Why the principle of no Synonymy is overrated

Journal article
(Original article)


Publication Details

Author(s): Uhrig P
Journal: Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik
Publisher: Königshausen & Neumann
Publication year: 2015
Volume: 63
Journal issue: 3
Pages range: 323-337
ISSN: 0044-2305
eISSN: 2196-4726


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.



FAU Authors / FAU Editors

Uhrig, Peter Dr.
Lehrstuhl für Anglistik, insbesondere Linguistik


How to cite

APA:
Uhrig, P. (2015). Why the principle of no Synonymy is overrated. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 63(3), 323-337. https://dx.doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2015-0030

MLA:
Uhrig, Peter. "Why the principle of no Synonymy is overrated." Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 63.3 (2015): 323-337.

BibTeX: 

Last updated on 2018-17-10 at 06:40