Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T16:52:48.494Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Unifying everything: Some remarks on simpler syntax, construction grammar, minimalism, and HPSG

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Stefan Müller
Stefan Müller*
Affiliation:
Freie Universität Berlin
*
Arbeitsgruppe Deutsche Grammatik, Institut für Deutsche und Niederländische Philologie, Freie Universität Berlin Habelschwerdter Allee 45 14 195 Berlin, Germany [Stefan. Mueller@fu-berlin.de]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This discussion note compares several current linguistic theories: at the extreme ends of the current views are minimalist theories, which restrict themselves to the binary branching operations Move and Merge, and simpler syntax, which assumes flat structures and a surface-oriented mapping between syntactic structures and grammatical functions.

I show that purely surface-oriented theories have problems in accounting for the relatedness of syntactic and morphological structures and for the iteration of valence-changing processes, and I argue for a lexical analysis, as can be found in current minimalist theories, head-driven phrase structure grammar (HPSG), and categorial grammar. I furthermore show that the Chomskyan view on label computation is problematic for several reasons and should be given up in favor of explicit accounts like the one used in HPSG. I discuss problems for the analysis of complements and specifiers in minimalist theories with special focus on Stabler's minimalist grammars. I argue that once all problems are fixed, the resulting combinatorial rules are rather similar to what HPSG does.

As various proponents of more surface-oriented theories like construction grammar, simpler syntax, and HPSG have pointed out, two types of binary branching, headed rules are not sufficient to account for the entirety of language, which leads to the conclusion that both research directions are right to a certain extent: there is need for (constraint-based versions of) Move and Merge and there is need for special phrasal constructions.

Keywords

passivelabelingsimpler syntaxminimalismminimalist grammarcategorial grammarHPSGlexicalism

Information

Type
Discussion Note
Information
Language , Volume 89 , Issue 4 , December 2013 , pp. 920 - 950
Copyright
Copyright © 2013 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 discussion note was presented at the Workshop on Issues in Construction-based and Related Linguistic Theories at the Freie Universität Berlin in 2011, at the University of Göttingen, Seminar für Deutsche Philologie and at the University of Düsseldorf, Institut für Sprache und Information, Abteilung für Computerlinguistik in 2012, and at MIT, Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Gibson Lab, at the 19th Germanic Linguistics Annual Conference, University at Buffalo, and at the Ivanfest in Stanford in 2013. I thank the organizers for giving me the opportunity to present my ideas and the participants and especially Geert Booij, Jean-Pierre Koenig, Pauline Jacobson, and Jim Blevins for discussion. Furthermore, I thank Felix Bildhauer, Christopher Götze, Thomas Groß, Joost Kremers, Andreas Pankau, and Roland Schäfer for discussion, and Bob Borsley, Philippa Cook, Mary Dalrymple, Joachim Jacobs, Jong-Bok Kim, Anke Lüdeling, Ivan Sag, and Amir Zeldes for comments on, and Philippa Cook for proofreading of, earlier versions of this paper. It was also discussed at the reading group Usage-Based Grammar of the Humboldt Universität zu Berlin. I thank the members of this group for feedback.

I thank Steve Wechsler for discussion of the coordination argument in §1 and for providing the English examples in 10. I thank Felix Bildhauer for providing me with the examples in 4, taken from the German Web corpus DECOW2012 when it was still under development. Containing approximately 9.1 billion tokens, it is currently the largest available corpus of German (Schäfer & Bildhauer 2012). It is tagged and lemmatized and freely available at http://hpsg.fh-berlin.de/cow/.

References

Abbott, Barbara. 1976. Right node raising as a test for constituenthood. Linguistic Inquiry 7. 4. 639–42.Google Scholar
AbeillÉ, Anne. 2006. In defense of lexical coordination. Empirical Issues in Formal Syntax and Semantics 6. 7–36. Online: http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss6/.Google Scholar
Abney, Steven P. 1996. Statistical methods and linguistics. The balancing act: Combining symbolic and statistical approaches to language (Language, speech, and communication), ed. by Klavans, Judith L. and Resnik, Philip, 1–26. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ajdukiewicz, Kasimir. 1935. Die syntaktische Konnexität. Studia Philosophica 1. 1–27.Google Scholar
Asudeh, Ash, Dalrymple, Mary; and Toivonen, Ida. 2008. Constructions with lexical integrity: Templates as the lexicon-syntax interface. Proceedings of the LFG ’08 Conference, 68–88. Online: http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/LFG/13.Google Scholar
Asudeh, Ash, Dalrymple, Mary; and Toivonen, Ida. 2013. Constructions with lexical integrity. Journal of Language Modelling 1. 1. 1–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bach, Emmon. 1962. The order of elements in a transformational grammar of German. Language 8. 3. 263–69.Google Scholar
Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua, Perles, Micha A.; and Shamir, Eliahu. 1961. On formal properties of simple phrase-structure grammars. Zeitschrift für Phonetik, Sprachwissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 14. 2. 143–72.Google Scholar
Bartsch, Renate, and Vennemann, Theo. 1972. Semantic structures: A study in the relation between semantics and syntax. (Athenäum-Skripten Linguistik 9.) Frankfurt: Athenäum.Google Scholar
Bausewein, Karin. 1990. Haben kopflose Relativsätze tatsächlich keine Köpfe? Strukturen und Merkmale syntaktischer Kategorien (Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 39), ed. by Fanselow, Gisbert and Felix, Sascha W., 144–58. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Beavers, John, and Sag, Ivan A.. 2004. Coordinate ellipsis and apparent non-constituent co-ordination. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG 2004), 48–69. Online: http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/HPSG/5/.10.21248/hpsg.2004.3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bender, Emily Μ. 2000. Syntactic variation and linguistic competence: The case of AAVE copula absence. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation. Online: http://faculty.washington.edu/ebender/dissertation/.Google Scholar
Bender, Emily Μ., Flickinger, Daniel P.; and Oepen, Stephan. 2002. The grammar matrix: An open-source starter-kit for the rapid development of cross-linguistically consistent broad-coverage precision grammars. Proceedings of the Workshop on Grammar Engineering and Evaluation at the 19th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Taipei, Taiwan, ed. by John Carroll, Nelleke Oostdijk, and Richard Sutcliffe, 8–14.Google Scholar
Berwick, Robert C., and Epstein, Samuel David. 1995. On the convergence of the ‘minimalist’ syntax and categorial grammar. Algebraic methods in language processing, ed. by Nijholt, Anton, Scollo, Giuseppe, and Steetskamp, Rene, 143–48. Enschede: University of Twente. Online: http://eprints.eemcs.utwente.nl/9555/01/twlt10.pdf.Google Scholar
Berwick, Robert c., Pietroski, Paul, Yankama, Beracah; and Chomsky, Noam. 2011. Poverty of the stimulus revisited. Cognitive Science 35. 7. 1207–42.10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01189.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bierwisch, Manfred. 1963. Grammatik des deutschen Verbs. (Studia grammatica 2.) Berlin: Akademie.Google Scholar
Bildhauer, Felix, and Cook, Philippa. 2010. German multiple fronting and expected topic-hood. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG 2010), 68–79. Online: http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/HPSG/2010/.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blevins, James P. 2003. Passives and impersonals. Journal of Linguistics 39. 3. 473–520.10.1017/S0022226703002081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bod, Rens. 2009. From exemplar to grammar: Integrating analogy and probability in language learning. Cognitive Science 33. 4. 752–93.10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01031.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 2005. Structuring sense, vol. 1: In name only. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Borsley, Robert D. 2005. Against Conj P. Lingua 115. 4. 461–82.10.1016/j.lingua.2003.09.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borsley, Robert D. 2006. Syntactic and lexical approaches to unbounded dependencies. (Essex research reports in linguistics 49.) Essex: University of Essex. Online: http://repository.essex.ac.uk/127/.Google Scholar
Borsley, Robert D. 2012. Don't Move! Iberia: An International Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 4. 1. 110–39.Google Scholar
Bouma, Gosse, Malouf, Robert; and Sag, Ivan A.. 2001. Satisfying constraints on extraction and adjunction. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19. 1. 1–65.10.1023/A:1006473306778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouma, Gosse, and van Noord, Gertjan. 1998. Word order constraints on verb clusters in German and Dutch. Syntax and semantics, vol. 30: Complex predicates in nonderivational syntax, ed. by Hinrichs, Erhard W., Kathol, Andreas, and Nakazawa, Tsuneko, 4372. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1974. The position of certain clause-particles in phrase structure. Linguistic Inquiry 5. 4. 614–19.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1982. The passive in lexical theory. The mental representation of grammatical relations (Cognitive theory and mental representation), ed. by Bresnan, Joan, 386. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 2001. Lexical-functional syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Grimshaw, Jane. 1978. The syntax of free relatives in English. Linguistic Inquiry 9. 3. 331–92.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Mchombo, Sam A.. 1995. The lexical integrity principle: Evidence from Bantu. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13. 181–254.10.1007/BF00992782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briscoe, Ted J., and Copestake, Ann. 1999. Lexical rules in constraint-based grammar. Computational Linguistics 25. 4. 487–526. Online: http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/JZJ99/J99-4002.pdf.Google Scholar
Budde, Monika. 2010. Konstruktionen integrativ: Topik-Konstruktionen als reinsyntaktisches Pendant zu den lexikalisch verankerten Komplement-Konstruktionen. Paper presented at Konstruktionsgrammatik: Neue Perspektiven zur Untersuchung des Deutschen und Englischen: Internationale Fachtagung an der Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel vom 18. bis 20. Februar 2010.Google Scholar
Candito, Marie-Hélène. 1996. A principle-based hierarchical representation of LTAGs. Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING ’96) 16. 194–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.10.1515/9783112316009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. (Current studies in linguistics 28.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2005. Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36. 1. 1–22.10.1162/0024389052993655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2007. Approaching UG from below. Interfaces + recursion = language? Chomsky's minimalism and the view from syntax-semantics (Studies in generative grammar 89), ed. by Sauerland, Uli and Gärtner, Hans-Martin, 1–29. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. Foundational issues in linguistic theory: Essays in honor of Jean-Roger Vergnaud, ed. by Freidin, Robert, Otero, Carlos P., and Zubizarreta, Maria Luisa, 133–66. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130. 33–49.10.1016/j.lingua.2012.12.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo, and Rizzi, Luigi. 2010. The cartography of syntactic structures. The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, ed. by Heine, Bernd and Narrog, Heiko, 51–65. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Citko, Barbara. 2008. Missing labels. Lingua 118. 7. 907–44.10.1016/j.lingua.2008.01.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clément, Lionel, and Kinyon, Alexandra. 2003. Generating parallel multilingual LFG-TAG grammars from a metagrammar. Proceedings of the 41st annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2003), 184–91.Google Scholar
Crysmann, Berthold. 2001. Clitics and coordination in linear structure. Clitics in phonology, morphology and syntax (Linguistik aktuell/Linguistics today 36), ed. by Gerlach, Birgit and Grijzenhout, Janet, 121–59. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W., and Jackendoff, Ray S.. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199271092.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Anthony R., and Koenig, Jean-Pierre. 2000. Linking as constraints on word classes in a hierarchical lexicon. Language 76. 1. 56–91.10.1353/lan.2000.0068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Kuthy, Kordula, and Meurers, Walt Detmar. 2001. On partial constituent fronting in German. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 3. 3. 143–205.10.1023/A:1011926510300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
den Besten, Hans. 1983. On the interaction of root transformations and lexical deletive rules. On the formal syntax of the Westgermania: Papers from the 3rd Groningen Grammar Talks, Groningen, January 1981 (Linguistik aktuell/Linguistics today 3), ed. by Abraham, Werner, 47–131. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.3.03besCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donati, C. 2006. On wh-head-movement. WH-movement: Moving on (Current studies in linguistics 42), ed. by Cheng, Lisa Lai-Shen and Corver, Norbert, 21–46. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1978. Governed transformations as lexical rules in a Montague grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 9. 3. 393–426.Google Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1979. Word meaning and Montague grammar. (Synthese language library 7.) Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David R. 2003. The dual analysis of adjuncts/complements in categorial grammar. Modifying adjuncts (Interface explorations 4), ed. by Lang, Ewald, Maienborn, Claudia, and Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine, 33–66. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Egg, Markus. 1999. Derivation and resolution of ambiguities in wieder-sentences. Proceedings of the 12th Amsterdam Colloquium, ed. by Dekker, Paul J. E., 109–14.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, Peter. 1994. Grundriß der deutschen Grammatik. 3rd edn. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler.10.1007/978-3-476-03546-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert. 2002. Against remnant VP-movement. Dimensions of movement: From features to remnants (Linguistik aktuell/Linguistics today 48), ed. by Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena, Barbiers, Sjef, and Gärtner, Hans-Martin, 91–127. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.48.06fanCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert. 2003. Free constituent order: A minimalist interface account. Folia Linguistica 37. 1–2.191-231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freudenthal, Daniel, Pine, Julian m., Aguado-Orea, Javier; and Gobet, Fernand. 2007. Modeling the developmental patterning of finiteness marking in English, Dutch, German, and Spanish using MOSAIC. Cognitive Science 31. 2. 311–41.10.1080/15326900701221454CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freudenthal, Daniel, Pine, Julian Μ.; and Gobet, Fernand. 2006. Modeling the development of children's use of optional infinitives in Dutch and English using MOSAIC. Cognitive Science 30. 2. 277–310.10.1207/s15516709cog0000_47CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frey, Werner, and Gärtner, Hans-Martin. 2002. On the treatment of scrambling and adjunction in minimalist grammars. Proceedings of Formal Grammar 2002, Trento, 41–52.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald. 1981. Unbounded dependencies and coordinate structure. Linguistic Inquiry 12. 2. 155–84.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald, Klein, Ewan, Pullum, Geoffrey K.; and Sag, Ivan A.. 1985. Generalized phrase structure grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Geach, Peter Thomas. 1970. A program for syntax. Synthese 22. 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginzburg, Jonathan, and Sag, Ivan A.. 2000. Interrogative investigations: The form, meaning, and use of English interrogatives. (CSLI lecture notes 123.) Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Gold, Mark E. 1967. Language identification in the limit. Information and Control 10. 5. 447–74.10.1016/S0019-9958(67)91165-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. (Cognitive theory of language and culture.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2013. Argument structure constructions versus lexical rules or derivational verb templates. Mind & Language 28. 4. 435–65.10.1111/mila.12026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E., and Jackendoff, Ray S.. 2004. The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language 80. 3. 532–68.10.1353/lan.2004.0129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, Anneke, and van Riemsdijk, Henk. 1981. Matching effects in free relatives: A parameter of core grammar. Theory of markedness in generative grammar: Proceedings of the 1979 GLOW Conference, ed. by Belletti, Adriana, Brandi, Luciana, and Rizzi, Luigi, 171–216. Pisa: Scuola Normale Superiore.Google Scholar
GROß, Thomas M., and Osborne, Timothy. 2009. Toward a practical dependency grammar theory of discontinuities. SKY Journal of Linguistics 22. 43–90.Google Scholar
Gunji, Takao. 1986. Subcategorization and word order. Papers from the Second International Workshop on Japanese Syntax, ed. by Poser, William J., 1–21. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Haider, Hubert. 1993. Deutsche Syntax—generativ: Vorstudien zur Theorie einer projektiven Grammatik. (Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik 325.) Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Haider, Hubert. 2010. The syntax of German. (Cambridge syntax guides.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511845314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haugereid, Petter. 2009. Phrasal subconstructions: A constructionalist grammar design, exemplified with Norwegian and English. Trondheim: Norwegian University of Science and Technology.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, Erhard W., and Nakazawa, Tsuneko. 1994. Linearizing AUXs in German verbal complexes. German in head-driven phrase structure grammar (CSLI lecture notes 46), ed. by Nerbonne, John, Netter, Klaus, and Pollard, Carl J., 11–38. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1975. Morphological and semantic regularities in the lexicon. Language 51. 3. 639–71.10.2307/412891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1977. X syntax: A study of phrase structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 2008. Construction after construction and its theoretical challenges. Language 84. 1. 8–28.10.1353/lan.2008.0058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 2011. What is the human language faculty? Two views. Language 87. 3. 586–624.10.1353/lan.2011.0063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, Joachim. 2008. Wozu Konstruktionen? Linguistische Berichte 213. 3–44.10.46771/2366077500213_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, Joachim. 2009. Valenzbindung oder Konstruktionsbindung? Eine Grundfrage der Grammatiktheorie. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 37. 3. 490–513.10.1515/ZGL.2009.033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Kent. 2004. Gold's theorem and cognitive science. Philosophy of Science 71. 4. 571–92.10.1086/423752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kallmeyer, Laura, and Osswald, Rainer. 2012. A frame-based semantics of the dative alternation in lexicalized tree adjoining grammars. Empirical issues in syntax and semantics, vol. 9, ed. by Piñón, Christopher, 167–84. Paris: CNRS Éditions.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Ronald M. 1995. The formal architecture of lexical-functional grammar. Formal issues in lexical-functional grammar (CSLI lecture notes 47), ed. by Dalrymple, Mary, Kaplan, Ronald M., Maxwell, John T. III, and Zaenen, Annie, 7–27. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kay, Paul. 2005. Argument structure constructions and the argument-adjunct distinction. Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots (Constructional approaches to language 4), ed. by Fried, Mirjam and Boas, Hans C., 71–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.4.05kayCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, Paul, and Fillmore, Charles J.. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The WhatsXdoing Y? construction. Language 75. 1. 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. (Linguistic inquiry monographs 25.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 2011. Why are there no directionality parameters? West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 28. 1–23.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L., and Comrie, Bernard. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8. 1. 63–99.Google Scholar
King, Paul. 1999. Towards truth in head-driven phrase structure grammar. Tübingen studies in head-driven phrase structure grammar (Arbeitsberichte des SFB 340, 132), ed. by Kordoni, Valia, 301–52. Tübingen: Universität Tübingen. Online: http://www.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/sfb/reports/berichte/132/132abs.html.Google Scholar
Kiss, Tibor. 1995. Infinite Komplementation: Neue Studien zum deutschen Verbum infinitum. (Linguistische Arbeiten 333.) Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.10.1515/9783110934670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang. 1985. Ellipse, Fokusgliederung und thematischer Stand. Ellipsen und fragmentarische Ausdrücke, ed. by Meyer-Hermann, Reinhard and Rieser, Hannes, 1–24. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Koenig, Jean-Pierre. 1999. Lexical relations. (Stanford monographs in linguistics.) Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kordoni, Valia. 2001. Linking experiencer-subject psych verb constructions in Modern Greek. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG 2000), 198–213. Online: http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/HPSG/1/.10.21248/hpsg.2000.12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koster, Jan. 1975. Dutch as an SOV Language. Linguistic Analysis 1. 2. 111–36.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Jonas. 2007. Interfaces in constraint-based theories of grammar. The Oxford handbook of linguistic interfaces, ed. by Ramchand, Gillian and Reiss, Charles, 613–50. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Labelle, Marie. 2007. Biolinguistics, the minimalist program, and psycholinguistic reality. Snippets 14. Online: http://www.ledonline.it/snippets/.Google Scholar
Laenzlinger, Christoph. 2004. A feature-based theory of adverb syntax. Adverbials: The interplay between meaning, context, and syntactic structure (Linguistik aktuell/Linguistics today 70), ed. by Austin, Jennifer R., Engelberg, Stefan, and Rauh, Gisa, 205–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard K. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19. 3. 33591.Google Scholar
LÜdeling, Anke. 2001. On particle verbs and similar constructions in German. (Dissertations in linguistics.) Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Maché, Jakob. 2010. Towards a compositional analysis of verbless directives in German. Paper presented at the 17th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG 2010).Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1997. No escape from syntax: Don't try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics (Proceedings of the 21st annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium) 4. 2. 201–25. Online: http://www.ling.upenn.edu/papers/v4.2-contents.html.Google Scholar
Meurers, Walt Detmar. 2001. On expressing lexical generalizations in HPSG. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 24. 2. 161–217.10.1080/033258601753358605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meurers, Walt Detmar, and Müller, Stefan. 2009. Corpora and syntax. Corpus linguistics: An international handbook (Handbooks of linguistics and communication science 29.2), ed. by Lüdeling, Anke and Kytö, Merja, 920–33. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Jens. 2001. On formal properties of minimalist grammars. Potsdam: Universität Potsdam dissertation.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A., and Ruppenhofer, Josef. 2001. Beyond alternations: A constructional model of the German applicative pattern. (Stanford monographs in linguistics.) Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 1998. Incomplete category fronting. A derivational approach to remnant movement in German. (Studies in natural language and linguistic theory 42.) Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 2011. Regeln oder Konstruktionen? Von verblosen Direktiven zur sequentiellen Nominalreduplikation. Sprachliches Wissen zwischen Lexikon und Grammatik (Institut für Deutsche Sprache, Jahrbuch 2010), ed. by Engelberg, Stefan, Holler, Anke, and Proost, Kristel, 211–49. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 1996a. The Babel-system—An HPSG fragment for German, a parser, and a dialogue component. Proceedings of the fourth International Conference on the Practical Application of Prolog, 263–77. London. Online: http://hpsg.fu-berlin.de/∼stefan/Pub/babel.html.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 1996b. Yet another paper about partial verb phrase fronting in German. Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING ’96) 16. 800–805. Online: http://hpsg.fu-berlin.de/∼stefan/Pub/pvp.html.10.3115/993268.993307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 1999a. Deutsche Syntax deklarativ. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar für das Deutsche. (Linguistische Arbeiten 394.) Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.10.1515/9783110915990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 1999b. An HPSG-analysis for free relative clauses in German. Grammars 2. 1. 53–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2002. Complex predicates: Verbal complexes, resultative constructions, and particle verbs in German. (Studies in constraint-based lexicalism 13.) Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2003a. Mehrfache Vorfeldbesetzung. Deutsche Sprache 31. 1. 29–62.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2003b. Object-to-subject-raising and lexical rule: An analysis of the German passive. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG 2003), 278–97. Online: http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/HPSG/2003/.10.21248/hpsg.2003.16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2003c. Solving the bracketing paradox: An analysis of the morphology of German particle verbs. Journal of Linguistics 39. 2. 275–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2004. Elliptical constructions, multiple frontings, and surface-based syntax. Proceedings of Formal Grammar 2004, Nancy, 91–106. Online: http://hpsg.fu-berlin.de/∼stefan/Pub/surface.html.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2005a. Zur Analyse der deutschen Satzstruktur. Linguistische Berichte 201. 3–39.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2005b. Zur Analyse der scheinbar mehrfachen Vorfeldbesetzung. Linguistische Berichte 203. 297–330.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2006. Phrasal or lexical constructions? Language 82. 4. 850–83.10.1353/lan.2006.0213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2007a. Phrasal or lexical constructions: Some comments on underspecification of constituent order, compositionality, and control. Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (HPSG 2006), 373–93. Online: http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/HPSG/8/.10.21248/hpsg.2007.22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2007b. Qualitative Korpusanalyse für die Grammatiktheorie: Introspektion vs. Korpus. Sprachkorpora—Datenmengen und Erkenntnisfortschritt (Institut für Deutsche Sprache Jahrbuch 2006), ed. by Zifonun, Gisela and Kallmeyer, Werner, 70–90. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Online: http://hpsg.fu-berlin.de/∼stefan/Pub/intro-korpus.html.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2013a. The CoreGram project: Theoretical linguistics, theory development and verification. The CoreGram project: Theoretical linguistics, theory development and verification: Freie Universität Berlin, ms. Online: http://hpsg.fu-berlin.de/∼stefan/Pub/coregram.html.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2013b. German sentence structure: An analysis with special consideration of so-called multiple fronting. Empirically oriented theoretical morphology and syntax. Berlin: Language Science Press, to appear. Online: http://hpsg.fu-berlin.de/∼stefan/Pub/gs.html.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2013c. Grammatiktheorie. 2nd edn. (Stauffenburg Einführungen 20.) Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Online: http://hpsg.fu-berlin.de/∼stefan/Pub/grammatiktheorie.html.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2013d. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar: Eine Einführung. 3rd edn. (Stauffenburg Einführungen 17.) Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Online: http://hpsg.fu-berlin.de/∼stefan/Pub/hpsg-lehrbuch.html.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2013e. HPSG—A synopsis. Syntax: Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft), 2nd edn., ed. by Alexiadou, Artemis and Kiss, Tibor. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, to appear.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan, and Ørsnes, Bjarne. 2013a. Towards an HPSG analysis of object shift in Danish. Formal Grammar: 17th and 18th international conferences: FG 2012/2013, Opole, Poland, August 2012, revised selected papers; Düsseldorf, Germany, August 2013, proceedings, 69–89. Online: http://hpsg.fu-berlin.de/∼stefan/Pub/object-shift.html.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan, and Ørsnes, Bjarne. 2013b. Danish in head-driven phrase structure grammar. (Empirically oriented theoretical morphology and syntax.) Berlin: Language Science Press, to appear. Online: http://hpsg.fu-berlin.de/∼stefan/Pub/danish.html.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan, and Wechsler, Stephen Mark. 2014. Lexical approaches to argument structure. Theoretical Linguistics, to appear. Online: http://hpsg.fu-berlin.de/∼stefan/Pub/arg-st.html.10.1515/tl-2014-0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muysken, Peter. 1982. Parameterizing the notion of ‘head’. Journal of Linguistic Research 2. 57–75.Google Scholar
Noonan, Michael. 1994. Atale of two passives in Irish. Voice: Form and function (Typological studies in language 27), ed. by Fox, Barbara and Hopper, Paul J., 279–311. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.27.12nooCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ørsnes, Bjarne. 2011. „Wohin mit Konstruktionen?“—The syntax and semantics of nonverbal questions in German and Danish. „Wohin mit Konstruktionen?“—The syntax and semantics of nonverbal questions in German and Danish: Freie Universität Berlin, ms.Google Scholar
Özkaragöz, İnci. 1986. Monoclausal double passives in Turkish. Studies in Turkish linguistics (Typological studies in language 8), ed. by Slobin, Dan I. and Zimmer, Karl, 77–92. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Osborne, Timothy, Putnam, Michael; and GROß, Thomas M.. 2011. Bare phrase structure, label-less trees, and specifier-less syntax: Is minimalism becoming a dependency grammar? The Linguistic Review 28. 3. 315–64.10.1515/tlir.2011.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ott, Dennis. 2011. A note on free relative clauses in the theory of phases. Linguistic Inquiry 42. 1. 183–92.10.1162/LING_a_00036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollard, Carl J. 1999. Strong generative capacity in HPSG. Lexical and constructional aspects of linguistic explanation (Studies in constraint-based lexicalism 1), ed. by Webelhuth, Gert, Koenig, Jean-Pierre, and Kathol, Andreas, 281–98. Stanford, cA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl j., and Sag, Ivan A.. 1987. Information-based syntax and semantics. (CSLI lecture notes 13.) Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl J., and Sag, Ivan A.. 1994. Head-driven phrase structure grammar. (Studies in contemporary linguistics.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2003. Learnability: Mathematical aspects. Oxford international encyclopedia of linguistics, 2nd edn., ed. by Frawley, William J., 431–34. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2007. The evolution of model-theoretic frameworks in linguistics. In Rogers & Kepser, 1–10. Online: http://cs.earlham.edu/esslli07mts/mtspapers/pullum.pdf.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2013. The central question in comparative syntactic metatheory. Mind & Language 28. 4. 392–420.10.1111/mila.12029CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K., and Scholz, Barbara C.. 2001. On the distinction between generative-enumerative and model-theoretic syntactic frameworks. Logical Aspects of Computational Linguistics: 4th international conference (Lecture notes in computer science 2099), ed. by de Groote, Philippe, Morrill, Glyn, and Retor, Christian, 17–43. Berlin: Springer.10.1007/3-540-48199-0_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rauh, Gisa. 2013. Linguistic categories and the syntax-semantics interface: Evaluating competing approaches. Linguistic categories and the syntax-semantics interface: Evaluating competing approaches: Universität Wuppertal, ms.Google Scholar
Reis, Marga. 1974. Syntaktische Hauptsatzprivilegien und das Problem der deutschen Wortstellung. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 2. 3. 299–327.10.1515/zfgl.1974.2.3.299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richter, Frank. 2007. Closer to the truth: A new model theory for HPSG. In Rogers & Kepser, 101–10. Online: http://cs.earlham.edu/esslli07mts/mtspapers/richter.pdf.Google Scholar
Rogers, James, and Kepser, Stephan (eds.) 2007. Model-Theoretic Syntax at 10: Proceedings of the ESSLLI 2007 MTS@10 Workshop, August 13-17, Trinity College Dublin. Online: http://cs.earlham.edu/esslli07mts/.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 1997. English relative clause constructions. Journal of Linguistics 33. 2. 43184.10.1017/S002222679700652XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 2010. English filler-gap constructions. Language 86. 3. 486–545.10.1353/lan.2010.0002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sag, Ivan A., and Wasow, Thomas. 2011. Performance-compatible competence grammar. Non-transformational syntax: Formal and explicit models of grammar: A guide to current models, ed. by Borsley, Robert and Börjars, Kersti, 359–77. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan a., Wasow, Thomas; and Bender, Emily Μ.. 2003. Syntactic theory: A formal introduction. 2nd edn. (CSLI lecture notes 152.) Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Sauerland, Uli, and Elbourne, Paul. 2002. Total reconstruction, PF movement, and derivational order. Linguistic Inquiry 33. 2. 283–319.10.1162/002438902317406722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schäfer, Roland, and Bildhauer, Felix. 2012. Building large corpora from the web using a new efficient tool chain. Proceedings of the Eight International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC’12), 486–93.Google Scholar
Stabler, Edward P. 2001. Minimalist grammars and recognition. Linguistic form and its computation (Studies in computational linguistics 1), ed. by Rohrer, Christian, Rossdeutscher, Antje, and Kamp, Hans, 327–52. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Stabler, Edward P. 2010. After government and binding theory. Handbook of logic and language, 2nd edn., ed. by van Benthem, Johan and Meulen, Alice ter, 395–414. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Stabler, Edward P. 2011. Computational perspectives on minimalism. The Oxford handbook of linguistic minimalism, ed. by Boeckx, Cedric, 616–41. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Steedman, Mark J. 1991. Structure and intonation. Language 67. 2. 260–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steedman, Mark J. 2000. The syntactic process. (Language, speech, and communication.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Steedman, Mark J., and Baldridge, Jason. 2006. Combinatory categorial grammar. Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2nd edn., ed. by Brown, Keith, 610–21. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Sternefeld, Wolfgang, and Richter, Frank. 2012. Wo stehen wir in der Grammatiktheorie?— Bemerkungen anläßlich eines Buchs von Stefan Müller. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 31. 2. 263–91.10.1515/zfs-2012-0010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thiersch, Craig L. 1978. Topics in German syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Timberlake, Alan. 1982. The impersonal passive in Lithuanian. Berkeley Linguistics Society 8. 508–24.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
van Noord, Gertjan, and Bouma, Gosse. 1994. The scope of adjuncts and the processing of lexical rules. Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING ’94) 15. 250–56. Online: http://grid.let.rug.nl/∼vannoord/papers/coling94.ps.gz.10.3115/991886.991928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veenstra, Veenstra Mettina Jolanda. 1998. Formalizing the minimalist program. Groningen: University of Groningen dissertation.Google Scholar
Vogel, Ralf. 2001. Case conflict in German free relative constructions: An optimality theoretic treatment. Competition in syntax, ed. by Müller, Gereon and Sternefeld, Wolfgang, 341–75. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen Mark. 2008. A diachronic account of English deverbal nominals. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 26. 498–506.Google Scholar
Wexler, Kenneth, and Culicover, Peter W.. 1980. Formal principles of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1994. Remarks on lexical knowledge. Lingua 92. 7–34.10.1016/0024-3841(94)90336-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar