Jerrold J Katz ppt

P. Hanks (Ed.)Lexicology: Critical Concepts in LinguisticsRoutledge, 2007PRE-PUBLICATION VERSION OF THE CONTENTS LISTVolume 1: Philosophy and Word Meaning1.1 Foundations1. Aristotle (4th century BC), 'Meaning and Essence’, Excerpts fromAristotle's writings, selected, arranged, and edited by Ekaterini Stathi (Berlin, 2005), translations from , 48 pages.2. Porphyry [Porphyrios of Tyre] (3rd century AD), ‘Eisagogē’ (Introductionto Aristotle's Categories), translated by J. Barnes (Oxford, 2003), 5 pages.3. John Wilkins (1668), Excerpts from Essay towards a real character, and aPhilosophical Language, (London: The Royal Society), 15 pages.4. John Locke (1690), 'Of the signification of words', Chapters 1 to 5 from Book III ofthe Essay Concerning Human Understanding, and Table of Contents of Book III,(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975), pp. 402-428; 29-34.5. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1704), ‘Table of Definitions’, Excerpts from ‘Table dedefinitions’, in Louis Couturat, ed., Opuscules et fragments inédits de Leibniz,(Paris: Felix Alcan, 1903; reissued: Hildesheim: Olms, 1963), selected by DonaldRutherford, translated by Emily Rutherford, 14 pages.6. Louis Couturat (1903), Excerpts from The Logic of Leibniz, translated by DonaldRutherford and Timothy Monroe, Published on the Internet (1997-2002).7. Bertrand Russell (1921), 'Words and Meaning', in Bertrand Russell, The Analysis ofMind, (London: Allen & Unwin, 1922), pp. 135-144.1.2 Beyond Necessary Conditions8. Ludwig Wittgenstein (1951), Excerpts from Philosophical Investigations, selectedand edited by Yorick Wilks, (Oxford, 2005), 15 pages.9. Willard van Orman Quine (1940), 'Use Versus Mention', in Willard van OrmanQuine, Mathematical Logic, (New York: Norton) [Reprinted in Farhang Zabeeh, E.D. Klemke, and Arthur Jacobson, eds., Readings in Semantics, (Urbana, IL:University of Illinois Press, 1974), pp. 89-94.]10. Willard van Orman Quine (1960), Excerpts from Word and Object, (Cambridge,MA: MIT Press, 1960), pp. 51-57; 80-95; 114-134.11. Hilary Putnam (1970), ‘Is semantics possible?’, in H. Kiefer and M. Munitz, eds.,Languages, Believe and Metaphysics, Volume I of Contemporary PhilosophicThought: The International Philosophy Year Conferences at Brockport. [Reprinted in Mind, Language and Reality, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975),pp. 139-152.]12. Hilary Putnam (1975), 'The meaning of "meaning"', in K. Gunderson, ed.,Language, Mind, and Knowledge, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science,VII, (University of Minnesota Press). [Reprinted in Mind, Language and Reality(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 215-271.13. J. L. Austin (1963), ‘Performative-constative’, in Charles E. Caton, ed., Philosophyand Ordinary Language, translated from the French by G. J. Warnock, (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press), pp. 22–54.1.3 Variability and Vagueness14. Jorge Luis Borges (1964), ‘The Analytical Language of John Wilkins’, in Jorge LuisBorges, Other Inquisitions: 1937-1952, translated by Ruth L. Simms, pp. 101-105.15. William Labov (1973), 'The boundaries of words and their meanings', in C.-J. Baileyand R. Shuy, eds., New Ways of Analyzing Variation in English, (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press), pp. 340-373.16. Anna Wierzbicka (1986), 'Precision in Vagueness', Journal of Pragmatics, 10, pp.597-613.17. Anna Wierzbicka (1987), 'Introduction' (1-9, 12) and 'The Promise Group', inEnglish Speech Act Verbs, (Sydney: Academic Press), pp. 1-26; 30-32; 205-213.18. Timothy Williamson (2001), 'Vagueness, Indeterminacy and Social Meaning', inColin B. Grant and Donald McLaughlin, eds., Language - Meaning - SocialConstruction: Interdisciplinary Studies, (Amsterdam, New York: Rodopi), pp. 61-76.Volume 2: Lexical Semantics and Structures2.1 Semantic Field Theory19. Jost Trier (1934), ‚The linguistic field. An investigation’, English translation by ElkeGehweiler of 'Das sprachliche Feld: eine Auseinandersetzung', Neue Jahrbücherfür Wissenschaft und Jugendbildung, 10, pp. 428-449.20. Walter Porzig (1934), ‚Intrinsic semantic relations’, English translation by ElkeGehweiler of 'Wesenhafte Bedeutungsbeziehungen', Beiträge zur deutschenSprache und Literatur, 58, 1934, pp. 70-97.21. Helmut Gipper (1959), ‚Sessel oder Stuhl?* A contribution to the definition of wordcontents in the object world’, English translation by Elke Gehweiler of ‘Sessel oder Stuhl? Ein Beitrag zur Bestimmung von Wortinhalten im Bereich der Sachkultur’, in Helmut Gipper, ed., Sprache: Schlüssel zur Welt; Festschrift für Leo Weisgerber,(Düsseldorf: Pädagogischer Verlag Schwann), pp. 271–29222. Wolfgang Wildgen (2000), 'The history and future of field semantics: from GiordanoBruno to dynamic semantics', in L. Albertazzi, ed., Meaning and Cognition: aMultidisciplinary Approach, (Amsterdam: John Benjamins), pp. 203-226.2.2 Structuralist Semantics23. Louis Hjelmslev (1958), 'Dans quelle mésure les significations des mots peuvent-elle être considerées comme formant une structure?', in Eva Sivertsen et al., eds., Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Linguists, (Oslo: OsloUniversity Press), pp. 636-654.24. Bernard Pottier (1964), 'Vers une sémantique moderne', in Travaux de linguistiqueet de Littérature, 2:1, pp. 107-137.25. Eugenio Coseriu (1964), 'Towards a Structuralist Diachronic Semantics', Englishtranslation by Patrick Hanks of 'Pour une sémantique diachronique structurale' inTravaux de linguistique et de littérature, published by Centre de Philologie et deLittératures Romanes de l'Université de Strasbourg, II/1, pp. 139-186.26. John Lyons (1968), 'Semantic Structure', Chapter 10 of Introduction to TheoreticalLinguistics, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 443-481.2.3 Componential Analysis of Kinship27. Ward H. Goodenough (1956), 'Componential analysis and the study of meaning',Language, 32, pp. 195-216.28. Floyd G. Lounsbury (1964), 'The Structural Analysis of Kinship Semantics', inProceedings of the 9th International Congress of Linguists, Cambridge MA 1962,(The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter), pp. 1073-1090.2.4 The Lexicon in Early Generative Grammar: Markerese29. Jerrold J. Katz and Jerry Fodor (1963), 'The structure of a semantic theory',Language, 39:2, pp. 170-210.30. Dwight Bolinger (1965), 'The atomization of meaning', Language, 41:4, pp. 555-573.31. Manfred Bierwisch (1967), ‘Some Semantic Universals of German Adjectivals’,Foundations of Language, 3, pp. 1-36.3.2 The Lexicon in Modern Generative Theory32. James Pustejovsky (1991), ‘The Generative Lexicon’, Computational Linguistics,17:4, pp. 409-441.33. Ray Jackendoff (2002), 'What's in the lexicon?', in Sieb Nootebom, Fred Weerman,Frank Wijnen, eds., Storage and Computation in the Language Faculty, (Dordrecht: Kluwer), pp. 23-58.Volume 3: Core Meaning, Extended Meaning3.1 Primes and Universals34. Andrzej Boguslawski (1970), 'On semantic primitives and meaningfulness', in A. J.Greimas, R. Jacobson, M. R. Mayenowa et al., eds., Sign, Language, Culture, (The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter), pp. 143-152.35. Jurij D. Apresjan (2000), ‘On the language of explications and semantic primitives’,Chapter 8 of Systematic Lexicography, (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 215–23. [Published in Russian in 1994.]36. Anna Wierzbicka (1995), 'Universal semantic primitives as a basis for lexicalsemantics', Folia Linguistica, 29, 1-2, pp. 149-169.37. Stephen G. Pulman (2005), 'Lexical decomposition: for and against', in John I. Tait,ed., Charting a New Course: Natural Language Processing And InformationRetrieval: essays in honour of Karen Spärck Jones, (Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic/ Springer), pp. 155-174.38. Danielle Corbin and Martine Temple (1994), 'Le monde des mots et des sensconstruits: catégories sémantiques, catégories référentielles’, Cahiers delexicologie, 65, pp. 213-236.39. Cliff Goddard (2005), 'Lexico-semantic universals: a critical overview', LinguisticTypology, 5:1, pp. 1-66.3.3 Polysemy40. Jurij D. Apresjan (1973), 'Regular Polysemy', Linguistics, 142, pp. 5-32.41. Jiwei Ci (1987), 'Synonymy and Polysemy', Lingua, 72, pp. 315-331.42. Paul D. Deane (1988), 'Polysemy and Cognition', Lingua, 75, pp. 325-361.43. Adrienne Lehrer (1990), 'Polysemy, conventionality, and the structure of thelexicon', Cognitive Linguistics, 1-2, pp. 207-246.44. Dirk Geeraerts (1993), 'Vagueness's puzzles, polysemy's vagaries', CognitiveLinguistics, 4, pp. 223-272.45. David Tuggy (1993), 'Ambiguity, Polysemy, and Vagueness', Cognitive Linguistics,4, pp. 273-290.3.4 Cross-Linguistic Comparative Lexicology46. Cecil H. Brown (2001), 'Lexical typology from an anthropological point of view', inSprachtypologie und Sprachuniversalien, (Berlin, New York: De Gruyter), pp. 1178-1190.47. Cliff Goddard (2002), 'Thinking' across languages and cultures: six dimensions ofvariation', Cognitive Linguistics, 14:2/3, pp. 109-140.Volume 4: Syntagmatics4.1 Syntagmatics: The Firthian Tradition48. Michael Halliday (1966), 'Lexis as a linguistic level', in C. E. Bazell, J. C. Catford, M.A. K. Halliday, and R. H. Robins, eds., In Memory of J. R. Firth, (London:Longman), pp. 148-162.49. John Sinclair (1966), 'Beginning the study of lexis', in C. E. Bazell, J. C. Catford, M.A. K. Halliday, and R. H. Robins, eds., In Memory of J. R. Firth, (London:Longman), pp. 410-430.50. Eugene O. Winter (1978), 'A look at the role of certain words in informationstructure', in K. P. Jones and V. Horsnell, eds., Informatics 3: proceedings of aconference held by the Aslib Co-ordinate Indexing Group, pp. 85-97.51. John Sinclair (1998), 'The Lexical Item', in Edda Weigand, ed., Contrastive LexicalSemantics, (Amsterdam: John Benjamins), pp. 1-24.52. Michael Hoey (2004), 'The textual priming of lexis', in Guy Aston, Silvia Bernardini,and Dominic Stewart, eds., Corpora and Language Learners, (Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins), pp. 21-41.53. Alan Partington (2004), '"Utterly content in each other's company". Semanticprosody and semantic preference', International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9:1, (Amsterdam: John Benjamins), pp. 131-156.4.2 Lexicon Grammar54. Maurice Gross (1993), 'Constructing lexicon-grammars', in B. T. S. Atkins and A.Zampolli, eds., Computational Approaches to the Lexicon, (Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press), pp. 213-264.55. Christian Leclère (2002), 'Organization of the lexicon-grammar of French verbs',Lingvisticae Investigationes, 25:1, (Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins), pp.29-48.56. Richard Hudson (2002), 'Buying and selling in Word Grammar', in József Andorand Peter Pelyvás, eds., Empirical Cognitive-based studies in the semantics-pragmatics interface, (Oxford: Elsevier Science, in press?), 25 pages. [=CurrentResearch in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface]4.3 Frame Semantics57. Charles J. Fillmore (1975), 'An alternative to checklist theories of meaning’, inPapers from the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 123-132.58. Sue Atkins and Charles J. Fillmore (1992), 'Towards a Frame-based Lexicon: theSemantics of RISK and its Neighbors', in Adrienne Lehrer and Eva F. Kittay, eds., Frames, Fields and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization, (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum), pp. 75-102.59. Adrienne Lehrer (1992), 'Names and Naming: why we need Fields and frames', inAdrienne Lehrer and Eva F. Kittay, eds., Frames, Fields and Contrasts, (Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum), pp. 123-141.60. Thierry Fontenelle (2000), 'A Bilingual Lexical Database for Frame Semantics',International Journal of Lexicography, 13:4, pp. 232-248.4.4 Preferences, Meaning and Context61. Jeffrey Gruber (1967), 'Look and see', Language, 43, pp. 937-947.62. Yorick Wilks (1980), 'Frames, Semantics and Novelty', in Dieter Metzing, ed.,Frame Conceptions and Text Understanding, (Berlin, New York: Mouton deGruyter), pp. 134-163.63. Anna Wierzbicka (1982), 'Why can you have a drink when you can't *have an eat?',Language, 58, pp. 753-79.64. Eugene Nida (1997), 'The molecular level of lexical semantics', InternationalJournal of Lexicography, 10:4, pp. 265-74.Volume 5: Cognition and the Lexicon5.1 Child Language Acquisition65. Roger W. Brown (1958), 'How Shall a Thing be Called?', Psychological Review, 65,pp. 14-21.66. Eve Clark (1973), 'What's in a Word? On the child's acquisition of semantics in hisfirst language', in T. E. Moore, ed., Cognitive Development and the Acquisition ofLanguage, (New York: Academic Press), pp. 65-110.67. Eve Clark (1997), 'Conceptual perspective and lexical choice in acquisition’,Cognition, 64, pp. 1-37.68. George Miller and Patricia Gildea (1987), 'How children learn words', ScientificAmerican, 257, pp. 94-99.69. J. C. Goodman, L. McDonough, and N. B. Brown (1998), 'The role of semanticcontext and memory in the acquisition of novel nouns', Child Development, 69, pp.1330-1344.5.2 Prototypes and Stereotypes70. Eleanor Rosch (1975), 'Cognitive representation of semantic categories', Journal ofExperimental Psychology, 104, pp. 192-233.71. Nick Braisby (1990), 'Situating word meaning', in R. Cooper, K. Mukai, and J. Perry,eds., Situation Theory and its Applications, I, (Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information), pp. 315-341.72. George Lakoff (1973), 'Hedges and Meaning Criteria', in Raven I. McDavid andAudrey R. Duckert, eds., Lexicography in English.Annals of the New YorkAcademy of Sciences, pp. 144-153.73. Patrick Hanks (1994), 'Linguistic Norms and Pragmatic Explanations, or WhyLexicographers need Prototype Theory, and Vice Versa', in F. Kiefer, G. Kiss, and J. Pajzs, eds., Papers in Computational Lexicography: Complex '94, (ResearchInstitute for Linguistics, Hungarian Academy of Sciences), pp. 89-113.5.3 The Mental Lexicon74. Lawrence W. Barsalou (1983), 'Ad hoc categories', Memory and Cognition, 11, pp.211-227.75. Roger W. Schvaneveldt, David E. Meyer, and Curtis A. Becker (1976), 'Lexicalambiguity, semantic context, and visual word recognition', Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, volume 2, pp. 243-256.76. Sharon Lee Armstrong, Lila R. Gleitman, and Henry Gleitman (1983), 'What someconcepts might not be', Cognition, 13, pp. 263-308.77. Herbert H. Clark and Richard Gerrig (1983), 'Understanding old words with newmeanings', Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, pp. 591-608.78. Mira Ariel (2002), 'The demise of a unique literal meaning', Journal of Pragmatics,34 (special issue, ed. by M. Ariel, on literal, minimal, salient, and privilegedmeanings), pp. 361-402.79. Tomasz P. Krzeszowski (1990), 'The Axiological Aspect of Idealized CognitiveModels', in J. Tomaszczyk and B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, eds., Meaning and Lexicography, (Amsterdam: John Benjamins), pp. 135-165.Volume 6: Formal Approaches to the Lexicon6.1 Meaning <—> Text Theory80. Igor Mel’cuk et al. (1984), Dictionnaire Explicatif et Combinatoiredu Français Contemporain. Introduction, pp. 3-16. [14 pages]81. Igor Mel’cuk et al. (1984- ), Dictionnaire Explicatif etCombinatoire du Français Contemporain. Articles on admiration, admirer,désespoir, enthousiasme, envie, étonnement, étonner, s’étonner, 14 pages.82. Igor Mel’cuk (1988), ‘Semantic Description of Lexical Units in anExplanatory Combinatorial Dictionary: Basic Principles and HeuristicCriteria’, International Journal of Lexicography, 1:3, pp. 165-188.83. Igor Mel’cuk (2003), ‘Collocations dans le dictionnaire’ in Th.Szende, ed., Les écarts culturels dans les Dictionnaires bilingues, (Paris:Honoré Champion), pp. 19-64.6.2 Statistics of Word Association84. Michael Lesk (1986), 'Automatic sense disambiguation using machine readabledictionaries: how to tell a pine cone from an ice cream cone', in Proceedings of the 1986 SIGDOC Conference, (New York: Association for Computing Machinery), pp.24-26.85. Michael Lesk (1988), 'They said true things, but called them by wrong names –vocabulary problems over time in retrieval', in Proceedings of the 1988 WaterlooOED Conference, (University of Waterloo, Ontario), pp. 1-10.86. Kenneth Church and Patrick Hanks (1989), 'Word Association Norms, MutualInformation, and Lexicography', in Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 1990, edited version reprinted inComputational Linguistics 16:1, 1996, pp. 22-29.87. Gregory Grefenstette (2002), 'Multilingual Corpus-Based Extraction and the VeryLarge Lexicon', Languages and Computers, 43:1, pp. 137-149.88. Patrick Pantel and Dekang Lin (2002), ‘Discovering Word Senses from Text’, inProceedings of ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and DataMining 2002, (Edmonton, Canada), pp. 613-619.89. Robert C. Moore (2004), ‘On Log-Likelihood-Ratios and the Significance of RareEvents’, in Dekang Lin and Dekai Wu, eds., Proceedings of EMNLP 2004,(Barcelona: Association for Computational Linguistics), pp. 333-340.90. Adam Kilgarriff (2004), ‘How dominant is the commonest sense of a word?’, in P.Sojka, I. Kopecek and K. Pala, eds., Text, Speech, Dialogue: Lecture Notes inArtificial Intelligence, 3206, (Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer), pp. 103-111.91. Adam Kilgarriff, Pavel Rychly, Pavel Smrz, David Tugwell (2004), ‘The SketchEngine’, /sketch-engine-elx04.pdf, 11 pages.6.3 Lexical Resources for Computational Language Processing92. Harold R. Robison (1970), 'Computer-detectable semantic structures' in InformationStorage and Retrieval, 6:3, pp. 273-288.93. George Miller and Christiane Fellbaum (1991), 'Semantic Networks of English',Cognition, special issue edited by B. Levin and S. Pinker, pp. 197-229. [Reprinted in B. Levin and S. Pinker (eds.), Lexical and Conceptual Semantics. Blackwell.]94. Simon C. Dik (1986), ‘Linguistically motivated knowledge representation’, in M.Nagao, ed., Language and Artificial Intelligence, (Amsterdam: North HollandPublishers), pp. 145-170.95. Piek Vossen and Laura Bloksma (1998), 'Categories and classifications inEuroWordNet', in Antonio Rubio, Natividad Gallardo, Rosa Castro and AntonioTejada, eds., Proceedings of First International Conference on LanguageResources and Evaluation, Granada, 28th-30th May, pp. 399-408.96. Piek Vossen, Wim Peters, Julio Gonzalo (1999), 'Towards a Universal Index ofMeaning', in Proceedings of ACL-99 Workshop, Siglex-99, Standardizing LexicalResources, (College Park, Maryland: University of Maryland), pp. 81- 90.6.4 Computational Representation of the Lexicon97. James Pustejovsky and Bran Boguraev (1993), 'Lexical Knowledge Representationand natural language processing', Artificial Intelligence, 63, pp. 193-223.98. Ann A. Copestake and Ted Briscoe (1995), 'Semi-productive Polysemy and SenseExtension', Journal of Semantics, 12, pp. 15-67.99. Viktor Raskin and Sergej Nirenburg (1996), ‘Ten Choices for Lexical Semantics’,Computational Intelligence, pp. 1-39.100. Graeme Hirst and Jane Morris (2004), ‘Non-Classical Lexical Semantic Relations’, Workshop on Computational Lexical Semantics, Human LanguageTechnology Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association forComputational Linguistics, Boston, May 2004.。

Government Binding TheoryRobert N. St. ClairUniversity of LouisvilleIntroductionThere were a series of major developments leading to the rise of Government and Binding Theory. In the atavistic version of syntactic theory which was published as Syntactic Structures (1957), Chomsky argued for syntax as the basis for correlating the linguistic meanings (the semantic component) with linguistic forms (the phonological component). At that time, syntax consisted of three kinds of rules: (1) The phrase structure rules ordered the parts of a sentence into linguistic categories and provided the lexical forms for nouns, verbs, prepositions, and adjectives; (2) the transformational rules operated on deep structures and reordered the phrase structural forms; and (3) morphophonemic rules merely changed lexical forms where necessary ( e.g. go + past = went). The phrase structure Rules created the deep structures of sentences. The transformational rules operated on these deep structures to produce the surface structures of the language. These transformational rules were ordered.By 1965, the model was greatly expanded and revised. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax by Chomsky included a detailed account of the semantic component (projections rules, global insertion rules, selectional restrictions, rules for the interpretation of subcategorization, and semantic distinguishers). The most innovative work on the semantic component was done prior to this time as evidenced in the publication of An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions (1964) by Jerrold Katz and Paul Postal. This was enhanced further by the co-authored work on The Structure of Language (1964) by Jerrold Katz and Jerrold Fodor. The phonological component was also greatly enhanced the inclusion of underlying phonemic forms, ordered rules, and phonetic outputs. The most definitive work on the phonological component can be found in The Sound Patterns of English (Chomsky and Halle, 1968). This publication provided the theoretical framework for a universal theory of phonology (distinctive feature theory, the principle of stress rules, the phonological cycle, phonological constraints, etc.).The aforementioned model became known as The Standard Theory. By 1972 more revisions in the model took place and this led to a renaming of the revised standard theory. It became known as The Extended Standard Theory. There were several reasons for these revisions. What was referred to as the Semantic Representation of a sentence was no longer seen as a single, uniform structure. The syntactic component interacted with the semantic component of the language many times during the processing of syntactic structures. Before the application of transformational rules, for example, the deep structure went to the semantic component where it was interpreted in terms of its functional structures. At this time, the semantic component provided information on the interpretation of the various semantic roles used in the sentence such as agent, patient, goal, experiencer, etc. This deep structure continues to be processed syntactically as it goes through the various cycles of transformational rules. This information is again turned over to the semantic component for further interpretation. This time the semantic component provides information on modal structures such as the scope of negation, and the interpretation of quantifiers in thelanguage. Another kind of semantic information developed at this stage includes the establishment of a table of coreferences in the sentence being analyzed.These rules, it should be noted, could not be processed at the deep structure level and the process had to be delayed until certain modifications and rule applications had taken place within the transformational component of the language. Finally, at the surface structure level, the output of the final transformational cycle is sent to the semantic component for further processing. This time the semantic representation is analyzed for focus, presuppositions, topicalization. The presupposition of a declarative sentence has to do with what the speaker assumes the hearer knows. Focus, on the other hand, has to do with what the speaker assumes that the hearer does not know. Focus is symbolized in the following sentences by means of bold-faced capitalized words. Such words have extra heavy stress.Ray Jackendoff has been instrumental in the development of the Extended Standard Theory. The arguments for the current revisions are stated in Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar (1972).One of the concerns that he voiced during these revisions was the need for autonomous syntax. He proposed that transformations should be applied without having to mention semantic information such as referentiality within a table of coreference, the use of index markers, etc. This could be done, he argued, by changing the kind of information allowed in the deep structure in the Standard Theory. Consider, for example, the rules of reflexivization, pronominalization, and Equi-NP deletion. In each of these cases, full lexical forms are assumed to exist at the deep structure level. In reflexivization, John saw John is transformed into John saw himself. This requires semantic information on coreferentiality. In the case of pronominalization, coreferentiality is also needed to transform Mary wonders if Mary will be happy into Mary wonders if she will be happy. In the case ofEqui-NP Deletion, coreferentiality is also need to transform Mary expects Mary to win into Mary expects to win. One could avoid these references to the semantic component, Jackendoff argued, if pronouns and dummy subjects (gaps) already exist at the deep structure level. This introduction of abstract elements and empty categories into the deep structure of sentences marked an important turning point in linguistic theory. It led to the emergence of GB Theory. Nevertheless, before turning to this major revision based on the premise of autonomous syntax, it is important to review the representation of the model of the Extended Standard Theory. This is the model of grammar without autonomous syntax.The development of Government and Binding Theory as a modular model really began in 1977 when Chomsky and Lasnik proposed some major revisions in the Extended Standard Theory. In this article on "Filters and Control" (Linguistic Inquiry 8.3), they questioned the necessity of phrase structure rules in the context of lexical subcategorizational rules in the lexicon which provided similar information. They also addressed the question of transformational rules with regard to stylistic rules versus meaning changing rules. The issues addressed in this early article were further addressed by Noam Chomsky in his writings on Lectures on Government and Binding (1981) and Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding (1982). He became less concerned with regard to the base generability in transformational grammar and more concerned with Structure-Preserving Constraints on language. The revisions led to a modular model of transformational grammar.Since the concepts of Deep Structure and Surface Structure were substantially revised by the inclusion of abstract elements, trace elements, and empty categories, they were given a new nomenclature, d-structure and s-structure respectively. These are related to each other by means of movement rules. S-structures were further developed into Phonetic Forms or Logical Forms. What is called phonetic form involves more than mere acoustic and articulatory information. It included semantic properties, andlow-level transformational rules (such as stylistic rules), deletion rules, contraction rules and phonological rules. The Logical Form Component deals with the meaning of sentences.The distinction between PF and LF components was necessary because they represented very different aspects and concerns within grammatical theory. The LF component deals with semantic information.Concerns about Binding Conditions are dealt with in the LF Component because they involve semantic issues (referential dependencies, coreferences, etc.). Similarly, quantifier raising dealt with semantic issues within the context of the LF Component. This component began by representing information in terms of standardlogic, but was modified to incorporate constituent command, trace theory, and other linguistic issues.The differences between a d-structure and an s-structure captures what changes have taken place once a movement rule has applied. But GB Theory involves a lot more than merely revising the deep structure of a grammar. In includes many new features:Consider how the surface structure sentence " Did John invite Mary?" was dealt with in the extended theory of syntax.In the GB Theory, movement rules are severely restricted. One can only move elements to unfilled (empty) or to certain designated categories . The sentence is now represented as an inflectional phrase (IP).One of the movement rules takes the INFL form (past) and moves it into only open and empty category of Complement. In the event that the INFL is not moved, Do is deleted by means of a Do Drop Rule. Within this model, there are three kinds of movement rules. One that moves NPs (maximal projections), another that moves Heads of Phrases, and a third that moves Wh-constructions.Another major change that took place in the transition from the Extended Standard Theory to GB Theory has to do with the shift from rules to representations. In the earlier models of transformational grammar, one accounted for grammatical changes by means of syntactic rules.Such a rule had to be language specific. Only English, for example, insert be+en before the main verb and insert by before the agentive noun phrase. If transformational rules are to be universal, they cannot also be language specific. Hence, the system has to be changed. What is needed, Chomsky argued, is a theory that relies on conditions on these representations. These conditions operate at all levels and employ general rules such as:This change became known as the Principles and Parameters Approach. Later, it came to be called Government and Binding Theory. This shift from rules to conditions on representations avoided language specific rules. It also strengthened the concept of the language acquisition device (LAD) in psycholinguistics. In the earlier model, a child was given a toolbox and was asked to construct a grammar for himself. He has some idea of what a grammar should look like, but he has no idea about universal principles govern all grammars. This could happen only if he were provided with a set of principles which defined the parameters and the conditions operating on syntactic representations. This is exactly what GB Theory attempts to do. This is why the shift from rules to conditions on representations had to take place. It provides a child with the principles and the conditions on natural languages and allows him to set the parameters in that language such as SOV or VSO word order, etc. CATEGORIES AND PHRASE STRUCTURES The Standard Theory of Syntax contained a base component. In this base were two subcomponents, one that generated the context-free Phrase Structure Rules for the deep structures of the language and the other which globally inserted lexical items into the final string of the deep structure of the sentence. The problem with this model is that it also generated many PS rule combinations which do not occur in language. What was needed was a PS component that avoided this problem. This led to a re-examination of PS rules and several things were discovered. One of them is that the labels for these categoriesare based on the traditional notion of the parts of speech. Outside of this tradition, they lacked cogent reasons for their nomenclature and their existence. The revision of this information became known as Structure Dependent Constructions, and X-Bar Theory. Another discovery which came out of this re-examination is that the head of a phrase turns out to be an important linguistic concept. This led to a closer look at endocentric and exocentric constructions. The revisions in this case were known as the Head Parameter, Head and Maximal Projections, The Hierarchical Organization Phrases, and X-Bar Theory. In every phrase, there is always an obligatory element. This element is called the head of the category. The head of a Noun Phrase is the Noun. The head of a Verb Phrase is the Verb. The head of an Adjectival Phrase is the Adjective. The head of a Prepositional Phrase is the Preposition. From this awareness, they noted a similarity among all phrases, viz. X (N, V, A, P) is the head of XP (NP, VP, AP,PP).This concept become known as X-Bar Theory where X stands for the head of XP (phrase). The more interesting questions to emerge have to do with the head of a sentence and the head of a complement phrase. The rationale for the head of a sentential phrase is the inflectional marker, INFL. The inflectional marker includes much more than mere tense markers. It also had to do with agreement features, etc. Given the analogy of X is the head of XP, one must reinterpret INFL as the head of the sentence or IP. As for the head of the complement phrase, it is obviously, the complement. Hence, C is the head of CP.This focus on the head and its projections became known as the core grammar. This means that any other elements added to these phrases are adjuncts (add-ons).It should be obvious from the aforementioned examples that what has been normally called temporal adverbs are now treated as adjuncts to phrases. They are no longer considered to be peripheral part of the sentence and does not belong to the core grammar.Some of the terminology and insights used in X-Bar Theory are related to similar research done in the area of morphology. Linguists have always studied how words are put together to form morphological units or compounds. These compounds function as though they were single words: blackmail, skyscraper, bathroom, bookshelf, football, in-crowd, etc. Two combinations of words within compounds have drawn the most attention and commentary in linguistic analysis. One of these has to do with constructions in which one of the elements is a headword (endocentric) and the other element acts a modifier of that headword. Such a combination is known as an endocentric construction. Bookshelf, for example, is an endocentric construction because "books" modify the headword "shelf". Such compounds are easy to detect because the combined elements function to define a subclass of one of the nouns in the construction. A bookshelf is a shelf for books. Similarly, a nosebleed is a kind of bleeding from the nose. The other kind of construction which morphologists are found of discussing is constructions with contrast with endocentric compounds. These are called exocentric constructions and they are defined negatively because the combined elements do not share a headword and modifier relationship. Scapegoat, for example, is not a kind of a goat. It is a kind of a person. Hence, this is an exocentric construction. What is interesting to GB Theory about this investigation of morphological constructions is the fact that endocentric constructions have many interesting parallels with X-Bar phrases. The headword functions as the head of the compound noun just as the noun functions as the head of a noun phrase. The conclusion that one draws from this information is that allXP constructions are endocentric. This discovery has been stated in even strong terms: there are no exocentric constructions among XPs. It is not enough to note that a phrase consists of a head and a modifying element. It is important to also consider how these relationships are structured. When all of the categories within a phrase are strung out in a linear pattern, this is called a flat structure.In a flat structure, all of the elements are connected by means of sister adjunction. They all belong to the same category (NP). There is abundant evidence that phrases are structured hierarchically. This evidence comes from the study of pro-forms. This is when a category is replaced by another form (pro-noun, pro-verb, pro-sentence, etc.). What is actually taking place with pro-form substitution is that some hierarchical structure is replaced by another form, a pro-form. These substitutions operate on structures. They are structure-based. These structure occur in layers. They are layered structures.XPs consist of a head element within a phrasal construction. The head is a lexical category and the phrasal component is called a projection.Since these projects may occur in layers, one speaks of the top most layer as the maximal projection of a phrase. NP is the maximal projection of N. VP is the maximal projection of V. There are intermediate projections, however, that must be accounted for in describing the structure of phrases. These are called X-Bar projections.One would naturally ask how many levels or layers of structure can occur from the maximal projection of a phrase to its head. In GB Theory, there are only two such projections allowed - the maximal projection (XP) and the intermediate projection (X-Bar). It should be noted that in addition to a head element and its projection, there is another element within a phrase. The element is known as the specifier (SPEC). A similar element can be found at the CP level and it is known as the complement C. Both specifiers and complements are not syntactic categories. In this regard they differ from X-Double Bar (XP), X-Bar, and X categories. These elements are empty categories. They function as locations for parts of the structure of a phrase that may be filled in by actual syntactic categories in the process of the application of a movement rule. Both Spec and C occur at the second level along with X-Bar categories.Given this awareness of endocentric constructions, one can now visualize how an XP structure is represented.C-COMMAND AND GOVERNMENTWhen linguists began to really study how pronouns function in language, they quickly learned that where a noun phrase occurs within a phrase structure tree will determine whether or not it is pronominalized. The first one t note this was Edward Klima at MIT who was then working on the scope of negation in English. Klima went to teach at the University of San Diego. At that same campus, Ronald Langacker became interested in this phenomenon and wrote an article "On Pronominalization and the Chain of command." This research was published in a book of readings by David Reibel and Sanford Schane (Modern Studies in English, 1969). Langacker explored the parameters of the rule of pronominalization by studying it in the sentence conjunction, verb phrase conjunction, noun phrase conjunction, and in embedded sentences. His parameters of the application of this rule were called the chain of command. Later, Chomsky would make some revisions and call it Constituent Command, or C-Command.Langacker found that if a noun phrase occurred in a matrix sentenceand it was identical to the noun phrase in an embedded sentence, the matrix NP would be able to command and pronominalize the embed NP. NP's in lower sentences, on the other hand, could never pronominalize identical noun phrases in higher sentences.Ralph in the matrix sentence commands the pronoun in the embedded sentence. Notice that the matrix sentence is also located on the left and prior to the embedded sentence. Language found that another kind of relationship needed to be made explicit and he call this precedence. Hence, he concluded from the study of the data he was working with that if a noun phrase occurs in a lower sentence,, but it precedes another identical noun phrase in the matrix sentence, it will pronominalize the NP on the right. What this means, in essence, is that the order of the elements in pronominalization is significant.Pronominalization occurs if an identical NP precedes another NP (the precedence relationship). It also occurs if an identical NP is higher in the phrase marker (command relationship). As Langacker investigated this phenomenon, he noted that something else besides precedence and command to account for some anomalies that he encountered among more deeply embedded sentences. He realized that pronominalization did not work in the more deeply embedded phrase markers.There is some kind of barrier between the identical NPs and their pronominalized forms. It is not enough to merely state that one of them commands another or that one of them precedes another. The chain of command has to be more direct. Langacker turned to the concept of dominance to explain the aforementioned sentences. He noted that an identical NP must directly dominate its pronoun. If some kind of barrier prevents the dominance from being direct, pronominalization will not take place. Chomsky was to take this concept of barriers and use it as one of the basic conditions within his Government and Binding Theory (cf. Barrier by Chomsky, 1986). Klima used the term "in construction with" to explain the scope of negation. Given two constituents A and B, B is said to be in construction with A if node C that directly dominates A also dominates B.Negation is in construction with the subject NP (John). Negation is is not in construction with the object NP (Mary) since the node (VP) that directly dominates the object NP (Mary) does not also dominate Negation. Obviously, the relationships between "in construction with" and "chain of command" (dominance, command and precedence) are similar. However, these are not equivalent concepts with regard to constituent structure. The framework that Langacker developed included more information and could explain much more with regard to dominance than the model proposed by Klima. Langacker's concept could explain both negation and pronominalization, Klima's could only account for the scope of negation.Consider what happens when these sentences are embedded. The result of what quantifiers surfaces depends on whether or not the negation marker is located in the matrix or in the embedded sentence.The negation marker changes the quantifier (someone) into anyone. In this case, the negation marker directly dominates the quantifier. Now, consider what happens when the negation marker does not directly dominate the quantifier.Since the negation marker is in the matrix sentence, it does not directly dominate the quantifier in the embedded sentence. Hence, someone remains unaffected by the scope of negation. What makes the scope of negation interesting is that it forces one to recognize the concept of grammatical barrier that limit the scope of certain transformational rules. Notice that barriers can be found when one is dealing with infinitival complements. The question that one may ask is whether or not other grammatical constructions are also within the scope of negation? This can be ascertained by looking at the following examples of that-clauses and relative clauses.Another form of syntactic corroboration for this placement of negation in the phrase marker comes from the transformation known as Pseudo-Cleft: What X did was Y. Hence, the following examples of pseudo-clefting corroborate the fact that negation controls the modal in once sentence and the verb phrase in the other.Finally, further evidence comes from the negation contraction transformation. This rule only operates on negative forms that modify a modal.Just when one is happy to learn that the chain of command can explain the phenomenon of pronominalization and the scope of negation, it turns out that these principles of control can also explain wh-formation within the context where wh+some forms the question word "what.":The WH Marker commands the quantifier "some." Consequentlywh+some becomes what. This marker controls elements in the embedded sentence. It does not control other elements in the matrix sentence. Hence, it could not produce the following sentences because some reason and some man are not within the control of the wh-marker.Once one is aware of the fact that there is a chain of command within a phrase marker, the next concern for linguists had to do with why some rules were blocked by barriers which also isolated certain portions of the phrase marker into islands. Not all constructions worked the same way. Infinitival complements and that-clauses wereopen to the scope of negation. Relative clauses were not open to the scope of negation. Barriers, the Complex NP Constraint of Ross, protected some examples of wh-formation. In other cases, the barriers did not protect wh-formation. What this mean is that syntactic research had a new set of problems to solve. It would not be until the rise of Government Binding Theory that most of these problems could be satisfactorily deal with. When these issues are dealt within in GB Theory, however, they are referred to within a very different context and with a different vocabulary. Dominating nodes, for example, will be called "mother nodes." Dominated nodes will be called "daughter nodes." The relationships of command, precedence and dominance are all treated as examples of C-Command (Constituent Command).C-COMMAND, M-COMMAND AND GOVERNMENTChomsky has noted that a phrase marker is essentially a graph in which the nodes (the sets of points) are connected by branches (solid lines). The labels used in the nodes may be maximal projections(X-Double-Bar), intermediate projections (X-Bar), or final projections, i.e., non-terminal nodes (NP, M, V, P, and other category labels). Within the revised model, some of these nodes may be empty (e). Also within the revised model, when elements are moved, they leave back a trace element (t). Another distinction made in Government Binding Theory has to do with the nature of dominance and precedence.The S node occurs higher on the phrase marker tree and it dominates all other nodes. The VP nodes dominates the V node and its terminal node (stay). One node immediately dominates another node if it is the next higher node in the phrase marker tree that is connected by a solid line. Hence, the S node immediately dominates NP, M, and VP nodes. The S node dominates the PP node, but it does not immediately dominate that node. Another relationship that merits comment with regard to the phrase marker tree is that of precedence. On node precedes another if it is located on the left of the other node. Hence, the M nodes precede VP, V, PP, NP, N (hence, the terminal nodes stay at home). The M node immediately precedes the VP and the V nodes (the terminal node (stay). What is important about these relationships of dominance and precedence is that Chomsky used them to define the terms of exhaustive dominance of constituents and immediate constituents.CONSTITUTENTS (CHOMSKY)Nodes form a constituent if and only if (iff) they are a set of nodes that are exhaustively dominated by a common node. In the aforementioned example, NP, M, and VP all branch out of the same single common node (S). Therefore, S exhaustively dominates NP, M, and VP. Therefore, in general terms one could say that X is a constituent of Y iff X is dominated by Y. Similarly, on notes that X is an immediate constituent of Y iff X is immediately dominated by Y.The mother node A dominates nodes B, C, D, E, and F. The mother node A immediately dominates the nodes B and C. The sister nodes D, E, and F are immediately dominated by the daughter node C. Mothers [A] dominate their daughters [B C] and nieces [D E F]. Mothers [A], however, can only immediately dominate their own daughters [B C]. Daughters [C] have their own children [D E F] and immediately dominate them. Nieces [D E F] are not exhaustively dominated by the mother node [A], but they [D E F ] are exhaustively dominated by the daughter node [C].Chomsky was asked many times why he did not use the traditional notion of dividing a sentence into a subject and a predicate. He was asked this question again when confronted with Fillmore's Case Grammar. His reply was that such relationships have to do with grammatical functions and not grammatical forms. Further, these functions can be readily ascertained by looking at the dominance and precedence relationships within a phrase marker.The subject of a sentence is the NP which is immediately dominated by S. The object of a sentence is the leftmost NP immediately dominated by VP. If two NPs occur to the left of the VP, the first is the direct object and the second is the Indirect object. The object of a。