Hostname: page-component-699b5d5946-lz95w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-02-28T15:46:47.247Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Phrasal or lexical constructions?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Stefan Müller
Stefan Müller*
Affiliation:
University of Bremen
*
Theoretische Linguistik/Computerlinguistik, Universität Bremen, Fachbereich 10, Postfach 33 04 40, D-28334 Bremen, Germany
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Information

Type
Discussion Note
Information
Language , Volume 82 , Issue 4 , December 2006 , pp. 850 - 883
Copyright
Copyright © 2006 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, and Webelhuth, Gert. 1998. A theory of predicates. (CSLI lecture notes 76.) Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Aït-Kaci, Hassan, Boyer, Robert, Lincoln, Patrick; and Nasr, Roger. 1989. Efficient implementation of lattice operations. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 11.1.115–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boas, Hans Christian. 2003. A constructional approach to resultatives. (Stanford monographs in linguistics.) Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Borsley, Robert D. 2004. An approach to English comparative correlatives. In Müller 2004, 70–92.Google Scholar
Bouma, Gosse, Malouf, Rob; and Sag, Ivan A. 2001. Satisfying constraints on extraction and adjunction. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 19.1.1–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1982. The passive in lexical theory. The mental representation of grammatical relations (Cognitive theory and mental representation), ed. by Bresnan, Joan, 3–86. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Mchombo, Sam A. 1995. The lexical integrity principle: Evidence from Bantu. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13. 181–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butt, Miriam. 1997. Complex predicates in Urdu. Complex predicates (CSLI lecture notes 64), ed. by Alsina, Alex, Bresnan, Joan, and Sells, Peter, 107–49. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Carpenter, Bob. 1992. The logic of typed feature structures. (Cambridge tracts in theoretical computer science 32.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Peter, and Porter, Bruce. 2004. KM—The knowledge machine 2.0: Users manual. Online: http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/mfkb/km/userman.pdf.Google Scholar
Copestake, Ann, Flickinger, Dan, Pollard, Carl; and Sag, Ivan A. 2005. Minimal recursion semantics: An introduction. Research on Language and Computation 4.3.281–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Anthony R., and Koenig, Jean-Pierre. 2000. Linking as constraints on word classes in a hierarchical lexicon. Language 76.1.56–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel. 1995. Particles. On the syntax of verb-particle, triadic, and causative constructions. (Oxford studies in comparative syntax.) Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1978. Governed transformations as lexical rules in a Montague grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 9.3.393–426.Google Scholar
Dowty, David R. 1979. Word meaning and Montague grammar. (Synthese language library 7.) Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dürscheid, Christa. 2002. „Polemik satt und Wahlkampf pur“—Das postnominale Adjektiv im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 21.1.57–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Embick, David. 2004. On the structure of resultative participles in English. Linguistic Inquiry 35.3.355–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert. 2001. Features, θ-roles, and free constituent order. Linguistic Inquiry 32.3.405–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert. 2002. Against remnant VP-movement. Dimensions of movement: From features to remnants (Linguistik aktuell/Linguistics today 48), ed. by Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena, Barbiers, Sjef, and Gärtner, Hans-Martin, 91–127. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1999. Inversion and constructional inheritance. Lexical and constructional aspects of linguistic explanation (Studies in constraint-based lexicalism 1), ed. by Webelhuth, Gert, Koenig, Jean-Pierre, and Kathol, Andreas, 113–28. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Kay, Paul; and O'Connor, Mary Catherine. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64.3.501–38.Google Scholar
Fleischer, Wolfgang. 1982. Phraseologie der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Leipzig: VEB Bibliographisches Institut Leipzig.Google Scholar
Fleischer, Wolfgang, and Barz, Irmhild. 1995. Wortbildung der deutschen Gegenwartssprache. 2nd edn. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Frey, Werner, and Gärtner, Hans-Martin. 2002. On the treatment of scrambling and adjunction in minimalist grammars. Proceedings of Formal Grammar 2002, ed. by Jäger, Gerhard, Monachesi, Paola, Penn, Gerald, and Wintner, Shuly, 41–52.Google Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald, Klein, Ewan, Pullum, Geoffrey K.; and Sag, Ivan A. 1985. Generalized phrase structure grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Geach, Peter Thomas. 1970. A program for syntax. Synthese 22. 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginzburg, Jonathan, and Sag, Ivan A. 2001. Interrogative investigations: The form, meaning, and use of English interrogatives. (CSLI lecture notes 123.) Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. (Cognitive theory of language and culture.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1996. Optimizing constraints and the Persian complex predicate. Berkeley Linguistics Society 22. 132–46.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2003. Words by default: The Persian complex predicate construction. Mismatch: Form-function incongruity and the architecture of grammar (CSLI lecture notes 163), ed. by Francis, Elaine J. and Michaelis, Laura A., 117–46. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E., and Jackendoff, Ray S. 2004. The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language 80.3.532–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haider, Hubert. 1986. Fehlende Argumente: Vom Passiv zu kohärenten Infinitiven. Linguistische Berichte 101. 3–33.Google Scholar
Haugereid, Petter. 2004. Linking in constructions. In Müller 2004, 414–22.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, Erhard W., and Nakazawa, Tsuneko. 1989. Subcategorization and VP structure in German. Aspects of German VP structure. (SfS report 1–93.) Tübingen: Eberhard-Karls-Universität.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, Erhard W., and Nakazawa, Tsuneko. 1994. Linearizing AUXs in German verbal complexes. In Nerbonne, et al., 11–38.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Teun. 1988. Small clause results. Lingua 74. 101–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1997. The architecture of the language faculty. (Linguistic Inquiry monographs 28.) Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Janda, Richard. 1998. German umlaut: Morpholexical all the way down from OHG through NHG (Two Stützpunkte for Romance metaphony). Rivista di linguistica 10.1.163–232.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. 1997. How general are our generalizations? What speakers actually know and what they actually do. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL '96), ed. by Green, Anthony D. and Motopanyane, V., 148–60. Ithaca: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Kasper, Robert T. 1994. Adjuncts in the Mittelfeld. In Nerbonne, et al., 39–70.Google Scholar
Kathol, Andreas. 1994. Passives without lexical rules. In Nerbonne, et al., 237–72.Google Scholar
Kathol, Andreas. 1997. Concrete minimalism of German. Zur Satzstruktur im Deutschen (Arbeitspapiere des SFB 340, 90), ed. by d'Avis, Franz-Josef and Lutz, Uli, 81–106. Tübingen: Eberhard-Karls-Universität.Google Scholar
Kathol, Andreas. 1998. Constituency and linearization of verbal complexes. Complex predicates in nonderivational syntax (Syntax and semantics 30), ed. by Hinrichs, Erhard W., Kathol, Andreas, and Nakazawa, Tsuneko, 221–70. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kathol, Andreas. 1999. Agreement and the syntax-morphology interface in HPSG. Studies in contemporary phrase structure grammar, ed. by Levine, Robert D. and Green, Georgia M., 223–74. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kathol, Andreas. 2000. Linear syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufmann, Ingrid. 1995. Konzeptuelle Grundlagen semantischer Dekompositionsstrukturen. (Die Kombinatorik lokaler Verben und prädikativer Linguistische Arbeiten 335.) Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, Paul. 2002. An informal sketch of a formal architecture for construction grammar. Grammars 5.1.1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kay, Paul. 2005. Argument structure constructions and the argument-adjunct distinction. Grammatical constructions: Back to the roots. (Constructional approaches to language 4), ed. by Fried, Mirjam and Boas, Hans C., 71–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kay, Paul, and Fillmore, Charles J. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What's X doing Y? construction. Language 75.1.1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiss, Tibor, and Wesche, Birgit. 1991. Verb order and head movement. Text understanding in LILOG (Lecture notes in artificial intelligence 546), ed. by Herzog, Otthein and Rollinger, Claus-Rainer, 216–42. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Koch, Wolfgang, and Rosengren, Inger. 1995. Secondary predications: Their grammatical and conceptual structure. (Forschungsprogramm Sprache und Pragmatik 35.) Lund: Germanistisches Institut der Universität Lund.Google Scholar
Koenig, Jean-Pierre. 1999. Lexical relations. (Stanford monographs in linguistics.) Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Krenn, Brigitte, and Erbach, Gregor. 1994. Idioms and support verb constructions. In Nerbonne, et al., 365–96.Google Scholar
Krieger, Hans-Ulrich, Drożyżdński, Witold, Piskorski, Jakub, Schäfer, Ulrich; and Xu, Feiyu. 2004. A bag of useful techniques for unification-based finite-state transducers. Proceedings of 7th KONVENS, ed. by Buchberger, Ernst, 105–12.Google Scholar
Krieger, Hans-Ulrich, and Nerbonne, John. 1993. Feature-based inheritance networks for computational lexicons. Inheritance, defaults, and the lexicon, ed. by Briscoe, Ted, Copestake, Ann, and Paiva, Valeria de, 90–136. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [A version of this paper is available as DFKI Research Report RR-91-31 at http://www.dfki.de/lt/publications_show.php?id=342. Also published in: Proceedings of the ACQUILEX Workshop on Default Inheritance in the Lexicon (Technical report 238), Cambridge: University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory, 1991.]Google Scholar
Lüdeling, Anke. 2001. On particle verbs and similar constructions in German. (Dissertations in linguistics.) Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Meurers, Walt Detmar. 1999. Raising spirits (and assigning them case). Groninger Arbeiten zur Germanistischen Linguistik (GAGL) 43. 173–226.Google Scholar
Meurers, Walt Detmar. 2001. On expressing lexical generalizations in HPSG. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 24.2.161–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A., and Ruppenhofer, Josef. 2001. Beyond alternations: A constructional model of the German applicative pattern. (Stanford monographs in linguistics.) Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 1999. Deutsche Syntax deklarativ: Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar für das Deutsche. (Linguistische Arbeiten 394.) Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2002. Complex predicates: Verbal complexes, resultative constructions, and particle verbs in German. (Studies in constraint-based lexicalism 13.) Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2003a. The morphology of German particle verbs: Solving the bracketing paradox. Journal of Linguistics 39.2.275–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2003b. Object-to-subject-raising and lexical rule: An analysis of the German passive. Proceedings of the HPSG '03 Conference, ed. by Müller, Stefan, 278–97. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Online: http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/HPSG/4/.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan (ed.) 2004. Proceedings of the HPSG '04 Conference. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Online: http://cslipublications.stanford.edu/HPSG/5/.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2005a. Default inheritance and derivational morphology. Bremen: Universität Bremen, ms. Online: http://www.cl.uni-bremen.de/~stefan/Pub/default-morph.html.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2005b. Zur Analyse der deutschen Satzstruktur. Linguistische Berichte 201. 3–39.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2005c. Zur Analyse der scheinbar mehrfachen Vorfeldbesetzung. Linguistische Berichte 203. 297–330.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2007a. Elliptical constructions, multiple frontings, and surface-based syntax. Proceedings of Formal Grammar 2004, ed. by Jäger, Gerhard, Monachesi, Paola, Penn, Gerald, and Wintner, Shuly. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, to appear. Online: http://www.cl.uni-bremen.de/~stefan/Pub/surface.html.Google Scholar
Müller, Stefan. 2007b. Head-driven phrase structure grammar: Eine Einführung. (Stauffenburg Einführungen.) Tübingen: Stauffenburg, to appear.Google Scholar
Neeleman, Ad. 1994. Complex predicates. Utrecht: Onderzoeksinstituut voor Taal en Spraak (OTS) dissertation. Online: http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/ad/2.html.Google Scholar
Neeleman, Ad. 1995. Complex predicates in Dutch and English. Studies in comparative Germanic syntax (Studies in natural language and linguistic theory 31), ed. by Haider, Hubert, Olsen, Susan, and Vikner, Sten, 219–40. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Neeleman, Ad, and Weermann, Fred. 1993. The balance between syntax and morphology: Dutch particles and resultatives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11. 433–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nerbonne, John, Netter, Klaus; and Pollard, Carl J. (eds.) 1994. German in head-driven phrase structure grammar. (CSLI lecture notes 46.) Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Nunberg, Geoffrey, Sag, Ivan A.; and Wasow, Thomas. 1994. Idioms. Language 70.3.491–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orgun, Cemil Orhan. 1996. Sign-based morphology and phonology. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley dissertation.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl J., and Moshier, Andrew M. 1990. Unifying partial descriptions of sets. Information, language and cognition (Vancouver studies in cognitive science 1), ed. by Hanson, P., 285–322. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl J., and Sag, Ivan A. 1987. Information-based syntax and semantics. (CSLI lecture notes 13.) Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Pollard, Carl J., and Sag, Ivan A. 1994. Head-driven phrase structure grammar. (Studies in contemporary linguistics.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Reape, Mike. 1994. Domain union and word order variation in German. In Nerbonne, et al., 151–98.Google Scholar
Riehemann, Susanne Z. 1998. Type-based derivational morphology. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 2. 49–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, Susan D. 1985. The syntactic forms of predication. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University. [Reproduced by the Indiana University Linguistics Club.]Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 1997. English relative clause constructions. Journal of Linguistics 33.2.431–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 2007. Remarks on locality. Locality of grammatical relationships (OSU working papers in linguistics 58), ed. by Meurers, Walt Detmar and Levine, Robert D.. Columbus: The Ohio State University, Department of Linguistics, to appear.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A., and Fodor, Janet D. 1994. Extraction without traces. Proceedings of the Thirteenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 13), ed. by Aranovich, Raul, Byrne, William, Preuss, Susanne, and Senturia, Martha, 365–84. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications/Student Linguistics Association.Google Scholar
Sailer, Manfred. 2000. Combinatorial semantics and idiomatic expressions in head-driven phrase structure grammar. Tübingen: Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen dissertation. Online: http://w210.ub.uni-tuebingen.de/dbt/volltexte/2003/916/.Google Scholar
Simpson, Jane. 1983. Resultatives. Papers in lexical functional grammar, ed. by Levin, Lori S., Rappaport, Malka, and Zaenen, Annie, 143–57. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Söhn, Jan-Philipp, and Sailer, Manfred. 2003. At first blush on tenterhooks: About selectional restrictions imposed by nonheads. Proceedings of Formal Grammar 2003, Vienna, Austria, ed. by Jäger, Gerhard, Monachesi, Paola, Penn, Gerald, and Wintner, Shuly, 149–61. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Steedman, Mark. 2002. The syntactic process. Language, speech, and communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
van Noord, Gertjan, and Bouma, Gosse. 1994. The scope of adjuncts and the processing of lexical rules. Proceedings of COLING 94, ed. by Staff, COLING, 250–56. Kyoto: Association for Computational Linguistics. Online: http://www.let.rug.nl/~vannoord/papers/.Google Scholar
Verspoor, Cornelia Maria. 1997. Contextually-dependent lexical semantics. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh dissertation. Online: ftp://ftp.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/pub/kversp/thesis.ps.gz.Google Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen. 1997. Resultative predicates and control. Texas Linguistic Forum 38: The syntax and semantics of predication (Proceedings of the 1997 Texas Linguistics Society Conference), ed. by Blight, Ralph C. and Moosally, Michelle J., 307–21. Austin: University of Texas Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Wechsler, Stephen, and Noh, Bokyung. 2001. On resultative predicates and clauses: Parallels between Korean and English. Language Sciences 23. 391–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wegener, Heide. 1985. Der Dativ im heutigen Deutsch. (Studien zur deutschen Grammatik 28.) Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Wunderlich, Dieter. 1992. CAUSE and the structure of verbs. (Arbeiten des SFB 282, 36.) Düsseldorf: Heinrich Heine University.Google Scholar
Wunderlich, Dieter. 1997. Argument extension by lexical adjunction. Journal of Semantics 14.2.95–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wunderlich, Dieter. 1999. Prelexical syntax and the voice hypothesis. Audiatur Vox Sapientiae: Festschrift for Arnim von Stechow, ed. by Féry, Caroline and Sternefeld, Wolfgang, 497–523. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar