Coordination and grammatical relations

The most serious recent work on the theory of coordination has probably been done in terms of three theories of grammatical structure: Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar (GPSG–see especially Gazdar, 1981; Gazdar et al. , 1982; 1985; Sag et al. , 1985; Schachter & Mordechay, 1983), Categorial Grammar (CG–see especially Steedman, 1985; Dowty, 1985) and Transformational Grammar (TG–notably Williams, 1978, 1981; Neijt, 1979; van Oirsouw, 1985, 1987). Each of these approaches is different in important respects: for instance, according to whether or not they allow deletion rules, and according to the kinds of information which they allow to be encoded in syntactic features. However, behind these differences lies an important similarity: in each case the theory concerned makes two assumptions about grammatical structure in general (i.e. about all structures, including coordinate ones): I The basic syntagmatic relations in sentence-structure are part-whole relations (consituent structure) and temporal order; note that this is true whether or not syntactic structure is seen as a ‘projection’ of lexical properties, since these lexical properies are themselves defined in terms of constituent structure and temporal order.

[1]  R. Hudson Zwicky on heads , 1987, Journal of Linguistics.

[2]  Jacques Durand,et al.  Dependency and Non-Linear Phonology , 2018 .

[3]  Geoffrey K. Pullum,et al.  Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar , 1985 .

[4]  R. Hudson Sociolinguistics and the theory of grammar , 1986 .

[5]  Ray Jackendoff,et al.  Gapping and related rules , 1970 .

[6]  Paul Schachter A note on syntactic categories and coordination in GPSG , 1984 .

[7]  Comparative structures in Italian , 1986 .

[8]  Richard Hudson,et al.  Gapping and grammatical relations , 1989, Journal of Linguistics.

[9]  Robert R. Van Oirsouw A linear approach to coordinate deletion , 1985 .

[10]  Anneke Neijt,et al.  Gapping: A Contribution to Sentence Grammar , 1980 .

[11]  Jane J. Robinson Dependency Structures and Transformational Rules , 1970 .

[12]  Geoffrey K. Pullum,et al.  The nature of syntactic representation , 1982 .

[13]  Simon C. Dik,et al.  Coordination: its implications for the theory of general linguistics , 1968 .

[14]  David R. Dowty Type Raising, Functional Composition, and Non-Constituent Conjunction , 1988 .

[15]  Paul Schachter Constraints on coordination , 1974 .

[16]  D. Schiffrin Meaning, form, and use in context : linguistic applications , 1984 .

[17]  Gerald Gazdar,et al.  Unbounded Dependencies and Coordinate Structure , 1981 .

[18]  A. Zwicky DIRECT REFERENCE TO HEADS , 1988 .

[19]  John Robert Ross,et al.  Constraints on variables in syntax , 1967 .

[20]  David R. Dowty Grammatical Relations and Montague Grammar , 1982 .

[21]  Gerald Gazdar,et al.  Coordination and how to distinguish categories , 1985 .

[22]  Lucien Tesnière Éléments de syntaxe structurale , 1959 .

[23]  Petr Sgall,et al.  The Meaning Of The Sentence In Its Semantic And Pragmatic Aspects , 1986 .

[24]  Mark Steedman,et al.  Dependency and Coordination in the Grammar of Dutch and English , 1985 .

[25]  Emmon W. Bach,et al.  Universals in Linguistic Theory , 1970 .

[26]  L. Gleitman Coordinating Conjunctions in English , 1965 .

[27]  R. Hudson Conjunction Reduction, Gapping, and Right-Node Raising , 1976 .

[28]  John Robert Ross,et al.  GAPPING AND THE ORDER OF CONSTITUENTS , 1970 .