Publishing Partner: Cambridge University Press CUP Extra Publisher Login

New from Cambridge University Press!


Revitalizing Endangered Languages

Edited by Justyna Olko & Julia Sallabank

Revitalizing Endangered Languages "This guidebook provides ideas and strategies, as well as some background, to help with the effective revitalization of endangered languages. It covers a broad scope of themes including effective planning, benefits, wellbeing, economic aspects, attitudes and ideologies."

New from Wiley!


We Have a New Site!

With the help of your donations we have been making good progress on designing and launching our new website! Check it out at!
***We are still in our beta stages for the new site--if you have any feedback, be sure to let us know at***

Review of  Pronouns

Reviewer: Wolfgang Schulze
Book Title: Pronouns
Book Author: Darbhe Narayana Shankara Bhat
Publisher: Oxford University Press
Linguistic Field(s): Language Documentation
Issue Number: 15.2197

Discuss this Review
Help on Posting
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 20:29:59 +0200
From: Wolfgang Schulze
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

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'.

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

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).

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.     

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

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

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:

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
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'.

Format: Paperback
ISBN: 0199230242
ISBN-13: 9780199230242
Pages: 320
Prices: U.S. $ 45.00
U.K. £ 55.00