Tree structures (p. 49) [via PaperHive@docloop]

[docloop[bot]]

Annotation imported from PaperHive.

Regarding this part:

No such devices are needed in lexical approaches

Remi van Trijp wrote:

At the risk of repeating myself too often, your arguments are true iff constructions are phrase-structural rules. I have written several articles (e.g. my "Chopping down the syntax tree") that argue that constructions do not need to specify tree configurations, but may access different perspectives such as functional structure, information structure, etc. or any combination of these perspectives.

Link to original comment. About docloop.

[docloop[bot]]

Annotation imported from PaperHive.

Stefan Müller wrote:

Yes, the same is true for HPSG grammars. Linguistic objects are signs with all these properties specified. You may state individual constraints on individual "modules" or pair them or whatever. This does not affect the arguments in this book and in other publications of mine. I did not read "chopping down" yet, but I will. And: Both Adele Goldberg and Ray Jackendoff talk about allostructions nowadays. Ray Jackendoff just gave a talk in Berlin. 

Link to original comment. About docloop.