1887
Volume 9, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
GBP
Buy:£15.00 + Taxes

Abstract

The English auxiliaries have been a matter of dispute for decades with two opposing views: one analysis treats them as main verbs that take a VP complement; the other considers them as feature carriers. Proponents of both approaches have convincingly pointed out each other’s weaknesses without however settling the debate and without accounting for the fact that the English VP is still evolving today. The goal of this paper is to show that Construction Grammar offers a way out of the current status quo. This claim is substantiated by a computational formalization of the English verb phrase in Fluid Construction Grammar that includes a bi-directional processing model for formulation and comprehension available for online testing.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00004.van
2017-12-30
2018-10-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. 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
    https://doi.org/10.3115/980451.980860 [Google Scholar]
  2. 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 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
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110821895-013 [Google Scholar]
  4. 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
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.53.07den [Google Scholar]
  5. 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 atweb.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/LFG/4/lfg99dyvik.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Falk, Y. N.
    (2008) Functional relations in the English auxiliary system. Linguistics, 46(5), 861–889. doi: 10.1515/LING.2008.028
    https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2008.028 [Google Scholar]
  7. 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 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
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(76)90084-X [Google Scholar]
  11. Kripke, S.
    (1963) Semantical analysis of modal logic. Zeitschrift für Mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik, 9, 67–96. doi: 10.1002/malq.19630090502
    https://doi.org/10.1002/malq.19630090502 [Google Scholar]
  12. Manning, C. D.
    (1995) Dissociating functor-argument structure from surface phrase structure: The relationship of HPSG order domains to LFG. Unpublished Manuscript. URLnlp.stanford.edu/manning/papers/hpsglfg1.pdf.
  13. Moens, M. , & Steedman, M.
    (1988) Temporal ontology and temporal reference. Computational Linguistics, 14(2), 15–28.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Palmer, F. R.
    (1979) Why auxiliaries are not main verbs. Lingua, 47(1), 1–25. doi: 10.1016/0024‑3841(79)90064‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(79)90064-0 [Google Scholar]
  15. Pollard, C. , & Sag, I. A.
    (1994) Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Radden, G. , & Dirven, R.
    (2007) Cognitive English Grammar, volume 2 of Cognitive Linguistics in practice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Reape, M.
    (1994) Domain union and word order variation in German. InGerman in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (pp.151–197). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Reichenbach, H.
    (1947) Elements of symbolic logic. New York: Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Ross, J. R.
    (1969) Auxiliaries are main verbs. In W. Todd (Ed.), Studies in philosophical linguistics (pp.77–102). Evanston, IL: Great Expectations Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 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
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-6992-6_1 [Google Scholar]
  21. Steels, L.
    (Ed.) (2011) Design patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cal.11
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.11 [Google Scholar]
  22. 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
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.11.07tri [Google Scholar]
  23. (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
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0074 [Google Scholar]
  24. (2016) Chopping down the syntax tree: What constructions can do instead. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 30, 15–38. doi: 10.1075/bjl.30.02van
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.30.02van [Google Scholar]
  25. (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.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00004.van
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00004.van
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error