Why the Principle of No Synonymy is Overrated

Peter Uhrig 1
  • 1 Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Department Anglistik/Amerikanistik und Romanistik, Bismarckstraße 1, 91054 Erlangen
Peter Uhrig

Abstract

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.

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

  • 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.

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

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

  • 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.

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

  • 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.

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

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

  • 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • 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.

Purchase article
Get instant unlimited access to the article.
Log in
Already have access? Please log in.


or
Log in with your institution

Journal + Issues

Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik (ZAA) is a peer-reviewed quarterly that reflects the entire spectrum of research on English and American language, literature and culture. Particular attention will be paid to the new literatures in English, the development of linguistic varieties outside of Britain and North America and the relationship between anglophone and neighbouring cultural areas.

Search