Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T01:05:45.839Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Case, category, and configuration*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Jane J. Robinson
Jane J. Robinson
Affiliation:
IBM Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, New York
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Representation of syntactic relations by dependency trees with nodes labelled by categories of lexical morphemes and with branches effectively labelled by relational morphemes reveals the relationships of elements to which selectional restrictions apply more directly than do current phrase structure characterizations and avoids certain defects of a configurational definition of relationships. The relations are those of CASE as defined by Fillmore and more generally those of HEAD-OF and COMPLEMENT-OF. Adoption of the view that SUBJECT-OF is a surface rather than a deep structure relation eliminates the need to distinguish strict subcategorization rules from selectional rules.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , March 1970 , pp. 57 - 80
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1970

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

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. In press. Remarks on nominalization. Readings in English Transformational Grammar, ed. by Jacobs, R. A. and Rosenbaum, P. S.Boston: Blaisdell-Ginn.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1966). A proposal concerning English prepositions. Monograph Series on Language and Linguistics No. 19, ed. by Dinneen, F. P., S.J., 19–33. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The Case for Case. Universals in Linguistic Theory, ed. by Bach, E. and Harms, R.1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Gleason, H. A. (1961). An Introduction to Descriptive Linguistics [revised edition]. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Gruber, J. (1967). Look and See. Lg. 43. 937–947.Google Scholar
Hall, B. [now B. Hall Partee] (1965). Subject and object in English. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Doctoral Dissertation.Google Scholar
Harris, Z. S. (1957). Co-occurrence and transformation in linguistic structure. Lg. 33. 283–340, as reprinted in The Structure of Language: Readings in the Philosophy of Language, ed. by Fodor, J. A. and Katz, J. J. 155–210. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. & Kiparsky, C. (Forthcoming). Fact. Recent Advances in Linguistics, ed. by Bierwisch, N. and Heidolph, K.-E.The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1965). On the Nature of Syntactic Irregularity. Report NSF-16. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard U.Google Scholar
Postal, P. M. (1966). On so-called pronouns in English. Monograph Series on Language and Linguistics No. 19, ed. by Dinneen, F. P., S.J., 177–206. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. J. (1967). A dependency-based transformational grammar. Presented at the Tenth International Congress of Linguists, Bucharest, 1967. Yorktown Heights, N.Y.: IBM Watson Research Center, Research Report RC-1889.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. J. (1968). Dependency structures and transformational rules. Presented at the winter meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, New York, December 1968.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, P. S. (1967). The Grammar of English Predicate Complement Constructions. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar