[Universals of language today. Edited by Sergio Scalise, Elisabetta Magni, Antonietta Bisetto]

Source document: Linguistica Brunensia. 2009, vol. 57, iss. 1-2, pp. 267-269
Extent
267-269
  • ISSN
    1803-7410 (print)
    2336-4440 (online)
Type: Review
Language
Czech
License: Not specified license
Document
References:
[1] Benveniste, E. 1967. Fondements syntaxiques de la composition nominale. Bulletin de la Société Linguistique de Paris 62/1, 15–31. – reprint in E. Benveniste: Problèmes de linguistique générale II. Paris 1974, 145–162.

[2] Croft, W. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford.

[3] Dryer, M. S. 1992. The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language 68, 81–138. | DOI 10.1353/lan.1992.0028

[4] Dryer, M. S. 1997. Are grammatical relations universal? In: Essays on Language Function and Language Type: Dedicated to T. Givón. Ed. J. Bybee, J. Haiman a S. Thompson. Amsterdam – Philadelphia, 115–143.

[5] Haspelmath, M. 2000. The Agglutination Hypothesis: A belated empirical investigation. http://email.eva.mpg.de/~haspelmt/Wien00.pdf

[6] Haspelmath, M. 2007. Pre‑established categories don't exist: Consequences for language description and typology. Linguistic Typology 11, 119–132 | DOI 10.1515/LINGTY.2007.011

[7] Martinet, A. 1975. Studies in Functional Syntax. München.

[8] Newmeyer, F. J. 2007. Linguistic typology requires crosslinguistic formal categories. Linguistic Typology 11, 133–157. | DOI 10.1515/LINGTY.2007.012