Headless Constructions and Coercion by Construction

Among the many relations which play a role in syntactic and semantic generalizations one has carried a unique historic burden as the regulator of interaction between the two levels: that of head. While the canon of heads has been expanded to include an array of nonlexical categories, as in the functional projections of the minimalist program (see, e.g., Marantz 1995, Radford 1997), syntactic theorists have not traditionally questioned the centrality of heads to the syntax-semantics mapping: heads license complements, adjuncts and specifiers; they thereby determine the allowable expansions of the syntactic categories to which they belong. Licensing relationships are accordingly assumed to be sisterhood relationships. Under this assumption, there are no properties of the syntax-semantics interface which cannot be described by phrase-structure rules like those in (1):

[1]  M. Joos,et al.  The English verb : form and meanings = 英語の動詞 : 形式と意味 , 1965 .

[2]  David R. Dowty.  Toward a semantic analysis of verb aspect and the English ‘imperfective’ progressive , 1977 .

[3]  Alexander P. D. Mourelatos.  Events, processes, and states , 1978 .

[4]  Frank Vlach,et al.  The semantics of the progressive , 1981 .

[5]  R. Langacker.  Foundations of cognitive grammar , 1983 .

[6]  C. Pollard,et al.  Center for the Study of Language and Information , 2022 .

[7]  Barbara H. Partes.  Nominal and temporal anaphora , 1984 .

[8]  Robin Cooper.  Tense and discourse location in situation semantics , 1986 .

[9]  ANATOLIJ DORODNIKH.  THE ENGLISH PROGRESSIVE AND OTHER VERB FORMS IN A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE , 1989 .

[10]  Richard Hudson,et al.  Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume 1. Theoretical prerequisites , 1990 .

[11]  Terence Parsons,et al.  Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics , 1990 .

[12]  Barbara H. Partee,et al.  Adverbial Quantification and Event Structures , 1991 .

[13]  Michael Herweg.  Perfective and imperfective aspect and the theory of events and states , 1991 .

[14]  Carlota S. Smith,et al.  The Parameter of Aspect , 1991 .

[15]  Donna Jo Napoli,et al.  Paratactic and subordinative So , 1993, Journal of Linguistics.

[16]  Laura A. Michaelis.  A case of constructional polysemy in Latin , 1994 .

[17]  Ivan A. Sag,et al.  Book Reviews: Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar and German in Head-driven Phrase-structure Grammar , 1996, CL.

[18]  Revere D. Perkins,et al.  The Evolution of Grammar , 1994 .

[19]  Kathleen Carey.  Pragmatics, subjectivity and the grammaticalization of the English perfect , 1994 .

[20]  J. Bresnan,et al.  The lexical integrity principle: Evidence from Bantu , 1995 .

[21]  Joan L. Bybee,et al.  Regular morphology and the lexicon. , 1995 .

[22]  Alec Marantz,et al.  The minimalist program , 1995 .

[23]  Laura A. Michaelis,et al.  TOWARD A CONSTRUCTION-BASED THEORY OF LANGUAGE FUNCTION : THE CASE OF NOMINAL EXTRAPOSITION , 1996 .

[24]  Ray Jackendoff,et al.  The Architecture of the Language Faculty , 1996 .

[25]  William Croft,et al.  What’s a Head? , 1996 .

[26]  Michael Israel.  The Way Constructions Grow 1 , 1996 .

[27]  Randy J. LaPolla,et al.  Syntax: Structure, Meaning, and Function , 1999 .

[28]  Andrew Radford,et al.  句法学:最简方案导论 = Syntax : a minimalist introduction , 1997 .

[29]  Balthasar Bickel,et al.  Aspectual scope and the difference between logical and semantic representation , 1997 .

[30]  Henriëtte de Swart,et al.  Aspect shift and coercion , 1998 .

[31]  C. Fillmore,et al.  Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What's X doing Y? construction , 1999 .

[32]  Josef Ruppenhofer,et al.  Beyond alternations : a constructional model of the German applicative pattern , 2001 .