1887
Volume 34, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0774-5141
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9676
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

An important subset of the empirical research conducted within usage-based construction grammar is formed by alternation studies. Still, it is not always clear what exactly qualifies as an alternation. This paper takes stock of six possible ways of defining an alternation. Three of these definitions are argued to be particularly suitable for the research program of usage-based construction grammar. The paper zooms in on those and discusses their practical consequences and (dis)advantages.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/bjl.00053.pij
2020-12-31
2021-08-04
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Arppe, Antti , Gaëtanelle Gilquin , Dylan Glynn , Martin Hilpert , and Arne Zeschel
    2010 “Cognitive Corpus Linguistics: Five Points of Debate on Current Theory and Methodology.” Corpora5 (1): 1–27. 10.3366/cor.2010.0001
    https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2010.0001 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bresnan, Joan
    2007 “Is Syntactic Knowledge Probabilistic?.” InRoots, ed. by Sam Featherston , and Wolfgang Sternefeld , 77–96. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Broekhuis, Hans , Norbert Corver , and Riet Vos
    2013Syntax of Dutch. Verbs and Verb Phrases. Volume 1. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bybee, Joan
    2006 “From Usage to Grammar.” Language82 (4): 711–733. 10.1353/lan.2006.0186
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0186 [Google Scholar]
  5. Cappelle, Bert
    2006 “Particle Placement and the Case for ‘Allostructions.’” ConstructionsSV 1–7 (2006).
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Cedergren, Henrietta , and David Sankoff
    1974 “Variable Rules: Performance as a Statistical Reflection of Competence.” Language50 (2): 333–355. 10.2307/412441
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412441 [Google Scholar]
  7. D’Arcy, Alexandra
    2014 “Functional Partitioning and Possible Limits on Variability.” Journal of English Linguistics42 (3): 218–244. 10.1177/0075424214539702
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424214539702 [Google Scholar]
  8. Dąbrowska, Ewa
    2018 “Experience, Aptitude and Individual Differences in Native Language Ultimate Attainment.” Cognition178: 222–235. 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.05.018
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.05.018 [Google Scholar]
  9. De Smet, Isabeau , and Freek Van de Velde
    2019 “Reassessing the Evolution of West Germanic Preterite Inflection.” Diachronica36 (2): 139–180. 10.1075/dia.18020.des
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.18020.des [Google Scholar]
  10. de Vriendt, Sera
    1965Sterke Werkwoorden en Sterke Werkwoordsvormen in de 16e eeuw [Strong Verbs and Strong Verb Forms in the 16th Century]. Brussel: Belgisch Interuniversitair Centrum voor Neerlandistiek.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Diessel, Holger
    2019The Grammar Network. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108671040
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108671040 [Google Scholar]
  12. Duden
    Duden 2009Die Grammatik [The Grammar]. 8th edn.Mannheim: Dudenverlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Ferreira, Victor , and Gary Dell
    2000 “Effect of Ambiguity and Lexical Availability on Syntactic and Lexical Production.” Cognitive Psychology40 (4): 296–340. 10.1006/cogp.1999.0730
    https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0730 [Google Scholar]
  14. Ferreira, Victor , Adam Morgan , and Robert Slevc
    2018 “Grammatical Encoding.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics, ed. by Shirley-Ann Rueschemeyer , and Gareth Gaskell , 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Ferreira, Victor , and Elizabeth Schotter
    2013 “Do Verb Bias Effects on Sentence Production Reflect Sensitivity to Comprehension or Production Factors?” The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology66 (8): 1548–1571. 10.1080/17470218.2012.753924
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2012.753924 [Google Scholar]
  16. Geeraerts, Dirk
    2010a “Recontextualizing Grammar: Underlying Trends in Thirty Years of Cognitive Linguistics.” InCognitive Linguistics in Action, ed. by Elzbieta Tabakowska , Michal Choinski , and Lukasz Wiraszka , 71–102. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 2010bTen Lectures on Cognitive Sociolinguistics. Beijing: Beijing Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. 10.1515/9783110226461
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226461 [Google Scholar]
  18. Geeraerts, Dirk , Gitte Kristiansen , and Yves Peirsman
    2010Introduction. InAdvances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics, ed. by Dirk Geeraerts , Gitte Kristiansen , and Yves Peirsman , 1–19. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110226461.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226461.1 [Google Scholar]
  19. Grondelaers, Stefan , Dirk Geeraerts , and Dirk Speelman
    2007 “A Case for Cognitive Corpus Linguistics.” InMethods in Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Monica Gonzalez-Marquez , Irene Mittelberg , Seana Coulson , and Michael Spivey , 149–169. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.18.12gro
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.18.12gro [Google Scholar]
  20. Haeseryn, Walter , Kirsten Romijn , Guido Geerts , Jaap de Rooij , and Maarten van den Toorn
    1997 Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst [General Dutch Grammar]. 2nd edition. Groningen: Martinus Nijhoff/Deurne: Wolters Plantyn.
  21. Hanks, Patrick
    2013Lexical Analysis: Norms and Exploitations. Cambridge: MIT press. 10.7551/mitpress/9780262018579.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262018579.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  22. Jaeger, Florian Tim
    2010 “Redundancy and Reduction: Speakers Manage Syntactic Information Density.” Cognitive Psychology61 (1): 23–62. 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.02.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  23. Kilgarriff, Adam
    1997 “I Don’t Believe in Word Senses.” Computers And The Humanities31 (2): 91–113. 10.1023/A:1000583911091
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1000583911091 [Google Scholar]
  24. Kruijsen, Joep , and Nicoline van der Sijs
    2016 “Meertens Kaartenbank” [Meertens Database of Maps]. Available as www.meertens.knaw.nl/kaartenbank/.
  25. Labov, William
    1972Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Lavandera, Beatriz
    1978 “Where Does the Sociolinguistic Variable Stop?” Language in Society7 (2): 171–182. 10.1017/S0047404500005510
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500005510 [Google Scholar]
  27. Levin, Beth
    1993English Verb Classes and Alternations. Chicago: University of Chicago press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Perek, Florent
    2015Argument Structure in Usage-Based Construction Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.17
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.17 [Google Scholar]
  29. Pijpops, Dirk
    2019 “How, Why and Where Does Argument Structure Vary?” Ph.D Dissertation, University of Leuven.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Pijpops, Dirk , and Dirk Speelman
    2017 “Alternating Argument Constructions of Dutch Psychological Verbs.” Folia Linguistica51 (1): 207–251. 10.1515/flin‑2017‑0006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2017-0006 [Google Scholar]
  31. Pijpops, Dirk , and Freek Van de Velde
    2018 “A Multivariate Analysis of the Partitive Genitive in Dutch.” Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory14 (1): 99–131. 10.1515/cllt‑2013‑0027
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2013-0027 [Google Scholar]
  32. Röthlisberger, Melanie
    2018a “Guidelines for the Dative Alternation.” Available at melanie-roethlisberger.ch/data/.
  33. 2018b “Regional Variation in Probabilistic Grammars: A Multifactorial Study of the English Dative Alternation.” PhD dissertation, University of Leuven.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt , Douglas Biber , Jesse Egbert , and Karlien Franco
    2016a “Toward More Accountability: Modeling Ternary Genitive Variation in Late Modern English.” Language Variation and Change28 (1): 1–29. 10.1017/S0954394515000198
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394515000198 [Google Scholar]
  35. Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt , Jason Grafmiller , Benedikt Heller , and Melanie Röthlisberger
    2016b “Around the World in Three Alternations: Modeling Syntactic Variation in Varieties of English.” English World-Wide37 (2): 109–137. 10.1075/eww.37.2.01szm
    https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.37.2.01szm [Google Scholar]
  36. Tagliamonte, Sali
    2012Variationist Sociolinguistics. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Thompson, Sandra Annear , and Anthony Mulac
    1991 “A Quantitative Perspective on the Grammaticization of Epistemic Parentheticals in English.” InGrammaticalization, ed. by Elizabeth Closs Traugott , and Bernd Heine , 313–339. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.19.2.16tho
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.19.2.16tho [Google Scholar]
  38. Van de Velde, Freek , Katrien Beuls , Isabeau De Smet , and Dirk Pijpops
    2017 “The Weakening of Strong Preterites in West-Germanic.” Paper presented at A Germanic Sandwich, 5th edn., University of Münster, 17 – 18 March 2017.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Van de Velde, Freek , Karlien Franco , and Dirk Geeraerts
    2019 “Reality check voor de kwantitatieve Nederlandse taalkunde [A reality check for quantitative Dutch linguistics]”. Tijdschrift voor Nederlandse Taal- en Letterkunde135 (4): 329–343.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Verhagen, Arie
    2013 “Darwin en de ideale taalgebruiker” [Darwin and the ideal language user]. InHonderd Jaar Taalwetenschap. Artikelen aangeboden aan Saskia Daalder bij haar afscheid van de Vrije Universiteit [100 years of Linguistics. Articles offered to Saskia Daalder on the occasion of her retirement at the Vrije Universiteit], ed. by Theo Janssen , and Jan Noordegraaf , 151–162. Amsterdam: Stichting Neerlandistiek VU/Münster: /Nodus Publikationen.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Wallis, Sean
    2012 “That Vexed Problem of Choice.” Paper presented atICAME33, University of Leuven, 30 May – 3 June 2012. Typescript available at www.ucl.ac.uk/english-usage/statspapers/vexedchoice.pdf.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Zehentner, Eva , and Elizabeth Closs Traugott
    2020 “Constructional Networks and the Development of Benefactive Ditransitives in English.” InNodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar, ed. by Lotte Sommerer , and Elena Smirnova , 168–211. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.27.05zeh
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.05zeh [Google Scholar]
  43. Zuidema, Willem , and Arie Verhagen
    2010 “What Are the Unique Design Features of Language? Formal Tools for Comparative Claims.” Adaptive Behavior18 (1): 48–65. 10.1177/1059712309350973
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1059712309350973 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/bjl.00053.pij
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error