The Mental representation of grammatical relations

@article{Baltin1985TheMR,
  title={The Mental representation of grammatical relations},
  author={Mark R. Baltin and Joan Bresnan},
  journal={Language},
  year={1985},
  volume={61},
  pages={863}
}
The editor of this volume, who is also author or coauthor of five of the contributions, has provided an introduction that not only affords an overview of the separate articles but also interrelates the basic issues in linguistics, psycholinguistics and cognitive studies that are addressed in this volume. The twelve articles are grouped into three sections, as follows: "I. Lexical Representation: " The Passive in Lexical Theory (J. Bresnan); On the Lexical Representation of Romance Reflexive… 
No nouns, no verbs: psycholinguistic arguments in favor of lexical underspecification
Abstract It is often assumed that the primitive units of grammar are words that are marked for grammatical category (e.g., DiSciullo, A.M., Williams, E., 1987. On the Definition of Word: MIT Press,
Processing for relevance : a pragmatically based account of how we process natural language
TLDR
This thesis presents an account of some of the mental mechanisms and processes that take the addressee from a linguistic input to the interpretation of that input, and a proposal that verbs are represented as structured concepts together with Relevance theory.
Lexical properties of English verbs.
TLDR
It is shown how the lexicalist assumption, together with the analytical properties of WG, provides for a meaningful and explanatory analysis of a number of grammatical patterns, including the interaction between verbs of motion and their satellites, the syntactic and semantic behaviour of resultative expressions and alternation between causative and unaccusative uses of verbs.
On lexical and syntactic licensing of category mixing
TLDR
Divorcing grammatical relations from structural positions makes it possible to account for phenomena where the two dimensions play a role independently of each other.
What is the human language faculty?: Two views
In addition to providing an account of the empirical facts of language, a theory that aspires to account for language as a biologically based human faculty should seek a graceful integration of
LEXICAL AND CONFIGURATIONAL STRUCTURES
This paper is an attempt to investigate the properties of the level of configurational or constituent structure (which represents the dominance and precedence relations), and the level at which
Cross-linguistic priming of syntactic hierarchical configuration information
Abstract An important psycholinguistic discussion centers on the question of whether bilinguals use the same representations and mechanisms for the languages they speak (the interactive view) or
Subject-verb agreement in Spanish and English: Differences in the role of conceptual constraints
TLDR
It is proposed that languages differ in the extent to which the selection of the verb is controlled by features on the subject and features from the conceptual representation, which is discussed in the framework of a modified version of the computational model of grammatical encoding proposed by Kempen and Hoenkamp (1987).
On the nonsemantic nature of argument structure
TLDR
Since argument structure must express the distinction between primary and secondary objects, which is not a semantic distinction, it follows that argument structure containsnonsemantic information and, therefore, is a nonsemantic level of representation.
What’s in the Lexicon?
TLDR
The resulting architecture in part resembles the approaches of HPSG, Construction Grammar, and other non-Chomskyan versions of generative grammar, and offers the possibility of a better rapprochement between linguistic theory and psycholinguistic studies on language processing than has been possible in more traditional Chomskyan architectures.
...
1
2
3
4
5
...