Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T09:32:50.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Explaining language universals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Frederick J. Newmeyer
Frederick J. Newmeyer
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Washington
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
Review Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , March 1990 , pp. 203 - 222
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

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

Hawkins, John A. (ed.). Explaining language universals. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988. Pp. xiii + 398.Google Scholar

REFERENCES

Anderson, S. R. (1988). Morphological change. In Newmeyer, F. (ed.) Linguistics: the Cambridge survey. Vol. I: Theoretical foundations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 324–362.Google Scholar
Arbib, M. A., Conklin, E. J., & Hill, J. C. (1987). From schema theory to language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, C. L. (1979). Syntactic theory and the projection problem. LIn 10. 533–581.Google Scholar
Beckman, M. E. (1988). Phonetic theory. In Newmeyer, F. (ed.) Linguistics: the Cambridge survey. Vol. I: Theoretical foundations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 216–238.Google Scholar
Berlin, B. & Kay, P. (1969). Basic color terms: their universality and evolution. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Braine, M. D. S. (1971). On two types of models of the internalization of grammars. In Slobin, D. I. (ed.) The ontogenesis of grammar. New York: Academic Press. 153–186.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Li, C. (ed.) Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press. 25–56.Google Scholar
Choe, H. S. (1985). Remarks on configurationality parameters. In Kuno, S. et al. (eds) Harvard studies in Korean linguistics. Cambridge, Mass.: Department of Linguistics, Harvard University. 14–29.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1977). Questions of form and interpretation. In Chomsky, N. (ed.) Essays on form and interpretation. Amsterdam & New York: North-Holland. 25–62.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Coopmans, P. (1983). Review of Comrie, B., Language universals and linguistic theory. JL 19. 455–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coopmans, P. (1984). Surface word-order typology and universal grammar. Lg 60. 55–69.Google Scholar
Emonds, J. E. (1980). Word order in generative grammar. Journal of Linguistic Research 1. 33–54.Google Scholar
Finer, D. (1987). Comments on Solan. In Roeper, T. & Williams, E. (eds) Parameter setting Dordrecht: Reidel. 211–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frazier, L. (1979). On comprehending sentences: syntactic parsing strategies. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. (1985). Syntactic complexity. In Dowty, D. et al. , (eds) Natural language parsing: psychological, computational and theoretical perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 129–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. (1971). Historical syntax and synchronie morphology: an archaeologist's field trip. Papers from the seventh regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. 394–415.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (ed.) (1979). Syntax and semantics, Vol. 12: Discourse and syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. (1966). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Greenberg, J. (ed.) Universals of language, 2nd edition. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 73–113.Google Scholar
Guerssel, M. (1987). The status of the lexical category ‘preposition’ in Berber: implications for the nature of the construct state. In Guerssel, M. & Hale, K. (eds) Studies in Berber syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: Center for Cognitive Science, MIT. 159–190.Google Scholar
Hale, K. (1983). Warlpiri and the grammar of nonconfigurational languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1. 5–49.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. (1985). Complementary methods in universal grammar: a reply to Coopmans. Lg 61. 569–587.Google Scholar
Horn, L. (1985). Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In Schiffrin, D. (ed.) Meaning, form, and use in context: linguistic applications. Washington: Georgetown University Press. 11–42.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N. & Lightfoot, D. (eds) (1981). Explanation in linguistics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hyams, N. (1986). Language acquisition and the theory of parameters. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jelinek, E. (1984). Empty categories, case, and configurationality. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 2. 39–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, P. & McDaniel, C. (1978). The linguistic significance of the meanings of basic color terms. Lg 54. 610–646.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. (1984). Unambiguous paths. In Kayne, R. (ed.) Connectedness and binary branching. Dordrecht: Foris. 129–164.Google Scholar
Keating, P. (1988). The phonology-phonetics interface. In Newmeyer, F. (ed.) Linguistics: the Cambridge survey, Vol. I: Theoretical foundations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 281–302.Google Scholar
Kronasser, H. (1952). Handbuch der Semasiologie. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (1979a). Principles ofdiachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (1979b). Review of Li, C. (ed.), Mechanisms of syntactic change. Lg 55. 381–395.Google Scholar
Luria, S. E. (1973). Life: the unfinished experiment. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.Google Scholar
Martinet, A. (1962). A functional view of language. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Mazuka, R. & Lust, B. (1988). Why is Japanese not difficult to process? A proposal to integrate parameter setting in universal grammar and parsing. Proceedings of the twelfth annual meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society. 333–356.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1987). Resolving a learnabilily paradox in the acquisition of the verb lexicon. Cambridge, Mass.: Lexicon Project, Center for Cognitive Science, MIT.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. & Mehler, J. (eds) (1988). Connections and symbols. Cambridge, Mass.: Bradford Books.Google Scholar
Randall, J. (1987). Indirect positive evidence: overturning generalizations in language acquisition. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistic Club.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E. & McClelland, J. L. (eds) (1986). Parallel distributed processing: explorations in the microstructure of cognition, Vol. 2. Cambridge, Mass.: Bradford Books.Google Scholar
Solan, L. (1987). Parameter setting and the development of pronouns and reflexives. In Roeper, T. & Williams, E. (eds) Parameter setting. Dordrecht: Reidel. 189–210.Google Scholar
Sproat, R. (1985). Welsh syntax and VSO structure. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3. 173–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tavakolian, S. (ed.) (1981). Language acquisition and linguistic theory. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Williams, E. (1981). On the notions ‘lexically related’ and ‘head of word’. LIn 12. 245–274.Google Scholar
Yngve, V. (1960). A model and a hypothesis for language structure. PA Philos S 104. 444–466.Google Scholar
Zipf, G. K. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar