Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T00:57:02.818Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Brief Notices/Publications Received

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Brief Notices/Publications Received
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

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

McArthur, L. Z., & Baron, R. M. (1983). Towards an ecological theory of social perception. Psychological Review 90:215–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slama-Cazacu, T. (1977). Le concept de “syntaxe mixte.” Recherches autour d'une hypothèse. Études de linguistique appliquée 27:114–23.Google Scholar
Ullmann, I. M. (1975). Psycholinguistik—Psychosemiotik. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Burbank, J., & Steiner, P. (eds.) (1977). J. Mukařovský. The world and the verbal art. New Haven:Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Burbank, J., & Steiner, P. (1978). J. Mukařovský, Structure, sign, and function. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Garvin, P. L. (ed.) (1964). A Prague School reader on esthetics, literary structure, and style. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. K. (ed.) (1978). Recycling the Prague School Linguistic Circle. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Karoma.Google Scholar
Matejka, L., & Titunik, E. R. (eds.) (1976). Semiotics of art: Prague School contributions. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar