Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik

A Quarterly of Language, Literature and Culture

[Journal of English and American Studies]

Ed. by Butter, Michael / Eckstein, Lars / Frenk, Joachim / Georgi-Findlay, Brigitte / Herbst, Thomas / Korte, Barbara / Leypoldt, Günter / Reinfandt, Christoph / Stefanowitsch, Anatol

4 Issues per year

CiteScore 2017: 0.07

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.123
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.323

See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 63, Issue 3


Why the Principle of No Synonymy is Overrated

Peter Uhrig
  • Corresponding author
  • Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Department Anglistik/Amerikanistik und Romanistik, Bismarckstraße 1, 91054 Erlangen
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2015-10-08 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2015-0030


The formulation of Goldberg’s oft-quoted Principle of No Synonymy is one of the factors responsible for a shift away in attention from alternations as postulated in the generative transformational tradition towards a view that regards the so-called alternatives as conveying different meanings and thus not being real alternatives. The rejection of the generativist position, in which one variant was regarded as primary and the other as derived from the primary variant, is of course justified and necessary in a cognitive linguistic approach, but it will be argued in this paper that the Principle of No Synonymy – if regarded as a dogma – is misleading in that it bears the risk of missing important generalisations across different patterns of the same verb. Furthermore, it will be argued that both linguistic variation and pre-emption are not perfectly compatible with the Principle of No Synonymy.

Works Cited

  • Anderson, Stephen (1971). “On the Role of Deep Structure in Semantic Interpretation.” Foundations of Language 6, 387–396.Google Scholar

  • Boas, Hans C. (2010). “The Syntax-Lexicon Continuum in Construction Grammar: A case study of English Communication Verbs.” Belgian Journal of Linguistics 24, 54–82.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bock, Kathryn J. (1986). “Syntactic Persistence in Language Production.” Cognitive Psychology 18, 355–387.Google Scholar

  • Bolinger, Dwight (1977). Meaning and Form. New York: Longman.Google Scholar

  • Bresnan, Joan, Anna Cueni, Tatiana Nikitina and Harald Baayen (2007). “Predicting the Dative Alternation.” Gerlof Bouma, Irene Krämer and Joost Zwarts, eds. Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science, 69–94.Google Scholar

  • Bybee, Joan (2015). Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Cappelle, Bert (2009). “Can We Factor Out Free Choice?” Andreas Dufter, Jürg Fleischer and Guido Seiler, eds. Describing and Modeling Variation in Grammar. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 183–201.Google Scholar

  • Chomsky, Noam (1975 [1955]). The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar

  • Chomsky, Noam (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Clark, Eve (1987). “The Principle of Contrast: A Constraint on Language Acquisition.” Brian MacWhinney, ed. Mechanisms of Language Acquisition. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1–33.Google Scholar

  • de Saussure, Ferdinand (1916). Cours de linguistique générale. Charles Bally and Albert Séchehaye, eds. Paris and Lausanne: Payot.Google Scholar

  • Faulhaber, Susen (2011). Verb Valency Patterns: A Challenge for Semantics-Based Accounts. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Fillmore, Charles (1965). Indirect Object Constructions in English and the Ordering of Transformations. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

  • Gilquin, Gaëtanelle (2010). Corpus, Cognition and Causative Constructions. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar

  • Goldberg, Adele E. (1995). Constructions. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Goldberg, Adele E. (2002). “Surface Generalizations: An Alternative to Alternations.” Cognitive Linguistics 13.4, 327–356.Google Scholar

  • Goldberg, Adele E. (2006). Constructions at Work. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Goldberg, Adele E. (2011). “Corpus Evidence of the Viability of Statistical Preemption.” Cognitive Linguistics 22.1, 131–153.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Goldberg, Adele E. (2013). “Argument Structure Constructions versus Lexical Rules or Derivational Verb Templates.” Mind & Language 28.4, 435–465.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Goldberg, Adele E. and Ray Jackendoff (2004). “The English Resultative as a Family of Constructions.” Language 80.3, 532–568.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gries, Stefan (2003). Multifactorial Analysis in Corpus Linguistics: A Study of Particle Placement. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar

  • Herbst, Thomas (2011). “The Status of Generalizations: Valency and Argument Structure Constructions.” Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 59.4, 347–367.Google Scholar

  • Herbst, Thomas (2014a). “The Valency Approach to Argument Structure Constructions.” Thomas Herbst, Hans-Jörg Schmid and Susen Faulhaber, eds. Constructions Collocations Patterns. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, 167–216.Google Scholar

  • Herbst, Thomas (2014b). “Idiosyncrasies and Generalizations: Argument Structure, Semantic Roles and The Valency Realization Principle.” Martin Hilpert and Susanne Flach, eds. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association. 2 Vols., 253–289.Google Scholar

  • Herbst, Thomas and Susen Schüller (2008). Introduction to Syntactic Analysis: A Valency Approach. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar

  • Herbst, Thomas and Peter Uhrig (2009). The Erlangen Valency Patternbank. <http://www.patternbank.uni-erlangen.de> (August 20, 2015).

  • Kinsey, Rafe, T. Florian Jaeger and Thomas Wasow (2007). “What Does THAT Mean? Experimental Evidence against the Principle of No Synonymy.” Handout for presentation at LSA. <http://www.rafekinsey.com/papers/lsa-handout.pdf> (August 20, 2015).

  • Labov, William (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Labov, William (2008). “Quantitative Reasoning in Linguistics.” <http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~wlabov/Papers/QRL.pdf> (August 20, 2015).

  • Langacker, Ronald W. (1988). “An Overview of Cognitive Grammar.” Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn, ed. Topics in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 3–48.Google Scholar

  • Larson, Richard K. (1988). “On the Double Object Construction.” Linguistic Inquiry 19.3, 335–391.Google Scholar

  • Leech, Geoffrey (1981). Semantics: The Study of Meaning. 2nd ed. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar

  • Leech, Geoffrey (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar

  • Levin, Beth (1993). English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

  • Loebell, Helga and Kathryn Bock (2003). “Structural Priming across Languages.” Linguistics 41.5, 791–824.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • MacWhinney, Brian (1987). “Competition and Lexical Categorization.” Pittsburgh: Research Showcase @ CMU, no page numbers.Google Scholar

  • Perek, Florent (2012). “Alternation-Based Generalizations are Stored in the Mental Grammar: Evidence from a Sorting Task Experiment.” Cognitive Linguistics 23.3, 601–635.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Stein, Gabriele (1979). Studies in the Function of the Passive. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar

  • Wasow, Thomas (2002). Postverbal Behavior. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

  • Wulff, Stefanie (2008). “Das Prinzip der Nicht-Synonymität: V1-and-V2 und V1-V2 im Englischen.” Anatol Stefanowitsch and Kerstin Fischer, eds. Konstruktionsgrammatik II: Von der Konstruktion zur Grammatik. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, 189–201.Google Scholar

About the article

Corresponding author: Peter Uhrig, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Department Anglistik/Amerikanistik und Romanistik, Bismarckstraße 1, 91054 Erlangen, e-mail:

Published Online: 2015-10-08

Published in Print: 2015-10-01

Citation Information: Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, Volume 63, Issue 3, Pages 323–337, ISSN (Online) 2196-4726, ISSN (Print) 0044-2305, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2015-0030.

Export Citation

©2015 by De Gruyter.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in