LINGUIST List 15.2197

Tue Aug 3 2004

Review: Typology/Syntax: Bhat (2004)

Editor for this issue: Naomi Ogasawara <naomilinguistlist.org>


What follows is a review or discussion note contributed to our Book Discussion Forum. We expect discussions to be informal and interactive; and the author of the book discussed is cordially invited to join in. If you are interested in leading a book discussion, look for books announced on LINGUIST as "available for review." Then contact Sheila Dooley Collberg at collberglinguistlist.org.

Directory

  1. Wolfgang Schulze, Pronouns: A Cross-Linguistic Study

Message 1: Pronouns: A Cross-Linguistic Study

Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 16:59:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: Wolfgang Schulze <W.Schulzelrz.uni-muenchen.de>
Subject: Pronouns: A Cross-Linguistic Study

AUTHOR: Bhat, Darbhe Narayana Shankara
TITLE: Pronouns
SUBTITLE: A Cross-Linguistic Study
SERIES: Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic Theory
PUBLISHER: Oxford University Press
YEAR: 2004
Announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/14/14-3485.html


Wolfgang Schulze, IATS, University of Munich

INTRODUCTION

Let me start with a brief quote from the book under review (Bhat
2004:1): ''(...) [W]ords that are generally included under the
category of pronouns do not together form a single category. Most
importantly, personal pronouns are quite different from the rest of
the pronouns. (...) [O]ne can hardly find any characteristic that can
be regarded as common to both sets (...).'' For the moment, I do not
want to take up the question of whether the category of pronouns can
be justified at all. Still, it is amazing to see that a book has as
its title a term ('Pronouns') that is questioned, not to say negated
already on the very first pages of the book. Nevertheless, the author
proposes ''to use the term 'pronoun' as a cover term for referring to
both (...) personal pronouns and proforms, even though (...) there may
not be any basis for the establishment of such a super-category, other
then the fact that it has the backing of an extended grammatical
tradition'' (p.5). One may wonder, whether reference towards
'grammatical tradition' suffices to justify the title of the book
which appears to be misleading - at least in the light of the author's
hypotheses. Perhaps, the author aims at some kind of 'negative
phenomenology' which posits the existence of a phenomenon in order to
show that it does not exist at all (in other words: the title
represents the condensed version of an 'antinomy'). Still, it would
perhaps been more wise to indicate within the title of the book that
one of its major goals is to revise the assumption of the
super-category 'pronoun' replacing it by the two categories 'personal
pronouns' and 'proforms'.

Unfortunately, Bhat's terminology is less consequent than his general
argumentation. Curiously enough, the author sticks to the term
'pronoun' in order to label just that category for which ''the notion
of 'standing for' something else is completely unsuitable'' (p.2):
'Personal pronouns'. This terminological confusion (or at least:
inconsequence) is difficult to understand. Perhaps, the author accepts
it in order to attract the attention of more 'traditional'
readers. Or: He tacitly works with the assumption of what he calls
'super-category' even though one of his goals is said to be the
critique of the super-category 'pronoun'. This becomes rather probable
if we read the very last sentence of the book (p.276): ''I hope that
the present study of pronouns has brought a semblance of order into
the chaotic world of pronouns''.

Whatever the reasons for this incoherence may have been: Bhat's book
can be characterized as a typological approach (basically from
function to form) to the two domains of 'Personhood' and 'Phorics' (or
'PnP', to use a fashionable abbreviation), as long as they are
expressed with the help of 'lexical' elements. On p.32, Bhat supposes:
''We can expect several (...) characteristics [of personal pronouns]
to be shown by bound-pronoun languages among their agreement markers
or clitics occurring with the verb, but unfortunately, I do not have
sufficient data on languages of this latter type to establish this
point''. This statement raises a number of questions which, however, I
cannot summarize here in their totality. Still, it reflects a rather
unfortunate tradition: Accordingly, agreement patterns (or:
referential echoes) are said to constitute 'bound-pronoun' patterns,
although it is typological common ground that agreement patterns are
not necessarily person-oriented and do not necessarily result from the
clitization of former 'free pronouns'. In addition, it must be
stressed that the distinction between 'free' and 'bound'
instantiations of a category rarely shows up in terms of discrete or
thetic categorial entities. Rather, we have to deal with variations
with cross-linguistic continua. In other words: The concentration on
'free' lexical forms should not reflect just a heuristic constraint or
problems with respect to the data-base. Instead, we should expect that
the author explains the theoretical and functional motives that have
lead to the 'concentration' on free forms (e.g. semantic or conceptual
explicitness or transparency).

The data base exploited by the author results from the analysis of
more than 220 languages, although it must be stressed that some of the
languages cross-referenced in the corresponding index (pp.312-315)
occur only in a 'list of languages used as sample', but not in terms
of concrete data (e.g. Dong, Evenki, Ila, Nahuatl, Remo, Retura,
Yukaghir, to name just a few). Also, the concrete sampling is done for
some selected typological aspects only (see below), whereas the
inductive basis for some other aspects of 'personal pronouns' and
'proforms' is less pronounced (see p.277). Still, it is out of
question that Bhat's book is quite in line with the high empiric
standard expectable from the series into which the book is included.

Today, word classes or word class related issues seem to serve as a
favorite frame for cross-linguistic, typological studies. However, it
comes clear that such a framing heavily depends from the kind of
answer to the question of what word classes are at all (and how they
can be qualified). It is a pity that the book under review does hardly
contribute to this discussion: The reader is thus warned not to expect
a theory-driven elaboration of the question whether pronouns (what
ever they may be) constitute one or more word classes and - if yes -�
how these classes can be related to the ontology of 'parts of speech'
at all. Nevertheless, the book helps to systematize certain
paradigmatic and functional features of both 'personal pronouns' and
'proforms' which will undoubtedly serve to refine the intensional
definition of such forms (if ever a purely linguistic definition is
possible at all). In this sense, Bhat's 'Pronouns' do not offer a 'new
look' at what 'pronouns' may be, but an ensemble of observations that
helps to concretize and validate some standard assumptions on
'pronouns'.

SYNOPSIS

Bhat's 'Pronouns' consist of two major parts surrounded by a short
'Preface', an Introduction (pp.1-34), an Appendix (list of 225
languages used as a sample), a list of references (roughly some 400
titles), and three indices (authors, languages, subjects). The main
body of the book is formed by the two parts on 'Personal Pronouns'
(35-150) and 'Proforms' (151-276). This division conforms to the most
central claim, namely that the term 'pronouns' is some kind of cover
term that unites 'Personal Pronouns' and 'Proforms'.

In the introductory section, Bhat elaborates the general frame of the
volume. First, he introduces his concept of 'Personal Pronouns' vs.
'Proforms', claiming that contrary to other pronouns, Personal
Pronouns do not 'stand for' something, but represent 'shifters',
whereas the set of true 'proforms' is represented by the remaining
'pronouns'. Although Bhat considers the possibility that we have to
deal with some kind of continual chain, he arrives at the hypothesis
that the proposed continual features ''derive from an interesting
conflict that occurs in our use of personal pronouns'' (p.12).
Accordingly, the ''first person singular pronoun [is] the most
prototypical among personal pronouns'', whereas other personal
pronouns ''tend to show some of the characteristics that belong to the
neighbouring categories like proforms and nouns'' (p.13). As for
personal pronouns, the author opposes 'free-pronoun' and
'bound-pronoun' languages (p.15). Here, he refers to the tendency in
quite a number of languages to maintain an asymmetric relation between
free and 'bound' representations of the 'category person'.
Accordingly, free-pronoun languages express the functional domain of
personality with free (lexical) pronouns, whereas bound-pronoun
languages utilize affixes or clitics to encode this functional layer.�
In the remaining sections of the 'Introduction', Bhat elaborates this
distinction, dwelling upon aspects of disparity, the question of
obligatoriness, and categorial (in)stability.

Part I turns to 'Personal Pronouns'. The author devotes five chapters
to illustrate the 'nature' of such pronouns. In chapter 2, he
discusses the 'relation with the referent' (38-57), that is the
question to which extent there is linguistic evidence for referential
properties of 'personal pronouns'. Bhat takes up the well-known
definition of 'personal pronouns' as 'shifters' (Jespersen 1924: 123),
the primary function of which being ''to indicate the involvement of
speech roles in the event or state that the sentences in which they
occur describe'' (p.38). In addition, Bhat discusses a number of
features related to the question to which degree personal pronouns
share properties of referentiality. Still, the reader should not
expect to be introduced into the world of analytic language
philosophy. Bhat's arguments remain rather general and in parts even
difficult to understand. For instance, he uses the term
'non-referential' in cases where we have to deal with non-specific
reference (p.41). This terminological (and, perhaps, also
reflectional) carelessness does not affect the general claims of the
book as long as they concern peripheral arguments. Nevertheless, they
may become crucial for instance when aiming at the determination of
the nature of the scientific 'object'. Undoubtedly, this holds for the
question whether 'personal pronouns' have referential or indexal
properties. Unfortunately, Bhat does not refer to the corresponding,
long-standing discussion which encompasses philosophical arguments
just as evidence from sociology (e.g. Marcel Mauss), sociopsychology
(e.g. G. H. Mead) or cognitive sciences. Hence, he confines himself to
the very general and traditional description of 'I' and 'you' as
'shifters'. Still, it should be noted that the standard assumption
according to which 'I' and 'you' ''are well established semantic
primitives'' (p.25, referring to Goddard & Wierzbicka 1994: 37) raises
a number of doubts. Most importantly, it does not respect the
well-known controversy of whether the concept of 'personhood' is
subcategorized in terms of egocentricity (1 vs. 2(+3)) or
sociocentricity (1+2 (vs. 3)). Likewise, it does not relate to the
many variations with the Silverstein Hierarchy (e.g. 1.person first
vs. 2.person first or: 1 < 2 < 3.... vs. 2 < 1 < 3 etc.) which reveal
important aspects of the conceptualization of personhood (Bhat turns
to this point later in the book, but very briefly).

Unfortunately, the author abstains from discussing the semantics of
'personal pronouns' more intimately. Hence, it does not come clear
whether he subscribes to the primitiveness hypothesis or whether he
relates certain constructional properties of the individual 'pronouns'
to semantics 'segments' or to subsymbolic layers of the corresponding
conceptual complex. For instance, a look at corpora reveals that in
many languages, the distribution of first and second person singular
concepts is directly linked to mode: A first person usually occurs in
assertive constructions, whereas a second person is marked for an
interrogative or more or less imperative (hortative) mode. In other
words: The concept of 'first person' is 'indicative', but that of the
'second person' is modal, or: self-certainty stands against
other-inference. Bhat himself alludes to the fact that in some
languages, the expression of 'personhood' is sensitive for modal
features (87-89). However, he does not relate this fact to the
properties of the individual 'pronouns', but to their general
function: (...) modal distinctions represent either (i) distinctions
in the speaker's assessment of the reliability of information or (ii)
distinctions in the illocutionary force of a speech act'' (p.87).

The question of referential properties is also pursued in chapter 3
(58-90) that discusses 'coreference and non-coreference'. Among
others, Bhat turns to logophorics and draws an interesting picture of
the interaction of logophorics and anaphorics (as well as of long
distance reflexivity). It is out of question that Bhat arrives at a
number of illuminating observations, especially with respect to the
interaction of logophorics and the SAP domain. In my eyes, however, a
purely morphology-based approach to logophorics neglects certain
constructional properties related to what in traditional grammar is
called '(in)direct speech' (in its broadest sense). Here, a
constructional approach would probably help to better understand the
typology of logophoric constructions.��

In Chapter 4, the author addresses the question of how personal
pronouns are 'associated' with 'grammatical categories' (91-119). It
goes without saying that a 'grammatically' parallel behavior of nouns
and 'personal pronouns' can serve as an important diagnostic feature
to determine for instance the degree of 'nouniness' of such pronouns.
Bhat considers the following parameters: number, gender, and case. As
for number, he argues that pronouns are marked for 'conjunction'
rather than for plurality. The corresponding section is in parts
reminiscent of the brilliant treatment of pronominal number paradigms
in Cysouw 2003, although it comes clear that Bhat takes a more
semantic perspective. As for the category 'gender' (better: sexus),
Bhat argues that its restricted relevance for personal pronouns
results from its function here to indicate ''social distinctions, or
for complying with social requirements'' (p.111). As for 'case', Bhat
observes a number of paradigmatic constraints that are said to argue
in favor of a 'speech role' based interpretation of case marking
strategies with personal pronouns. The author illustrates this point
with the help of so-called 'sagittal' case marking patterns (1>2/2>1
ambiguity), prominence of speech act participants, 'direct-inverse'
marking and constraints on the occurrence of bound morphemes.� ��

Chapter 5 turns to what Bhat calls ''conflicting characteristics''
(120-131). In this chapter, Bhat mainly takes up the question whether
the relation between first and second person is symmetric or not. In
other words: He comes back to the well-studies question of a possible
hierarchic ordering within the paradigm of 'personal pronouns'. The
author (very briefly) summarizes the typologically well-known facts,
arriving at the following conclusion: ''Languages generally give
greater prominence to the speaker as compared to the addressee, and
this has the effect of making the expressions that denote the speaker
dissimilar to those that denote the addressee'' (p.131). Nevertheless,
the fact that ''some languages (...) give greater prominence to the
addressee (...)'' (p.131) remains unexplained. Likewise disappointing
is the treatment of what Bhat calls ''hierarchy of nominal
categories'' (p.125-128). Here, Bhat turns to the above-mentioned
Silverstein Hierarchy, presenting it however in a way that neglects
many important findings in the last decade (in fact, he does not go
beyond Dixon 1994).

The final chapter of Part I discusses the 'position of third person
pronouns' (132-150). Bhat takes up the 'Benvenistian' claim that
''third person pronouns do not belong to the system of personal
pronouns'' (p.133, recall Benveniste's term 'non-personne').
Nevertheless, he observes a number of paradigms in which the third
person is expressed by lexical elements that are not taken from other
(mainly demonstrative) paradigms. He thus suggests distinguishing
'two-person' languages from 'three-person' languages (p.134). Bhat
elaborates this distinction from a basically paradigmatic point of
view. Unfortunately, he does not make clear (at least to me), what he
means by 'third person'. If we take Bhat's term literal, it would
imply that some languages lack a third person (as a conceptual
layer). Even the hardest version of the Linguistic Relativity
Hypothesis would not go so far to support this claim. Here, a major
shortcoming of Bhat's approach becomes apparent: He does not make
sufficiently clear, when he speaks of 'linguistic categories'
(established howsoever) and when he turns to 'conceptual categories'
(retrieved howsoever). Likewise, Bhat shows a strong tendency to
anthropomorphize the dynamics of language, compare again the quote
given above: ''Languages generally give greater prominence to the
speaker as compared to the addressee (...)'' (p.131). Such a
prominence, however, can only result from socio-communicative routines
and their cognitive foundation, but never 'by language'. Admittedly,
the mixing up of linguistic and cognitive matters (without elaborating
the actual relationship) renders some of Bhat's explanations at least
problematic. Nevertheless, in chapter 6, Bhat arrives at very
interesting correlations between the architecture of deictic paradigms
and their exploitation for encoding the 'non-personne' domain. Here,
the opposition between person-oriented and distance-oriented
demonstratives seems to play an important role (see Schulze 2003 for
an alternative explanation).

Unfortunately, Bhat confines the examination of the above-mentioned
correlation to the 'third person'. Doing so, he deprives himself of
the possibility to explain the grammaticalization of personal pronouns
based on deictic paradigms, too: There is a long-standing tradition in
linguistics to relate the first person to the domain of the proximal,
and the second person to the domain of the medial/distal. Some authors
(such as Liebert 1957, Myrkin 1964, Majtinskaya 1968, 1969, Schmidt
1978, to name just a few) relate this correlation not only to
'function', but also to 'form' (see Schulze 1998: 575-601)). In fact,
Bhat's general hypotheses on the distinctiveness of 'personal
pronouns' and 'proforms' (with the domain of 'third persons' serving
as an interface between these two domains) seems more to hide than to
unveil: A 'lumping' hypothesis deriving both demonstratives etc. and
personal 'pronouns' from the space of deixis in fact is an alternative
and valid option.

The second part of the book is devoted to 'proforms' (153-276). Bhat
discusses the 'structure of proforms' in chapter 7 (151-174),
'constituent elements of proforms' in chapter 8 (175-199),
'characteristics of proforms' in chapter 9 (200-225), the
interrogative-indefinite puzzle' in chapter 10 (226-249), 'other
related puzzles' in chapter 11 (250-271) before turning to concluding
remarks in chapter 12 (272-276). Bhat defines 'proforms' as consisting
of ''two different elements, namely a general term that denotes the
scope of those proforms and a pronominal element that indicates the
purpose for which they are used'' (p.153). Accordingly, he proposes a
paradigmatic make-up that distinguishes semantic (or 'ontological')
classes (such as Person, Thing, Property etc.) from functional layers
(such as demonstrative, interrogative, relative etc.). The author
observes certain correlations within the resulting paradigms, which
may be matched by morphology (chapter 7). Both classes and layers can
be subjected to lumping strategies, such as {demonstrative + relative}
or {interrogative + indefinite} or {interrogative + indefinite +
relative} etc. Bhat observes that the general preference (in his
corpus) is to place a class-specific element behind the 'pronominal'
(or: functional element), such as English wh-o (Person), wh-at
(Thing), wh-ere (Place) etc., although the 'inverse' order is
documented, too. Most likely, the preferred order is linked to
languages with suffixal case marking patterns, whereas the inverse
order (GP = general/pronominal in terms of Bhat) ''appears to be one
of the characteristics of verb-initial languages''
(p.158). Unfortunately, Bhat mainly refers to a particular genetic
group, namely Austronesian in order to illustrate this assumption,
which is questioned for instance by Old Irish (verb-initial, but
PG-type). It would perhaps make more sense to relate the
GP/PG-typology to NP-internal positional constraints and preferences.

In chapter 8, Bhat concretizes the functional organization of
proforms. Accordingly, he distinguishes demonstratives from
interrogative-indefinites and relative-anaphors. He describes various
strategies to subcategorize these functional clusters, among them the
derivation of anaphors from demonstratives (curiously enough, he
refers to Lezgi (Southeast Caucasian) to illustrate a case in which
''anaphoric pronouns are quite different from demonstratives''
(p.184). Accordingly, ''the demonstratives im 'proximate', am
'remote' contrast with ham 'anaphoric''' (p.184). However, ham is
nothing but the emphatic variant of am 'distal').

Before discussing semantic subcategories, Bhat considers - in a brief
subsection - highly interesting data illustrating the possibility to
'neutralize functional distinctions' (p.186). In chapter 9, the author
brings the reader back to the question of referentiality and its
relevance in determining the functional scope of proforms. Chapter 10
turns to the long-standing question of how interrogatives are related
to indefinite 'pronouns'. Bhat offers a very stimulating analysis of
the problem suggesting that in case affinity in given, it ''rightly
represents the meaning that is common to both interrogatives and
indefinites, namely the denotation of lack of knowledge regarding a
particular constituent'' (p.249). This hypothesis is quite in
accordance with both observations concerning the grammaticalization
background of wh-pronouns and generalizations stemming from cognitive
linguistic approaches.

In chapter 11, Bhat briefly turns to three other 'puzzles', namely the
question of how indefinite pronouns are derived, ''the puzzle about
indirect questions (...) and the puzzle about the affinity between
interrogative and relative pronouns'' (p.250). All these puzzles are
said to be solved based on the 'primacy of indefinites'
hypothesis. Still, much of what Bhat presents in this section has to
be reviewed in the light of a more comprehensive theory of
'questions'.

In the final chapter (chapter 12), the author gives some concluding
remarks that also entail the summarizing definition of what Bhat
thinks 'personal pronouns' and 'proforms' are (p.273). Not
surprisingly, he describes personal pronouns as ''[s]ingle-element
expressions that have the denotation of speech roles as their primary
function''. Proforms, on the other hand, are ''[t]wo-element
expressions that indicate a general concept and a function (...)''
(p.273).

SOME CONCLUDING REMARKS

The main claim of the monograph is related to word classes:
Accordingly, Bhat wants to show that ''personal pronouns and other
pronouns (proforms) belong to two different word classes'' (p.120). In
this sense, it is astonishing to see that the author presents a volume
on 'word classes' without addressing the problem of 'word classes' in
language as such. Nowhere in the book, is the reader more
comprehensively informed about the theoretical foundations of Bhat's
argumentation that is about the ontology of word classes, their
linguistic and/or conceptual importance and the assessment of those
basic discovery procedures that are relevant for positing word classes
at all. In fact, the reader is confronted with a type of analysis that
puts more effort in the presentation of data than in terminological
accuracy and theoretical adequacy. In this sense, the reader learns
much about the ''chaotic world of pronouns'' (p.276), although it has
to be added that much of what Bhat says, has already been said by
others. Hence, it is difficult to state what kind of book we have at
hands: It surely is not a simple introductory 'reader' on pronouns: On
the one hand, Bhat offers many highly interesting details, which can
safely be characterized as 'new'. On the other hand, a 'reader on
pronouns' should entail a research report concentrating on both
definitory and applicatory issues. As has been said above, Bhat's book
lacks these components to a certain extent. Nevertheless, if it is
thought to be an expert's work on problems of pronominality, both the
title of the book and the general organization are misleading. What we
have at hands is something 'in between'. This does not mean that
Bhat's elaboration is useless. On the contrary! The expert will find
very many gems and the 'novice' will surely profit from browsing
through the book. However, the expert will soon realize that much of
what Bhat says has been already said before, and the novice will
(wrongly) put the book aside realizing that it is not an introductory
work to 'pronouns'. In this sense, Bhat's book is an important
contribution to the study of issues in pronominality, but it is not a
book on 'pronouns'.

It is a deplorable fact that Bhat reproduces an unfortunate tendency
in contemporary linguistics, namely to concentrate on publications in
English. All references given for the list of languages used in the
sample are English references, with negative consequences. For
instance, Burushaski is quoted with the help of the outdated grammar
from Lorimer 1935-38 instead of using the German grammars by Berger
1974 and Berger 1998. In the bibliography, only English titles are
given with the exception of Zhirkov 1955 (Russian, wrongly quoted as
Zhirkov 1995 on p.26), Burchuladze 1979 (Russian), Guillaume 1919/1975
(French), Hag�ge (not: Heg�ge, p.298, French), Humboldt 1830
(German). All these references, however, are quoted from secondary,
English sources. Viewing the fact, that there is a long-standing
tradition concerning the research on pronouns in Russian, French, and
German, this shortcoming cannot be simply ignored. Likewise, it is
difficult to understand, how certain language data are quoted from
secondary or even tertiary sources, even though the primary sources
are immediately available. This holds for instance for Old Greek which
on p.155 is quoted via Haspelmath's 1997 book on indefinites. For
Irish or French, Bhat does not even consult the relevant grammars, but
corresponding sections in overviews on the language families.

Nevertheless, it is out of question that the book enormously profits
from the wealth of data used to illustrate the author's claims and
analyses. We have to thank the author especially for having directed
the reader's attention to the world of languages in India (especially
Kannada) which undoubtedly help to better follow Bhat's arguments.
Still, the choice of languages seems extremely biased because of the
'language problem' addressed above.

The book itself is well-done and easy to read. There are some
typographical errors (e.g. p.39: Jespersen 1923 > Jespersen 1924,
p.195 interrogagive > interrogative, p.262 anyody > anybody), which,
however, do not harm the pleasure of reading.

In sum, it should have come clear that Bhat's book is an important
contribution to the study of pronominality. It is marked for a high
amount of linguistic data nicely documented to illustrate a given
aspect of Bhat's argumentation. I am not sure whether the book will as
such have a long-standing success. Most likely, other books will
follow which put more effort in developing a methodologically coherent
framework for a theory of pronominality (and its variance). However,
whatever will follow: Their authors will have to consider in their
debates and in their analyses the suggestions made by Bhat in his
'Pronouns'. In more than just a few cases, they will even have to
start from what Bhat has elaborated. ����

REFERENCES

Berger, Herman 1974. Das Yasin-Burushaski (Werchikwar). Grammatik,
Texte, W�rterbuch. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Berger, Hermann 1998. Die Burushaski-Sprache von Hunza und Nager, 3
vols.. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Cysouw, Michael 2003. The Paradigmatic Structure of Person Marking,
Oxford University Press, Oxford Studies in Typology and Linguistic
Theory.

Dixon, R. M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: CUP.

Goddard, Cliff & Anna Wierzbicka 1994. Semantic Lexical Universals:
Theory and Empirical Findings. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Jespersen, O. 1924. The Philosophy of Grammar. London: Allen and
Unwin.

Liebert, G. 1957. Die indoeurop�ischen Personalpronomina und die
Laryngaltheorie. Lund: Gleerup.

Lorimer, David L. R. 1935-1938. The Burushaski language, 3 vols. Oslo:
Instituttet for sammenlignende kulturforskning.

Majtinskaya, K. E. 1968. K tipologii genetic^eskoj svajzi lic^nyx i
ukazatel'nyx mestoimenij v jazykax raznyx sistem. VJa 1968,3:31-40.

Majtinskaja, K. E. 1969. Mestoimenija v jazykx raznyx sistem. Moskva:
Nauka.

Mauss, M. 1939. Une cat�gorie de l'esprit humain: La notion de
personne, celle de 'moi'. JRAI 68:263-281.

Mead, G.H. 1934. Mind, self, and society. Chicago: CUP.

Myrkin, V. Ja 1964. Tipologija lic^nogo mestoimenija i voprosy
rekonstrucii ego v indoevropejskom aspekte. VJa 1964,5:78-86.

Russel, B. 1940. Inquiry into meaning and truth. New York: Norton.

Schmidt, G. 1978. Stammbildung und Flexion der indogermanischen
Personalpronomina. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.

Schmidt, K. H. 1994. Zum Personalpronomen und der Kategorie 'Person'
im Kartvelischen und Indogermanischen. HS 107:179-193.

Schulze, W. 1998. Person, Klasse, Kongruenz. Vol. 1: Die Grundlagen.
Munich: Lincom.

Schulze, W. 1999. The diachrony of personal pronouns in East
Caucasian. In: H. van den Berg (ed.). Studies in Caucasian
Linguistics, 95-111. Leiden: CNWS.

Schulze, W. 2003. The diachrony of demonstrative pronouns in East
Caucasian. In: D.A. Holisky and K. Tuite (eds.). Current trends in
Caucasian, East European and Inner Asian linguistics, 291-348.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins

ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Wolfgang Schulze is the Head of the Institute for General Linguistics
and Language Typology at the University of Munich. His main research
topics include Language Typology, Cognitive Typology, Historical
Linguistics, language contact, the languages of the (Eastern) Caucasus
and Inner Asia, and 'Oriental' languages. He currently works on a
Functional Grammar of Udi, on the edition of the Caucasian Albanian
Palimpsest from Mt. Sinai, and on a comprehensive presentation of the
framework of a 'Grammar of Scenes and Scenarios' in terms of a
'Cognitive Typology'.
Mail to author|Respond to list|Read more issues|LINGUIST home page|Top of issue