Skip to main content
Log in

Conclusions

There is no doubt that the model presented here is incomplete. Many important categories, particularly negation and the adverbials, have been entirely ignored, and the treatment of Tense and the affixes is certainly inadequate. It also remains to be seen how the many constructions that have been ignored here are to be accommodated within the framework that has been outlined. However, the fact that a standard categorial lexicon, plus the four rule schemata, seems to come close to exhaustively specifying the main clause constructions of English, and also seems to explain a number of major constraints on transformations, encourages us to compare the theory with certain alternatives, and to examine its broader implications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ades, A. E. and Steedman, M. J.: 1979, ‘On Word-order’, mimeo (University of Warwick).

  • Ajdukiewicz, K.: 1935, ‘Uber die syntaktische Konnexitat’, Studia Philosophica 1, 1–27. English translation in Storrs McCall (ed.), Polish Logic 1920–1939 (Oxford University Press), p. 207–231.

  • BachE.: 1977, ‘Comments on a Paper by Chomsky’, in P. W.Cullcover, T.Wasow and A.Akmajian (eds.), Formal Syntax (Academic Press, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • BachE. and HornG.M.: 1976, ‘Remarks on “Conditions on Transformations”’, Linguistic Inquiry 7, 265–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bar-HillelY., GaifmanC., and ShamirE.: 1960, ‘On Categorical and Phrase Structure Grammars’, The Bulletin of the Research Council of Israel 9F, 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • BollietL.: 1968, ‘Compiler Writing Techniques’, in F.Genuys (ed.), Programming Languages (Academic Press, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • BrameM. K.: 1976, Conjectures and Refutations in Syntax (Elsevier North Holland, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • BrameM. K.: 1978, Base Generated Syntax (Noit Amrofer, Seattle).

    Google Scholar 

  • BresnanJ.: 1976, ‘On the Form and Function of Transformations’, Linguistic Inquiry 7, 3–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • BresnanJ.: 1978, ‘A Realistic Transformational Grammar’, in M.Halle, J.Bresnan, and G.Miller (eds.), Linguistic Structure and Psychological Reality (MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass).

    Google Scholar 

  • ChomskyN.: 1957, Syntactic Structures, (Mouton, The Hague).

    Google Scholar 

  • ChomskyN.: 1964, Current Issues in Linguistic Theory (Mouton, The Hague).

    Google Scholar 

  • ChomskyN.: 1970, ‘Remarks on Nominalisation’, in R.Jacobs and P.Rosenbaum (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar (Blaidsell, Waltham, Mass.).

    Google Scholar 

  • ChomskyN. and LasnikH.: 1977, ‘Filters and Control’, Linguistic Inquiry 8, 425–504.

    Google Scholar 

  • ColeP. and SadockJ. M.: 1977, (eds.), Syntax and Semantics Vol. 8: Grammatical Relations, (Academic Press, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R.: 1978, ‘A Fragment of English with Questions and Relative Clauses’, mimeo (University of Wisconsin).

  • Crain, S.: 1980, Pragmatic Constraints on Sentence Comprehension, Ph.D. Thesis (University of California, Irvine).

  • Davies, D. J. M. and Isard, S.: 1972, ‘Utterances as Programs’, in D. Michie (ed.), Machine Intelligence 7 (Edinburgh University Press).

  • EmondsJ. E.: 1976, A Transformational Approach to English Syntax: Root, Structure Preserving, and Local Transformations, (Academic Press, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • Engdahl, E.: 1980, The Syntax and Semantics of Questions in Swedish, unpublished doctoral thesis, (University of Massachusetts, Amherst).

  • FodorJ. D.: 1978, ‘Parsing Strategies and Constraints on Transformations’, Linguistic Inquiry 9, 427–473.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. D.: 1980, ‘Parsing, Constraints, and the Freedom of Expression’, unpublished ms. (University of Connecticut).

  • Fodor, J. D.: 1981, ‘Phrase Structure Parsing and the Island Constraints’, paper to Conference on Human Parsing Mechanisms, Austin, Texas, March 1981.

  • Frazier, L.: 1979, On Comprehending Sentences: Syntactic Parsing Strategies, Ph.D. Dissertation (University of Connecticut). Indiana University Linguistics club (1979).

  • FrazierL. and FodorJ. D.: 1978, ‘The Sausage Machine: A New Two-stage Parsing Model’, Cognition 6, 291–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • GazdarG.: 1981a, ‘Unbounded Dependencies and Constituent Structure’, Linguistic Imquiry 12, 155–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • GazdarG.: 1981b, ‘Phrase Structure Grammar’, in G. K.Pullum and P.Jacobson (eds.), On the Nature of Syntactic Representation (Croom Helm, London).

    Google Scholar 

  • GeachP. T.: 1972, ‘A Program for Syntax’, in D.Davidson and G.Harman (eds.), Semantics of Natural Language (Reidel, Dordrecht).

    Google Scholar 

  • Heny, F.: 1979, ‘Representing Significant Generalisations in lexical Grammar’, mimeo (Rijksuniversiteit Groningen).

  • Horn, G. M.: 1974, The Noun Phrase Constraint (Linguistics Club, Indiana University).

  • HuybregtsR.: 1976, ‘Overlapping Dependencies in Dutch’, Utrecht Working Papers in Linguistics 1, 24–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • JackendoffR.: 1977, X-bar Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure (MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson-LairdP. N.: 1977, ‘Procedural Semantics’, Cognition 5, 189–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, R.: 1973, ‘A Multiprocessing Approach to Natural Language’, in Proceedings of the First National Computer Conference.

  • KimballJ.: 1975, ‘Predictive Analysis and Over-the-top Parsing’, in J.Kimball (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 4 (Academic Press, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • KosterJ.: 1978, ‘Conditions, Empty Nodes and Markedness’, Linguistic Inquiry 9, 551–593.

    Google Scholar 

  • KosterJ.: 1980, ‘Proximates, Locals, and Dependents’, in J.Koster and R.May (eds.), Levels of Syntactic Representation, (Foris, Dordrecht).

    Google Scholar 

  • Levelt, W. J. M.: 1978, ‘On learnability, a Reply to Lasnik and Chomsky’, mimeo (Nijmegen).

  • LewisD.: 1971, ‘General Semantics’, Synthese 22, 18–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, J.: 1968, Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics (Cambridge University Press).

  • MalingJ. and ZaenenA.: 1980, ‘A PSR Treatment of Unbounded Dependencies in Scandinavian languages’, in G.Pullum and P.Jacobsen (eds.), The Nature of Syntactic Representation (Reidel, Dordrecht).

    Google Scholar 

  • MarcusM. P.: 1977, A Theory of Syntactic Recognition for Natural Language (MIT Press, Cambridge, 1980).

    Google Scholar 

  • Marslen-WilsonW. D.: 1973 ‘Linguistic Structure and Speech Shadowing at Very Short latencies’, Nature (London) 244, 522–523.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marslen-WilsonW. D. and TylerL. K.: 1980, ‘The Temporal Structure of Spoken language Understanding: The Perception of Sentences and Words in Sentences’, Cognition 8, 1–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • PetersS.: 1980, ‘Definitions of Linked Tree Grammars’, Lecture notes (University of Texas, Austin).

    Google Scholar 

  • Perlmutter, D. M.: 1968, Deep and Surface Constraints in Syntax (MIT, unpublished Doctoral dissertation).

  • Ross, J. R.: 1967, Constraints on Variables in Syntax (MIT, unpublished Doctoral dissertation).

  • SchmerlingS.: 1980, ‘A New Theory of English Auxilliaries’, mimeo (University of Texas, Austin).

    Google Scholar 

  • Shir, N. E.: 1977, On the Nature of Island Constraints (Indiana University Linguistics Club).

  • Steedman, M. J. and Ades, A. E.: 1980, ‘An Algorithmic Approach to English Main Clause Constructions’, in S. Hardy (ed.), Proceedings of the 1980 AISB Conference (AISB, University of Sussex).

  • SteedmanM. J. and AdesA. E.: 1981, ‘Son of Word-order’, Paper to Sloan Workshop on Processing Long-distance Dependencies, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, January 1981, Mimeo, University of Texas, Austin.

    Google Scholar 

  • SteedmanM. J. and Johnson-LairdP. N.: 1978, ‘A Programmatic Theory of Linguistic Performance’, in P.Smith and R.Campbell (eds.), Advances in the Psychology of Language — Formal and Experimental Approaches (Plenum, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • TylerL. K. and Marslen-WilsonW. D.: 1977, ‘The On-line Effects of Semantic Context on Syntactic Processing’, J. Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 16, 683–692.

    Google Scholar 

  • ThorneJ., BratleyP., and DewarH.: 1968, ‘The Syntactic Analysis of English by Machine’, by D.Michie (ed.), Machine Intelligence 3 (American Elsevier, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • VennemanT.: 1973, ‘Explanation in Syntax’, in J.Kimball (ed.), Syntax and Semantics II (Seminar Press, New York).

    Google Scholar 

  • WannerE.: 1980, ‘The ATN and the Sausage Machine: Which One Is Baloney?’, Cognition 8, 209–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winograd, T.: 1972, Understanding Natural Language (Edinburgh University Press).

  • WoodsW.: 1973, ‘Transition Network Grammars’, in R.Rustin (ed.), Natural Language Processing (Courant Computer Science Symposium 8, Algorithmics Press, New York).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ades, A.E., Steedman, M.J. On the order of words. Linguist Philos 4, 517–558 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00360804

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00360804

Keywords

Navigation