Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology¶
Comrie, B. (1989). Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology: Syntax and Morphology. University of Chicago Press.
Cited by¶
2 citations across 2 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Linguistic Universals
This sourceComrie Croft Typology Universals systematic typological method universal catalogue.
Domain-specific¶
- Morphology
- Typologically, languages vary dramatically in how much work they assign to this level: isolating languages (Mandarin Chinese) express most grammatical relations through syntax with minimal word-internal complexity; agglutinative languages (Turkish, Finnish) build long words from transparent, separable morpheme chains; fusional languages (Russian, Latin) compact multiple grammatical categories into single morphs; polysynthetic languages (Mohawk, West Greenlandic) encode whole clauses as morphologically complex single words
This sourceComrie's four-way morphological typology, in which polysynthetic (incorporating) languages combine word material into a single complex form.
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
“fusional, to which is sometimes added a fourth: [polysynthetic] (or incorporating). An isolating language is”
- Typologically, languages vary dramatically in how much work they assign to this level: isolating languages (Mandarin Chinese) express most grammatical relations through syntax with minimal word-internal complexity; agglutinative languages (Turkish, Finnish) build long words from transparent, separable morpheme chains; fusional languages (Russian, Latin) compact multiple grammatical categories into single morphs; polysynthetic languages (Mohawk, West Greenlandic) encode whole clauses as morphologically complex single words
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 2 citations: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:0b3d3af16dd5 · see in the full table