![Sample our Language & Literature journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5941/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Language-Literature.jpg"})
Abstract
This paperFootnote 1 sets forth data to document the following propositions: Proposition 1: For the description of some languages it isnot accurate or helpful to postulate a sharp morphology-syntax dichotomy. Illustration: The Mixteco language.
Presented to the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters, Apr. 2, 1948, Ann Arbor, Michigan. For earlier discussion of these principles, see Kenneth L. Pike, “Analysis of a Mixteco Text,” International Journal of American Linguistics, X (October, 1944), 113–38; the second proposition is more fully discussed in an unpublished paper, idem, “Grammatical Structure.”
Presented to the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters, Apr. 2, 1948, Ann Arbor, Michigan. For earlier discussion of these principles, see Kenneth L. Pike, “Analysis of a Mixteco Text,” International Journal of American Linguistics, X (October, 1944), 113–38; the second proposition is more fully discussed in an unpublished paper, idem, “Grammatical Structure.”
Notes
Presented to the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters, Apr. 2, 1948, Ann Arbor, Michigan. For earlier discussion of these principles, see Kenneth L. Pike, “Analysis of a Mixteco Text,” International Journal of American Linguistics, X (October, 1944), 113–38; the second proposition is more fully discussed in an unpublished paper, idem, “Grammatical Structure.”