Advertisement

Word Order, Heaviness, and Animacy

  • Satoshi ImamuraEmail author
Original Paper
  • 12 Downloads

Abstract

In experiments, previous studies have observed that the choice of word order in Japanese is influenced not only by heaviness but also by animacy. To be more concrete, the heavy constituent tends to precede the light one and the animate referent tends to come before the inanimate one. Yet, the present corpus analysis demonstrates that word order changes are not motivated by animacy. This discrepancy can be accounted for by supposing that animacy has an impact on word order only when the effects of other factors are neutralized. It is possible that the effects of animacy are so weak that they work only in psycholinguistic experiments because other factors are controlled. On the other hand, the effects of animacy are not observed in this corpus study probably because other factors are not controlled in actual examples. Thus, I propose that researchers should utilize both naturalistic and experimental evidence in order to draw reasonable conclusions about the grammatical aspects of language.

Keywords

Word order Heaviness Animacy Corpus analysis Japanese 

References

  1. Arnold, J. E., Losongco, A., Wasow, T., & Ginstrom, R. (2000). Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language, 76, 28–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bock, J. K. (1987). Coordinating words and syntax in speech plans. Progress in the Psychology of Language, 3, 337–390.Google Scholar
  3. Bock, J. K., Loebell, H., & Morey, R. (1992). From conceptual roles to structural relations: Bridging the syntactic cleft. Psychological Review, 99, 150–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bock, J. K., & Warren, R. K. (1985). Conceptual accessibility and syntactic structure in sentence formulation. Cognition, 21, 47–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Branigan, H. P., Pickering, M. J., & Tanaka, M. (2008). Contributions of animacy to grammatical function assignment and word order during production. Lingua, 118, 172–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T., & Baayen, R. H. (2007). Predicting the dative alternation. In G. Bouma, I. Kraemer, & J. Zwarts (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation (pp. 69–94). Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar
  7. Chujo, K. (1983). Nihongo tanbun-no rikai katei: Bunrikai sutoratejii no sougo kankei (The Interrelationships among Strategies for Sentence Comprehension). Japanese Journal of Psychology, 54, 250–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cochran, W. G. (1954). Some methods for strengthening the common χ2-tests. Biometrics, 10, 417–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dahl, Ö., & Fraurud, K. (1996). Animacy in grammar and discourse. In Th Fretheim & J. K. Gundel (Eds.), Reference and referent accessibility (pp. 47–64). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dixon, R. M. W. (1979). Ergativity. Language, 55, 59–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dryer, M. (1980). The positional tendencies of sentential noun phrases in Universal Grammar. The Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 25, 123–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ferreira, F. (1994). Choice of passive voice is affected by verb type and animacy. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 715–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Foley, W. A. (1994). Information structure. The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 3, 1678–1685.Google Scholar
  14. Ford, M. (1983). A method for obtaining measures of local parsing complexity throughout sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 203–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frazier, L. (1987). Syntactic processing: Evidence from Dutch. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 5, 519–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frazier, L., & Flores d’Arcais, G. B. (1989). Filler-driven parsing: A study of gap-filling in Dutch. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 331–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Frazier, L., & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6, 291–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition, 68, 1–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gries, S. T. (2003). Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: A study of particle placement. New York, NY: Continuum.Google Scholar
  20. Grodner, D., & Gibson, E. (2005). Consequences of the serial nature of linguistic input for sentenial complexity. Cognitive Science, 29, 261–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hawkins, J. A. (1994). A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Heidinger, S. (2013). Information focus, syntactic weight and postverbal constituent order in Spanish. Borealis: An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics, 2, 159–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Imamura, S. (2014). The Influence of givenness and heaviness on OSV in Japanese. In W. Aroonmanakun, P. Booonkwan, & T. Supnithi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Pacific Asia Conference on language, information and computation (pp. 224–233). Bangkok: Chulalongkon University.Google Scholar
  24. Imamura, S. (2015). The effects of givenness and heaviness on VP-internal scrambling and VP-external scrambling in Japanese. Studies in Pragmatics, 17, 1–16.Google Scholar
  25. Imamura, S. (2016). A corpus-based analysis of scrambling in Japanese in terms of anaphoric and cataphoric co-referencing. Research in Corpus Linguistics, 4, 39–49.Google Scholar
  26. Imamura, S. (2017a). A pragmatic account of scrambling and topicalization in Japanese. Lingua, 191–192, 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Imamura, S. (2017b). Information structure in Japanese: scrambling, topicalization, and passives. Doctoral dissertation, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
  28. Imamura, S., Sato, Y., & Koizumi, M. (2014). Influence of Information Structure on Word Order Change and Topic Marker WA in Japanese. In W. Aroonmanakun, P. Booonkwan, & T. Supnithi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Pacific Asia Conference on language, information and computation (pp. 432–441). Bangkok: Chulalongkon University.Google Scholar
  29. Imamura, S., Sato, Y., & Koizumi, M. (2016). The processing cost of scrambling and topicalization in Japanese. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–12.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Iwasaki, S. (2002). Japanese. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jucker, A. (1993). The genitive versus the of-construction in newspaper language. In A. Jucker (Ed.), The noun phrase in English: Its structure and variability (pp. 121–136). Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
  32. Kahraman, B. (2013). Word order preferences of ditransitives in Turkish. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 67, 175–180.Google Scholar
  33. Kempen, G., & Harbusch, K. (2004). A corpus study into word order variation in German subordinate clauses: Animacy affects linearization independently of grammatical function assignment. In T. Pechmann & C. Habel (Eds.), Multidisciplinary approaches to language production (pp. 173–181). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  34. King, J., & Just, M. A. (1991). Individual differences in syntactic processing: The role of working memory. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 580–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kizach, J., & Balling, L. W. (2013). Givenness, complexity, and the Danish dative alternation. Memory & cognition, 41, 1159–1171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Koizumi, M., & Tamaoka, K. (2010). Psycholinguistic evidence for the VP-internal subject position in Japanese. Linguistic Inquiry, 41, 663–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kondo, T., & Yamashita, H. (2011). Why speakers produce scrambled sentences: An analysis of a spoken language corpus in Japanese. In H. Yamashita, Y. Hirose, & J. L. Packard (Eds.), Processing and producing head-final structures (pp. 195–217). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  38. Leech, G., Francis, B., & Xu, X. (1994). The use of computer corpora in the textual demonstrability of gradience in linguistic categories. In C. Fuchs & B. Victorri (Eds.), Continuity in linguistic semantics (pp. 57–76). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lohmann, A., & Takada, T. (2014). Order in NP conjuncts in spoken English and Japanese. Lingua, 152, 48–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. MacDonald, M. C. (1996). Representation and activation in syntactic processing. In T. Inui & J. L. McClelland (Eds.), Attention and performance 16: Information integration in perception and communication (pp. 433–453). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  41. Maekawa, K., Yamazaki, M., Ogiso, T., Maruyama, T., Ogura, H., Kashino, W., et al. (2008). Balanced corpus of contemporary written Japanese. Language Resources and Evaluation, 48, 345–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McDonald, J. L., Bock, J. K., & Kelly, M. H. (1993). Word and world order: Semantic, phonological, and metrical determinants of serial position. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 188–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Otake, T., Hanato, G., Cutler, A., & Mehler, J. (1993). Mora or syllable? Speech segmentation in Japanese. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 258–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pickering, M., & Barry, G. (1991). Sentence processing without empty categories. Language and Cognitive Processes, 6, 229–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pinker, S., & Birdsong, D. (1979). Speakers’ sensitivity to rules of frozen word order. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 497–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Prince, A., & Smolensky, P. (1993). Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Center for Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
  47. Pritchett, B., & Whitman, G. (1995). Syntactic representation and interpretive preference. In R. Mazuka & N. Nagai (Eds.), Japanese sentence processing (pp. 65–76). Hillsdale, NJ: Erbaum.Google Scholar
  48. Rosenbach, A. (2005). Animacy versus weight as determinants of grammatical variation in English. Language, 81, 613–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rosenbach, A. (2008). Animacy and grammatical variation: Finding from English genitive variation. Lingua, 118, 151–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rösler, F., Pechmann, T., Streb, J., Röder, B., & Hennighausen, E. (1998). Parsing of sentences in a language with varying word order: Word-by-word variations of processing demands are revealed by event-related brain potentials. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 150–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sekerina, I. (2003). Scrambling and processing: Dependencies, complexity and constraints. In S. Karimi (Ed.), Word order and scrambling (pp. 301–324). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Seoane, E. (2009). Syntactic complexity, discourse status and animacy as determinants of grammatical variation in Modern English. English Language and Linguistics, 13, 365–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Siewierska, A. (1993). Syntactic weight versus information structure and word order variation in Polish. Journal of Linguistics, 29, 233–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Silverstein, M. (1976). Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In R. M. W. Dixon (Ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages (pp. 112–171). Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
  55. Stallings, L. M., & MacDonald, M. C. (2011). It’s not just the “Heavy NP”: Relative phrase length modulates the production of heavy-NP shift. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 40, 177–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Stallings, L. M., MacDonald, M. C., & O’Seaghdha, P. G. (1998). Phrasal ordering constraints in sentence production: Phrase length and verb disposition in Heavy-NP shift. Journal of Memory and Language, 39, 392–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Staub, A. (2010). Eye movements and processing difficulty in object relative clauses. Cognition, 116, 71–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Suzuki, M. (2000). Word order variation in Japanese: characteristics of OSV word order. Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
  59. Tamaoka, K., Kanduboda, P. B. A., & Sakai, H. (2011). Effects of word order alternation on the sentence processing of Sinhalese written and spoken forms. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 1, 24–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tamaoka, K., Sakai, H., Kawahara, J., Miyaoka, Y., Lim, H., & Koizumi, M. (2005). Priority information used for the processing of Japanese sentences: Thematic roles, case particles or grammatical functions? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34, 281–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tanaka, M., Branigan, H. P., McLean, J. F., & Pickering, M. J. (2011). Conceptual influences on word order and voice in sentence production: Evidence from Japanese. Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 318–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Thompson, S. (1990). Information flow and dative shift in English discourse. In J. A. Edmondson, F. Crawford, & P. Muḧlhäusler (Eds.), Development and diversity, language variation across space and time (pp. 239–253). Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and University of Texas at Arlington.Google Scholar
  63. Wasow, T. (1997). Remarks on grammatical weight. Language Variation and Change, 9, 81–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wasow, T. (2002). Postverbal behavior. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  65. Wasow, T., & Arnold, J. (2003). Post-verbal constituent ordering in English. In G. Rohdenburg & B. Mondorf (Eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English (pp. 119–154). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  66. Weyerts, H., Penke, M., Münte, T. F., Heinze, H., & Clahsen, H. (2002). Word order in sentence processing: An experimental study of verb placement in German. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 31, 211–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Yamashita, H. (2002). Scrambled sentences in Japanese: Linguistic properties and motivations for production. Text-the Hague then Amsterdam then Berlin, 22, 597–634.Google Scholar
  68. Yamashita, H., & Chang, F. (2001). Long before short preference in the production of a head-final language. Cognition, 81, B45–B55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Zec, D., & Inkelas, S. (1990). Prosodically constrained syntax. In S. Inkelas & D. Zee (Eds.), The phonology-syntax connection (pp. 365–378). Chicago: CSLI.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Children’s Life, Faculty of Children’s LifeUtsunomiya Kyowa UniversityUtsunomiyaJapan

Personalised recommendations