Review of the book entitled “Grammatical Theory: From Transformational Grammar to Constraint-based Approaches” by Stefan Müller

Document Type : Criticism

Author

Faculty of Linguistics, Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies, Street No 64 (west), Kordestan Highway

10.22084/rjhll.2025.30518.2361

Abstract

Language is formed in a determined system. This system is nothing except the linguistic rules.The rules identify the grammar of a language.Since the grammar is a tool to study and analyze the linguistic structures, this type of study has been taken into consideration from the past. In this article, a book is reviewed according to three major contents. Firstly, the chapters are briefly overviewed. Then, the book's content is analyzed and weak and strong points are studied from different perspectives and some suggestions are provided.
Although much of the content was about generative and dependency formalisms, no symmetrical comparisons were made between the formalisms to identify the weak and strong points of all formalisms beside each other.It is proposed reorder the chapters in terms of content and time evolution.It is suggested to have a glossary.Also, it is proposed to consider other grammar formalisms,such as Interaction and Link Grammars.

Keywords

References

  • باطنی، محمدرضا (1373). نگاهی تازه به دستور زبان. تهران: انتشارات آگاه.
  • خیام‌پور، عبد‌الرسول (۱۳۷۲). دستور زبان فارسی. تهران: آیدین یانار.
  • طبیب‌زاده، امید (۱۳۸۵). ظرفیت فعل و ساخت‎های بنیادین جمله در فارسی امروز؛ پژوهشی براساس نظریه دستور وابستگی، تهران: نشر مرکز.
  • طبیب‌زاده، امید (۱۳91). دستور زبان فارسی براساس نظریه گروه‌های خودگردان در دستور وابستگی، تهران: نشر مرکز.
  • عبداللهی، ساره؛ حق‌بین، فریده و قیومی، مسعود (1397). «سطوح بازنمایی برخی ساخت‌های زبان فارسی در چارچوب دستور نقش‌نمای واژگانی،» پژوهش‌های زبانی، 9 (2): 195-214.
  • قیومی، مسعود (1400). «نقد و بررسى کتاب «دستور زبان فارسی براساس نظریه گروه‌های خودگردان در دستور وابستگی،» پژوهش‌نامه انتقادی متون و برنامه‌های علوم انسانی، 21 (1): 229-256.
  • Abraham, W. (2012). “Müller, Stefan: Grammatiktheorie. – Tübingen: Stauffenburg-Verl., 2010. XIII, 521 S.; Ill. (Stauffenburg Einführungen; 20) ISBN 978–3–86057–294–8: € 29.80,” Germanistik, 51(3-4): 540-541.
  • Adger, D. (2003). Core Syntax: A Minimalist Approach (Oxford Core Linguistics 1). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Ajdukiewicz, K. (1935). “Die syntaktische Konnexität”, Studia Philosophica, 1:1–27.
  • Allen, J. (1994). Natural Language Understanding. California: The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company.
  • Augustinus, L. (2018). “Stefan Müller. (2016) Grammatical Theory. From Transformational Grammar to Constraint-based Approaches. Volume II,” Constructions and Frames,  10 (1): 118-122.
  • Berwick, R. C. (1982). “Computational complexity and Lexical-Functional Grammar,” American Journal of Computational Linguistics, 8(3–4). 97–109.
  • Bresnan, J.; & Kaplan, R.M. (1982). “Introduction: Grammars as mental representations of language,” In J. Bresnan (ed.), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations (MIT Press Series on Cognitive Theory and Mental Representation), xvii–lii. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.
  • Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. Mouton (Hague), Berlin.
  • Chomsky, N. (1959). “On certain formal properties of grammars,” Information and Control, 2(2). 137–167.
  • Chomsky, N. (1993). A Minimalist Program for linguistic theory,” In Kenneth Hale & Samuel Jay Keyser (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger (Current Studies in Linguistics 24), 1–52. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.
  • Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program (Current Studies in Linguistics 28). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Croft, W. (2001) Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • De Saussure, F. (1916). Cours de linguistique générale, Lausanne, Paris: Payot.
  • Dehdari, J.; & Lonsdale, D. (2008). “A link grammar parser for Persian,” S. Karimi, S., V. Samiian; & D. Stilo (eds), Aspects of Iranian Linguistics. Cambridge Scholars Press.
  • Fillmore, C. J. (1988). “The mechanisms of ‘Construction Grammar’”. In S. Axmaker, A. Jaisser & H. Singmaster (eds.), Proceedings of the 14th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 35–55. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
  • Fillmore, C. J.; Kay, P.; & O’Connor, M. C. (1988). “Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone,” Language 64(3). 501–538.
  • Frey, W.; & Reyle, U. (1983a). “A Prolog implementation of Lexical Functional Grammar as a base for a natural language processing system,” In Antonio Zampolli (ed.), First Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Proceedings of the conference, 52–57. Pisa, Italy: Association for Computational Linguistics.
  • Frey, W.; & Reyle, U. (1983b). “Lexical Functional Grammar und Diskursrepräsentationstheorie als Grundlagen eines sprachverarbeitenden Systems,” Linguistische Berichte, 88. 79–100.
  • Gazdar, G.; Klein, E.; Pullum, G. K.; & Sag, I. A. (1985). Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. Harvard University Press.
  • Ghayoomi, M. (2014). From HPSG-based Persian Treebanking to Parsing: Machine Learning for Data Annotation. PhD dissertation, Freie Universität Berlin.
  • Ghayoomi, M.; & Guillaume, B. (2008). “Interaction Grammar for the Persian language: Noun and adjectival phrases,” In Proceedings of the Association for Computational Linguistics and International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, 7th Workshop on Asian Language Resources, pp: 107—114, Suntec, Singapore.
  • Ghayoomi, M.; & Kuhn, J. (2014). “Converting an HPSG-based treebank into its parallel dependency-based Treebank,” In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, Reykjavik, Iceland, pp. 802–809.
  • Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure (Cognitive Theory of Language and Culture). Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.
  • Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language (Oxford Linguistics). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Guillaume, B.; & Perrier, G. (2009). “Interaction grammars,” Research On Language and Computation, 7:171–208.
  • Haegeman, L. (1994). Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. 2nd edn. (Blackwell Textbooks in Linguistics 1). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
  • Hellwig, P. (2003). “Dependency unification grammar,” In V. Ágel, L. M. Eichinger, H.W. Eroms, P. Hellwig, H. J. Heringer & H. Lobin (eds.), Dependenz und Valenz / Dependency and valency: Ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung / An international handbook of contemporary research, vol. 25.1 (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft), 593–635. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
  • Johnson, M. (1988). Attribute-value Logic and the Theory of Grammar (CSLI Lecture Notes 16). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
  • Joshi, A.; Leon, K.; Levy, S.; & Takahashi, M. (1975). “Tree adjunct grammar,” Journal of Computer and System Science, 10(2). 136–163.
  • Jurafsky, D.; & Martin, J. H. (2000). Speech and Language Processing: An Introduction to Natural Language Processing, Computational Linguistics, and Speech Recognition. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
  • Kaplan, R. M.; & Bresnan, J. (1982). “Lexical Functional Grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation”, In The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, pages 173–281. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  • Kay, P. (2002). “An informal sketch of a formal architecture for Construction Grammar,” Grammars 5(1). 1–19.
  • Kay, P. (2005). “Argument structure constructions and the argument-adjunct distinction,” In M. Fried & H. C. Boas (eds.), Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots (Constructional Approaches to Language 4), 71–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
  • Kay, P.; & Fillmore, C. J. (1999). Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What’s X Doing Y? Construction. Language, 75(1). 1–33.
  • Lambek, J. (1958). “The mathematics of sentence structure,” The American Mathematical Monthly, 65 (3): 154–170.
  • Legendre, G.; Grimshaw, J.; & Vikner, S. (2001). Optimality-theoretical Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Legendre, G.; Putnam, M.T.; de Swart, H.; & Zaroukian, E. (2016). Optimality-theoretic Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics: From Uni- to Bidirectional Optimization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Lehmann, K. (2012). “Stefan Müller. Grammatiktheorie,” Zeitschrift für Rezensionen zur germanistischen Sprachwissenschaft. 4 (2): 206–210.
  • Leiss, E. (2009). Sprachphilosophie (de Gruyter Studienbuch). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
  • Mel’čuk, I. A. (1964). Avtomatičeskij sintaksičeskij analiz. Vol. 1. Novosibirsk: Izdatel ´stvo SO AN SSSR.
  • Montague, R. (1974). Formal Philosophy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  • Müller, S. (2013). Grammatiktheorie. 2nd edn. (Stauffenburg Einführungen 20). Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.
  • Müller, S.; & Ghayoomi, M. (2010). “PerGram: A TRALE implementation of an HPSG fragment of Persian,” In Proceedings of the 2010 International Multiconference on Computer Science and Information Technology, pp: 461-467.
  • Neef, M. (2014). “Das nächste Paradigma: Realistische Linguistik. Eine Ergänzung zum Beitrag Wo stehen wir in der Grammatiktheorie? von Wolfgang Sternefeld und Frank Richter,” Muttersprache,124(2): 105-120.
  • Perrier, G. (2000). “Interaction Grammars”, In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pp: 600—606, Universität des Saarlandes, Sarrebrücken, Germany.
  • Petö-Szoboszlai, H. (2012). “Stefan Müller: Grammatiktheorie,” Sprachtheorie und germanistische Linguistik. 22(1): 88-92.
  • Pollard, C. J.; & Sag, I.A. (1987). Information-based Syntax and Semantics (CSLI Lecture Notes 13). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
  • Pollard, C. J.; & Sag, I.A. (1994). Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar. University of Chicago Press.
  • Putnam, M., (2017). “Review of Grammatical theory: From transformational grammar to constraint-based approaches, volumes 1 and 2, 2016”, Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 2(1): 73.
  • Rasooli, M.S.; Kouhestani, M.; & Moloodi, A. (2013). “Development of a Persian syntactic dependency Treebank,” In Proceedings of the HLT Conference of the NAACL, Atlanta, Georgia, pp. 306–314.
  • Seraji, M.; Megyesi, B.; & Nivre, J. (2012). “Bootstrapping a Persian dependency Treebank,” Linguistic Issues in Language Technology, 7.
  • Sleator, D.D.K.; & Temperley, D. (1993). “Parsing English with a Link Grammar,” In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Parsing Technologies, Tilburg, the Netherlands.
  • Stabler, E. P. (2001). “Minimalist Grammars and recognition,” In Christian Rohrer, Antje Rossdeutscher & Hans Kamp (eds.), Linguistic form and its Computation (Studies in Computational Linguistics 1), 327–352. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
  • Sternefeld, W.; & Richter, F. (2012). “Wo stehen wir in der Grammatiktheorie? — Bemerkungen anläßlich eines Buchs von Stefan Müller,” Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 31(2). 263–291.
  • Tesnière, L. (1953). Esquisse d'une syntaxe structurale, Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck.
  • Uszkoreit, H. (1987). Word order and constituent structure in German (CSLI Lecture Notes 8). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
  • Van Eynde, F. (2018). “Stefan Müller. (2016). Grammatical theory. From Fransformational Grammar to Constraint-based Approaches. Volume I,” Constructions and Frames, 10 (1): 115-117.
  • Van Valin, R. (1993). Advances in Role and Reference Grammar. Amsterdam: John
  • Yule, G. (1996). The Study of Language. 2nd Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics