Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-dtkg6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-06T10:11:24.852Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

In defence of single mothers1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Robert D. Borsley
Robert D. Borsley
Affiliation:
Adam Mickiewicz University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In an important theoretical discussion, Sampson (1975) argues against what he terms the ‘single-mother condition’. This is the condition that no node may have more than one mother. It is central to the definition of a tree, as the term is normally understood in linguistic theory. Sampson argues that the condition should be abandoned, and that what he terms ‘semitrees’, graphs in which nodes have more than one mother, should be permitted as representations of linguistic structure.2 He argues for this innovation on the basis of certain anaphoric phenomena. In this note, I want to take a critical look at his argument. I will suggest that the semitree approach to anaphoric phenomena that he sketches is untenable, and hence that these phenomena provide no motivation for an abandonment of the single-mother condition.

Type
Notes and Discussion
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , March 1980 , pp. 95 - 101
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Bresnan, J. W. (1970). An argument against pronominalization, Lln 1. 122–123.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge. Mass.: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Geach, P. T. (1962). Refrrence and generality. London and Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Hockett, C. F. (1967). Language, mathematics and linguistics. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, R. A. (1976). Arguments for a non-transformational grammar. Chicago & London: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. E. & Postal, P.M. (forthcoming). Arc pair grammar.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1977). Linguistic gestalts. Papers from the Thirteenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. 236–286.Google Scholar
Morin, Y. C.xs & O'Malley, M. H. (1969). Multi-rooted vines in semantic representation. Papers from the Fifth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. 178–185.Google Scholar
Partee, B. H. (1975). Deletion and variable binding. In Keenan, E. L. (ed.), Formal semantics of natural language. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Postal, P. M. (1972). ‘Pronominal epithets’ and similar items. FL 9. 246–248.Google Scholar
Sampson, G. (1975). The single mother condition. JL 11. 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar