|
Title
|
|
|
|
Special Issue: What are alternations and how should we study them?
| |
|
Author
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Abstract
|
|
|
|
| The study of linguistic alternations has developed into an important paradigm within various subdisciplines of linguistics, from sociolinguistics (Wieling et al. 2016) to construction grammar (Perek 2015). However, researchers don’t always agree on what exactly constitutes an alternation, particularly in grammatical or lexical research. In an overview article, Pijpops (2020) discusses the following definitions that partially overlap, but are still crucially different. An alternation consists of two or more language forms or structures: (i)without a meaning difference, that vary according to (socio-)lectal factors, e.g. uh vs. um (Labov 1972: 188; Wieling et al. 2016) (ii)without a meaning difference, that vary according to processing-related factors, e.g. my boss confirmed we were absolutely crazy vs. my boss confirmed that we were absolutely crazy (Jaeger 2010; Ferreira and Schotter 2013) (iii)that vary systematically across some specific set of lexical items, and typically exhibit a systematic difference in meaning, e.g. Jack sprayed paint on the wall vs. Jack sprayed the wall with paint (Levin 1993: 51; Broekhuis, Corver and Vos 2013: 401–594) (iv)that present a choice point for an individual language user, e.g. God’s goodness vs. the goodness of God (Heller 2018: 11; Wallis 2012) (v)that are studied as levels of a categorical response variable in order to test some hypothesis, e.g. zo’n mensen ‘such people’ vs. zulke mensen ‘such people’ (Pijpops forthc. a.; Arppe et al. 2010: 12–15) (vi)that have some special theoretical relation to one another, for instance as allostructions or through a horizontal constructional link, e.g. pick the book up vs. pick up the book (Cappelle 2006; Van de Velde 2014) It is a problem that the term ‘alternation’ is defined in various ways, since the choice of what exactly constitutes an alternation has direct practical consequences for the way an alternation study is conducted, as exemplified by the questions listed below. The current special issue will bring together the various strands of alternation research by discussing these questions. •What are the variants of the alternation? What criteria should we use to determine which constructions to consider as variants in an alternation study? For example, Dutch psych verbs can be used in a transitive construction, e.g. dat interesseert mij ‘that interests me’, or a reflexive construction, as in ik interesseer me daarvoor, lit: ‘I interest me for that’ (Pijpops and Speelman 2017). Of course, these two variants are not the only ways of expressing the same proposition: other options include ik ben daarin geïnteresseerd ‘I’m interested in that’, dat is interessant voor mij ‘that’s interesting for me’, dat vind ik interessant ‘I find that interesting’, etc. Which of these variants constitute the object of study in alternation research? Should this be determined by the hypothesis at issue? Should we consider the function that each construction fulfills in the community of language users? Or should we rather look at the individual language user, and whether each construction presents an option for them? Or, finally, should the variants have some paradigmatic link to one another? •Which occurrences of the alternating constructions should be taken up an alternation study? Within sociolinguistics, this question corresponds to the delineation of the ‘envelope of variation’ (Tagliamonte 2012: 10–11; Blake 1997). Following Definition (i), sociolinguists generally demand that all occurrences taken up in an alternation study be semantically equivalent (Lavandera 1978; also see Geeraerts, Kristiansen and Peirsman 2010: 7–9). Meanwhile, starting from Definition (iv), researchers in construction grammar are often interested in pinpointing the meaning distinction expressed by the alternation (e.g. Colleman 2009; Perek 2015). Hence, not only do they allow semantic distinctions into their datasets, they even expect and welcome them, since these distinctions bear their main interest. Yet other researchers take up a middle ground, and start from Definition (iv). This definition entails that the alternating occurrences be interchangeable in some way (e.g. Hinrichs and Szmrecsanyi 2007). Again, however, research practices vary: some researchers demand that all occurrences share the same truth conditions, but permit other differences in meaning (Röthlisberger 2018: 17–23), while other researchers allow distinctions in construal to exist between the occurrences, but draw the line at referential distinctions (da Silva et al. 2021). Furthermore, the question not only arises with regard to semantic factors, but also with regard to processing effects and lectal differences. For example, an important predictor in the alternation between regular and irregular Germanic past tense forms, e.g. sneaked vs. snuck, is the token frequency of the verb: highly frequent verbs are more often conjugated irregularly. As such, extremely frequent verbs invariably exhibit the irregular inflection. But where is the line between verbs that rarely exhibit the regular inflection and those that categorically do not? Many verbs that were originally thought to be conjugated in a categorical fashion, have in fact been observed to show occasional variation (van Santen 1997; De Smet 2021). As for lectal factors, consider the Dutch verb maken ‘make’. This verb is invariably conjugated with a suffix in standard Dutch, as maakte ‘made’. In some dialects, however, it can also employ a vowel change, as miek ‘made’. But how to distinguish between speakers or contexts where miek ‘made’ is improbable and those where it is impossible? •What is the status of (socio, dia-, regio-)lectal, semantic, lexical and processing-related alternation factors? Do lectal factors correspond to differences between grammars, with e.g. the grammar of one variety functioning differently than the grammar of another (Szmrecsanyi et al. 2016), or are they part of grammar itself (Geeraerts 2010; Höder 2014)? Are lexical biases mostly caused by differences in meaning (Gries and Stefanowitsch 2004), processing pressures (De Smet and Van de Velde 2019), or lectal distinctions (Pijpops forthc. b.), or can they randomly arise? What is the role of semantic and processing-related factors in not only explaining, but also causing variation (Franco 2017, Franco et al. 2019)? Can we assume that alternation factors are cognitively real (Perek 2012; Klavan and Divjak 2016)? On a practical level, how should we deal with these various types of independent variables? For example: should we build separate models for separate varieties, or take up lectal factors as predictors in a unified model? Can lexemes be implemented as random effects in mixed models, even though their preferences may be structured (Van de Velde and Pijpops 2021)? Any researcher who wants to conduct an alternation study is faced with these questions – though they may be less or more problematic depending on the case study at hand. By discussing them in detail, this special issue will provide an overview of the possible strategies to deal with them and contribute to a more comprehensive theoretical understanding of the status of an alternation. |
| |
|
Language
|
|
|
|
English
| |
|
Source (journal)
|
|
|
|
Linguistics vanguard. - Berlin
| |
|
Source (series)
|
|
|
|
Linguistics Vanguard ; 10,1
| |
|
Publication
|
|
|
|
Berlijn
:
Mouton De Gruyter
,
2024
| |
|
ISSN
|
|
|
|
2199-174X
| |
|
Volume/pages
|
|
|
|
108 p.
| |
|