Cover not available
Article published In:
Current trends in analyzing syntactic variation
Edited by Ludovic De Cuypere, Clara Vanderschueren and Gert de Sutter
[Belgian Journal of Linguistics 31] 2017
► pp. 8–29

Syntactic alternation research

Taking stock and some suggestions for the future

| University of California, Santa Barbara |

Over the last 20 or so years, research on syntactic alternations has made great strides in both theoretical and methodological ways. On the theoretical side, much of the research on syntactic alternations was restricted to generative linguistics debating how near synonymous constructions differed slightly in meaning and/or how one (and which one) was derived from the other (transformationally). On the methodological side, much research consisted of monofactorial studies based on relatively simple text counts. By now, however, syntactic alternation research has become much more functional (in a broad sense of the term) and much more methodologically sophisticated: Much work is now motivated/interpreted psycholinguistically or in a broadly usage-based/cognitive linguistic framework and much work has now adopted a regression-based analytical strategy. These attractive developments notwithstanding, much remains to be done and, in this paper, I sketch some recent developments in (largely) separate alternation studies that I would like the field to adopt more broadly. These developments can be heuristically grouped into ones that have to do with (i) the statistical analysis of corpus-based and experimental alternation data, (ii) new predictors that explain typically unexplored aspects of variability in alternations.

Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1General introduction
  • 2.Improvements 1: Better methods
    • 2.1More on autocorrelation
      • 2.1.1Beta persistence
      • 2.1.2Cumulative priming
      • 2.1.3Surprisal
      • 2.1.4Similarity
      • 2.1.5Interim summary
    • 2.2More on regression modeling
      • 2.2.1On model selection and model amalgamation
      • 2.2.2On effects and comparisons
      • 2.2.3On predicting and imputing
    • 2.3Alternatives to regression modeling
  • 3.Improvements 2: Underused predictors
    • 3.1Information-theoretic predictors
    • 3.2Phonological predictors
      • 3.2.1Rhythmic alternation
      • 3.2.2Segment alternation
    • 3.3Interim summary
  • 4.Concluding remarks
  • References


This article is currently available as a sample article.

Published online: 23 April 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00001.gri
References
Attneave, Fred
1959 Applications of Information Theory to Psychology: A Summary of Basic Concepts, Methods and Results. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald
2011 “Corpus Linguistics and Naïve Discriminative Learning.” Brazilian Journal of Applied Linguistics 11(2): 295–218.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald, Jacolien von Rij, Cecile de, Cat C., and Simon N. Wood
to appear a. Autocorrelated Errors in Experimental Data in the Language Sciences: Some Solutions Offered by Generalized Additive Mixed Models. In Mixed effects regression models in Linguistics ed by Dirk Speelman, Kris Heylen, and D. Geeraerts Berlin and Springer DOI logo
Baayen, R. Harald, Shravan Vasishth, Douglas M. Bates, and Reinhold Kliegl
to appear b. “The Cave of Shadows. Addressing the Human Factor with Generalized Additive Mixed Models.” Journal of Memory and Language.
Barr, Dale J., Roger Levy, Christoph Scheepers, and Harry J. Tily
2013 “Random Effects Structure for Confirmatory Hypothesis Testing: Keep it Maximal.” Journal of Memory and Language 68(3): 255–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, Douglas M. Reinhold Kliegl, Shravan Vasishth, and R. Harald Baayen
submitted. “Parsimonious Mixed Models.”
Bernolet, Sarah, Timothy Colleman, and Robert Hartsuiker
2014 “The ‘Sense Boost’ to Dative Priming: Evidence for Sense-Specific Verb-Structure Links.” Journal of Memory and Language 76(1): 113–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bretz, Frank, Torsten Hothorn, and Peter Westfall
2010 Multiple Comparisons Using R. Boca Raton, FL, London, and New York: Chapman and Hall / CRC. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burnham, Kenneth P. and David R. Anderson
2002 Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach. 2nd ed. London and New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
1986 An Introduction to English Prosody. Tübingen: Edward Arnold and Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Deshors, Sandra C. and Stefan Th. Gries
2016 “Profiling Verb Complementation Constructions across New Englishes: A Two-Step Random Forests Analysis to ing vs. to Complements.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 21(2): 192–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Francom, Jerid
2009 Experimental syntax: Exploring the Effect of Repeated Exposure to Anomalous Syntactic Structure: Evidence from Rating and Reading tasks. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Gerard, Jeffrey, Frank Keller, and Themis Palpanas
2010 “Corpus Evidence for Age Effects on Priming in Child Language.” In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. by Stellan Ohlsson and Richard Catrambone, 1559–1564.’Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th.
2003 Multifactorial Analysis in Corpus Linguistics: A Study of Particle Placement. London and New York: Continuum Press.Google Scholar
2007 “New Perspectives on Old Alternations.” In Papers from the 39th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society: Vol. II. The Panels, ed. by Jonathan E. Cihlar, Amy L. Franklin, and David W. Kaiser, 274–292. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
2011 “Commentary.” In Kathryn Allan and Justyna Robinson (eds.), Current Methods in Historical Semantics, 184–195. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015 “The Most Underused Statistical Method in Corpus Linguistics: Multi-Level (and Mixed-Effects) models.” Corpora 10(1): 95–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 “Frequencies of (Co-)Occurrence vs. Variationist Corpus Approaches towards Alternations: Variability due to Random Effects and Autocorrelation.” In Triangulating Methodological Approaches in Corpus Linguistic Research, ed. by Paul Baker and Jesse Egbert, 108–123. New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th.. and Allison S. Adelman
2014 “Subject Realization in Japanese Conversation by Native and Non-Native speakers: Exemplifying a New Paradigm for Learner Corpus Research.” In Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2014: New Empirical and Theoretical Paradigms, ed. by Jesús Romero-Trillo, 35–54. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th.. and Tobias J. Bernaisch
2016 “Exploring Epicenters Empirically: Focus on South Asian Englishes.” English World-Wide 37(1): 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th.. and Sandra C. Deshors
2014 “Using Regressions to Explore Deviations between Corpus Data and a Standard/Target: Two Suggestions.” Corpora 9(1): 109–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th.. and Anatol Stefanowitsch
2004 “Extending Collostructional Analysis: A Corpus-Based Perspective on ‘Alternations’.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(1): 97–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th.. and Stefanie Wulff
2009 “Psycholinguistic and Corpus Linguistic Evidence for L2 Constructions.” Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 71: 163–186. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hale, John
2001 “A Probabilistic Earley Parser as a Psycholinguistic Model.” Proceedings of the second meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics on Language technologies. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harrell, Frank E. Jr.
2015 Regression Modeling Strategies. […]. 2nd ed. London and New York: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, T. Florian
2011 “Corpus-Based Research on Language Production: Information Density and Reducible Subject Relatives.” In Language from a Cognitive Perspective: Grammar, Usage, and Processing, ed. by Emily M. Bender and Jennifer Arnold, 161–197. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. Florian and Neal Snider
2008 “Implicit Learning and Syntactic Persistence: Surprisal and Cumulativity.” In Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society Conference, ed. by Bradley C. Love, Kenneth McRae, K., Vladimir M. Sloutsky, 1061–1066. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Judd, Charles M., Jacob Westfall, and David A. Kenny
2017 “Experiments with More than One Random Factor: Designs, Analytic Models, and Statistical Power.” Annual Review of Psychology 68(1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuperman, Victor and Joan Bresnan
2012 “The Effects of Construction Probability on Word Durations during Spontaneous Incremental Sentence Production.” Journal of Memory and Language 66(4): 588–611. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, Charles N., and Sandra A. Thompson
1981 Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Linzen, Tal and T. Florian Jaeger
2015 “Uncertainty and Expectation in Sentence Processing: Evidence From Subcategorization Distributions.” Cognitive Science 40(6): 1382–1411. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matuschek, Hannes, Reinhold Kliegl, Shravan Vasishth, R. Harald Baayen, and Douglas M. Bates
subm. “Balancing Type I Error and Power in Linear Mixed Models.”
Miglio, Viola G., Stefan Th. Gries, Michael J. Harris, Eva M. Wheeler, and Raquel Santana-Paixão
2013 “Spanish lo(s)-le(s) Clitic Alternations in Psych Berbs: A Multifactorial Corpus-Based Analysis.” In Selected Proceedings of the 15th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, ed. by Jennifer Cabrelli Amaro, Gillian Lord, and Ana de Prada Pérez, and Jessi E. Aaron, 268–278. Somerville, MA. Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Pickering, Martin J. and Holly P. Branigan
1998 “The Representation of Verbs: Evidence from Syntactic Priming in Language Production.” Journal of Memory and Language 39(4): 633–651. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scheepers, Christoph
2003 “Syntactic Priming of Relative Clause Attachments: Persistence of Structural Configuration in Sentence Production.” Cognition 89(3): 179–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schlüter, Julia
2003 “Phonological Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English: Chomsky’s Worst Possible Case.” In Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English, ed. by Günter Rohdenburg and Britta Mondorf, 69–118. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015 “Rhythmic Influence on Grammar: Scope and Limitations.” In Rhythm in Phonetics, Grammar and Cognition, ed. by Ralf Vogel and Ruben Vijver, 179–206. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Snider, Neal
2009 “Similarity and Structural Priming.” In Proceedings of the 31th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science, ed. by Niels A. Taatgen and Hedderik van Rijn, 815–820.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol and Stefan Th. Gries
2003 “Collostructions: Investigating the Interaction between Words and Constructions.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2): 209–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt
2005 “Language Users as Creatures of Habit: A Corpus-Linguistic Analysis of Persistence in Spoken English.” Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1(1): 113–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006 Morphosyntactic Persistence in Spoken English. A Corpus Study at the Intersection of Variationist Sociolinguistics, Psycholinguistics, and Discourse Analysis. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Theijssen, Daphne, Louis ten Bosch, Lou Boves, Bert Cranen and Hans van Halteren
2013 “Choosing Alternatives: Using Bayesian Networks and Memory-Based Learning to Study the Dative Alternation”. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 9(2): 227–262. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vogel, Ralf and Ruben Vijver
(eds.) 2015 Rhythm in Phonetics, Grammar and Cognition. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Vennemann, Theo
1988 Preference Laws for Syllable Structure and the Explanation of Sound Change. With Special Reference to German, Germanic, Italian and Latin. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wulff, Stefanie and Stefan Th. Gries
2015 “Prenominal Adjective Order Preferences in Chinese and German L2 English: A Multifactorial Corpus Study.” Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 5(1): 122–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wulff, Stefanie, Stefan Th. Gries, and Nicholas Lester
To appear. “Optional that in Complementation by German and Spanish Learners: Where and How German and Spanish Learners Differ from Native Speakers.” In What Does Applied Cognitive Linguistics Look Like? Answers from the L2 Classroom and SLA Studies ed. by Andrea Tyler and Carol Moder Berlin, Boston De Gruyter Mouton
Cited by

Cited by 6 other publications

Akinlotan, Mayowa
2021. A corpus-driven description of when-adverbial in Nigerian and British Englishes. Glottotheory 12:2 ► pp. 159 ff. DOI logo
Davidse, Kristin & Hendrik De Smet
2020. Diachronic Corpora. In A Practical Handbook of Corpus Linguistics, ► pp. 211 ff. DOI logo
De Troij, Robbert, Stefan Grondelaers, Dirk Speelman & Antal van den Bosch
2022. Lexicon or grammar? Using memory-based learning to investigate the syntactic relationship between Belgian and Netherlandic Dutch. Natural Language Engineering 28:5 ► pp. 649 ff. DOI logo
Kang, Hui & Jiajin Xu
2021. A Multifactorial Analysis of Concessive Clause Positioning. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 28:4 ► pp. 356 ff. DOI logo
Vetchinnikova, Svetlana & Turo Hiltunen
2020. ELF and Language Change at the Individual Level. In Language Change, ► pp. 205 ff. DOI logo
Wyroślak, Piotr
2023. Accusative-instrumental alternation in Polish. Zeitschrift für Slawistik 68:1 ► pp. 41 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 march 2024. 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.