All or Nothing



We are currently experiencing a boom in all kinds of areally-minded linguistic studies. It will suffice to mention the international project EUROTYP and its many spin-offs, which scrutinize the linguistic geography of various regions worldwide, such as, for example, the Mediterranean (MEDTYP) and so on (Ramat and Stolz 2002). Perhaps less well-known is the recent genesis of another research paradigm that has only partly been inspired by EUROTYP, namely Eurolinguistik, whose proponents aim at establishing some kind of pan-European transnational philology (Reiter, 1999). What all these approaches have in common is their interest in the interface-like character of areal linguistics, although this may not be unique to this linguistic subdiscipline. If one studies the linguistic properties of languages located in the same region, the expertise of various disciplines is called for. Areal linguists must be versed not only in contact linguistics, but also in linguistic typology and universals research; cultural history (of the particular region under scrutiny); descriptive grammar and national philology of the individual languages involved; diachronic grammar, both general and language-specific; and, last but not least, the principles of dialectology/linguistic geography. This is, of course, a rather challenging and demanding combination for the individual researcher, who is therefore well advised to associate with a team of like-minded fellow researchers. On a teamwork basis, one may tackle the frequently asked questions of contact linguistics.


Head Noun Baltic Language Definite Article Indefinite Article Definiteness Marker 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Auer, P. (2004) ‘Sprache, Grenze, Raum’, Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 149–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bechert, J. (1981) ‘Notiz über eine Möglichkeit, die historisch-vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft zu vervollständigen, oder: Lesefrüchte zur Verbesserung Mitteleuropas und anderer Weltgegenden’, Papiere zur Linguistik, vol. 25, pp. 85–9.Google Scholar
  3. Becker, H. (1948) Der Sprachbund (Leipzig: Gerhard Mindt).Google Scholar
  4. Börjars, K. (1994) ‘Swedish Double Determination in a European Typological Perspective’, Nordic Journal of Linguistics, vol. 17, pp. 219–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Börjars, K., T. Kaufman, and T. Smith-Stark (1986) ‘Mesoamerica as a Linguistic Area’, Language, vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 530–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dahl, Ö (2001) ‘Principles of Areal Typology’, in Haspelmath et al., 1456–70.Google Scholar
  7. Dahl, Ö. (2004) ‘Definite Articles in Scandinavian: Competing Grammaticalization Processes in Standard and Non-Standard Varieties’, in B. Kortmann (ed.), Dialectology Meets Typology. Dialect Grammar from a Cross-linguistic Prespective (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter), pp. 147–80.Google Scholar
  8. Décsy, G. (2000) The Linguistic Identity of Europe, 2 vols (Bloomington: Eurolingua).Google Scholar
  9. Emeneau, M. B. (1956) ‘India as a Linguistic Area’, Language, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fähnrich, H. (1994) Grammatik der altgeorgischen Sprache (Hamburg: Buske).Google Scholar
  11. Gumperz, J. J. and R. Wilson (1971) ‘Convergence and Creolization: A Case from the Indo-Aryan/Dravidian Border’, in D. Hymes (ed.), Pidginization and Creolization of Languages (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 151–68.Google Scholar
  12. Haarmann, H. (1976) Aspekte der Arealtypologie. Die Problematik der europäischen Sprachbünde (Tübingen: Narr).Google Scholar
  13. Haspelmath, M. (1999) ‘Explaining Article-possessor Complementarity: Economic Motivation in Noun Phrase Syntax’, Language, vol. 75, no. 2, pp. 227–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haspelmath, M. (2000) ‘The European Linguistic Area: Standard Average European’, in Haspelmath et al., 2001, pp. 1492–510.Google Scholar
  15. Haspelmath, M., Ekkehard König, Wulf Österreicher and Wolfgang Reible (eds) (2001) Language Typology and Language Universals, 2 vols (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter).Google Scholar
  16. Heine, B. and T. Kuteva (forthcoming) Language Contact and Grammatical Replica-tion (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
  17. Hualde, J. I. and J. O. de Urbina (2003) A Grammar of Basque (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Joseph, B. D. (1983) The Synchrony and Diachrony of the Balkan Infinitive. A Study in Areal, General, and Historical Linguistics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  19. Johanson, L. (2000) Structural Factors in Turkic Language Contacts (London: Curzon).Google Scholar
  20. Juvonen, P. (2000) Grammaticalizing the Definite Article. A Study of Definite Adnominal Determiners in a Genre of Spoken Finnish (Stockholm: Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University).Google Scholar
  21. Keller, R. (1990) Sprachwandel: von der unsichtbaren Hand in der Sprache (Tübingen: Francke).Google Scholar
  22. Kiparsky, V. (1967) Russische historische Grammatik. Band 2: Die Entwicklung des Formensystems (Heidelberg: Carl Winter).Google Scholar
  23. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, M. and B. Wälchli (2001) ‘The Circum-Baltic Languages: An Areal-typological Approach’, in Ö. Dahl and M. Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds), Circum-Baltic Languages, 2 vols (Amsterdam: John Benjamins), pp. 615–750.Google Scholar
  24. Lötzsch, R. (1996) ‘Interferenzbedingte grammatische Konvergenzen und Divergenzen zwischen Sorbisch und Jiddisch’, Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 50–9.Google Scholar
  25. Masica, C. P. (1976) Defining a Linguistic Area: South Asia (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
  26. Masica, C. P. (2001) ‘The Definition and Significance of Linguistic Areas: Methods, Pitfalls, and Possibilities (with Special Reference to the Validity of South Asia as a Linguistic Area)’, in P. Bhaskararao and K. V. Subarao (eds), The Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics (London: Sage), pp. 205–67.Google Scholar
  27. Matras, Y. (2002) Romani: A Linguistic Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nau, N. (1996) ‘Ein Beitrag zur Arealtypologie der Ostseeanrainersprachen’, in N. Boretzky, Werner/enninger and Thomas Stolz (eds), Areale, Kontakte, Dialekte. Sprache und ihre Dynamik in mehrsprachigen Situationen (Bochum: Brockmeyer), pp. 51–67.Google Scholar
  29. Pajusalu, R. (1997) ‘Is There an Article in (Spoken) Estonian?’, in M. Erelt (ed.), Estonian: Typological Studies II (Tartu: Department of Estonian of the University of Tartu), pp. 146–77.Google Scholar
  30. Plank, F. (2003) ‘Double Articulation’, in F. Plank (ed.), Noun Phrase Structure in the Languages of Europe (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter), pp. 337–96.Google Scholar
  31. Popper, K. R. and J. C. Eccles (1977) The Self and Its Brain - An Argument for Interactionism (Heidelberg: Springer).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Reiter, N. (ed.) (1999) Eurolinguistik. Ein Schritt in die Zukunft (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz).Google Scholar
  33. Ross, M. (2001) ‘Contact-Induced Change in Oceanic Languages in North-West Melanesia’, in A. Y. Aikhenvald and R. M. W. Dixon (eds), Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance. Problems in Comparative Linguistics (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 134–66.Google Scholar
  34. Ramat, P. and T. Stolz (eds.) (2002) Mediterranean Languages. Papers from the MEDTYP Workshop, Tirrenia, June 2000 (Bochum: Brockmeyer).Google Scholar
  35. Sherzer, J. (1976) An Areal-Typological Study of American Indian Languages North of Mexico (Amsterdam: North Holland).Google Scholar
  36. Stolz, T. (1991) Sprachbund im Baltikum? Estnisch und Lettisch im Zentrum einer sprachlichen Konvergenzlandschaft (Bochum: Brockmeyer).Google Scholar
  37. Stolz, T. (2002) ‘No Sprachbund Beyond this Line! On the Age-Old Discussion of How to Define a Linguistic Area’, in Ramat and Stolz (2002), pp. 259–81.Google Scholar
  38. Stolz, T. (2003) ‘A New Mediterraneanism: Word Iteration in An Areal Perspective. A Pilot-Study’, Mediterranean Language Review, vol. 15, pp. 1–47.Google Scholar
  39. Stolz, T. (2005) ‘Sardinian in Typological Perspective: Morphonological Interaction of Definite Articles and Adjacent Words’, Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung, vol. 58, nos 2, 3, pp. 147–77.Google Scholar
  40. Stolz, T. and A. Sansd (forthcoming) ‘The Mediterranean Area Revisited. Word-Iteration as a Potential Mediterraneanism’, Orbis.Google Scholar
  41. Stolz, C. and T. Stolz (1997) ‘Universelle Hispanismen? Von Manila über Lima bis Mexiko und zurück: Muster bei der Entlehnung spanischer Funktionswörter in die indigenen Sprachen Amerikas und Austronesiens’. Orbis, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 1–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stolz, C. and T. Stolz (2001) ‘Mesoamerica as a Linguistic Area’, in Haspelmath et al. 2001, 1539–53.Google Scholar
  43. Trubetskoy, N. S. (1928/1930) ‘Proposition 16’, in Actes du premier congrès international de linguistes à la Haye, du 10–15 avril 1928 (Leiden: Sijthoff), pp. 17–18.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Thomas Stolz 2006

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations