Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T00:40:22.078Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Coordination and grammatical relations1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Richard Hudson
Richard Hudson
Affiliation:
Department of Phonetics and Linguistics, University College London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The most serious recent work on the theory of coordination has probably been done in terms of three theories of grammatical structure: Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar (GPSG–see especially Gazdar, 1981; Gazdar et al., 1982; 1985; Sag et al., 1985; Schachter & Mordechay, 1983), Categorial Grammar (CG–see especially Steedman, 1985; Dowty, 1985) and Transformational Grammar (TG–notably Williams, 1978, 1981; Neijt, 1979; van Oirsouw, 1985, 1987). Each of these approaches is different in important respects: for instance, according to whether or not they allow deletion rules, and according to the kinds of information which they allow to be encoded in syntactic features. However, behind these differences lies an important similarity: in each case the theory concerned makes two assumptions about grammatical structure in general (i.e. about all structures, including coordinate ones):

I The basic syntagmatic relations in sentence-structure are part-whole relations (consituent structure) and temporal order; note that this is true whether or not syntactic structure is seen as a ‘projection’ of lexical properties, since these lexical properies are themselves defined in terms of constituent structure and temporal order.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , September 1988 , pp. 303 - 342
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, J. (1977). On case grammar. Prolegomena to a theory of grammatical relations. London: Groom Helm.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. & Durand, J. (1986). Dependency phonology. In Durand, J. (ed.), Dependency and non-linear phonology. London: Croom Helm. 1–54.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Dik, S. (1968). Coordination: its implications for the theory of general linguistics. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Dowty, D. (1982). Grammatical relations and Montague grammar. In Jacobson, P. & Pullum, G. (eds), The nature of syntactic representation. Dordrecht: Reidel. 79–130.Google Scholar
Dowty, D. (1985). Type raising, functional composition and non-constituent conjunction. Mimeo.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. (1968). The case for case. In Bach, E. & Harms, R. (eds), Universals in linguistic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 1–88.Google Scholar
Gazdar, G. (1981). Unbounded dependencies and coordinate structure. LIn 12. 155–184.Google Scholar
Gazdar, G., Klein, E., Pullum, G. & Sag, I. (1985). Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gazdar, G., Pullum, G., Sag, I. & Wasow, T. (1982). Coordination and transformational grammar. LIn 13. 663–676.Google Scholar
Gleitman, L. (1965). Coordinating conjunctions in English. Lg 41. 260–293.Google Scholar
Haiman, J. (1985). Natural syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hudson, R. (1976). Conjunction-reduction, gapping and right-node raising. Lg 52. 535–562.Google Scholar
Hudson, R. (1982). Incomplete conjuncts. LIn 13. 547–550.Google Scholar
Hudson, R. (1984). Word grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hudson, R. (1985a). A psychologically and socially plausible theory of language structure. In Schiffrin, D. (ed.), Meaning, form and use in context: linguistic applications. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press. 150–159.Google Scholar
Hudson, R. (1985b). The limits of subcategorization. Linguistic Analysis 15. 233–255.Google Scholar
Hudson, R. (1985c). Some basic assumptions about linguistic and non-linguistic knowledge. Quaderni di Semantica 6. 284–287.Google Scholar
Hudson, R. (1986a). Frame semantics, frame linguistics, frame … Quaderni di Semantica 7. 95–111.Google Scholar
Hudson, R. (1986b). Systematic grammar. Review of Michael Halliday. An introduction to Functional Grammar and Christopher Butler. Systemic linguistics: theory and application. Linguistics 24. 791–815.Google Scholar
Hudson, R. (1986c). Sociolinguistics and the theory grammar. Linguistics 24. 1053–1078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, R. (1986d). A prolog implementation of word grammar. Speech, hearing and language: work in progress 2. Dept. of Phonetics and Linguistics, UCL, London. 133–150.Google Scholar
Hudson, R. (1987a). Zwicky on heads. JL 23. 109–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, R. (1987b). Extraction and grammatical relstions. Mimeo.Google Scholar
Hudson, R. (1987c). Gapping and grammatical relations. Mimeo.Google Scholar
Hudson, R. and van Langendonck, W. (forthcoming). Word grammar. In Droste, F. (ed.), Main Streams in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1971). Gapping and related rules. LIn 2. 21–35.Google Scholar
Maling, J. (1972). On ‘Gapping and the order of constituents’. LIn 3. 101–108.Google Scholar
Matthews, P. (1981). Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Morrill, G. (1986). Meta-categorial grammar. Mimeo.Google Scholar
Napoli, D. J. & Nespor, M. (1986). Comparative structures in Italian. Lg 62. 622–653.Google Scholar
Neijt, A. (1979). Gapping. A contribution to sentence grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Peterson, P. J. (1982). Conjunction in LFG. Mimeo.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. (1970). Dependency structures and transformational rules. Lg 46. 259–285.Google Scholar
Ross, J. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. MIT Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
Ross, J. (1970). Gapping and the order of constituents. In Bierwisch, M. & Heidolph, K. (eds), Progress in linguistics. The Hague: Mouton. 249–259.Google Scholar
Sag, I., Gazdar, G., Wasow, T. & Weisler, S. (1985). Coordination and how to distinguish categories. NLLT 3. 117–171.Google Scholar
Schachter, P. (1977). Constraints on coordination. Lg 53. 86–103.Google Scholar
Schachter, P. (1984). A note on syntactic categories and coordination in GPSG. NLLT 2. 269–281.Google Scholar
Schachter, P. & Mordechay, S. (1983). A phrase-structure account of non-constituent conjunctions. In Barlow M., Flickinger D. & Wescoat E. (eds), Proceedings of the Second West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics.Stanford:Department of Linguistics. 260–274.Google Scholar
Sells, P. (1985). Lectures on contemporary syntactic theory. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Sgall, P., Hajicová, E. & Panevová, J. (1986). The meaning of the sentence in its semantic and pragmatic aspects. Prague: Academia.Google Scholar
Steedman, M. (1985). Dependency and coordination in the grammar of Dutch and English. Lg 61. 523–568.Google Scholar
Tesnière, L. (1959). Eléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
van Langendonck, W. & Hudson, R. (1985). Woordgrammatica. In Droste, F. (ed.), Stromingen in de hedendaagse Linguistiek. Leuven: Leuven University Press. 192–229.Google Scholar
van Oirsouw, Robert (1985). A linear approach to coordinate deletion. Linguistics 23. 363–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Oirsouw, Robert (1987). The syntax of coordination. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Williams, E. (1978). Across-the-board rule application. LIn 9. 31–43.Google Scholar
Williams, E. (1981). Transformationless grammar. LIn 12. 645–653.Google Scholar
Wood, M. (1986). The description and processing of co-ordinate constructions. CCL/UMIST Technical Reports 86/4.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. (1978). Arguing for constituents. Papers from the fourteenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. 503–512.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. (1985). Heads. JL 21. 1–30.Google Scholar
Zwicky, A. (1986). Direct reference to heads. Mimeo.Google Scholar