Cover not available
Review article published In:
Functions of Language
Vol. 16:2 (2009) ► pp.265–281
Review article

‘NP’ doesn’t say it all

The true diversity of nominal constituency types

| University of Santiago de Compostela
Published online: 22 October 2009
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.16.2.04acu
References
Aarts, Bas
1998 English binominal noun phrases. Transactions of the Philological Society 961. 117–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004 Modelling linguistic gradience. Studies in Language 28 (1). 1–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 Syntactic gradience. The nature of grammatical indeterminacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Abney, Steven P.
1987 The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Cambridge, Mass: M.I.T. PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Acuña-Fariña, J. Carlos
1996 The puzzle of apposition. Santiago: Universidade de Santiago de Compostela.Google Scholar
2006 A constructional network in appositive space. Cognitive Linguistics 17 (1). 1–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 The psycholinguistics of agreement in English and Spanish: a tutorial overview. Lingua 1191. 389–424. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
To appear. Aspects of the grammar of close apposition and the structure of the noun phrase. English Language and Linguistics.
Berg, Thomas
1998 The resolution of number agreement conflicts in English and German agreement patterns. Linguistics 361. 41–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burton-Roberts, Noel
1975 Nominal apposition. Foundations of Language 131. 391–419.Google Scholar
Carlson, Katy, Charles Clifton, Jr. & Lyn Frazier
2001 Prosodic boundaries in adjunct attachment. Journal of Memory and Language 451. 58–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville S.
2006 Agreement. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter
1999 Syntactic nuts: Hard cases in syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dabrowska, Ewa
2004 Language, mind and brain. Some psychological and neurological constraints on theories of grammar. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles, Paul Kay & Mary C. O’Connor
1988 Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone . Language 641. 501–539. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fodor, Jerry A.
1998 Learning to parse? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 271. 285–319. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Friederici, Angela D.
1995 The time course of syntactic activation during language processing: A model based on neuropsychological and neurophysiological data. Brain and Language 501. 259–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E.
1995 A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: Chicago UP.Google Scholar
2006 Constructions at work. The nature of generalization in language. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. & Ray Jackendoff
2004 The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language 801. 532–568. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guéron, Jacqueline
1980 On the syntax and semantics of PP extraposition. Linguistic Inquiry II1. 636–78.Google Scholar
Haugen, Einar
1953 On resolving the close apposition. American Speech 281. 165–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John
1994 A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, Roger
1981 Towards an account of the possessive construction: NP’s N and N of NP. Journal of Linguistics 171. 247–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hockett, Charles F.
1955 Attribution and apposition in English. American Speech 301. 99–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray
1977 X-bar syntax: a study of phrase structure. Cambridge, Mass.: The M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
2008 Construction after construction and its theoretical challenges. Language 841. 8–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kay, Paul & Charles J. Fillmore
1999 Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: the What’s X doing Y? construction. Language 751. 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keizer, Evelien
2005a The discourse function of close appositions. Neophilologus 891. 447–467. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005b Close appositions. In: Casper de Groot & Kees Hengeveld (eds.). Morphosyntactic expression in Functional Grammar, 381–417. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
1991 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume 2. Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, Donald W.
1952 Close apposition: an unresolved pattern. American Speech 271. 268–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Napoli, Donna J.
1989 Predication theory: A case study for indexing theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nelson, Gerald S., Sean Wallis & Bas Aarts
2002 Exploring natural language: Working with the British component of the International Corpus of English. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Poutsma, Hendrik
1904 A grammar of late modern English, Part I1. Groningen: Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette
2002 Genitive variation in English. Conceptual factors in synchronic and diachronic studies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scheepers, Christoph. & Crocker, Matthew W.
2004 Constituent order priming: form reading to listening: a visual world study. In Manuel Carreiras & Charles Clifton (eds.), The on-line study of sentence comprehension, 167–186. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth
1977 Some remarks on noun phrase structure. In Peter Culicover, Thomas Wasow, & Adrian Akmajian (eds.), Formal syntax, 285–316. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Swinney, David A.
1979 Lexical access during sentence comprehension: (Re)consideration of context effects. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 181. 645–659. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, John R.
1996 Possessives in English: An exploration in Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
2002 Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert. D., Jr. & Randy J. LaPolla
1997 Syntax: Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar