Startseite Chains of influence in Himalayan grammars: Models and interrelations shaping descriptions of Tibeto-Burman languages of Nepal
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

Chains of influence in Himalayan grammars: Models and interrelations shaping descriptions of Tibeto-Burman languages of Nepal

  • Barbara Kelly EMAIL logo und Aimée Lahaussois ORCID logo EMAIL logo
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 18. Dezember 2020

Abstract

This paper examines comparability of descriptive grammars across typologically different languages. Focusing on the Nepal Himalayas, which has high language diversity that extends beyond areal, genetic, and historical categorization, the paper examines similarities across grammars and the influences motivating these. It reports on the construction and use of a database comprising materials from 18 descriptive grammars of Tibeto-Burman languages of Nepal written over a 30-year period. This includes a small sub-database of metadata noting grammarian linguistic training, career affiliations, and dissertation supervisors and a larger sub-database of fully tagged tables of contents for each of the grammars. The overarching relational database links sections containing similar content, enabling search functions to explore the locations of similar information and feature labels across grammars in the database. While some grammar-features in the corpus reflect broader structural properties across grammars, findings indicate strong local influences. We find evidence of three foundational linguistic “schools” connecting the structural organization of the grammars across multiple generations of linguists, correspondences across chapter titles, sections, as well as school-influenced organization of verbal paradigms, treatment of marginal topics, and terminological choices.


Corresponding authors: Barbara F. Kelly, School of Languages and Linguistics, University of Melbourne, Babel Building 139, 3010Parkville, VIC, Australia, E-mail: ; and Aimée Lahaussois, Histoire des Théories Linguistiques, CNRS, Université de Paris, F-75013Paris, France,

Acknowledgments

We wish to thank the following scholars for their comments and insights: Olivier Bonami, Lauren Gawne, Carol Genetti, John Mansfield, Didier Samain, Otto Zwartjes, as well as an anonymous reviewer. We are also grateful to a CNRS-University of Melbourne joint funding scheme which allowed us to initiate this collaborative research.

References

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199263882.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2015. The art of grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2018. The Oxford handbook of evidentiality. Oxford handbooks in linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198759515.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar

Akita, Kimi & Prashant Pardeshi (eds.). 2019. Ideophones, mimetics and expressives (Iconicity in language and literature 16). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/ill.16Suche in Google Scholar

Ameka, Felix. 1992. Interjections: The universal yet neglected part of speech. Journal of Pragmatics 18. 101–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(92)90048-g.Suche in Google Scholar

Anderson, Stephen R. 2015. Dimensions of morphological complexity. In Matthew Baerman, Dunstan Brown & Greville Corbett (eds.), Understanding and measuring morphological complexity, 11–26. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198723769.003.0002Suche in Google Scholar

Aussant, Emilie. 2017. La grammaire sanskrite étendue: Etat des Lieux. Histoire Epistémologie Langage 39(2). 7–20. https://doi.org/10.1051/hel/2017390201.Suche in Google Scholar

Bickel, Balthasar. 1997. Spatial operations in deixis, cognition, and culture: Where to orient oneself in Belhare. In Jan Nuyts & Eric Pederson (eds.), Language and conceptualization, 46–83. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139086677.003Suche in Google Scholar

Bickel, Balthasar. 1999. Nominalization and focus in some Kiranti languages. In Yogendra Yadava & Warren Glover (eds.), Topics in Nepalese linguistics, 271–296. Kathmandu: Royal Nepal Academy.Suche in Google Scholar

Bickel, Balthasar. 2003. Referential density in discourse and syntactic typology. Language 79(4). 708–736. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2003.0205.Suche in Google Scholar

Bickel, Balthasar & Martin Gaenszle (eds.). 1999. Himalayan space: Cultural horizons and practices. Zürich: Völkerkundemuseum der Universität Zürich.Suche in Google Scholar

Bowern, Claire. 2008. Linguistic fieldwork: A practical guide. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230590168Suche in Google Scholar

Bradley, David. 1997. Tibeto-Burman languages and classification. In David Bradley (ed.), Tibeto-Burman languages of the Himalayas, 1–72. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Suche in Google Scholar

Caplow, Nancy. 2017. Inference and deferred evidence in Tibetan. In Lauren Gawne & Nathan Hill (eds.), Evidential systems of Tibetan languages, 225–253. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110473742-008Suche in Google Scholar

Caughley, Ross C. 2002. Ideophones in Chepang: Their nature and sub-categorisation. Gipan: Tribhuvan University Papers in Linguistics 2(May). 16–24.Suche in Google Scholar

Chafe, Wallace & Johanna Nichols. 1986. Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.Suche in Google Scholar

Colombat, Bernard. 2019a. Accidens. In Bernard Colombat & Aimée Lahaussois (eds.), Histoire des parties du discours (Orbis Supplementa 46), 49–54. Leuven: Peeters.10.2307/j.ctv1q26rqjSuche in Google Scholar

Colombat, Bernard. 2019b. Accident. In Bernard Colombat & Aimée Lahaussois (eds.), Histoire des parties du discours (Orbis Supplementa 46), 54–56. Leuven: Peeters.10.2307/j.ctv1q26rqjSuche in Google Scholar

Colombat, Bernard & Aimée Lahaussois (eds.). 2019a. Histoire des parties du discours (Orbis Supplementa 46). Leuven: Peeters.10.2307/j.ctv1q26rqjSuche in Google Scholar

Colombat, Bernard & Aimée Lahaussois. 2019b. Les parties du discours ou classes de mots. In Bernard Colombat & Aimée Lahaussois (eds.), Histoire des parties du discours (Orbis Supplementa 46), 24–45. Leuven: Peeters.10.2307/j.ctv1q26rqjSuche in Google Scholar

Colombat, Bernard, Jean-Marie Fournier & Christian Puech. 2010. Histoire des idées sur le langage et les langues. Paris: Klincksiek.Suche in Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard & Norval Smith. 1977. Lingua descriptive studies: questionnaire. Lingua 42(1). 11–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(77)90063-8.Suche in Google Scholar

Dahl, Östen. 2016. Thoughts on language: Specific and crosslinguistic entities. Linguistic Typology 20(2). 426–436. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2016-0016.Suche in Google Scholar

DeLancey, Scott. 1997. Mirativity: The grammatical marking of unexpected information. Linguistic Typology 1. 33–52.10.1515/lity.1997.1.1.33Suche in Google Scholar

DeLancey, Scott. 2002. Relativization and nominalization in Bodic. In Proceedings of the twenty-eighth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: Special session on Tibeto-Burman and Southeast Asian linguistics, 55–72. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.10.3765/bls.v28i2.1039Suche in Google Scholar

DeLancey, Scott. 2012. Still mirative after all these years. Linguistic Typology 16(3). 529–564. https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2012-0020.Suche in Google Scholar

Dingemanse, Mark. 2011. The meaning and use of ideophones in Siwu. Nijmegen: Radboud University Dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar

Dingemanse, Mark. 2018. Redrawing the margins of language: Lessons from research on ideophones. Glossa 3(1). 4. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.444.Suche in Google Scholar

Dixon, Robert M. W. 2010. Basic linguistic theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Doornenbal, Marius. 2009. A grammar of Bantawa: Grammar, paradigm tables, glossary and texts of a Rai language of Eastern Nepal. Utrecht: LOT.Suche in Google Scholar

Dryer, Matthew. 2006. Descriptive theories, explanatory theories, and basic linguistic theory. In Felix Ameka, Alan Dench & Nicholas Evans (eds.), Catching language: Issues in grammar writing, 207–234. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110197693.207Suche in Google Scholar

Dryer, Matthew S. & Martin Haspelmath (eds.). 2013. The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://Wals.Info (accessed on 16 February 2018).Suche in Google Scholar

Ebert, Karen. 1997a. Camling (Chamling). (Languages of the world/materials 103). Munich: Lincom Europa.Suche in Google Scholar

Ebert, Karen. 1997b. A grammar of Athpare. Munich: Lincom Europa.Suche in Google Scholar

Ebert, Karen. 2000. Camling texts and glossary. Languages of the world/text collections 11. Munich: Lincom Europa.Suche in Google Scholar

Evans, Nicholas & Alan Dench. 2006. Introduction: Catching language. In Felix Ameka, Alan Dench & Nicholas Evans (eds.), Catching language: The standing challenge of grammar writing, 1–40. Berlin & New York: Mouton De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110197693.1Suche in Google Scholar

Floyd, Simeon, Elisabeth Norcliffe & Lila San Roque (eds.). 2016. Egophoricity. John Benjamins: Amsterdam.Suche in Google Scholar

François, Jacques. 2013. Deux pionniers de la formalisation en morphologie linguistique au XIXe siècle: August Schleicher et Hugo Schuchardt. Histoire Epistémologie Langage 35(1). 111–142.Suche in Google Scholar

Garrett, Edward J. 2001. Evidentiality and assertion in Tibetan. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar

Gawne, Lauren. 2013. Lamjung Yolmo copulas in use: Evidentiality, reported speech and questions. Melbourne: University of Melbourne Dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar

Gawne, Lauren. 2016. A sketch grammar of Lamjung Yolmo. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Suche in Google Scholar

Gawne, Lauren & Nathan Hill (eds.). 2017. Evidential systems of Tibetan languages. Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110473742Suche in Google Scholar

Gawne, Lauren, Barbara Kelly, Andrea Berez-Kroeker & Tyler, Heston. 2017. Putting practice into words: The state of data and methods transparency in grammatical descriptions. Language Documentation & Conservation 11. 157–189.Suche in Google Scholar

Genetti, Carol. 1990. A descriptive and historical account of the Dolakha Newari dialect. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon Dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar

Genetti, Carol. 1994. A descriptive and historical account of the Dolakha Newari dialect. Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa.Suche in Google Scholar

Genetti, Carol. 2007. A grammar of Dolakha Newar. (Mouton grammar library 40). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110198812Suche in Google Scholar

Genetti, Carol. 2011. Basic linguistic theory review. Language 87(4). 899–904. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2011.0089.Suche in Google Scholar

Genetti, Carol. 2014. Walking the line: Balancing description, argumentation and theory in academic grammar writing. In Toshihide Nakayama & Keren Rice (eds.), The art and practice of grammar writing (Language documentation and conservation special publication 8), 121–134. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Genetti, Carol, Alexander Coupe, Ellen Bartee, Kristine Hildebrandt & You-Jing Lin. 2008. Syntactic aspects of nominalization in five Tibeto-Burman languages of the Himalayan area. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 31(2). 97–143.Suche in Google Scholar

Grimes, Barbara (ed.), Joseph Grimes & Richard Pittman (consulting eds.). 1988. Ethnologue: Languages of the world, 11th edn. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Suche in Google Scholar

Haiman, John. 2018. Ideophones and the evolution of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781107706897Suche in Google Scholar

Hale, Austin. 1980. Person markers: Finite conjunct and disjunct verb forms in Newari. Papers in South-East Asian Linguistics 7. 95–106.Suche in Google Scholar

Hammarström, Harald, Robert Forkel & Martin Haspelmath. 2019. Glottolog 3.4. Jena: Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History. http://glottolog.org (accessed 13 May 2019).Suche in Google Scholar

Hargreaves, David. 2018. “Am I blue?”: Privileged access constraints in Kathmandu Newar. In Simeon Floyd, Elisabeth Norcliffe & Lila San Roque (eds.), Egophoricity, 79–107. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.118.02harSuche in Google Scholar

Hari, Anna Maria. 2010. Yohlmo grammar sketch. SIL International.Suche in Google Scholar

Hildebrandt, Kristine. 2004. A grammar and glossary of the Manange language. In Carol Genetti (ed.), Tibeto-Burman languages of Nepal: Manange and Sherpa, 7–192. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Suche in Google Scholar

Hill, Nathan W. 2012. “Mirativity” does not exist: ḥdug in “Lhasa” Tibetan and other suspects. Linguistic Typology 16(3). 389–433. https://doi.org/10.1515/lity-2012-0016.Suche in Google Scholar

Hinton, Leanne, Johanna Nichols & John Ohala (eds.). 1994. Sound symbolism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511751806Suche in Google Scholar

Hodgson, Brian Houghton. 1857. Vayu vocabulary. Journal of The Asiatic Society of Bengal 26. 372–485.Suche in Google Scholar

Kelly, Barbara. 2004. A grammar and glossary of the Sherpa language. In Carol Genetti (ed.), Tibeto-Burman languages of Nepal: Manange and Sherpa, 193–321. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Suche in Google Scholar

Kelly, Barbara. 2018. Interaction of speaker knowledge and volitionality in Sherpa. In Simeon Floyd, Elisabeth Norcliffe & Lila San Roque (eds.), Egophoricity, 139–152. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.118.04kelSuche in Google Scholar

King, John. 2009. A grammar of Dhimal. Leiden: Brill.Suche in Google Scholar

Lahaussois, Aimée. 2016. Where have all the interjections gone? A look into the place of interjections in contemporary grammars of endangered languages. In Carlos Assunção, Gonçalo Fernandes & Rolf Kemmler (eds.), Tradition and innovation in the history of linguistics: Contributions from the 13th international conference on the history of the language sciences (ICHoLS XIII), Vila Real, 25–29 August 2014. Münster: Nodus.Suche in Google Scholar

Lahaussois, Aimée. 2017. Ideophones in Khaling. Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 40(2). 179–201. https://doi.org/10.1075/ltba.17005.lah.Suche in Google Scholar

Lahaussois, Aimée. 2019. Les parties du discours dans les manuels de description linguistique. In Jean-Marie Fournier, Aimée Lahaussois & Valérie Raby (eds.), Grammaticalia: Hommage à Bernard Colombat, 27–34. Lyon: ENS Editions.10.4000/books.enseditions.12189Suche in Google Scholar

Lahaussois, Aimée. 2020. The shapes of verbal paradigms in Kiranti languages. Faits de Langues 50(2). 71–93. https://doi.org/10.1163/19589514-05002010.Suche in Google Scholar

Lallot, Jean. 2019. Parapomenon. In Bernard Colombat & Aimée Lahaussois (eds.), Histoire des parties du discours (Orbis supplementa 46), 45–48. Leuven: Peeters.Suche in Google Scholar

Lambert-Brétière, Renée. 2020. The Bloomfieldian heritage in Algonquian linguistics: The verbal complex in Innu. Faits de Langues 50(2). 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1163/19589514-05002012.Suche in Google Scholar

Lazard, Gilbert. 1999. Mirativity, evidentiality, mediativity, or other? Linguistic Typology 3. 91–109. https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.1999.3.1.91.Suche in Google Scholar

Lehmann, Christian. 1999. Documentation of endangered languages: A priority task for linguistics. In Erfurt: Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität (ASSidUE, 1).Suche in Google Scholar

Lehmann, Christian & Elena Maslova. 2004. Grammaticography. In Geert Booij, Christian Lehmann, Joachim Mugdan & Stavros Skopeteas (eds.), Morphologie: Ein Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung, vol. 2, 1857–1882. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110172782.2.20.1857Suche in Google Scholar

Matisoff, James. 1972. Lahu nominalization, relativization and genitivization. In John Kimball (ed.), Syntax and semantics, 237–257. New York: Seminar Press.10.1163/9789004372986_017Suche in Google Scholar

Michailovsky, Boyd. 1988. La langue hayu. Paris: Editions du CNRS.Suche in Google Scholar

Mithun, Marianne. 2007. Grammars and community. In Thomas Payne & David Weber (eds.), Perspectives on grammar writing (Benjamins current topics 11), 45–70. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/bct.11.05mitSuche in Google Scholar

Moravcsik, Eve. 2016. On linguistic categories. Linguistic Typology 20(2). 417–426. https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2016-0015.Suche in Google Scholar

Mosel, Ulrike. 2006a. Sketch grammar. In JostGippert, NikolausHimmelmann & UlrikeMosel (eds.), Essentials of language documentation, 301–310. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110197730.301Suche in Google Scholar

Mosel, Ulrike. 2006b. Grammaticography: The art and craft of writing grammars. In Felix Ameka, Alan Dench & Nicholas Evans (eds.), Catching language: The standing challenge of grammar writing, 41–68. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110197693.41Suche in Google Scholar

Moseley, Christopher (ed.). 2010. Atlas of the world’s languages in danger, 3rd edn. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.Suche in Google Scholar

Mushin, Ilana. 2013. Making knowledge visible in discourse: Implications for the study of linguistic evidentiality. Discourse Studies 15(5). 627–645. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445613501447.Suche in Google Scholar

Nida, Eugene. 1949. Morphology: The descriptive analysis of words. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Noonan, Michael. 1997. Versatile nominalizations. In Joan Bybee, John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Essays on language function and language type, 373–394. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/z.82.21nooSuche in Google Scholar

Noonan, M. 2007. Grammar writing for a grammar-reading audience. In Thomas Payne & David Weber (eds.), Perspectives on grammar writing (Benjamins current topics 11), 113–126. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/bct.11.07nooSuche in Google Scholar

Pawley, Andrew. 2014. Grammar writing from a dissertation advisor’s perspective. In Toshihide Nakayama & Keren Rice (eds.), The art and practice of grammar writing (Language documentation and conservation special publication 8), 7–24. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Payne, Thomas. 2007. A grammar as a communicative act, or what does a grammatical description really describe? In Thomas Payne & David Weber (eds.), Perspectives on grammar writing (Benjamins current topics 11), 127–142. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/bct.11.08paySuche in Google Scholar

Payne, Thomas E. 2014. Toward a balanced grammatical description. In Toshihide Nakayama & Keren Rice (eds.), The art and practice of grammar writing (Language documentation & conservation special publication no. 8), 91–108. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Poudel, Kedar Prasad. 2006. Dhankute Tamang grammar. Munich: Lincom Europa.Suche in Google Scholar

Rai, Novel Kishore & Werner Winter. 1997. Triplicated verbal adjuncts in Bantawa. In David Bradley (ed.), Tibeto-Burman languages of the Himalayas, 119–134. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Suche in Google Scholar

Rai, Novel Kishore, Balthasar Bickel, Martin Gaenszle, Elena Lieven, Netra P. Paudyal, Ichchha Purna Rai, Manoj Rai & Sabine Stoll. 2005. Triplication and ideophones in Chintang. In Yogendra P. Yadava (ed.), Current issues in Nepalese linguistics, 205–209. Kirtipur: Linguistic Society of Nepal.Suche in Google Scholar

Regmi, Dan Raj. 2012. A grammar of Bhujel. Munich: Lincom Europa.Suche in Google Scholar

Rice, Keren. 2007. A typology of good grammars. In Thomas Payne & David Weber (eds.), Perspectives on grammar writing (Benjamins current topics 11), 143–172. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/bct.11.09ricSuche in Google Scholar

Rutgers, Roland. 1998. Yamphu: Grammar, text & lexicon. Leiden: Research School CNWS.Suche in Google Scholar

Samarin, William J. 1967. Field linguistics: A guide to linguistic field work. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Suche in Google Scholar

Schackow, Diana. 2015. A grammar of Yakkha (Studies in diversity linguistics 7). Berlin: Language Science Press.10.26530/OAPEN_603340Suche in Google Scholar

Schleicher, August. 1861. Compendium der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. Weimar: H. Böhlau.Suche in Google Scholar

Smith-Stark, Thomas. 2009. La trilogía catequística: Artes, Vocabularios y Doctrinas en la Nueva España como instrumento de una política lingüística de normalización. In Rebeca Barriga Villanueva & Pedro Martín Butragueño (eds.), Historia sociolingüística de México: México prehispánico y colonial, vol. I, 451–482. México D.F.: El Colegio de México.Suche in Google Scholar

Tournadre, Nicolas. 1992. La déixis en tibétain: Quelques faits remarquables. In Mary-Annick Morel & Laurent Danon-Boileau (eds.), La Deixis, 197–208. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Suche in Google Scholar

Tournadre, Nicolas. 1994. Personne et médiatifs en tibétain. Faits de Langues 3. 149–158. https://doi.org/10.3406/flang.1994.918.Suche in Google Scholar

Turin, Mark. 2012. A grammar of the Thangmi language: With an ethnographic introduction to the speakers and their culture. Leiden: Brill.Suche in Google Scholar

van Driem, George. 1987. A grammar of Limbu. (Mouton grammar library 4). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110846812Suche in Google Scholar

van Driem, George. 1993. A grammar of Dumi. (Mouton grammar library 10). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110880915Suche in Google Scholar

van Driem, George. 2007. A holistic approach to the fine art of grammar writing: The Dallas Manifesto. In Novel Kishore Rai, Yogendra Prasad Yadava, Bhim N. Regmi & Balaram Prasain (eds.), Recent studies in Nepalese linguistics, 93–184. Kathmandu: Linguistic Society of Nepal.Suche in Google Scholar

Voeltz, Erhard & Christa Kilian-Hatz (eds.). 2001. Ideophones. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.44Suche in Google Scholar

Watters, David. 2002. A grammar of Kham. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486883Suche in Google Scholar

Woodbury, Anthony. 1986. Interactions of tense and evidentiality: A study of Sherpa and English. In Wallace Chafe & Johanna Nichols (eds.), Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology, 188–202. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Suche in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2020-12-18
Published in Print: 2021-01-27

© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Heruntergeladen am 27.10.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/ling-2020-0255/html?fbclid=IwAR3hREpkdb9csG-gketwly-xy8-cCiUb_iwziGNv0op3Pfaa4SU6AFLt_MU
Button zum nach oben scrollen