Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T21:26:44.411Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lessons from the English auxiliary system

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2019

IVAN A. SAG ,
RUI P. CHAVES ,
ANNE ABEILLÉ ,
BRUNO ESTIGARRIBIA ,
DAN FLICKINGER ,
PAUL KAY ,
LAURA A. MICHAELIS ,
STEFAN MÜLLER ,
GEOFFREY K. PULLUM  and
FRANK VAN EYNDE
...Show all authors
IVAN A. SAG*
Affiliation:
Stanford University
RUI P. CHAVES*
Affiliation:
University at Buffalo, SUNY
ANNE ABEILLÉ*
Affiliation:
Université Paris Diderot–Paris 7
BRUNO ESTIGARRIBIA*
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina
DAN FLICKINGER*
Affiliation:
Stanford University
PAUL KAY*
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
LAURA A. MICHAELIS*
Affiliation:
University of Colorado Boulder
STEFAN MÜLLER*
Affiliation:
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
GEOFFREY K. PULLUM*
Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh
FRANK VAN EYNDE*
Affiliation:
University of Leuven
THOMAS WASOW*
Affiliation:
Stanford University
*
Author’s address: Stanford University, Department of Linguistics, Stanford, CA 94305–2150, USA
Author’s address: University at Buffalo, SUNY, 609 Baldy Hall, Buffalo NY 14260-1030, USA[email protected]
Author’s address: Université Paris Diderot–Paris 7, Case 7031 – 5, rue Thomas Mann, 75205 Paris cedex 13, France[email protected]
Author’s address: University of North Carolina, Department of Romance Studies, 332 Dey Hall, CB 3170 Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA[email protected]
Author’s address: Stanford University, CSLI, Cordura Hall, Stanford, CA 94305–2150, USA[email protected]
Author’s address: University of California, Berkeley, Department of Linguistics, Berkeley, California, 94720, USA[email protected]
Author’s address: University of Colorado Boulder, Department of Linguistics, 295UCB, Boulder, CO 80309, USA[email protected]
Author’s address: Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Faculty of Language Sciences, Unter den Linden 6, 10099 Berlin, Germany[email protected]
Author’s address: University of Edinburgh, Dugald Stewart Building, Edinburgh EH8 9AD, United Kingdom[email protected]
Author’s address: University of Leuven, Centrum voor Computerlinguïstiek, Blijde-Inkomststraat 13 bus 3315, 3000 Leuven, Belgium[email protected]
Author’s address: Stanford University, Department of Linguistics, Stanford, CA 94305–2150, USA[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The English auxiliary system exhibits many lexical exceptions and subregularities, and considerable dialectal variation, all of which are frequently omitted from generative analyses and discussions. This paper presents a detailed, movement-free account of the English Auxiliary System within Sign-Based Construction Grammar (Sag 2010, Michaelis 2011, Boas & Sag 2012) that utilizes techniques of lexicalist and construction-based analysis. The resulting conception of linguistic knowledge involves constraints that license hierarchical structures directly (as in context-free grammar), rather than by appeal to mappings over such structures. This allows English auxiliaries to be modeled as a class of verbs whose behavior is governed by general and class-specific constraints. Central to this account is a novel use of the feature aux, which is set both constructionally and lexically, allowing for a complex interplay between various grammatical constraints that captures a wide range of exceptional patterns, most notably the vexing distribution of unstressed do, and the fact that Ellipsis can interact with other aspects of the analysis to produce the feeding and blocking relations that are needed to generate the complex facts of EAS. The present approach, superior both descriptively and theoretically to existing transformational approaches, also serves to undermine views of the biology of language and acquisition such as Berwick et al. (2011), which are centered on mappings that manipulate hierarchical phrase structures in a structure-dependent fashion.

Keywords

auxiliariesenglishsemanticssign-based construction grammarsyntax
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 56 , Issue 1 , 01 February 2020 , pp. 87 - 155
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

The primary author of this paper, Ivan Sag, worked on aspects of the auxiliary system of English throughout his career in linguistics. He left a version of this comprehensive overview unfinished when he died in September 2013. His wish was that it should be finished and published as a co-authored journal article. The task of completion proved remarkably complex, and ultimately brought together a large cooperative team of his colleagues and friends – an outcome that would have greatly pleased him. A surprisingly large number of detailed problems had to be resolved by people well acquainted both with classical HPSG and the sign-based construction grammar (SBCG) that Ivan (with others) was developing over the last decade of his life. The order of names on the by-line of this paper reflects the various contributions to the work only imperfectly. The overall framework and content of the paper are entirely due to Sag; the vast majority of the rewriting was done by Chaves, who was in charge of the typescript throughout, and the other authors contributed by email in various ways to resolving the many problems that came up during the revision and refereeing. Ivan Sag acknowledged the financial support of the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation; the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation; The System Development Foundation; Stanford’s Center for the Study of Language and Information; Das Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung, und Technologie (Project Verbmobil); grant no. IRI-9612682 from the National Science Foundation; and grant no. 2000-5633 from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation to the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences. He expressed thanks to three anonymous JL reviewers of the first version he submitted to this journal, and to discussants including Farrell Ackerman, Emily Bender, Rajesh Bhatt, Bob Borsley, Joan Bresnan, Alex Clark, Ann Copestake, Bruno Estigarribia, Hana Filip, Chuck Fillmore, Dan Flickinger, Gerald Gazdar, Jonathan Ginzburg, Jane Grimshaw, Paul Hirschbühler, Dick Hudson, Paul Kay, Jongbok Kim, Paul Kiparsky, Tibor Kiss, Shalom Lappin, Bob Levine, Sally McConnell-Ginet, David Pesetsky, Carl Pollard, Eric Potsdam, Geoff Pullum, Peter Sells, Anthony Warner, Tom Wasow, and Arnold Zwicky. The co-authors of the present version wish to note the valuable assistance they had from Bob Borsley, Danièle Godard, and especially Bob Levine, plus three further JL reviewers of the final version.

References

Akmajian, Adrian. 1984. Sentence types and the form-function fit. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 2, 1–24.Google Scholar
Akmajian, Adrian & Wasow, Thomas. 1975. The constituent structure of vp and aux and the position of the verb be. Linguistic Analysis 1, 205–245.Google Scholar
Ambridge, Ben, Rowland, Caroline & Pine, Julian. 2008. Is structure dependence an innate constraint? new experimental evidence from children’s complex-question production. Cognitive Science 32, 222–255.10.1080/03640210701703766Google Scholar
Arnold, Doug & Borsley, Robert D.. 2010. Auxiliary-stranding relative clauses. In Müller, Stefan (ed.), Proceedings of the HPSG-2010 Conference, 47–67. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Baker, Carl Lee. 1989. English syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bender, Emily & Flickinger, Daniel P.. 1999. Peripheral constructions and core phenomena: Agreement in tag questions. In Webelhuth, Koenig & Kathol (eds.), 199–214.Google Scholar
Berwick, Robert C. & Chomsky, Noam. 2008. ‘Poverty of the Stimulus’ revisited: Recent challenges reconsidered. 30th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Berwick, Robert C., Pietroski, Paul, Yankama, Beracah & Chomsky, Noam. 2011. Poverty of the stimulus revisited. Cognitive Science 35, 1207–1242.Google Scholar
Binnick, Robert I. 1991. Time and the verb: A guide to tense and aspect. New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C. & Sag, Ivan A. (eds.). 2012. Sign-based construction grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bod, Rens. 2009. From exemplar to grammar: A probabilistic analogy-based model of language learning. Cognitive Science 33.5, 752–793.10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01031.xGoogle Scholar
Borsley, Robert(ed.). 2000. The nature and function of syntactic categories. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Borsley, Robert D. & Newmeyer, Frederick J.. 2009. On subject-auxiliary inversion and the notion ‘purely formal generalization’. Cognitive Linguistics 20.1, 135–143.10.1515/COGL.2009.007Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 2000. Optimal syntax. In Dekkers, Joost, van der Leeuw, Frank & van de Weijer, Jeroen (eds.), Optimality theory: Phonology, syntax and acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan W. 2001. Lexical-functional syntax. Oxford: Basil Blackwell’s.Google Scholar
Brew, Chris. 1995. Stochastic HPSG. Proceedings of the 7th Conference of the EACL. Dublin.Google Scholar
Briscoe, Ted & Copestake, Ann. 1999. Lexical rules in constraint-based grammar. Computational Linguistics 4.25, 487–526.Google Scholar
Carpenter, Patricia A., Just, Marcel Adam, Keller, Timothy A., Eddy, William F. & Thulborn, Keith R.. 1999. Time course of fmri-activation in language and spatial networks during sentence comprehension. NeuroImage 10, 216–224.10.1006/nimg.1999.0465Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1955. The logical structure of linguistic theory. Ms., Society of Fellows, Harvard University. Published in 1975 as The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theoryby Plenum. Now available from the University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1956. Three models for the description of language. IRE Transactions in Information Theory 2, 113–124.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binging. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In Hale, Ken & Keyser, Samuel J. (eds.), The view from building 20, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2010. Restricting stipulations: Consequences and challenges. Talk given at the Universitt Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Clark, Alexander & Eyraud, Rémi. 2006. Learning auxiliary fronting with grammatical inference. Proceedings of the 10th Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning CoNLL-X ’06, 125–132. Stroudsburg, PA, USA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Clark, Alexander & Lappin, Shalom. 2011. Linguistic nativism and the poverty of the stimulus. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Crain, Stephen & Nakayama, Mineharu. 1987. Structure dependence in grammar formation. Language 63.3, 522–543.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter. 1971. Syntactic and semantic investigations. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter & Jackendoff, Ray. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Di Sciullo, Anna Marie & Williams, Edwin. 1987. On the definition of word. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Donohue, Cathryn & Sag, Ivan A.. 1999. Domains in Warlpiri. Sixth International Conference on HPSG–Abstracts. 04–06 August 1999, 101–106. Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Embick, David & Noyer, Rolf. 2001. Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32.4, 555–595.10.1162/002438901753373005Google Scholar
Estigarribia, Bruno. 2007. Asking questions: Language variation and language acquisition. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Estigarribia, Bruno. 2010. Facilitation by variation: Right-to-left learning of english yes/no questions. Cognitive Science 34.1, 68–93.Google Scholar
Eynde, Frank Van. 2015. Predicative constructions: From the Fregean to a Montagovian treatment. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Falk, Yehuda N. 1984. The English auxiliary system: A lexical-functional analysis. Language 60, 483–509.10.2307/413988Google Scholar
Falk, Yehuda N. 2003. The English auxiliary system revisited. In Butt, Miriam & King, Tracy Holloway (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG03 Conference, 184–204.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1999. Inversion and constructional inheritance. In Webelhuth, Koenig & Kathol (eds.), (Studies in Constraint-Based Lexicalism, chap. 21), 113–128.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Paul, Kay & O’Connor, Mary C.. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64, 501–538.Google Scholar
Flickinger, Daniel P.1987. Lexical rules in the hierarchical lexicon. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Flickinger, Daniel P., Pollard, Carl J. & Wasow, Thomas. 1985. A computational semantics for natural language. Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Meeting of the ACL, 262–267. Chicago, IL: ACL.Google Scholar
Fodor, Janet Dean, Bever, Thomas G. & Garrett, Merrill F.. 1974. The psychology of language. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Freidin, Robert. 2004. Syntactic structures redux. Syntax 2.7, 101–127.10.1111/j.1467-9612.2004.00004.xGoogle Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald, Klein, Ewan, Pullum, Geoffrey K. & Sag, Ivan A.. 1985. Generalized phrase structure grammar. Oxford: Basil Blackwell’s and Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald & Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 1981. Subcategorization, constituent order and the notion of ‘head’. In Moortgat, Michael, van der Hulst, Harry & Hoekstra, Teun (eds.), The scope of lexical rules, 107–123. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald, Pullum, Geoffrey K. & Sag, Ivan A.. 1982. Auxiliaries and related phenomena in a restricted theory of grammar. Language 58, 591–638.Google Scholar
Ginzburg, Jonathan. 2012. The interactive stance: Meaning for conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ginzburg, Jonathan & Sag, Ivan A.. 2000. Interrogative investigations: The form, meaning, and use of English interrogatives. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2009. Constructions work. Cognitive Linguistics 20.1, 201–224.Google Scholar
Grice, Paul H. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Cole, P. & Morgan, J. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, vol. 3. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1997. Projections, heads, and optimality. Linguistic Inquiry 28, 373–422.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1991. Introduction to government and binding theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hankamer, Jorge. 1978. On the non-transformational derivations of some null NP anaphors. Linguistic Inquiry 9, 55–74.Google Scholar
Hankamer, Jorge & Sag, Ivan A.. 1976. Deep and surface anaphora. Linguistic Inquiry 7, 391–426.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence. 1972. On the semantic properties of logical operators in English, Ph.D. thesis, UCLA, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1989. A natural history of negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney. 1976. Some theoretical issues in the description of the English verb. Lingua 40, 331–383.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney D. & Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 1976a. Arguments for a non-transformational grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 1976b. Arguments for a non-transformational grammar. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 1977. The power of morphological rules. Lingua 42, 73–89.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 1990. English word grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 2000a. Grammar without functional categories. In Borsley(ed.), 7–35.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 2000b. *I amn’t. Language 76, 297–323.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Pauline. 2008. Direct compositionality and variable free semantics: The case of antecedent contained ellipsis. In Johnson, Kyle (ed.), Topics in ellipsis, 30–68. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jaeger, Florian T. & Wasow, Thomas. 2005. Production-complexity driven variation: Relativizer omission in non-subjectextracted relative clauses. In The 18th CUNNY Sentence Processing Conference, Tucson, AZ.Google Scholar
Johnson, David & Lappin, Shalom. 1999. Local constraints vs economy (Stanford Monongraphs in Linguistics), Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Ronald M. & Bresnan, Joan. 1982. Lexical-functional grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation. In Bresnan, Joan (ed.), The mental representation of grammatical relations, 173–281. MIT Press. Reprinted in Mary Dalrymple, Ronald Kaplan, John Maxwell and Annie Zaenen (eds.), Formal Issues in Lexical-Functional Grammar, 29–130. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kathol, Andreas. 1995. Linearization-based German syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Kathol, Andreas. 2000. Linear syntax. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kay, Paul & Fillmore, Charles. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The what’s x doing y? construction. Language 75.1, 1–33.Google Scholar
Kertz, Laura. 2010. Ellipsis reconsidered. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Kim, Christina S., Kobele, Gregory M., Runner, Jeffrey T. & Hale, John T.. 2011. The acceptability cline VP Ellipsis. Syntax 14.4, 318–354.10.1111/j.1467-9612.2011.00160.xGoogle Scholar
Kim, Jong-Bok. 2000. The grammar of negation: A constraint-based approach. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kim, Jong-Bok & Sag, Ivan A.. 2002. French and English negation without head-movement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 20.2, 339–412.Google Scholar
Klein, Ewan & Sag, Ivan A.. 1985. Type-driven translation. Linguistics & Philosophy 8, 163–201.Google Scholar
Klemola, Juhani. 1998. Semantics of doin southwestern dialects of English. In van Ostade, Ingrid Tieken-Boon, van der Wal, Marijke & van Leuvensteijn, Arjan (eds.), DO in English, Dutch and German: History and present-day variation (Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik 491), 25–51. Münster: Nodus Publikationen.Google Scholar
Klima, Edward S. 1964. Negation in English. In Fodor, Jerry A. & Katz, Jerrold J. (eds.), The structure of language: Readings in the philosophy of language, 246–323. Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Konieczny, Lars. 1996. Human sentence processing: A semantics-oriented parsing approach. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Freiburg.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1990. What, me, worry?: Mad magazine sentences revisited. Proceedings of the 16th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 215–228.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard. 1995. Verbal morphology: Syntactic structures meets the minimalist program. In Campos, Hector & Kempchinsky, Paula (eds.), Evolution and revolution in linguistic theory, 251–275. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard, Depiante, Marcela & Stepanov, Arthur. 2000. Syntactic structures revisited: Contemporary lectures on classic transformational theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/6592.001.0001Google Scholar
Lees, Robert B. 1957. Review of syntactic structures. Language 33.3, 375–408.Google Scholar
Levine, Robert D. 2012. Auxiliaries: To’s company. Journal of Linguistics 48, 187–203.Google Scholar
Levine, Robert D. 2013. The modal need VP gap (non)anomaly. In Csipak, Eva, Eckhardt, Regine, Liu, Mingya & Sailer, Manfred (eds.), Beyond ever and any: New perspectives on negative polarity sensitivity. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lewis, John D. & Elman, Jeffrey L.. 2001. Learnability and the statistical structure of language: Poverty of stimulus arguments revisited. Proceedings of the 26th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 359–370. Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Linadarki, Evita. 2006. Linguistic and statistical extensions of data oriented parsing. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Essex.Google Scholar
Marcus, Gary, Vouloumanos, Athena & Sag, Ivan A.. 2003. Does Broca’s play by the rules? Nature Neuroscience 7, 652–653.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1968. Concerning the base component of a transformational grammar. Foundations of Language 4.1, 55–81; Reprinted in Meaning and Grammar, 35–58. New York, NY: Academic Press. 1976.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura. 2011. Stative by construction. Linguistics 49, 1359–1400.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura & Lambrecht, Knud. 1996. Toward a construction-based model of language function: The case of nominal extraposition. Language 72, 215–247.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura & Ruppenhofer, Josef. 2001. Beyond alternations: A constructional account of the applicative pattern in German. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Mikkelsen, Line Hove. 2002. Specification is not inverted predication. Proceedings of NELS the North East Linguistic Society (NELS 32.2), 403–422.Google Scholar
Miller, Philip. 2013. Usage preferences: The case of the English verbal anaphor do so . In Müller, Stefan (ed.), Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 121–139. Freie Universität Berlin.Google Scholar
Miller, Philip & Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2013. Exophoric VP ellipsis. In Hofmeister, Philip & Norcliffe, Elisabeth (eds.), The core and the periphery: Data-driven perspectives on syntax inspired by Ivan A. Sag, 167–220. CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Miller, Philip & Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2014. Exophoric VP ellipsis. In Hofmeister, Philip & Norcliffe, Elisabeth (eds.), The core and the periphery: Data-driven perspectives on syntax inspired by Ivan A. Sag, 5–32. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Miyao, Yusuke & Tsujii, Junichi. 2008. Feature forest models for probabilistic HPSG parsing. Computational Linguistics 34.1, 35–80.10.1162/coli.2008.34.1.35Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 1995. Scrambling in German – Extraction into the Mittelfeld . In T’sou, Benjamin K. & Yeung Lai, Tom Bong (eds.), Proceedings of the 10th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation, 79–83. City University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 1999. Deutsche Syntax deklarativ: Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar für das Deutsche (Linguistische Arbeiten 394), Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2002. Blockaden und Deblockaden: Perfekt, Passiv und modale Infinitive. In Reitter, David (ed.), Proceedings of TaCoS 2002. Potsdam.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2004. An analysis of depictive secondary predicates in German without discontinuous constituents. In Müller, Stefan (ed.), Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, Center for Computational Linguistics, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 202–222. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2006. Phrasal or lexical constructions? Language 82.4, 850–883.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2007. Phrasal or lexical Constructions: Some comments on underspecification of constituent order, compositionality, and control. In Müller, Stefan (ed.), Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 373–393. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan & Wechsler, Steven. 2014. Lexical approaches to argument structure. Theoretical Linguistics 40, 1–76.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1998. Language form and language function. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nunberg, Geoff. 2001. Shall We? (on the legal profession’s attachment to shall). California Lawyer, March.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank R. 1965. A linguistic study of the English verb. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
Piattelli-Palmarini, Massimo. 1980. Language and learning: The debate between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl J. & Sag, Ivan A.. 1987. Information-based syntax and semantics, vol. 1 (CSLI Lecture Notes 13), Stanford: CSLI Publications [Distributed by University of Chicago Press].Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl J. & Sag, Ivan A.. 1994. Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Potts, Christopher. 2003. The logic of conventional implicatures. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. & Gazdar, Gerald. 1982. Natural languages and context-free languages. Linguistics & Philosophy 4, 471–504.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. & Scholz, Barbara C.. 2002. Empirical assessment of stimulus poverty arguments. The Linguistic Review 19, 9–50.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. & Zwicky, Arnold M.. 1997. Licensing of prosodic features by syntactic rules: The key to auxiliary reduction. Presented at Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America. [Abstract available at http://www-csli.stanford.edu/zwicky/LSA97.abst.pdf].Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew. 2004. Minimalist syntax – exploring the structure of English (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reali, Florencia & Christiansen, Morten H.. 2005. Uncovering the richness of the stimulus: Structure dependence and indirect statistical evidence. Cognitive Science 29, 1007–1028.Google Scholar
Reape, Mike. 1994. Domain union and word order variation in German. In Nerbonne, John, Netter, Klaus & Pollard, Carl J. (eds.), German in Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar (CSLI Lecture Notes 46), 151–197. Stanford University: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Ross, John R.1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. [Published in 1986 as Infinite Syntax! Norwood, NJ: Ablex.]Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1969. Auxiliaries as main verbs. In Todd, W. (ed.), Studies in philosophical linguistics Series 1. Evanston, IL: Great Expectations Press.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 1997. English relative clause constructions. Journal of Linguistics 33.2, 431–484.10.1017/S002222679700652XGoogle Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 2010. English filler-gap constructions. Language 86, 486–545.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 2012. Sign-based construction grammar: An informal synopsis. In Boas & Sag (eds.), 69–202.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. & Nykiel, Joanna. 2011. Remarks on sluicing. In Müller, Stefan (ed.), Proceedings of the HPSG-2011 Conference, University of Washington, 188–208. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. & Wasow, Thomas. 2015. Flexible processing and the design of grammar. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 44, 47–63.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A., Wasow, Thomas & Bender, Emily M.. 2003. Syntactic theory: A formal introduction, 2nd edn. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Scholz, Barbara C. & Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2006. Irrational nativist exuberance. In Stainton, Robert (ed.), Contemporary debates in cognitive science, 59–80. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schütze, Carson T. 2004. Synchronic and diachronic microvariation in English do . Lingua 114, 495–516.Google Scholar
Shieber, Stuart M.1986. Introduction to unification-based approaches to grammar, (CSLI Lecture Notes Series 4). Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Slobin, Dan I. 1966. Grammatical transformations and sentence comprehension in childhood and adulthood. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 5, 219–227.Google Scholar
Staab, Jenny. 2007. Negation in context: Electrophysiological and behavioral investigations of negation effects in discourse processing. UCSD/SDSU Doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Starosta, Stanley. 1985. The great AUX cataclysm. University of Hawaii Working Papers in Linguistics 17.2, 95–114.Google Scholar
Steedman, Mark. 1996. Surface structure and interpretation Linguistic Inquiry Monograph No. 30. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Steedman, Mark. 2000. The syntactic process Linguistic Inquiry Monograph No. 30. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.Google Scholar
Stump, Gregory T. 1985. The semantic variability of absolute constructions (Synthese Language Library). Dordrecht: Reidel.10.1007/978-94-009-5277-5Google Scholar
Tanenhaus, Michael, Eberhard, K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. & Sedivy, J.. 1995. Integration of visual and linguistic information during spoken language comprehension. Science 268, 1632–1634.Google Scholar
Walter, Mary Ann & Jaeger, T. Florian. 2005. Constraints on complementizer/relativizer drop: A strong lexical ocp effect of that. Proceedings of the 41st annual meeting of the Chicago linguistics society. Chicago, IL: CLS.Google Scholar
Warner, Anthony. 2000. English auxiliaries without lexical rules. In Borsley(ed.), (Syntax and Semantics 32), 167–220.Google Scholar
Warner, Anthony R.1993. The grammar of English auxiliaries: An account in HPSG. Research Paper YLLS/RP 1993-4 Department of Language and Linguistic Science University of York.Google Scholar
Wason, Peter Cathcart. 1961. Response to affirmative and negative binary statements. British Journal of Psychology 63.2, 133–142.Google Scholar
Webelhuth, Gert, Koenig, Jean-Pierre & Kathol, Andreas (eds.). 1999. Lexical and constructional aspects of linguistic explanation. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1986. The unaccented pronoun constraint in English. In Zwicky, Arnold M. (ed.), Interfaces, Ohio state university (Working Papers in Linguistics 32), 100–114. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University, Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1994. Dealing out meaning. Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 611–625. Berkeley: BLS.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. & Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 1983. Cliticization versus inflection: English n’t. Language 59, 502–513.Google Scholar