Chapter published in:
Chapters of Dependency Grammar: A historical survey from Antiquity to Tesnière
Edited by András Imrényi and Nicolas Mazziotta
[Studies in Language Companion Series 212] 2020
► pp. 122
References
Ágel, V.
(2000) Valenztheorie. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Ágel, V., Eichinger, L. M., Eroms, H.-W., Hellwig, P., Heringer, H. J., & Lobin, H.
(Eds.) (2003) Dependency and valency: An international handbook of contemporary research (Vol. 1). Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Becker, C.
(1932) The heavenly city of the 18th-century philosophers. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Billroth, J. G. F.
(1832) Lateinische Syntax für die obern Klassen gelehrter Schulen. Leipzig: Weidmann.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, L.
(1933) Language. New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
Bohnet, B.
(2010) Top accuracy and fast dependency parsing is not a contradiction. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (Coling 2010) (pp.89–97). Beijing.Google Scholar
Brassai, S.
(1873) Paraleipomena kai diorthoumena. A mit nem mondtak s a mit roszul mondtak a commentatorok Virg. Aeneise II. könyvére. [What the commentators did not say or wrongly said about Book II of Virgil’s Aeneid]. Budapest: MTA.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J., Asudeh, A., Toivonen, I., & Wechsler, S.
(2015) Lexical Functional Syntax (2nd ed.). London: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N.
(1957) Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Clark, S. W.
(1847) Science of English language. A practical grammar: in which words, phrases, and sentences are classified according to their offices, and their relations to each other. Illustrated by a complete system of diagrams. New York: A. S. Barnes.Google Scholar
Croft, W.
(2001) Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, B.
(Ed.) (2017) The Cambridge handbook of cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
de Marneffe, M.-C., & Manning, C. D.
(2008) The Stanford typed dependencies representation. In Coling 2008: Proceedings of the Workshop on Cross-Framework and Cross-Domain Parser Evaluation (pp.1–8). Manchester. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C.
(1968) The case for case. In E. Bach & R. Harms (Eds), Universals in linguistic theory (pp.1–88). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
(1982) Frame semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (Eds.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp.111–137). Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
(1988) The mechanisms of “Construction Grammar”. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp.35–55). Berkeley, CA: BLS.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D.
(2008) Introduction: A rough guide to cognitive linguistics. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings (pp.1–28). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gerdes, K., Hajičová, E., & Wanner, L.
(2011) Introduction. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Dependency Linguistics (Depling) (pp.iii–iiv). Barcelona.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A.
(1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L.
(1999) An introduction to government and binding theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hajič, J., Böhmová, A., Hajičová, E., & Vidová Hladká, B.
(2000) The Prague Dependency Treebank: A three-level annotation scenario. In A. Abeillé (Ed.), Treebanks: Building and using parsed corpora (pp.103–127). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Hudson, R.
(2007) Language networks: The new Word Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2008) Word Grammar and Construction Grammar. In G. Trousdale & N. Gisborne (Eds.), Constructional approaches to English grammar (pp.257–302). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ihm, P., & Lecerf, Y.
(1963) Éléments pour une grammaire générale des langues projectives. European Atomic Energy Community, Joint Nuclear Research Center, Ispra Establishment (Italy), Scientific Data Processing Center.Google Scholar
Imrényi, A.
(2013) Constituency or dependency? Notes on Sámuel Brassai’s syntactic model of Hungarian. In P. Szigetvári (Ed.), Lxx. Papers Presented to László Varga on his 70th Birthday (pp.167–182). Budapest: Tinta. Retrieved from http://​seas3​.elte​.hu​/VLlxx​/imrenyi​.pdfGoogle Scholar
(2017) Form-meaning correspondences in multiple dimensions: The structure of Hungarian finite clauses. Cognitive Linguistics 28(2), 287–319. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, O.
(1937) Analytic syntax. Copenhagen : Levin & Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Kahane, S.
(2004) Grammaires d'unification polarisées. In Actes TALN 2004 (pp.233–242). Fes.Google Scholar
(2009) On the status of phrases in head-driven sentence grammar structure – Illustration by a totally lexical treatment of extraction. In Polguère & Mel’čuk, 2009, pp.111–150.
Kahane, S., & Lareau, F.
(2005) Grammaire d’unification sens-texte: Modularité et polarisation. In Actes TALN 2005 (pp.23–32). Dourdan.Google Scholar
Kahane, S., & Mazziotta, N.
(2015) Syntactic polygraphs. A formalism extending both constituency and dependency. In Proceedings of the 14th Meeting on the Mathematics of Language (MoL 2015) (pp.152–164). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kiss, T., & Alexiadou, A.
(2015) Syntax – Theory and analysis. An international handbook. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Koch, P.
(2003) Metataxe bei Lucien Tesnière. In Ágel et al. 2003, pp.144–159.Google Scholar
Koerner, K.
(1976) Towards a historiography of linguistics. 19th and 20th century paradigms. in H. Parret (Ed.). History of Linguistic Thought (685–718). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (Vol. 1): Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1994) Structural syntax: The view from cognitive grammar. Sémiotiques 6–7, 69–84.Google Scholar
Lecerf, Y.
(1961) Une représentation algébrique de la structure des phrases dans diverses langues naturelles. C. R. Acad. Sc. Paris 252, 232–234.Google Scholar
Lemaréchal, A.
(1989) Les parties du discours. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
(1997) Zéro(s). Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
Maxwell, D.
(2013) Why so many nodes? In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Dependency Linguistics (Depling) (pp.197–206). Prague.Google Scholar
Mazziotta, N.
(2014) Nature et structure des relations syntaxiques dans le modèle de Lucien Tesnière. Modèles Linguistiques 69, 123–152.Google Scholar
Mazziotta, N
(2016) Drawing syntax before syntactic trees. Stephen Watkins Clark’s sentence diagrams (1847). Historiographia Linguistica, 43 ( 3 ), 301–342. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mazziotta, N.
(Forthcoming 2019) The evolution of spatial rationales in Tesnière’s stemma. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Dependency Linguistics (Depling). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mazziotta, N., & Kahane, S.
(2017) To what extent is Immediate Constituency Analysis dependency–based? A survey of foundational texts. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Dependency Linguistics (Depling 2017) (pp.116–126). Pisa.Google Scholar
(Forthcoming 2019) L’émergence de la syntaxe structurale de Lucien Tesnière. In C. Mathieu & V. Bisconti (Eds.), Entre vie et théorie. La biographie des linguistes dans l’histoire des sciences du langage. Limoges: Lambert Lucas.Google Scholar
Mel’čuk, I.
(2009) Dependency in natural language. In Polguère & Mel’čuk 2009, pp.1–110.Google Scholar
(1988) Dependency syntax: Theory and practice. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Nida, E.
(1946) Morphology: the descriptive analysis of words. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Nivre, J., Hall, J., Kübler, S., McDonald, R., Nilsson, J., Riedel, S., & Yuret, D.
(2007) The CoNLL 2007 Shared Task on Dependency Parsing. In Proceedings of the 2007 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning (EMNLP-CoNLL) (pp.915–932). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Osborne, T.
(2006) Shared material and grammar: Toward a dependency grammar theory of non-gapping coordination for English and German. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 25, 39–93. CrossrefGoogle 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) (pp.262–271). Prague.Google Scholar
(2015) Dependency grammar. In Kiss & Alexiadou 2015, pp.1027–1045.Google Scholar
Osborne, T., & Gerdes, K.
(2019) The status of function words in dependency grammar: A critique of Universal Dependencies (UD). Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4(1), 17. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Osborne, T., & Groß, T.
2012Constructions are catenae: Construction grammar meets dependency grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 23(1), 165–216. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Owens, J.
(1988) The Foundations of Grammar: An Introduction to Medieval Arabic Grammatical Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Arabic syntactic research. In Kiss & Alexiadou 2015 : 220–295.
Polguère, A., & Mel’čuk, I.
(Eds.) (2009) Dependency in linguistic description. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pollard C., & Sag, I. A.
(1994) Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Raster, P.
(2015) The Indian grammatical tradition. In Kiss & Alexiadou 2015 : 295–389.
Robinson, J. J.
(1970) Dependency structures and transformational rules. Language, 46, 259–285. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schubert, K.
(1987) Metataxis. Contrastive dependency syntax for machine translation. Dordrecht: Foris. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2003) Metataxe: Ein Dependenzmodell für die computerlinguistische Praxis. In Ágel et al. 2003, pp.636–660.Google Scholar
Seuren, P. A. M.
(2015) Prestructuralist and structuralist approaches to syntax. In Kiss & Alexiadou 2015, pp.391–457.Google Scholar
Ten’er [= Tesnière], L.
(1988) Osnovy strukturnogo sintaksisa (Transl. by V. G. Gaka). Moskva: Progress (Transl. of Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck 1959).Google Scholar
Tesnière, L.
(1980) Übersetzung der Éléments de syntaxe structurale. (Transl. by U. Engel). Stutgart (Transl. of Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck 1966, 2nd ed.; 1st ed. 1959).Google Scholar
(1994) Elementos de sintaxis estructural. (Trans. by U. Engel). Madrid: Gredos (Trans. of Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck 1966, 2nd ed.; 1st ed. 1959).Google Scholar
(2001) Elementi di sintassi strutturale (Trans. by G. Proverbio & A. Trocini Cerrina). Torino: Rosenberg & Sellier (Trans. of Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck 1966, 2nd ed.; 1st ed. 1959).Google Scholar
(2015) Elements of structural syntax (Trans. by T. Osborne & S. Kahane). Amsterdam: John Benjamins (Trans. of Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck 1966, 2nd ed.; 1st ed. 1959).Google Scholar
Žolkovskij, A. K., & Mel’čuk, I.
(1965) O vozmožnom metode i instrumentax semantičeskogo sinteza [On a possible method and instruments for semantic synthesis]. Naučno-texničeskaja informacija 5, 23–28.Google Scholar