How a Construction Grammar account solves the auxiliary controversy

MyBook is a cheap paperback edition of the original book and will be sold at uniform, low price.

Buy this article

Price: £15.00+Taxes
Add to favourites

The full text of this article is not currently available.

Data & Media loading...


Full text loading...


Baker, C. F. , Fillmore, C. J. , & Lowe, J. B.
(1998) The Berkeley FrameNet project. InProceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computational linguistics, Morristown, NJ, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.3115/980451.980860
Bolinger, D.
(1983) The go-progressive and auxiliary formation. In F. B. Agard & C. F. Hockett (Eds.), Essays in honor of Charles F. Hockett (pp.153–167). Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Butt, M. , Niño, M. -E. , & Segond, F.
(1996) Multilingual processing of auxiliaries in LFG. In D. Gibbon (Ed.), Natural language processing and speech technology: Results of the 3d KONVENS conference (pp.111–122). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110821895‑013
Denison, D.
(2000) Combining English auxiliaries. In O. Fischer , A. Rosenbach , & D. Stein (Eds.), Pathways of change (pp.111–147). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.53.07den
Dyvik, H.
(1999) The universality of f-structure: Discovery or stipulation? The case of modals. In M. Butt (Ed.), Proceedings of the LFG ’99 Conference, Manchester. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Available
Falk, Y. N.
(2008) Functional relations in the English auxiliary system. Linguistics, 46(5), 861–889. doi: 10.1515/LING.2008.028
Fillmore, C. J. (1988) The mechanisms of Construction Grammar. In S. Axmaker & H. Singmaster (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp.35–55). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Frank, A. , & Zaenen, A.
(2004) Tense in LFG: Syntax and morphology. In L. Sadler & A. Spencer (Eds.), Projecting morphology (pp.23–65). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Goldberg, A. E.
(1995) A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Huddleston, R. D.
(1976) Some theoretical issues in the description of the English verb. Lingua, 40(4), 331–383. doi: 10.1016/0024‑3841(76)90084‑X
Kripke, S.
(1963) Semantical analysis of modal logic. Zeitschrift für Mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik, 9, 67–96. doi: 10.1002/malq.19630090502
Manning, C. D.
(1995) Dissociating functor-argument structure from surface phrase structure: The relationship of HPSG order domains to LFG. Unpublished Manuscript.
Moens, M. , & Steedman, M.
(1988) Temporal ontology and temporal reference. Computational Linguistics, 14(2), 15–28.
Palmer, F. R.
(1979) Why auxiliaries are not main verbs. Lingua, 47(1), 1–25. doi: 10.1016/0024‑3841(79)90064‑0
Pollard, C. , & Sag, I. A.
(1994) Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Radden, G. , & Dirven, R.
(2007) Cognitive English Grammar, volume 2 of Cognitive Linguistics in practice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Reape, M.
(1994) Domain union and word order variation in German. InGerman in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (pp.151–197). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Reichenbach, H.
(1947) Elements of symbolic logic. New York: Macmillan.
Ross, J. R.
(1969) Auxiliaries are main verbs. In W. Todd (Ed.), Studies in philosophical linguistics (pp.77–102). Evanston, IL: Great Expectations Press.
Schmerling, S. F.
(1983) A new theory of English auxiliaries. In F. Heny (Ed.), Linguistic categories: Auxiliaries and related puzzles, volume two: The scope, order, and distribution of English auxiliary verbs (pp.1–53). Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑6992‑6_1
Steels, L.
(Ed.) (2011) Design patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.11
van Trijp, R.
(2011) A design pattern for argument structure constructions. In L. Steels (Ed.), Design patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar (pp.115–145). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.11.07tri
(2015) Cognitive vs. generative construction grammar: The case of argument structure and coercion. Cognitive Linguistics, 26(4), 613–632. doi: 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0074
(2016) Chopping down the syntax tree: What constructions can do instead. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 30, 15–38. doi: 10.1075/bjl.30.02van
(2017) A constructional language processing model for English in Fluid Construction Grammar. InProceedings of The AAAI 2017 Spring Symposium on Computational Construction Grammar and Natural Language Understanding, Technical Report SS-17-02 (pp.266–273). Palo Alto, CA: AAAI Press.
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address