A Dependency Grammar of English

An introduction and beyond

| Zhejiang University
HardboundAvailable
ISBN 9789027203458 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
 
e-Book
ISBN 9789027262288 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
 
Dependency grammar (DG) is an approach to the syntax of natural languages with a long and venerable tradition, yet awareness of its potential to serve as a basis for principled analyses of natural language syntax is minimal due to the predominance of phrase structure grammar (PSG). This book presents a DG of English with two main goals in mind. The first is to make the principles of dependency syntax accessible to a general audience so that the novice linguist as well as the seasoned syntactician becomes fully aware of what makes DG unique as an approach to the study of natural language syntax. The second is to present and develop a version of DG that then serves as a principled basis for the investigation of central areas of the syntax of English, such as long-distance dependencies, coordination, ellipsis, valency, etc. An overarching theme in all this is that DG is simple compared to PSG, yet despite this simplicity, it is quite effective at shedding light on the nature of syntactic phenomena.
[Not in series, 224]  2019.  ix, 447 pp.
Publishing status: Available
Table of Contents
Chapter 1. Some concepts of syntactic theory
1–31
Chapter 2. Dependency and phrase structure
33–72
Chapter 3. The argument for dependency
73–104
Chapter 4. Units of structure
105–134
Chapter 5. Morphological, semantic, and prosodic dependencies
135–157
Chapter 6. Valency
159–198
Chapter 7. Word order
199–241
Chapter 8. Types of discontinuities
243–267
Chapter 9. Islands
269–295
Chapter 10. Coordination
297–320
Chapter 11. The structure of coordination
321–348
Chapter 12. Ellipsis
349–378
Chapter 13. More ellipsis
379–407
Chapter 14. The syntax of comparatives
409–426
References
429–438
Concluding statements
437
Index of authors
439
Subject index
443–447
References

References

Aarts, Flor & Jan Aarts
1982English syntactic structures: Functions & categories in sentence analysis. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press and Bohn, Scheltema & Holkema.Google Scholar
Abney, Stephen
1987The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Ágel, Vilmos, Ludwiger Eichinger, Hans-Werner Eroms, Peter Hellwig, Hans Jürgen Heringer, and Henning Lobin
(eds.) 2003Dependency and valency: An international handbook of contemporary research, vol. 1. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ágel, Vilmos, Ludwig Eichinger, Hans-Werner Eroms, Peter Hellwig, Hans Jürgen Heringer, and Henning Lobin
(eds.) 2006Dependency and valency: An international handbook of contemporary research, vol. 2. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Adger, David
2003Core syntax: A minimalist approach. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Akmajian, Adrian, Richard Demers, Ann Farmer & Robert Harnish
1990Linguistics: An introduction to language and communication, 3rd edition. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Allerton, David
1979Essentials of grammatical theory: A consensus view of syntax and morphology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Anderson, John
1997A notional theory of syntactic categories. Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006Modern case grammars: A retrospect. Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011The substance of language volume I: The domain of syntax. Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, Martin, David Kilby & Iggy Roca
1982Foundations of general linguistics, second edition. London: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon
1974Syntactic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.Google Scholar
Baker, Carl
1978Introduction to generative transformational grammar. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
1989English syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Baum, Richard
1976Dependenzgrammatik: Tesnière’s Modell der Sprachbeschreibung in weisenschaftsgeschichtlicher und kritischer Sicht ( Beihefte zur Zeischrift für Romanische Philologie, Bd. 151). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baumgärtner, Klaus
1970Konstituenz und Dependenz. In Hugo Steger (ed.), Vorschläge für eine strukturale Grammatik des Deutschen, 52–77. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Berman, Arlene
1974Adjectives and adjective complement constructions in English. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Billroth, Gustav
1832Lateinische Syntax für die oberen Klassen gelehrter Schulen. Leipzig.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard
1933Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Bondzio, Wilhelm
1974Zu einigen Aufgaben der Bedeutungsforschung aus syntaktischer Sicht. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 27. 159–51.Google Scholar
Borsley, Robert D.
1991Syntactic theory: A unified approach. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Börjars, Kersti & Kate Burridge
2001Introducing English grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Brassai, Sámuel
1860A magyar mondat [The Hungarian sentence.] Magyar Akadémiai Értesítő. A Nyelv- és Széptudományi Osztály Közlönye 1. 159–399.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan
2001Lexical-Functional Syntax. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Bröker, Norbert
1999Eine Dependenzgrammatik zur Kopplung heterogener Wissensquellen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003Formal foundations of dependency grammar. In Ágel et al. (eds.), 294–310.Google Scholar
Brown, Keith & Jim Miller
1980 Syntax: A linguistic introduction to sentence structure. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Burton-Roberts, Noel
1997Analysing sentences: An approach to English syntax, 2nd edition. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Carnie, Andrew
2010Constituent structure, 2nd edition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2013Syntax: A generative introduction. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chaves, Rui
2014On the disunity of right-node raising phenomena: extraposition, ellipsis, and deletion. Language 90, 4. 159–886. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1957Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton Publishers.Google Scholar
1970Remarks on nominalization. In Roderick Jacobs & Peter Rosenbaum (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Waltham, MA: Ginn and Company: A Xerox Company.Google Scholar
1973Conditions on transformations. In S. Anderson and P. Kiparsky (eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle, 184–221. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
1981Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Dordrecht: Foris publications.Google Scholar
1986Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1995The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Stephen
1847A 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. Cincinnati: H. W. Barnes & Company.Google Scholar
Colliander, Peter
2003Dependenzstruktur und grammatische Funktion. In Ágel et al. (eds.), 263–269.Google Scholar
Collins, Michael
1999Head-Driven Statistical Models for Natural Language Parsing. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Corver, Norbert
1990The syntax of the left branch construction. Ph.D. thesis, Tilburg University.Google Scholar
Covington, Michael
1984Syntactic theory in the High Middle Ages. London: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cowper, Elizabeth
1992A concise introduction to syntactic theory: The government-binding approach. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter
2009Natural language syntax. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter & Ray Jackendoff
2005Simpler Syntax. New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Coșeriu, Eugenio
1980Un précurseur méconnu de la syntax structural: H. Tiktin. In Recherches de Linguistique : Hommage à Maurice Leroy. Éditions de l’Université de Bruxelles, 48–62.Google Scholar
Davies, William & Stanley Dubinsky
2003On extraction from NPs. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21, 1. 159–37. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Denham, Kristin & Anne Lobeck
2013Linguistics for everyone: An introduction. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Downing, Angela & Philip Locke
2006English grammar: A university course, Second Edition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Eisner, Jason
1996An empirical comparison of probability models for dependency grammar. Technical Report IRCS-96-11, Institute for Research in Cognitive Science, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Eggins, Suzanne
1994An introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph
1976A Transformational Approach to English Syntax: Root, Structure Preserving, and Local Transformations. Academic Press: New York.Google Scholar
Engel, Ulrich
1994Syntax der deutschen Gegenwartssprache, 3rd ed. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.Google Scholar
Eroms, Hans-Werner
2000Syntax der deutschen Sprache. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eroms, Hans-Werner & Hans Heringer
2003Dependenz und lineare Ordnung. In Ágel et al. (eds.), 247–262.Google Scholar
Fabb, Nigel
1994Sentence structure. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Falk, Yehuda
2001Lexical Functional Grammar: An introduction to parallel constraint-based syntax. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Faraci, Robert
1974Aspects of the grammar of infinitives and for-phrases. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles
1968The case for case. In Emmon Bach and R. Harms (eds.), Universals in linguistic theory, 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, Justin
2006Deletion through movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20. 159–431.Google Scholar
Fromkin, Victoria
(ed.) 2000An introduction to linguistic theory. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Gaifman, Chaim
1965Dependency systems and phrase-structure systems. Information and Control 8. 159–337. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Groß, Thomas
1992Konstruktive Stemmatologie. Papiere zur Linguistik 47. 159–139.Google Scholar
1993NP vs. DP. Papiere zur Linguistik 48. 159–28.Google Scholar
1999Theoretical foundations of dependency syntax. München: Iudicium.Google Scholar
2003Dependency Grammar’s limits – and ways of extending them. In Ágel et al. (eds.), 331–351.Google Scholar
2014Clitics in dependency morphology. In Linguistics Today Vol. 215: Dependency Linguistics, ed. by E. Hajičová et al., 229–252. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar
Groß, Thomas & Timothy Osborne
2009Toward a practical dependency grammar theory of discontinuities. SKY Journal of Linguistics 22. 159–90.Google Scholar
2015The dependency status of function words: Auxiliaries. Depling 2015, Uppsala, Sweden. Available at: http://​120​.52​.72​.39​/www​.aclweb​.org​/c3pr90ntcsf0​/anthology​/W​/W15​/W15​-2114​.pdf
Grosu, Alexander
1974On the nature of the left branching condition. Linguistic Inquiry 5. 159–319.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane
1991Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2006Thinking syntactically: A guide to argumentation and analysis. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane & Jacquelin Guéron
1999English grammar: A generative introduction. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Happ, Heinz
1976Grundfragen einer Dependenz-Grammatik des Lateinischen. Vendenhoeck & Ruprecht in Göttingen.Google Scholar
Hays, David
1960Grouping and dependency theories. Proceedings of the National Symposium on Machine Translation, 257–266, UCLA, February 1960.Google Scholar
1964Dependency theory: A formalism and some observations. Language 40. 159–525. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1967Introduction to computational linguistics. London: macdonald & co. (publishers) ltd.Google Scholar
Hellwig, Peter
2003Dependency Unification Grammar. In Ágel et al. (eds.), 593–635.Google Scholar
Heringer, Hans
1996Deutsche Syntax: Dependentiell. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Heringer, Hans, Bruno Strecker & Rainer Wimmer
1980Syntax: Frage – Lösungen – Alternativen. Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag.Google Scholar
Herbst, Thomas & Susen Schüller
2008Introduction to syntactic analysis: A valency Approach. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Holmes, Jasper & Richard Hudson
2005Constructions in Word Grammar. In Jan-Ola, Ostman and Mirjam Fried (eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions, 243–272. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert, Jairo Nunes & Kleanthes Grohman
2005Understanding Minimalism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey Pullum
2002The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Richard
1976Arguments for a non-transformational grammar. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1980A second attack on constituency: A replay to Dahl. Linguistics 18. 159–504. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1984Word Grammar. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
1988Coordination and grammatical relations. Journal of Linguistics 24. 159–342. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1989Gapping and grammatical relations. Linguistics 25. 159–94.Google Scholar
1990An English Word Grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
2003Word Grammar. In Ágel et al. (eds.), 508–526.Google Scholar
2007Language networks: The new Word Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2010An introduction to Word Grammar. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hyvärinen, Irma
2003Der verbal Valenzträger. In Ágel et al. (eds.), 738–764.Google Scholar
Imrényi, Andras
2013Constituency or dependency? Notes on Sámuel Brassai’s syntactic model of Hungarian. In Péter Szigetvári (ed.), VLlxx. Papers Presented to László Varga on his 70th Birthday, 167–182. Budapest: Tinta.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray
1977X’ Syntax: A study of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Järventausta, Marja
2003aDas Verb als strukturelles Zentrum des Satzes. In Ágel et al. (eds.), 717–737.Google Scholar
2003bDas Subjektproblem in der Valenzforschung. In Ágel et al. (eds.), 781–794.Google Scholar
Jones, Charles
1991Purpose clauses: Syntax, thematics, and semantics of English purpose constructions. Dordrecht: Spring Science+Business Media.Google Scholar
Jong-Bok, Kim & Peter Sells
2011The Big Mess Construction: Interactions between the lexicon and constructions. English Language and Linguistics 15, 2. 159–362.Google Scholar
Jung, Wha-Young
1995Syntaktische Relationen im Rahmen der Dependenzgrammatik. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.Google Scholar
2003Rektion und Kongruenz in der Dependenzgrammatik. In Ágel et al. (eds.), 282–294.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, Daniel & James Martin
2000Speech and language processing: An introduction to natural language processing, computational linguistics, and speech recognition. New Dehli: Pearson.Google Scholar
Kahane, Sylvain
1996If HPSG were a dependency grammarActes de TALN, Marseille, 22–24, May 1996 159–49.Google Scholar
Kahane, Sylvain & Timothy Osborne
2015Translators’ introduction. In Lucien Tesnière (1959), Elements of Structure Syntax. Translated from French to English by Timothy Osborne and Sylvain Kahane. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, Edward & Bernard Comrie
1977Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 1. 159–99.Google Scholar
Kern, Franz
1883Zur Methodik der deutschen Unterricht. Berlin: Nicolaische Verlags-Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
Keyser, Samuel & Paul Postal
1976Beginning English grammar. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Kim, Jong-Bok & Peter Sells
2008English syntax: An introduction. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang
1981Some rules of regular ellipsis in German. In Wolfgang Klein and Willem Levelt (eds.), A Festschrift for Manfred Bierwisch, 51–78. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Korhonen, Jarmo
1977Studien zu Dependenz, Valenz, und Satzmodell Teil 1. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Kroeger, Paul
2005Analyzing grammar: An introduction. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kruijff, Gert-Jan
2006Dependency grammar. In Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, 2nd edition, 444–450. Elsevier. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kübler, Sandra, Ryan McDonald & Joakim Nivre
2009Dependency parsing. Morgan & Claypool. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kudo, Taku & Yuji Matsumoto
2002Japanese dependency analysis using cascaded chunking. Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Computational Language Learning (CoNLL), Taipei, Taiwan, 63–69.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumo
1976Gapping: A functional analysis. Linguistic Inquiry 7. 159–318.Google Scholar
Kunze, Jürgen
1975Abhängigkeitsgrammatik. Series: studia grammatika XII . Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Kroeger, Paul
2005Analyzing grammar: An introduction. Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, Howard
2000Syntactic structures revisited: Contemporary lectures on classic transformational theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lechner, Winfried
2001Reduced and phrasal comparatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19. 159–735. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004Ellipsis in Comparatives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Liu, Haitao
2008Dependency distance as a metric of language comprehension difficulty. Journal of Cognitive Science 9, 2. 159–191. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009Probability distribution of dependencies based on Chinese dependency treebanks. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 16, 3. 159–273. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010Dependency direction as a means of word-order typology: A method based on dependency treebanks. Lingua 2010, 120, 6. 159–1578. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Liu, Haitao, Richard Hudson & Zhiwei Feng
2009Using a Chinese treebank to measure dependency distance. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 5, 2. 159–174. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lobeck, Anne
2000Discovering grammar: An introduction to English sentence structure. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lobin, Henning
1993Koordinationssyntax als prozedurales Phänomen. Series: Studien zur deutschen Sprache 46. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
McDonald, Ryan
2006Discriminative learning and spanning tree algorithms for dependency parsing. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Maruyama, Hiroshi
1990Structural disambiguation with constraint propagation, Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), 31–38. Pittsburgh, PA. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
de Marneffe, Marie-Catherine, Timothy Dozat, Natalia Silvaire, Katrin Haverinen, Filip Ginter, Joakim Nivre & Christopher D. Manning
2014Universal Stanford Dependencies: A cross-linguistic typology. LREC 14.Google Scholar
Matthews, Peter
1981Syntax. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maxwell, Daniel & Klaus Schubert
(eds.) 1989Metataxis in Practice: Dependency syntax for multilingual machine translation. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McCawley, James
1982Parentheticals and discontinuous constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 13, 1. 159–106.Google Scholar
1998The syntactic phenomena of English, 2nd edition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Melʹčuk, Igor
1958Mašinnom perevode s vengerskogo jazyka na russkij – On the automated translation of Hungarian to Russian. Problemy kibernetiki, v. 1, 222–264.Google Scholar
Mel’čuk, Igor
1979Studies in dependency syntax. Ann Arbor: Koroma Publishers.Google Scholar
1988Dependency syntax: Theory and practice. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
2003Levels of dependency description: Concepts and problems. In Ágel et al. (eds.), 188–229.Google Scholar
2009Dependency in natural language. In Alain Polguère & Igor A. Mel’čuk, Dependency in Linguistic Description, 1–110. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mel’čuk, Igor & Nikolai Pertsov
1987Surface syntax of English: A formal model with the Meaning-Text Framework. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Menzel, Wolfgang & Ingo Schröder
1998Decision procedures for dependency parsing using graded constraints. Proceedings of the Workshop on Processing of Dependency-Based Grammars (ACL-COLING), 78–87. Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason
2004Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27. 159–738.Google Scholar
Miller, Jim
2011A critical introduction to syntax. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Edith
2006An introduction to syntax: Fundamentals of syntactic analysis. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan
2016Grammatical theory: From transformational grammar to constraint-based approaches (Textbooks in Language Sciences 1). Berlin: Language Science Press. Available at http://​langsci​-press​.org​/catalog​/book​/25. Crossref
Napoli, Donna Jo
1982Initial material deletion in English. Glossa 16. 159–111.Google Scholar
1983Comparative ellipsis: A phrase structure analysis. Linguistic Inquiry 14. 159–694.Google Scholar
1993Syntax: Theory and problems. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Neijt, Anneke
1980Gapping: A contribution to sentence grammar. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Nivre, Joakim
2008Algorithms for deterministic incremental dependency parsing. Computational Linguistics 34, 4. 159–553. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nivre, Joakim, de Marneffe Marie-Catherine, Ginter Filip, Goldberg Yoav, Hajič Jan, Manning Christopher, McDonald Ryan, Petrov Slav, Pyysalo Sampo, Silveira Natalia, Tsarfaty Reut & Zeman Daniel
2016Universal Dependencies v1: A Multilingual Treebank Collection. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2016), Copyright © European Language Resources Association, Paris, France, ISBN 978-2-9517408-9-1, 1659–1666.Google Scholar
Nivre, Joakim et al.
2018Universal Dependencies 2.2. Data/software, LINDAT/CLARIN digital library at Institute of Formal and Applied Linguistics, Charles University in Prague, Praha, Czechia, http://​hdl​.handle​.net​/11234​/1​-2837, Jul 2018.
O’Grady, William
1998The syntax of idioms. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16. 159–312.Google Scholar
Osborne, Timothy
2003The Left Elbow Constraint. Studia Linguistica 57, 3, 233–257. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005Beyond the constituent: A DG analysis of chains. Folia Linguistica 39, 3–4. 251–297.Google Scholar
2006aShared material and grammar: Toward a dependency grammar theory of non-gapping coordination for English and German. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 25. 159–93. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006bGapping vs. non-gapping coordination. Linguistische Berichte 213. 159–338.Google Scholar
2006cParallel conjuncts. Studia Linguistica 60, 1. 159–96. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007The weight of predicates: A dependency grammar analysis of predicate weight in German. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 19, 1. 159–72. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008Major constituents and two dependency grammar constraints on sharing in coordination. Linguistics 46, 6. 159–1165. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009Comparative coordination vs. comparative subordination. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27. 159–454. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012Edge features, catenae, and dependency-based Minimalism. Linguistic Analysis 34, 3–4. 321–366.Google Scholar
2013A look at Tesnière’s “Elements” through the lens of modern syntactic theory. Depling 2013, Prague. Available at: http://​www​.aclweb​.org​/anthology​/W13​-3729
2014aDependency grammar. In Andrew Carnie, Yosuke Sato, and Daniel Saddiqi (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Syntax, 604–626. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2014bType two rising: A contribution to a DG account of discontinuities. In Kim Gerdes, Eva Hajičová & Leo Wanner, Dependency linguistics: Recent advances in linguistic theory using dependency structures, 274–298. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2015Diagnostics for constituents: Dependency, constituency, and the status of function words. Depling 2015, Uppsala, Sweden. Available at http://​www​.aclweb​.org​/anthology​/W15​-2128
2018Tests for constituents: What they really reveal about the nature of syntactic structure. Language Under Discussion 5, 1. 159–41.Google Scholar
Osborne, Timothy & Thomas Groß
2012aConstructions are catenae: Construction Grammar meets Dependency Grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 23, 1. 159–214. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012bAntecedent containment: A dependency grammar solution in terms of catenae. Studia Linguistica 66, 2. 159–127. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016The do-so-diagnostic: Against finite VP and for flat non-finite VPs. Folia Linguistic 50, 1. 159–135. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017Left node blocking. Journal of Linguistics 53. 159–688. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Osborne, Timothy & Daniel Maxwell
2015A historical overview of the status of function words in dependency grammar. Depling 2015, Uppsala, Sweden. Available at https://​aclweb​.org​/anthology​/W​/W15​/W15​-2127​.pdf
Osborne, Timothy and Matthew Reeeve
2018Scope domains: Toward a dependency grammar Account of the syntactic distribution of negative polarity items. Acta Linguistica Academia 65, 1. 1–49.Google Scholar
Osborne, Timothy, Michael Putnam & Thomas Groß
2011Bare phrase structure, label-less trees, and specifier-less syntax: Is Minimalism becoming a dependency grammar? The Linguistic Review 28. 159–364. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012Catenae: Introducing a novel unit of syntactic analysis. Syntax 15, 4. 159–396. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ouhalla, Jamal
1994Introducing transformational grammar: From rules to principles and parameters. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Payne, John
1993The headedness of noun phrases: Slaying the nominal hydra. In Greville Corbet, Norman Fraser & Scott McGlashan (eds.), Heads in grammatical theory, 114–39. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Payne, Thomas
2006Exploring language structure: A student’s guide. New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pinkham, Jessie
1982aThe formation of comparative clauses in French and English. Ph.D. dissertation. Reproduced by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
1982bThe rule of comparative ellipsis in French and English. Papers from the Eighteenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society (CLS), 440–452.Google Scholar
Phillips, Colin
2003Linear order and constituency. Linguistic Inquiry 34, 1. 37–90.Google Scholar
Poole, Geoffrey
2002Syntactic theory. New York: Pelgrave.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul
1974On raising. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Quirk, Rodney, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik
2010A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Dorling Kindersley: Pearson.Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew
1981Transformational syntax: A student’s guide to Chomsky’s Extended Standard Theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1988Transformational grammar: A first course. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1997Syntactic theory and the structure of English: A minimalist approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004English syntax: An introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Reed, Alonzo & Brainerd Kellogg
1908 (1889)Graded Lessons in English. New York: Charles E. Merrill Co.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian
1997Comparative syntax. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Robinson, Jane
1970Dependency structures and transformational rules. Language 46. 159–285. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ross, John Robert
1967Constraints on variables in syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Ryan, Karen
1983 Than as coordinator. Papers from the Nineteenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 353–361.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan, Thomas Wasow & Emily Bender
2003Syntactic theory: A formal introduction, 2nd edition. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Schubert, Klaus
1987Metataxis: Contrastive dependency syntax for machine translation. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
2003Metataxe: ein Dependenzmodell für die computerlinguistische Praxis. In Ágel et al. (eds.), 636–660.Google Scholar
Sgall, Petr
1967Generativní popis jazyka a česká deklinace [Generative description of language and Czech declension], Prague: Academia.; an English summary in PBML 6, 1966, 3–18; printed also in Wolfgang Klein and Arnim von Stechow (eds.) 1973: Prager Autorengruppe, Functional Generative Grammar in Prague, 394–408. Kronberg/Taunus: Scriptor Verlag GmbH.Google Scholar
Sgall, Petr & Eva Hajičová
1970A ‘Functional’ Generative Description. Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics 14, 3–38; also in Revue roumaine de linguistique 16 1971, 9–37ů reprinted in Eva Hajičová (ed.), Syntax – Semantics Interface 2017, 295–273. Prague: Karolinum.Google Scholar
Sgall, Petr, Eva Hajičová, & Jarmila Panevová
1986The meaning of the sentence in its semantic and pragmatic aspects. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Sobin, Nicholas
2011Syntactic analysis: The basics. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sportiche, Dominique, Hilda Koopman & Edward Stabler
2014An introduction to syntactic analysis. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Staal, J.
1967Word order in Sanskrit and universal grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Starosta, Stanley
1988The case for Lexicase: An outline of Lexicase grammatical theory. London: Pinter Publishers.Google Scholar
2003aDependency grammar and lexicalism. In Ágel et al. (eds.) 2003, 270–281.Google Scholar
2003bLexicase grammar. In Ágel et al. (eds.), 526–545.Google Scholar
Tallerman, Maggie
2005Understanding syntax. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Tarvainen, Kalevi
1981Einführung in die Dependenzgrammatik. 2. unveränderte Auflage. Series: Reihe Germanistische Linguistik 35. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Tesnière, Lucien
1959Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
2015 (1959)Elements of structural syntax, translated by Timothy Osborne and Sylvain Kahane. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, Linda
1993Beginning syntax. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tiktin, Heimann
1891–1893Grammatica româna, Bukarest: Iași.Google Scholar
Uzonyi, Pál
2003Dependenzstruktur und Konstituenzstruktur. In Ágel et al. (eds.), 230–247.Google Scholar
Van Einde, Frank
2007The Big Mess Construction. In Stefan Müller (ed.), Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 416–433. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Van Langendonck, Willy
1994Determiners as heads? Cognitive Linguistics 5, 243–259. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003The dependency concept and its foundations. In Ágel et al., 170–187.Google Scholar
Van Oirsouw, Robert
1987The syntax of coordination (Croom Helm Linguistic Series). London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert
2001An introduction to syntax. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Versteegh, Kees
1997Lands in linguistic thought III: The Arabic linguistic tradition. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Lin & Haitao Liu
2013Syntactic variation in Chinese-English code-switching. Lingua 123. 159–73. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Weber, Heinz
1992Dependenzgrammatik: Ein Arbeitsbuch. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Welke, Klaus
1995Dependenz, Valenz und Konstituenz. In Ludwig Eichinger & Hans-Werner Eroms (eds.), Dependenz und Valenz, 163–167. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.Google Scholar
Wells, Rulon S.
1947Immediate Constituents. Language 23. 81–117.Google Scholar
Whelpton, Matthew
1995The syntax and semantics of infinitives of result in English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
Wilder, Chris
1997Some properties of ellipsis in coordination. In Artemis Alexiadou and T. Alan Hall (eds.), Studies on universal grammar and typological variation, 59–107. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yamada, Hiroyasu & Yuji Matsumoto
2003Statistical dependency analysis with support vector machines. Proceedings of the 8th International Workshop on Parsing Technologies (IWPT), 195–196. Nancy, France.Google Scholar
Zoerner, Cyril & Brian Agbayani
2000Unifying left-peripheral deletion, gapping, and pseudogapping. Proceedings of the CLS 36–1: The main session, 549–556.Google Scholar
Subjects
BIC Subject: CFK – Grammar, syntax
BISAC Subject: LAN009060 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / Syntax
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2019014369 | Marc record