Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T00:56:15.690Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Functional sentence perspective in Inga

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Stephen H. Levinsohn
Stephen H. Levinsohn
Affiliation:
Summer Institute of Linguistics
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Inga language relies on overt ‘case’ markers, rather than the relative position of, for example, the subject or object elements with respect to the verb, to distinguish the function of each. Since little restriction is thus placed on the order of elements by the syntax, a potential for a large number of permutations results.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , March 1975 , pp. 13 - 37
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1975

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

REFERENCES

Beneš, E. (1962). Die Verbstellung im Deutschen, von der Mitteilungsperspektive her betrachtet. PhP 5. 6–19.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. L. (1952). Linear modification. PMLA 67. 1117–1144.Google Scholar
Dahl, Ö. (1969). Topic and comment: a study in Russian and general Transformational Grammar. Göteburg: Slavica Gothburgensia.Google Scholar
Firbas, J. (1959). Thoughts on the communicative function of the verb in English, German and Czech. BSE 1. 39–63.Google Scholar
Firbas, J. (1964). Comparative word order studies. BSE 4. 111–128.Google Scholar
Firbas, J. (1966). Non-thematic subjects in English. TLP 2. 239–256.Google Scholar
Firbas, J. (1968). On the prosodic features of the modern English finite verb as means of functional sentence perspective. BSE 7. 11–47.Google Scholar
Firbas, J. & Pala, K. (1971). Review of Dahl (1969). JL 7. 91–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garvin, P. E. (1963). Czechoslovakia. In Sebeok, T. A. (ed.)., Current trends in linguistics, I. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1967–1968). Notes on transitivity and theme in English. JL 3. 37–81, 199–244; 4. 179–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1969). Options and functions in the English clause. BSE. 8. 81–88.Google Scholar
Hatcher, A. G. (1956a). Syntax and the sentence. Word 12. 234–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatcher, A. G. (1956b). Theme and underlying question: two studies of Spanish word order. Word Monograph No. 3.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. (1972). Functional sentence perspective: a case study from Japanese and English. LIn 3. 269–320.Google Scholar
Levinsohn, S. H. (1972). The interrogative in Inga (Quechuan). IJAL 38. 260–264.Google Scholar
Levinsohn, S. H. (forthcoming). The Inga language. Janua Linguarum: series practica 188The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Mathesius, V. (1924). On some problems of the systematic analysis of grammar. Časopis pro moderni filologii 10. 1–6. Reprinted in Vachek, J. (ed) (1964). A Prague School Reader in Linguistics. Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Ross, E. (1963). Introduction to Ecuador Highland Quichua. Quito: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.Google Scholar