Advertisement

Syntax and Semantics for the Psycholinguist

  • J. Miller
Part of the NATO Conference Series book series (NATOCS, volume 4b)

Abstract

It is unfortunate that many, perhaps most, psycholinguists are not aware of the diversity and richness of linguistic theories that are at their disposal, and this unawareness is not alleviated by the fact that those psycholinguists who are aware of the range of theories choose, or are obliged, to focus their attention on only one of the theories, Chomsky’s generative grammar.

Keywords

Noun Phrase Relative Clause Syntactic Structure Lexical Item Semantic Structure 
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. Anderson, J.M. (1971). The Grammar of Case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, J.M. (1973). An Essay Concerning; Aspect. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  3. Benveniste, E. (1946). Structure des relations de personne dans le verbe. Bulletin de la Soci été de Linguistique, XLIII. Reprinted in E. Benveniste (1966) Problemes de Linguistique Générale. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  4. Bever, T.G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In J. Hayes (ed.), Cognition and the Development of Language. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  5. Bloomfield, L. (1935). Language. London:Allen &UnwinGoogle Scholar
  6. Bolinger, D. (1970). The meaning of do so. Linguistic Inquiry, 1, 110–144.Google Scholar
  7. Bolinger, D. (1971). The nominal in the progressive. Linguistic Inquiry, 1, 246–250.Google Scholar
  8. Braine, M.D.S. (1974). On what might constitue learnable phonology. Language, 50, 270–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown, R. (1971). Psycholinguistics. New York:Free Press.Google Scholar
  10. Campbell, R.N. and Wales, R. (1969). Comparative structures in English. Journal of Linguistics, 5, 215–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chomsky, N.A. (1970). Remarks on nominalisation. In R.A. Jacobs and P.S. Rosenbaum (eds.) Readings in English Transformational Syntax. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn.Google Scholar
  12. Chomsky, N.A. (1972). Some empirical issues in the theory of transformational grammar. In Peters (op. cit.) .Google Scholar
  13. Dougherty, R.C. (1971). A grammar of coordinate conjoined structures II. Language, 46, 298–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Elson, B., and Pickett, V. (1965). An Introduction to Morphology and Syntax. Santa Anal Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
  15. Fillmore, C.J. (1968). Lexical entries for verbs. Foundations of Language, 4, 373–393.Google Scholar
  16. Fodor, J.A., Bever, T.G., and Garrett, M.F. (1974). The Psychology of Language. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  17. Friedman, J. (1969). Directed random generation of sentences. Computational Linguistics, 12, 40–46.Google Scholar
  18. Gruber, J.S. (1965). Studies in Lexical Relations. Ph. D. Thesis, M.I.T.Google Scholar
  19. Gruber, J.S. (1967). Look and See. Language, 43, 937–947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harris, Z.S. (1946). From morpheme to utterance. Language, 22, 161–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harris, Z.S. (1962). String analysis of Sentence Struc ture. The Hague:Mouton.Google Scholar
  22. Hockett, C.F. (1958). A course in Modern Linguistics. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  23. Hopgood, C.R. (1953). A Practical Introduction to Tonga. London: Longmans, Green &Co.Google Scholar
  24. Jackendoff, R. (1974). Introduction to the Bar-X Convention. Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
  25. Jackendoff, R. (1976). Towards an explanatory semantic representation. Linguistic Inquiry, 7, 89–150.Google Scholar
  26. Koutsoudas, A. (1971). Gapping, conjunction reduction and coordinate deletion, Foundations of Language, 7, 337–386.Google Scholar
  27. Lakoff, G. (1970)• Irregularity in Syntax. New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  28. Lakoff, G. (1971). On generative semantics. In D.D. Steinberg and L.A. Jakobovitz (eds.) Semantics. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Lyons, J. (1966). Towards a ‘notional’ theory of the ‘parts of speech’. Journal of Linguistics, 2, 209–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Miller, J. (1972). Towards a generative semantic account of aspect in Russian. Journal of Linguistics, 8, 217–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Miller, J. (1973). A note on so-called ‘discovery procedures’. Foundations of Language, 10, 123–139.Google Scholar
  32. Miller, J. (1974a). Further remarks on aspect. Russian Linguistics, 1, 53–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Miller, J. (1974b). ‘Future Tense’ in Russian. Russian Linguistics, 1, 255–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Miller, J. (1975). A localist account of the dative case in Russian. In Brecht, R.D. and Chvany, C.V. (eds.) Slavic Transformational Syntax, 244–261. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  35. Peters, S. (ed.)(1972). Goals of Linguistic Theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  36. Postal, P. (1972). The best theory. In Peters (op. cit).Google Scholar
  37. Robinson, J.J. (1970a) Dependency structures and transformational rules. Language, 46, 259–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Robinson, J.J. (1970b). Case, category and configuration. Journal of Linguistics, 6, 57–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Seuren, P.A.M. (1969). Operators and Nucleus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Slobin, D.I. (1972). Cognitive prerequisites for the development of language. In D.I. Slobin and C.A. Ferguson (eds.) Studies of Child Language Development. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Miller
    • 1
  1. 1.University of EdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations