Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-lvwk9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-07T12:05:23.788Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

David Holton, Peter Mackridge and Irene Philippaki-Warburton, Greek. A Comprehensive Grammar of the Modern Language. London: Routledge, 1997. Pp. xxi, 519.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2016

Alexandra Georgakopoulou*
Affiliation:
King’s College London and Dionysis Goutsos, University of Cyprus

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Reviews
Copyright
Copyright © The Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, University of Birmingham 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Biber, Douglas (1988). Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carter, Ronald and McCarthy, Michael (1995). ‘Grammar and the spoken language’. Applied Linguistics 16, 141158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georgakopoulou, Alexandra and Goutsos, Dionysis (1998). ‘Conjunctions versus discourse markers in Greek: The interaction of frequency, position and functions in context’. Linguistics 38 (5).Google Scholar
Goutsos, Dionysis (1994). ‘Explore discourse conditions on word order phenomena in Greek’. Journal of Modern Greek Studies 12 (2), 171183.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Kakouriotis, Thanos (1998). H γοητεία TrļC ταξινόμησης. Book review. To Βήμα 2/8/98.Google Scholar
Laskaratou, Chryssoula (1989). A Functional Approach to Constituent Order with Particular Reference to Modern Greek. Athina: Paroussia.Google Scholar
Mackridge, Peter (1985). The Modern Greek Language. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen (1987). ‘The thetic/categorical distinction revisited’. Linguistics 25, 511580.Google Scholar