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

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

What is an alternation?

Six answers

 | University of Liège
Published online: 28 May 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00053.pij
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.
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
References (43)
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2006. “From Usage to Grammar.” Language 82 (4): 711–733. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cappelle, Bert. 2006. “Particle Placement and the Case for ‘Allostructions.’” Constructions SV 1–7 (2006).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cedergren, Henrietta, and David Sankoff. 1974. “Variable Rules: Performance as a Statistical Reflection of Competence.” Language 50 (2): 333–355. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
D’Arcy, Alexandra. 2014. “Functional Partitioning and Possible Limits on Variability.” Journal of English Linguistics 42 (3): 218–244. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa. 2018. “Experience, Aptitude and Individual Differences in Native Language Ultimate Attainment.” Cognition 1781: 222–235. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Smet, Isabeau, and Freek Van de Velde. 2019. “Reassessing the Evolution of West Germanic Preterite Inflection.” Diachronica 36 (2): 139–180. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2019. The Grammar Network. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Duden. 2009. Die Grammatik [The Grammar]. 8th edn. Mannheim: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010b. Ten Lectures on Cognitive Sociolinguistics. Beijing: Beijing Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Hanks, Patrick. 2013. Lexical Analysis: Norms and Exploitations. Cambridge: MIT press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jaeger, Florian Tim. 2010. “Redundancy and Reduction: Speakers Manage Syntactic Information Density.” Cognitive Psychology 61 (1): 23–62. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kilgarriff, Adam. 1997. “I Don’t Believe in Word Senses.” Computers And The Humanities 31 (2): 91–113. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Lavandera, Beatriz. 1978. “Where Does the Sociolinguistic Variable Stop?” Language in Society 7 (2): 171–182. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations. Chicago: University of Chicago press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pijpops, Dirk. 2019. “How, Why and Where Does Argument Structure Vary?” Ph.D Dissertation, University of Leuven.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pijpops, Dirk, and Dirk Speelman. 2017. “Alternating Argument Constructions of Dutch Psychological Verbs.” Folia Linguistica 51 (1): 207–251. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali. 2012. Variationist Sociolinguistics. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (25)

Cited by 25 other publications

Hotta, Hikaru & Martin Hilpert
2025. English comparative constructions at different levels of schematicity: what is the role of adjective-specific variability?. Cognitive Linguistics 36:4 ► pp. 561 ff. DOI logo
Leclercq, Benoît & Cameron Morin
2025. The Meaning of Constructions, DOI logo
Leclercq, Benoît, Cameron Morin & Dirk Pijpops
2025. The principle of no equivalence: an agent-based model. Cognitive Linguistics 36:4 ► pp. 633 ff. DOI logo
Mevis, Alice
2025. Recipient passives in Mozambican Portuguese: A case of constructional alternation in the making. Language Variation and Change 37:1 ► pp. 59 ff. DOI logo
Mikkelsen, Olaf & Cameron Morin
2025. Register as a source of non-equivalent contracted constructions: going to and gonna in British English. English Language and Linguistics ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Sommerer, Lotte & Freek Van de Velde
2025. Constructional Networks. In The Cambridge Handbook of Construction Grammar, ► pp. 220 ff. DOI logo
Zehentner, Eva
2025. The English conative alternation between complexity effects and lexical biases: a historical perspective. Language and Cognition 17 DOI logo
Afonso, Susana & Augusto Soares da Silva
2024. Null and overt se constructions in Brazilian Portuguese and the network of se constructions. Linguistics Vanguard 10:s1 ► pp. 63 ff. DOI logo
Cai, Yingying & Hendrik De Smet
2024. In alternations, not all semantic motivation comes from semantic contrast. Linguistics Vanguard 10:s1 ► pp. 53 ff. DOI logo
Glynn, Dylan & Olaf Mikkelsen
2024. Concrete constructions or messy mangroves? How modelling contextual effects on constructional alternations reflect theoretical assumptions of language structure. Linguistics Vanguard 10:s1 ► pp. 9 ff. DOI logo
Granvik, Anton & Ester Fernández Incógnito
2024. Evaluating the importance of construal for choosing between alternating forms: the case of Spanish change-of-state verbs hacerse and volverse . Linguistics Vanguard 10:s1 ► pp. 75 ff. DOI logo
Harrigan, Atticus G. & Antti Arppe
2024. Plains Cree Order as alternation. Linguistics Vanguard 10:s1 ► pp. 97 ff. DOI logo
Hartmann, Stefan & Olaf Mikkelsen
2024. Future constructions in English and Norwegian. Languages in Contrast 24:2 ► pp. 170 ff. DOI logo
Inglese, Guglielmo
2024.  Nisi paria non pugnant: argument structure alternations with lexical reciprocal verbs in Latin. Journal of Latin Linguistics 23:1-2 ► pp. 51 ff. DOI logo
Klavan, Jane
2024. The morphosyntactic alternation between exterior locative case affixes and postpositions in Estonian. Linguistics Vanguard 10:s1 ► pp. 39 ff. DOI logo
Pijpops, Dirk, Karlien Franco, Dirk Speelman & Freek Van de Velde
2024. Introduction: what are alternations and how should we study them?. Linguistics Vanguard 10:s1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Pleyer, Michael & Stefan Hartmann
2024. Cognitive Linguistics and Language Evolution, DOI logo
Ungerer, Tobias
2024. Vertical and horizontal links in constructional networks. Constructions and Frames 16:1 ► pp. 30 ff. DOI logo
De Sutter, Gert, Marie-Aude Lefer & Bram Vanroy
2023. Is linguistic decision-making constrained by the same cognitive factors in student and in professional translation?. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 9:1 ► pp. 60 ff. DOI logo
Grieve, Jack
2023. Register variation explains stylometric authorship analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 19:1 ► pp. 47 ff. DOI logo
Silvennoinen, Olli O.
2023. Not Just Contrastive: Constructions with Negated Restrictives in English. Journal of English Linguistics 51:4 ► pp. 346 ff. DOI logo
Ungerer, Tobias & Stefan Hartmann
2023. Constructionist Approaches, DOI logo
Bouso, Tamara
2022. Where Does Lexical Diversity Come From? Horizontal Interaction in the Network of the Late Modern English Reaction Object Construction. English Studies 103:8 ► pp. 1334 ff. DOI logo
Pijpops, Dirk, Dirk Speelman, Freek Van de Velde & Stefan Grondelaers
2021. Incorporating the multi-level nature of the constructicon into hypothesis testing. Cognitive Linguistics 32:3 ► pp. 487 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2023. Structural Priming in the Grammatical Network [Constructional Approaches to Language, 35], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 3 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue