[en] The likelihood with which language users insert optional words or morphemes that explicitly mark syntactic structure, tends to increase in complex grammatical environments. This positive correlation between explicitness and complexity, best known as the Complexity Principle, has been observed for a multitude of case studies in both naturally occurring language and experimental settings. Researchers have sought the explanation for this Complexity Principle in three different domains: cognitive comprehension processing, the language channel, and cognitive production processing. Based on these accounts, we formulate predictions regarding the action radius of the Complexity Principle in the alternation between a direct and prepositional object of the Dutch verb zoeken ‘search’. These predictions are tested against corpus observations. Our results confirm accounts according to which optional elements indicate production difficulties, as well as those that explain the Principle as a result of restrictions on the language channel. In addition, our results indicate that the Principle is sensitive to context-determined restrictions that are the result of its underlying cause. This may present a possible caveat for alternation studies.
Disciplines :
Languages & linguistics
Author, co-author :
Pijpops, Dirk ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département de langues modernes : ling., litt. et trad. > Département de langues modernes : ling., litt. et trad.
Speelman, Dirk
Grondelaers, Stefan
Van de Velde, Freek
Language :
English
Title :
Comparing explanations for the Complexity Principle. Evidence from argument realization
Arnold, J., Wasow, T., Asudeh, A. & Alrenga, P. (2004). Avoiding attachment ambiguities: the role of constituent ordering. Journal of Memory and Language 51(1), 55-70.
Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: a practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. (2013). lme4: linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 1.4. Retrieved from .
Bloem, J. (2016). Evaluating automatically annotated treebanks for linguistic research. In P. Baski, M. Kupietz, H. Lüngen, A. Witt, A. Barbaresi, H. Biber, ... S. Clematide (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Challenges in the Management of Large Corpora (CMLC-4) (pp. 8-14). Manheim: Institut für Deutsche Sprache.
Bloem, J., Versloot, A. & Weerman, F. (2014). Applying automatically parsed corpora to the study of language variation. In Proceedings of COLING 2014: the 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: technical papers. August 23-29, 2014, Dublin (pp. 1974-1984).
Bloem, J., Versloot, A. & Weerman, F. (2017). Verbal cluster order and processing complexity. Language Sciences 60, 94-119.
Bock, K., Irwin, D. & Davidson, D. (2004). Putting first things first. In J. M. Henderson & F. Ferreira (Eds.), The interface of language, vision, and action: eye movements and the visual world (pp. 224-250). New York: Psychology Press.
Bolinger, D. (1972). That's that. The Hague: Mouton.
Bolinger, D. (1980). Wanna and the gradience of auxiliaries. In G. Brettschneider & C. Lehmann (Eds.), Wege zur Universalienforschung: sprachwissenschaftliche Beiträge zum 60. Geburtstag von Hansjakob Seiler (pp. 292-299). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Bouma, G. (2017). Om-omission. In M. Wieling, M. Kroon, G. van Noord & G. Bouma (Eds.), From semantics to dialectometry (pp. 65-73). Groningen: College Publications.
Bouma, G. & Kloosterman, G. (2002). Querying dependency treebanks in XML. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC) (pp. 1686-1691). Online .
Bouma, G. & Kloosterman, G. (2007). Mining syntactically annotated corpora with XQuery. In Proceedings of the Linguistics Annotation Workshop (ACL 07) (pp. 17-24). Online .
Brennan, S. & Williams, M. (1995). The feeling of another's knowing: prosody and filled pauses as cues to listeners about the metacognitive states of speakers. Journal of Memory and Language 34(3), 383-398.
Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T. & Baayen, R. H. (2007). Predicting the dative alternation. In G. Bouma, I. Krämer & J. Zwarts (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation (pp. 69-94). Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.
Bybee, J. (2006). From usage to grammar: the mind's response to repetition. Language 82(4), 711-733.
Clark, H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, H. (2004). Pragmatics of language performance. In L. R. Horn & G. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 365-382). Walden: Blackwell.
Clark, H. & Fox Tree, J. (2002). Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition 84(1), 73-111.
Clark, H. & Murphy, G. (1982). Audience design in meaning and reference. Advances in Psychology 9, 287-299.
Collard, P., Corley, M., MacGregor, L. & David, D. (2008). Attention orienting effects of hesitations in speech: evidence from ERPs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 34(3), 696-702.
Corley, M. & Hartsuiker, R. (2003). Hesitation in speech can um help a listener understand. In R. Alterman & D. Kirsh (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 276-281). Boston: Cognitive Science Society.
Cover, T. & Thomas, J. (1991). Elements of information theory. Hoboken: Wiley-Interscience.
Elsness, J. (1984). That or zero? A look at the choice of object clause connective in a corpus of American English. English Studies 65, 519-533.
Fenk, A. & Fenk-Oczlon, G. (1993). Menzerath's law and the constant flow of linguistic information. In R. Köhler & B. Rieger (Eds.), Contributions to quantitative linguistics (pp. 11-31). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Fenk-Oczlon, G. (2001). Familiarity, information flow, and linguistic form. In J. Bybee & P. Hopper (Eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (Typological Studies in Language 45) (pp. 431-448). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ferreira, V. & Dell, G. (2000). Effect of ambiguity and lexical availability on syntactic and lexical production. Cognitive Psychology 40(4), 296-340.
Ferreira, V. & Hudson, M. (2011). Saying 'that' in dialogue: the influence of accessibility and social factors on syntactic production. Language and Cognitive Processes 26(10), 1736-1762.
Ferreira, V. & Schotter, E. (2013). Do verb bias effects on sentence production reflect sensitivity to comprehension or production factors? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 66(8), 1548-1571.
Fox, J. (2003). Effect displays in R for generalised linear models. Journal of Statistical Software 8, 1-27.
Fox Tree, J. & Clark, H. (1997). Pronouncing 'the' as 'thee' to signal problems in speaking. Cognition 62(2), 151-167.
Garnsey, S., Pearlmutter, N., Myers, E. & Lotocky, M. (1997). The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language 37(1), 58-93.
Gennari, S. & Macdonald, M. (2009). Linking production and comprehension processes: the case of relative clauses. Cognition 111(1), 1-23.
Gleitman, L., January, D., Nappa, R. & Trueswell, J. (2007). On the give and take between event apprehension and utterance formulation. Journal of Memory and Language 57(4), 544-569.
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: a construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, A. E. (1999). The emergence of the semantics of argument structure constructions. In B. Macwhinney (Ed.), Emergence of language (pp. 197-212). Hillsdale: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Gries, S. T. (2002). The influence of processing on grammatical variation: particle placement in English. In N. Dehé, R. Jackendoff, A. McIntyre & S. Urban (Eds.), Verb-particle explorations (pp. 169-288). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Gries, S. T. (2003). Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: a study of particle placement. New York: Continuum.
Gries, S. T. (2015). The most under-used statistical method in corpus linguistics: multi-level (and mixed-effects) models. Corpora 10(1), 95-125.
Grondelaers, S. (2000). De distributie van niet-anaforisch er buiten de eerste zinsplaats: sociolexicologische, functionele en psycholinguïstische aspecten van er's status als presentatief signaal. Unpublished dissertation, University of Leuven.
Grondelaers, S., van den Bosch, A., Speelman, D. & van Hout, R. (2015). Comparing memory-based learning and regression approaches in the explanation of syntactic variation and change in Belgian and Netherlandic Dutch. Paper presented at New Ways of Analyzing Variation (NWAV 43). 26 October, Chicago.
Grondelaers, S. & Speelman, D. (2007). A variationist account of constituent ordering in presentative sentences in Belgian Dutch. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 3(2), 161-193.
Grondelaers, S., Speelman, D., Drieghe, D., Brysbaert, M. & Geeraerts, D. (2009). Introducing a new entity into discourse: comprehension and production evidence for the status of Dutch er 'there' as a higher-level expectancy monitor. Acta Psychologica 130(2), 153-160.
Grondelaers, S., Speelman, D. & Geeraerts, D. (2003). De distributie van er in het gesproken Nederlands. Paper presented at the workshop spraakmakende spraak. 16 May, Nijmegen.
Grondelaers, S., Speelman, D. & Geeraerts, D. (2008). National variation in the use of er 'there': regional and diachronic constraints on cognitive explanations. In G. Kristiansen & R. Dirven (Eds.), Cognitive sociolinguistics: language variation, cultural models, social systems (pp. 153-203). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Haeseryn, W., Romijn, K., Geerts, G., de Rooij, J. & van den Toorn, M. (1997). Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst [General Dutch Grammar]. Groningen: Nijhoff.
Harrell, F. J., with contributions from Charles Dupont & many others (2017). Hmisc: Harrell Miscellaneous. R package version 4.0-3. Retrieved from .
Haspelmath, M. (2008). Frequency vs. iconicity in explaining grammatical asymmetries. Cognitive Linguistics 19(1), 1-33.
Hawkins, J. (2002). Symmetries and asymmetries: their grammar, typology and parsing. Theoretical Linguistics 28(2), 95-149.
Hawkins, J. (2004). Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heller, B. (2018). Stability and fluidity in syntactic variation world-wide: the genitive alternation across varieties of English. Unpublished dissertation, University of Leuven.
Hopper, P. & Thompson, S. A. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56(2), 251-299.
Hosmer, D. & Lemeshow, S. (2000). Applied logistic regression, 2nd ed. New York: Wiley.
Jaeger, F. T. (2005). Optional that indicates production difficulty: evidence from disfluencies. In Proceedings of DiSS'05, Disfluency in Spontaneous Speech Workshop (pp. 103-109). Aix-en-Provence. Online: .
Jaeger, F. T. (2006). Redundancy and syntactic reduction in spontaneous speech. Unpublished dissertation, Stanford University.
Jaeger, F. T. (2010). Redundancy and reduction: speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology 61(1), 23-62.
Jaeger, F. T. (2011). Corpus-based research on language production: information density and reducible subject relatives. In E. Bender & J. Arnold (Eds.), Language from a cognitive perspective: grammar, usage, and processing. Studies in honor of Tom Wasow (pp. 161-197). Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Jaeger, F. T. (2013). Production preferences cannot be understood without reference to communication. Frontiers in Psychology, 4. Online .
Jaeger, F. T., Levy, R., Wasow, T. & Orr, D. (2005). The absence of that is predictable if a relative clause is predictable. Paper presented at the Architectures and Mechanisms of Language Processing conference, Ghent.
Jaeger, F. T. & Wasow, T. (2005). Production-complexity driven variation: relativizer omission in non-subjectextracted relative clauses. Paper presented at the 18th annual CUNY Conference on Sentence Processing, 1 April, Tucson, AZ.
Kirby, S. (1999). Function, selection, and innateness: the emergence of language universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
König, E. & Gast, V. (2009). Understanding English-German contrasts, 2nd ed. Berlin: Erich Schmidt.
Konopka, A. E. (2012). Planning ahead: how recent experience with structures and words changes the scope of linguistic planning. Journal of Memory and Language 66(1), 143-162.
Kraljic, T. & Brennan, S. (2005). Prosodic disambiguation of syntactic structures: For the speaker or for the addressee? Cognitive Psychology 50(2), 194-231.
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar: descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Levinson, S. (2000). Presumptive meanings: the theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
Levshina, N. & Heylen, K. (2014). A radically data-driven Construction Grammar: experiments with Dutch causative constructions. In R. Boogaart, T. Colleman & G. Rutten (Eds.), Extending the scope of Construction Grammar (pp. 17-46). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Levy, R. & Jaeger, F. T. (2007). Speakers optimize information density through syntactic reduction. In B. Schölkopf, J. Platt & T. Hoffman (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems 19 (pp. 849-856). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
MacDonald, M. (2013). How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology 4, 226. Online .
MacDonald, M. & Thornton, R. (2009). When language comprehension reflects production constraints: resolving ambiguities with the help of past experience. Memory & Cognition 37(8), 1177-1186.
Menn, L. & Duffield, C. J. (2014). Looking for a 'Gold Standard' to measure language complexity: what psycholinguistics and neurolinguistics can (and cannot) offer to formal linguistics. In F. Newmeyer & L. Preston (Eds.), Measuring grammatical complexity (pp. 281-302). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Müller, S. (2006). Phrasal or lexical constructions? Language 82(4), 850-883.
Müller, S. & Wechsler, S. (2014). Lexical approaches to argument structure. Theoretical Linguistics 40(1/2), 1-76.
Oostdijk, N., Reynaert, M., Hoste, V. & Schuurman, I. (2013a). SoNaR User Documentation. Online: .
Oostdijk, N., Reynaert, M., Hoste, V. & Schuurman, I. (2013b). The construction of a 500-million-word reference corpus of contemporary written Dutch. In P. Spyns & J. Odijk (Eds.), Essential speech and language technology for Dutch: theory and applications of natural language processing (pp. 219-247). Heidelberg: Springer.
Perek, F. (2015). Argument structure in usage-based construction grammar: experimental and corpus-based perspectives. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Pijpops, D. & Van de Velde, F. (2016). Constructional contamination: How does it work and how do we measure it? Folia Linguistica 50(2), 543-581.
Pijpops, D. & Van de Velde, F. (2018). Lectal contamination: how language-external variation becomes language-internal through language contact. Paper presented at Variationist Linguistics meets Contact Linguistics, 21 May, Ascona. Online: .
R Core Team. (2014). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. Retrieved from .
Rohdenburg, G. (1996). Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English. Cognitive Linguistics 7(2), 149-182.
Rohdenburg, G. (2016). Testing two processing principles with respect to the extraction of elements out of complement clauses in English. English Language and Linguistics 20(3), 463-486.
Roland, D., Elman, J. & Ferreira, V. (2006). Why is 'that'? Structural prediction and ambiguity resolution in a very large corpus of English sentences. Cognition 98(3), 245-272.
Shank, C., Plevoets, K. & Bogaert, J. Van. (2016). A multifactorial analysis of that/zero alternation: the diachronix development of the zero complementizer with think, guess and understand. In J. Yoon & S. T. Gries (Eds.), Corpus-based approaches to Construction Grammar (pp. 201-240). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal 27(3), 379-423.
Smith, V. & Clark, H. (1993). On the course of answering questions. Journal of Memory and Language 32(1), 25-38.
Speelman, D. (2014). Logistic regression: a confirmatory technique for comparisons in corpus linguistics. In D. Glynn & J. A. Robinson (Eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (pp. 487-533). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Speelman, D., Heylen, K. & Geeraerts, D. (2018a). Introduction. In D. Speelman, K. Heylen & D. Geeraerts (Eds.), Mixed-effects regression models in linguistics (pp. 1-10). Cham: Springer.
Speelman, D., Heylen, K. & Geeraerts, D. (2018b). Mixed-effects regression models in linguistics. Cham: Springer.
Speelman, D., Heylen, K. & Grondelaers, S. (forthcoming). A bottom-up, data-driven operationalization of semantic classes and predictability in syntactic alternation research. In S. Grondelaers & R. van Hout (Eds.), New ways of analyzing syntactic variation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Tanner, D. & Bulkes, N. (2015). Cues, quantification, and agreement in language comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 22(6), 1753-1763.
Tanner, D., Nicol, J. & Brehm, L. (2014). The time-course of feature interference in agreement comprehension: multiple mechanisms and asymmetrical attraction. Journal of Memory and Language 76, 195-215.
Theijssen, D., Boves, L., Halteren, H. & Oostdijk, N. (2010). Evaluating automatic annotation: automatically detecting and enriching instances of the dative alternation. Language Resources and Evaluation 46(4), 565-600.
Thompson, S. A. & Mulac, A. (1991). The discourse conditions for the use of the complementizer that in conversational English. Journal of Pragmatics 15(3), 237-251.
Turney, P. & Pantel, P. (2010). From frequency to meaning: vector space models of semantics. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 37, 141-188.
van den Bosch, A., Grondelaers, S. & Speelman, D. (forthcoming). A memory based account of constructional differences between Netherlandic and Belgium Dutch. In Grondelaers, S. & van Hout, R. (Eds.), New ways of analyzing syntactic variation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
van Noord, G. (2006). At last parsing is now operational. TALN, 20-42. Online: .
van Noord, G., Bouma, G., Van Eynde, F., De Kok, D., Van der Linde, J., Schuurman, I., ... Vandeghinste, V. (2013). Large scale syntactic annotation of written Dutch: Lassy. In P. Spyns & J. Odyk (Eds.), Essential speech and language technology for Dutch (pp. 219-247). Berlin: Springer.
Willems, A. & De Sutter, G. (2015). Reassessing the effect of the complexity principle on PP Placement in Dutch. Nederlandse Taalkunde 20(3), 339-366.
Wolk, C., Bresnan, J., Rosenbach, A. & Szmrecsanyi, B. (2013). Dative and genitive variability in Late Modern English: exploring cross-constructional variation and change. Diachronica 30(3), 382-419.
Zifonun, G., Hoffmann, L. & Strecker, B. (1997). Grammatik der deutschen Sprache [Grammar of the German language]. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Zipf, G. K. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort: an introduction to human ecology. New York: Hafner.
Zwart, J.-W. (2011). The syntax of Dutch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
