How a Construction Grammar account solves the auxiliary
controversy
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.
Article outline
- 1.The auxiliary controversy
- 1.1The main-verb analysis and its problems
- 1.2The feature-carrier analysis and its problems
- 1.3Coping with language change
- 1.4Construction Grammar makes a synthesis possible
- 2.Modeling the English verb phrase
-
2.1Overview of the analysis
-
2.2Verbal lexical constructions
- Meaning
- SEM-VALENCE
- SEM-CAT
- SYN-CAT
- LEX-ID
- 2.3Verb Phrase Construction
-
2.4Present- and Past-Tense-Indicative Constructions
- Present-Tense-Indicative Construction
- Past-Tense-Indicative Construction
- 2.5Perfect and Non-Perfect Constructions
- 2.6Progressive and Non-Progressive Constructions
-
2.7Modal Constructions
- Modal-Will Construction
- Marked-Modality Construction
- 3.Conclusions
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
-
References
References (25)
Baker, C. F., Fillmore, C. J., & Lowe, J. B.
(
1998)
The Berkeley FrameNet project. In
Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Computational
linguistics, Morristown, NJ, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Denison, D.
(
2000)
Combining English auxiliaries. In
O. Fischer,
A. Rosenbach, &
D. Stein (Eds.),
Pathways of change (pp. 111–147). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 at
[URL]
Falk, Y. N.
(
2008)
Functional relations in the English auxiliary
system.
Linguistics, 46(5), 861–889.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Goldberg, A. E.
(
1995)
A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Huddleston, R. D.
(
1976)
Some theoretical issues in the description of the English
verb.
Lingua, 40(4), 331–383.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kripke, S.
(
1963)
Semantical analysis of modal logic.
Zeitschrift für Mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der
Mathematik, 91, 67–96.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Manning, C. D.
(
1995)
Dissociating functor-argument structure from surface phrase
structure: The relationship of HPSG order domains to LFG. Unpublished Manuscript. URL
[URL].
Moens, M., & Steedman, M.
(
1988)
Temporal ontology and temporal reference.
Computational Linguistics, 14(2), 15–28.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Palmer, F. R.
(
1979)
Why auxiliaries are not main verbs.
Lingua, 47(1), 1–25.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pollard, C., & Sag, I. A.
(
1994)
Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Radden, G., & Dirven, R.
(
2007)
Cognitive English Grammar, volume 2 of Cognitive Linguistics in
practice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Reape, M.
(
1994)
Domain union and word order variation in German. In
German in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (pp. 151–197). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Reichenbach, H.
(
1947)
Elements of symbolic logic. New York: Macmillan.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
van Trijp, R.
(
2015)
Cognitive vs. generative construction grammar: The case of
argument structure and coercion.
Cognitive Linguistics, 26(4), 613–632.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
van Trijp, R.
(
2017)
A constructional language processing model for English in Fluid
Construction Grammar. In
Proceedings 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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (2)
Cited by 2 other publications
Ungerer, Tobias & Stefan Hartmann
2023.
Constructionist Approaches,
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
van Trijp, Remi, Katrien Beuls, Paul Van Eecke & Andrew Kehler
2022.
The FCG Editor: An innovative environment for engineering computational construction grammars.
PLOS ONE 17:6
► pp. e0269708 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.