On the Representation of Linguistic Information

  • M. Teresa Espinal
Part of the Philosophical Studies Series book series (PSSP, volume 52)


The aim of this paper is to discuss a series of problems raised in the representation of linguistic information or, to be more precise, in the representation of what has been called—from philosophical and linguistic approaches —parenthetical or disjunct constituents (cf.,Urmson (1952) and Schreiber (1972)).


Relative Clause Syntactic Structure Linguistic Information Language Module Noun Incorporation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Carston, R. (1988), “Language and cognition,” in F. Newmeyer (ed.), Linguistics: the Cambridge survey III. Language: psychological and biological aspects, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  2. Espinal, M. T. (1985), Análisis interpretatives i teoria lingüística, Tesis Doctoral, Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra.Google Scholar
  3. Espinal, M. T. (forthcoming), “On the representation of disjunct constituents: an approach to multidimensional syntactic structures,” Ms. Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra.Google Scholar
  4. Fodor, J. A. (1983), The modularity of mind, The MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.Google Scholar
  5. Garfield, J. L. (ed.) (1987), Modularity in knowledge representation and natural-language understanding, The MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.Google Scholar
  6. Goldsmith, J. (1976), “An overview of autosegmental phonology,” Linguistic Analysis, 2, 23–68.Google Scholar
  7. Goodall, G. (1984), Parallel structures in syntax, Doctoral dissertation, University of California at San Diego; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987.Google Scholar
  8. Grice, H. P. (1975), “Logic and conversation,” en P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  9. Haegeman, L.. (1988), “Parenthetical adverbials: the radical orphanage approach,” LAGB spring meeting, Durham.Google Scholar
  10. Haegeman, L. and H. van Riemsdijk (1986), “Verb projection raising, scope and the ty-ology of verb movement rules,” Linguistic Inquiry, 17, 417–466.Google Scholar
  11. Hornstein, N. (1986), “Pragmatics and grammatical theory,” Chicago Linguistics Society, 22, 234–247.Google Scholar
  12. Hornstein, N. (1987), “Levels of meaning,” in J. L. Garfield (ed.).Google Scholar
  13. Jackendoff, R. S. (1977), X’ syntax: a study of phrase structure, The MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.Google Scholar
  14. Jackendoff, R. S. (1983), Semantics and cognition, The MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.Google Scholar
  15. Jackendoff, R. S. (1987), “X-bar semantics,” Berkeley Linguistics Society, 13,355–365.Google Scholar
  16. Kempson, R. (1988a), “Logical form: the grammar cognition interface,” Journal of Linguistics, 24, 393–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kempson, R. (1988b) “On the grammar - cognition interface: the principle of full interpretation,” in R. Kempson (ed.), Mental representations. The interface between language and reality, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  18. Lakoff, G. (1986a), Women, fire and dangerous things, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  19. Lakoff, G. (1986b), “Frame semantics, control and the coordinate structure constraint,” Chicago Linguistics Society, 22, 152–167.Google Scholar
  20. Liberman, M. and A. Prince (1977), “On stress and linguistic rhythm,” Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 249–336.Google Scholar
  21. Lonzi, L. (1981), “Avverbifrasali e strutture parentetiche,” Lingua e Stile 16.3,393–431.Google Scholar
  22. Marslen-Wilson, W. and L. K. Tyler (1987), “Against modularity,” in J. L. Garfield (ed.).Google Scholar
  23. Pollard, C. and I. Sag (1987), Information-based syntax and semantics, CSLI, Stanford.Google Scholar
  24. Sadock, J. M. (1985), “Autolexical syntax: a proposal for the treatment of noun incorporation and similar phenomena,” Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 3, 379–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Safir, K. (1986), “Relative clauses in a theory of binding and levels,” Linguistic Inquiry, 17.4,663–689.Google Scholar
  26. Schreiber, P. A. (1972), “Style disjuncts and the performative analysis,” Linguistic Inquiry, 3, 321–347.Google Scholar
  27. Sperber, D. and D. Wilson (1982), “Mutual knowledge and relevance in theories of comprehension, ” in N. Smith (ed.), Mutual knowledge Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  28. Sperber, D. and D. Wilson (1986), Relevance communication and cognition, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  29. Urmson, J. O. (1952), “Parenthetical verbs,”Mind,LXI, 480–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wilson, D. and D. Sperber (1986), “Pragmatics and modularity,” Chicago Linguistics Society, 22, 67–84.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Teresa Espinal
    • 1
  1. 1.Universitat of Autònoma de BarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations