Article published in:
Verb Phrase and Fluid Construction Grammar
Edited by Luc Steels and Katrien Beuls
[Constructions and Frames 9:2] 2017
► pp. 251277


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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Denison, D.
(2000) Combining English auxiliaries. In O. Fischer, A. Rosenbach, & D. Stein (Eds.), Pathways of change (pp. 111–147). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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 http://​web​.stanford​.edu​/group​/cslipublications​/cslipublications​/LFG​/4​/lfg99dyvik​.pdf
Falk, Y. N.
(2008) Functional relations in the English auxiliary system. Linguistics, 46(5), 861–889. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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
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
Goldberg, A. E.
(1995) A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. D.
(1976) Some theoretical issues in the description of the English verb. Lingua, 40(4), 331–383. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kripke, S.
(1963) Semantical analysis of modal logic. Zeitschrift für Mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik, 9, 67–96. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Manning, C. D.
(1995) Dissociating functor-argument structure from surface phrase structure: The relationship of HPSG order domains to LFG. Unpublished Manuscript. URL http://​nlp​.stanford​.edu​/manning​/papers​/hpsglfg1​.pdf.
Moens, M., & Steedman, M.
(1988) Temporal ontology and temporal reference. Computational Linguistics, 14(2), 15–28.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R.
(1979) Why auxiliaries are not main verbs. Lingua, 47(1), 1–25. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pollard, C., & Sag, I. A.
(1994) Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Radden, G., & Dirven, R.
(2007) Cognitive English Grammar, volume 2 of Cognitive Linguistics in practice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
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
Reichenbach, H.
(1947) Elements of symbolic logic. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
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
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Steels, L.
(Ed.) (2011) Design patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Cognitive vs. generative construction grammar: The case of argument structure and coercion. Cognitive Linguistics, 26(4), 613–632. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016) Chopping down the syntax tree: What constructions can do instead. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 30, 15–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(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.[ p. 277 ]Google Scholar