Advertisement

Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 1–34 | Cite as

A theory of command relations

  • Chris Barker
  • Geoffrey K. Pullum
Article

Keywords

Artificial Intelligence Computational Linguistic Command Relation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aoun, Joseph, and David W. Lightfoot: 1984, ‘Government and Contraction’,Linguistic Inquiry 15, 465–509.Google Scholar
  2. Aoun, J. and Sportiche, D.: 1982, ‘On the Formal Theory of Government’,Linguistic Review 2, 211–236.Google Scholar
  3. Banfield, A.: 1973, ‘Grammar of Quotation, Free Indirect Style, and Implications for a Theory of Narrative’,Foundations of Language 10, 1–39.Google Scholar
  4. Berwick, R. C. and Wexler, K.: 1982, ‘Parsing Efficiency, Binding, and c-command’, in D. P. Flickinger, M. Macken, and N. Wiegand (eds.),Proceedings of the First West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Stanford University, Stanford, California, pp. 29–34.Google Scholar
  5. Chomsky, Noam: 1955,The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory, manuscript; published by Plenum Press, New York, 1975; republished by the University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1985.Google Scholar
  6. Chomsky, Noam: 1965,Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  7. Chomsky, Noam: 1981,Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht, Holland.Google Scholar
  8. Chomsky, Noam: 1986,Barriers, Linguistic Inquiry Monographs 13, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  9. Davis, Lori J.: 1987, ‘Remarks on Government and Proper Government’,Linguistic Inquiry 18, 311–321.Google Scholar
  10. Emonds, Joseph E.: 1976,A Transformational Approach to English Syntax, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  11. Emonds, Joseph E.: 1985, ‘A Unified Theory of Syntactic Categories’,Studies in Generative Grammar 19, Foris, Dordrecht, Holland.Google Scholar
  12. Gazdar, Gerald, Geoffrey K. Pullum, Robert Carpenter, Ewan Klein, Thomas E. Hukari, and Robert D. Levine: 1988, ‘Category Structures’,Computational Linguistics 14, 1–19.Google Scholar
  13. Huck, Geoffrey J. and Almerindo E. Ojeda (eds.): 1987,Discontinuous Constituency, Syntax and Semantics20, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  14. Jackendoff, Ray S.: 1972,Semantics in Generative Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  15. Jackendoff, Ray S.: 1977,X-bar Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  16. Johnson, David E. and Paul M. Postal: 1980,Arc Pair Grammar, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  17. Kiparsky, Paul: 1977, ‘The Rhythmic Structure of English Verse’,Linguistic Inquiry 8, 189–247.Google Scholar
  18. Klima, Edward: 1964, ‘Negation in English', in J. Fodor and J. J. Katz (eds),The Structure of Language, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, pp. 246–323.Google Scholar
  19. Kornai, András and Geoffrey K. Pullum: 1990, ‘The X-bar Theory of Phrase Structure’,Language 66, 1.Google Scholar
  20. Langacker, Ronald W.: 1969, ‘On Pronominalization and the Chain of Command’. In D. Reibel and S. Schane (eds.),Modern Studies in English, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, pp. 160–186.Google Scholar
  21. Lasnik, Howard: 1976, ‘Remarks on Conference’,Linguistic Analysis 2, 1–22.Google Scholar
  22. Lightfoot, David: 1986, ‘A Brief Response’,Linguistic Inquiry 17, 111–112.Google Scholar
  23. McCawley, James D.: 1982, ‘Parentheticals and Discontinuous Constituent Structure’,Linguistic Inquiry 13, 91–106.Google Scholar
  24. McCawley, James D.: 1984, ‘Anaphora and Notions of Command’, in Claudia Brugman et al. (eds.),Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 220–232, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  25. Morin, Yves Charles and Michael H. O'Malley: 1969, ‘Multi-rooted Vines in Semantic Representation’, inPapers from the Fifth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago, Illinois, pp. 178–185.Google Scholar
  26. Ojeda, Almerindo E.: 1987, ‘Discontinuity, Multidominance, and Unbounded Dependency in Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar: Some Preliminaries’, in Huck and Ojeda (1987), pp. 257–282.Google Scholar
  27. Perlmutter, David M. and Paul M. Postal: 1977, ‘Toward a Universal Characterization of Passivization’, in K. Whistler et al. (eds),Proceedings of the Third Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley, California, pp. 394–417.Google Scholar
  28. Postal, Paul M. and Geoffrey K. Pullum: 1986, ‘Misgovernment’,Linguistic Inquiry 11, 104–110.Google Scholar
  29. Pullum, Geoffrey: 1985, ‘Assuming Some Version of X-bar Theory’,CLS 21, 323–353.Google Scholar
  30. Pullum, Geoffrey: 1986, ‘On the Relations of IDC-command and Government’,West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 5, 192–206.Google Scholar
  31. Reinhart, Tanya: 1974, ‘Syntax and Conference’,Proceedings of NELS 5, Graduate Linguistic Student Association, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, pp. 92–105.Google Scholar
  32. Reinhart, Tanya: 1976,The Syntactic Domain of Anaphora, Doctoral dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  33. Reinhart, Tanya: 1981, ‘Definite NP Anaphora and C-Command Domains’,Linguistic Inquiry 12, 605–635.Google Scholar
  34. Reinhart, Tanya: 1983,Anaphora and Semantic Interpretation, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.Google Scholar
  35. Richardson, J. F. and Robert Chametzky: 1985, ‘A String Based Redefinition of c-command’,Proceedings of NELS 15, Graduate Linguistic Student Association, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, pp. 332–361.Google Scholar
  36. Rouveret, Alain and Jean-Roger Vergnaud: 1980, ‘Specifying Reference to the Subject: French Causatives and Conditions on Representations’,Linguistic Inquiry 11, 97–202.Google Scholar
  37. Saito, Mamoru: 1984, ‘On the Definition of c-command and Government’,NELS 15, 402–417, Graduate Linguistic Student Association, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  38. Sampson, Geoffrey: 1975, ‘The Single Mother Condition’,Journal of Linguistics 11, 1–11.Google Scholar
  39. Wall, Robert: 1972,Introduction to Mathematical Linguistics, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chris Barker
    • 1
  • Geoffrey K. Pullum
    • 1
  1. 1.Board of Studies in LinguisticsUniversity of California, Santa CruzSanta CruzUSA

Personalised recommendations