Introduction: what are alternations and how should we study them?

References

Aaron, Jessi. 2010. Pushing the envelope: Looking beyond the variable context. Language Variation and Change 3. 191–222. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954394509990226.Suche in Google Scholar

Arppe, Antti, Gaëtanelle Gilquin, Dylan Glynn, Martin Hilpert & Arne Zeschel. 2010. Cognitive corpus linguistics: Five points of debate on current theory and methodology. Corpora 5(1). 1–27. https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2010.0001.Suche in Google Scholar

Bloem, Jelke, Arjen Versloot & Fred Weerman. 2015. An agent-based model of a historical word order change. In Robert Berwick, Anna Korhonen, Alessandro Lenci, Thierry Poibeau & Aline Villavicencio (eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop on Cognitive Aspects of Computational Language Learning, 22–27. Lisbon: Association for Computational Linguistics.10.18653/v1/W15-2404Suche in Google Scholar

Bresnan, Joan, Cueni Anna, Tatiana Nikitina & Rolf Harald Baayen. 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. In Gerolf Bouma, Irene Krämer & Joost Zwarts (eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation, 69–94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Suche in Google Scholar

Brook, Marisa. 2018. Taking it up a level: Copy-raising and cascaded tiers of morphosyntactic change. Language Variation and Change 30. 231–260. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954394518000078.Suche in Google Scholar

Bürkle, Daniel. 2015. The acquisition of sentence alternations: How children understand and use the English dative alternation. Canterbury: University of Canterbury PhD thesis.Suche in Google Scholar

Cheshire, Jenny. 1987. Syntactic variation, the linguistic variable, and sociolinguistic theory. Linguistics 25(2). 257–282. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1987.25.2.257.Suche in Google Scholar

Colleman, Timothy. 2009. Verb disposition in argument structure alternations: A corpus study of the dative alternation in Dutch. Language Sciences 31(5). 593–611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2008.01.001.Suche in Google Scholar

Colleman, Timothy. 2020. The emergence of the dative alternation in Dutch: Towards the establishment of a horizontal link. In Chiara Fedriani & Maria Napoli (eds.), The diachrony of ditransitives, 137–168. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110701371-005Suche in Google Scholar

Davies, Mark. 2016. Corpus of News on the Web (NOW). Available at: https://www.english-corpora.org/now/.Suche in Google Scholar

De Cuypere, Ludovic. 2015. A multivariate analysis of the Old English ACC plus DAT double object alternation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 11(2). 225–254. https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2014-0011.Suche in Google Scholar

den Boon, Ton & Dirk Geeraerts (eds.). 2005. Van Dale Groot woordenboek van de Nederlandse taal, 14th edn. Antwerpen/Utrecht: Van Dale Lexicography.Suche in Google Scholar

De Smet, Hendrik, Frauke D’hoedt, Lauren L. Fonteyn & Kristel Van Goethem. 2018. The changing functions of competing forms: Attraction and differentiation. Cognitive Linguistics 29(2). 197–234. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0025.Suche in Google Scholar

Engel, Alexandra & Adriana Hanulíková. 2020. Speaking style modulates morphosyntactic expectations in young and older adults: Evidence from a sentence repetition task. Discourse Processes 57(9). 749–769. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853x.2020.1777497.Suche in Google Scholar

Ferreira, Victor & Elizabeth Schotter. 2013. Do verb bias effects on sentence production reflect sensitivity to comprehension or production factors? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 66(8). 1548–1571. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2012.753924.Suche in Google Scholar

Grafmiller, Jason. 2014. Variation in English genitives across modality and genres. English Language and Linguistics 18(3). 471–496. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1360674314000136.Suche in Google Scholar

Grafmiller, Jason & Benedikt Szmrecsanyi. 2018. Mapping out particle placement in Englishes around the world: A study in comparative sociolinguistic analysis. Language Variation and Change 30(3). 385–412. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394518000170.Suche in Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Thomas. 2003. Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: A study of particle placement. New York: Continuum.Suche in Google Scholar

Grieve, Jack. 2016. Regional variation in written American English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139506137Suche in Google Scholar

Grondelaers, Stefan, Dirk Speelman, Denis Drieghe, Marc Brysbaert & Dirk Geeraerts. 2009. Introducing a new entity into discourse: Comprehension and production evidence for the status of Dutch er ‘there’ as a higher-level expectancy monitor. Acta Psychologica 130(2). 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.11.003.Suche in Google Scholar

Heller, Benedikt. 2018. Stability and fluidity in syntactic variation world-wide: The genitive alternation across varieties of English. Leuven: University of Leuven PhD dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar

Heller, Benedikt, Benedikt Szmrecsanyi & Jason Grafmiller. 2017. Stability and fluidity in syntactic variation world-wide. Journal of English Linguistics 45(1). 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424216685405.Suche in Google Scholar

Klavan, Jane & Dagmar Divjak. 2016. The cognitive plausibility of statistical classification models: Comparing textual and behavioral evidence. Folia Linguistica 50(2). 355–384. https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2016-0014.Suche in Google Scholar

Lavandera, Beatriz. 1978. Where does the sociolinguistic variable stop? Language in Society 7(2). 171–182. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404500005510.Suche in Google Scholar

Levshina, Natalia. 2015. How to do linguistics with R: Data exploration and statistical analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.195Suche in Google Scholar

Levshina, Natalia. 2018. Anybody (at) home? Communicative efficiency knocking on the construction grammar door. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 6. 71–90. https://doi.org/10.1515/gcla-2018-0004.Suche in Google Scholar

Levshina, Natalia & Kris Heylen. 2014. A radically data-driven construction grammar: Experiments with Dutch causative constructions. In Ronny Boogaart, Timothy Colleman & Gijsbert Rutten (eds.), Extending the scope of construction grammar, 17–46. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110366273.17Suche in Google Scholar

Mikkelsen, Olaf & Dylan Glynn. 2023. Schemas, chunks and everything between: Evidence from Germanic and Romance. Paper presented at the International Cognitive Linguistics Conference (ICLC), Düsseldorf, 9 August.Suche in Google Scholar

Oostdijk, Nelleke, Martin Reynaert, Véronique Hoste & Ineke Schuurman. 2013. The construction of a 500-million-word reference corpus of contemporary written Dutch. In Peter Spyns & Jan Odijk (eds.), Essential speech and language technology for Dutch, theory and applications of natural language processing, 219–247. Heidelberg: Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-30910-6_13Suche in Google Scholar

Pericchi, Natalia, Kristin Davidse, Bert Cornillie & Freek Van de Velde. 2020. A diachronic study of indirect object doubling in Argentinian Spanish. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 52(1). 45–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/03740463.2020.1744874.Suche in 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. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2012-0018.Suche in Google Scholar

Perek, Florent. 2015. Argument structure in usage-based construction grammar: Experimental and corpus-based perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cal.17Suche in Google Scholar

Pijpops, Dirk. 2019. How, why and where does argument structure vary? A usage-based investigation into the Dutch transitive-prepositional alternation. Leuven: University of Leuven PhD dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar

Pijpops, Dirk. 2020. What is an alternation? Six answers. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 34. 283–294. https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00053.pij.Suche in Google Scholar

Pijpops, Dirk. 2022. Lectal contamination: Evidence from corpora and from agent-based simulation. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 27(3). 259–290. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.20040.pij.Suche in Google Scholar

Pijpops, Dirk, Dirk Speelman, Stefan Grondelaers & Freek Van de Velde. 2018. Comparing explanations for the Complexity Principle: Evidence from argument realization. Language and Cognition 10(3). 514–543. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2018.13.Suche in Google Scholar

Pijpops, Dirk, Dirk Speelman, Stefan Grondelaers & Freek Van de Velde. 2021. Incorporating the multi-level nature of the constructicon into hypothesis testing. Cognitive Linguistics 32(3). 487–528. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2020-0039.Suche in Google Scholar

Romain, Laurence, Dagmar Hanzlikova, Petar Milin & Dagmar Divjak. In press. Ruled by construal? Framing article choice in English. Constructions and Frames. https://research.birmingham.ac.uk/en/publications/ruled-by-construal-framing-article-choice-in-english#:∼:text=In%20cognitive%20linguistics%2C%20grammatical%20structure,the%20speaker%20construes%20this%20context.Suche in Google Scholar

Rosenbach, Anette. 2002. Genitive variation in English: Conceptual factors in synchronic and diachronic studies. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110899818Suche in Google Scholar

Röthlisberger, Melanie. 2018a. Regional variation in probabilistic grammars: A multifactorial study of the English dative alternation. Leuven: University of Leuven PhD dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar

Röthlisberger, Melanie. 2018b. Guidelines for the dative alternation. Unpublished manuscript, KU Leuven. Available at: https://melanie-roethlisberger.ch/data/.Suche in Google Scholar

Schapper, Antoinette. 2014. Kamang. In Antoinette Schapper (ed.), The Papuan languages of Timor, Alor and Pantar, vol. 1: Sketch grammars (Pacific Linguistics 644), 285–350. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9781614515241.285Suche in Google Scholar

Soares da Silva, Augusto, Susana Afonso, Dafne Palú & Karlien Franco. 2021. Null se constructions in Brazilian and European Portuguese: Morphosyntactic deletion or emergence of new constructions? Cognitive Linguistics 32(1). 159–193. https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2019-0037.Suche in Google Scholar

Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2013. The great regression: Genitive variability in Late Modern English news texts. In Kersti Börjars, David Denison & Alan K. Scott (eds.), Morphosyntactic categories and the expression of possession, 59–88. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/la.199.03szmSuche in Google Scholar

Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, Douglas Biber, Jesse Egbert & Karlien Franco. 2016. Toward more accountability: Modeling ternary genitive variation in Late Modern English. Language Variation and Change 28(1). 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954394515000198.Suche in Google Scholar

Theijssen, Daphne. 2012. Making choices: Modelling the English dative alternation. Nijmegen: Radboud University PhD dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar

De Vaere, Hilde, Ludovic De Cuypere & Klaas Willems. 2021. Alternating constructions with ditransitive geben in present-day German. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 17(1). 73–107. https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2017-0072.Suche in Google Scholar

Van de Velde, Freek, Hendrik De Smet & Lobke Ghesquière. 2013. On multiple source constructions in language change. Studies in Language 37(3). 473–489. https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.37.3.01int.Suche in Google Scholar

Willems, Annelore & Gert De Sutter. 2015. Reassessing the effect of the complexity principle on PP placement in Dutch. Nederlandse Taalkunde 20(3). 339–366.10.5117/NEDTAA2015.3.WILLSuche in Google Scholar

Wolk, Christoph, Joan Bresnan, Anette Rosenbach & Benedikt Szmrecsanyi. 2013. Dative and genitive variability in Late Modern English: Exploring cross-constructional variation and change. Diachronica 30(3). 382–419. https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.30.3.04wol.Suche in Google Scholar

Zehentner, Eva. 2019. Competition in language change: The rise of the English dative alternation. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110633856Suche in Google Scholar