Constructional tolerance: Cross-linguistic differences in the acceptability of non-conventional uses of constructions

Florent Perek, Martin Hilpert

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

5 Citations (Scopus)
270 Downloads (Pure)


The present paper investigates the question whether different languages can be categorized into ‘constructionally tolerant’ languages, which grant speakers considerable freedom to combine syntactic constructions with lexical items in non-conventional ways, and ‘valency-driven’ languages, which impose stronger restrictions on the way in which constructions and lexical items can be combined. The idea of such a typological distinction is sketched for instance by Rostila (2014). In order to explore possible effects of constructional tolerance, a grammaticality judgment task is administered to speakers of English and French, which are two languages that differ with regard to this phenomenon: English verbs can be used across different argument structure constructions with relative ease, French verbs are more constrained. Both populations of speakers are exposed to stimuli sentences of varying creativity in a second language, namely German. The paper advances the constructional tolerance hypothesis, which states that speakers of a constructionally tolerant language should judge nonconventional examples in an L2 with more lenience than speakers of a valency-driven language. The experimental results are in line with this hypothesis, but they also suggest that grammaticality judgments are influenced by the availability of a productive L1 construction that shows functional overlap.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)266-304
Number of pages39
JournalConstructions and Frames
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 1 Nov 2014


  • creativity
  • argument structure constructions
  • second language
  • English
  • German
  • French
  • typology


Dive into the research topics of 'Constructional tolerance: Cross-linguistic differences in the acceptability of non-conventional uses of constructions'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this