Cover not available
Article published In:
The Wealth and Breadth of Construction-Based Research
Edited by Timothy Colleman, Frank Brisard, Astrid De Wit, Renata Enghels, Nikos Koutsoukos, Tanja Mortelmans and María Sol Sansiñena
[Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34] 2020
► pp. 283–294

What is an alternation?

Six answers

| University of Liège

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.

Keywords: alternation, usage-based, construction grammar, problem of semantic equivalence, variation, allostructions
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Definitions 1–3: Alternations in a decontextualized approach to language
  • 3.Definition 4: The alternation as a choice point of the individual language user
  • 4.Definition 5: The alternation as a methodological setup of the linguist
  • 5.Definition 6: The alternation as two allostructions or otherwise linked constructions
  • 6.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 28 May 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00053.pij
References
Arppe, Antti, Gaëtanelle Gilquin, Dylan Glynn, Martin Hilpert, and Arne Zeschel
2010 “Cognitive Corpus Linguistics: Five Points of Debate on Current Theory and Methodology.” Corpora 5 (1): 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan
2007 “Is Syntactic Knowledge Probabilistic?.” In Roots, ed. by Sam Featherston, and Wolfgang Sternefeld, 77–96. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Broekhuis, Hans, Norbert Corver, and Riet Vos
2013 Syntax of Dutch. Verbs and Verb Phrases. Volume 1. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan
2006 “From Usage to Grammar.” Language 82 (4): 711–733. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cappelle, Bert
2006 “Particle Placement and the Case for ‘Allostructions.’” Constructions SV 1–7 (2006).Google Scholar
Cedergren, Henrietta, and David Sankoff
1974 “Variable Rules: Performance as a Statistical Reflection of Competence.” Language 50 (2): 333–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
D’Arcy, Alexandra
2014 “Functional Partitioning and Possible Limits on Variability.” Journal of English Linguistics 42 (3): 218–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa
2018 “Experience, Aptitude and Individual Differences in Native Language Ultimate Attainment.” Cognition 1781: 222–235. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet, Isabeau, and Freek Van de Velde
2019 “Reassessing the Evolution of West Germanic Preterite Inflection.” Diachronica 36 (2): 139–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Vriendt, Sera
1965 Sterke 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
Diessel, Holger
2019 The Grammar Network. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duden
2009 Die Grammatik [The Grammar]. 8th edn. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Ferreira, Victor, and Gary Dell
2000 “Effect of Ambiguity and Lexical Availability on Syntactic and Lexical Production.” Cognitive Psychology 40 (4): 296–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, Victor, Adam Morgan, and Robert Slevc
2018 “Grammatical Encoding.” In The Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics, ed. by Shirley-Ann Rueschemeyer, and Gareth Gaskell, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
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 Psychology 66 (8): 1548–1571. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk
2010a “Recontextualizing Grammar: Underlying Trends in Thirty Years of Cognitive Linguistics.” In Cognitive Linguistics in Action, ed. by Elzbieta Tabakowska, Michal Choinski, and Lukasz Wiraszka, 71–102. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
2010b Ten Lectures on Cognitive Sociolinguistics. Beijing: Beijing Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk, Gitte Kristiansen, and Yves Peirsman
2010  Introduction . In Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics, ed. by Dirk Geeraerts, Gitte Kristiansen, and Yves Peirsman, 1–19. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan, Dirk Geeraerts, and Dirk Speelman
2007 “A Case for Cognitive Corpus Linguistics.” In Methods in Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Monica Gonzalez-Marquez, Irene Mittelberg, Seana Coulson, and Michael Spivey, 149–169. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Hanks, Patrick
2013 Lexical Analysis: Norms and Exploitations. Cambridge: MIT press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, Florian Tim
2010 “Redundancy and Reduction: Speakers Manage Syntactic Information Density.” Cognitive Psychology 61 (1): 23–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kilgarriff, Adam
1997 “I Don’t Believe in Word Senses.” Computers And The Humanities 31 (2): 91–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kruijsen, Joep, and Nicoline van der Sijs
2016 “Meertens Kaartenbank” [Meertens Database of Maps]. Available as [URL].
Labov, William
1972 Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Lavandera, Beatriz
1978 “Where Does the Sociolinguistic Variable Stop?” Language in Society 7 (2): 171–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth
1993 English Verb Classes and Alternations. Chicago: University of Chicago press.Google Scholar
Perek, Florent
2015 Argument Structure in Usage-Based Construction Grammar. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pijpops, Dirk
2019 “How, Why and Where Does Argument Structure Vary?” Ph.D Dissertation, University of Leuven.Google Scholar
Pijpops, Dirk, and Dirk Speelman
2017 “Alternating Argument Constructions of Dutch Psychological Verbs.” Folia Linguistica 51 (1): 207–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pijpops, Dirk, and Freek Van de Velde
2018 “A Multivariate Analysis of the Partitive Genitive in Dutch.” Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 14 (1): 99–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Röthlisberger, Melanie
2018a “Guidelines for the Dative Alternation.” Available at [URL].
2018b “Regional Variation in Probabilistic Grammars: A Multifactorial Study of the English Dative Alternation.” PhD dissertation, University of Leuven.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, Douglas Biber, Jesse Egbert, and Karlien Franco
2016a “Toward More Accountability: Modeling Ternary Genitive Variation in Late Modern English.” Language Variation and Change 28 (1): 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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-Wide 37 (2): 109–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali
2012 Variationist Sociolinguistics. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra Annear, and Anthony Mulac
1991 “A Quantitative Perspective on the Grammaticization of Epistemic Parentheticals in English.” In Grammaticalization, ed. by Elizabeth Closs Traugott, and Bernd Heine, 313–339. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.
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 Letterkunde 135 (4): 329–343.Google Scholar
Verhagen, Arie
2013 “Darwin en de ideale taalgebruiker” [Darwin and the ideal language user]. In Honderd 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
Wallis, Sean
2012 “That Vexed Problem of Choice.” Paper presented at ICAME33, University of Leuven, 30 May – 3 June 2012. Typescript available at [URL].
Zehentner, Eva, and Elizabeth Closs Traugott
2020 “Constructional Networks and the Development of Benefactive Ditransitives in English.” In Nodes and Networks in Diachronic Construction Grammar, ed. by Lotte Sommerer, and Elena Smirnova, 168–211. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zuidema, Willem, and Arie Verhagen
2010 “What Are the Unique Design Features of Language? Formal Tools for Comparative Claims.” Adaptive Behavior 18 (1): 48–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar