"Kissine offers a new theory of speech acts which is philosophically sophisticated and builds on work in cognitive science, formal semantics, and linguistic typology. This highly readable, brilliant essay is a major contribution to the field."
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 20:29:59 +0200 From: Wolfgang Schulze <W.Schulze@lrz.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
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), Hagège (not: Hegège, 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, Wörterbuch. 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 indoeuropäischen 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 catégorie 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:
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'.
