Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-ksp62 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T05:10:29.162Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Representing Syntactic Structure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2026

E. R. Gammon
E. R. Gammon*
Affiliation:
Lockheed Missiles & Space Company
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In this paper I discuss some diagrammatic representations of syntactic structure. I introduce the concept of syntactic ‘distance’ as an aid to depict the ‘degree of grammatical relatedness’ and show that this concept leads to a kind of equivalence among several methods of representation.

Though I sometimes speak only of relatedness, I assume that grammatical relatedness and degree of grammatical relatedness are the same thing. Suppose that the concept of relatedness is defined implicitly, at least to the extent that it is possible not only to make statements about which parts of sentences are related to other parts, but also to make judgments about the relative degree of relatedness. If A, B, and C are parts of a sentence we can say, for example, that A is more closely related to B than C is to B.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 39 , Issue 3-Part1: July-September , September 1963 , pp. 369 - 397
Copyright
Copyright © 1963 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

* This research was supported by The Lockheed Independent Research Program.

1 Eugene A. Nida (ed. B. Elson), A synopsis of English syntax xi (Norman, Okla., 1960).

2 Roger Shepard, ‘The analysis of proximities : Multidimensional scaling with an unknown distance function’, Psychometrika 27.125–40, esp. 128–9 (1962).

3 Oystein Ore, ‘Theory of graphs’, American Mathematical Society col. pub. 38.27 (1962).

4 Archibald A. Hill, Introduction to linguistic structures 176 (New York, 1958).

5 Alonzo Reed and Brainerd Kellogg, Higher lesson in English (New York, 1898, 1st ed. 1877).

6 Solomon Barrett Jr., The principles of grammar 18 (Albany, 1848).

7 Stephen W. Clark, A practical grammar (New York, 1863); Clark's brief grammar (New York, 1876).

8 Clark, Brief grammar 36.

9 Charles F. Hockett, A course in modern linguistics §21, §22 (New York, 1958).

10 Victor Yngve, ‘A model and an hypothesis for language structure’, Proc. Am. Phil. Soc. 104:5 (1960).

The last two sections of this paper presuppose familiarity with Yngve's work. See also George A. Miller, ‘Some psychological studies of grammar’, American psychologist 17.748–62 (1962).

11 C. F. Hockett, ‘Grammar for the hearer’, Proceedings of the symposium on applied mathematics, Vol. 12 (Structure of language and its mathematical aspects; Providence, 1961).

12 Robert B. Lees, The grammar of English nominalizations (Bloomington, Ind., 1960).