Lexical-Functional Syntax

By Joan Bresnan. 2000

1,555 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Computational Linguistics & Semantics, Linguistics

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Computational Linguistics & Semantics

1. Yoav Goldberg
2. Christopher D. Manning
3. Slav Petrov
4. Filip Ginter
5. Ryan T. McDonald
6. I. Landau
7. A. Neeleman
8. Natalia Silveira

In Linguistics

1. I. Landau
2. A. Neeleman
3. Ryan T. McDonald
4. Christopher D. Manning
5. Natalia Silveira
6. Filip Ginter
7. Sampo Pyysalo
8. Joakim Nivre

Citations in the corpus

• Generating Typed Dependency Parses from Phrase Structure Parses (2006, background): “In more complex theories there is significant debate: dominant Chomskyan theories (Chomsky, 1981) have defined grammatical relations as configurations at phrase structure, while other theories such as Lexical-Functional Grammar has rejected the adequacy of such an approach (Bresnan, 2001).”
• Universal Dependencies v1: A Multilingual Treebank Collection (2016, methodology): “Following Lexical-Functional Grammar (Bresnan, 2001), UD includes a distinction between ccomp and xcomp for clausal complements that are standalone (have an internal subject) versus those having obligatory control (omission) of the dependent predicate’s subject (have an external subject).”
• The Stanford Typed Dependencies Representation (2008, background): “The style of the SD representation bears a strong intellectual debt to the framework of Lexical-Functional Grammar (Bresnan, 2001), and, more directly, it owes a debt to both the sets of grammatical relations and the naming defined in two representations that follow an LFG style: the GR (Carroll et…”
• Agreement: Terms and Boundaries (2003, background): “Somewhat different accounts of such a distinction can be found in Bresnan and Mchombo (1987) (see also now Bresnan 2001: 150-160), and Zwicky (1987); see Barlow (1988/92: 139-152) for discussion of both approaches.”
• NP-internal agreement and the structure of the noun phrase (2006, background): “The DP treatment soon superseded the NP treatment, not only in Transformational Grammar, but also in Word Grammar (Hudson 1990) and Lexical Functional Grammar (Bresnan 2001). Its appeal is based on two factors. First, it provides a uniform treatment of all syntactic categories. Second, the assumptio”
• Periphrasis as collocation (2015, background): “…of the reluctance on the part of formal grammarians to take inflectional periphrasis at face value, 25 A notable exception is OT-LFG as developed in Bresnan (2001a) and Kuhn (2003). and the continuing insistence on attempting to reduce periphrasis to ordinary syntax by ignoring its paradigmatic…”