Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-4hvwz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-25T22:15:24.389Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

23 - Dependency Grammar

from Part V - The Role of Morphology in Theories of Phonology and Syntax

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 January 2017

By
Richard Hudson
Edited by
Andrew Hippisley  and
Gregory Stump
Andrew Hippisley
Affiliation:
University of Kentucky
Gregory Stump
Affiliation:
University of Kentucky
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology , pp. 657 - 682
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

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

Anderson, John. 1977. On Case Grammar: Prolegomena to a Theory of Grammatical Relations. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen; Brown, Lea, Gaby, Alice, and Lecarme, Jacqueline. 2006. Life on the edge: There’s morphology there after all!, Lingue e Linguaggio 5, 33–48.Google Scholar
Barabasi, Albert L. 2009. Scale-free networks: A decade and beyond, Science 325, 412–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borer, Hagit. 1998. Morphology and syntax. In Spencer, Andrew and Zwicky, Arnold (eds.), The Handbook of Morphology, 151–90. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Borsley, Robert; Tallerman, Maggie, and Willis, David. 2007. The Syntax of Welsh. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camdzic, Amela, and Hudson, Richard. 2007. Serbo-Croat clitics and word grammar. Research in Language (University of Lodz) 4, 5–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbett, Greville. 2009. Morphology-free Syntax: Two potential counter-examples from Serbo-Croat. In Franks, Steven, Chidambaran, Vrinda, and Joseph, Brian (eds.), A Linguist’s Linguist: Studies in South Slavic Linguistics in Honor of E. Wayles Browne, 149–66. Bloomington, IN: Slavica.Google Scholar
Creider, Chet, and Hudson, Richard. 1999. Inflectional morphology in Word Grammar. Lingua 107, 163–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Debussmann, Ralph. 2006. Extensible Dependency Grammar: A Modular Grammar Formalism Based on Multigraph Description. Ph.D. dissertation, Universität des Saarlandes, Saarbrücken.Google Scholar
Diaconescu, Stefan. 2002. A Generative Dependency Grammar. In Ishizuka, Mitsuru and Sattar, Abdul (eds.), 7th Pacific Rim International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Tokyo, Japan, August 18–22, 2002 Proceedings, 605. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Duran-Eppler, Eva. 2011. Emigranto: The Syntax of German-English Code-switching. Vienna: Braumüller.Google Scholar
Ferrer i Cancho, Ramon; Solé, Ricard, and Köhler, Reinhard. 2004. Patterns in syntactic dependency networks. Physical Review E 69, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gaifman, Haim. 1965. Dependency systems and phrase-structure systems. Information and Control 8, 304–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gisborne, Nikolas. 2010. The Event Structure of Perception Verbs. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gisborne, Nikolas. forthcoming. Word grammar and new morphology. In Andrew Hippisley and Nikolas Gisborne (eds.), Defaults in Morphological Theory. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gisborne, Nikolas. forthcoming. Word grammar morphology. In Oxford Handbook of Morphology.Google Scholar
Gragg, G. 1994. Babylonian grammatical texts. In Asher, Ronald (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 296–8. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Gross, Thomas, and Osborne, Timothy. 2013. Katena und Konstruktion: Ein Vorschlag zu einer dependenziellen Konstruktionsgrammatik. Zeitschrift Für Sprachwissenschaft 32, 41–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hays, David. 1964. Dependency theory: A formalism and some observations. Language 40, 511–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heringer, Hans J. 1993. Dependency syntax: Basic ideas and the classical model. In Jacobs, Joachim, von Stechow, Arnim, Sternefeld, Wolfgang, and Venneman, Theo (eds.), Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Vol. 1, 298–316. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney, and Pullum, Geoffrey. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 1984. Word Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 1990. English Word Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 2001. Clitics in word grammar, UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 13, 243–94.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 2003a. The psychological reality of syntactic dependency relations. In Kahane, Sylvain and Nasr, Alexis (eds.), Proceedings of the First International Conference on Meaning-text Theory 181–92. Paris: École Normale Supérieure.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 2003b. Trouble on the left periphery. Lingua 113, 607–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 2007. Language Networks: The New Word Grammar. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 2010. An Introduction to Word Grammar. Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Richard. forthcoming. Default inheritance, word grammar morphology and French clitics. In Hippisley, Andrew and Gisborne, Nikolas (eds.), Defaults in Morphological Theory. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Joshi, Aravind, and Rambow, Owen. 2003. A formalism for Dependency Grammar based on Tree Adjoining Grammar. In Kahane, Sylvain and Nasr, Alexis (eds.), Proceedings of the First International Conference on Meaning-text Theory. Paris: École Normale Supérieure.Google Scholar
Kahane, Sylvain 2004. The Meaning-text Theory. In Àgel, Vilmos, Eichinger, Ludwig, Eroms, Hans-Werner, Hellwig, Peter, Heringer, Hans-Jürgen, and Lobin, Henning (eds.), Dependency and Valency: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Karmiloff-Smith, Annette. 1994. Precis of Beyond modularity: A developmental perspective on cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 17, 693–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kübler, Sandra; McDonald, Ryan, and Nivre, Joakim. 2009. Dependency parsing. Synthesis Lectures on Human Language Technologies 2, 1–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunze, Jürgen. 1975. Abhängigkeitsgrammatik. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Mel’cuk, Igor. 1974. Opyt teorii lingvisticeskix modelej “Smysl<=>Tekst”. [Outline of a Theory of Linguistic Models of Meaning-text Type]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Mel’cuk, Igor. 1988. Dependency Syntax: Theory and Practice. Albany: State University Press of New York.Google Scholar
Mel’cuk, Igor. 1992–2000. Cours de morphologie générale, 5 vols. Montreal: Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal.Google Scholar
Mel’cuk, Igor. 2003. Levels of dependency in linguistic description: Concepts and problems. In Agel, Vilmos, Eichinger, Ludwig, Eroms, Hans-Werner, Hellwig, Peter, Heringer, Hans Jürgen, and Lobin, Henning (eds.), Dependency and Valency: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Vol. 1, 188–229. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mel’cuk, Igor. 2008. Aspects of the Theory of Morphology. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Mel’cuk, Igor. 2009. Dependency in natural language. In Polguère, Alain and Mel’cuk, Igor (eds.), Dependency in Linguistic Description. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Onnis, Luca; Christiansen, Morten, and Chater, Nick. 2006. Human language processing: Connectionist models. In Brown, Keith (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn., 401–9. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Osborne, Timothy; Putnam, Michael, and Gross, Thomas. 2012. Catenae: Introducing a novel unit of syntactic analysis. Syntax 15, 354–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reisberg, Daniel. 2007. Cognition: Exploring the Science of the Mind, 3rd edn. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Robins, Robert. 1959. In defence of WP. Transactions of the Philological Society 99, 114–44. (Reprinted in 2001).Google Scholar
Robins, Robert. 1967. A Short History of Linguistics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Robinson, Jane. 1970. Dependency structure and transformational rules. Language 46, 259–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosta, Andrew. 1997. English Syntax and Word Grammar Theory. Ph.D. dissertation, UCL, London.Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold. 1991. Autolexical Syntax: A theory of Parallel Grammatical Representations. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sgall, Petr; Hajicová, Eva, and Panevova, Jarmila. 1986. The Meaning of the Sentence in its Semantic and Pragmatic Aspects. Prague: Academia.Google Scholar
Sleator, Daniel D., and Temperley, David. 1993. Parsing English with a link grammar. In Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Parsing Technologies, 277–92. Tilburg.Google Scholar
Solé, Ricard; Murtra, Bernat Corominas, Valverde, Sergi, and Steels, Luc. 2010. Language networks: their structure, function and evolution. Complexity 15, 20–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Starosta, Stanley. 1988. The Case for Lexicase. London: Pinter Publishers.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 2001. Inflectional Morphology: A Theory of Paradigm Structure. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tallerman, Maggie. 2009. Phrase structure vs. dependency: The analysis of Welsh syntactic soft mutation. Journal of Linguistics 45, 167–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Hulst, Harry. 2006. Dependency Phonology. In Brown, Keith (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd edn., 451–8. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Vater, Heinz. 1975. Toward a generative dependency grammar. Lingua 36, 121–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1981. On the notions “lexically related” and “head of a word.” Linguistic Inquiry 12, 245–74.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold. 1992. Morphology: Morphology and syntax. In Bright, William (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, 10–12. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×