Cover not available
Article published In:
Verb Phrase and Fluid Construction Grammar
Edited by Luc Steels and Katrien Beuls
[Constructions and Frames 9:2] 2017
► pp. 251–277

How a Construction Grammar account solves the auxiliary controversy

 | Sony Computer Science Laboratories Paris
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.
Keywords: verb phrase, Construction Grammar, auxiliaries, tense, aspect, modality, grammar formalization
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
      • Perfect Construction
    • 2.6Progressive and Non-Progressive Constructions
      • Progressive Construction
    • 2.7Modal Constructions
      • Modal-Will Construction
      • Marked-Modality Construction
  • 3.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 30 December 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00004.van
References (25)
References
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 logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Denison, D. (2000). Combining English auxiliaries. In O. Fischer, A. Rosenbach, & D. Stein (Eds.), Pathways of change (pp. 111–147). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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 [URL]
Falk, Y. N. (2008). Functional relations in the English auxiliary system. Linguistics, 46(5), 861–889. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kripke, S. (1963). Semantical analysis of modal logic. Zeitschrift für Mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik, 91, 67–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Palmer, F. R. (1979). Why auxiliaries are not main verbs. Lingua, 47(1), 1–25. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steels, L. (Ed.). (2011). Design patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). Cognitive vs. generative construction grammar: The case of argument structure and coercion. Cognitive Linguistics, 26(4), 613–632. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Chopping down the syntax tree: What constructions can do instead. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 301, 15–38. DOI logoGoogle 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.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

van Trijp, Remi
2024. Nostalgia for the future of Construction Grammar. Constructions and Frames 16:2 ► pp. 311 ff. DOI logo
Ungerer, Tobias & Stefan Hartmann
2023. Constructionist Approaches, DOI logo
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

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 january 2025. 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.