Babak Sharif
Abstract
Fundamentals of Linguistic Typology by Vali Rezai and Fatemeh Bahrami is written based on the curriculum of the linguistic typology course for MA degree in linguistics, and aims at presenting basic concepts of this field to students and other interested audience. The book is organized in 10 chapters, ...
Read More
Fundamentals of Linguistic Typology by Vali Rezai and Fatemeh Bahrami is written based on the curriculum of the linguistic typology course for MA degree in linguistics, and aims at presenting basic concepts of this field to students and other interested audience. The book is organized in 10 chapters, which, apart from those devoted to the history, methodology, and applications of typology, have self- contained topics and content, so they can be read in any sequence. After mentioning the main topics introduced in each chapter the book and its advantages, this review sets out some of their deficiencies and shortcomings. These were discussed in several subtitles presented respectively as organization, inaccuracy in expression, inaccuracy in quotations, inappropriate examples, terminology, and less intelligible statements. In spite of aforementioned points, Fundamentals of Linguistic Typology can serve as a useful, informative introduction to this field.
Sayed Mehdi Dadres
Abstract
The present study is a response to E. Hosseini-Matakʼs critique of the book entitled “Materials for the Study of Bakhtiari Dialect” (Zhukovsky, 1396/2017). The author, as the co-editor of the above work, attempts to reveal the invalidity of a number of the critic’s claims, referring ...
Read More
The present study is a response to E. Hosseini-Matakʼs critique of the book entitled “Materials for the Study of Bakhtiari Dialect” (Zhukovsky, 1396/2017). The author, as the co-editor of the above work, attempts to reveal the invalidity of a number of the critic’s claims, referring to the statements of the very book and explaining some linguistic points and the reasons to adopt certain methodological approaches. It seems that the aforementioned critic has totally avoided dealing with the strong points of the book.