Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T00:28:14.639Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Coordinate Deletion and n-ary Branching Nodes1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

R. Van Oirsouw
R. Van Oirsouw
Affiliation:
Institute of English, University of Utrecht
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In this paper, we wish to address a class of problems connected with deletion under identity in coordinated structures; more specifically, we will endeavour to state the constraints which block deletion under identity in coordinated structures. A number of rules effecting deletion in coordinated structures have been formulated in the last two decades; the best-known ones are Gapping (Ross, 1970) and Coordination Reduction (e.g. Koutsoudas, 1971).

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , September 1983 , pp. 305 - 319
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1983

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

Gazdar, G. (1981). Unbounded dependencies and coordinated structures. L In 7. 155–184.Google Scholar
Hankamer, J. (1972). On the nonexistence of mirror image rules in syntax. In Kimball, J. P., (ed.) Syntax & semantics, vol. 1. New York. 199–212.Google Scholar
Hankamer, J. (1973). Unacceptable ambiguity. L In 40, 17–67.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1972). Gapping and related rules. L In 3. 21–35.Google Scholar
Kimball John, P. (1973). The formal theory of grammar. Englewood Cliffs.Google Scholar
Koutsoudas, A. (1971). Gapping, conjunction reduction, and identity deletion. FL, 337–386.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. (1976). Gapping: a functional analysis. L In 7. 300–318.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Peters, S. (1969). Phrasal coordination and symmetrical predicates. In Reibel, D. & Schane, S., (eds), Modern studies in English. Englewood Cliffs.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Ross, J. (1966). A criterion for verb phrase constituency. Mathematical Linguistic and Translation Report NSF-17. Cambridge, Mass.: The Aitken Computation Laboratory, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Langendoen, D. T. (1975). Acceptable conclusions from unacceptable ambiguity. In Cohen, D. & Wirth, J. R., (eds.) Testing linguistic hypotheses. Franklinville, New York.Google Scholar
Maling, J. M. (1972). On gapping and the order of constituents. L In 3 101–108.Google Scholar
Neijt, A. H. (1979). Gapping: a contribution to sentence grammar. Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Oirsouw, R. van (1981). Deletion processes in coordinated structures in English. Ph.D. dissertation, Cambridge University.Google Scholar
Oirsouw, R. van (1982). Gazdar on Coordination and Constituents. L In 13. no. 3.Google Scholar
Pullum, G. K. (1979). Rule interaction and the organization of a grammar. New York.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1970). Gapping and the order of constituents. In Bierwisch, M., & Heidolph, K. E., (eds.), Progress in linguistics. The Hague.Google Scholar
Sag, I. A. (1976). Deletion and logical form. Ph.D. dissertation, M.I.T.Google Scholar
Tai, J-Y. (1969). Coordination reduction. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University.Google Scholar