1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Constructions and Frames
  4. Volume 13, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 13, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1876-1933
  • E-ISSN: 1876-1941
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This corpus-based study tests the Principle of No Synonymy across levels of abstraction by examining the syntactic realizations of subject extraposition (e.g., ), and by investigating at which level(s) of formal description a difference in form also entails a difference in function. The results show that distinct pairs of form and function, i.e. constructions, can be found at different levels of abstraction, but that these constructions also subsume formal realization patterns that do not encode a difference in function. This suggests that the Principle of No Synonymy largely breaks down at low levels of formal description. The study also offers a constructional account of subject extraposition by identifying a number of subject extraposition constructions, thereby showing that this is a syntactic phenomenon that is best analyzed as a family of constructions.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00052.lap
2021-12-21
2025-04-19

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/cf.00052.lap
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ädel, A.
    (2014) Selecting quantitative data for qualitative analysis: A case study connecting a lexicogrammatical pattern to rhetorical moves. Journal of English for Academic Purposes16: 68–80. 10.1016/j.jeap.2014.09.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2014.09.001 [Google Scholar]
  2. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
    (1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Bolinger, D.
    (1977) Meaning and form. Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Boas, H.
    (2003) A Constructional approach to resultatives. CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bresnan, J.
    (2007) Is syntactic knowledge probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation. InRoots: Linguistics in search of its evidential base, S. Featherston & W. Sternefeld (Eds.), 75–96. Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Burnard, L.
    (2007) Reference guide for the British National Corpus (XML Edition). www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/docs/URG/ (7July 2020)
  7. Cappelle, B.
    (2006) Particle placement and the case for ‘allostructions’. Constructions onlinesv1–7: 1–28.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Carter, R. & McCarthy, M.
    (2006) Cambridge grammar of English: A comprehensive guide. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. De Vaere, H., Kolkmann, J. & Belligha, T.
    (2020) Allostructions revisited. Journal of Pragmatics170, 96–111. 10.1016/j.pragma.2020.08.016
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.08.016 [Google Scholar]
  10. Depraetere, I. & Langford, C.
    (2020) Advanced English grammar: A linguistic approach. 2nd edition. Bloomsbury.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Flach, S.
    (2017) Serial verb constructions in English: A usage-based perspective. PhD dissertation, Freie Universität Berlin.
  12. Fox, J. & Weisberg, S.
    (2019) An R companion to applied regression, 3rd edition. Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Francis, G., Hunston, S., & Manning, E.
    (1996) Collins COBUILD grammar patterns. 1, Verbs. HarperCollins.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. (1998) Collins COBUILD grammar patterns. 2, Nouns and adjectives. HarperCollins.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Geeraerts, D.
    (2010) Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Gilquin, G.
    (2010) Corpus, cognition and causative constructions. John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.39
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.39 [Google Scholar]
  17. Goldberg, A. E.
    (1995) Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. (2011) Corpus evidence of the viability of statistical preemption. Cognitive Linguistics22(1):131–153. 10.1515/cogl.2011.006
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2011.006 [Google Scholar]
  19. Gries, S. Th.
    (2003) Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: A study of particle placement. Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Gries, S. Th. & Stefanowitsch, A.
    (2004) Covarying collexemes in the into-causative. InLanguage, culture, and mind, M. Achard & S. Kemmer (Eds.), 225–236. CSLI Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Groom, N.
    (2005) Pattern and meaning across genres and disciplines: An exploratory study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes4 (3): 257–277. 10.1016/j.jeap.2005.03.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2005.03.002 [Google Scholar]
  22. Hampe, B.
    (2014) More on the as-predicative: Granularity issues in the description of construction networks. InYearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, S. Flach & M. Hilpert (Eds.), 207–234. Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/gcla‑2014‑0013
     https://doi.org/10.1515/gcla-2014-0013 [Google Scholar]
  23. Herbst, T.
    (2014) The valency approach to argument structure constructions. InConstructions, collocations, patterns, T. Herbst, H.-J. Schmid, & S. Faulhaber (Eds.), 159–207. De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110356854.167
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110356854.167 [Google Scholar]
  24. Herriman, J.
    (2000) Extraposition in English: A study of the interaction between the matrix predicate and the type of extraposed clause. English Studies81 (6): 582–599. 10.1076/enst.81.6.582.9180
     https://doi.org/10.1076/enst.81.6.582.9180 [Google Scholar]
  25. Hewings, M. & Hewings, A.
    (2002) “It is interesting to note that…”: A comparative study of anticipatory ‘it’ in student and published writing. English for Specific Purposes21 (4): 367–383. 10.1016/S0889‑4906(01)00016‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(01)00016-3 [Google Scholar]
  26. Hilpert, M.
    (2012) Diachronic collostructional analysis meets the noun phrase: Studying many a noun in COHA. InThe Oxford handbook of the history of English, T. Nevalainen & E. C. Traugott (Eds.), 233–244. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. (2014) Construction Grammar and its application to English. Edinburgh University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Huddleston, R. D., & Pullum, G. K.
    (2002) The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316423530
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530 [Google Scholar]
  29. Hunston, S. & Francis, G.
    (2000) Pattern Grammar: A corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of English. John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.4
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.4 [Google Scholar]
  30. Hyland, K.
    (1996) Talking to the academy: Forms of hedging in science research articles. Written Communication13 (2): 251–281. 10.1177/0741088396013002004
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088396013002004 [Google Scholar]
  31. Kaatari, H.
    (2017) Adjectives complemented by that- and to-clauses: Exploring semantico-syntactic relationships and genre variation. PhD dissertation, Uppsala University.
  32. Kaltenböck, G.
    (2005) It-extraposition in English: A functional view. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics10 (2): 119–159. 10.1075/ijcl.10.2.02kal
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.10.2.02kal [Google Scholar]
  33. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G.
    (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics33: 159–174. 10.2307/2529310
     https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310 [Google Scholar]
  34. Langacker, R. W.
    (1991) Concept, image and symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. De Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Laporte, S.
    (2021) Corpora, constructions, new Englishes: A constructional and variationist approach to verb patterning. John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.100
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.100 [Google Scholar]
  36. Larsson, T.
    (2016) The introductory it pattern: Variability explored in learner and expert writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes22: 64–79. 10.1016/j.jeap.2016.01.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2016.01.007 [Google Scholar]
  37. (2017) A functional classification of the introductory it pattern: Investigating academic writing by non-native- speaker and native-speaker students. English for Specific Purposes48: 57–70. 10.1016/j.esp.2017.06.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2017.06.001 [Google Scholar]
  38. (2018) Is there a correlation between form and function? A syntactic and functional investigation of the introductory it pattern in student writing. ICAME journal42(1): 13–40. 10.1515/icame‑2018‑0003
     https://doi.org/10.1515/icame-2018-0003 [Google Scholar]
  39. (2019) A syntactic analysis of the introductory it pattern in non-native-speaker and native-speaker student writing. InCorpus Linguistics, context and culture, M. Mahlberg & V. Wiegand (Eds.), 307–338. De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110489071‑012
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110489071-012 [Google Scholar]
  40. Louviere, J. J., Hensher, D. A. & Swait, J. D.
    (2000) Stated choice methods: Analysis and application. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511753831
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511753831 [Google Scholar]
  41. Mak, K. T.
    (2005) The dynamics of collocation: A corpus-based study of the phraseology and pragmatics of the introductory it-construction. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin.
  42. Michaelis, L. A. & Lambrecht, K.
    (1994) On nominal extraposition: A constructional analysis. InProceedings of the twentieth annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General session dedicated to the contributions of Charles J. Fillmore, K. E. Moore, D. A. Peterson & C. Wentum (Eds.), 362–373. Berkeley Linguistics Society. 10.3765/bls.v20i1.1457
     https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v20i1.1457 [Google Scholar]
  43. Patten, A.
    (2012) The English It-Cleft: A constructional account and a diachronic investigation. De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110279528
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110279528 [Google Scholar]
  44. Percillier, M.
    (2020) Allostructions, homostructions, or a constructional family? Changes in the network of secondary predicate constructions in Middle English. InNodes and networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar, L. Sommerer & E. Smirnova (Eds.), 214–242. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.27.06per
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.27.06per [Google Scholar]
  45. Perek, F.
    (2015) Argument structure in usage-based Construction Grammar. John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.17
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.17 [Google Scholar]
  46. (2018) Recent change in the productivity and schematicity of the way-construction: A distributional semantic analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory14(1): 65–97. 10.1515/cllt‑2016‑0014
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2016-0014 [Google Scholar]
  47. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J.
    (1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. R Core Team
    R Core Team (2020) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. www.R-project.org/ (7July 2020)
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Ramhöj, R.
    (2016) On clausal subjects and extraposition in the history of English. PhD dissertation, University of Gothenburg.
  50. Röthlisberger, M., Grafmiller, J. & Szmrecsanyi, B.
    (2017) Cognitive indigenization effects in the English dative alternation. Cognitive Linguistics28(4): 673–710. 10.1515/cog‑2016‑0051
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0051 [Google Scholar]
  51. Sinclair, J.
    (1991) Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Stefanowitsch, A.
    (2001) Constructing Causation: A Construction Grammar Approach to Analytic Causatives. PhD dissertation, Rice University.
  53. Stubbs, M.
    (2009) Technology and phraseology: With notes on the history of corpus linguistics. InExploring the lexis-grammar interface, U. Römer & R. Schulze (Eds.), 15–32. John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.35.03stu
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.35.03stu [Google Scholar]
  54. Tummers, J., Heylen, K. & Geeraerts, D.
    (2005) Usage-based approaches in Cognitive Linguistics: A technical state of the art. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory1(2): 225–261. 10.1515/cllt.2005.1.2.225
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt.2005.1.2.225 [Google Scholar]
  55. Uhrig, P.
    (2015) Why the principle of no synonymy is overrated. Zeitschrift Für Anglistik Und Amerikanistik63(3): 323–337. 10.1515/zaa‑2015‑0030
     https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2015-0030 [Google Scholar]
  56. Venables, W. N. & Ripley, B. D.
    (2002) Modern applied statistics with S, Fourth edition. Springer. 10.1007/978‑0‑387‑21706‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-21706-2 [Google Scholar]
  57. Wierzbicka, Anna
    (1986) The semantics of the ‘Internal Dative’: A Rejoinder. Quaderni di Semantica7: 155–165.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Wulff, S.
    (2006) Go-V vs. go-and-V in English: A case of constructional synonymy?InCorpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis, S. Th. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), 101–126. De Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00052.lap
Loading
Testing the Principle of No Synonymy across levels of abstraction
Constructions and Frames 13, 230 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1075/cf.00052.lap
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00052.lap
/content/journals/10.1075/cf.00052.lap
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Construction Grammar; corpus linguistics; levels of abstraction; Principle of No Synonymy; subject extraposition

Most Cited

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