sĕfarim šel R. Yĕhuda ben Bil‘am. Jerusalem: Kiryat sefer.Google Scholar

Ackrill, J. L. 1979. Aristotle’sCategories andDe Interpretatione. [corr., repr.] Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Acton, H. B. 1959. The philosophy of language in revolutionary France. Proceedings of the British Academy 45: 199–219.Google Scholar

Adams, M. M. 1987. William Ockham. South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar

Adamson, B. 2004. China’s English: A History of English in Chinese Education. Hong Kong University Press.Google Scholar

Adelung, J. C. & Vater, J. S. 1732–1817/1970. Mithridates oder allgemeine Sprachenkunde mit dem Vater Unser als Sprachprobe in bey nahe fünfhundert Sprachen und Mundarten. 4 vols. Berlin: Vossische Buchhandlung. 1970: repr. of 1806–17 edn.: Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar

Aelfric, Abbot of Eynsham. [10th c.]/1922. The Old English Version of the Heptateuch, Aelfric’s Treatise on the Old and New Testament and his Preface to Genesis. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Agesthialingom, S. & Kumaraswami Raja, N. (eds.). 1978. Studies in Early Dravidian Grammars. Annamalai University.Google Scholar

Agha, A. 1993. Grammatical and indexical convention in honorific discourse. Jrnl. of Linguistic Anthropology 3: 131–63.Google Scholar

Ahearn, L. 2011. Living Language: An Introduction to Linguistic Anthropology, vol. ii. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Ahlqvist, A. 1980. Les débuts de l’étude du langage en Irlande. In Koerner, E. F. K. (ed.), Progress in Linguistic Historiography, pp. 35–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Ahn, F. 1867. A New Practical and Easy Method of Learning the German Language (1st Amer. edn., fr. 8th London edn.). NY: D. Appleton.Google Scholar

Ahrens, H. L. 1839–43. De Graecae linguae dialectis, 2 vols. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar

Aitareya-Āraṇyaka. [c. 800–500 bce]1909: Keith, A. B. (ed./trans.). London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Aitchison, J. 2003/2012. Words in the Mind: An Introduction to the Mental Lexicon, 1st/4th edns. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Ajdukiewicz, K. 1935/1967. Die syntaktische Konnexität. Studia Philosophica 1: 1–27. 1967: Syntactic connexion. In S. McCall (ed.), Polish Logic 1920–1939, pp. 207–31. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Åkesson, J. 2001. Arabic Morphology and Phonology Based on the Marāḥ al-arwāḥ by Aḥmad B., ‘Aı̄ B. Mas’ūd, pres. w. an intro., Arabic edn., Engl. trans. and comm. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar

Albert, M. & Obler, L. 1978. The Bilingual Brain. NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Albrecht, J. 1994. Neolinguistic school in Italy. In Asher, & Simpson, (eds.), pp. 2774–7.Google Scholar

Alcalá, P. de. 1505/1971. Arte para ligera mente saber la lengua arauiga. Granada. 1971: in P. de Lagarde (ed.), Petri Hispani De lingua arabica libri duo. Göttingen: A. Hoyer; repr. Osnabück: O. Zeller.Google Scholar

Alderson, C. & Wall, D. 1993. Does washback exist? Applied Linguistics 14: 115–29.Google Scholar

Aldhelm. [7th–8th c.]1985. M. Lapidge & J. Rosier (trans.), The Poetic Works. Woodbridge: D. S. Brewer.Google Scholar

Algra, K., Barnes, J., Mansfeld, J., & Schofield, M. (eds.). 1999. The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Alibali, M. W. & Goldin-Meadow, S. 1993. Gesture–speech mismatch and mechanisms of learning: What the hands reveal about a child’s state of mind. Cognitive Psychology 25: 468–523.Google Scholar

Allan, K. 1980. Nouns and countability. Language 56: 541–67.Google Scholar

Allan, K. 1986/1991. Linguistic Meaning. 2 vols. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. 1991: repr. Beijing: World Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar

Allan, K. 2001. Natural Language Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Allan, K. 2004. Aristotle’s footprints in the linguist’s garden. Language Sciences 26: 317–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Allan, K. 2006a. Dictionaries and encyclopedias (relationship). In Brown, (ed.), vol. iii, pp. 573–77.Google Scholar

Allan, K. 2006b. Selectional restrictions. In Brown, (ed.), vol. xi, pp. 118–19.Google Scholar

Allan, K. 2007. The pragmatics of connotation. Jrnl. of Pragmatics 39: 1047–57.Google Scholar

Allan, K. (ed.). 2009. Concise Encyclopaedia of Semantics. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Allan, K. 2010. The Western Classical Tradition in Linguistics, 2nd exp. edn. London: Equinox.Google Scholar

Allan, K. & Burridge, K. 1991. Euphemism and Dysphemism: Language Used as Shield and Weapon. NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Allan, K. & Burridge, K. 2006. Forbidden Words: Taboo and the Censoring of Language. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Allan, K. & Jaszczolt, K. M. (eds.). 2012. The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Allen, J. & Seidenberg, M. S. 1999. The emergence of grammaticality in connectionist networks. In MacWhinney, (ed.), pp. 115–51.Google Scholar

Allen, J. P. & Corder, S. P. (eds.). 1973–5. The Edinburgh Course in Applied Linguistics, vols. i–iii. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Allen, J. P. & Corder, S. P. 1975. Editors’ preface. In Allen, & Corder, (eds.), vol. ii: Papers in Applied Linguistics, pp. xi–xii.Google Scholar

Allen, W. S. 1973. Accent and Rhythm. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Allen, W. S. 1987. Vox Graeca, 3rd edn. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Allony, N. 1969. Ha-’Egron, Kitāb uṣul al-ši‘r al-‘ibrāni, crit. edn. w. intro. and comm. Jerusalem: ha-Aḳademyah la-lashon ha-‘Ivrit.Google Scholar

Al-Nassir, A. A. 1993. Sibawayh the Phonologist: A Critical Study of the Phonetic and Phonological Theory of Sibawayh as Presented in his Treatise Al Kitāb. London: Kegan Paul International.Google Scholar

Althusser, L. 1974. Éléments d’auto-critique. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar

Althusser, L., Balibar, É., Establet, R., Macherey, P., & Rancière, J. 1965. Lire le Capital. Paris: Maspero.Google Scholar

Amacker, R. 2011. See Saussure 2011.Google Scholar

Amacker, R. & Bouquet, S. 1990. Correspondence Bally–Meillet (1906–1932). Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure 43: 95–17.Google Scholar

Amacker, R., Forel, C., & Fryba, A. 1997. Les Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure des origines à nos jours. Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure 50: 341–54.Google Scholar

American Heritage Dictionary of the English language. See Morris, W. compiler.Google Scholar

Amirova, T. A., Olchovikov, B. A., & Rozdestvenskij, Ju. V. 1980. Abriß der Geschichte der Linguistik. Leipzig: Bibliographisches Institut.Google Scholar

Amsler, M. 1989. Etymology and Grammatical Discourse in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Amsler, M. 2006. Linguistic theory in the later Middle Ages. In Brown, (ed.), vol. vii, pp. 218–22.Google Scholar

Amsler, M. 2011. Affective Literacies: Writing and Multilingualism in the Late Middle Ages. Turnhout: Brepols.Google Scholar

Amsterdamska, O. 1987. Schools of Thought: The Development of Linguistics from Bopp to Saussure. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anderson, B. 1983. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. NY: Schocken Books.Google Scholar

Anderson, J. M. 1971. A Grammar of Case: Towards a Localistic Theory. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Anderson, J. R. 1982. Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review 89: 369–406.Google Scholar

Anderson, L. B. 1982. The ‘perfect’ as a universal and as a language-particular category. In Hopper, P. (ed.), Tense-Aspect: Between Semantics & Pragmatics, pp. 227–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Anderson, S. R. 1985. Phonology in the Twentieth Century: Theories of Rules and Theories of Representation. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Andrade, M. J. 1936. Some questions of fact and policy concerning phonemes. Language 12: 1–14.Google Scholar

Andresen, J. T. 1990. Linguistics in America 1769–1924: A Critical History. NY: Routledge.Google Scholar

Anon. [c. 3rd c. bce]1984. Er ya. 1984. Repr. Zhou Zumo, Er ya jiaojian. Jiangsu: Jiangsu jiaoyu chubanshe.Google Scholar

Anon. [1485]1491/1500. Exercitum puerorum grammaticale per dietas distributum [Children’s grammar exercises for daily use]. 1491/1500: Strassburg: Georg Husner.Google Scholar

Anscombre, J.-C. & Ducrot, O. 1983. L’Argumentation dans la langue. Brussels: Éditions Mardaga.Google Scholar

Anttila, R. (ed.) 1977. Analogy. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Anubhūtisvarūpa. [13th c. ce]1952. Acharya, N. R. (ed.), Sārasvata-Vyākaraṇa, 7th edn. Bombay: Nirnayasagara Press.Google Scholar

Āpiśali. [c. 5th c. bce]. Āpiśali-Śikṣā. 1967. Mimamsaka, Y. (ed.), Śikṣāsūtrāṇi, Āpis΄ali-Pāṇini-Candragomi-viracitāni. Ajmer: Bharatiya Prachyavidya Pratishthan.Google Scholar

Apresjan, J. D. 1974. Regular polysemy. Linguistics 142: 5–32.Google Scholar

Apresjan, J. D. 1992. Lexical Semantics. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma.Google Scholar

Arai, T. 2001. The replication of Chiba and Kajiyama’s mechanical models of the human vocal cavity. Jrnl. of the Phonetic Society of Japan 5: 31–8.Google Scholar

Archer, T. (1885). Basing, John. In Stephen, L. (ed.), Dictionary of National Biography, vol. iii, pp. 354–5. London: Smith, Elder & Co.Google Scholar

Argyle, M. 1988. Bodily Communication, 2nd edn. London: Methuen.Google Scholar

Ariel, M. 1988. Referring and accessibility. Jrnl. of Linguistics 24: 65–87.Google Scholar

Ariel, M. 1990. Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedents. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Aristotle. 1984. Complete Works. Barnes, J. (ed.). Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Arnauld, A. & Lancelot, C. [1660]1997. Grammaire générale et raisonnée. Paris: Éditions Allia.Google Scholar

Arnauld, A. & Nicole, P. [1662]/1965/1996. 1965: Logique, ou l’art de penser. Clair, P. & Girbal, E. (eds.). [Repr. of 1683 edn. of 1662 orig.] Paris: Presses universitaires de France. 1996: Logic or the Art of Thinking. Containing, besides Common Rules, several New Observations Appropriate for Forming Judgment. J. V. Buroker (trans.). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Arnim, H. F. A. von & Adler, M. 1923–4. Stoicorum veterum fragmenta [aka SVF]. 4 vols. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner.Google Scholar

Arnold, D. 2005. Buddhists, Brahmins, and Belief: Epistemology in South Asian Philosophy of Religion. NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar

Aronoff, M. 1976. Word Formation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Aronoff, M. & Rees-Miller, J. (eds.). 2001. The Handbook of Linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Arrivé, M. 1992. Linguistics and Psychoanalysis: Freud, Saussure, Hjelmslev, Lacan and Others. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Arrivé, Michel. 1994. Langage et psychanalyse. Linguistique et inconscient. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar

Ascoli, G. I. 1887. Sprachwissenschaftliche Briefe, trans. B. Güterbeck. Leipzig: S. Hirzel.Google Scholar

Ash, S. 2002. Social class. In Chambers, et al. (eds.), pp. 402–22.Google Scholar

Asher, N. & Lascarides, A. 2003. Logics of Conversation. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Asher, R. E. 2002. R. E. Asher. In Brown, & Law, (eds.), pp. 28–42.Google Scholar

Asher, R. E. & Henderson, E. J. A. (eds.). 1981. Towards a History of Phonetics. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Asher, R. E. & Simpson, J. (eds.). 1994. The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Oxford: PergamonGoogle Scholar

Ashworth, E. J. 1981. Do words signify ideas or things? The scholastic sources of Locke’s theory of language. Jrnl. of the History of Philosophy 19: 299–326.Google Scholar

Ashworth, E. J. 1989. Locke on language. Canadian Jrnl. of Philosophy 14: 45–73.Google Scholar

Asporius [6th–7th c. ce]1855/1961 Ars grammatica. In Keil, H. (ed.), 1855–80, Grammatici latini. Leipzig: Teubner. 1961: repr. vol. i. Hildesheim: G. Olms.Google Scholar

Aston, G. & Burnard, L. 1998. The BNC Handbook: Exploring the British National Corpus with SARA. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Atal, B. S. & Hanauer, S. L. 1971. Speech analysis and synthesis by linear prediction of the speech wave. Jrnl. of the Acoustical Society of America 50: 637–55.Google Scholar

Atharva-Prātis΄ākhya. [c. 5 c. bce]1939. Kanta, Surya (ed./trans.). Lahore: Meherchand Lachhmandas.Google Scholar

Atherton, C. 2007. The Stoics on Ambiguity. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Atkins, B. T. S. 1996. Bilingual dictionaries: Past, present and future. In Gellerstam, M. et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the ’96 EURALEX Congress, pp. 515–90. Gothenburg University.Google Scholar

Atkins, B. T. S. & Rundell, M. 2008. The Oxford Guide to Practical Lexicography. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Atkinson, C. M. 2008. The Critical Nexus: Tone-System, Mode, and Notation in Early Medieval Music. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Augustine (of Hippo), St. [397–426 ce]1962. De doctrina Christiana. In Martin, J. (ed.), Corpus Christianorum Series Latina, vol. xxxii. Turnhout: Brepols.Google Scholar

Augustine (of Hippo), St. [c. 387]1975. De dialectica. Pinborg, J. (ed.). D. Jackson (trans., intro., notes). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar

Augustine (of Hippo), St. [397–400 ce]1981. Confessiones. In Verheijen, L. (ed.), Corpus Christianorum Series Latina, vol. xxvii. Turnhout: Brepols.Google Scholar

Auroux, S. 1979. La querelle des lois phonétiques. Linguisticae Investigationes 3: 1–27.Google Scholar

Auroux, S. 1984. Linguistique et anthropologie en France (1600–1900). In Rupp-Eisenreich, B. (ed.), Histoire de l’anthropologie (XVI^e–XIX^e siècles), pp. 291–318. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar

Auroux, S. 1987. Histoire des sciences et entropie des systèmes scientifiques: Les horizons de rétrospection. In Schmitter, P. (ed.), Geschichte der Sprachtheorie,vol. i: Zur Theorie und Methode der Geschichtschreibung der Linguistik: Analysen und Reflexionen, pp. 20–42. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar

Auroux, S. 1990. Representation and the place of linguistic change before comparative grammar. In De, T. Mauro, & Formigari, L. (eds.), Leibniz, Humboldt, and the Origins of Comparativism, pp. 213–38. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Auroux, S. 1994. La Révolution technologique de la grammatisation. Liège: Éditions Mardaga.Google Scholar

Auroux, S., Koerner, E. F. K., Niederehe, H.-J., & Vers, teegh, K. (eds.). 2000–1. History of the Language Sciences: An International Handbook on the Evolution of the Study of Language from the Beginnings to the Present / Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaften / Histoire des sciences du langage, vols. i–ii. NY: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Austin, J. [1962]/1969/1972 How to Do Things with Words. 1969: Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1972: J. O. Urmson & M. Sbisà (eds.), 2nd edn. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Authier-Revuz, J. 1982. Hétérogénéité montrée et hétérogénéité constitutive: Éléments pour une approche de l’autre dans le discours. DRLAV, Revue de linguistique 26: 91–151.Google Scholar

Authier-Revuz, J. 1984. Hétérogénéité(s) énonciative(s). Langages 73: 98–111.Google Scholar

Ax, W. 2000. Lexis und Logos: Studien zur antiken Grammatik und Rhetorik. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.Google Scholar

Ayer, A. J. 1936. Language, Truth and Logic. London: Victor Gollancz.Google Scholar

Ayres, L. (ed.). 1995. The Passionate Intellect: Essays on the Transformation of Classical Traditions Presented to Professor I. G. Kidd. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar

az-Zag˘g˘āg˘ı̄. 1995. The Explanation of Linguistic Cause: Az-Zag˘g˘āg˘ı̄’s Theory of Grammar. K. Versteegh (trans. and comm.). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Azouvi, F. (ed.). 1992. L’Institution de la raison. La révolution culturelle des idéologues. Paris: J. Vrin.Google Scholar

Azouvi, F. 1995. Maine de Biran: La science de l’homme. Paris: J. Vrin.Google Scholar

Baalbaki, R. 1983. The relation between naḥw and balāġa: A comparative study of the methods of Sı̄bawayhi and Ĝurĝānı̄. Zeitschrift für arabische Linguistik 11: 7–23.Google Scholar

Baalbaki, R. 1990. I‚rāb and binā ƒ from linguistic reality to grammatical theory. In Carter, M. G. & Versteegh, K. (eds.), Studies in the History of Arabic Grammar, vol. ii, pp. 17–33. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bach, K. 1994. Conversational impliciture. Mind and Language 9: 124–62.Google Scholar

Bach, K. 2004. Minding the gap. In Bianchi, C. (ed.), The Semantics/Pragmatics Distinction, pp. 27–43. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar

Bach, E. & Harms, R. T. (eds.). 1968. Universals in Linguistic Theory. NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar

Bacher, W. 1896. Sepher haschoraschim, Wurzelwörterbuch der hebräischen Sparche von Abulwalîd Merwân Ibn Ğanâh (R. Jona) aus dem Arabischen in’s Hebräische übersetzt von Jehuda Ibn Tibbon. Berlin: H. Itzkowski.Google Scholar

Bacher, W. [1888]1968. Sepher Sikkaron. Grammatik der hebräischen Sprache, 2nd edn. Berlin: Selbstverlage des Vereins M’kize Nirdamim. 1968: repr. Jerusalem: s.e.Google Scholar

Bachman, L. F. & Palmer, A. S. 1996. Language Testing in Practice: Designing and Developing Useful Language Tests. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Backhouse, A.E. 1994. The Lexical Field of Taste: A Semantic Study of Japanese Taste Terms. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bacon, F. [1605]1996. The Advancement of Learning. In Bacon, F., The Major Works, ed. w. intro. & notes by B. Vickers. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bacon, R. 1902. Greek Grammar [in Latin and Greek]. Nolan, E. & Hirsch, S. (eds.). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Baer, T., Gore, J. C, Boyce, S., & Nye, W. 1987. Application of MRI to the analysis of speech production. Magnetic Resonance Imaging 5: 1–7.Google Scholar

Baggioni, D. 1997. Langues et nations en Europe. Paris: Éditions Payot.Google Scholar

Bahl, L. R., Jelinek, F., & Mercer, R. L. 1983. A maximum likelihood approach to continuous speech recognition. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence PAMI-5 (2), pp. 179–90.Google Scholar

Bailey, B. 1997. Communication of respect in interethnic service encounters. Language in Society 26: 327–56.Google Scholar

Bailey, B. 2000. Communicative behavior and conflict between African-American customers and Korean immigrant retailers in Los Angeles. Discourse & Society 11: 87–108.Google Scholar

Baker, T. 1699. Reflections upon Learning, Wherein is Shewn the Insufficiency Thereof, in its Several Particulars. London: A. Bosvile.Google Scholar

Bakker, E. J. (ed.). 2010. A Companion to the Ancient Greek Language. Oxford: J. Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Bakker, P. & Muysken, P. 1995. Mixed languages and language intertwining. In Arends, J. et al. (eds.), Pidgins and Creoles: An Introduction, pp. 41–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Baldauf, R. B. 1994. [Unplanned] language policy and planning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 14: 82–9.Google Scholar

Baldi, P. (ed.). 1991. Patterns of Change, Change of Patterns: Linguistic Change and Reconstruction Methodology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Bally, C. 1905. Précis de stylistique. Geneva: Eggiman.Google Scholar

Bally, C. 1909/1951. Traité de stylistique française. Heidelberg: Winter. 1951: Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar

Bally, C. 1913/1965. Le Langage et la vie. 1965: 3rd enlarg. edn. Geneva: Droz.Google Scholar

Bally, C. 1932/1944. Linguistique générale et linguistique française. Bern: A. Francke. 1944: Paris: Presses universitaires de France.Google Scholar

Bammesberger, A. 1989. The laryngeal theory and prehistoric Greek. In Vennemann, (ed.), pp. 35–41.Google Scholar

Baquedano-Lopez, P. 1997. Creating social identities through Doctrina narratives. Issues in Applied Linguistics 8: 27–45.Google Scholar

Baratin, M. & Desbordes, F. 1986. La ‘troisième partie’ de l’Ars grammatica. Historiographia Linguistica 13: 215–40.Google Scholar

Bar-Hillel, Y. 1953/1964. A quasi-arithmetical notation for syntactic description. Language 29: 47–58. 1964: in Y. Bar-Hillel (ed.), Language and Information: Selected Essays on their Theory and Application, pp. 61–74. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Bar-Hillel, Y. 1954/1970. Indexical expressions. Mind 63: 359–79. 1970: repr. in Y. Bar-Hillel, Aspects of Language: Essays and Lectures on the Philosophy of Language, Linguistic Philosophy and Methodology of Linguistics, pp. 69–88. Amsterdam: Magnes Press.Google Scholar

Bar-Hillel, Y. 1962. Some recent results in theoretical linguistics. In Ernest, N. et al. (eds.), Logic, Methodology, and the Philosophy of Science, pp. 551–7. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Barik, H. C. & Swain, M. 1975. A longitudinal study of bilingual and cognitive development. Intl. Jrnl. of Psychology 11: 251–63.Google Scholar

Baron, N. 1981. Speech, Writing, Sign: A Functional View of Linguistic Representation. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

Baroni, M., Bernardini, S., Ferraresi, A., & Zanchetta, E. 2009. The wacky wide web: A collection of very large linguistically processed web-crawled corpora. Language Resources and Evaluation 43: 209–26.Google Scholar

Barsalou, L. W. 1992. Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields. In Lehrer, & Kittay, (eds.), pp. 21–74.Google Scholar

Barsalou, L. W. 1993. Flexibility, structure, and linguistic vagary in concepts: Manifestations of a compositional system of perceptual symbols. In Collins, A. F. et al. (eds.), Theories of Memory, pp. 29–101. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Barthes, R. 1957a. Mythologies. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.Google Scholar

Barthes, R. 1957b. Le mythe, aujourd’hui. In Barthes, 1957a, pp. 191–247.Google Scholar

Barthes, R. 1964. Éléments de sémiologie. Communications 4: 91–135.Google Scholar

Barthes, R. 1966/1996. Introduction à l’analyse structurale du récit. Communication 8: 1–27. 1996: English trans. in S. Onega & J. A. G. Landa (eds.), Narratology: An Introduction, pp. 45–60. New York: Longman.Google Scholar

Barthes, R. 1967/1983. Système de la mode. Paris: Éditions du Seuil. 1983: M. Ward & R. Howard (trans.), The Fashion System. NY: Hill & Wang.Google Scholar

Barthes, R. 1970/1974. S/Z. Paris: Éditions du Seuil. 1974: R. Miller (trans.), S/Z: An Essay. NY: Hill & Wang.Google Scholar

Barthes, R. 1971. Réponses. Tel Quel 47: 89–107.Google Scholar

Barthes, R. 1978. Leçon. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.Google Scholar

Bartoli, M. 1945. Saggi de linguistica spaziale. Turin: Casa editrice libraria.Google Scholar

Barwise, J. & Cooper, R. 1981. Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4: 159–219.Google Scholar

Basal, N. 1992. Torato ha-diqduqit šel Rabı̄ Yĕhudah Ḥayyūŷ. PhD Dissertation. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University.Google Scholar

Basal, N. 2001. Kitāb al-nutaf lĕ-rabı̄ Yĕhudah Ḥayyūg˘. University of Tel-Aviv.Google Scholar

Baskin, W. 2011. Introduction. In Saussure, F. de, Cours de linguistique générale, p. xlix. Meisel, P. & Saussy, E. (eds.). NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar

Basso, K. H. 1979. Portraits of ‘The Whiteman’: Linguistic Play and Cultural Symbols among the Western Apache. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bastide, Roger. 1962. Sens et usage du terme “structure”. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Bates, E. & MacWhinney, B. (eds.). 1989. The Cross-Linguistic Study of Sentence Processing. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bates, E., McNew, S., MacWhinney, B., Devescovi, A., & Smith, S. 1982. Functional constraints on sentence comprehension: A cross-linguistic study. Cognition 11: 245–99.Google Scholar

Bateson, G. 1972. Steps to an Ecology of Mind. NY: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar

Battig, W. F. & Montague, W. E. 1969. Category norms for verbal items in 56 categories. Jrnl. of Experimental Psychology Monograph 80: 1–46.Google Scholar

Baudouin de Courtenay, J. 1907. Zur Kritik der künstlichen Weltsprachen. Annalen der Naturphilosophie 6: 385–433.Google Scholar

Baudouin de Courtenay, J. 1972. A Baudouin de Courtenay Anthology: The Beginnings of Structural Linguistics [writings, 1871–1932]. Stankiewicz, E. (ed./trans.). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

Bauer, B. 1999. Archaic Syntax in Indo-European. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Bauer, G. 1972. Athanasius von Qūṣ, Qilādat at-taḥrı̄r fı̄‚ilm at-tafsı̄r: Eine koptische Grammatik in arabischer Sprache aus dem 13.14. Jahrhundert. Freiburg: K. Schwarz.Google Scholar

Bauer, O. 1907/2000. Die Nationalitätenfrage und die Sozialdemokratie. 2000: J. O’Donnell (trans.), The Question of Nationalities and Social Democracy. Minneapolis, MIN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar

Bauman, R. 1975. Verbal art as performance. American Anthropologist 77: 290–311.Google Scholar

Bauman, R. 1977. Verbal Art as Performance. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.Google Scholar

Bauman, R. 1986. Story, Performance, and Event: Contextual Studies of Oral Narrative. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bauman, R. (ed.). 1992. Folklore, Cultural Performances, and Popular Entertainments: A Communications-Centered Handbook. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bauman, R. & Briggs, C. L. 1990. Poetics and performance as critical perspectives on language and social life. Annual Review of Anthropology 19: 59–88.Google Scholar

Bauman, R. & Sherzer, J. (eds.). 1974/1989. Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking. 1989: 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Baumgarten, M. 1997. Professoren und Universitäten im 19. Jahrhundert: Zur Sozialgeschichte deutscher Geistes- und Naturwissenschaftler. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar

Bayless, M. 1993. Beatus quid est and the study of grammar in late Anglo-Saxon England. In Law, (ed.), pp. 67–110.Google Scholar

Bayley, R. 2002. The quantitative paradigm. In Chambers, et al. (eds), pp. 117–41.Google Scholar

Bayley, R. & Preston, D. R. (eds.). 1996. Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic Variation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bazell, C. E., Catford, J. C., Halliday, M. A. K., & Robins, R. H. (eds.). 1966. In Memory of J. R. Firth. London: Longmans.Google Scholar

Beattie, J. 1771. An Essay on the Nature and Immutability of Truth, in Opposition to Sophistry and Scepticism, 2nd edn., corr. & enlarg. Edinburgh: A. Kincaird & J. Bell.Google Scholar

Beattie, J. 1788. The Theory of Language. In Two Parts. Part I. Of the Origin and General Nature of Speech, Part II. Of Universal Grammar, new edn., enlarg. and corr. London: printed for A. Strahan; T. Cadell, in The Strand, and Edinburgh: W. Creech.Google Scholar

Beauvillain, C. & Grainger, J. 1987. Accessing interlexical homographs: Some limitations of a language-selective access. Jrnl. of Memory and Language 26: 658–72.Google Scholar

Beauzée, N. & Douchet, J.-P.-A. 1765. Langue. In Le Rond d’Alembert, J. & Diderot, D. (eds.), Encyclopédie, ou Dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers, vol. ix. Paris: Samuel Faulche & Compagnie, Libraires & Imprimeurs.Google Scholar

Bébian, R. A. A. 1817. Essai sur les sourds-muets et sur le langage naturel, ou introduction à une classification naturelle des idées avec leurs signes propres. Paris: E. Dentu.Google Scholar

Becher, J. J. 1661. Character, pro notitia linguarum universali. Frankfurt am Main: Johann Wilhelm Ammon.Google Scholar

Beck, C. 1657. The Universal Character. London: William Weekley.Google Scholar

Beck, D. & Melcˇuk, I. 2011. Morphological phrasemes and Totonacan verbal morphology. Linguistics 49: 175–228.Google Scholar

Becker, D. 1984. Al-Risāla šel Yĕhuda Ibn Qurayš, crit. edn. University of Tel Aviv.Google Scholar

Becker, D. 1998. Arabic Sources of R. Jonah ibn Janāḥ’s Grammar. University of Tel Aviv.Google Scholar

Becker, K. F. 1842. Ausführliche deutsche Grammatik als Kommentar der Schulgrammatik, 2nd edn., vol. i. Frankfurt am Main: G. F. Kettembeil.Google Scholar

Beckman, M. E. & Edwards, J. 1990. Lengthenings and shortenings and the nature of prosodic constituency. In Kingston, & Beckman, (eds.), pp. 152–200.Google Scholar

Beckman, M. E. & Edwards, J. 2000. Lexical frequency effects on young children’s imitative productions. In Broe, & Pierrehumbert, (eds.), pp. 208–18.Google Scholar

Beckman, M. E., Edwards, J., & Fletcher, J. 1992. Prosodic structure and tempo in a sonority model of articulatory dynamics. In Docherty, & Ladd, (eds.), pp. 68–86.Google Scholar

Bede, . 1975. Jones, C. W. et al. (eds.), Opera didascalia (Educational Works). Turnhout: Brepols.Google Scholar

Behler, C. 1989. Humboldts “radikale Reflexion über die Sprache” im Lichte der Foucaultschen Diskursanalyse. Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift 63: 1–24.Google Scholar

Beilin, H. 1992. Piaget’s enduring contribution to developmental psychology. Developmental Psychology 28: 191–204.Google Scholar

Beilin, H. & Pufall, P. 1992. Piaget’s Theory: Prospects and Possibilities. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Béjoint, H. 1979. The use of informants in dictionary-making. In Hartmann, (ed.), pp. 25–9.Google Scholar

Béjoint, H. 2004. Modern Lexicography: An Introduction. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Béjoint, H. 2007. Informatique et lexicographie de corpus: Les nouveaux dictionnaires. Revue française de linguistique appliquée 12: 7–23.Google Scholar

Bell, A. M. 1867. Visible Speech: The Science of Universal Alphabetics; or Self-Interpreting Physiological Letters, for the Writing of All Languages in One Alphabet. NY: Simpkin, Marshall & Co.Google Scholar

Bell, L. 1976. Interpreters and Egyptianized Nubians in Ancient Egyptian foreign policy: Aspects of the history of Egypt and Nubia. PhD dissertation. University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar

Bendix, E. H. 1966. Componential Analysis of General Vocabulary: The Semantic Structure of a Set of Verbs in English, Hindi, and Japanese. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar

Bendor-Samuel, J. 2002. John Bendor-Samuel. In Brown, & Law, (eds.), pp. 43–52.Google Scholar

Benfey, T. 1839–42. Griechische Grammatik I: Griechisches Wurzellexicon. Berlin: D. Reimer.Google Scholar

Benfey, T. 1869. Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft und orientalischen Philologie in Deutschland seit dem Anfang des 19. Jahrhunderts mit einem Rückblick auf die früheren Zeiten. Munich: J. F. Cotta.Google Scholar

Benson, E. J. 2001. The neglected history of codeswitching research in the United States. Language and Communication 21: 23–36.Google Scholar

Benson, M. 1989. The structure of the collocational dictionary. Intl. Jrnl. of Lexicography 2: 1–14.Google Scholar

Benson, M., Benson, E., & Ilson, R. F. [1986, 1997]2010. The BBI Combinatory Dictionary of English, 3rd edn., exp. and rev. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bentley, J. R. 2001. The origin of the Man’yŎgana. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 64: 59–73.Google Scholar

Benveniste, E. 1935. Origines de la formation des noms en indo-européen. Paris: Maisonneuve.Google Scholar

Benveniste, E. 1966–74/1971. Problèmes de linguistique générale, vols. i–ii. Paris: Gallimard. 1971: M. E. Meek (trans., vol. i), Problems in General Linguistics. Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press.Google Scholar

Benveniste, E. [1956]1971. The nature of pronouns. In Meek (trans.), pp. 218–20.Google Scholar

Benveniste, E. [1958]1971. On subjectivity in language. In Meek (trans.), pp. 223–30.Google Scholar

Benveniste, E. 1969. Sémiologie de la langue. Semiotica 1: 1–12.Google Scholar

Benveniste, E. 1969/1973. Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-européennes. Paris: Éditions de Minuit. 1973 (trans.): Indo-European Language and Society. London: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar

Benveniste, E. 1970/1974. L’appareil formel de l’énonciation. Langages 17: 12–18. 1974: repr. in Benveniste, Problèmes de linguistique générale, vol. ii, 78–88. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar

Benveniste, E. 2012. Coquet, J-C. & Fenoglio, I. (eds.), Dernières leçons. Collège de France, 1968 et 1969. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar

Bergheaud, P. 1990. Entwicklung der sprachtheoretischen Reflexion in Großbritannien im 18. Jahrhundert. In Ricken, U. (ed.), Sprachtheorie und Weltanschauung in der europäischen Aufklärung. Zur Geschichte der Sprachtheorien des 18. Jahrhunderts und ihrer europäischen Rezeption nach der Französischen Revolution, pp. 38–65. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar

Bergounioux, G. 1980. Histoire sociale de la linguistique en France de 1789 à 1914. Thèse de 3ème cycle, Université de Paris VII.Google Scholar

Bergounioux, G. 1984. La science du langage en France de 1870 à 1885: Du marché civil au marché étatique. Langue française 63: 7–41.Google Scholar

Bergounioux, G. 2002. La sélection des langues: Darwinisme et linguistique. Langages 146: 7–19.Google Scholar

Bergsland, K. & Vogt, H. 1962. On the validity of glottochronology. Current Anthropology 3: 115–53.Google Scholar

Berkeley, G. [1710]1937. The Principles of Human Understanding. Jessop, T. E. (ed.). London: A. Brown & Sons.Google Scholar

Berko, J. 1958. The child’s learning of English morphology. Word 14: 150–77.Google Scholar

Berlin, B. & Kay, P. 1969. Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Berlitz, M. D. 1889. Methode Berlitz für den Unterricht in den neueren Sprachen. NY: Berlitz.Google Scholar

Bernardin de Saint-Pierre, J.- H. 1830–1. Oeuvres complètes de Jacques-Henri-Bernardin de Saint-Pierre. L. Aimé-Martin (ed.). Paris: Lequien fils.Google Scholar

Bernards, M. 1997. Changing Traditions: Al-Mubarrad’s Refutation of Sı̄bawayh and the Subsequent Reception of the Kitāb. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar

Bernhardi, A. F. 1801–3. Sprachlehre, 2nd edn. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar

Berns, M., de Bot, K., & Hasenbrink, U. 2006. English, Media and Youth in Europe. NY: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Bernstein, B. 1960. Language and social class: A research note. The British Jrnl. of Sociology 11: 271–6.Google Scholar

Bernstein, B. 1961a. Social structure, language and learning. Educational Research 3: 163–76.Google Scholar

Bernstein, B. 1961b. Social class and linguistic development: A theory of social learning. In Halsey, A. H. et al. (eds.), Education, Economy and Society: A Reader in the Sociology of Education, pp. 288–314. NY: The Free Press of Glencoe.Google Scholar

Bernstein, B. 1961c. Aspects of language and learning in the genesis of the social process. Jrnl. of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 1: 313–24.Google Scholar

Bernstein, B. 1962. Social class, linguistic codes and grammatical elements. Language and Speech 5: 221–40.Google Scholar

Bernstein, B. 1964. Elaborated and restricted codes: Their social origins and some consequences. American Anthropologist 66: 55–69.Google Scholar

Berrettoni, P. 1989a. An idol of the school: The aspectual theory of the stoics. Rivista di Linguistica 1: 33–68.Google Scholar

Berrettoni, P. 1989b. Further remarks on the stoic theory of tenses. Rivista di Linguistica 1: 251–75.Google Scholar

Bever, T. G. 1970. The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In Hayes, J. (ed.), Cognition and the Development of Language, pp. 279–362. NY: J. Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Bever, T. G. & Mehler, J. 1967. The coding hypothesis and short-term memory. AF Technical Report. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Center for Cognitive Studies.Google Scholar

Bhartr̥hari, . [c. 5th c. ce]1977. Vākyapadı̄ya. Rau, W. (ed.) (Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 42). Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner.Google Scholar

Bhatia, T. K. & Ritchie, W. C. 2004. The Handbook of Bilingualism. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Bialystok, E. 2001. Bilingualism in Development: Language, Literacy and Cognition. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bialystok, E. & Codd, J. 1997. Cardinal limits: Evidence from language awareness and bilingualism for developing concepts of number. Cognitive Development 12: 85–106.Google Scholar

Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., Klein, R., & Viswanathan, M. 2004. Bilingualism, aging and cognitive control: Evidence from the Simon task. Psychology of Aging 19: 290–303.Google Scholar

Biard, J. 1989. Logique et théorie du signe au XVIe siècle. Paris: J. Vrin.Google Scholar

Bibbesworth, W. de. 1990. Le Tretiz. W. Rothwell (ed.). London: Anglo-NormanText Society.Google Scholar

Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. 1998. Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Biber, D. & Finegan, E. (eds.). 1989. Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register. NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Biber, D., & Reppen, R. (eds.). 2015. The Cambridge Handbook of English Corpus Linguistics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bickerton, D. 1981. Roots of Language. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma.Google Scholar

Biesenthal, H. & Lebrecht, F. 1847. Rabbi Davidis Kimchi radiculum liber sive hebraeum bibliorum lexicon cum animadversionibus Eliae Levitae. Berlin: G. Bethge.Google Scholar

Bihari, K. M. [17th c. ce]1965. Pārası̄ka-Prakās΄a. Bhattacharya, V. B. (ed.). (Sarasvatı̄ Bhavana Granthamālā 95). Banaras: Varanaseya Samskrita Vishvavidyalaya.Google Scholar

Binder, J. R., Desai, R. H., Graves, W. W., & Conant, L. L. 2009. Where is the semantic system? A critical review and meta-analysis of 120 functional neuroimaging studies. Cerebral Cortex 19: 2767–96.Google Scholar

Bisang, W., Himmelmann, N. P., & Wiemer, B. (eds.). 2004. What Makes Grammaticalization? A Look from its Fringes and Components. NY: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Black, J. 1991. Sumerian Grammar in Babylonian Theory, 2nd edn. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico.Google Scholar

Blackburn, C. S. & Young, S. 2000. A self-learning predictive model of articulator movements during speech production. Jrnl. of the Acoustical Society of America 107: 1659–70.Google Scholar

Blair, H. [1783]1965. Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres. Harding, H. F. (ed.). 2 vols. Carbondale, Il: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar

Blank, D. 1982. Ancient Philosophy and Grammar: The Syntax of Apollonius Dyscolus. Chico, CA: Scholars Press.Google Scholar

Blank, D. 1994. Analogy, anomaly, and Apollonius. In Everson, (ed.), pp. 149–65.Google Scholar

Blank, D. & Atherton, C. 2003. The stoic contribution to traditional grammar. In Inwood, B. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics, pp. 310–27. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Blau, J. & Hopkins, S. 2000. Tirgume Miqra’ qĕdumin lĕ-‘arabit-ha-yĕhudit. Pĕ‘amim 83: 4–14.Google Scholar

Blau, J. & Hopkins, S. 2007. Niṣane paršanut ha-Miqra’ bĕ-‘aravit ha-yĕhudit ‘al semek glosar qadum lĕ-Sefer Tĕhillim. In Bar-Asher, M. et al. (eds.), A Word Fitly Spoken: Studies in Medieval Exegesis of the Hebrew Bible and the Qur’ān, pp. 235–84. Jerusalem: Yad Izhaq Ben-Zvi and Hebrew University of Jerusalem.Google Scholar

Bloch, B. 1947. Syntactic formulas for Japanese. Studies in Linguistics 5: 1–12.Google Scholar

Bloch, B. 1948. A set of postulates for phonemic analysis. Language 24: 3–46.Google Scholar

Bloch, B. 1941/1958. Phonemic overlapping. American Speech 16: 278–84. 1958: repr. in Joos (ed.), pp. 93–6.Google Scholar

Bloch, B. 1946/1958. Studies in Colloquial Japanese II. Syntax. Language 22: 200–48. 1958: repr. in Joos (ed.), pp. 154–85.Google Scholar

Bloch, M. 1975. Introduction. In Bloch, M. (ed.), Political Language and Oratory in Traditional Society, pp. 1–28. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Bloch, M. 1976. Review of R. Bauman and J. Sherzer (eds.), Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking. Language in Society 5: 229–34.Google Scholar

Block, D. 2003. The Social Turn in Second Language Acquisition. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Block, D. 2013. Issues in language and identity research in applied linguistics. Estudios de lingüística inglesa aplicada 13: 11–46.Google Scholar

Block, N. 1986. Advertisement for a semantics for psychology. In French, P. et al. (eds.), Studies in the Philosophy of Mind (Midwest Studies in Philosophy 10), pp. 615–78. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar

Blom, J.-P. & Gumperz, J. J. 1972. Social meaning in linguistic structure: Code-switching in Norway. In Gumperz, & Hymes, (eds.), pp. 407–37.Google Scholar

Blommaert, J. & Verschueren, J. 1998. Debating Diversity: Analysing the Discourse of Tolerance. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Bloomfield, L. 1914/1983. An Introduction to the Study of Language. NY: Henry Holt & Company. 1983: repr. w. intro. by J. F. Kess. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bloomfield, L. 1917. Tagalog Texts with Grammatical Analysis (Studies in Language and Literature 3, nos. 2–4). University of Illinois.Google Scholar

Bloomfield, L. 1924. Review of Ferdinand de Saussure (1916), Cours de linguistique générale. The Modern Language Jrnl. 8: 317–19.Google Scholar

Bloomfield, L. 1925a/1970. Why a linguistic society? Language 1: 1–5. 1970: repr. in Hockett (ed.), pp. 109–12.Google Scholar

Bloomfield, L. 1925b. On the sound system of Central Algonquian. Language 1: 130–56.Google Scholar

Bloomfield, L. 1926/1957/1970. A set of postulates for the science of language. Language 2: 153–64. 1957: repr. in Joos (ed.), pp. 26–31. 1970: repr. in Hockett (ed.), pp. 128–38.Google Scholar

Bloomfield, L. 1928/1970. A note on sound change. Language 4: 99–100. 1970: repr. in Hockett (ed.), pp. 212–13.Google Scholar

Bloomfield, L. 1933/1935/1970/1984. Language. New York: H. Holt & Co.; London: Allen & Unwin. 1984: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Bloomfield, L. 1939/1970. Menomini morphophonemics. In Études phonologiques dédiées à la mémoire de M. le Prince N. S. Trubetzkoy. Travaux du Cercle linguistique de Prague 8: 105–15. 1970: repr. in Hockett (ed.), pp. 351–62.Google Scholar

Bloomfield, L. 1942/1970. Outline Guide for the Practical Study of Foreign Languages. Baltimore, MD: Linguistic Society of America.Google Scholar

Bloomfield, L. 1946a/1970. Algonquian. In Osgood, C. & Hoijer, H. (eds.), Linguistic Structures of Native America (Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology 6), pp. 85–129. 1970: repr. in Hockett (ed.), pp. 440–88.Google Scholar

Bloomfield, L. 1946b/1970. Twenty-one years of the Linguistic Society. Language 22: 1–3. 1970: repr. in Hockett (ed.), pp. 491–4.Google Scholar

Blundeville, T. 1599. The Art of Logicke. London: William Stansby; sold by Matthew Lownes.Google Scholar

Boas, F. 1889. On alternating sounds. American Anthropologist 2: 47–53.Google Scholar

Boas, F. (ed.) 1911a–1941. Handbook of American Indian Languages. 4 parts. 1911a: Part 1 (Smithsonian Institution & Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 40) Washington, DC: Govt. Printing Office. 1922: Part 2: (Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 40, Part ii). Washington, DC: Govt. Printing Office. 1933–8: Part 3: NY: J. J. Augustin. 1941: Part 4: Tunica, by M. R. Haas. NY: J. J. Augustin.Google Scholar

Boas, F. 1911b/1975/1991. Introduction. In Boas, (ed.), pp. 1–83. 1975: repr. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 1991: Washington, DC: Govt. Printing Office, repr. w. J. W. Powell, Indian Linguistic Families of America North of Mexico. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar

Bogatyrëv, P. [1937]1971. The Functions of Folk Costume in Moravian Slovakia. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Bohas, G. 2004. Sur l’hypothèse de la racine triconsonantique en syriaque. Langues et littératures du monde arabe 5: 135–58.Google Scholar

Bonnet, C. 1779–93. Œuvres d’histoire naturelle et de philosophie. Neuchâtel: S. Fauche.Google Scholar

Böhtlingk, O. V. 1840. Pâṇini’s acht Bücher grammatischer Regeln, 2 vols. Bonn: König Verlag.Google Scholar

Böhtlingk, O. V. 1851. Über die Sprache der Jakuten. St. Petersburg: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar

Böhtlingk, O. V. & Roth, R. 1855–75. Sanskrit-Wörterbuch. St. Petersburg: Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar

Bolelli, T. 1979. La scuola linguistica sociologica francese. Studi e Saggi Linguistici 19: 1–26.Google Scholar

Bolinger, D. L. 1951. Intonation: Levels versus configurations. Word 7: 199–210.Google Scholar

Bolinger, D. L. 1958. A theory of pitch accent in English. Word 14: 109–49.Google Scholar

Bolinger, D. 1965a. Forms of English: Accent, Morpheme, Order. Abe, I. & Kanekiyo, T. (eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Bolinger, D. L. 1965b. The atomization of meaning. Language 41: 555–73.Google Scholar

Bolinger, D. L. 1971. Introduction. In Di Pietro, R. J. (ed.), Language Structures in Contrast, pp. vii–ix. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar

Bolinger, D. 1976. Meaning and memory. Forum Linguisticum 1: 1–14.Google Scholar

Bolinger, D. 1989. Intonation and its Uses: Melody in Grammar and Discourse. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Bonfiglio, T. P. 2010. Mother Tongues and Nations: The Invention of the Native Speaker. NY: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Bonner, S. F. 1960. Anecdoton Parisinum. Hermes 88: 354–60.Google Scholar

Boogert, N. v.d. 1997. The Berber Literary Tradition of the Sous, with an Edition and Translation ofThe Ocean of Tears by Muhammad Awzal (d. 1749). Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten.Google Scholar

Bopadeva, . [13th c. ce]1902. Mugdhabodha-Vyākaraṇa, w. two comm. Vidyāsāgara, J. (ed.). Calcutta: Jı̄bānanda Vidyāsāgara.Google Scholar

Bopp, F. 1816/1820. Über das Conjugationssystem der Sanskritsprache in Vergleichung mit jenem der griechischen, lateinischen, persischen und germanischen Sprache, ed. Windischmann, K. J. H. Frankfurt am Main: Andreäischen. 1820: (rev., trans.) Analytical comparison of the Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, and Teutonic languages, shewing the original identity of their grammatical structure. Annals of Oriental Literature 1: 1–64. London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orne, & Brown.Google Scholar

Bopp, F. 1833/1849. Vergleichende Grammatik des Sanskrit, Zend, Griechischen, Lateinischen, Litthauischen, Gothischen und Deutschen, vol i. 1849: 2nd edn. Berlin: F. Dümmler.Google Scholar

Borghouts, J. 2000. Indigenous Egyptian grammar. In Auroux, et al. (eds.), vol. i, pp. 5–14.Google Scholar

Borsche, T. 1981. Sprachansichten: Der Begriff der menschlichen Rede in der Sprachphilosophie Wilhelm von Humboldts. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.Google Scholar

Borsche, T. 1990. Wilhelm von Humboldt. Munich: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar

Bosworth, J. 1823. The Elements of Anglo-Saxon Grammar: With Copious Notes, Illustrating the Structure of the Saxon and the Formation of the English Language. London: Harding, Mayor, Lepard.Google Scholar

Bottéro, F. 1996. Sémantisme et classification dans l’écriture chinoise. Paris: Collège de France, Institut des hautes études chinoises.Google Scholar

Bouissac, P. 2010. Saussure: A Guide for the Perplexed. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Bouquet, S., Engler, R., & Weil, A. 2002. Écrits de linguistique générale. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar

Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bourdieu, P. 1979. La Distinction: Critique sociale du jugement. Paris: Éditions de Minuit.Google Scholar

Bourdieu, P. 1982. Ce que parler veut dire: L’économie des échanges linguistiques. Paris: Éditions Fayard.Google Scholar

Bourdieu, P. 1987. What makes a social class? On the theoretical and practical existence of groups. Berkeley Jrnl. of Sociology 32: 1–17.Google Scholar

Bourdin, D. 1994. Essai sur ‘L’essai sur l’origine des langues’ de Jean-Jacques Rousseau: Pour une étude pragmatique du texte. Geneva: Slatkine.Google Scholar

Bourhis, R. Y. & Sachdev, I. 1984. Vitality perception and language attitudes: Some Canadian data. Jrnl. of Language and Social Psychology 3: 79–126.Google Scholar

Bouwman, D. 2005. Throwing stones at the moon: The role of Arabic in contemporary Mali. PhD dissertation. University of Leiden.Google Scholar

Brandist, C. 2003. The origins of Soviet sociolinguistics. Jrnl. of Sociolinguistics 7: 213–31.Google Scholar

Brandom, R. 1994. Making it Explicit. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Branner, D. 2000. The Suí-Táng tradition of Fa˘nqiè phonology. In Auroux, et al. (eds.), vol. i, pp. 36–40.Google Scholar

Bransford, J. D., Barclay, J. R., & Franks, J. J. 1972. Sentence memory: A constructive versus interpretive approach. Cognitive Psychology 3: 193–209.Google Scholar

Bransford, J. D. & Franks, J. J. 1971. The abstraction of linguistic ideas. Cognitive Psychology 2: 331–50.Google Scholar

Braune, W. [1880]2004. Gotische Grammatik, 20th edn. Heidermanns, F. (ed.). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar

Bréal, M. 1866a–1874. Grammaire comparée des langues indo-européennes comprenant le sanscrit, le zend, l’arménien, le grec, le latin, le lithuanien, l’ancien slave, le gotique et l’allemand. Fren. trans. of Bopp 1849, 5 vols. Paris: Imprimerie impériale.Google Scholar

Bréal, M. 1866b/1995. De la forme et de la fonction des mots. Revue des cours littéraires de la France et de l’étranger 4: 65–71. 1995: repr. in Desmet & Swiggers (eds.), pp. 89–96.Google Scholar

Bréal, M. 1868/1995. Les idées latentes du langage. Leçon faite au Collège de France pour la réouverture du cours de grammaire comparée le 7 décembre 1868. Paris: Hachette. 1995: repr. in Desmet & Swiggers (eds.), pp. 175–213.Google Scholar

Bréal, M. 1883/1995. Les lois intellectuelles du langage: fragment de sémantique. Annuaire de l’association pour l’encouragement des études grecques en France 17: 132–42. 1995: repr. in Desmet & Swiggers (eds.), pp. 271–82.Google Scholar

Bréal, M. 1884/1995. Comment les mots sont classés dans notre esprit. Revue politique et littéraire. Revue des cours littéraires, 3rd series, 8: 552–5. 1995: repr. in Desmet & Swiggers (eds.), pp. 2881–91.Google Scholar

Bréal, M. 1897/1924, 1900/1964. Essai de sémantique. Science des significations. Paris: Hachette. 1924: repr. Geneva: Slatkine. 1900: Semantics: Studies in the Science of Meaning. H. Cust (trans.). NY: Henry Holt & Co. 1964: w. a new intro. by J. Whatmough. NY: Dover.Google Scholar

Bréal, M. 1991. The Beginnings of Semantics: Essays, Lectures and Reviews. Wolf, G. (ed./trans.). Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Breen, M. & Candlin, C. 1980. The essentials of a communicative curriculum in language teaching. Applied Linguistics 1: 89–112.Google Scholar

Brend, R. M. & Pike, K. L. (eds.). 1977. The Summer Institute of Linguistics: Its Works and Contributions. Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar

Brenneis, D. L. & Myers, F. (eds.). 1984. Dangerous Words: Language and Politics in the Pacific. New York University Press.Google Scholar

Brentano, F. [1874]1973. A. C. Rancurello, D. B. Terrell, & L. L. McAlister (trans.), Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint. London: Routledge. [1874 orig. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot].Google Scholar

Brenzinger, M. 1998. Endangered Languages in Africa. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag.Google Scholar

Bresnan, J. W. (ed.). 1982. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Bresnan, J. W. 2000. Explaining morphosyntactic competition. In Baltin, M. & Collins, C. (eds.), The Handbook of Contemporary Syntactic Theory, pp. 11–44. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Bresnan, J. W. 2001. Lexical-Functional Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Briggs, C. L. 1986. Learning How to Ask: A Sociolinguistic Appraisal of the Role of the Interview in Social Science Research. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Briggs, C. L. (ed.). 1996. Disorderly Discourse: Narrative, Conflict, and Inequality. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bright, W. 1960. Linguistic change in some Indian caste dialects. In Ferguson, C. A. & Gumperz, J. J. (eds.), Linguistic Diversity in South Asia: Studies in Regional, Social and Functional Variation = Intl. Jrnl. of American Linguistics 26: 19–26.Google Scholar

Bright, W. (ed.). 1992. International Encyclopedia of Linguistics. NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bright, W. & Ramanujan, A. K. [1962]1964. Sociolinguistic variation and linguistic change. In Lunt, H. (ed.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists, pp. 1107–13. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Brinton, L. J. & Traugott, E. C. 2005. Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Broca, P.P. 1861. Remarques sur le siège de la faculté de la parole articulée, suivies d’une conservation d’aphémie (perte de parole). Bulletin de la Société d’Anatomie 36: 330–57.Google Scholar

Broe, M. B. & Pierrehumbert, J. B. (eds.). 2000. Papers in Laboratory Phonology V: Acquisition and the Lexicon. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Brøndal, V. 1932. Morfologi og syntax. Copenhagen: Københavns Universitet.Google Scholar

Brough, J. [1953]1972. Some Indian theories of meaning. In Staal, J. F. (ed.), A Reader on the Sanskrit Grammarians, pp. 414–23. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Browman, C. P. & Goldstein, L. M. 1985. Dynamic modeling of phonetic structure. In Fromkin, V. A. (ed.), Phonetic Linguistics: Essays in Honor of Peter Ladefoged, pp. 35–53. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Browman, C. P. & Goldstein, L. M. 1989. Articulatory gestures as phonological units. Phonology 6: 201–51.Google Scholar

Browman, C. P. & Goldstein, L.M. 1990. Tiers in articulatory phonology, with some implications for casual speech. In Kingston, & Beckman, (eds.), pp. 342–76.Google Scholar

Browman, C. P. & Goldstein, L. M. 1992a. Articulatory phonology: An overview. Phonetica 49: 155–80.Google Scholar

Browman, C. P. & Goldstein, L. M. 1992b. ‘Targetless’ schwa: An articulatory analysis. In Docherty, & Ladd, (eds.), pp. 26–67.Google Scholar

Brown, K. (ed.). 2006. The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Brown, K. & Law, V. (eds.). 2002. Linguistics in Britain: Personal Histories. Boston, MA: Philological Society.Google Scholar

Brown, P. & Levinson, S.C. 1978. Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In Goody, E. N. (ed.), Questions and Politeness Strategies in Social Interaction, pp. 56–310. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Brown, P. & Levinson, S. C. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Brown, R. W. 1957. Linguistic determinism and the part of speech. Jrnl. of Abnormal and Social Psychology 55: 1–5.Google Scholar

Brown, R. W. 1973. A First Language: The Early Stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Brown, R. W. & Gilman, A. 1960/1972. The pronouns of power and solidarity. In Sebeok, (ed.), pp. 253–76. 1972: repr. in P. P. Giglioli (ed.), Language and Social Context, pp. 252–82. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar

Brown Corpus. 1967. Computational Analysis of Present-Day American English. [Francis, W. N. & Kucˇera, H.]. Providence, RI: Brown University.Google Scholar

Brücke, E. W. 1856. Grundzüge der Physiologie und Systematik der Sprachlaute. Vienna: C. Gerold & Sohn.Google Scholar

Brugmann, K. 1876. Nasalis sonans in der indogermanischen Grundsprache. In Curtius, (ed.), vol. ix, pp. 285–338. Repr. London: Forgotten Books.Google Scholar

Brugmann, K. 1878. Zur Geschichte der Nominal-suffixe -as-, -jas- und -vas-. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 24: 1–99.Google Scholar

Brugmann, K. 1900. Zu dem Vorwort zu Band 1 der Morphologischen Untersuchungen von Osthoff und Brugmann. Indogermanische Forschungen 11: 131–2.Google Scholar

Brugmann, K. & Delbrück, B. 1886–1900. Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen, 6 vols. Strassburg: K. J. Trübner.Google Scholar

Brugmann, K. & Leskien, A. 1907. Zur Kritik der künstlichen Weltsprachen. Strassburg: K. J. Trübner.Google Scholar

Brugmann, K. & Streitberg, W. (eds.). 1892–1925. Indogermanische Forschungen, vols. 1–43. Strassburg: K. J. Trübner.Google Scholar

Brugnoli, G. 1965. Donato e Girolamo. Vetera Christianorum 2: 139–49.Google Scholar

Brumfit, C. 1997. How applied linguistics is the same as any other science. Intl. Jrnl. of Applied Linguistics 7: 86–94.Google Scholar

Brumfit, C. & Johnson, K. 1979. The Communicative Approach to Language Teaching. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bruner, J. S., Goodnow, J. J., & Austin, G. A. 1956. A Study of Thinking. NY: J. Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Brunot, F. 1966. Histoire de la langue française, vol. i. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar

Brunschwig, J. 2003. Stoic metaphysics. In Inwood, B. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics, pp. 206–32. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Brun-Trigaud, G. 1990. Le croissant: Le concept et le mot – Contribution à l’histoire de la dialectologie française au XIXème siècle. Université Lyon III: Centre d’études linguistiques Jacques Goudet.Google Scholar

Brutt-Griffler, J. 2002. World English: A Study of its Development. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Bucholtz, M. 1999. “Why be normal?” Language and identity practices in a community of nerd girls. Language in Society 28: 203–23.Google Scholar

Bucholtz, M. & Hall, K. 2004. Language and identity. In Duranti, A. (ed.), A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology, pp. 369–94. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Bucholtz, M., Liang, A. C., & Sutton, L. A. (eds.). 1999. Reinventing Identities: The Gendered Self in Discourse. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bühler, G. 1864. On the origin of the Sanskrit linguals. Madras Jrnl. of Literature and Science 1864: 116–36.Google Scholar

Bühler, K. 1934/1965. Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Jena: Gustav Fischer. 1965: repr. Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer.Google Scholar

Bulwer, J. [1644]1974. Chirologia, or the Natural Language of the Hand. Cleary, J. W. (ed.). Carbondale, Il: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar

Bunge, S., Kahn, I., Miller, E. K., & Wallis, J. D. 2003. Neural circuits subserving the retrieval and maintenance of abstract rules. Jrnl. of Neurophysiology 90: 3419–28.Google Scholar

Burckhardt, A. & Henne, H. (eds.). 1997. Germanistik als Kulturwissenschaft: Hermann Paul 150. Geburtstag und 100 Jahre Deutsches Wörterbuch. Braunschweig: Ars & Scientia.Google Scholar

Burgersdijck, F. 1647. Institutionum logicarum. Cambridge, ms.Google Scholar

Burgoon, J. K., Stern, L. A., & Dillman, L. 1995. Interpersonal Adaptation: Dyadic Interaction Patterns. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Burke, E. [1757]1812. Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful. London: F. C. & J. Rivington.Google Scholar

Burley, W. [1324]2000. On the Purity of the Art of Logic: The Shorter and the Longer Treatises. P. V. Spade (trans.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Burnett, J. see Monboddo.Google Scholar

Buschmann, E. & Humboldt, W.v. 2000. Wörterbuch der mexikanischen Sprache. Ringmacher, M. (ed.). Paderborn: Verlag F. Schöningh.Google Scholar

Busse, W. & Trabant, J. (eds.). 1986. Les Idéologues. Sémiotique, théorie et politiques linguistiques pendant la Révolution française. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Butler, C. 1989. Systemic models: Unity, diversity and change. Word 40: 1–35.Google Scholar

Butler, C. 2003. Structure and Function: A Guide to Three Major Structural-functional Theories. Part I: Approaches to the Simplex Clause. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Butler, C. 2006. Functionalist theories of language. In Brown, (ed.), pp. 696–704.Google Scholar

Butterworth, B., Comrie, B., & Dahl, Ö. (eds). 1984. Explanations for Language Universals. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Buyssens, É. 1943. Les Langages et le discours: Essai de linguistique fonctionnelle dans le cadre de la sémiologie. Brussels: Office de la Publicité.Google Scholar

Buyssens, É. 1949. Mise au point de quelques notions fondamentales de la phonologe. Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure 8: 37–60.Google Scholar

Buyssens, É. 1967. La Communication et l’articulation linguistique. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.Google Scholar

Bybee Hooper, J. 1981. The empirical determination of phonological representations. In Myers, T. et al. (eds.), The Cognitive Representation of Speech, pp. 347–57. NY: North-Holland.Google Scholar

Bybee, J. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bybee, J. 2000. Lexicalization of sound change and alternating environments. In Broe, & Pierrehumbert, (eds.), pp. 250–68.Google Scholar

Bybee, J. 2001. Phonology and Language Use. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bybee, J. 2006a. Frequency of Use and the Organization of Language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bybee, J. 2006b. Language change and universals. In Mairal, R. & Gil, J. (eds.), Linguistic Universals, pp. 179–94. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bybee, J. & Dahl, Ö. 1989. The creation of tense and aspect systems in the languages of the world. Studies in Language 13: 51–103.Google Scholar

Bybee, J. & Hopper, P. 2001. Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bybee, J., Perkins, R., & Pagulica, W. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Bybee, J. & Thompson, S. 1997. Three frequency effects in syntax. Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session and Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Structure, pp. 378–88. Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar

Byrne, J. 1884. General Principles of the Structure of Language. London: N. Trübner & Co.Google Scholar

Cabanis, P.-J.-G. 1805. Rapport du physique et du moral de l’homme. Paris: Crapart, Caillet et Ravier.Google Scholar

Calder, G. (ed.). 1917. Auraicept na n-Éces: The Scholar’s Primer. Edinburgh: John Grant.Google Scholar

Caldwell, R. 1856. A Comparative Grammar of the Dravidian or South Indian Family of Languages. University of Madras.Google Scholar

Calvet, L.-J. 1975. Pour et contre Saussure: vers une linguistique sociale. Paris: Éditions Payot.Google Scholar

Cameron, D. 1997. Performing gender identity: Young men’s talk and the construction of heterosexual masculinity. In Johnson, S. & Meinhof, U. H. (eds.), Language and Masculinity, pp. 47–64. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Campanella, T. 1638. Philosophiae Rationalis partes quinque, videlicet: Grammatica, Dialectica, Rhetorica, Poetica, Historiographia. Paris: Joannes du Bray.Google Scholar

Campbell, L. 1988. Review of J. H. Greenberg, Languages in the Americas. Language 64: 591–615.Google Scholar

Campbell, L. (ed.). 2001. Grammaticalization: A Critical Assessment. Special issue of Linguistic Sciences 23(2–3).Google Scholar

Campbell, L. 2004. Historical Linguistics: An Introduction, 2nd edn. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Campbell, L. & Poser, W. J. 2008. Language Classification: History and Method. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Campbell-Kelly, M., Aspray, W., Ensmenger, N., & Yost, J. R. (2013). Computer: A History of the Information Machine. NY: Westview Press.Google Scholar

Canale, M. & Swain, M. 1980. Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics 1: 1–47.Google Scholar

Candragomin. [7th c. ce] 1953–61. Cāndra-Vyākaraṇa. Chatterji, K. C. (ed.), 2 vols. Pune: Deccan College.Google Scholar

Canger, U. 1969. Analysis in outline of Mam, a Mayan language. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar

Caplan, D. 2001. Neurolinguistics. In Aronoff, & Rees-Miller, (eds.), pp. 582–607.Google Scholar

Cappelen, H. & LePore, E. 2005. Insensitive Semantics: A Defense of Semantic Minimalism and Speech Act Pluralism. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Capps, L. & Ochs, E. 1995. Constructing Panic: The Discourse of Agoraphobia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Cardona, G. 1986. Phonology and phonetics in ancient Indian works: The case of voiced and voiceless elements. In Krishnamurti, B. et al. (eds.), South Asian Languages: Structure, Convergence, and Diglossia, pp. 60–80. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar

Cardona, G. 1997. Pāṇini: His Work and its Traditions, rev. & enlarg. edn., vol. i. New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar

Cardona, G. 2000. Pāṇini. In Auroux, et al. (eds.), vol. i, pp. 113–24.Google Scholar

Carel, M. & Ducrot, O. 1999. Le problème du paradoxe dans une sémantique argumentative. Langue française 123: 6–26.Google Scholar

Carey, W. 1806. Grammar of the Sungskrit Language, composed from the works of the most esteemed grammarians, to which are added examples for the exercise of the student, and a complete list of the dhatoos, or roots, 2 vols. Serampore: Mission Press.Google Scholar

Carlucci, A. 2013. Gramsci and Languages: Unification, Diversity, Hegemony. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. 1928. Der logische Aufbau der Welt. Berlin-Schlachtensee: Weltkreis Verlag.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. [1931]1959. The elimination of metaphysics through the logical analysis of language. In Ayer, A. J. (ed.), Logical Positivism, pp. 60–81. NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. 1934/1937. Logische Syntax der Sprache. Vienna: Springer. 1937: A. Smeaton (trans.), The Logical Syntax of Language. London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. 1936–7. Testability and meaning. Philosophy of Science 3: 419–71; 4: 1–40.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. 1942. Introduction to Semantics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. 1946. Modalities and quantification. Jrnl. of Symbolic Logic 11: 33–64.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. 1947. Meaning and Necessity. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Carré, M. H. 1946. Realists and Nominalists. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Carroll, J. B. 1953. The Study of Language: A Survey of Linguistics and Related Disciplines in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Carston, R. 1988. Implicature, explicature, and truth-theoretic semantics. In Kempson, R. (ed.), Mental Representations: The Interface between Language and Reality, pp. 155–81. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Carston, R. 2002. Thoughts and Utterances: The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Carter, M. G. 1981. Arab Linguistics: An Introductory Classical Text with Translation and Notes. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Carter, R. & Simpson, P. (eds.). 1989. Language, Discourse and Literature: An Introductory Reader in Stylistics. London: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar

Casacchia, G. & Mariarosaria, G. 2012. Storia della linguistica cinese. Vicenza: Cafoscarina.Google Scholar

Cassiodorus, F. M. A. 1830. Clausula inedita operis de artibus ac disciplinis liberalium artium ex cod. Vaticano. In Maio, A. (ed.), Classicorum Auctorum 3. Rome: Vatican Press.Google Scholar

Cassiodorus, F. M. A. 1844–55. De orthographia. In Migne, J.-P. (ed.), Patrologia Latina, vol. lxx, cols. 1239–70B.Google Scholar

Cassiodorus, F. M. A. 1622/2004. Institutiones. Opera omnia ii, pp. 931–1101. Orléans: Petrus & Jacobus Chouët. 2004: J. W. Halporn (trans.), M. Vessey (intro.), Institutions of Divine and Secular Learning and On the Soul. Liverpool University Press.Google Scholar

Cassirer, E. 1922. Das Erkenntnisproblem in der Philosophie und Wissenschaft der neueren Zeit, 3rd edn., 2 vols. Berlin: B. Cassirer.Google Scholar

Cassirer, E. 1923–9/1973. Philosophie der symbolischen Formen, 3 vols. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. 1973: Hamburg: B. Cassirer.Google Scholar

Castrén, M. A. 1844. De nominum declinatione in lingua syrjaena. Helsingfors: Litteris Frenckellianis.Google Scholar

Castrén, M. A. 1850. De affixis personalibus linguarum altaicarum. Helsingfors: Litteris Frenckellianis.Google Scholar

Caton, S. C. 1990. “Peaks of Yemen I summon”: Poetry as Cultural Practice in a North Yemeni Tribe. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. 2000. Genes, Peoples and Languages. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar

Cedergren, H. & Sankoff, D. 1974. Variable rules: Performance as a statistical reflection of competence. Language 50: 333–55.Google Scholar

Chafe, W. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subject, topics and point of view. In Li, C. N. (ed.), Subject and Topic, pp. 25–55. NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Chafe, W. 1980. The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar

Chafe, W. 1998. Language and the flow of thought. In Tomasello, (ed.), pp. 93–112.Google Scholar

Chamberlain, H. S. 1899. Grundlagen des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts. Munich: Bruckmann Verlag.Google Scholar

Chambers, J. K. 1992. Linguistic correlates of gender and sex. English Worldwide 13: 173–218.Google Scholar

Chambers, J. K. 1995. Sociolinguistic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, P., & Schilling-Estes, N. (eds.). 2002. The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Champollion, J.-F. 1822. Lettre à Monsieur Dacier relative à l’alphabet des hiéroglyphes phonétiques. Paris: Firmin Didot.Google Scholar

Chāndogya-Upaniṣad. [c. 800–500 bce]1958: In Limaye, V. P. & Wadekar, R. D. (eds.), Aṣṭādas΄a-Upaniṣadaḥ [Eighteen Upaniṣads]. Pune: Vaidika Saṃs΄odhana Maṇḍala.Google Scholar

Chantraine, P. 1968. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque. Paris: Librairie Klincksieck.Google Scholar

Chao, Y.-R. 1934/1958. The non-uniqueness of phonemic solutions of phonetic systems. Bulletin of the Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica 4(4): 363–97. 1958: repr. in Joos, (ed.), pp. 38–54.Google Scholar

Chao, Y.-R. 1971/1997. Making sense out of nonsense: The story of my friend, whose colorless green ideas sleep furiously (after Noam Chomsky). The Sesquipedalian 7(32) (June 12, 1997). www.linguistics.stanford.edu/Archives/Sesquipedalian/1996–97/msg00033.htmlGoogle Scholar

Chappell, H. 2006. From Eurocentrism to Sinocentrism: The case of disposal constructions in Sinitic languages. In Ameka, F. et al. (eds.) Catching Language: The Standing Challenge of Grammar Writing, pp. 441–86. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Chappell, H. & Peyraube, A. 2006. The analytic causatives of early modern Southern Min in diachronic perspective. In Dah-an Ho, H. et al. (eds.), Linguistic Studies in Chinese and Neighboring Languages, pp. 973–1011. Taipei: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.Google Scholar

Chappell, H. & Peyraube, A. 2014. The history of Chinese grammars in Chinese and western scholarly traditions. Language and History 57: 113–42.Google Scholar

Chater, N., Clark, A. Goldsmith, J. A., & Perfors, A. 2015. Empiricism and Language Learnability. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Chaudenson, R. 2001. Creolization of Language and Culture. London and NY: Routledge.Google Scholar

Chen, K. 陈骙. [1170]1960. Wen ze文则. Beijing: Renmin wenxue chubanshe.Google Scholar

Chen, M. 1970. Vowel length variation as a function of the voicing of the consonant environment. Phonetica 22: 129–59.Google Scholar

Chen, P. 陈朋年 & Yong, Q. 邱永. [1008]1960. Guang yun. 1960: repr. Zhou Zumo, Guang yun jiaoben. Shanghai: Shangwu yinshuguan.Google Scholar

Chevalier, J.-C. 1976. Idéologues et le comparatisme historique. In Niederehe, H.-J. & Haarmann, H. (eds.), In memoriam Friedrich Diez. Akten des Kolloquiums zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte der Romanistik, pp. 175–95. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Chevalier, J.-C. 1986. Grammaire philosophique et enseignement des Écoles normales. In Busse, & Trabant, (eds.), pp. 207–18.Google Scholar

Chevalier, J.-C. 1997. Trubetzkoy, Jakobson et la France, 1919–1939. Cahiers de l’institut de linguistique et des sciences du langage 9: 33–46.Google Scholar

Chevalier, J.-C., Désirat, C., & Hordé, T. 1976. Les Idéologues: Le sujet de l’histoire et l’étude des langues. Didactiques 12: 15–32.Google Scholar

Chiba, T. & Kajiyama, M. 1941. The Vowel: Its Nature and Structure. Tokyo-Kaiseikan.Google Scholar

Chierchia, G. & McConnell-Ginet, S. 2000. Meaning and Grammar: An Introduction to Semantics, 2nd edn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

CHILDES (Child Language Data Exchange System). 1984 (earlier transcripts 1960s). [B. MacWhinney & C. Snow]. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar

Chin, C. 2008. Grammar and Christianity in the Late Roman World.Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar

Chiss, J.-L. 1978. Synchronie/diachronie: méthodologie et théorie en linguistique. In Normand, C. (ed.), Saussure et la linguistique pré-saussurienne [=Langages 49], pp. 91–111.Google Scholar

Chiss, J.-L. & Puech, C. 1997. Fondations de la linguistique – Études d’histoire et d’épistémologie, 2nd edn. Louvain-la-Neuve: Éditions Duculot.Google Scholar

Chiss, J.-L. & Puech, C. 1999. Le langage et ses disciplines – XIXe–XXe siècles. Louvain-la-Neuve: Éditions Duculot.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1951/1979. Morphophonemics of Modern Hebrew. MA thesis, University of Pennsylvania. 1979: NY: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. [1955]1975. The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory. NY: Plenum.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1957/2002. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton. 2002: 2nd edn. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1959. Review of Verbal Behavior by B. F. Skinner. Language 35: 26–58.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1962. Explanatory models in linguistics. In Nagel, E. et al. (eds.), Logic, Methodology, and Philosophy of Science, pp. 528–50. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1964. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1966. Cartesian Linguistics. NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. In Jacobs, R. & Rosenbaum, P. (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, pp. 184–221. Waltham, MA: Ginn & Co.Google Scholar