Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-13T09:43:43.879Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Representation of Disjunct Constituents

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

M. Teresa Espinal
M. Teresa Espinal*
Affiliation:
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
*
Escola Universitària de, Traductors i Intèrprets, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193-Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One problem in linguistic theory concerns the way in which the properties characterizing parenthetical or disjunct constituents are formally recorded in linguistic descriptions. The goals of this paper are to describe the interaction between disjunct constituents and sentential structures and to argue for an extension of the theoretical apparatus initially postulated in autosegmental phonology in order to represent complex syntactic structures containing disjunct constituents with a number of independent phrase markers that intersect at the linear axis.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 67 , Issue 4 , December 1991, pp. 726 - 762
Copyright
Copyright © 1991 by 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

References

Abney, Steven. 1986. Functional elements and licensing. Paper presented at the GLOW meeting, Girona.Google Scholar
Abney, Steven. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Aoun, Joseph, and Sportiche, Dominique. 1983. On the formal theory of government. The Linguistic Review 2.211–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986a. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origins and use. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986b. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clements, G. N. 1976. The autosegmental treatment of vowel harmony. Phonologica, ed. by Dressier, Wolfang & Pfeiffer, O. E., 111–19. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Contreras, Heles. 1976. A theory of word order with special reference to Spanish. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph. 1979. Appositive relatives have no properties. Linguistic Inquiry 10.211–43.Google Scholar
Espinal, M. Teresa. 1985. Anàlisis interpretatives i teoria lingüística. Bellaterra: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona dissertation.Google Scholar
Espinal, M. Teresa. 1987. Modal adverbs and modality scales. Lingua 72.293–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Espinal, M. Teresa. 1989. Tipologia dels adverbis: El cas dels anomenats adverbis oracionals. Miscel-lània Joan Bastardas 2, 21–49. Barcelona: Publicacions Abadía de Montserrat.Google Scholar
Fabb, Nigel. 1990. The difference between English restrictive and nonrestrictive relative clauses. Journal of Linguistics 26.57–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1990. An approach to discourse markers. Journal of Pragmatics 14.383– 95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frazier, Lyn. 1985. Syntactic complexity. Natural language parsing, ed. by Dowty, David R., Karttunen, Lauri, & Zwicky, Arnold M., 129–89. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fukui, Naoki, and Speas, Margaret. 1988. Specifiers and projection. MIT working papers in Linguistics 8, ed. by Fukui, Naoki, Rapoport, Tova, & Sagey, Elizabeth, 128–72. Cambridge, MA: MIT Department of Linguistics & Philosophy.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John. 1976. An overview of autosegmental phonology. Linguistic Analysis 2.23–68.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John. 1990. Autosegmental and metrical phonology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Goodall, Grant. 1987. Parallel structures in syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1988a. Verb projection and the multidimensional analysis: some empirical problems. Linguistic Inquiry 19.671–83.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1988b. Parenthetical adverbials: The radical orphanage approach. Paper presented at the Linguistics Association of Great Britain spring meeting, Durham.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane, and Riemsdijk, Henk van. 1986. Verb projection, raising, scope, and the typology of rules affecting verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 17.417–66.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane, and Wekker, Herman. 1984. The syntax and interpretation of futurate conditionals in English. Journal of Linguistics 20.45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris, and Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 1980. Three dimensional phonology. Journal of Linguistic Research 1.83–105.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1990. A parsing theory of word order universals. Linguistic Inquiry 21.223–61.Google Scholar
Huck, Geoffrey J., and Ojeda, Almerindo E. (eds.) 1987. Syntax and semantics 20. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hulst, Hulst Harry van, and Smith, Norval (eds.) 1985. Advances in nonlinear phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1977. X' syntax: A study of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1987a. X-bar semantics. Berkeley Linguistics Society 13.355–65.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1987b. The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 18.369–411.Google Scholar
Janda, Richard D. 1985. Echo questions and evidence for what? Chicago Linguistic Society 21.171–88.Google Scholar
Kempson, Ruth M. 1987. Grammar and conversational principles. Cambridge Linguistic Survey, vol. 2, ed. by Newmeyer, Frederick J., 139–63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kempson, Ruth M. 1988a. Logical Form: The grammar-cognition interface. Journal of Linguistics 24.393–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempson, Ruth M. 1988b. On the grammar-cognition interface: The principle of full interpretation. Mental representations, ed. by Kempson, Ruth M., 199–224. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony S. 1989. Asymmetries in long-distance extraction in a Tree-Adjoining Grammar. Alternative conceptions of phrase structure, ed. by Baltin, Mark & Kroch, Anthony S., 66–98. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony S., and Joshi, Aravind K. 1987. Analyzing extraposition in a Tree-Adjoining Grammar. In Huck & Ojeda, 107–49.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1974. Syntactic amalgams. Chicago Linguistic Society 10.321–44.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1986a. Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1986b. Frame semantics control of the coördinate structure constraint. Chicago Linguistic Society 22.152–67.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1986c. Cognitive semantics. Berkeley Cognitive Science Report 36.Google Scholar
Liberman, Mark. 1975. The intonational system of English. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Liberman, Mark, and Prince, Alan. 1977. On stress and linguistic rhythm. Linguistic Inquiry 8.249–336.Google Scholar
Lonzi, Lidia. 1981. Avverbi frasali e strutture parentetiche. Lingua e Stile 16.393–431.Google Scholar
May, Robert. 1985. Logical Form: Its structure and derivation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John J. 1982. Prosodic structure and expletive infixation. Lg. 58.574–90.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1981. The syntax and semantics of English relative clauses. Lingua 53.99–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1982. Parentheticals and discontinuous constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 13.91–106.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1987. Some additional evidence for discontinuity. In Huck & Ojeda, 185–200.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1988. The syntactic phenomena of English. 2 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1989. Individuation in and of syntactic structures. Alternative conceptions of phrase structure, ed. by Baltin, Mark & Kroch, Anthony S., 117–38. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McConnell-Ginet, Sally. 1982. Adverbs and Logical Form: A linguistically realistic theory. Lg. 58.144–84.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1973. Slifting. The formal analysis of natural languages, ed. by Gross, Maurice, Halle, Morris, & Schützenberger, Marcel-Paul, 133–69. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M. 1985. Autolexical syntax: A proposal for the treatment of noun incorporation and similar phenomena. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 3.329–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M. 1987. Discontinuity in autolexical and autosemantic syntax. In Huck & Ojeda, 283–301.Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M. 1991. Autolexical syntax. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Safir, Ken. 1986. Relative clauses in a theory of binding and levels. Linguistic Inquiry 17.663–89.Google Scholar
Schreiber, Peter A. 1972. Style disjuncts and the performative analysis. Linguistic Inquiry 3.321–47.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Wilson, Deirdre. 1986. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1986. The relation of grammar to cognition. Berkeley Cognitive Science Report 45.Google Scholar
Werth, Paul. 1984. Focus, coherence and emphasis. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Sperber, Dan. 1990. Linguistic form and relevance. London: University College London.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, María Luisa. 1982. On the relationship of the lexicon to syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar