Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-m58mf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-06-15T06:25:50.639Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Grammatical Constructions and Linguistic Generalizations: The What's X doing Y? Construction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Paul Kay  and
Charles J. Fillmore
Paul Kay*
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Charles J. Fillmore*
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
*
Paul Kay, Charles J. Fillmore, Department of Linguistics, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720 [kay@cogsci.berkeley.edu]
[fillmore@icsi.berkeley.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Our goal is to present, by means of the detailed analysis of a single grammatical problem, some of the principal commitments and mechanisms of a grammatical theory that assigns a central role to the notion of grammatical construction. To adopt a constructional approach is to undertake a commitment in principle to account for the entirety of each language. This means that the relatively general patterns of the language, such as the one licensing the ordering of a finite auxiliary verb before its subject in English, often known as SAI, and the highly idiomatic patterns, like kick the bucket, stand on an equal footing as data for which the grammar must account. An explicit grammar that covers the full range of constructions must represent all constructions, of whatever degree of generality or idiomaticity, in a common notation and must provide an explicit account of how each sentence of a language is licensed by a subset of the leaves of the inheritance hierarchy of constructions which constitutes the grammar of that language. Language-internal generalizations are captured by inheritance relations among constructions. Cross-language generalizations are captured by the architecture of the representation system and by the sharing of abstract constructions across languages. The particular grammatical phenomenon used here to introduce construction grammar (CG) is the construction that licenses the surprising syntactic and semantic features of a sentence like What are they doing resuscitating constructions?

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 75 , Issue 1 , March 1999 , pp. 1 - 33
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 Linguistic Society of America

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ackerman, Farrell. 1995. A predicate construction: Inversion in Polish. Essays in semantics and pragmatics: In honor of Charles J. Fillmore, ed. by Shibatani, Masayoshi and Thompson, Sandra A., 1–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ackerman, Farrell. 1998. Constructions and mixed categories: Determining the semantic interpretation of person/number marking. Proceedings of the LFG98 Conference, ed. by Butt, Miriam and King, Tracy Holloway. Stanford: CSLI Publications (http://www.csli.stanford.edu/publications/LFG3/lfg98.html)Google Scholar
Ackerman, Farrell, and Webelhuth, Gert. 1998. A theory of predicates. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1977. Meaning and form. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan W. (ed.) 1982. The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan W., and Kanerva, J. M. 1989. Locative inversion in Chichewa. Linguistic Inquiry 20:1–50.Google Scholar
Brugman, Claudia. 1986. Sisterhood is more powerful than you thought: Scopai adverb placement and illocutionary force. Chicago Linguistic Society 22. 40–53.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995a. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995b. Bare phrase structure. Government and binding theory and the minimalist program: Principles and parameters in syntactic theory, ed. by Webelhuth, Gert, 428–67. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chung, Yoon-Suk. 1995. On a scalar operator. Berkeley Linguistics Society 21. 44–59.Google Scholar
Chung, Yoon-Suk. 1999. The tough construction is neither extraction nor control. Berkeley Linguistics Society 24, to appear.Google Scholar
Chung, Yoon-Suk, and Gammon, David. 1996. Easy-class adjectives in Old English: A constructional approach. Berkeley Linguistics Society 22. 58–70.Google Scholar
Copestake, Ann, Flickinger, Dan, Malouf, Robert, Riehemann, Susanne; and Sag, Ivan A. 1995. Translation using minimal recursion semantics. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Theoretical and Methodological Issues in Machine Translation, 15–32. Leuven.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W., and Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. Semantic subordination despite syntactic coordination. Linguistic Inquiry 28. 195–217.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary. 1993. The syntax of anaphoric binding. (CSLI Lecture Notes no. 36.) Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Davis, Anthony. 1996. Lexical semantics and linking and the hierarchical lexicon. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Filip, Hana. 1993. Aspect, situation types and nominal reference. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley dissertation.Google Scholar
Filip, Hana. 1999. Integrating telicity, aspect and NP semantics: The role of thematic structure. Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics 3, ed. by Toman, Jindrich. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications, to appear.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. Frame semantics. Linguistics in the morning calm, ed. by Society, Linguistic Korea, of, 111–38. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1985a. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica 6. 222–53.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1985b. Pragmatically controlled zero anaphora. Berkeley Linguistics Society 12. 95–107.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1986. Varieties of conditional sentences. Eastern States Conference on Linguistics 3. 163–82.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1996. The new feature structure decisions. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley, @@sc@@ms@@/sc@@. (http://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/~fillmore/FSrev.html)Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., and Kay, Paul. 1999. Construction Grammar. Stanford. CA: CSLI, to appear.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J.; and O'Connor, Mary Catherine. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64. 501–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fried, Mirjam. 1995. Grammatical subject and its role in the grammar of case languages. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley dissertation.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald, Pullum, Geoffrey K.; and Sag, Ivan A. 1982. Auxiliaries and related phenomena in a restricted theory of grammar. Language 58. 591–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald, Klein, Ewan, Pullum, Geoffrey; and Sag, Ivan A. 1985. Generalized phrase structure grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1996. Jackendoff and construction-based grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 7:3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon, and Orgun, Cemil Orhan. 1995. Level ordering and economy in the lexical phonology of Turkish. Language 71. 763–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge. MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1993. The boundaries of the lexicon. Waltham, MA: Brandeis University, @@sc@@ms@@/sc@@.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1997. Twistin' the night away. Language 73. 534–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jurafsky, Daniel. 1996. A probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and disambiguation. Cognitive Science 20. 137–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, Ronald M., Maxwell, John, Zaenan, Annie; and Dalrymple, Mary. 1992. A conservative extension of the functional uncertainty notation. Palo Alto, CA: Xerox Parc, @@sc@@ms@@/sc@@.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Ronald M., and Zaenen, Annie. 1989. Long-distance dependencies, constituent structure, and functional uncertainty. Alternative conceptions of phrase structure, ed. by Baltin, Mark and Kroch, Anthony S., 17–42. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kathol, Andreas. 1995. Linearization-based German syntax. Columbus: Ohio State University dissertation.Google Scholar
Kay, Martin. 1983. Functional grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society 5. 142–58.Google Scholar
Kay, Paul. 1990. EVEN. Linguistics and Philosophy 13. 59–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, Paul. 1994. Anaphoric binding in construction grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society 20. 83–299.Google Scholar
Kay, Paul. 1996a. Argument structure: Causative ABC constructions. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley, @@sc@@ms@@/sc@@. (http://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/~fillmore/5/lec05.html)Google Scholar
Kay, Paul. 1996b. Head principles and headed constructions. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley, @@sc@@ms@@/sc@@. (http://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/~fillmore/3/lec03.html)Google Scholar
Kay, Paul. 1998. An informal sketch of a formal architecture for construction grammar. Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Formal Grammar, HPSG, and Categorial Grammar Conference, Saarbrücken, ed. by Bouma, Gosse, Kruiff, Geert-Jan, and Oehrle, Richard T., 175–84.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1987. Morphology and grammatical relations. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, @@sc@@ms@@/sc@@.Google Scholar
Koenig, Jean-Pierre. 1993. Linking constructions vs. linking rules: Evidence from French. Berkeley Linguistics Society 19. 217–31.Google Scholar
Koenig, Jean-Pierre. 1994. Lexical underspecification and the syntax/semantic interface. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley dissertation.Google Scholar
Koenig, Jean-Pierre, and Jurafsky, Daniel. 1994. Type underspecification and on-line construction. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 13. 270–85.Google Scholar
Koenig, Jean-Pierre, and Lambrecht, Knud. 1998. French relative clauses as secondary predicates: A case study in construction theory, @@sc@@ms@@/sc@@.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1995. Compositional vs. constructional meaning: The case of French comme N. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 5, ed. by Galloway, T. and Simons, M., 186–203. Ithaca, NY: Linguistics Department, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1997. French relative clauses as secondary predicates. Proceedings of the 1997 Texas Linguistics Society Conference, ed. by Blight, Ralph C. and Moosally, Michelle J., 205–22. Austin: Linguistics Department, University of Texas.Google Scholar
Levin, Lori. 1986. Operations on lexical forms: Unaccusative rules in Germanic languages. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. (published by Garland: New York. 1988).Google Scholar
Malouf, Rob. 1996. A constructional approach to English verbal gerunds. Berkeley Linguistics Society 22. 255–66.Google Scholar
McCawley, James. 1987. The focus and scope of only. Chicago: University of Chicago, MS.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura. 1994. A case of constructional polysemy in Latin. Studies in Language 18. 45–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, Laura, and Lambrecht, Knud. 1996. Toward a construction-based theory of language function: The case of nominal extraposition. Language 72. 215–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunberg, Geoffrey, Sag, Ivan A.; and Wasow, Thomas A. 1994. Idioms. Language 70. 491–538.Google Scholar
O'Connor, M. C. 1995. The situated interpretation of possessor raising. Essays in semantics and pragmatics: In honor of Charles J. Fillmore, ed. by Shibatani, Masayoshi and Thompson, Sandra A., 125–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ohara, KyokoHirose. 1994. An event-reporting relative construction in Japanese. Berkeley Linguistics Society 20. 260–72.Google Scholar
Orgun, Cemil Orhan. 1996a. Suspended affixation: A new look at the phonology-morphology interface. Interfaces in phonology, ed. by Kleinhenz, Ursula, 251–61. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Orgun, Cemil Orhan. 1996b. Sign-based morphology and phonology with special attention to optimality theory. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley dissertation.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl, and Sag, Ivan. 1994. Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Stanford & Chicago: Center for the Study of Language and Information of Stanford University & University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1973. What's a sentence like this doing showing up in English? York Papers in Linguistics 3. 113–15.Google Scholar
Radetsky, Paula Kadose, and Smith, Tomoko Yamashita. 1999. A unified account of the Japanese causative, moraw-benefactive, and passive constructions. Berkeley Linguistics Society 24, to appear.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1969. Auxiliaries as main verbs. Journal of Philosophical Linguistics. 1.77–102.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 1997. English relative clause constructions. Journal of Linguistics 33. 431–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sag, Ivan A., and Pollard, Carl. 1991. An integrated theory of complement control. Language 67. 63–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shieber, Stuart. 1986, An introduction to unification-based approaches to grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert. 1990. Semantic parameters of split intransitivity. Language 66. 221–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, Robert. 1993. A synopsis of role and reference grammar. Advances in role and reference grammar, ed. by Van Valin, R. D., 1–164. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold. 1994. Dealing out meaning: Fundamentals of syntactic constructions. Berkeley Linguistics Society 20. 611–24.Google Scholar