Cover not available
Part of
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. 133–162

Chapter 4
Dependency in early sentence diagrams

Stephen W. Clark

 | Université de Liège
American grammarians were the first to make a systematic use of diagrams to depict syntactic relations. Among the most elaborated early attempts to visualize syntactic relations, Stephen W. Clark’s Practical Grammar (1847) delivered many diagrams that merge constituency-based analyses, relying on the description of the relations between constructions and their parts, and a dependency-based approach, focusing on hierarchical relations between words. Clark used labeled bubbles to express his analyses. The same system was altered and derived numerous times during the early history of syntactic diagramming, thus resulting in the famous Reed & Kellogg’s system. By systematically evaluating Clark’s analyses with respect to five general characteristics of dependency-based descriptions, I show how much dependency-based Clark’s system is.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.From parsing to sentence analysis and diagrams
  • 3.Clark’s diagramming system: Basic rationales, and the notion of ‘reification’
  • 4.Diagrams and dependency trees compared
  • 5.Clark’s diagramming system and dependency
    • 5.1Connection-basedness
      • 5.1.1Absence of reified connections
      • 5.1.2Function words as connections
    • 5.2Binarity
    • 5.3Headedness
      • 5.3.1Adjuncts
      • 5.3.2Principal elements and verb centrality
    • 5.4Flatness and word-to-node mapping
      • 5.4.1Stratification without additional entities
      • 5.4.2Stratification with additional entities
  • 6.Legacy and similar systems
    • 6.1Genealogy of the diagramming systems
    • 6.2Other choices in reification
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 February 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.212.05maz
References (72)
References
A. Primary sources
Barnard, F. A. P. (1836). Analytic grammar, with symbolic illustration. New York, NY: French.Google Scholar
Barrett, S. Jr. (1845). Principles of English grammar: Being a compendious treatise on the languages, English, Latin, Greek, German, Spanish, and French. Founded on the immutable principle of the relation which one words sustains to another. Albany, NY: Munsell.Google Scholar
Becker, K. F. (1835). Schulgrammatik der deutschen Sprache (3rd ed.). Frankfurt: J. C. Hermann. (Original work published 1831)Google Scholar
Billroth, J. G. F. (1832). Lateinische Syntax für die obern Klassen gelehrter Schulen. Leipzig: Weidmann.Google Scholar
Burtt, A. (1869). A practical grammar of the English language, synthetic and analytic. Pittsburgh, PA: A. H. English Original work published 1868.Google Scholar
Chandler, Z. M. (1861). A class book on English grammar and analysis (revised ed.). Zanesville, OH: W. H. Hurd.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, NY: A. S. Barnes.Google Scholar
(1859). A key to Clark’s Grammar. New York, NY: A. S. Barnes.Google Scholar
(1870). The normal grammar: Analytic & synthetic. Illustrated by diagrams. New York, NY: A. S. Barnes & Co.Google Scholar
Holbrook, A. (1873). An English grammar, conformed to present usage; with an objective method of teaching the elements of English language. Cincinnati, OH: G. E. Stevens.Google Scholar
Jewell, F. S. (1867). Grammatical diagrams defended and improved, with directions for their proper constriction and application; accompanied by a comprehensive outline of classification, and a complete scheme of examples for practice. New York, NY: A. S. Barnes.Google Scholar
Kern, F. (1883). Zur Methodik des deutschen Unterrichts. Berlin: Nicolai.Google Scholar
Lighthall, G. E. (1872). An introduction to analysis and parsing. San Jose, CA: A. Waldteufel.Google Scholar
March, A. (1870). Parser and analyzer for beginners, with diagrams and suggestive pictures. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers. (Original work published 1869)Google Scholar
Murray, L. (1812). English exercises, adapted to Murray’s English grammar: consisting of exercises in parsing; instances of false orthography; violations of the rules of syntax; defects in punctuation; and violations of the rules respecting perspicuous and accurate writing […] (16th ed.). New-York: Collins. (Original work published 1797)Google Scholar
Nida, E. (1966). A synopsis of English Syntax (2nd ed.). London. (Original work published 1960)Google Scholar
Parker, W. H. (1865?/1869). A grammar of the English language, based upon the analysis of the English sentence, with copious examples and exercises in parsing and the correction of false syntax, and an appendix, containing critical and explanatory notes, and lists of peculiar and exceptional forms […]. Philadelphia, PA: Eldridge.Google Scholar
Peirce, O. B. (1843) Grammar of the English language. New York, NY: Robinson.Google Scholar
Porter, S. (1869). The instruction of the deaf and dumb in grammar. American Annals of the Deaf and the Dumb 14, 30–48.Google Scholar
Reed, A., & Kellogg, B. (1879). Graded lessons in English. New York, NY: Clark and Maynard. (Original work published 1876)Google Scholar
(1877). Higher lessons in English. New York, NY: Clark and Maynard.Google Scholar
Storrs, R. S. (1880a). Methods of deaf-mute teaching. I. American Annals of the Deaf and the Dumb 25, 105–119.Google Scholar
(1880b). Methods of deaf-mute teaching II. American Annals of the Deaf and the Dumb 25, 233–250.Google Scholar
(1881). Methods of deaf-mute instruction. III. American Annals of the Deaf and the Dumb 26, 141–160.Google Scholar
Tesnière, L. (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
Williams, J. (1885). In memoriam Richard Salter Storrs. Washington: s.n.Google Scholar
B. Critical sources
Aarts, B., & McMahon, A. (Eds.). (2006). The handbook of English linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bingen, J., Coupez, A., & Mawet, F. (Eds.). (1980). Recherches de linguistique: Hommage à Maurice Leroy. Bruxelles: Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
Brittain, R. C. (1973). A critical history of systems of sentence diagramming in English (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
Caddéo, S., Roubaud, M.-N., Rouquier, M., & Sabio, F. (Eds.).(2012). Penser les langues avec Claire Blanche-Benveniste. Aix-en-Provence: Presses universitaires de Provence.Google Scholar
Chauviré, C. (2008). L’œil mathématique: Essai sur la philosophie mathématique de Peirce. Paris: Kimé.Google Scholar
Coseriu, E. (1980). Un pécurseur méconnu de la syntaxe structurale: H. Tiktin. In Bingen et al., 1980, pp.48–62.Google Scholar
Colombat, B. (2020). Chapter 2. The notion of dependency in Latin grammar in the Renaissance and the 17th century. In A. Imrényi & N. Mazziotta (Eds.), Chapters of dependency grammar. A historical survey from Antiquity to Tesnière (Studies in Language Companion Series 212). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (this volume) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Debili, F. (1982). Analyse syntaxico-sémantique fondée sur une acquisition automatique de relations lexicales-sémantiques (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Université Paris Sud, Orsay.Google Scholar
Downey, C. (1991). Trends that shaped the development of 19th century American grammar writing. In Leitner, 1991, pp.27–38.Google Scholar
Florey, K. B. (2006). Sister Bernadette’s barking dog: The quirky history and lost art of diagramming sentences. Hoboken, NJ: Melville House Publishing.Google Scholar
Gammon, E. G. (1963). On representing syntactic structure. Language 39, 369–397. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gerdes, K., & Kahane, S. (2015). Non-constituent coordination and other coordinative constructions as dependency graphs. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Dependency Linguistics (Depling 2015) (pp.101–110), Uppsala: Uppsala University.Google Scholar
Görlach, M. (1998). An annotated bibliography of 19th-century grammars of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Graffi, G. (2001). 200 years of syntax: A critical survey. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Groß, T. (2003). Dependency grammar’s limits – and ways of extending them. In Ágel, et al.., 2003, pp.331–351.Google Scholar
Groupe μ (1992). Traité du signe visuel. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Gladkij, A. V. (1968). On describing the syntactic structure of a sentence (in Russian). Computational Linguistics 7, 21–44.Google Scholar
Hagen, K. [n.d.]. Polysyllabic (online blog). <[URL] > (2 January, 2018).Google Scholar
Hays, D. G. 1965. An annotated bibliography of publications on dependency theory. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard. (2007). Language networks: The new Word Grammar. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kahane, S. 1996. If HPSG were a Dependency Grammar … In Actes de TALN 1996 (pp.45–49). Marseille.Google Scholar
1997. Bubble trees and syntactic representations. In Proceedings of Mathematics of Language (MoL 5) Meeting (pp.70–76).Google Scholar
(2001). Grammaires de dépendance formelles et théorie Sens-Texte, Tutoriel. In Actes de TALN, Vol. 2.Google Scholar
(2012). De l’analyse en grille à la modélisation des entassements. In Caddéo et al.., 2010, pp.101–114.Google Scholar
(2020). Chapter 3. How dependency syntax appeared in the French Encyclopedia: from Buffier (1709) to Beauzée (1765). In A. Imrényi & N. Mazziotta (Eds.), Chapters of dependency grammar. A historical survey from Antiquity to Tesnière (Studies in Language Companion Series 212). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (this volume) DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leitner, G. (Ed.). 1991. English traditional grammars: An international perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Linn, A. (2006). English grammar writing. In Aarts & McMahon, 2006, pp.72–92.Google Scholar
Luhtala, A. 2020. Chapter 1. Syntactic relations in ancient and medieval grammatical theory. In A. Imrényi & N. Mazziotta (Eds.), Chapters of dependency grammar. A historical survey from Antiquity to Tesnière (Studies in Language Companion Series 212). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (this volume) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mazziotta, N. (2014). Nature et structure des relations syntaxiques dans le modèle de Lucien Tesnière. Modèles Linguistiques 69, 123–152.Google Scholar
(2016a). Drawing syntax before syntactic trees. Stephen Watkins Clark’s sentence diagrams (1847). Historiographia Linguistica 43(3), 301–342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016b). Représenter la connaissance en linguistique. Observations sur l’édition de matériaux et sur l’analyse syntaxique (Habilitation à diriger des recherches, mémoire de synthèse, Université Paris-Ouest, Nanterre–La Défense, Paris). Retrieved from <[URL]>Google 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
Mel’čuk, I. (2006). Aspects of the theory of morphology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2009). Dependency in natural language. In Polguère & Mel’čuk, 2009, pp.1–110.Google Scholar
Mel’čuk, I., & Milićević, J. (2014). Introduction à la linguistique, Vol. 3. Paris: Hermann.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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Major constituents and two dependency grammar constraints on sharing in coordination. Linguistics 46(6), 1109–1165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020). Chapter 4. Franz Kern. An early dependency grammarian. In A. Imrényi & N. Mazziotta (Eds.), Chapters of dependency grammar. A historical survey from Antiquity to Tesnière (Studies in Language Companion Series 212). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (this volume) DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Osborne, T., Putnam, M., & Groß, T. (2012). Catenae: Introducing a novel unit of syntactic analysis. Syntax 15(4), 354–396. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Percival, W. K. (2007). On the historical source of Immediate-Constituent Analysis. Further thougths. Retrieved from <[URL]>Google Scholar
Polguère, A., & Mel’čuk, I. (Eds.). (2009). Dependency in linguistic description (Studies in Language Companion Series 111). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raby, V. (2011). La phrase expliquée aux sourds-muets Remarques sur la syntaxe chiffrée de l’abbé Sicard. In G. Hassler (Ed.), History of linguistics 2008: Selected papers from the eleventh International Conference on the History of the Language Sciences (ICHoLS XI), 28 August – 2 September 2008 (pp.277–288). Potsdam. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stewart, A. H. (1976). Graphic representation of models in linguistic theory. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Stjernfeldt, F. (2007). Diagrammatology. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Mazziotta, Nicolas, Jacques François & Sylvain Kahane
2024. Des outils graphiques pour étudier le langage et les langues. Les diagrammes en linguistique. Travaux de linguistique n° 87:2 ► pp. 7 ff. DOI logo
Mazziotta, Nicolas & Sylvain Kahane
2024. Grammaires graphiques. Travaux de linguistique n° 87:2 ► pp. 111 ff. DOI logo
Cigana, Lorenzo
2020. Chapter 7. Some aspects of dependency in Otto Jespersen’s structural syntax. In Chapters of Dependency Grammar [Studies in Language Companion Series, 212], ► pp. 216 ff. DOI logo
Imrényi, András & Zsuzsa Vladár
2020. Chapter 5. Sámuel Brassai in the history of dependency grammar. In Chapters of Dependency Grammar [Studies in Language Companion Series, 212], ► pp. 164 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 july 2024. 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.