SA4: Near Synonymy, Semantic Equivalence and Syntactic Variation
Heather Burnett, Berit Gehrke and Tatiana Nikitina
Although natural languages frequently possess grammatical means to form multiple syntactic
structures expressing the same idea, it has often been claimed that, rather than allow absolute
synonymy, speakers will end up associating these different syntactic structures with slightly
different meanings (Bloomfield 1913, Goodman 1949, Cruse 1986, among others). Although it is
empirically well supported, the phenomenon of absolute synonymy avoidance seems to be at
odds with another well-documented and pervasive empirical phenomenon: syntactic variation
and change. More specifically, the common idea that “natural languages abhor absolute
synonyms just as nature abhors a vacuum” (Cruse 1986: 270) appears to be challenged by the
observation that change from one linguistic stage to another is characterized by intermediary
periods of variation in which synonymous syntactic structures, called variants in the
sociolinguistics literature, co-exist in the grammar and are used by speakers as alternative ways
of saying the same thing (Labov 1966 et seq.). Furthermore, research in variationist
sociolinguistics has shown that speakers can exploit this meaning equivalence to both construct
and express belonging to particular subgroups of their linguistic communities through distinctive
patterns of alternation between variants. In other words, we frequently observe that the use of
equivalent syntactic forms within a speech community is conditioned on factors such as sex, age,
class or other more nuanced social categories (Labov 1966, 1972, Rickford 1986, Eckert 1989,
2000 among many others). Furthermore, depending on the social organization of the community,
these periods of variation can result in the complete replacement of an older syntactic form by a
newer syntactic form, i.e. a complete instance of language change.
Our project explores the hypothesis that the tension between absolute synonymy avoidance, on
the one hand, and syntactic variation and change, on the other, can be resolved through the
development of a theory of near-synonymy; that is, the identification of a relation that holds
between linguistic expressions which is weaker than absolute synonymy, yet is still strong
enough for natural language speakers to treat linguistic expressions as equivalent for the purpose
of making social distinctions and, ultimately, for diachronic replacement. Indeed, although the
standard view in the field of language variation and change is that variants must be at least truthconditionally equivalent (if not discourse-/pragmatically equivalent) (Weiner and Labov 1983),
certain research into morpho-syntactic and discourse-pragmatic variation has suggested that the
semantic/pragmatic conditions that must be met for two forms to be in variation are, in fact, a fair
bit weaker than strict truth-conditional equivalence (Lavandera 1978, Dines 1980, Romaine 1984,
Cheshire 1987, Winford 1996, Ito and Tagliamonte 2003, among others). In addition, as discussed
above, even in cases where two forms are clearly truth-conditionally equivalent, the use of one
variant versus another still has social meaning, and it is an open question in the field whether this
layer of meaning should be analyzed using the same formal frameworks as used in lexical
semantics (Smith, Hall and Munson 2010), indexical pragmatics (Acton and Potts 2014) or
whether new frameworks should be developed (eg. Silverstein 2003, Eckert 2008).
With this in mind, the goal of our project is to develop a precise characterization of nearsynonymy using the tools made available by formal semantic/pragmatic theory and, if necessary,
developing new ones. Our empirical basis for this theory will be constituted of:
Strand 1: Results of previous cross-linguistic studies of morpho-syntactic and discourse-
pragmatic variation and change.
Strand 2: New corpus studies of synchronic and diachronic variation in a particular class of
nearly synonymous expressions: argument structure alternations and changes (in the broadest
sense) in (dialects/historical stages of) German, Russian and French.
Strand 1:
Formal Characterization of Existing Results
The first part of the project proposes to conduct a literature review of the empirical results of
previous studies of syntactic and semantic variation and change. Since the 1970s, this field has
produced a great wealth of data concerning which kinds of expressions can be in sociolinguistic
variation; however, the particular meaning relations that hold between them have, in most cases,
not been studied through the lens of formal semantic and pragmatic theory. We therefore propose
to conduct a survey of previous work in syntactic/semantic variation/change with the aim of
identifying and formally characterizing the (near-)synonymy relations that have been found to
hold between variants in the literature.
To aid us in this task, we also propose to hold a weekly seminar featuring readings and (if
financially feasible) invited speaker presentations dealing with empirical studies of syntactic and
semantic change and/or the formal modelling of synchronic and diachronic variation data.
Strand 2:
New Studies: Argument Structure Alternations
Since the topic of near-synonymy and its connection to syntactic variation is quite broad, the
second main part of the project will focus on the semantic/pragmatic relations found in just one
corner of the grammar: argument structure alternations and changes (ex. alternations
involving passive, middle and impersonal constructions). Given that the aim of the project is to
develop a theory of the semantic/pragmatic preconditions for sociolinguistic variation and change
that holds cross-linguistically, we will look at such alternations in (dialects and historical stages
of) three different languages: Russian, French and German.
The first alternation to be studied is the following alternation in Russian: the two expressions in
(1) are perceived as synonymous by speakers of this language. In (1a), the adjectival predicate
agrees with its subject; in (1b), an impersonal predicate is used instead, which coincides with the
adjectival predicate in the neuter singular form.
(1)
a.
Otsjuda
xorošo
vidna
from.here
well
visible:fem.nom.sg
b.
Otsjuda
xorošo
vidno
from.here
well
visible:neu.nom.sg
‘From here, the stage can be seen well.’
scena
stage:nom
scenu
stage:acc
The second alternation to be studied is the existential/canonical alternation in French. As in the
Russian examples in (1), the sentences in (2a/3a) and (2b/3b) are felt to be synonymous by native
speakers. The predicate agrees with its subject in the (a) examples (like the Russian (1a)), and an
impersonal existential predicate is used in the (b) examples (similar to Russian (1b)).
(2)
(3)
a.
b.
a.
b.
Un gars est venu.
Il y a un gars qui est venu.
Personne (n')est venu. / Personne est venu.
(Québec French)
Il (n')y a personne qui est venu. / Ya (pas) personne qui est venu. (Québec French)
The third alternation to be studied is a case of variation within the set of demoting constructions.
In German, the middle construction obligatorily appears with an additional reflexive marker (4a).
However, German also has another construction at its disposal, the lassen-‘let’-construction,
which at first sight expresses the same meaning (4b).
(4)
a.
Das Buch liest sich leicht.
the book reads SELF easily
b.
Das Buch lässt sich leicht lesen.
the book lets SELF easily read
‘The book reads easily.’
Our research questions associated with these three alternations are the following:
Question 1: What are the semantic/pragmatic relationships between the pairs of expressions in
(1-4)?
• Are they truth-conditionally equivalent? Are there social meaning differences between
them?1
• How can we formally characterize the difference in truth-conditional, pragmatic and/or
social meaning between the (a) sentences and the (b) sentences above?
Although the standard methodology in theoretical linguistics used to establish truth-conditional
(non-)equivalence is native speaker judgments (cf. Heim and Kratzer 1998, Chierchia and
McConnell-Ginet 2000, a.o.), very subtle differences in meaning between two linguistic
expressions often require corpus or psycholinguistic experimental methodology to diagnose. For
example, although, at first glance, determiner phrases such as French agreement and agreement
by France appear exactly synonymous (and have been treated as synonymous in the formal
syntactic literature; e.g. Fábregas 2007, Alexiadou and Stavrou 2011), Boleda, Evert, Gehrke and
McNally (2012), for instance, show in a large-scale, statistical corpus data study that their
distribution is not the same and that certain contextual cues are necessary for the felicitous
occurrence of French agreement; however the same cues are not necessary for agreement by
France. Likewise, many speakers (both linguists and non-linguists) feel that there are important
truth-conditional differences in meaning (generally involving transfer and possession) between
the English prepositional dative (ex. give a book to Mary) and the double object construction
(give Mary a book). However, corpus studies by Bresnan, Cueni, Nikitina and Baayen (2007) and
Bresnan and Nikitina (2009) show that both constructions can be used in the same semantic
contexts, although grammatical features such as animacy and person create preferences for the
use of one construction over the other. Thus, more sophisticated experimental methods (such as
corpus research) are vital for answering Question 1 above.
1
For example, the use of an impersonal existential construction versus a canonical construction is stigmatized in
popular culture in Québec (see, for example, Dor 1996); therefore, it is highly likely that we will find social
factors conditioning this syntactic alternation.
More specifically, we will conduct corpus studies of variation in the use of the (a) sentences
versus the (b) sentences in large spoken and/or written corpora of Russian (the Russian National
Corpus), French (the French Treebank (Abeillé et al. 2003), the Montréal 71 (Sankoff and
Cedergren 1972) and Montréal 84 (Thibault and Vincent 1990) corpora of spoken Montréal
French), and German (the Frankfurter Rundschau corpus).
Our corpus methodology will further allow us to answer our second research question:
Question 2: Which grammatical factors condition the use of the (a) forms versus the (b) forms?
• For example, to what extent does the obligatoriness of the adverb and the restriction to
verb classes with affected themes in subject position, which is generally observed for
middles in languages like English and German (cf., e.g., Lekakou 2005, Pitteroff 2014),
also hold for the lassen-construction?
• Do the same grammatical factors affect the used of a (non-)demoted construction crosslinguistically? (comparison between Russian and French)
Finally, since our project makes use of both diachronic corpora and sociolinguistically stratified
corpora, we will be able to answer our third research question:
Question 3: Are there syntactic changes in progress in argument structure alternation
constructions?
• When we compare patterns variation between (a) sentences and (b) sentences in
diachronic corpora, do we find a difference in their overall frequency of use or in the
strength of grammatical conditioning factors?
As the results from this project become available, we propose to disseminate them through
articles and conference presentations. Therefore, to this end, we would require some travel
funding.
References
Abeillé, A., L. Clément, and F. Toussenel (2003). "Building a treebank for French". In Treebanks,
ed. by A. Abeillé. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Acton, E. and C. Potts (2014). That straight talk: Sarah Palin and the sociolinguistics of
demonstratives. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 18:3-31.
Alexiadou, A and Stavrou, M (2011). Ethnic adjectivs as pseudo-adjectives: A case study in
syntax-morphology interaction and the structure of DP. Studia Linguistica 65:1-30.
Boleda, G., S. Evert, B. Gehrke, and L. McNally (2012). "Adjectives as saturators vs. modifiers:
Statistical evidence." In Logic, Language and Meaning - 18th Amsterdam Colloquium, ed. M.
Aloni, V. Kimmelman, F. Roelofsen, G. Weidman Sassoon, K. Schulz, and M. Westera, 112121. Dordrecht: Springer.
Bresnan, J. and T. Nikitina (2009). "The Gradience of the Dative Alternation." In Reality
Exploration and Discovery: Pattern Interaction in Language and Life, edited by Linda Uyechi
and Lian Hee Wee, 161-184. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Bresnan, J. A. Cueni, T. Nikitina, and H. Baayen. (2007). "Predicting the Dative Alternation."
In Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation, ed. by G. Boume, I. Kraemer, and J. Zwarts, 6994. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.
Cheshire, J. (1987). Syntactic variation, the linguistic variable and sociolinguistic
theory. Linguistics 25 (2):257-282.
Chierchia, G. and S. McConnell-Ginet (2000). Meaning and Grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Cruse, D.A. (1986). Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dines, E. (1980). Variation in discourse – and stuff like that. Language in Society 9:13-31.
Dor, G. (1996). Anna braillé ène shot: Essai sur le langage parlé des Québécois. Montréal:
Lanctôt.
Eckert, P. (2008). Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12:453-76.
Eckert, P. (2000). Linguistic Variation as Social Practice. Oxford: Blackwell.
Eckert, P. (1989). Jocks and Burnouts: Social categories and identity in the high school. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Fábregas, A (2007). The internal syntactic structure of relational adjectives. Probus 19.1:135-170.
Goodman, Nelson (1949). On Likeness of Meaning. Analysis 10:1-7.
Heim, I. and A. Kratzer (1998). Semantics in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ito, R. and S. Tagliamonte. (2003). Well weird, right dodgy, very strange, really cool: Layering
and recycling in English intensifiers. Language in Society 30:257-279.
Labov W. (1966). The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center
for Applied Linguistics.
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Lavandera, B. (1978). Where does the sociolinguistic variable stop? Language in Society 7:171183.
Pitteroff, M. (2014). Non-canonical lassen middles. Doctoral dissertation, University of Stuttgart.
Rickford J. (1986). The need for new approaches to class analysis in sociolinguistics. Lang.
Commun. 6:215–21.
Sankoff, G. and H. Cedergren (1972). Sociolinguistic research on French in Montréal. Language
in Society 1:173-174.
Silverstein, M. (2003). Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Lang. Commun.
23:193–229.
Thibault, P. and D. Vincent (1990). Un corpus de français parlé: Montréal 84. Recherches
sociolinguistiques 1. Bibliothèque nationale du Québec.
Weiner, E. J. and Labov, W. (1983). Constraints on the agentless passive. Journal of Linguistics
19:29-58.
Winford, D. (1984). The linguistic variable and syntactic variation in Creole continua. Lingua
62:267-288.