Chapter published in:
Substance-based Grammar – The (Ongoing) Work of John Anderson
Edited by Roger Böhm and Harry van der Hulst
[Studies in Language Companion Series 204] 2018
► pp. 261310
References

References

Aberdein, Andrew
1998Persuasive Definition. St. Andrews: University of St. Andrews, Department of Logic and Metaphysics.Google Scholar
Ágel, Vilmos & Fischer, Klaus
[2010] 2 2015 Dependency grammar and valency theory. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds), 225–257. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Anderson, John M.
1971aOutline of a proposal for the lexicalisation of complex structures. Studia Linguistica 25: 1–8.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1971bThe Grammar of Case. Towards a Localistic Theory. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
1976On Serialization in English Syntax [Ludwigsburg Studies in Language and Linguistics 1]. Ludwigsburg: R.O.U. Strauch.Google Scholar
1977On Case Grammar. Prolegomena to a Theory of Grammatical Relations. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
1979Syntax and the single mother. Journal of Linguistics 15: 267–287.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1981How to Get a Head in Grammar. Paper given at the Linguistics Department, University of Ulster at Coleraine 23 February 1981.Google Scholar
1984Case Grammar and the Lexicon [Occasional Papers in Linguistics and Language Learning 10]. Coleraine: University of Ulster.Google Scholar
1986Old English morphology and the structure of noun phrases, Folia Linguistica Historica 7(1): 219–224.Google Scholar
1989aThe localist basis for syntactic categories. In 2nd Symposium on English and Greek: Description and/or Comparison of the Two Languages, Athanasios Kakouriotis (ed), 7–32. Thessaloniki: Aristotle University.Google Scholar
1989bReflexions on notional grammar. In Essays on Grammatical Theory and Universal Grammar, Douglas G. Arnold, Martin Atkinson, Jacques Durand, Claire Glover & Louisa Sadler (eds), 13–36. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
1990On the status of auxiliaries in notional grammar. Journal of Linguistics 26: 241–262.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1991Notional grammar and the redundancy of syntax. Studies in Language 15(2): 301–333.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1992Linguistic Representation. Structural Analogy and Stratification. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1997A Notional Theory of Syntactic Categories. Cambridge: CUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000Markedness and the ontogenesis of syntax. Folia Linguistica XXXIV(3–4): 147–183.Google Scholar
2001Finiteness, in Greek, and elsewhere. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 37: 5–33.Google Scholar
2006Modern Grammars of Case. A Retrospective. Oxford: OUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007The Grammar of Names. Oxford: OUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011The Substance of Language, Vol. I: The Domain of Syntax. Oxford: OUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011The Substance of Language, Vol. II: Morphology, Paradigms, and Periphrases. Oxford: OUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011The Substance of Language, Vol. III: Phonology-Syntax Analogies. Oxford: OUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012Types of lexical complexity in English: Syntactic categories and the lexicon. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 47(4): 3–51.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013On so-called “conjunctions” in English. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 49(1): 21–77.Google Scholar
Anderson, John M. & Ewen, Colin J.
1987Principles of Dependency Phonology. Cambridge: CUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Andor, József.
this volume. Investigating substance-based grammar: The grammar of semantic and grammatical relations – An interview with John M. Anderson. In Substance-based Grammar – The (Ongoing) Work of John Anderson [Studies in Language Companion Series 204], Roger Böhm & Harry van der Hulst eds Amsterdam John Benjamins
Askedal, Jan Ole
2003Das Valenz- und Dependenzkonzept bei Lucien Tesnière. In Dependenz und Valenz: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung/Dependency and Valency: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Vol. 1, Vilmos Ágel, Ludwig M. Eichinger, Hans Werner Eroms, Peter Hellwig, Hans Jürgen Heringer & Henning Lobin (eds), 80–99. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bally, Charles
1932Linguistique générale et linguistique française. Paris: Leroux.Google Scholar
Baum, Richard
1976Dependenzgrammatik. Tesnières Modell der Sprachbeschreibung in wissenschaftsgeschichtlicher und kritischer Sicht [ Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie, Beiheft, Bd. 151]. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Bernhardi, August F.
1805Anfangsgründe der Sprachwissenschaft. Berlin: Heinrich Frölich.Google Scholar
Böhm, Roger
1993Predicate-argument Structure, Relational Typology and (Anti)passives: Towards an Integrated Localist Case Grammar Account [Series A, No. 336]. Duisburg: LAUD.Google Scholar
1998Notional Grammar, Wortklassen und Dependenz [BLIcK 7]. Bremen: Universität Bremen, IAAS.Google Scholar
1999Kategorien, Konfigurationen und ‘Kasus’ in einer notionalen Grammatik. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 52(2): 207–231.Google Scholar
Brody, Michael
1997Mirror theory. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 9: 179–222.Google Scholar
2000Mirror theory: Syntactic representation in perfect syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 31(1): 29–56. Reprinted in: Brody, Michael 2003 Towards an Elegant Syntax. 205–231. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Carnie, Andrew
2008Constituent Structure. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Colman, Fran
2014The Grammar of Names in Anglo-Saxon England: The Linguistics and Culture of the Old English Onomasticon. Oxford: OUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
this volume. Entitatives and Indo-European n-stems: conversion, subjunction, and the substance-based coherence of Old English weak declension classes. In Substance-based Grammar – The (Ongoing) Work of John Anderson [Studies in Language Companion Series 204], Roger Böhm & Harry van der Hulst eds Amsterdam John Benjamins
Čop, Bojan, Orešnik, Janez, Skubic, Mitja & Tekavčic, Pavao
(eds) 1994Mélanges Lucien Tesnière [ Linguistica 34(1)]. Ljubljana: Ljubljana University Press.Google Scholar
Engel, Ulrich
1972Bemerkungen zur Dependenzgrammatik. In Neue Grammatiktheorien und ihre Anwendung auf das heutige Deutsch [Sprache der Gegenwart 20], Hugo Moser (ed), 111–155. Düsseldorf: Schwann.Google Scholar
1996Tesnière mißverstanden. In Lucien Tesnière. Syntaxe structurale et opérations mentales. Akten des deutsch-französischen Kolloquiums anläßlich der 100. Wiederkehr seines Geburtstages. Strasbourg 1993 [Linguistische Arbeiten 348], Gertrud Gréciano & Helmut Schumacher (eds), 53–61. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Engelen, Bernd
2003Die Wortartenlehre bei Lucien Tesnière. In Dependenz und Valenz: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung/Dependency and Valency: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Vol. 1, Vilmos Ágel, Ludwig M. Eichinger, Hans Werner Eroms, Peter Hellwig, Hans Jürgen Heringer & Henning Lobin (eds), 100–108. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fortis, Jean-Michel
this volume. Anderson’s Case Grammar and the history of localism. In Substance-based Grammar – The (Ongoing) Work of John Anderson [Studies in Language Companion Series 204], Roger Böhm & Harry van der Hulst eds Amsterdam John Benjamins
Fraser, Norman M.
1990Prolegomena to a formal theory of dependency grammar. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 2: 298–319.Google Scholar
Garde, Paul
1994Syntaxe et sémantique chez Tesnière. In Mélanges Lucien Tesnière [ Linguistica 34(1)], Bojan Čop, Janez Orešnik, Mitja Skubic & Pavao Tekavčic (eds), 95–99. Ljubljana: Ljubljana University Press.Google Scholar
Gréciano, Gertrud
1977Inhalt und Funktion als Klassifizierungskriterium für Tesnières Knoten. In Beiträge zur Klassifizierung der Wortarten [ Linguistische Studien ], Gerhard Helbig (ed), 66–78. Leipzig: VEB Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar
Gréciano, Gertrud & Schumacher, Helmut
(eds) 1996Lucien Tesnière. Syntaxe structurale et opérations mentales. Akten des deutsch-französischen Kolloquiums anläßlich der 100. Wiederkehr seines Geburtstages. Strasbourg 1993 [Linguistische Arbeiten 348]. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Gross, Thomas & Osborne, Timothy
2009Toward a practical dependency grammar theory of discontinuities. SKY Journal of Linguistics 22: 43–90.Google Scholar
Gruber, Jeffrey S.
1967Functions of the Lexicon in Formal Descriptive Grammars [TM-3370/000/00]. Santa Monica CA: Systems Development Corporation. Published in Gruber, Jeffrey S. 1975 Lexical Structures in Syntax and Semantics, 211–367. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Gupta, Anil
2015Definitions. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed). https://​plato​.stanford​.edu​/entries​/definitions/Google Scholar
Hays, David G.
1964Dependency theory: A formalism and some observations. Language 40(4): 511–525.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heringer, Hans-Jürgen
1993Dependency syntax. Formalized models. In Syntax. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung/An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Vol. 1, Joachim Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld & Theo Vennemann (eds), 316–328. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Heringer, Hans-Jürgen, Strecker, Bruno & Wimmer, Rainer
1980Syntax. Fragen – Lösungen – Alternativen. Munich: UTB.Google Scholar
Holthus, Günter
1980Les ‘Éléments de syntaxe structurale’ de Lucien Tesnière. Remarques sur la réception de son modèle de grammaire dépendantielle. Revue Romane 15(1): 128–148.Google Scholar
Honderich, Ted
(ed) 1995The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard A.
1990English Word Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2004Are determiners heads? Functions of Language 11: 7–43.Google Scholar
2007Language Networks: The New Word Grammar. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto
1924The Philosophy of Grammar. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Kahane, Sylvain & Osborne, Timothy
2015Translators’ introduction. In Lucien Tesnière, Elements of Structural Syntax, trans. by Timothy Osborne & Sylvain Kahane, xxix–lxxiii. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Koch, Peter & Krefeld, Thomas
1991Dependenz und Valenz in romanischen Sprachen. In Connexiones Romanicae. Dependenz und Valenz in romanischen Sprachen [Linguistische Arbeiten 268], Peter Koch & Thomas Krefeld (eds), 5–38. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
1993Gibt es Translationen? Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie 109: 148–166.Google Scholar
1995La translation: Illusions perdues. In Lucien Tesnière aujourd’hui. Actes du Colloque International C.N.R.S. URA 1164 – Université de Rouen 16–18 Novembre 1992, Françoise Madray-Lesigne & Jeannine Richard-Zappella (eds), 239–248. Louvain: Éditions Peeters.Google Scholar
Kreps, Christian
1996Dependency, licensing and the nature of grammatical relations. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 8: 1–37.Google Scholar
Lago Garabatos Jesús
1997Sur le concept de translation en linguistique. Thélème. Revista Complutense de Estudios Franceses 11: 483–489.Google Scholar
Lambertz, Thomas
1991Kritische Anmerkungen zu Tesnières Translationstheorie. In Connexiones Romanicae. Dependenz und Valenz in romanischen Sprachen [Linguistische Arbeiten 268], Peter Koch & Thomas Krefeld (eds), 52–79. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
1995aTranslation et dépendance. In Lucien Tesnière aujourd’hui. Actes du Colloque International C.N.R.S. URA 1164 – Université de Rouen 16–18 Novembre 1992, Françoise Madray-Lesigne & Jeannine Richard-Zappella (eds), 221–228. Louvain: Éditions Peeters.Google Scholar
1995bTranslation et dépendance. Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie 111: 523–553.Google Scholar
1996Translationen und kein Ende. Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie 112: 39–79.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
1994Structural syntax: The view from Cognitive Grammar. Sémiotiques 6–7(4): 69–84.Google Scholar
Lauwers, Peter
2003De la transposition à la translation. Une analyse historiographique et métathéorique d’un ‘passage’ crucial dans l’histoire de la syntaxe structurale en Europe. Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure 56: 257–287.Google Scholar
Lewis, Geoffrey L.
1967Turkish Grammar. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Maas, Utz
1974Dependenztheorie. In Grundzüge der Sprach- und Literaturwissenschaft, Band 2: Sprachwissenschaft, Heinz Ludwig Arnold & Volker Sinemus (eds), 257–275. Munich: DTV.Google Scholar
Macagno, Fabrizio & Walton, Douglas
2008aThe argumentative structure of persuasive definitions. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 11: 525–549.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008bPersuasive definitions: Values, meanings and implicit disagreements. Informal Logic 28(3): 203–228.Google Scholar
Madray-Lesigne, Françoise & Richard-Zappella, Jeannine
(eds) 1995Lucien Tesnière aujourd’hui. Actes du Colloque International C.N.R.S. URA 1164 – Université de Rouen 16–18 Novembre 1992. Louvain: Éditions Peeters.Google Scholar
de Marneffe, Marie-Catherine, Dozat, Timothy, Silveira, Natalia, Haverinen, Katri, Ginter, Filip, Nivre, Joakim & Manning, Christopher D.
2014Universal Stanford dependencies: A cross-linguistic typology. Proceedings of 9th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2014), Reyjavik, 26–31 May 2014 <https://​nlp​.stanford​.edu​/pubs​/USD​_LREC14​_paper​_camera​_ready​.pdfGoogle Scholar
Matthews, Peter H.
[1974] 2 1991 Morphology. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
1981Syntax. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Mulder, Jan F. W.
1980Some difficult cases in syntactic description. In The Strategy of Linguistics. Papers on the Theory and Methodology of Axiomatic Functionalism, Jan F. W. Mulder & Sándor G. J. Hervey, 161–175. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.Google Scholar
Osborne, Timothy
2005aBeyond the constituent. Folia Linguistica XXXIX (3–4): 251–297.Google Scholar
2005bCoherence: A dependency grammar analysis. SKY Journal of Linguistics 18: 223–286.Google Scholar
2006Parallel conjuncts. Studia Linguistica 60(1): 64–96.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007The weight of predicates: A dependency grammar analysis of predicate weight in German. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 19(1): 23–72.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008Major constituents and two dependency grammar constraints on sharing in coordination. Linguistics 46(6): 1109–1165.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013A look at Tesnière’s Éléments through the lens of modern syntactic theory. In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Dependency Linguistics (Depling 2013), Eva Hajičová, Kim Gerdes & Leo Wanner (eds), 262–271. Prague: Charles University/Matfyzpress.Google Scholar
2014Dependency grammar. In The Routledge Handbook of Syntax, Andrew Carnie, Yosuke Sato & Daniel Siddiqi (eds), 604–626. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2015aDependency grammar. In Syntax – Theory and Analysis, Vol. 2. [Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft/Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 42.2], Tibor Kiss & Artemis Alexiadou (eds), 1027–1044. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
2015bThe transfer schema as constituency. In Translators’ introduction to Tesnière, Lucien. 2015. Elements of Structural Syntax , trans. by Timothy Osborne & Sylvain Kahane, liv–lvii. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Osborne, Timothy & Gross, Thomas
2012aAntecedent containment: A dependency grammar solution in terms of catenae. Studia Linguistica 66(2): 94–127.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012bConstructions are catenae: Construction grammar meets dependency grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 23(1): 165 – 216.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Osborne, Timothy & Maxwell, Daniel
2015A historical overview of the status of function words in dependency grammar. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Dependency Linguistics (Depling 2015), Eva Hajičová & Joakim Nivre (eds), 241–250. Uppsala: University of Uppsala, Department of Linguistics and Philology.Google Scholar
Osborne, Timothy, Putnam, Michael & Gross, Thomas M.
2011Bare phrase structure, label-less trees, and specifier-less syntax. Is minimalism becoming a dependency grammar? The Linguistic Review 28: 315–364.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Osborne, Timothy, Putnam, Michael & Gross, Thomas
2012Catenae: Introducing a novel unit of syntactic analysis. Syntax 15(4): 354–396.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Partee, Barbara Hall, ter Meulen, Alice G. B. & Wall, Robert Eugene
1990Mathematical Methods in Linguistics [Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 30]. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Perrot, Jean
1995Sur la translation. In Lucien Tesnière aujourd’hui. Actes du Colloque International C.N.R.S. URA 1164 – Université de Rouen 16–18 Novembre 1992, Françoise Madray-Lesigne & Jeannine Richard-Zappella (eds), 215–220. Louvain: Éditions Peeters.Google Scholar
Richardson, John F.
1982Constituency and sublexical syntax. CLS 18: 466–476.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew
2013Lexical Relatedness. A Paradigm-based Model. Oxford: OUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, Peter
2012Spanning. Tromsø: CASTL, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
2016Words and spans. In Morphological Metatheory, Daniel Siddiqi & Heidi Harley (eds), 201–222. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tesnière, Lucien
1959Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
1980Grundzüge der strukturalen Syntax, trans. by Ulrich Engel. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.Google Scholar
2015Elements of Structural Syntax, trans. by Timothy Osborne & Sylvain Kahane. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
van der Hulst, Harry
(ed) 2010Recursion and Human Language [Studies in Generative Grammar 104]. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vennemann, Theo
1977Konstituenz und Dependenz in einigen neueren Grammatiktheorien. Sprachwissenschaft 3: 259–301.Google Scholar
Wall, Robert Eugene
1972Introduction to Mathematical Linguistics. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas & Macagno, Fabrizio
2009Reasoning from classifications and definitions. Argumentation 23(1): 81–107.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010Defeasible classifications and inferences from definitions. Informal Logic 30(1): 34–61.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas, Reed, Chris & Macagno, Fabrizio
2008Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: CUP.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Werner, Edeltraud
1996Ist die Annahme von Translationen sinnvoll? Kritisch-reinterpretative Überlegungen zu den Eléments de syntaxe structurale von Lucien Tesnière. Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie 112: 80–123.Google Scholar
2003Das Translationskonzept Lucien Tesnières. Dependenz und Valenz: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung/Dependency and Valency: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Vol. 1, Vilmos Ágel, Ludwig M. Eichinger, Hans Werner Eroms, Peter Hellwig, Hans Jürgen Heringer & Henning Lobin (eds), 115–129. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wescoat, Michael T.
1994Phrase structure, lexical sharing, partial ordering, and the English gerund. BLS 20: 587–598.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1995Lexical sharing in a monostratal syntax of English wh-constructions. CLS 31: 490–507.Google Scholar
2007Preposition-determiner contractions: An analysis in optimality-theoretic lexical-functional grammar with lexical sharing. In Proceedings of the LFG07 Conference, Miriam Butt & Tracy Holloway King (eds), 439–459. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M.
1992Some choices in the theory of morphology. In Formal Grammar: Theory and Implementation, Robert Levine (ed), 327–371. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Colman, Fran
2018.  In Substance-based Grammar – The (Ongoing) Work of John Anderson [Studies in Language Companion Series, 204],  pp. 225 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 june 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.