Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-mwx4w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-20T10:52:19.643Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Östen Dahl (ed.): Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe. Empirical Approaches to Language Typology, EUROTYP 20–6. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2000. xiii + 856 pp.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2008

Mila Dimitrova-Vulchanova
Mila Dimitrova-Vulchanova
Affiliation:
English Department, The Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway. E-mail: mila.vulchanova@hf.ntnu.no
Get access

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
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , June 2001 , pp. 121 - 129
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2001

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

Bybee, J. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation Between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. & Dahl, Ö. 1989. The Creation of Tense and Aspect Systems in the Languages of the World. Studies in Language 13: 51–103.Google Scholar
Bybee, J., Perkins, R. & Pagliuca, W. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar. Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Ö. 1981. On the Definition of the Telic-Atelic (Bounded-Nonbounded) Distinction. In Tedeschi, Ph. & Zaenen, A. (eds), Syntax and Semantics, vol. 14, Tense and Aspect. New York: Academic Press, pp. 79–90.Google Scholar
Dahl, Ö. 1985. Tense and Aspect Systems. Oxford and New York: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Desclés, J. P. & Guentchéva, Z. 1990. Discourse Analysis of Aorist and Imperfect in Bulgarian and French. In Thelin, N. (ed.), Verbal Aspect in Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 237–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dimitrova-Vulchanova, M. 1999. Verb Semantics, Diathesis and Aspect. LINCOM Series in Theoretical Linguistics. München/Newcastle: LINCOM. [Revised version of 1996 doctoral dissertation.]Google Scholar
Dowty, D. 1979. Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. The Semantics of Verbs and Times in Generative Semantics and in Montague's PTQ. Dodrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D. 1990. Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection. Language 67: 547–619.Google Scholar
Ermolaeva, 1987. Ocerky po sopostavitel'noj grammatike germanskih jazykov. Moscow: Vysaja skola.Google Scholar
Faarlund, J. T., Lie, S. & Vannebo, K. I. 1997. Norsk Referanse-Grammatikk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Galton, A. 1984. The Logic of Aspect: An Axiomatic Approach. Clarendon Library of Logic and Philosophy Series. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. & Traugott, E. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Karcevskij, S. 1965. Asymmetriceskij dualizm lingvisticeskogo znaka. In Zvegincev, V. (ed.), Istorija jazykoznanija XIX–XX vekov v ocerkah i izvlecenijah. Moscow.Google Scholar
Klimov, G. 1983. Principy kontensivnoj tipologii. Moscow.Google Scholar
Kuz'mina, I. B. 1975. Este raz o konstrukcijax tipa kartoska vykopano, koni zaprazeno, pol pomyto, v russkix govorax. Russkie govory. Kizuceniju fonetiki, grammatiki, leksiki. Moskva: Nauka, 202–234.Google Scholar
Lindstedt, J. 1995. Understanding Perfectivity – Understanding Bounds. In Bertinetto, P. M., Bianchi, V., Dahl, Ö. & Squartini, M. (eds), Temporal Reference, Aspect and Actionality: 2. Typological perspectives. Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier, pp. 95–103.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. 1998. Aspectual Grammar and Past-Time Reference. Routledge Series in Germanic Linguistics. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nichols, J. 1992. Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, C. 1991. The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Stankov, V. 1976. Konkurencija na glagolnite vidove v bulgarskija ezik (v supostavitelen plan s njakoi drugi slvjanski ezici). In Pasov, P. & Nitsolova, R. (eds), Pomagalo po bulgarska morfologija. Glagol. Sofia.Google Scholar
Tenny, C. 1987. Grammaticalizing Aspect and Affectedness. Ph.D. diss. MIT.Google Scholar
Tomic, O. 1989. On the Assessment of the Markedness Status of the Exponents of a Grammatical Category. In Tomic, O. (ed.), Trends in Linguistics 39, Markedness in Synchrony and Diachrony. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Verkuyl, H. 1972. On the Compositional Nature of Aspects. Reidel: Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verkuyl, H. 1993. A Theory of Aspectuality. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verkuyl, H. 1999. Aspectual Issues. Studies in Time and Quantity. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar