Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-jswmv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T20:07:47.909Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Formal Universal of Natural Language Grammar

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Mark Steedman
Mark Steedman*
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh
*
[steedman@inf.ed.ac.uk]
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article proposes that the possible word orders for any natural language construction composed of n elements, each of which selects for the category headed by the next, are universally limited both across and within languages to a subclass of permutations on the ‘universal order of command’ 1, …, n, as determined by their selectional restrictions. The permitted subclass is known as the ‘separable’ permutations, and grows in n as the large Schröder series {1, 2, 6, 22, 90, 394, 1806, … }. This universal is identified as formal because it follows directly from the assumptions of COMBINATORY CATEGORIAL GRAMMAR (CCG)—in particular, from the fact that all CCG syntactic rules are subject to a combinatory projection principle that limits them to binary rules applying to contiguous nonempty categories.

The article presents quantitative empirical evidence in support of this claim from the linguistically attested orders of the four elements Dem(onstrative), Num(erator), A(djective), N(oun), which have been examined in connection with various versions of Greenberg's putative 20th universal concerning their order. A universal restriction to separable permutation is also supported by word-order variation in the Germanic verb cluster and in the Hungarian verb complex, among other constructions.

Keywords

word orderuniversal order of commandcombinatory categorial grammarseparable permutations

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 96 , Issue 3 , September 2020, pp. 618 - 660
Copyright
Copyright © 2020 Linguistic Society of America

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

This article was originally inspired by a talk given by Ad Neeleman in 2006. A preliminary version was presented in that year at the University of Pennsylvania and circulated under a different title. I have benefited since then from discussions with Klaus Abels, Paul Atkinson, Keith Brown, Peter Buneman, Jennifer Culbertson, Mary Dalrymple, Dag Haug, Mark Hepple, Caroline Heycock, Rachel Hurley, Aravind Joshi, Frank Keller, Bob Ladd, Andrew McLeod, Geoff Pullum, Miloš Stanojević, and Bonnie Webber, and from comments by the editors Meghan Crowhurst and Lisa Travis and the referees for Language. The paper is dedicated to the memory of Aravind Joshi, 1929–2017, who first addressed this question. The work was supported in part by ERC Advanced Fellowship 742137 SEMANTAX.

References

Abels, Klaus. 2008. Towards a restrictive theory of (remnant) movement. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2007. 53–120. DOI: 10.1075/livy.7.04abe.Google Scholar
Abels, Klaus. 2016. The fundamental left–right asymmetry in the Germanic verb cluster. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 19. 179–220. DOI: 10.1007/s10828-016-9082-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abels, Klaus, and Neeleman, Ad. 2009. Universal 20 without the LCA. Merging features: Computation, interpretation, and acquisition, ed. by José, M. Brucart, Gavarró, Anna, and Solà, Jaume, 60–80. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199553266.003.0004.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199553266.003.0004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abels, Klaus, and Neeleman, Ad. 2012. Linear asymmetries and the LCA. Syntax 15. 25–74. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9612.2011.00163.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adam, Mohamed. 2012. The universal 20 and the Somali noun phrase. London: University College London master's thesis.Google Scholar
Adger, David. 2013. A syntax of substance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon. 1989. Informal lectures on formal semantics. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Baldridge, Jason. 2002. Lexically specified derivational control in combinatory categorial grammar. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1842/562.Google Scholar
Baldridge, Jason, and Kruijff, Geert-Jan. 2003. Multi-modal combinatory categorial grammar. 10th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 211–18. Online: https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/E03-1036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartos, Huba. 1997. On ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’ agreement in Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Hungarica 44. 363–84. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44308305.Google Scholar
Bartos, Huba. 1999. Object agreement in Hungarian: A case for minimalism. The minimalist parameter: Selected papers from the Open Linguistics Forum, Ottawa, 21–23 March 1997, ed. by Alexandrova, Galina M. and Arnaudova, Olga, 311–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bech, Gunnar. 1955. Studien über das deutsche Verbum infinitivum, vol. 1. Munksgaard: Munksgaard.Google Scholar
Bose, Prosenjit, Buss, Jonathan F.; and Lubiw, Anna. 1998. Pattern matching for permutations. Information Processing Letters 65. 277–83. DOI: 10.1016/S0020-0190(97)00209-3.10.1016/S0020-0190(97)00209-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1998. Morphology competes with syntax: Explaining typological variation in weak crossover effects. Is the best good enough? Optimality and competition in syntax, ed. by Barbosa, Pilar, Fox, Danny, Hagstrom, Paul, McGinnis, Martha, and Pesetsky, David, 157–91. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Kaplan, Ronald M., Peters, Stanley; and Zaenen, Annie. 1982. Cross-serial dependencies in Dutch. Linguistic Inquiry 13. 613–36. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178298.Google Scholar
Byarushengo, Ernest. 1977. Preliminaries. Haya grammatical structure: Phonology, grammar, discourse (Southern California occasional papers in linguistics 6), ed. by Byarushengo, Ernest, Duranti, Alessandro, and Hyman, Larry, 1–15. Los Angeles: USC Linguistics.Google Scholar
Cain, Bruce Dwayne. 2000. Dhivehi (Maldivian): A synchronic and diachronic study. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University dissertation.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. Readings in English transformational grammar, ed. by Jacobs, Roderick A. and Rosenbaum, Peter S., 184–221. Waltham, MA: Ginn. [Reprinted in Studies on semantics in generative grammar. The Hague: Mouton, 1972.].Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995a. Bare phrase structure. Government and binding theory and the minimalist program, ed. by Webelhuth, Gert, 383–439. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995b. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. Step by step: Essays in minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. by Martin, Roger, Michaels, David, and Uriagereka, Juan, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phase. Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. by Kenstowicz, Michael, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2004 [2001]. Beyond explanatory adequacy. Structures and beyond: The cartography of syntactic structures, ed. by Belletti, Adriana, 104–31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195115260.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2005. Deriving Greenberg's universal 20 and its exceptions. Linguistic Inquiry 36. 315–32. DOI: 10.1162/0024389054396917.10.1162/0024389054396917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2007. The fundamental left-right asymmetry of natural languages. Working Papers in Linguistics 17. 77–107.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2010. The syntax of adjectives. (Linguistic Inquiry monograph 57.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262014168.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2013a. Cognition, universal grammar, and typological generalizations. Lingua 130. 50–65. DOI: 10.1016/j.lingua.2012.10.007.10.1016/j.lingua.2012.10.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 2013b. On the movement account of Greenberg's universal 20: Refinements and replies: Materials. Venice: University of Venice, ms.Google Scholar
Citko, Barbara. 2005. On the nature of Merge: External Merge, internal Merge, and parallel Merge. Linguistic Inquiry 36. 475–96. DOI: 10.1162/002438905774464331.10.1162/002438905774464331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Citko, Barbara. 2011. Multidominance. The Oxford handbook of linguistic minimalism, ed. by Boeckx, Cedric, 119–42. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Coppock, Elizabeth. 2013. A semantic solution to the problem of Hungarian object agreement. Natural Language Semantics 21. 345–71. DOI: 10.1007/s11050-013-9096-7.10.1007/s11050-013-9096-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costello, Nancy. 1969. The Katu noun phrase. Mon-Khmer Studies 3. 21–35.Google Scholar
Culbertson, Jennifer, and Adger, David. 2014. Language learners privilege structured meaning over surface frequency. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111. 5842–24. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1320525111.10.1073/pnas.1320525111CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Culbertson, Jennifer, and Kirby, Simon. 2016. Simplicity and specificity in language: Domain-general biases have domain-specific effects. Frontiers in Psychology 6:1964. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01964.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Culbertson, Jennifer, Smolensky, Paul; and Wilson, Colin. 2013. Cognitive biases, linguistic universals, and constraint-based grammar learning. Topics in Cognitive Science 5. 392–424. DOI: 10.1111/tops.12027.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dowty, David. 1988 [1985]. Type-raising, functional composition, and nonconstituent coordination. Categorial grammars and natural language structures, ed. by Oehrle, Richard, Bach, Emmon, and Wheeler, Deirdre, 153–98. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 1992. The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language 68. 81–138. DOI: 10.2307/416370.10.1353/lan.1992.0028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2018. On the order of demonstrative, numeral, adjective, and noun. Language 94. 798–833. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2018.0054.10.1353/lan.2018.0054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin. 1994. Sentence structure and word-order. Syntax and semantics, vol. 27: The syntactic structure of Hungarian, ed. by Kiefer, Ferenc and Kiss, Katalin É., 1–90. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin. 1998. Identificational focus versus information focus. Language 74. 245–73. DOI: 10.2307/417867.10.1353/lan.1998.0211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
É. Kiss, Katalin. 2002. The syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511755088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, Samuel, Groat, Erich, Kawashima, Ruriko; and Kitahara, Hisatsugu. 1998. A derivational approach to syntactic relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas, and Levinson, Stephen C.. 2009. The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32. 429–92. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X0999094X.10.1017/S0140525X0999094XCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Everett, Daniel. 2005. Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã: Another look at the design features of human language. Current Anthropology 46. 621–46. DOI: 10.1086/431525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evers, Arnold. 1975. The transformational cycle in Dutch and German. Utrecht: University of Utrecht dissertation.Google Scholar
Giusti, Giuliana. 2006. Parallels in clausal and nominal periphery. Phases of interpretation, ed. by Frascarelli, Mara, 163–86. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110197723.3.163.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. Universals of language, ed. by Greenberg, Joseph, 73–113. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1992. Theory and description in generative syntax: A case study in West Flemish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane, and van Riemsdijk, Henk. 1986. Verb projection raising, scope, and the typology of rules affecting verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 17. 417–66. Online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178499.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin, Dryer, Matthew, Gil, David; and Comrie, Bernard (eds.) 2005. The world atlas of language structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haug, Dag T. T. 2017. Backward control in Ancient Greek and Latin participial adjuncts. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 35. 99–159. DOI: 10.1007/s11049-016-9339-7.10.1007/s11049-016-9339-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John. 1983. Word order universals. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hepple, Mark. 1990. The grammar and processing of order and dependency: A categorial approach. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1842/18958.Google Scholar
Hockenmaier, Julia, and Young, Peter. 2008. Non-local scrambling: The equivalence of TAG and CCG revisited. Proceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Tree-Adjoining Grammars and Related Formalisms (TAG+9), 41–48. Online: https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W08-2306.Google Scholar
Huybregts, Riny. 1984. The weak inadequacy of context-free phrase-structure grammars. Van periferie naar kern, ed. by de Haan, Ger, Trommelen, Mieke, and Zonneveld, Wim, 81–99. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Jensen, John Thayer. 1977. Yapese reference grammar. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.Google Scholar
Joshi, Aravind. 1988. Tree-adjoining grammars. Natural language parsing, ed. by Dowty, David, Karttunen, Lauri, and Zwicky, Arnold, 206–50. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Joshi, Aravind. 2014. Recursion in language: Is it indirectly constrained? Recursion: Complexity in cognition, ed. by Roeper, Tom and Speas, Margaret, 139–58. Cham: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-05086-7_7.Google Scholar
Joshi, Aravind, Becker, Tilman; and Rambow, Owen. 2000. Complexity of scrambling: A new twist to the competence-performance distinction. Tree-adjoining grammar, ed. by Abeillé, Anne and Rambow, Owen, 167–81. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Koller, Alexander, and Kuhlmann, Marco. 2009. Dependency trees and the strong generative capacity of CCG. Proceedings of the 12th Conference of the European Chapter of the ACL (EACL 2009), 460–68. Online: https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/E09-1053.10.3115/1609067.1609118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koopman, Hilda. 2014. Recursion restrictions: Where grammars count. Recursion: Complexity in cognition, ed. by Roeper, Tom and Speas, Margaret, 17–38. Cham: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-05086-7_2.10.1007/978-3-319-05086-7_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koopman, Hilda, and Szabolcsi, Anna. 2000. Verbal complexes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhlmann, Marco, Koller, Alexander; and Satta, Giorgio. 2010. The importance of rule restrictions in CCG. Proceedings of the 48th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 534–43. Online: https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P10-1055.Google Scholar
Kuhlmann, Marco, Koller, Alexander; and Satta, Giorgio. 2015. Lexicalization and generative power in CCG. Computational Linguistics 41. 215–47. DOI: 10.1162/COLI_a_00219.10.1162/COLI_a_00219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lasnik, Howard, and Uriagereka, Juan. 2005. A course in minimalist syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Merlo, Paola. 2015. Predicting word order universals. Journal of Language Modelling 3. 317–44. DOI: 10.15398/jlm.v3i2.112.10.15398/jlm.v3i2.112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merlo, Paola, and Ouwayda, Sarah. 2018. Movement and structure effects on universal 20 word order frequencies: A quantitative study. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3:84. DOI: 10.5334/gjgl.149.Google Scholar
Mosel, Ulrike. 2017. Teop—an Oceanic language with multifunctional verbs, nouns and adjectives. Studies in Language 41. 255–93. DOI: 10.1075/sl.41.2.02mos.10.1075/sl.41.2.02mosCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, Hans-Friedrich (ed.) 2012. Caesar: Selections from his Commentarii de Bello Gallico. Mundelein, IL: Bolchazy-Carducci.Google Scholar
Nchare, Abdoulaye Laziz. 2012. The grammar of Shupamem. New York: New York University.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick. 2005. Possible and probable languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199274338.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panhuis, Dirk. 1982. The communicative perspective in the sentence: A study of Latin word order. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panhuis, Dirk. 2006. Latin grammar. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partee, Barbara, and Rooth, Mats. 1983. Generalized conjunction and type ambiguity. Meaning, use, and interpretation of language, ed. by Bäuerle, Rainer, Schwarze, Christoph, and Stechow, Arnim von, 361–83. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110852820.361.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David. 1971. Deep and surface structure constraints in syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1970. Gapping and the order of constituents. Progress in linguistics, ed. by Bierwisch, Manfred and Heidolph, Karl, 249–59. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Sargentich, Lewis. 2018. Liberal legality: A unified theory of our law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108673860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senft, Gunter. 1986. Kilivila: The language of the Trobriand Islanders. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110861846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seuren, Pieter. 1985. Discourse semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sheehan, Michelle, and van, Jenneke Wal, der. 2018. Nominal licensing in caseless languages. Journal of Linguistics 54. 527–89. DOI: 10.1017/S0022226718000178.10.1017/S0022226718000178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shieber, Stuart M. 1985. Evidence against the context-freeness of natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 8. 333–43. DOI: 10.1007/BF00630917.10.1007/BF00630917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stabler, Edward P. 2011. Computational perspectives on minimalism. The Oxford handbook of linguistic minimalism, ed. by Boeckx, Cedric, 617–41. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199549368.013.0027.Google Scholar
Stanojević, Miloš, and Steedman, Mark. 2018. Formal basis of a language universal. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh, ms.Google Scholar
Steddy, Sam, and Samek-Lodovici, Vieri. 2011. On the ungrammaticality of remnant movement in the derivation of Greenberg's universal 20. Linguistic Inquiry 42. 445–69. DOI: 10.1162/LING_a_00053.10.1162/LING_a_00053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steedman, Mark. 1985. Dependency and coördination in the grammar of Dutch and English. Language 61. 523–68. DOI: 10.2307/414385.10.2307/414385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steedman, Mark. 2000a. Information structure and the syntax-phonology interface. Linguistic Inquiry 34. 649–89. DOI: 10.1162/002438900554505.Google Scholar
Steedman, Mark. 2000b. The syntactic process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/6591.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steedman, Mark. 2012. Taking scope: The natural semantics of quantifiers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Steedman, Mark. 2014. The surface-compositional semantics of English intonation. Language 90. 2–57. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2014.0010.10.1353/lan.2014.0010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steedman, Mark, and Baldridge, Jason. 2011. Combinatory categorial grammar. Non-transformational syntax: A guide to current models, ed. by Borsley, Robert and Börjars, Kersti, 181–224. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI: 10.1002/9781444395037.ch5.10.1002/9781444395037.ch5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, Peter. 2007. 1 … 3–2. The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, ed. by Ramchand, Gillian and Reiss, Charles, 239–87. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199247455.013.0009.Google Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna. 1983. The possessor that ran away from home. The Linguistic Review 3. 89–102. DOI: 10.1515/tlir.1983.3.1.89.10.1515/tlir.1983.3.1.89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szabolcsi, Anna. 1994. The noun phrase. Syntax and semantics, vol. 27: The syntactic structure of Hungarian, ed. by Kiefer, Ferenc and Kiss, Katalin É., 179–274. San Diego: Academic Press.10.1163/9789004373174_004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tryon, Darrell. 1967. The languages of the Loyalty Islands. Canberra: The Australian National University dissertation.Google Scholar
van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen. 2014. The signal and the noise in Dutch verb clusters. Leuven: KU Leuven/CRISSP, ms.Google Scholar
van Craenenbroeck, Jeroen, van Koppen, Marjo; and van, Antal Bosch, den. 2019. A quantitative-theoretical analysis of syntactic microvariation: Word order in Dutch verb clusters. Language 95. 333–70. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2019.0033.Google Scholar
Vergnaud, Jean Roger. 2006 [1977]. Letter to Noam Chomsky and Howard Lasnik on ‘Filters and control,‘ April 17, 1977. Syntax: Critical concepts in linguistics, ed. by Freidin, Robert and Lasnik, Howard, 21–34. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Vijay-Shanker, K., and Weir, David J.. 1994. The equivalence of four extensions of context-free grammar. Mathematical Systems Theory 27. 511–46. DOI: 10.1007/BF01191624.10.1007/BF01191624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, Max. 1978 [1925]. Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology, vol. 2. University of California Press: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Weisstein, Eric. 2018. Schröder number. MathWorld—A Wolfram web resource. Online: https://mathworld.wolfram.com/SchroederNumber.html.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 2003. Representation theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wu, Dekai. 1997. Stochastic inversion transduction grammars and bilingual parsing of parallel corpora. Computational Linguistics 23. 377–403. Online: https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/J97-3002.pdf.Google Scholar
Wurmbrand, Susi. 2004. West Germanic verb clusters: The empirical domain. Verb clusters: A study of Hungarian, German, and Dutch, ed. by Kiss, Katalin É. and van Riemsdijk, Henk, 43–85. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.69.05wurCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wurmbrand, Susi. 2006. Verb clusters, verb raising, and restructuring. The Blackwell companion to syntax, vol. 5, ed. by Everaert, Martin and van Riemsdijk, Henk, 229–343. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470996591.ch75CrossRefGoogle Scholar