A construction grammar analysis of the transitive be perfect in present-day Canadian English. Yerastov, Y. English Language and Linguistics, 19(01):157–178, March, 2015. doi abstract bibtex This article offers a syntactic analysis of the construction [be done NP], e.g. I am done dinner, I am finished my homework, as found in Canadian English and some US dialects. After situating this construction in the context of a productive transitive be perfect in Scots/English dialects, [be done NP] will be distinguished from a set of its conceptual and structural relatives, and ultimately be shown not to be reducible to a surface realization of another underlying structure. From the perspective of syntactic theory, the article problematizes the parsimony of the mainstream generative approach (most recently in MacFadden & Alexiadou 2010) in accounting for the facts of [be done NP] on strictly compositional grounds, as well as the mainstream view of lexical items as projecting theta grids and subcategorization frames (as e.g. in Grimshaw 1979; Emonds 2000). Following Fillmore et al. (1988), Goldberg (1995, 2005) and others, what will be suggested instead is a construction grammar approach to [be done NP], under which a construction holistically licenses its argument structure. Along these lines [be done NP] will be characterized as an abstract construction with some fixed material.
@article{yerastov_construction_2015,
title = {A construction grammar analysis of the transitive be perfect in present-day {Canadian} {English}},
volume = {19},
issn = {1469-4379},
doi = {10.1017/S1360674314000331},
abstract = {This article offers a syntactic analysis of the construction [be done NP], e.g. I am done dinner, I am finished my homework, as found in Canadian English and some US dialects. After situating this construction in the context of a productive transitive be perfect in Scots/English dialects, [be done NP] will be distinguished from a set of its conceptual and structural relatives, and ultimately be shown not to be reducible to a surface realization of another underlying structure. From the perspective of syntactic theory, the article problematizes the parsimony of the mainstream generative approach (most recently in MacFadden \& Alexiadou 2010) in accounting for the facts of [be done NP] on strictly compositional grounds, as well as the mainstream view of lexical items as projecting theta grids and subcategorization frames (as e.g. in Grimshaw 1979; Emonds 2000). Following Fillmore et al. (1988), Goldberg (1995, 2005) and others, what will be suggested instead is a construction grammar approach to [be done NP], under which a construction holistically licenses its argument structure. Along these lines [be done NP] will be characterized as an abstract construction with some fixed material.},
number = {01},
journal = {English Language and Linguistics},
author = {Yerastov, Yuri},
month = mar,
year = {2015},
keywords = {Done my homework, Transitive be perfect},
pages = {157--178},
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"c7tgDt5BJuWKeqNDu","bibbaseid":"yerastov-aconstructiongrammaranalysisofthetransitivebeperfectinpresentdaycanadianenglish-2015","author_short":["Yerastov, Y."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"A construction grammar analysis of the transitive be perfect in present-day Canadian English","volume":"19","issn":"1469-4379","doi":"10.1017/S1360674314000331","abstract":"This article offers a syntactic analysis of the construction [be done NP], e.g. I am done dinner, I am finished my homework, as found in Canadian English and some US dialects. After situating this construction in the context of a productive transitive be perfect in Scots/English dialects, [be done NP] will be distinguished from a set of its conceptual and structural relatives, and ultimately be shown not to be reducible to a surface realization of another underlying structure. From the perspective of syntactic theory, the article problematizes the parsimony of the mainstream generative approach (most recently in MacFadden & Alexiadou 2010) in accounting for the facts of [be done NP] on strictly compositional grounds, as well as the mainstream view of lexical items as projecting theta grids and subcategorization frames (as e.g. in Grimshaw 1979; Emonds 2000). Following Fillmore et al. (1988), Goldberg (1995, 2005) and others, what will be suggested instead is a construction grammar approach to [be done NP], under which a construction holistically licenses its argument structure. Along these lines [be done NP] will be characterized as an abstract construction with some fixed material.","number":"01","journal":"English Language and Linguistics","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Yerastov"],"firstnames":["Yuri"],"suffixes":[]}],"month":"March","year":"2015","keywords":"Done my homework, Transitive be perfect","pages":"157–178","bibtex":"@article{yerastov_construction_2015,\n\ttitle = {A construction grammar analysis of the transitive be perfect in present-day {Canadian} {English}},\n\tvolume = {19},\n\tissn = {1469-4379},\n\tdoi = {10.1017/S1360674314000331},\n\tabstract = {This article offers a syntactic analysis of the construction [be done NP], e.g. I am done dinner, I am finished my homework, as found in Canadian English and some US dialects. After situating this construction in the context of a productive transitive be perfect in Scots/English dialects, [be done NP] will be distinguished from a set of its conceptual and structural relatives, and ultimately be shown not to be reducible to a surface realization of another underlying structure. From the perspective of syntactic theory, the article problematizes the parsimony of the mainstream generative approach (most recently in MacFadden \\& Alexiadou 2010) in accounting for the facts of [be done NP] on strictly compositional grounds, as well as the mainstream view of lexical items as projecting theta grids and subcategorization frames (as e.g. in Grimshaw 1979; Emonds 2000). Following Fillmore et al. (1988), Goldberg (1995, 2005) and others, what will be suggested instead is a construction grammar approach to [be done NP], under which a construction holistically licenses its argument structure. Along these lines [be done NP] will be characterized as an abstract construction with some fixed material.},\n\tnumber = {01},\n\tjournal = {English Language and Linguistics},\n\tauthor = {Yerastov, Yuri},\n\tmonth = mar,\n\tyear = {2015},\n\tkeywords = {Done my homework, Transitive be perfect},\n\tpages = {157--178},\n}\n\n","author_short":["Yerastov, Y."],"key":"yerastov_construction_2015","id":"yerastov_construction_2015","bibbaseid":"yerastov-aconstructiongrammaranalysisofthetransitivebeperfectinpresentdaycanadianenglish-2015","role":"author","urls":{},"keyword":["Done my homework","Transitive be perfect"],"metadata":{"authorlinks":{}}},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://api.zotero.org/users/4976940/collections/9HBFZ8SX/items?key=HB5ooAZGCiqh7e2wvqkMNOn0&format=bibtex&limit=100","dataSources":["Srh964DciJ23yaBco"],"keywords":["done my homework","transitive be perfect"],"search_terms":["construction","grammar","analysis","transitive","perfect","present","day","canadian","english","yerastov"],"title":"A construction grammar analysis of the transitive be perfect in present-day Canadian English","year":2015}