Cover not available
Part of
A Dependency Grammar of English: An introduction and beyond
Timothy Osborne
[Not in series 224] 2019
► pp. 429–438

References

Aarts, Flor & Jan Aarts
1982 English syntactic structures: Functions & categories in sentence analysis. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press and Bohn, Scheltema & Holkema.Google Scholar
Abney, Stephen
1987 The 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.) 2003 Dependency and valency: An international handbook of contemporary research, vol. 1. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ágel, Vilmos, Ludwig Eichinger, Hans-Werner Eroms, Peter Hellwig, Hans Jürgen Heringer, and Henning Lobin
(eds.) 2006 Dependency and valency: An international handbook of contemporary research, vol. 2. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Adger, David
2003 Core syntax: A minimalist approach. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Akmajian, Adrian, Richard Demers, Ann Farmer & Robert Harnish
1990 Linguistics: An introduction to language and communication, 3rd edition. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Allerton, David
1979 Essentials of grammatical theory: A consensus view of syntax and morphology. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Anderson, John
1997 A notional theory of syntactic categories. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006 Modern case grammars: A retrospect. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011 The substance of language volume I: The domain of syntax. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, Martin, David Kilby & Iggy Roca
1982 Foundations of general linguistics, second edition. London: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon
1974 Syntactic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.Google Scholar
Baker, Carl
1978 Introduction to generative transformational grammar. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
1989 English syntax. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Baum, Richard
1976 Dependenzgrammatik: Tesnière’s Modell der Sprachbeschreibung in weisenschaftsgeschichtlicher und kritischer Sicht ( Beihefte zur Zeischrift für Romanische Philologie, Bd. 151). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baumgärtner, Klaus
1970 Konstituenz und Dependenz. In Hugo Steger (ed.), Vorschläge für eine strukturale Grammatik des Deutschen, 52–77. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Berman, Arlene
1974 Adjectives and adjective complement constructions in English. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Billroth, Gustav
1832 Lateinische Syntax für die oberen Klassen gelehrter Schulen. Leipzig.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, Leonard
1933 Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Bondzio, Wilhelm
1974 Zu einigen Aufgaben der Bedeutungsforschung aus syntaktischer Sicht. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 27. 159–51.Google Scholar
Borsley, Robert D.
1991 Syntactic theory: A unified approach. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Börjars, Kersti & Kate Burridge
2001 Introducing English grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Brassai, Sámuel
1860 A magyar mondat [The Hungarian sentence.] Magyar Akadémiai Értesítő. A Nyelv- és Széptudományi Osztály Közlönye 1. 159–399.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan
2001 Lexical-Functional Syntax. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Bröker, Norbert
1999 Eine Dependenzgrammatik zur Kopplung heterogener Wissensquellen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003 Formal 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
1997 Analysing sentences: An approach to English syntax, 2nd edition. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Carnie, Andrew
2010 Constituent structure, 2nd edition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2013 Syntax: A generative introduction. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chaves, Rui
2014 On the disunity of right-node raising phenomena: extraposition, ellipsis, and deletion. Language 90, 4. 159–886. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1957 Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton Publishers.Google Scholar
1970 Remarks on nominalization. In Roderick Jacobs & Peter Rosenbaum (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Waltham, MA: Ginn and Company: A Xerox Company.Google Scholar
1973 Conditions on transformations. In S. Anderson and P. Kiparsky (eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle, 184–221. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
1981 Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Dordrecht: Foris publications.Google Scholar
1986 Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
1995 The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Stephen
1847 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. Cincinnati: H. W. Barnes & Company.Google Scholar
Colliander, Peter
2003 Dependenzstruktur und grammatische Funktion. In Ágel et al. (eds.), 263–269.Google Scholar
Collins, Michael
1999 Head-Driven Statistical Models for Natural Language Parsing. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Corver, Norbert
1990 The syntax of the left branch construction. Ph.D. thesis, Tilburg University.Google Scholar
Covington, Michael
1984 Syntactic theory in the High Middle Ages. London: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cowper, Elizabeth
1992 A concise introduction to syntactic theory: The government-binding approach. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter
2009 Natural language syntax. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter & Ray Jackendoff
2005 Simpler Syntax. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coșeriu, Eugenio
1980 Un 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
2003 On extraction from NPs. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21, 1. 159–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Denham, Kristin & Anne Lobeck
2013 Linguistics for everyone: An introduction. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Downing, Angela & Philip Locke
2006 English grammar: A university course, Second Edition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Eisner, Jason
1996 An 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
1994 An introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph
1976 A Transformational Approach to English Syntax: Root, Structure Preserving, and Local Transformations. Academic Press: New York.Google Scholar
Engel, Ulrich
1994 Syntax der deutschen Gegenwartssprache, 3rd ed. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.Google Scholar
Eroms, Hans-Werner
2000 Syntax der deutschen Sprache. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eroms, Hans-Werner & Hans Heringer
2003 Dependenz und lineare Ordnung. In Ágel et al. (eds.), 247–262.Google Scholar
Fabb, Nigel
1994 Sentence structure. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Falk, Yehuda
2001 Lexical Functional Grammar: An introduction to parallel constraint-based syntax. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Faraci, Robert
1974 Aspects of the grammar of infinitives and for-phrases. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles
1968 The 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
2006 Deletion through movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 20. 159–431.Google Scholar
Fromkin, Victoria
(ed.) 2000 An introduction to linguistic theory. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Gaifman, Chaim
1965 Dependency systems and phrase-structure systems. Information and Control 8. 159–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Groß, Thomas
1992 Konstruktive Stemmatologie. Papiere zur Linguistik 47. 159–139.Google Scholar
1993 NP vs. DP. Papiere zur Linguistik 48. 159–28.Google Scholar
1999 Theoretical foundations of dependency syntax. München: Iudicium.Google Scholar
2003 Dependency Grammar’s limits – and ways of extending them. In Ágel et al. (eds.), 331–351.Google Scholar
2014 Clitics 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
2009 Toward a practical dependency grammar theory of discontinuities. SKY Journal of Linguistics 22. 159–90.Google Scholar
2015 The dependency status of function words: Auxiliaries. Depling 2015, Uppsala, Sweden. Available at: [URL]
Grosu, Alexander
1974 On the nature of the left branching condition. Linguistic Inquiry 5. 159–319.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane
1991 Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2006 Thinking syntactically: A guide to argumentation and analysis. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane & Jacquelin Guéron
1999 English grammar: A generative introduction. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Happ, Heinz
1976 Grundfragen einer Dependenz-Grammatik des Lateinischen. Vendenhoeck & Ruprecht in Göttingen.Google Scholar
Hays, David
1960 Grouping and dependency theories. Proceedings of the National Symposium on Machine Translation, 257–266, UCLA, February 1960.Google Scholar
1964 Dependency theory: A formalism and some observations. Language 40. 159–525. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1967 Introduction to computational linguistics. London: macdonald & co. (publishers) ltd.Google Scholar
Hellwig, Peter
2003 Dependency Unification Grammar. In Ágel et al. (eds.), 593–635.Google Scholar
Heringer, Hans
1996 Deutsche Syntax: Dependentiell. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Heringer, Hans, Bruno Strecker & Rainer Wimmer
1980 Syntax: Frage – Lösungen – Alternativen. Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag.Google Scholar
Herbst, Thomas & Susen Schüller
2008 Introduction to syntactic analysis: A valency Approach. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Holmes, Jasper & Richard Hudson
2005 Constructions in Word Grammar. In Jan-Ola, Ostman and Mirjam Fried (eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions, 243–272. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, Norbert, Jairo Nunes & Kleanthes Grohman
2005 Understanding Minimalism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey Pullum
2002 The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Richard
1976 Arguments for a non-transformational grammar. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1980 A second attack on constituency: A replay to Dahl. Linguistics 18. 159–504. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1984 Word Grammar. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
1988 Coordination and grammatical relations. Journal of Linguistics 24. 159–342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1989 Gapping and grammatical relations. Linguistics 25. 159–94.Google Scholar
1990 An English Word Grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
2003 Word Grammar. In Ágel et al. (eds.), 508–526.Google Scholar
2007 Language networks: The new Word Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2010 An introduction to Word Grammar. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyvärinen, Irma
2003 Der verbal Valenzträger. In Ágel et al. (eds.), 738–764.Google Scholar
Imrényi, Andras
2013 Constituency 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
1977 X’ Syntax: A study of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Järventausta, Marja
2003a Das Verb als strukturelles Zentrum des Satzes. In Ágel et al. (eds.), 717–737.Google Scholar
2003b Das Subjektproblem in der Valenzforschung. In Ágel et al. (eds.), 781–794.Google Scholar
Jones, Charles
1991 Purpose clauses: Syntax, thematics, and semantics of English purpose constructions. Dordrecht: Spring Science+Business Media.Google Scholar
Jong-Bok, Kim & Peter Sells
2011 The Big Mess Construction: Interactions between the lexicon and constructions. English Language and Linguistics 15, 2. 159–362.Google Scholar
Jung, Wha-Young
1995 Syntaktische Relationen im Rahmen der Dependenzgrammatik. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.Google Scholar
2003 Rektion und Kongruenz in der Dependenzgrammatik. In Ágel et al. (eds.), 282–294.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, Daniel & James Martin
2000 Speech and language processing: An introduction to natural language processing, computational linguistics, and speech recognition. New Dehli: Pearson.Google Scholar
Kahane, Sylvain
1996 If HPSG were a dependency grammar… Actes de TALN, Marseille 22–24, May 1996 159–49.Google Scholar
Kahane, Sylvain & Timothy Osborne
2015 Translators’ introduction. In Lucien Tesnière (1959), Elements of Structure Syntax. Translated from French to English by Timothy Osborne and Sylvain Kahane. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keenan, Edward & Bernard Comrie
1977 Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8, 1. 159–99.Google Scholar
Kern, Franz
1883 Zur Methodik der deutschen Unterricht. Berlin: Nicolaische Verlags-Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
Keyser, Samuel & Paul Postal
1976 Beginning English grammar. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Kim, Jong-Bok & Peter Sells
2008 English syntax: An introduction. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang
1981 Some 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
1977 Studien zu Dependenz, Valenz, und Satzmodell Teil 1. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Kroeger, Paul
2005 Analyzing grammar: An introduction. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kruijff, Gert-Jan
2006 Dependency grammar. In Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, 2nd edition, 444–450. Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kübler, Sandra, Ryan McDonald & Joakim Nivre
2009 Dependency parsing. Morgan & Claypool. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kudo, Taku & Yuji Matsumoto
2002 Japanese dependency analysis using cascaded chunking. Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Computational Language Learning (CoNLL), Taipei, Taiwan, 63–69.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumo
1976 Gapping: A functional analysis. Linguistic Inquiry 7. 159–318.Google Scholar
Kunze, Jürgen
1975 Abhängigkeitsgrammatik. Series: studia grammatika XII . Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Kroeger, Paul
2005 Analyzing grammar: An introduction. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, Howard
2000 Syntactic structures revisited: Contemporary lectures on classic transformational theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lechner, Winfried
2001 Reduced and phrasal comparatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19. 159–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004 Ellipsis in Comparatives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liu, Haitao
2008 Dependency distance as a metric of language comprehension difficulty. Journal of Cognitive Science 9, 2. 159–191. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 Probability distribution of dependencies based on Chinese dependency treebanks. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 16, 3. 159–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 Dependency direction as a means of word-order typology: A method based on dependency treebanks. Lingua 2010, 120, 6. 159–1578. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liu, Haitao, Richard Hudson & Zhiwei Feng
2009 Using a Chinese treebank to measure dependency distance. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 5, 2. 159–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lobeck, Anne
2000 Discovering grammar: An introduction to English sentence structure. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lobin, Henning
1993 Koordinationssyntax als prozedurales Phänomen. Series: Studien zur deutschen Sprache 46. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
McDonald, Ryan
2006 Discriminative learning and spanning tree algorithms for dependency parsing. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Maruyama, Hiroshi
1990 Structural disambiguation with constraint propagation, Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), 31–38. Pittsburgh, PA. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Marneffe, Marie-Catherine, Timothy Dozat, Natalia Silvaire, Katrin Haverinen, Filip Ginter, Joakim Nivre & Christopher D. Manning
2014 Universal Stanford Dependencies: A cross-linguistic typology. LREC 14.Google Scholar
Matthews, Peter
1981 Syntax. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maxwell, Daniel & Klaus Schubert
(eds.) 1989 Metataxis in Practice: Dependency syntax for multilingual machine translation. Dordrecht: Foris Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCawley, James
1982 Parentheticals and discontinuous constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 13, 1. 159–106.Google Scholar
1998 The syntactic phenomena of English, 2nd edition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Melʹčuk, Igor
1958 Mašinnom 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
1979 Studies in dependency syntax. Ann Arbor: Koroma Publishers.Google Scholar
1988 Dependency syntax: Theory and practice. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
2003 Levels of dependency description: Concepts and problems. In Ágel et al. (eds.), 188–229.Google Scholar
2009 Dependency 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
1987 Surface syntax of English: A formal model with the Meaning-Text Framework. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Menzel, Wolfgang & Ingo Schröder
1998 Decision 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
2004 Fragments and ellipsis. Linguistics and Philosophy 27. 159–738.Google Scholar
Miller, Jim
2011 A critical introduction to syntax. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Edith
2006 An introduction to syntax: Fundamentals of syntactic analysis. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan
2016 Grammatical theory: From transformational grammar to constraint-based approaches (Textbooks in Language Sciences 1). Berlin: Language Science Press. Available at [URL]. DOI logo
Napoli, Donna Jo
1982 Initial material deletion in English. Glossa 16. 159–111.Google Scholar
1983 Comparative ellipsis: A phrase structure analysis. Linguistic Inquiry 14. 159–694.Google Scholar
1993 Syntax: Theory and problems. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Neijt, Anneke
1980 Gapping: A contribution to sentence grammar. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Nivre, Joakim
2008 Algorithms for deterministic incremental dependency parsing. Computational Linguistics 34, 4. 159–553. DOI logoGoogle 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
2016 Universal 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.
2018 Universal Dependencies 2.2. Data/software, LINDAT/CLARIN digital library at Institute of Formal and Applied Linguistics, Charles University in Prague, Praha, Czechia, [URL], Jul 2018.
O’Grady, William
1998 The syntax of idioms. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 16. 159–312.Google Scholar
Osborne, Timothy
2003 The Left Elbow Constraint. Studia Linguistica 57, 3, 233–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005 Beyond the constituent: A DG analysis of chains. Folia Linguistica 39, 3–4. 251–297.Google Scholar
2006a Shared material and grammar: Toward a dependency grammar theory of non-gapping coordination for English and German. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 25. 159–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006b Gapping vs. non-gapping coordination. Linguistische Berichte 213. 159–338.Google Scholar
2006c Parallel conjuncts. Studia Linguistica 60, 1. 159–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 The weight of predicates: A dependency grammar analysis of predicate weight in German. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 19, 1. 159–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 Major constituents and two dependency grammar constraints on sharing in coordination. Linguistics 46, 6. 159–1165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 Comparative coordination vs. comparative subordination. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 27. 159–454. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 Edge features, catenae, and dependency-based Minimalism. Linguistic Analysis 34, 3–4. 321–366.Google Scholar
2013 A look at Tesnière’s “Elements” through the lens of modern syntactic theory. Depling 2013, Prague. Available at: [URL]
2014a Dependency grammar. In Andrew Carnie, Yosuke Sato, and Daniel Saddiqi (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Syntax, 604–626. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2014b Type 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
2015 Diagnostics for constituents: Dependency, constituency, and the status of function words. Depling 2015, Uppsala, Sweden. Available at [URL]
2018 Tests 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
2012a Constructions are catenae: Construction Grammar meets Dependency Grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 23, 1. 159–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012b Antecedent containment: A dependency grammar solution in terms of catenae. Studia Linguistica 66, 2. 159–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 The do-so-diagnostic: Against finite VP and for flat non-finite VPs. Folia Linguistic 50, 1. 159–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 Left node blocking. Journal of Linguistics 53. 159–688. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Osborne, Timothy & Daniel Maxwell
2015 A historical overview of the status of function words in dependency grammar. Depling 2015, Uppsala, Sweden. Available at [URL]
Osborne, Timothy and Matthew Reeeve
2018 Scope 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
2011 Bare phrase structure, label-less trees, and specifier-less syntax: Is Minimalism becoming a dependency grammar? The Linguistic Review 28. 159–364. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 Catenae: Introducing a novel unit of syntactic analysis. Syntax 15, 4. 159–396. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ouhalla, Jamal
1994 Introducing transformational grammar: From rules to principles and parameters. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Payne, John
1993 The 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Payne, Thomas
2006 Exploring language structure: A student’s guide. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinkham, Jessie
1982a The formation of comparative clauses in French and English. Ph.D. dissertation. Reproduced by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
1982b The 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
2003 Linear order and constituency. Linguistic Inquiry 34, 1. 37–90.Google Scholar
Poole, Geoffrey
2002 Syntactic theory. New York: Pelgrave.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul
1974 On raising. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Quirk, Rodney, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik
2010 A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Dorling Kindersley: Pearson.Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew
1981 Transformational syntax: A student’s guide to Chomsky’s Extended Standard Theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1988 Transformational grammar: A first course. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997 Syntactic theory and the structure of English: A minimalist approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004 English syntax: An introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reed, Alonzo & Brainerd Kellogg
1908 (1889) Graded Lessons in English. New York: Charles E. Merrill Co.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian
1997 Comparative syntax. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Robinson, Jane
1970 Dependency structures and transformational rules. Language 46. 159–285. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ross, John Robert
1967 Constraints 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
2003 Syntactic theory: A formal introduction, 2nd edition. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Schubert, Klaus
1987 Metataxis: Contrastive dependency syntax for machine translation. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
2003 Metataxe: ein Dependenzmodell für die computerlinguistische Praxis. In Ágel et al. (eds.), 636–660.Google Scholar
Sgall, Petr
1967 Generativní 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
1970 A ‘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
1986 The meaning of the sentence in its semantic and pragmatic aspects. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Sobin, Nicholas
2011 Syntactic analysis: The basics. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sportiche, Dominique, Hilda Koopman & Edward Stabler
2014 An introduction to syntactic analysis. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Staal, J.
1967 Word order in Sanskrit and universal grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Starosta, Stanley
1988 The case for Lexicase: An outline of Lexicase grammatical theory. London: Pinter Publishers.Google Scholar
2003a Dependency grammar and lexicalism. In Ágel et al. (eds.) 2003, 270–281.Google Scholar
2003b Lexicase grammar. In Ágel et al. (eds.), 526–545.Google Scholar
Tallerman, Maggie
2005 Understanding syntax. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Tarvainen, Kalevi
1981 Einführung in die Dependenzgrammatik. 2. unveränderte Auflage. Series: Reihe Germanistische Linguistik 35. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Tesnière, Lucien
1959 Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
2015 (1959) Elements of structural syntax, translated by Timothy Osborne and Sylvain Kahane. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomas, Linda
1993 Beginning syntax. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tiktin, Heimann
1891–1893 Grammatica româna, Bukarest: Iași.Google Scholar
Uzonyi, Pál
2003 Dependenzstruktur und Konstituenzstruktur. In Ágel et al. (eds.), 230–247.Google Scholar
Van Einde, Frank
2007 The 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
1994 Determiners as heads? Cognitive Linguistics 5, 243–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003 The dependency concept and its foundations. In Ágel et al., 170–187.Google Scholar
Van Oirsouw, Robert
1987 The syntax of coordination (Croom Helm Linguistic Series). London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert
2001 An introduction to syntax. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Versteegh, Kees
1997 Lands in linguistic thought III: The Arabic linguistic tradition. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, Lin & Haitao Liu
2013 Syntactic variation in Chinese-English code-switching. Lingua 123. 159–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weber, Heinz
1992 Dependenzgrammatik: Ein Arbeitsbuch. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Welke, Klaus
1995 Dependenz, Valenz und Konstituenz. In Ludwig Eichinger & Hans-Werner Eroms (eds.), Dependenz und Valenz, 163–167. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.Google Scholar
Wells, Rulon S.
1947 Immediate Constituents. Language 23. 81–117.Google Scholar
Whelpton, Matthew
1995 The syntax and semantics of infinitives of result in English. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
Wilder, Chris
1997 Some 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yamada, Hiroyasu & Yuji Matsumoto
2003 Statistical 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
2000 Unifying left-peripheral deletion, gapping, and pseudogapping. Proceedings of the CLS 36–1: The main session, 549–556.Google Scholar