Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T05:51:17.318Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Talmy Givón, Syntax. A functional-typological introduction. Volume I. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1984. Pp. xx + 464.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Johan Van der Auwera
Johan Van der Auwera
Affiliation:
University of Antwerp.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Reviews
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , September 1985 , pp. 503 - 509
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

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

REFERENCES

Anderson, J. (1979). On being without a subject. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1981). Language universals and linguistic theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cooreman, A. (1984). The discourse status of Dyirbal, a syntactically ergative language. Manuscript.Google Scholar
Cooreman, A., Fox, B. & Givón, T. (1984). The discourse definition of ergativity. Studies in Language 8. 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dik, S. C. (1978). Functional Grammar. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Dik, S. C. (1980). Studies in Functional Grammar. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Drossard, W. (1984). Das Tagalog als Repräsentant des aktivischen Sprachbaus. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The case for case. In Bach, E. & Harms, R. T. (eds), Universals in linguistic theory. London: Holt, Rinehart & Wilson. 1–88.Google Scholar
Foley, W. A. & Van Valin, R. D. (1977). On the viability of the notion of ‘subject’ in universal grammar. In Proceedings of the Third Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. 293–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. (1972). Studies in ChiBemba and Bantu grammar. (Studies in African Linguistics, Supplement 3).Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1979). On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1980a). Ute reference grammar. Ignacio, Colorado: Ute Press.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1980b). The drift away from ergativity: diachronic potentials in Sherpa. Folia Linguistica Historica 1. 41–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. (1983). Topic continuity in discourse: an introduction. In Givón, T. (ed.), Topic continuity in discourse. A quantitative cross-linguistic study. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. (1966). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Greenberg, J. H. (ed.), Universals of language. Cambridge: MIT Press. 73–113.Google Scholar
Kuryłowicz, J. (1973). La construction ergative et le développement ‘stadial’ du langage. In Kuryłowicz, J.Esquisses linguistiques I. München: Fink. 95–108.Google Scholar
Lehmann, C. (1982). Ergative (and active) traits in Latin. Glossologia 1. 57–66.Google Scholar
Lehmann, C. (1984). Der Relativsatz. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Mallinson, G. & Blake, B. J. (1981). Language typology. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Payne, T. E. (1982). Role and reference related subject properties and ergativity in Yup'ik Eskimo and Tagalog. Studies in Language 6. 75–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schachter, P. (1976). The subject in Philippine languages: topic, actor, actor-topic, or none of the above. In Li, C. (ed.) Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press. 491–518.Google Scholar
Schachter, P. (1977) Reference-related and role-related properties of subjects. In Cole, P. & Sadock, J. (eds), Syntax and semantics. 8. Grammatical relations. New York: Academic Press. 279–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, R. D. (1977). Ergativity and the universality of subjects. Papers from the 13th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. 689–705.Google Scholar
Van Valin, R. D. (1980). On the distribution of passive and antipassive constructions in universal grammar. Lingua 50. 303–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, R. D. (1981). Grammatical relations in ergative languages. Studies in Language 5. 361–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, R. D. & Foley, W. A. (1980). Role and Reference Grammar. In Moravcsik, E. A. & Wirth, J. R. (eds), Syntax and semantics. 13. Current approaches to syntax. New York: Academic Press. 329–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verhaar, J. (1983). Ergativity, accusativity and hierarchy. Sophia Linguistica 11. 1–23.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1980), The case for surface case. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Karoma.Google Scholar