Advertisement

Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

, Volume 40, Issue 3, pp 177–187 | Cite as

It’s not Just the “Heavy NP”: Relative Phrase Length Modulates the Production of Heavy-NP Shift

  • Lynne M. Stallings
  • Maryellen C. MacDonald
Article

Abstract

Heavy-NP shift is the tendency for speakers to place long direct object phrases at the end of a clause rather than next to the verb. Though some analyses have focused on length of the direct object phrase alone, results from two experiments demonstrate that the length of the direct object relative to that of other phrases, and not the length of the direct object alone, predicts production of the shifted structure. These data support an accessibility-based interpretation of length effects in word order emerging from incremental production processes, in which longer phrases tend to be less easily planned and therefore are delayed during utterance planning.

Keywords

Sentence production Language production Grammatical encoding Heavy-NP shift Constituent ordering 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arnold J. E., Wasow T., Losongco A., Ginstrom R. (2000) Heaviness versus newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language 76: 28–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bock J. K., Levelt W. (1994) Language production: Grammatical encoding. In: Gernsbacher M. A. (eds) Handbook of psycholinguistics. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp 945–984Google Scholar
  3. Bock J. K., Warren R. K. (1985) Conceptual accessibility and syntactic structure in sentence formulation. Cognition 21: 47–67PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bresnan J. (2007) Is syntactic knowledge probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation. In: Featherston S., Sternefeld W. (eds) Roots: Linguistics in search of its evidential base. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, pp 77–96Google Scholar
  5. Chang F. (2009) Learning to order words: A connectionist model of heavy NP shift and accessibility effects in Japanese and English. Journal of Memory and Language 61: 374–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. De Smedt K. (1994) Parallelism in incremental sentence generation. In: Adriaens G., Hahn U. (eds) Parallel natural language processing. Ablex, Norwood, NJ, pp 421–447Google Scholar
  7. Dryer M (1980) The positional tendencies of sentential noun phrases in Universal Grammar. The Canadian Journal of Linguistics 25: 123–195Google Scholar
  8. Emonds J. (1976) A transformational approach to English syntax. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Givón T. (1988) The pragmatics of word order: Predictability, importance, and attention. In: Hammond M., Moravcsik E. A., Wirth J. (eds) Studies in syntactic typology. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp 243–284Google Scholar
  10. Hawkins J. A. (1994) A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  11. Kimball J. (1973) Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language. Cognition 2: 15–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lombardi L., Potter M. C. (1998) Syntactic priming in immediate recall of sentences. Journal of Memory and Language 38: 265–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. McDonald J., Bock K., Kelly M. H. (1993) Word and world order: Semantic, phonological, and metrical determinants of serial position. Cognitive Psychology 25: 188–230PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Quirk R., Greenbaum S., Leech G., Svartvik J. (1972) A grammar of contemporary English. Longman, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Race, D. S. & MacDonald, M. C. (2003). The use of “that” in the production and comprehension of object relative clauses. In Proceedings of the 25th annual meeting of the cognitive science society.Google Scholar
  16. Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  17. Stallings L., 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: 392–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Staub A., Clifton C., Frazier L. (2006) Heavy NP shift is the parser’s last resort: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language 54: 389–406PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Wasow T. (1997) End-weight from the speaker’s perspective. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 26: 347–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wasow T., Arnold J. (2003) Post-verbal constituent ordering in English. In: Rohdenburg G., Mondorf B. (eds) Determinants of grammatical variation in English. Mouton, The Hague, pp 119–154Google Scholar
  21. Yamashita H., Chang F. (2001) “Long before short” preference in the production of a head-final language. Cognition 81: B45–B55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Zec D., Inkelas S. (1990) Prosodically constrained syntax. In: Inkelas S., Zec D. (eds) The phonology-syntax connection. CSLI and the University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 365–378Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EnglishBall State UniversityMuncieUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations