Cover not available
Part of
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. 261–310

Just for the record

Dependency (vs. constituency) for the umpteenth time – A concise guide for the confused with an appended how-(not)-to-read Tesnière’s Éléments

| University of Bremen

Under a stipulative/persuasive redefinition that has been offered in recent syntax handbook work (among other places) as a purported sharpening of the distinction between dependency vs. constituency-based descriptions of syntactic constructions impeccable dependency descriptions can be fallaciously categorized as constituency-based. The present chapter demonstrates that the alleged key property, which the persuasive redefinition attributes to the dependency vs. constituency distinction, is ill-founded on conceptual and elementary graph-theoretical grounds and is illegitimately averse to, in particular, dependency-based syntactic descriptions of polycategoriality, which in terms of Anderson’s notionally-grounded dependency grammar involve dependency between linearly coincident syntactic categories. The chapter concludes with a ‘dissection’ of Tesniere’s classical Éléments de syntaxe structurale and a refutation of its interpretation (based on the stipulative/persuasive redefinition of dependency) as a hybrid dependency~constituency grammar.

Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Dependency vs. constituency in the nutshell of received wisdom
    • 2.1Dependency and constituency – the conceptual essence
    • 2.2Dependency and constituency – the graph-theoretical essence
  • 3.Dependency and constituency stipulatively/persuasively redefined
    • 3.1The one-to-one(-or-more) ratio of words to nodes
    • 3.2On stipulative/persuasive (re)definitions and their argumentative nature
    • 3.3Dependency ≠ 1:1 ratio of words to nodes
    • 3.4Dependency ≠ 1:1 ratio of words to phrases
    • 3.5Conclusion: dependency ≠ 1:1 ratio of words to nodes or phrases
  • 4.How-(not)-to-read Tesnière’s Éléments de syntaxe structurale
    • 4.1An introductory note on the Éléments
    • 4.2Word classes in the Éléments
    • 4.3The nucleus
    • 4.4Transposing categories: transference and the mixed nucleus
    • 4.5The Éléments through the dull lens of the ‘one-to-one ratio of words to nodes’: a dependency~constituency hybrid
    • 4.6Rectifying the Éléments as a dependency syntax
    • 4.7Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 December 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.204.06boh
References
Aberdein, Andrew
1998 Persuasive 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.
1971a Outline of a proposal for the lexicalisation of complex structures. Studia Linguistica 25: 1–8.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1971b The Grammar of Case. Towards a Localistic Theory. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
1976 On Serialization in English Syntax [Ludwigsburg Studies in Language and Linguistics 1]. Ludwigsburg: R.O.U. Strauch.Google Scholar
1977 On Case Grammar. Prolegomena to a Theory of Grammatical Relations. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
1979 Syntax and the single mother. Journal of Linguistics 15: 267–287.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1981 How to Get a Head in Grammar. Paper given at the Linguistics Department, University of Ulster at Coleraine 23 February 1981.Google Scholar
1984 Case Grammar and the Lexicon [Occasional Papers in Linguistics and Language Learning 10]. Coleraine: University of Ulster.Google Scholar
1986 Old English morphology and the structure of noun phrases, Folia Linguistica Historica 7(1): 219–224.Google Scholar
1989a The 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
1989b Reflexions 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
1990 On the status of auxiliaries in notional grammar. Journal of Linguistics 26: 241–262.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1991 Notional grammar and the redundancy of syntax. Studies in Language 15(2): 301–333.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1992 Linguistic Representation. Structural Analogy and Stratification. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997 A Notional Theory of Syntactic Categories. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000 Markedness and the ontogenesis of syntax. Folia Linguistica XXXIV(3–4): 147–183.Google Scholar
2001 Finiteness, in Greek, and elsewhere. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 37: 5–33.Google Scholar
2006 Modern Grammars of Case. A Retrospective. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 The Grammar of Names. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 The Substance of Language, Vol. I: The Domain of Syntax. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 The Substance of Language, Vol. II: Morphology, Paradigms, and Periphrases. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 The Substance of Language, Vol. III: Phonology-Syntax Analogies. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 Types of lexical complexity in English: Syntactic categories and the lexicon. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 47(4): 3–51.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 On so-called “conjunctions” in English. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 49(1): 21–77.Google Scholar
Anderson, John M. & Ewen, Colin J.
1987 Principles of Dependency Phonology. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle 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
2003 Das 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
1932 Linguistique générale et linguistique française. Paris: Leroux.Google Scholar
Baum, Richard
1976 Dependenzgrammatik. Tesnières Modell der Sprachbeschreibung in wissenschaftsgeschichtlicher und kritischer Sicht [ Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie, Beiheft, Bd. 151]. Tübingen: Niemeyer.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bernhardi, August F.
1805 Anfangsgründe der Sprachwissenschaft. Berlin: Heinrich Frölich.Google Scholar
Böhm, Roger
1993 Predicate-argument Structure, Relational Typology and (Anti)passives: Towards an Integrated Localist Case Grammar Account [Series A, No. 336]. Duisburg: LAUD.Google Scholar
1998 Notional Grammar, Wortklassen und Dependenz [BLIcK 7]. Bremen: Universität Bremen, IAAS.Google Scholar
1999 Kategorien, Konfigurationen und ‘Kasus’ in einer notionalen Grammatik. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 52(2): 207–231.Google Scholar
Brody, Michael
1997 Mirror theory. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 9: 179–222.Google Scholar
2000 Mirror 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
2008 Constituent Structure. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Colman, Fran
2014 The Grammar of Names in Anglo-Saxon England: The Linguistics and Culture of the Old English Onomasticon. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle 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) 1994 Mélanges Lucien Tesnière [ Linguistica 34(1)]. Ljubljana: Ljubljana University Press.Google Scholar
Engel, Ulrich
1972 Bemerkungen 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
1996 Tesnière 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
2003 Die 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.
1990 Prolegomena to a formal theory of dependency grammar. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 2: 298–319.Google Scholar
Garde, Paul
1994 Syntaxe 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
1977 Inhalt 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) 1996 Lucien 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
2009 Toward a practical dependency grammar theory of discontinuities. SKY Journal of Linguistics 22: 43–90.Google Scholar
Gruber, Jeffrey S.
1967 Functions 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
2015 Definitions. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed). [URL]Google Scholar
Hays, David G.
1964 Dependency theory: A formalism and some observations. Language 40(4): 511–525.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heringer, Hans-Jürgen
1993 Dependency 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
1980 Syntax. Fragen – Lösungen – Alternativen. Munich: UTB.Google Scholar
Holthus, Günter
1980 Les ‘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) 1995 The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard A.
1990 English Word Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2004 Are determiners heads? Functions of Language 11: 7–43.Google Scholar
2007 Language Networks: The New Word Grammar. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto
1924 The Philosophy of Grammar. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Kahane, Sylvain & Osborne, Timothy
2015 Translators’ 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
1991 Dependenz 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
1993 Gibt es Translationen? Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie 109: 148–166.Google Scholar
1995 La 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
1996 Dependency, licensing and the nature of grammatical relations. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 8: 1–37.Google Scholar
Lago Garabatos Jesús
1997 Sur le concept de translation en linguistique. Thélème. Revista Complutense de Estudios Franceses 11: 483–489.Google Scholar
Lambertz, Thomas
1991 Kritische 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
1995a Translation 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
1995b Translation et dépendance. Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie 111: 523–553.Google Scholar
1996 Translationen und kein Ende. Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie 112: 39–79.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
1994 Structural syntax: The view from Cognitive Grammar. Sémiotiques 6–7(4): 69–84.Google Scholar
Lauwers, Peter
2003 De 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.
1967 Turkish Grammar. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Maas, Utz
1974 Dependenztheorie. 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
2008a The argumentative structure of persuasive definitions. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 11: 525–549.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008b Persuasive definitions: Values, meanings and implicit disagreements. Informal Logic 28(3): 203–228.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Madray-Lesigne, Françoise & Richard-Zappella, Jeannine
(eds) 1995 Lucien 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.
2014 Universal Stanford dependencies: A cross-linguistic typology. Proceedings of 9th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2014), Reyjavik, 26–31 May 2014 <[URL]Google Scholar
Matthews, Peter H.
[1974] 2 1991 Morphology. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
1981 Syntax. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Mulder, Jan F. W.
1980 Some 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
2005a Beyond the constituent. Folia Linguistica XXXIX (3–4): 251–297.Google Scholar
2005b Coherence: A dependency grammar analysis. SKY Journal of Linguistics 18: 223–286.Google Scholar
2006 Parallel conjuncts. Studia Linguistica 60(1): 64–96.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 The weight of predicates: A dependency grammar analysis of predicate weight in German. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 19(1): 23–72.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 Major constituents and two dependency grammar constraints on sharing in coordination. Linguistics 46(6): 1109–1165.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 A 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
2014 Dependency grammar. In The Routledge Handbook of Syntax, Andrew Carnie, Yosuke Sato & Daniel Siddiqi (eds), 604–626. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2015a Dependency 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
2015b The 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
2012a Antecedent containment: A dependency grammar solution in terms of catenae. Studia Linguistica 66(2): 94–127.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012b Constructions are catenae: Construction grammar meets dependency grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 23(1): 165 – 216.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Osborne, Timothy & Maxwell, Daniel
2015 A 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.
2011 Bare phrase structure, label-less trees, and specifier-less syntax. Is minimalism becoming a dependency grammar? The Linguistic Review 28: 315–364.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Osborne, Timothy, Putnam, Michael & Gross, Thomas
2012 Catenae: Introducing a novel unit of syntactic analysis. Syntax 15(4): 354–396.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Partee, Barbara Hall, ter Meulen, Alice G. B. & Wall, Robert Eugene
1990 Mathematical Methods in Linguistics [Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 30]. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Perrot, Jean
1995 Sur 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.
1982 Constituency and sublexical syntax. CLS 18: 466–476.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew
2013 Lexical Relatedness. A Paradigm-based Model. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, Peter
2012 Spanning. Tromsø: CASTL, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
2016 Words and spans. In Morphological Metatheory, Daniel Siddiqi & Heidi Harley (eds), 201–222. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tesnière, Lucien
1959 Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
1980 Grundzüge der strukturalen Syntax, trans. by Ulrich Engel. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.Google Scholar
2015 Elements of Structural Syntax, trans. by Timothy Osborne & Sylvain Kahane. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van der Hulst, Harry
(ed) 2010 Recursion and Human Language [Studies in Generative Grammar 104]. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vennemann, Theo
1977 Konstituenz und Dependenz in einigen neueren Grammatiktheorien. Sprachwissenschaft 3: 259–301.Google Scholar
Wall, Robert Eugene
1972 Introduction to Mathematical Linguistics. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Walton, Douglas & Macagno, Fabrizio
2009 Reasoning from classifications and definitions. Argumentation 23(1): 81–107.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 Defeasible classifications and inferences from definitions. Informal Logic 30(1): 34–61.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walton, Douglas, Reed, Chris & Macagno, Fabrizio
2008 Argumentation Schemes. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Werner, Edeltraud
1996 Ist 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
2003 Das 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.
1994 Phrase structure, lexical sharing, partial ordering, and the English gerund. BLS 20: 587–598.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995 Lexical sharing in a monostratal syntax of English wh-constructions. CLS 31: 490–507.Google Scholar
2007 Preposition-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.
1992 Some 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 38 other publications

Basbøll, Hans
2022. Phonology in Glossematics in Northern and Western Europe. In The Oxford History of Phonology, ► pp. 331 ff. DOI logo
Battistella, Edwin
2022. The Prague School. In The Oxford History of Phonology, ► pp. 221 ff. DOI logo
Bohas, Georges & Jean Lowenstamm
2022. Thetaṣrīfin the medieval Arabic grammatical tradition. In The Oxford History of Phonology, ► pp. 83 ff. DOI logo
Calabrese, Andrea
2022. Historical notes on constraint-and-repair approaches. In The Oxford History of Phonology, ► pp. 530 ff. DOI logo
Chandlee, Jane & Adam Jardine
2022. Phonological theory and computational modelling. In The Oxford History of Phonology, ► pp. 656 ff. DOI logo
Colman, Fran
2018. Entitatives and Indo-European n-stems. In Substance-based Grammar – The (Ongoing) Work of John Anderson [Studies in Language Companion Series, 204], ► pp. 225 ff. DOI logo
de Boer, Bart
2022. Phonology and evolution. In The Oxford History of Phonology, ► pp. 694 ff. DOI logo
Dresher, B. Elan & Daniel Currie Hall
2022. Developments leading towards generative phonology. In The Oxford History of Phonology, ► pp. 372 ff. DOI logo
Dresher, B. Elan & Harry van der Hulst
2022. Introduction. In The Oxford History of Phonology, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
B. Elan Dresher & Harry van der Hulst
2022. The Oxford History of Phonology, DOI logo
Duanmu, San & Haruo Kubozono
2022. The East Asian tradition. In The Oxford History of Phonology, ► pp. 64 ff. DOI logo
Fruehwald, Josef
2022. The study of variation. In The Oxford History of Phonology, ► pp. 569 ff. DOI logo
Hall, Kathleen Currie
2022. Corpora and phonological analysis. In The Oxford History of Phonology, ► pp. 619 ff. DOI logo
Heinz, Jeffrey & Jonathan Rawski
2022. Learnability in phonology. In The Oxford History of Phonology, ► pp. 677 ff. DOI logo
Hulst, Harry van der
2022. The (early) history of sign language phonology. In The Oxford History of Phonology, ► pp. 284 ff. DOI logo
Iosad, Pavel
2022. Phonology in the Soviet Union. In The Oxford History of Phonology, ► pp. 309 ff. DOI logo
Joseph, John E.
2022. Saussure and structural phonology. In The Oxford History of Phonology, ► pp. 203 ff. DOI logo
Kenstowicz, Michael J.
2022. The Sound Pattern of Englishand early generative phonology. In The Oxford History of Phonology, ► pp. 396 ff. DOI logo
Kenstowicz, Michael J. & Charles W. Kisseberth
2022. Phonological derivation in early generative phonology. In The Oxford History of Phonology, ► pp. 419 ff. DOI logo
Kingston, John
2022. Phonetic explanation in phonology. In The Oxford History of Phonology, ► pp. 593 ff. DOI logo
Kiparsky, Paul
2022. Pāṇini. In The Oxford History of Phonology, ► pp. 38 ff. DOI logo
Kisseberth, Charles W.
2022. Representations in generative phonology in the 1970s and 1980s. In The Oxford History of Phonology, ► pp. 440 ff. DOI logo
Ladd, D. Robert
2022. Mid-century American phonology. In The Oxford History of Phonology, ► pp. 356 ff. DOI logo
Lahiri, Aditi & Frans Plank
2022. Phonological phrasing. In The Oxford History of Phonology, ► pp. 134 ff. DOI logo
Moro, Elena Battaner & Richard Ogden
2022. John R. Firth and the London School. In The Oxford History of Phonology, ► pp. 242 ff. DOI logo
Pierrehumbert, Janet B.
2022. More than seventy years of probabilistic phonology. In The Oxford History of Phonology, ► pp. 639 ff. DOI logo
Radwańska-Williams, Joanna
2022. The Kazan School. In The Oxford History of Phonology, ► pp. 179 ff. DOI logo
Ritter, Nancy A.
2022. Government Phonology in historical perspective. In The Oxford History of Phonology, ► pp. 509 ff. DOI logo
Salmons, Joseph
2022. Nineteenth-century historical linguists’ contributions to phonology. In The Oxford History of Phonology, ► pp. 163 ff. DOI logo
Scheer, Tobias
2022. The interaction between phonology and morphosyntax in generative grammar. In The Oxford History of Phonology, ► pp. 462 ff. DOI logo
Sen, Ranjan
2022. The Greco-Roman tradition. In The Oxford History of Phonology, ► pp. 109 ff. DOI logo
Silverstein, Michael
2022. Boas—Sapir—Bloomfield. In The Oxford History of Phonology, ► pp. 260 ff. DOI logo
Sproat, Richard
2022. Writing systems. In The Oxford History of Phonology, ► pp. 19 ff. DOI logo
Staun, Jørgen
2022. Dependency Phonology. In The Oxford History of Phonology, ► pp. 485 ff. DOI logo
van Oostendorp, Marc
2022. Optimality Theory. In The Oxford History of Phonology, ► pp. 551 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. List of Abbreviations. In The Oxford History of Phonology, ► pp. xiii ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. Copyright Page. In The Oxford History of Phonology, ► pp. iv ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. List of Figures and Tables. In The Oxford History of Phonology, ► pp. ix ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 may 2023. 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.