N. Chomsky. Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris, Dordrecht, 1981.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....without needing constantly to keep in mind the other properties. Hence, we can utilize principles to formulate the universal properties of natural language. This declarative notion of principles has served as the formal foundation of Chomsky s Theory of Government and Binding (GB) Chomsky [7], 8] The GB principles state certain structural relations between tree nodes having certain properties. In addition, we should mention some constraint based grammar formalisms, e.g. LFG (Kaplan Bresnan [14] GPSG (Gazdar et al. 12] and HPSG (Pollard Sag [18] 19] that employ a similar ....

....and the label predicates occurring in a Clat(L) formula. The superscript shall indicate this. By employing the language Clat(L) we can formalize some structural notions and principles of GB. The structural foundation of the trees described in GB states the x bar schema , see e.g. Chomsky [7]. Basically, the x bar scheme states that a leaf node uniquely projects its category upwards. The uniqueness asserts that the projection describes a line that does not meet any other projection line. In addition, the x bar scheme assigns a level of projection to each tree node. The level head ....

Chomsky, N. (1981), Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris, Dordrecht.

....entities for reference and quantification. Their use has been demonstrated in the theory of definite descriptions of Barwise and Perry [11] Another key assumption of situation semantics is the so called productivity of language: we can use and understand expressions never before uttered [18]. Hence, given a finite vocabulary, we can form a potentially infinite list of meaningful expressions. The underlying mechanism for such an ability seems to be compositionality. Situation semantics closes another gap of traditional semantic approaches: the neglect of subject matter and ....

N. Chomsky. Lectures on Government and Binding, Dordrecht, Holland: Foris, 1981.

.... proposes that children must have some innate knowledge about language, a Universal Grammar (UG) to help them 18 overcome the problem of the poverty of the stimulus and acquire a grammar on the basis of positive evidence only [Chomsky 1965] According to Chomsky s Principles and Parameters Theory [Chomsky 1981], the UG is composed of principles and parameters, and the process of learning a language is regarded as the setting of values of a number of parameters, given exposure to this particular language. These ideas about human language acquisition are employed, in this work, in the construction of a ....

....some of the complex aspects of languages. Thus the hypothesis is that children must have some innate knowledge about language that guides them and helps them overcome the poverty of the stimulus, to acquire a grammar based only on positive evidence and in a finite amount of time. According to Chomsky s [1981] Principles and Parameters Theory, this core common knowledge, or Universal Grammar, is composed of a set of principles and parameters. The principles constitute the child s prior knowledge of 25 languages, representing characteristics that are common across languages. The parameters represent ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Chomsky, N. Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris Publications, 1981.

....empty constituents to co index. 3) Since the gap in between the moved constituent and its corresponding trace is arbitrary, it is implausible to list all the possible movements exhaustively, and specify each movement constraint explicitly in the grammars. 112 The Government Binding (GB) theory [1] provides universal principles to explain the movements. Some of them are shown as follows: 1) Empty Category Principle [7] A trace must be properly governed. 2) C command Principle [7] a c commands 9 iff every branching node donfinafing a dominates . 3) Subjacency Principle [7] Any ....

N. Chomsky, Lectures on Government and Binding. Foils Publication, Dordrecht, Holland, 1981.

.... such as the universal tendency to put subjects before objects in declarative sentences [40] must be coded independently into the grammar of each language, or must be derived by stipulating such principles as part of the Universal Grammar that children have as part of their genetic heritage [15]. This situation necessarily follows from the hypothesis of the the autonomy of syntax [14] in which structure and meaning are handled by two completely separate model components. In nite RAAM, by contrast, makes no such distinction. Indeed, both the identity of a symbol and the structures in ....

N. Chomsky. Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris, Dordrecht, 1981.

....the syntactic tree into the canonical form required by the Semantic Analyzer; and 4) the Lexical Ambiguity Resolver validates the syntactic category of each word in the utterance. The system uses a specification of the French grammar based on Chomsky s theory of Government and Binding ([3]) According to this theory, syntactic rules take into account the argument structure of verbs, nouns and adjectives; this greatly facilitates the resolution of lexical and syntactic ambiguities. Chomsky s theory also provides transformation mechanisms which are used by the Recovery Module. ....

Chomsky N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Studies in Generative Grammar, Dordrecht: Foris.

....local tree with mother X and daughters Y 1 ; Y n in that order. X j f(x) denotes a local tree with mother X whose daughters are given by the value of f(x) Finally, cat(x) is the category information of a SynRep x. 7.3. 2 GB Here we present a mapping from SynReps to D structure in GB [5]. Let s = hHead; Spec; 2 6 4 ARG 1 A 1 . ARG n A n 3 7 5 ; hAdj 1 ; Adj n ii be a SynRep. Then let t 0 = cat(Head) Head t(A 1 ) t(A n ) 7.1) t 1 = cat(Head) 0 : cat(Head) t 0 t(Adj 1 ) t(Adj n ) 7.2) t 2 = cat(Head) 00 t(Spec) t 1 ....

N. Chomsky. Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris, Dordrecht, 1981.

....and that therefore the nite verb should be was. The infelicitous choice of him and Mozart is prevented by a more complex condition on the proper sentence internal distribution of pronouns, proper names and other expressions. This condition is a version of the so called Binding Theory (see [Chomsky 1981], Chomsky 1986] which is crucially formulated in terms of con gurations in syntactic structure. 4.2 Discourse coherence Now we are able to use a large variety of sentences to convey the relevant information, but it is as yet unclear which sentences should be used in a given situation. This ....

N. Chomsky, Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris, Dordrecht.

....that we are going to use, we will explain each one briefly. Morphosyntactic agreement (person, gender and number) will be checked by means of unification of the structure conc described in Figure 3. Semantic consistency will also be checked with conc and IRSAS method. C command constraints (Chomsky 81; Stuckardt 96) and Reflexivity constraints will be applied based on syntactic and morphologic information stored in the SS. In relation to preference filters, they will be applied only if there is more than one possible antecedent after applying constraint filters. The aim of this process is to ....

N. Chomsky, Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris Publications, Dordrecht, 1981.

....able to express elegantly linguistic sub regularities. Such an approach can be used not only in the encoding of a grammar for a particular language, in this case English, but also in the encoding of the Universal Grammar (UG) The UG corresponds to our innate knowledge about language, according to Chomsky [1981], who proposed the idea based on observations that children learn languages quickly and easily, and they do it based on exposure to data that is so limited and noisy that it cannot provide an explanation of how it is that children achieve all the aspects of the mature state. Moreover, Gold [1967] ....

....results were used as a confirmation for the proposal that children must have some innate knowledge about language to help them overcome the problem of the poverty of the stimulus and acquire a grammar on the basis of positive evidence only. According to Chomsky s Principles and Parameters Theory [Chomsky 1981], the UG is composed of principles and parameters, and the process of learning a language is regarded as the setting of values of a number of parameters, given exposition to this particular language. In this way, as a child listens to its caretakers speech, the learning procedure sets the values ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Chomsky, N. Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris Publications, 1981.

....of a default inheritance network of types, implemented with yadu, which is an order independent default uni cation operation on typed feature structures. We then propose to use this framework to encode a Universal Grammar and associated parameters, following the Principles and Parameters Theory [Chomsky 1981] and describe how they are implemented. This is a clear and concise way of de ning the UG with the parameters being straightforwardly de ned in the type network, in a way which takes advantage of the default inheritance mechanism, to propagate information about parameters, throughout the lexical ....

.... trans raising walk try like give believe seem persuade 68 7 intrans common trans intrans control ditrans trans control intrans raising intrans equi trans raising trans equi subject control super equi walk seem try like give believe persuade promise ask Figure 1: Pollard and Sag s Hierarchy [Chomsky 1981], using this framework. The parameters of the Universal Grammar are set based on exposure to a particular language, and this can be obtained by using a corpus of annotated sentences, based on which the parameters are set. In the next section we describe the application of the implemented English ....

Chomsky, N. Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris Publications, 1981.

....which call for a syntactic description of terms. However, the speci city of this internal syntax di erentiates terms from regular noun phrases and needs an intermediate representation level between the lexical and the syntagmatic one. In the generative framework of Government and Binding [Chomsky, 1981], Barbaud, 1994] proposes to represent compounds at the X 0 level. The main characteristic of this work is to o er an approach to compounding outside derivational morphology contrary to the classical generative grammar or the traditional grammar. The syntax of compounds and therefrom of terms is ....

Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht, Foris Publications.

....be extended to handle a variety of Japanese phenomena, including anti superiority, indirect passives and potentials, o ni causative and dative subject constructions, and the double o constraint. 1 Introduction pappi is a multilingual parsing engine in the Principles and Parameters framework (Chomsky, 1981), initially developed at MIT (Fong, 1991) and greatly expanded upon at NEC. It consists of a core engine written in Prolog, a Horn clause logic based programming language originally designed for natural language processing (Colmerauer et al. 1973) containing both a module to recover phrase ....

Chomsky N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris Publications.

....be the complement of the verb. The construction has been controversial because if the pronoun is indeed expletive and in object position then the basic assumption of transformational grammar in (2) that expletives cannot appear in subcategorized positions, is called into question (based on Chomsky 1981). 2. Expletives cannot appear in subcategorized positions In fact Postal Pullum (1988) argue that indeed this is the case. Some of their examples, and 258 WPLS:UR, Vol. 1, No. 2 http: www.ling.rochester.edu wpls others, are exemplified in (3) Postal Pullum 1988: 643) 3. They never ....

Chomsky, Noam (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.

....as most frameworks expressly exclude the possibility of subjectless constructions. hpsg is one of the few that appears relatively agnostic on this score. Nearly all other approaches incorporate some subject legislating constraint, whether expressed as the Extended Projection Principle of Chomsky 1981, the Final 1 Law of Perlmutter and Postal 1983b, or the Subject Condition of Bresnan and Kanerva 1989. Taken together, the near universal recognition of passives and the corresponding neglect of impersonals introduce a tacit descriptive bias in favour of passives. Constructions that occupy ....

....in Estonian and Welsh. Section 2.3 then considers the synchronic status of the historically neuter participles that head the various types of impersonal passive constructions in Balto Slavic. 2. 1 Passives in German Personal passives are often regarded as the core case of passive (Chomsky 1981), in that they exhibit all of the properties associated with the passive construction. The German example in (2b) illustrates the canonical profile of a personal passive. The logical subject of the active (2a) is demoted to an optional oblique in (2b) The logical object in (2a) is ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.

....Parameters In general, the issue of the selection of parameters for grammar acquisition is one of the main problems for which there is no single answer. Parameters applicable to more than one language are studied in the field of language universals as well as the principles andparameters approach (Chomsky 1981) and its successors (Chomsky 1995) Widely devised as the basis of universal grammar, the principlesand parameters approach has focused on the universality of certain formal grammatical rules within that particular approach rather on the substantive and exhaustive list of universal parameters, ....

Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.

....a type hierarchy for case values was first proposed by Heinz and Matiasek (1994) on the basis of German facts. The structural inherent case dichotomy dates back to early work within the Government and Binding theory by Jean Roger Vergnaud (Rouveret and Vergnaud 1980; Vergnaud 1982) Noam Chomsky (Chomsky 1980, 1981) and, apparently independently, Leonard Babby (Babby 1980b,a) 24 The dotted lines leading to lacc are not part of the official notation, but rather reflect the weakness of the evidence for the existence of the lexical accusative in Polish; cf. fn. 6. 22 Adam Przepirkowski 2 6 6 6 6 6 4 ....

Chomsky, Noam. (1981) Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.

....presented here and any of their shortcomings. 2 The first paper, Chomsky (1991) was circulating in draft form from 1988. Most of the relevant papers (including Chomsky (1991) are collected in Chomsky (1995b) The one exception is Chomsky (1995a) which appears in Webelhuth (1995) 3 See Chomsky 1981, 1982, and 1986 for the GB version of the P P approach. 1 representation: D structure, S Structure, and logical form (LF) with phonological rules generating phonetic form (PF) from S structure. Conditions on well formed structure (like the conditions of the binding theory, theta theory, X ....

.... remarks that The motivation for constraint based grammars is the overwhelming trend in theoretical linguistics toward grammar formalisms that eschew rule based analyses of individual constructions, as in phrase structure grammars, in favor of interacting collections of general constraints, as in Chomsky s (1981, 1988) 4 APG built on Relational Grammar here (see Perlmutter (1983) and Perlmutter and Rosen (1984) for some of the classic papers in RG) APG graphs, called pair networks, are more general than feature structures as conceived in the unification based community, in that they are relational ....

Chomsky, N., (1981), Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.

....grammars to more general classes of grammars. On the other hand Palm (1997) has studied in his dissertation several logics for de ning classes of trees (cf. also Volger(1999) The logics are used to express the wellformedness conditions on trees of a principle based grammar formalism like GB of Chomsky (1981). Describing the transformation from a set of principles formulated in a rstorder language for trees to a rule based grammar he has obtained as intermediate steps generalized contextfree grammars where the right side of the rules are determined by expressions of appropriate logics for words. We ....

N. Chomsky. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Foris, Dordrecht.

....rewriting system# sentential complementation uses a context free tree substitution grammar# modification requires tree adjoining grammar, a mildly context sensitive system. Subject Areas: Syntax, Formal Properties Word Count: 6340 1. INTRODUCTION Some current views of natural language syntax (Chomsky, 1981) localize cross linguistic variation in a small set of parameters each of whichtakes one of a small number of possible values. Such a view has the effect of eliminating the so called logical problem of language acquisition , i.e. the problem of howachild could in principle learn her language ....

Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding . Dordrecht: Foris.

....in linear logic and type logical grammars. The minimalist attitude of contemporary generative grammar allows interesting formalizations and fruitful exchanges in this direction. Lexical researches in generative grammar introduced an important set of generalizations, known as X bar theory [5, 11, 6], concerning the interaction of lexical information with the categorial structure of linguistic expressions. Linguistic categories are definable in terms of two formal primitives: i) features, that specify distinctive properties of lexical items such as gender, number (and whose combinations are ....

Chomsky, N. (1981), Lectures on Government and Binding, Dordrecht, Foris.

....tree, CS) sentence Fringe(final tree) endif return sentence Fig. 10. The function ApplyTemplate. Context State. This is done by creating a set of all sentences that result from all relevant slot fillings of the template, and then filtering out those sentences that violate the Binding Theory (Chomsky, 1981). From the remaining sentences, one is picked at random. More specifically, ApplyTemplate works as follows. First, it calls the function FillSlots(template, CS ) to obtain the set of all possible trees that can be generated from the template, using all possible combinations of slot fillers ....

....6 As a consequence, FillSlots typically returns a set of several trees, all expressing the same piece(s) of information albeit in different ways. For each tree in this set it is checked whether it obeys the Binding Theory, for instance to see if there are any non pronouns in a bound position (Chomsky, 1981); see the example below) The trees that are not in line with Binding Theory are filtered out, and the system arbitrarily selects one of the remaining trees. This tree is sent to the Prosody module, where its prosodic properties are computed using both syntactic and contextual information. This ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.

....commanding NP at S structure, as in (7) 7) S NP VP i John V i . chased: Agent i , S NP i VP i John v i . Chased: Agent i , The syntactic realisation of thematic roles in argument structure is constrained and secured by the Projection Principle and the Theta Criterion (Chomsky, 1981): Projection Principle Representations at each syntactic level (i.e. LF, and D and S structure) are projected from the lexicon, in that they observe the subcategorisation properties of lexical items. Chomsky (1981, 29) 1 A node A c commands a node B iff A does not dominate B and the first ....

....is constrained and secured by the Projection Principle and the Theta Criterion (Chomsky, 1981) Projection Principle Representations at each syntactic level (i.e. LF, and D and S structure) are projected from the lexicon, in that they observe the subcategorisation properties of lexical items. (Chomsky (1981, 29) 1 A node A c commands a node B iff A does not dominate B and the first branching node dominating A also dominates B. Recommendations 8 August, 1996 EAGLES Recommendations on Subcategorisation EAG CLWG SYNLEX Theta criterion Each argument bears one and only one role, and each ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding, Foris Publications, Dordrecht.

....1997 Chapter 4 Bibliographic references and indexes 4.1 Bibliographic references EAGLES uses the Harvard style for bibliographic citations and references, and no other. This allows you to give references highly important for human knowledge by using the cite command (Bresnan, 1982; Chomsky, 1981; Dowty, 1982; Dowty, 1989) This was produced with the following: cite bre82,chom81,dow82b,dow89 . There are even some references that are highly stimulating (Talmy, 1985) However, as Alsina Mchombo (1988) demonstrates, you can also use a kind of nominal form for citations. Carpenter ....

Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding, Foris Publications, Dordrecht.

....is a lexical feature whereas the latter is an agreement feature. This then captures the distinction between abstract Case and morphological case , and importantly we assume the Case Filter which says that all phonetically realized KPs (i.e. noun phrases) must be assigned (abstract) Case (cf. Chomsky 1981:49, 1995:111ff) Given the claim that infinitivals do not have any temporal anchoring of their own, t is not present in the phrase structure of an infinitival. As for subjects, we follow the 47 We have not discussed pronouns earlier, but I will assume that they in the core cases have ....

Chomsky, Noam: 1981, Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.

.... and semantic theory can account for the behavior of SLPs and ILPs in these examples To this end, this thesis explores a range of previous work on this topic that implements and extends Montague s (1973) type theoretic model, The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English (PTQ) and Chomsky s (1981) Government and Binding (GB) theory. Theories by Carlson (1977) Kratzer (1989) Diesing (1992) and Fernald (1994) attempt to produce the correct interpretations using modified rules and structures based on PTQ or GB. In recent years a lot of work on GB and other structural theories of syntax ....

Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris. Dordrecht.

....of fixed principles, generative grammar allows a set of binary parameters or rankable innate constraints to account for crosslinguistic variation. Together, the principles and constraints or parameters predict a typology of possible and impossible languages. In a principles and parameters approach (Chomsky 1981), a typology is generated by choosing all possible parameter values. For instance, a system of 30 independent binary parameters yields 2 30 different grammars. In an OptimalityTheoretic approach, a typology is generated by permuting across all possible constraint rankings. For instance, a system ....

Chomsky, Noam (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.

....procedure P ( then it is T that is challenged and must be changed. The conclusion is particularly unreasonable in the light of the fact that in general there is independent (so called linguistic ) evidence in support of T while there is no reason at all to believe that P is true. (Chomsky, 1981: p. 283) The main methodological implication of this position is that it leads to what I elsewhere have called the Chomskyan paradox 1 . On the one hand, the competence performance distinction (C PD) makes T immune to all empirical falsification, since any falsifying evidence can always be ....

Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Forris Publications.

....for the proposal that children must have some innate knowledge about language, the Universal Grammar (UG) to help them overcome the problem of the poverty of the stimulus and acquire a grammar on the basis of positive evidence only. According to Chomsky s Principles and Parameters Theory (Chomsky 1981), the UG is composed of principles and parameters, and the process of learning a language is regarded as the setting of values of a number of parameters, given exposure to this particular language. We employ this idea in the learning framework implemented. In this work we are interested in ....

....the initial parameter settings, based on exposure to a corpus of utterances. Each of these components is discussed in 209 more detail in the following sections. 2. 1 The Universal Grammar The UG consists of principles and parameters, and the latter are set according to the linguistic environment (Chomsky 1981). This proposal suggests that human languages follow a common set of principles and differ among one another only in finitely many respects, represented by a finite number of parameters that can vary according to a finite number of values (which makes them learnable in Gold s paradigm) In this ....

Chomsky, N. Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris Publications, 1981.

....access to the substructure of events. In previous work [Giorgi and Pianesi, 1992b] the characteristic behaviour of the English present tense with accomplishment and activity predicates was connected with the peculiar status of the English verbal stem. In the terminology of X bar theory, [Chomsky, 1981; Chomsky, 1986] the English verb is an X 0 , i.e. a full word, as for instance run, which can be used for all persons of the present tense paradigm, excluded the third singular where an agreement morpheme, s, is added to yield run s. In the other languages of the Romance Germanic domain, the ....

, Chomsky N., Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht, 1981.

....illustrate in terms of preevaluated proof nets, proof nets in which lexico syntactic interaction is computed in a lexical compilation rather than at the stage of derivation. We suggest that the account offers an explanation of the delay of principle B effect in the child acquisition of anaphora. Chomsky (1981) proposes Principles A, B and C governing anaphoric relations. Roughly speaking, Principle A states that a reflexive or reciprocal pronoun must be bound by a local c commanding antecedent, Principle B states that a personal pronoun must not be bound by a local c commanding antecedent, and ....

Chomsky, Noam: 1981, Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.

....broader issues pertaining to the type of theory of grammar that the analysis presented in this paper implies. Section 3 spells out the basic framework, called the adjoined heads framework. The framework 1 I will loosely use this term to refer to the family of syntactic theories associated with (Chomsky, 1981) and (Chomsky, 1986a) 1 is further refined in the course of the paper. Sections 4 and 5 investigate two linguistic phenomena: word order facts from English and French, and the English double object construction, respectively. Section 6 addresses issues pertaining to the syntax morphology ....

Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures in Government and Binding. Studies in generative grammar 9. Foris, Dordrecht.

.... Requiring as it does correlation between some position in a string and the c commanding operator which determines its interpretation, it is uncontroversially assumed across different theoretical frameworks to involve an operator variable binding phenomenon as in standard predicate logics (cf. Chomsky 1981, Morrill 1994, Pollard Sag 1991, Lappin Johnson 1996) However, it is known to display a number of properties which distinguish it from the logical operation of quantifier variable binding, and these discrepancies are taken to be indicative of the syntactic idiosyncracy of natural language ....

....piece of supporting evidence for this analysis, become a mere syntactic stipulation. 1.2 Crossover Pretheoretically, the crossover phenomena is simply the interaction between WH and anaphora construal. Within the GB paradigm, this has been seen as dividing into at least three discrete phenomena (Chomsky 1981, Lasnik Stowell 1991, Postal 1993) The data are as follows: 4) Who does Joan think that he worries e is sick i i i (5) Who does Joan think that his mother worries e is sick i i i (6) Whose exam results was he certain e would be better than anyone else s i j i j (7) Who does John ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Chomsky, N. (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris, Dordrecht.

No context found.

N.A. Chomsky. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris Publications.

No context found.

N. Chomsky. Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris, Dordrecht, 1981.

No context found.

Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Cinnaminson, NJ: Foris.

No context found.

N. Chomsky, Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris, 1981.

No context found.

Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Foris, Dodrecht.

No context found.

Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.

No context found.

CHOMSKY, Noam (1981): Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.

No context found.

N. Chomsky. Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris, Dordrecht, 1981.

No context found.

Chomsky, N.: Lectures on Government and Binding, Dordrecht, Foris (1981).

No context found.

N. Chomsky. Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris, Dordrecht, 1981.

No context found.

N. Chomsky, Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris, Dordrecht.

No context found.

N.A. Chomsky. Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris Publications, 1981.

No context found.

N. Chomsky, Lectures on Government and Binding. Foris, Dordrecht.

No context found.

Chomsky, N.,Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht, 1981.

No context found.

Chomsky, Noam A. (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding , Foris Publications, Dordrecht, Holland.

No context found.

Chomsky, Noam A. (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding , Foris Publications, Dordrecht, Holland.

No context found.

Chomsky, N. (1981), Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht.

First 50 documents  Next 50

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC