The role of DO-auxiliary in subject-auxiliary inversion: Developing Langacker’s notion of existential negotiation

References

Birner, Betty. 1994. Information status and word order: An analysis of English inversion. Language 70(2). 233–259.10.2307/415828Suche in Google Scholar

Birner, Betty. 1996. The discourse function of inversion in English. New York: Garland.Suche in Google Scholar

British National Corpus. 1994. Oxford: Oxford University Computing Services.Suche in Google Scholar

Brown University Corpus of American English. 1964. Providence, RI: Department of Linguistics, Brown University.Suche in Google Scholar

Chen, Rong. 2013. Subject auxiliary inversion and linguistic generalization: Evidence for functional/cognitive motivation in language. Cognitive Linguistics 24. 1–32.10.1515/cog-2013-0001Suche in Google Scholar

Coppleston, Frederick. 1962. A history of philosophy, vol. 1, Part 2. Garden City, NY: Image Books.Suche in Google Scholar

Dorgeloh, Heidrun. 1997. Inversion in modern English. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/sidag.6Suche in Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalizations in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199268511.003.0002Suche in Google Scholar

Goodier, Alban. 1951. The passion and death of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Boston: Daughters of St Paul.Suche in Google Scholar

Granath, Solveig. 2007. Size matters – or thus can meaningful structures be revealed in large corpora. In Roberta Facchinetti (ed.), Corpus linguistics 25 years on, 169–188. Amsterdam: Rodopi.10.1163/9789401204347_011Suche in Google Scholar

Green, Georgia. 1980. Some wherefores of English inversions. Language 56. 582–601.10.2307/414451Suche in Google Scholar

Hartvigson, Hans H. & Leif Kvistgaard Jakobsen. 1974. Inversion in present-day English. Odense: Odense University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Hirtle, Walter H. 1988. Events, time and the simple form. Revue québécoise de linguistique 17. 85–106.10.7202/602615arSuche in Google Scholar

Hirtle, Walter. 1997. DO auxiliary – a meaningful support and operator. Lingua 100. 111–149.10.1016/S0024-3841(96)00040-XSuche in Google Scholar

Hirtle, Walter. 2007. Lessons on the English verb. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.10.1515/9780773560277Suche in Google Scholar

Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316423530Suche in Google Scholar

Johnson, Paul. 1983. A history of the modern world. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.Suche in Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites, vol. 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 2009. Investigations in cognitive grammar. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110214369Suche in Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. in press. How to build an English clause. Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics 2(2).10.14706/JFLTAL15121Suche in Google Scholar

McCrum, Robert, William Cran & Robert MacNeil. 1987. The story of English. London: Faber and Faber.Suche in Google Scholar

Penhallurick, John M. 1987. The semantics of auxiliary inversion in English. Australian Journal of Linguistics 7. 97–128.10.1080/07268608708599375Suche in Google Scholar

Sheen, Frank J. 1949. Peace of soul. New York: Whittlesey House.Suche in Google Scholar

Spada, Nina, Patsy Lightbown & Joanna White. 2005. The importance of form/meaning mappings in explicit form-focused instruction. In Alex Housen & Michel Pierrard (eds.), Investigations in instructed second language acquisition, 199–234. Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110197372.2.199Suche in Google Scholar