Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-s6l46 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T08:22:30.065Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Phrase Structure Grammar: the next generation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Thomas E. Hukari  and
Robert D. Levine
Thomas E. Hukari
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, University of Victoria
Robert D. Levine
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, Ohio State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract 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.'

Information

Type
Review Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , September 1996 , pp. 465 - 496
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bach, Emmon & Partee, Barbara. (1980). Anaphora and semantic structure. In Kreiman, Jody & Ojeda, Almerindo (eds.) Proceeding of the CLS Parasession on Pronouns and Anaphora. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 1–28.Google Scholar
Borsley, Robert. (1987). Subjects and complements in HPSG. CSLI Report 87–107. Stanford University: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Borsley, Robert. (1989). Phrase-Structure Grammar and the Barriers conception of clause structure. Linguistics 27. 843–863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brame, Michael. (1976). Conjectures and refutations in syntax and semantics. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. (1976). Nonarguments for raising. Linguistic Inquiry 7. 485–501.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. (1979/72). Theory of complementation in English syntax. (Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.) New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. (1982). Control and complementation. Linguistic Inquiry 13, 343–434.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. & Lasnik, Howard. (1977). Filters and control. Linguistic Inquiry 8. 425–504.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. (1986). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. (1984). Subject and object control: syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 10. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society. 450–464.Google Scholar
Cooper, Robin. (1983). Quantification and syntactic theory. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culicover, Peter & Levine, Robert D. (1995). Stylistic inversion and the that-trace effect in English: a reconsideration. Ms., Ohio State University. (Presented at the 1995 Colloque de Syntax et Sémantique, University of Paris 7.)Google Scholar
Dowty, David & Jacobson, Pauline. (1988). Agreement as a semantic phenomenon. In Powers, Joyce & De Jong, Kenneth (eds.) Proceedings of the Fifth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University. 95–108.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald. (1981). Unbounded dependencies and coordinate structure. Linguistic Inquiry 12. 155–184.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald, Klein, Ewan, Pullum, Geoffrey & Sag, Ivan. (1985). Generalized phrase structure grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Grinder, John. (1970). Super-equi-NP-deletion. In Papers from the Sixth Regional Meeting of The Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 297–317.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, Erhard & Nakazawa, Tsuneko. (1989). Flipped out: Aux in German. Papers from the 25th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society. 193–202.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, Erhard & Nakazawa, Tsuneko. (1994). Linearizing AUXs in German verbal complexes. In Nerbonne, John, Netter, Klaus & Pollard, Carl (eds.) German in Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Stanford University: CSLI Publications. 11–37.Google Scholar
Hukari, Thomas E. & Levine, Robert D. (1995a). On SLASH termination and valence-based binding theory. Presented at Linguistics Society of America meeting, January 1995; New Orleans.Google Scholar
Hukari, Thomas E. & Levine, Robert D. (1995b). Adjunct extraction. Journal of Linguistics 31. 195–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hukari, Thomas E. & Levine, Robert D. (1996a). Subject extraction. Presented at the Third International Conference on Head Drive Phrase Structure Grammar, May 1996, Marseille.Google Scholar
Hukari, Thomas E. & Levine, Robert D. (1996b). Valence and (anti)reconstruction. Ms., University of Victoria & Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Pauline. (1990). Raising as function composition. Linguistics and Philosophy 13. 423–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. (1965/56). A Modern English grammar. (Vol III.) London: George Allen & Unwin, Ltd. (Reprinted by John, Dickens and Co., Northampton, U.K.)Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony. (1992). Amount relatives, referentiality and long wh-movement. Ms., University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Ladusaw, William & Dowty, David. (1988). Towards a non-semantic account of thematic roles. In Wilkens, Wendy (ed.) On the nature of thematic roles: syntax and semantics 21. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita. (1983). On control and control theory. Linguistic Inquiry 14. 421–446.Google Scholar
Monachesi, Paola. (1993a). Object clitics and clitic climbing in Italian Head-Driven Phrase Structure. In Proceedings of the Sixth Meeting of the European Association for Computational Linguistics. Utrecht: Association for Computational Linguists. 437–442.Google Scholar
Monachesi, Paola. (1993b). Restructuring verbs in Italian Head-driven Phrase Structure. Papers from the 29th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society. 281–295.Google Scholar
O'grady, William. (1987). The interpretation of Korean anaphora. Language 63.2. 251–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollard, Carl J. & Sag, Ivan A. (1987). Information-based syntax and semantics, Vol. I: Fundamentals. (CSLI Lecture Notes 13.) Center for the Study of Language and Information (distributed by the University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl J. & Sag, Ivan A. (1992). Anaphors in English and the scope of binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry 23. 261–303.Google Scholar
Postal, Paul M. (1974). On Raising. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Reape, Mike. (1994). Domain union and word order variation in German. In Nerbonne, John, Netter, Klaus & Pollard, Carl (eds.) German in Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Stanford University: CSLI Publications. 151–197.Google Scholar
Reape, Mike. (In press). Getting things in order. In Horck, Arthur & Sijtsma, Wietske (eds.) Discontinuous constituency. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya & Reuland, Eric. (1993). Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry 24. 657–720.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, Peter S. (1967). The grammar of English predicate complement constructions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. (1996). English relative clause constructions. Ms., Stanford University.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. & Fodor, Janet D. (1994). Extraction without traces. In Aranovich, Raul, Byrne, William, Preuss, Susanne & Senturia, Martha (eds.) Proceedings of the Thirteenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 1994. Stanford University: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Stowell, Timothy. (1983). Subjects across categories. The Linguistic Review 2. 285–312.Google Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, Anne. (1989). A-type binding and narrative point of view. Language 65. 695–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar