An Empirically Motivated Reinterpretation of Dependency Grammar

Abstract

Dependency grammar is usually interpreted as equivalent to a strict form of X--bar theory that forbids the stacking of nodes of the same bar level (e.g., N' immediately dominating N' with the same head). But adequate accounts of _one_--anaphora and of the semantics of multiple modifiers require such stacking and accordingly argue against dependency grammar. Dependency grammar can be salvaged by reinterpreting its claims about phrase structure, so that modifiers map onto binary--branching X--bar trees rather than ``flat'' ones.