Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-mmrw7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T01:13:19.873Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dependency Structures and Transformational Rules

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2026

Jane J. Robinson
Jane J. Robinson*
Affiliation:
IBM Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, New York
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The concept head (of a phrase) is frequently invoked in transformational theory, but it has not been formalized and is perhaps not formalizable within the framework of a phrase-structure categorial component. However, if dependency rules generate the structured strings of categories, a head or governor is formally specified for each phrase, thus supplying additional information needed to determine the applicability of some transformations. Moreover, the problem of pruning inappropriately labeled or vacuous non-terminal nodes, which arises when transformations are applied to structures generated by phrase-structure rules, does not arise when they are applied to dependency structures. Although dependency rules are not well-adapted to generating structure-sensitive sets of strings, there is evidence that the structure-sensitive properties of language are more appropriately accounted for by transformational rules, leaving the catégorial component both context-free and structure-free.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 46 , Issue 2 , June 1970 , pp. 259 - 285
Copyright
Copyright © 1970 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

Chomsky, N. 1956. Three models for the description of language. IRE Transactions on Information Theory, IT-2, 113–24.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1963. Formal properties of grammars. Handbook of mathematical psychology, ed. by Luce, R. D. et al., vol. 2, 323–418. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1970. Remarks on nominalization. Readings in English transformational grammar, ed. by Jacobs, R. A. and Rosenbaum, P. S. Boston: Blaisdell.Google Scholar
Gaifman, H. 1965. Dependency systems and phrase-structure systems. Information and Control 8. 304–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garey, H. 1954. Review of Esquisse d’une syntaxe structurale, by Tesnière, L. Lg. 30. 512–3.Google Scholar
Harris, Z. S. 1946. From morpheme to utterance. Lg. 22. 161–83.Google Scholar
Harris, Z. S. 1951. Methods in structural linguistics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Harris, Z. S. 1957. Co-occurrence and transformation in linguistic structure. Lg. 33. 283–340.Google Scholar
Harris, Z. S. 1962. String analysis of sentence structure. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Hays, D. G. 1964. Dependency theory: a formalism and some observations. Lg. 40. 511–25.Google Scholar
Herzberger, Hans G. 1961. The joints of English. Structure of language and its mathematical aspects, ed. by Jakobson, R., 99–103. Providence: American Mathematical Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1965. On the nature of syntactic irregularity. (Report NSF-16.) Cambridge, Mass.: The Computation Laboratory, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Nida, E. A. 1960. A synopsis of English syntax. (Linguistic series, 4.) Norman, Oklahoma: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Postal, P. M. 1964a. Constituent structure: a study of contemporary models of syntactic description. Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
Postal, P. M. 1964b. Limitations of phrase structure grammars. The structure of language: readings in the philosophy of language, ed. by Fodor, J. A. and Katz, J. J., 137–51. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Postal, P. M. 1966. On so-called pronouns in English. Monograph series on language and linguistics (Georgetown University) 19. 177–206.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. J. 1967a. A dependency-based transformational grammar. (Research report RC-1889.) Yorktown Heights, N. Y.: IBM Watson Research Center.Google Scholar
Robinson, J. J. 1967b. Methods for obtaining corresponding phrase-structure and dependency grammars. Grenoble, France: Deuxième Conférence International sur le Traitement Automatique des Langues, 23-25 August 1967.10.3115/991566.991581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbaum, P. S. 1968. English grammar IL (Research report RC-2070.) Yorktown Heights, N. Y.: IBM Watson Research Center.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Tesnière, L. 1953. Esquisse ďune syntaxe structurale. Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Tesnière, L. 1959. Eléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Thorne, J. P. 1965. Review of Postal 1964a. Journal of Linguistics 1. 73–6.Google Scholar