Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Abbreviations
- Introduction
- Part I Types and Mechanisms of Syntactic Change
- Part II Methods and Tools
- Part III Principles and Constraints
- Part IV Major Issues and Themes
- Part V Explanations
- Part VI Models and Approaches
- 27 Principles and Parameters
- 28 Biolinguistics
- 29 Lexical-Functional Grammar
- 30 Typological Approaches
- 31 Functional Approaches
- Index
- References
31 - Functional Approaches
from Part VI - Models and Approaches
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 April 2017
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Abbreviations
- Introduction
- Part I Types and Mechanisms of Syntactic Change
- Part II Methods and Tools
- Part III Principles and Constraints
- Part IV Major Issues and Themes
- Part V Explanations
- Part VI Models and Approaches
- 27 Principles and Parameters
- 28 Biolinguistics
- 29 Lexical-Functional Grammar
- 30 Typological Approaches
- 31 Functional Approaches
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary 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.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax , pp. 687 - 712Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2017
References
Craig, C. G. 1977. Jacaltec: The structure of Jacaltec. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Fortescue, M., Jacobson, S. and Kaplan, L. 1994. Comparative Eskimo dictionary with Aleut cognates. Fairbanks, AK: Alaska Native Language Center.Google Scholar
Frachtenberg, L. 1913. Coos texts (Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology l). Reprinted 1969, New York: AMS Press.Google Scholar
Frachtenberg, L. 1922. ‘Coos’, in Boas, F. (ed.), Handbook of American Indian languages, part 2 (Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 40). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, pp. 297–429.Google Scholar
Jacobs, M. 1939. ‘Coos narrative and ethnologic texts’, University of Washington Publications in Anthropology 8(1): 1–126.Google Scholar
Jacobs, M. 1940. ‘Coos myth texts’, University of Washington Publications in Anthropology 8(2): 127–360.Google Scholar
Jacobson, S. A. 1984. Yup’ik Eskimo Dictionary. Fairbanks, AK: University of Alaska, Alaska Native Language Center.Google Scholar
Larsen, T. and Norman, W. 1979. ‘Correlates of ergativity in Mayan grammar’, in Plank, F. (ed.), Ergativity. New York: Academic Press, pp. 347–70.Google Scholar
Mithun, M. 2005. ‘Ergativity and language contact on the Oregon Coast: Alsea, Siuslaw, and Coos’, Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 77–95.Google Scholar
Mithun, M. 2008. ‘The extension of dependency beyond the sentence’, Language 83: 69–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, J. 1992. Linguistic diversity in space and time. University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, M. 1976. ‘Hierarchy of features and ergativity’, in Dixon, R. M. W. (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages. Canberra: Australian institute of Aboriginal Studies, pp. 112–71.Google Scholar
Suttles, W. 1990. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 7: Northwest coast. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.Google Scholar
Young, R., Morgan, W. and Midgette, S. 1992. Analytical lexicon of Navajo. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar