Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Linguistic Typology

Ed. by Plank, Frans

3 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 0.304

CiteScore 2016: 0.53

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.629
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 1.234

Online
ISSN
1613-415X
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 20, Issue 1 (Jul 2016)

Issues

Linguistic typology: The Oxford handbook

Peter Arkadiev
  • Institut slavjanovedenija Rossijskoj akademii nauk (ISl RAN), Leninskij prospekt 32A, 119991 Moskva, Russia
  • Rossijskij gosudarstvennyj gumanitarnyj universitet
  • Moskovskij pedagogičeskij gosudarstvennyj universitet
  • Email:
Published Online: 2016-08-02 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2016-0004

Reviewed publication

Review of: Jae Jung Song (ed.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. xxii + 754 pages, ISBN 978-0-19-928125-1 (hardback), GBP 102.50; ISBN 978-0-19-965840-4 (paperback), GBP 30.

References

  • Ackerman, Farrell, James Blevins & Robert Malouf. 2009. Parts and wholes: Patterns of relatedness in complex morphological systems and why they matter. In James P. Blevins & Juliette Blevins (eds.), Analogy in grammar: Form and acquisition, 54–82. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Aronoff, Mark. 1994. Morphology by itself: Stems and inflectional classes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

  • Bach, Emmon, Eloise Jelinek, Angelika Kratzer & Barbara H. Partee (eds.). 1995. Quantification in natural languages. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

  • Bakker, Dik & Anna Siewierska. 2009. Case and alternative strategies: Word order and agreement marking. In Malchukov & Spencer (eds.) 2009, 290–303.Google Scholar

  • Berlin, Brent & Paul Kay. 1969. Basic color terms: Their universality and evolution. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar

  • Bickel, Balthasar. 2007. Typology in the 21st century: Major current developments. Linguistic Typology 11. 239–251.Google Scholar

  • Bickel, Balthasar & Johanna Nichols. 2007. Inflectional morphology. In Shopen (ed.). 2007, Vol. 3: Grammatical categories and the lexicon, 169–240.Google Scholar

  • Blevins, Juliette. 1993. A tonal analysis of Lithuanian nominal accent. Language 69. 237–273.Google Scholar

  • Bossong, Georg. 1985. Empirische Universalienforschung: Differentielle Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar

  • Bossong, Georg. 1991. Differential object marking in Romance and beyond. In Douglas A. Kibbee & Dieter Wanner (eds.), New analyses in Romance linguistics, 143–170. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Bowern, Claire. 2008. Linguistic fieldwork. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

  • Brown, Dunstan, Marina Chumakina & Greville G. Corbett (eds.). 2013. Canonical morphology and syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Bybee, Joan L. & Östen Dahl. 1989. The creation of tense and aspect systems in the languages of the world. Studies in Language 13. 51–103.Google Scholar

  • Corbett, Greville G. 1979. The agreement hierarchy. Journal of Linguistics 15. 203–224.Google Scholar

  • Corbett, Greville G. 2005. The canonical approach to typology. In Zygmunt Frajzyngier, Adam Hodges & David S. Rood (eds.), Linguistic diversity and language theories, 25–49. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Croft, William C. 1991. Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: The cognitive organization of information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Croft, William C. 2000. Parts of speech as typological universals and as language particular categories. In Petra Maria Vogel & Bernard Comrie (eds.), Approaches to the typology of word classes, 65–102. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Cruschina, Silvio, Martin Maiden & John Charles Smith (eds.). 2013. The boundaries of pure morphology: Diachronic and synchronic perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and aspect systems. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Daugavet, Anna. 2015. The lengthening of the first component of Lithuanian diphthongs in an areal perspective. In Peter Arkadiev, Axel Holvoet & Björn Wiemer (eds.), Contemporary approaches to Baltic linguistics, 139–201. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Dench, Alan & Nicholas Evans. 1988. Multiple case-marking in Australian languages. Australian Journal of Linguistics 8. 1–47.Google Scholar

  • Dixon, R. M. W. 2010. Basic linguistic theory, Vol. 1: Methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Dogil, Grzegorz. 1999. Baltic languages. In Harry van der Hulst (ed.), Word prosodic systems in the languages of Europe, 877–896. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Donohue, Mark, Tim Denham & Stephen Oppenheimer. 2012. New methodologies for historical linguistics? Calibrating a lexicon-based methodology for diffusion vs. subgrouping. Diachronica 29. 505–522.Google Scholar

  • Donohue, Mark, Simon Musgrave, Bronwen Whiting & Søren Wichmann. 2011. Typological feature analysis models linguistic geography. Language 87. 369–383.Google Scholar

  • Donohue, Mark & Søren Wichmann (eds.). 2008. The typology of semantic alignment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Dryer, Matthew S. & Martin Haspelmath (eds.). 2013. The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max-Planck-Institut für evolutionäre Anthropologie. http://wals.infoGoogle Scholar

  • Du Bois, John W. 1985. Competing motivations. In John Haiman (ed.), Iconicity in syntax, 343–366. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Dunn, Michael, Robert Foley, Stephen C. Levinson, Ger Reesink & Angela Terrill. 2007. Statistical reasoning in the evaluation of typological diversity in Island Melanesia. Oceanic Linguistics 46. 388–403.Google Scholar

  • Dunn, Michael, Stephen C. Levinson, Eva Lindström, Ger Reesink & Angela Terrill. 2008. Structural phylogeny in historical linguistics: Methodological explorations applied in Island Melanesia. Language 84. 710–759.Google Scholar

  • Filimonova, Elena. 2005. The noun phrase hierarchy and relational marking: Problems and counterevidence. Linguistic Typology 9. 77–113.Google Scholar

  • Finkel, Raphael & Gregory Stump. 2007. Principal parts and morphological typology. Morphology 17. 39–75.Google Scholar

  • Guerrero, Lilian. 2004. The syntax-semantic interface in Yaqui complex sentences: A Role and Reference Grammar analysis. Buffalo: State University of New York at Buffalo doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar

  • Haspelmath, Martin. 2000. The relevance of extravagance: A reply to Bart Geurts. Linguistics 38. 789–798.Google Scholar

  • Haspelmath, Martin. 2006. Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42. 25–70.Google Scholar

  • Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies. Language 86. 663–687.Google Scholar

  • Haspelmath, Martin. 2015. Defining vs. diagnosing linguistic categories: A case study of clitic phenomena. In Joanna Błaszczak, Dorota Klimek-Jankowska & Krzysztof Migdalski (eds.), How categorical are categories? 273–304. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Haspelmath, Martin, Matthew Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie (eds.). 2005. The world atlas of language structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Haspelmath, Martin, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds.). 2001. Language typology and language universals: An international handbook. 2 vols. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Hawkins, John A. 2014. Cross-linguistic variation and efficiency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Hieber, Daniel W. 2013. On linguistics, linguists, and our times: A linguist’s personal narrative reviewed. Linguistic Typology 17. 291–321.Google Scholar

  • Holman, Eric W., Cecil H. Brown, Søren Wichmann, André Müller, Viveka Velupillai, Harald Hammarström, Sebastian Sauppe, Hagen Jung, Dik Bakker, Pamela Brown, Oleg Belyaev, Matthias Urban, Robert Mailhammer, Johann-Mattis List & Dmitry Egorov. 2011. Automated dating of the world’s language families based on lexical similarity. Current Anthropology 52. 841–875.Google Scholar

  • Holman, Eric W., Søren Wichmann, Cecil H. Brown, Viveka Velupillai, André Müller & Dik Bakker. 2008. Explorations in automated language classification. Folia Linguistica 42. 331–354.Google Scholar

  • Keenan, Edward L. & Bernard Comrie. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8. 63–99.Google Scholar

  • Kibrik, Aleksandr E. 1979. Canonical ergativity and Daghestan languages. In Frans Plank (ed.), Ergativity: Towards a theory of grammatical relations, 61–77. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar

  • Kibrik, Aleksandr E. 1985. Toward a typology of ergativity. In Johanna Nichols & Anthony Woodbury (eds.), Grammar inside and outside the clause: Approaches to theory from the field, 176–191. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Kibrik, Aleksandr E. 1987. Constructions with clause actants in Daghestanian languages. In R. M. W. Dixon (ed.), Studies in ergativity, 133–178. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar

  • Kibrik, Aleksandr E. 1991. Organising principles for nominal paradigms in Daghestanian languages: Comparative and typological observations. In Frans Plank (ed.), Paradigms: The economy of inflection, 255–274. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Kibrik, Aleksandr E. 1997. Beyond subject and object: Towards a comprehensive relational typology. Linguistic Typology 1. 279–346.Google Scholar

  • Kibrik, Aleksandr E. 1998. Does intragenetic typology make sense? In Winfried Boeder, Christoph Schroeder, Karl Heinz Wagner & Wolfgang Wildgen (eds.), Sprache im Raum und Zeit: In memoriam Johannes Bechert, Vol. 2: Beiträge zur empirischen Sprachwissenschaft, 61–68. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar

  • Kibrik, Andrej A. 2011. Reference in discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Klein, Wolfgang. 1994. Time in language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • König, Christa. 2006. Marked nominative in Africa. Studies in Language 30. 705–782.Google Scholar

  • König, Christa. 2009. Marked nominative. In Malchukov & Spencer (eds.) 2009, 535–548.Google Scholar

  • Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria & Henrik Liljegren. 2013. Language typology and syntactic description: A review article. Linguistic Typology 17. 107–156.Google Scholar

  • Kumakhov, Mukhadin & Karina Vamling. 2009. Circassian clause structure. Malmö: Malmö högskola. http://hdl.handle.net/2043/9338Google Scholar

  • Lander, Yury A. & Natalia Tyshkevich. 2015. True, liminal and fake prototypes in syntactic typology. In Ekaterina A. Ljutikova, Anton V. Cimmerling & Maria B. Konošenko (eds.), Tipologija morfosintaksičeskix parametrov, Vol. 2, 185–199. Moskva: Moskovskij pedagogičeskij gosudarstvennyj universitet. http://mggu-sh.ru/sites/default/files/lander_tyshkevich.pdfGoogle Scholar

  • Lupyan, Gary & Rick Dale. 2010. Language structure is partly determined by social structure. PlosONE 5(1). http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0008559Google Scholar

  • Malchukov, Andrej L. 2006. Transitivity parameters and transitivity alternations: Considering co-variation. In Leonid I. Kulikov, Andrej L. Malchukov & Helen de Hoop (eds.), Case, valency and transitivity, 329–357. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Meščaninov, Ivan Ivanovič. 1945. Členy predloženija i časti reči. [Grammatical relations and parts-of-speech.] Moskva: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk SSSR.Google Scholar

  • Meščaninov, Ivan Ivanovič. 1967. Èrgativnaja konstrukcija v jazykax različnyx tipov. [Ergative constructions in languages of different types.] Leningrad: Nauka.Google Scholar

  • Narrog, Heiko. 2005. On defining modality again. Language Sciences 27. 165–192.Google Scholar

  • Næss, Åshild. 2007. Prototypical transitivity. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. & Georgij G. Sil’nickij. 1973. The typology of morphological and lexical causatives. In Ferenc Kiefer (ed.), Trends in Soviet theoretical linguistics, 1–32. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar

  • Nichols, Johanna. 2013. O pioneer! Kibrik and the growth of linguistic knowledge. Linguistic Typology 17. 519–521.Google Scholar

  • Nordlinger, Rachel. 2007. It’s not what you do, it’s the way that you do it: The role of formal theory in language description. Handout for invited plenary presentation given at the Australian Linguistics Society Conference, Adelaide, September 2007. http://languages-linguistics.unimelb.edu.au/sites/languages-linguistics.unimelb.edu.au/files/nordlinger-its-not-what-you-do.pdfGoogle Scholar

  • Nuyts, Jan. 2001. Epistemic modality, language, and conceptualization: A cognitive-pragmatic perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Nuyts, Jan. 2006. Modality: Overview and linguistic issues. In William Frawley (ed.), The expression of modality, 1–26. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Plank, Frans (no date). Introductory notes. In Das grammatische Raritätenkabinett. Konstanz: Universität Konstanz. http://typo.uni-konstanz.de/rara/intro/index.php?pt=1 (accessed 30 January 2016).Google Scholar

  • Plank, Frans. 2001. Typology by the end of the 18th century. In Sylvain Auroux, E. F. K. Koerner, Hans-Josef Niederehe & Kees Versteegh (eds.), History of the language sciences: An international handbook on the evolution of the study of language from the beginnings to the present, Vol. 2, 1399–1414. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Primus, Beatrice. 1999. Cases and thematic roles: Ergative, accusative and active. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar

  • Reichenbach, Hans. 1947. Elements of symbolic logic. New York: Macmillan. Section 51 “The tenses of verbs” reprinted in Inderjeet Mani, James Pustejovsky & Robert Gaizauskas (eds.), The language of time: A reader, 71–78. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.Google Scholar

  • Saj, Sergej S. 2011. Review of R. M. W. Dixon, Basic linguistic theory, Vols. 1–2. Voprosy jazykoznanija 2011(1). 121–130.Google Scholar

  • Shopen, Timothy (ed.). 2007. Language typology and syntactic description. 2nd edn. 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In R. M. W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages, 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar

  • Song, Jae Jung. 2001. Linguistic typology: Morphology and syntax. Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar

  • Stump, Gregory & Raphael A. Finkel 2013. Morphological typology: From word to paradigm. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Tatevosov, Sergei G. 2002. The parameter of actionality. Linguistic Typology 6. 317–401.Google Scholar

  • Testelets, Yakov G. 2001. Russian works on linguistic typology in the 1960–1990s. In Haspelmath et al. (eds.) 2001, 306–323.Google Scholar

  • Trudgill, Peter. 2011. Sociolinguistic typology: Social determinants of linguistic complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • van der Auwera, Johan & Vladimir A. Plungian. 1998. Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2. 79–124.Google Scholar

  • Velupillai, Viveka. 2012. An introduction to linguistic typology. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Wohlgemuth, Jan & Michael Cysouw (eds.). 2010. Rethinking universals: How rarities affect linguistic theories. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

  • Xrakovskij, Viktor S. (ed.). 1997. Typology of iterative constructions. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar

  • Xrakovskij, Viktor S. (ed.). 2001. Typology of imperative constructions. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar

  • Xrakovskij, Viktor S. (ed.). 2005. Typology of conditional constructions. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar

  • Xrakovskij, Viktor S. (ed.). 2009. Tipologija taksisnyx konstrukcij. [Typology of taxis constructions.] Moskva: Znak.Google Scholar

  • Xrakovskij, Viktor S. (ed.). 2012. Typology of concessive constructions. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2016-01-03

Revised: 2016-02-03

Published Online: 2016-08-02

Published in Print: 2016-07-01


Citation Information: Linguistic Typology, ISSN (Online) 1613-415X, ISSN (Print) 1430-0532, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2016-0004.

Export Citation

©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton. Copyright Clearance Center

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in