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-6bf8c574d5-mcfzb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-09T14:29:04.253Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

1 - Word Grammar in Its Intellectual Contexts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 December 2024

By
Nikolas Gisborne  and
Stefan Müller
Edited by
Eva Duran Eppler ,
Nikolas Gisborne  and
Andrew Rosta
Eva Duran Eppler
Affiliation:
Roehampton University, London
Nikolas Gisborne
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh
Andrew Rosta
Affiliation:
University of Central Lancashire, Preston
Get access

Summary

Word Grammar is a linguistic theory which best known as a variant of Dependency Grammar. However, it has a number of other properties, and its architectural assumptions are consistent with its theory of how human cognition works and its theory of how representations work. In this chapter we relate Word Grammar (WG) to a number of different trends in linguistic theorising and explain the various traditions that the theory belongs to. Word Grammar belongs in three main theoretical traditions: Dependency Grammars, Constraint-based Grammars and Cognitive Linguistics. We show how WG relates to these approaches and explore how the network model of linguistic representation adopted by WG relates to each tradition. The key claim of WG is that language is represented in a symbolic network, which is part of a more general human cognitive network and which is in a relationship with a discreet neural network.

Keywords

Word GrammarDependency GrammarCognitive Linguisticssymbolic networknetwork postulateparallel architectureattritbute–value matrixsmall worldscale freesocial meaningnativismInheritance (default and multiple)spreading activation
Type
Chapter
Information
Word Grammar, Cognition and Dependency , pp. 19 - 49
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2025

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

Ágel, Vilmos, Eichinger, Ludwig M., Eroms, Hans Werner, Hellwig, Peter, Heringer, Hans Jürgen, and Lobin, Henning, eds. 2003. Dependency and Valency: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Volume 1. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ágel, Vilmos, Eichinger, Ludwig M., Eroms, Hans Werner, Hellwig, Peter, Heringer, Hans Jürgen, and Lobin, Henning, 2006. Dependency and Valency: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research. Volume 2. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aiello, William, Chung, Fan, and Lu, Linyuan. 2000. ‘A Random Graph Model for Massive Graphs’. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, 171–80. New York: Association of Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/335305.335326.Google Scholar
Anderson, John M. 1971. The Grammar of Case: Towards a Localist Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, John M. 1977. On Case Grammar. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Anderson, John M. 2006. Modern Grammars of Case. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ballesteros, Miguel, and Nivre, Joakim. 2013. ‘Going to the Roots of Dependency Parsing’. Computational Linguistics 39 (1): 5–13. https://doi.org/10.1162/COLI_a_00132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barabási, Albert-László. 2016. Network Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Barabási, Albert-László, and Albert, Reka. 1999. ‘Emergence of Scaling in Random Networks.’ Science 286 (5439): 509–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, Elizabeth, Devescovi, Antonella, Hernandez, Arturo E., and Pizzamiglio, Luigi. 1996. ‘Gender Priming in Italian’. Perception and Psychophysics 58 (7): 992–1004.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beckage, Nicole, Smith, Linda, and Hills, Thomas. 2011. ‘Small Worlds and Semantic Network Growth in Typical and Late Talkers’. Edited by Matjaz Perc. PLoS ONE 6 (5): e19348. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0019348.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Booij, Geert. 2016. ‘Construction Morphology’. In Cambridge Handbook of Morphology, edited by Hippisley, Andrew and Stump, Gregory, 424–48. Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139814720.016.Google Scholar
Borsley, Robert D, and Müller, Stefan. 2021. ‘HPSG and Minimalism’. In Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar: The Handbook, edited by Müller, Stefan, Abeillé, Anne, Borsley, Robert D., and Koenig, Jean-Pierre, 1253–329. Empirically Oriented Theoretical Morphology and Syntax 9. Berlin: Language Science Press DOI:10.5281/zenodo.5599874.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1982. The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Asudeh, Ash, Toivonen, Ida, and Wechsler, Stephen. 2016. Lexical-Functional Syntax. 2nd ed. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Brown, Dunstan, and Hippisley, Andrew. 2012. Network Morphology: A Defaults-Based Theory of Word Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Dunstan, Corbett, Greville G., Fraser, Norman M., Hippisley, Andrew, and Timberlake, Alan. 1996. ‘Russian Noun Stress and Network Morphology’. Linguistics 34: 53–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. John Benjamins Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1998. ‘The Emergent Lexicon’. Chicago Linguistic Society, 34(2): 421–35.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1956. ‘Three Models for the Description of Language’. IRE Transactions on Information Theory 2: 113–24.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1959. ‘Review of Verbal Behavior by B.F. Skinner’. Language 35: 26–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1973. ‘Conditions on Transformations’. In A Festschrift for Morris Halle, edited by Anderson, Stephen and Kiparsky, Paul, 232–86. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Christiansen, Morten H., and Chater, Nick. 2016. ‘The Now-or-Never Bottleneck: A Fundamental Constraint on Language’. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 39: e62. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X1500031X.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collins, Allan M., and Loftus, Elizabeth. 1975. ‘A Spreading-Activation Theory of Semantic Processing’. Psychological Review 82 (6): 407–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Allan M., and Quillian, M. Ross. 1969. ‘Retrieval Time from Semantic Memory’. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 8 (2): 240–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cong, Jin, and Liu, Haitao. 2014. ‘Approaching Human Language with Complex Networks’. Physics of Life Reviews 11 (4): 598–618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2014.04.004.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corbett, Greville G, and Fraser, Norman M.. 1993. ‘Network Morphology: A DATR Account of Russian Nominal Inflection’. Journal of Linguistics 29 (1): 113–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creider, Chet, and Hudson, Richard. 2006. ‘Case Agreement in Ancient Greek: Implications for a Theory of Covert Elements’. In Word Grammar: New Perspectives on a Theory of Language Structure, edited by Sugayama, Kensei and Hudson, Richard, 33–53. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William, and Cruse, Alan. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daelemans, Walter, and Smedt, Koenraad D.. 1994. ‘Default Inheritance in an Object-Oriented Representation of Linguistic Categories.’ International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 41: 149–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary. 2001. Lexical Functional Grammar. Vol. 34. Syntax and Semantics. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary. 2023. The Handbook of Lexical Functional Grammar. Berlin: Language Science Press. https://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/312.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary, Kaplan, Ronald M., and King, Tracy Holloway. 2004. ‘Linguistic Generalizations over Descriptions’. In Proceedings of the LFG’04 Conference, University of Canterbury, edited by Butt, Miriam and Holloway King, Tracy, 199–208. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/LFG/9/pdfs/lfg04dkk.pdf.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2019. The Grammar Network. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2013. ‘Order of Subject, Object and Verb’. In The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, edited by Dryer, Matthew S. and Haspelmath, Martin. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/81.Google Scholar
Duran Eppler, Eva. 2014. ‘The Dependency Distance Hypothesis for Bilingual Code-Switching.’ In Dependency Linguistics: Recent Advances in Linguistic Theory Using Dependency Structures, edited by Gerdes, Kim, Hajičová, Eva, and Wanner, Leo, 183–206. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Eppler, Eva Maria. 2005. ‘The Syntax of German-English Code-Switching’. PhD thesis, University of London.Google Scholar
Eppler, Eva. 2010. Emigranto: The Syntax of German-English Code-Switching. Vienna: Braumüller.Google Scholar
Evans, Roger, and Gazdar, Gerald. 1989a. ‘Inference in DATR’. In Proceedings of the 4th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 66–71. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Evans, Roger, and Gazdar, Gerald. 1989b. ‘The Semantics of DATR’. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference of the Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and Simulation of Behaviour, edited by Cohn, Anthony, 79–87. London: Pitman.Google Scholar
Evans, Roger, and Gazdar, Gerald. 1996. ‘DATR: A Language for Lexical Knowledge Representation’. Computational Linguistics 22 (2): 167–216.Google Scholar
Fawcett, Robin. 2010. A Theory of Syntax for Systemic Functional Linguistics. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ferrer i Cancho, Ramon, and Solé, Richard V.. 2001. ‘The Small World of Human Language’. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 268 (1482): 2261–5. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2001.1800.Google ScholarPubMed
Ferrer i Cancho, Ramon, Solé, Ricard V., and Köhler, Reinhard. 2004. ‘Patterns in Syntactic Dependency Networks’. Physical Review E 69 (5): 051915. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.69.051915.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. ‘The Case for Case’. Proceedings of the Texas Symposium on Language Universals, April 13–15, 1967, April.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1975. ‘An Alternative to Checklist Theories of Meaning’. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society 1, 123–31. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1976. ‘Frame Semantics and the Nature of Language’. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 280 (1): 20–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. ‘Frame Semantics’. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm, edited by The Linguistic Society of Korea, 111–37. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1985. ‘Frames and the Semantics of Understanding’. Quaderni Di Semantica 6 (2): 222–54.Google Scholar
Flickinger, Daniel. 1987. ‘Lexical Rules in the Hierarchical Lexicon’. PhD thesis, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.Google Scholar
Flickinger, Daniel, Pollard, Carl, and Wasow, Thomas. 1985. ‘Structure-Sharing in Lexical Representation’. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Chicago, IL: Association for Computational Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.3115/981210.981242.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry. 1983. The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Norman M. 1993. ‘Dependency Parsing’. PhD thesis, University of London.Google Scholar
Fraser, Norman M, and Corbett, Greville G.. 1997. ‘Defaults in Arapesh’. Lingua. International Review of General Linguistics. Revue Internationale de Linguistique Générale 103 (1): 25–57.Google Scholar
Futrell, Richard Landy Jones. 2017. ‘Memory and Locality in Natural Language’. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar
Futrell, Richard, Mahowald, Kyle, and Gibson, Edward. 2015. ‘Large-Scale Evidence of Dependency Length Minimization in 37 Languages’. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112 (33): 10336–41. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1502134112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gaifman, Haim. 1965. ‘Dependency Systems and Phrase-Structure Systems’. Information and Control 8: 304–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald. 1987. ‘Linguistic Applications of Default Inheritance Mechanisms’. In Linguistic Theory and Computer Applications, edited by Whitelock, P., Wood, M. M., Somers, H. L., Johnson, R., and Bennett, P., 37–67. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald, Klein, Ewan, Pullum, Geoff, and Sag, Ivan. 1985. Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gibson, Edward. 1998. ‘Linguistic Complexity: Locality of Syntactic Dependencies’. Cognition 68: 1–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gildea, Daniel, and Temperley, David. 2010. ‘Do Grammars Minimize Dependency Length?’ Cognitive Science 34 (2): 286–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01073.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gisborne, Nikolas Simon. 1996. ‘English Perception Verbs’. PhD thesis, University College London (University of London).Google Scholar
Gisborne, Nikolas. 2010. The Event Structure of Perception Verbs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gisborne, Nikolas. 2011. ‘Constructions, Word Grammar, and Grammaticalization’. Cognitive Linguistics 22: 155–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gisborne, Nikolas. 2012. ‘The Semantics of Definite Expressions and the Grammaticalization of THE.’ Studies in Language 36 (3): 603–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gisborne, Nikolas. 2017. ‘Defaulting to the New Romance Synthetic Future’. In Defaults in Grammatical Theory, edited by Gisborne, Nikolas and Hippisley, Andrew, 151–81. Oxford: Oxford University Press .Google Scholar
Gisborne, Nikolas. 2018. ‘Word Grammar Morphology’. In The Oxford Handbook of Morphological Theory, edited by Audring, Jenny and Mansini, Francesca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gisborne, Nikolas. 2020. Ten Lectures on Events in a Network Theory of Language. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gisborne, Nikolas. 2021. ‘Mutual Dependency and Word Grammar: Headedness in the Noun Phrase’. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Dependency Linguistics (Depling, SyntaxFest 2021), 47–59. Sofia, Bulgaria: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gross, Thomas, and Osborne, Timothy. 2009. ‘Toward a Practical Dependency Grammar Theory of Discontinuities’. SKY Journal of Linguistics 22: 43–90.Google Scholar
Gruber, Jeffrey S. 1965. ‘Studies in Lexical Relations’. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael AK. 1961. ‘Categories of the Theory of Grammar’. Word-Journal of The International Linguistic Association 17 (2): 241–92.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael AK. 1967a. ‘Notes on Transitivity and Theme in English Part 1’. Journal of Linguistics 3 (1): 37–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael AK. 1967b. ‘Notes on Transititivity and Theme in English Part 2’. Journal of Linguistics 3 (2): 199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael AK. 1968. ‘Notes on Transitivity and Theme in English Part 3’. Journal of Linguistics 4 (2): 179–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael AK. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Volume 1. London: Hodder Arnold.Google Scholar
Hampton, James A., Jönsson, Martin L., and Passanisi, Alessia. 2009. ‘The Modifier Effect: Default Inheritance in Complex Noun Phrases’. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, edited by Taatgen, Niels A. and van Rijn, Hedderik, 303–8. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Hauser, Marc, Chomsky, Noam, and Fitch, William Tecumseh. 2002. ‘The Faculty of Language: What Is It, Who Has It, and How Did It Evolve?’ Science (New York, NY) 298: 1569–79.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John. 1994. A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hays, David G. 1964. ‘Dependency Theory: A Formalism and Some Observations’. Language 40 (4): 511–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiranuma, So. 2002. ‘The Syntactic Difficulty of Japanese Sentences’. PhD thesis, University of London.Google Scholar
Hjelmslev, Louis. 1935. La catégorie des cas: Étude de grammaire générale. Acta Jutlandica, 7.1, 9.2. Aarhus: Universitetsforlaget i Aarhus.Google Scholar
Holmes, Jasper. 2005. ‘Lexical Properties of English Verbs’. PhD thesis, University College London.Google Scholar
Huck, Geoffrey, and Goldsmith, John. 1995. Ideology and Linguistic Theory: Noam Chomsky and the Deep Structure Debates. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 1980a. ‘Constituency and Dependency’. Linguistics 18: 179–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 1980b. Sociolinguistics. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 1981. ‘Panlexicalism’. Journal of Literary Semantics 10: 67–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 1984. Word Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 1990. English Word Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 1996. Sociolinguistics. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 2000. ‘I Amn’t’. Language 76: 297–323.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 2007. Language Networks: Towards a New Word Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 2010. An Introduction to Word Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 2016. ‘Dependency Grammar’. In The Cambridge Handbook of Morphology, edited by Hippisley, Andrew and Stump, Gregory, 657–82. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 2018. ‘Dependencies Are More Psychologically Plausible, Not More Parsimonious’. Language Under Discussion 5 (1): 42–4. https://doi.org/10.31885/lud.5.1.224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ibbotson, Paul. 2020. What It Takes to Talk: Exploring Developmental Cognitive Linguistics. Cognitive Linguistics Research. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1999. ‘Parallel Constraint-Based Generative Theories of Language’. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 3 (10): 393–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364–6613(99)01374-1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Järvinen, Timo, and Tapanainen, Pasi. 1998. ‘Towards an Implementable Dependency Grammar’. In Processing of Dependency-Based Grammars. https://aclanthology.org/W98-0500/.Google Scholar
Jaszczolt, Kasia M. 2005. Default Semantics: Foundations of a Compositional Theory of Acts of Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joshi, Aravind, Levy, L., and Takahashi, M.. 1975. ‘Tree Adjunct Grammars’. Journal of the Computer and System Sciences 10 (1): 136–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joshi, Aravind K., Shanker, K. Vijay, and Weir, David. 1990. ‘The Convergence of Mildly Context-Sensitive Grammar Formalisms’. University of Pennsylvania Department of Computer and Information Science Technical Report.Google Scholar
Kreps, Christian John Manfred. 1998. ‘Extraction, Movement and Dependency Theory’. PhD thesis, University of London.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony, and Joshi, Avarind. 1985. ‘The Linguistic Relevance of Tree Adjoining Grammar’. University of Pennsylvania Department of Computer and Information Science Technical Report No. MS-CIS-85-16. https://repository.upenn.edu/cis_reports/671.Google Scholar
Kuperberg, Gina, and Jaeger, Florian. 2016. ‘What Do We Mean by Prediction in Language Comprehension?’ Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 31 (1): 32–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lakoff, George. 1971. ‘On Generative Semantics’. In Semantics, edited by Steinberg, Danny and Jakobovits, Leon, 232–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1977. ‘Linguistic Gestalts’. In Papers from the Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society Chicago, IL 13: 236–87.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George, and Thompson, Henry. 1975. ‘Cognitive Linguistics’. In Papers from the First Regional Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
Lamb, Sydney M, and Newell, Leonard E.. 1966. Outline of Stratificational Grammar. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Lamb, Sydney M., and O’Brien, R. J.. 1971. ‘The Crooked Path of Progress in Cognitive Linguistics’. In Linguistics: Developments of the Sixties -- Viewpoint for the Seventies, 99–123. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1978. ‘The Form and Meaning of the English Auxiliary’. Language 54 (4): 853–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume 1. Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1991 . Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Volume 2. Descriptive Application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lascarides, Alex, and Copestake, Ann. 1999. ‘Default Representation in Constraint-Based Frameworks’. Computational Linguistics 25 (1): 55–105.Google Scholar
Liu, Haitao. 2018. ‘Language as a Human-Driven Complex Adaptive System’. Physics of Life Reviews 26–27 (November): 149–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2018.06.006.Google ScholarPubMed
Liu, Haitao, Chunshan, Xu, and Liang, Junying. 2017. ‘Dependency Distance: A New Perspective on Syntactic Patterns in Natural Languages’. Physics of Life Reviews 21 (July): 171–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2017.03.002.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lyons, John. 1966. ‘Towards a “Notional” Theory of the “Parts of Speech”’. Journal of Linguistics 2 (2): 209–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marneffe, Marie-Catherine de, Manning, Christopher D., Nivre, Joakim, and Zeman, Daniel. 2021. ‘Universal Dependencies’. Computational Linguistics 47 (2): 255–308. https://doi.org/10.1162/coli_a_00402.Google Scholar
Marneffe, Marie-Catherine de, and Nivre, Joakim. 2019. ‘Dependency Grammar’. Annual Review of Linguistics 5: 197–218. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-%20011718-011842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W. D. 1975. ‘Sentence Perception as an Interactive Parallel Process.’ Science (New York, NY) 189 (4198): 226–28. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.189.4198.226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, Ryan, and Nivre, Joakim. 2011. ‘Analyzing and Integrating Dependency Parsers’. Computational Linguistics 37 (1): 197–230. https://doi.org/10.1162/coli_a_00039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mel’čuk, Igor A. 1974. Opyt teorii lingvističeskix modelej «Smysl<-->Tekst». Semantika, sintaksis [Outline of a theory of linguistic Meaning-Text models. Semantics, syntax]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Mel’čuk, Igor A. 1988. Dependency Syntax: Theory and Practice. Albany: State University Press of New York.Google Scholar
Mel’čuk, Igor A. 2014. ‘Dependency in Language’. In Dependency Linguistics: Recent Advances in Linguistic Theory Using Dependency Structures, edited by Gerdes, Kim, Hajičová, Eva, and Wanner, Leo, 1–32. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mel’čuk, Igor A. 2021. Ten Studies in Dependency Syntax. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2023. Grammatical Theory: From Transformational Grammar to Constraint-Based Approaches. 5th ed. Textbooks in Language Sciences 1. Berlin: Language Science Press. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7376662.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan, Abeillé, Anne, Borsley, Robert D., and Koenig, Jean-Pierre. 2021. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar: The Handbook. Empirically Oriented Theoretical Morphology and Syntax 9. Berlin: Language Science Press DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.5543318.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan, and Wechsler, Stephen. 2014. ‘Lexical Approaches to Argument Structure’. Theoretical Linguistics 40 (1–2): 1–76. https://doi.org/10.1515/tl-2014-0001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newman, Mark, Barabási, Albert-László, and Watts, Duncan J.. 2006. The Structure and Dynamics of Networks. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Nordström, Jackie. 2014. ‘Language as a Discrete Combinatorial System, Rather than a Recursive-Embedding One’. The Linguistic Review 31 (1). https://doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2013-0023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osborne, Timothy. 2019. A Dependency Grammar of English: An Introduction and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelletier, Francis Jeffrey, and Elio, Renée. 2005. ‘The Case for Psychologism in Default and Inheritance Reasoning’. Synthese 46: 7–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polguère, Alain, and Mel’čuk, Igor A., eds. 2009. Dependency in Linguistic Description. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollard, Carl. 1997. ‘The Nature of Constraint-Based Grammar’. Linguistic Research 15: 1–18. http://isli.khu.ac.kr/journal/content/data/15/1.pdf.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl, and Sag, Ivan A.. 1987. Information-Based Syntax and Semantics, Volume 1. Fundamentals. CSLI Lecture Notes. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl, and Sag, Ivan A.. 1994. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Prince, Alan, and Smolensky, Paul. 2004. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Przepiórkowski, Adam. 2023. ‘LFG and HPSG’. In The Handbook of Lexical Functional Grammar, edited by Dalrymple, Mary. Empirically Oriented Theoretical Morphology and Syntax. Berlin: Language Science Press. https://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/312.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2013. ‘The Central Question in Comparative Syntactic Metatheory’. Mind & Language 28 (4): 492–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K, and Scholz, Barbara. 2001. ‘On the Distinction between Generative-Enumerative and Model-Theoretic Syntactic Frameworks’. In Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics: 4th International Conference, edited by de Groote, Philippe, Morrill, Glyn, and Retoré, Christian, 17–43. Berlin: Springer Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48199-0_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quillian, M. Ross. 1968. ‘Semantic Memory’. In Semantic Information Processing, edited by Minsky, Marvin, 227–70. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, Jane J. 1970. ‘Dependency Structure and Transformational Rules’. Language 46 (2): 259–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor. 1973. ‘Natural Categories’. Cognitive Psychology 4 (3): 328–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor. 1975. ‘Cognitive Representations of Semantic Categories.’ Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 104 (3): 192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor. 1977. ‘Human Categorization’. In Advances in Cross-Cultural Psychology. Vol. 1, edited by Warren, Neil, 1–72. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor. 1978. ‘Principles of Categorization’. In Cognition and Categorization, edited by Rosch, E. and Lloyd, B., 27–48. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rosta, Andrew. 1994. ‘Dependency and Grammatical Relations’. Working Papers in Linguistics 64: 219–58.Google Scholar
Rosta, Andrew. 1995. ‘How Does This Sentence Interpret? The Semantics of English Mediopassives’. In The Verb in Contemporary English: Theory and Description, edited by Aarts, B. and Meyer, C., 123–44. Cambridge University Press Cambridge.Google Scholar
Rosta, Andrew. 1997. ‘English Syntax and Word Grammar Theory’. PhD thesis, University College London (University of London).Google Scholar
Rosta, Andrew. 2006. ‘Structural and Distributional Heads’. In Word Grammar: New Perspectives on a Theory of Language Structure, edited by Sugayama, Kensei and Hudson, Richard, 171–203. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan. 2012. ‘Sign-Based Construction Grammar: An Informal Synopsis’. In Sign-Based Construction Grammar, edited by Boas, Hans and Sag, Ivan, 69–202. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan, and Wasow, Thomas. 2011. ‘Performance-Compatible Competence Grammar’. In Non-Transformational Syntax: Formal and Explicit Models of Grammar, edited by Borsley, Robert D. and Börjars, Kersti, 359–77. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schank, Roger, and Abelson, Robert. 1977. Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding: An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Sgall, Petr, Hajicová, Eva, and Panevová, Jarmila. 1986. The Meaning of the Sentence in Its Semantic and Pragmatic Aspects. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Stampe, David. 1973. ‘A Dissertation on Natural Phonology’. PhD thesis, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Starosta, Stanley. 1988. The Case for Lexicase: An Outline of Lexical Grammatical Theory. Open Linguistics Series. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Steedman, Mark. 1996. Surface Structure and Interpretation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Steedman, Mark. 2000. The Syntactic Process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1972. ‘Semantic Structures in English and Atsugewi’. PhD thesis, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Tanenhaus, Michael K., Spivey-Knowlton, Michael J., Eberhard, Kathleen M., and Sedivy, Julie C.. 1996. ‘Using Eye Movements to Study Spoken Language Comprehension: Evidence for Visually Mediated Incremental Interpretation.’ In Attention and Performance 16: Information Integration in Perception and Communication, 457–78. Attention and Performance. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tesnière, Lucien. 1953. Esquisse d’une syntaxe structurale. Paris: Librarie C. Klinksieck.Google Scholar
Tesnière, Lucien. 1959. Eléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Librarie C. Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 1999. The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Touretzky, David S. 1986. The Mathematics of Inheritance Systems. Vol. 8. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth, and Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme. 2010. An Introduction to English Sociolinguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tzanidaki, Dimitra. 1996. ‘The Syntax and Pragmatics of Subject and Object Position in Modern Greek’. PhD thesis, University of London.Google Scholar
Ungerer, Tobias. 2021. ‘Network Science Methods: A Potential Toolkit for Cognitive Linguistics?’ Presented at the Cognitive Linguistics Research Group, University of Edinburgh, 14 May 2021.Google Scholar
Ungerer, Tobias. 2022. ‘Structural Priming in the Grammatical Network: A Study of English Argument Structure Constructions’. PhD thesis, University of Edinburgh.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 2021. ‘Processing’. In Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar: The Handbook, edited by Müller, Stefan, Abeillé, Anne, Borsley, Robert D., and Koenig, Jean-Pierre, 1081–1104. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Watts, Duncan J., and Strogatz, Steven H.. 1998. ‘Collective Dynamics of “Small World” Networks’. Nature 393: 440–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, Barton, and Garrett, Merrill. 1984. ‘Lexical Decision in Sentences: Effects of Syntactic Structure’. Memory & Cognition 12: 31–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@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
×