Variation in major constituent order; a global and a European perspective

Siewierska, Anna

doi:10.1515/9783110812206.475

Cited by 87 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This suggests that multiple factors contribute to the (linear and hierarchical) distance of verbal dependencies. A stable case‐system and verbal agreement (which are known to increase word order flexibility; see, Siewierska, 1998b) could be one such factor.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Word Order Typology Interacts With Linguistic Complexity: A Cross‐Linguistic Corpus Study

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Much previous work has suggested that word order preferences across languages can be explained by the dependency distance minimization constraint (Ferrer-i Cancho, 2008Hawkins, 1994). Consistent with this claim, corpus studies have shown that the average distance between a head (e.g., verb) and its dependent (e.g., noun) tends to be short cross-linguistically show that the comprehension system can adapt to the typological properties of a language, for example, verb-final order, leading to more complex structures, for example, having longer linear distance between a head and its dependent. In this paper, we conduct a corpus study for a group of 38 languages, which were either Subject-Verb-Object (SVO) or Subject-Object-Verb (SOV), in order to investigate the role of word order typology in determining syntactic complexity. We present results aggregated across all dependency types, as well as for specific verbal (objects, indirect objects, and adjuncts) and nonverbal (nominal, adjectival, and adverbial) dependencies. The results suggest that dependency distance in a language is determined by the default word order of a language, and crucially, the direction of a dependency (whether the head precedes the dependent or follows it; e.g., whether the noun precedes the verb or follows it). Particularly we show that in SOV languages (e.g., Hindi, Korean) as well as SVO languages (e.g., English, Spanish), longer linear distance (measured as number of words) between head and dependent arises in structures when they mirror the default word order of the language. In addition to showing results on linear distance, we also investigate the influence of word order typology on hierarchical distance (HD; measured as number of heads between head and dependent). The results for HD are similar to that of linear distance. At the same time, in comparison to linear distance, the influence of adaptability on HD seems less strong. In particular, the results Correspondence should be sent to Himanshu Yadav is now affiliated with University of Potsdam, Germany. Vishakha Shukla is now affiliated with Shroff Charity Eye Hospital, Delhi, India. show that most languages tend to avoid greater structural depth. Together, these results show evidence for "limited adaptability" to the default word order preferences in a language. Our results support a large body of work in the processing literature that highlights the importance of linguistic exposure and its interaction with working memory constraints in determining sentence complexity. Our results also point to the possible role of other factors such as the morphological richness of a language and a multifactor account of sentence complexity remains a promising area for future investigation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Word Order Typology Interacts With Linguistic Complexity: A Cross‐Linguistic Corpus Study

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Also, its pro-drop tendency is modulated by certain interesting constraints (see Cameron, 1993;Heap, 2000 on Romance in general on this). Siewierska (1998) examined 171 languages and concluded that rigid word order does not allow one to predict the loss of agreement mathematically, but liberal word order does allow one to confidently predict that a language has agreement; Moravcsik (1995:471) posits a case-copying implicational universal to the effect that if agreement through case copying applies to NP constituents that are adjacent, it applies to those that are non-adjacent (see Hawkins, 2004:160); as is well known, in Latin, NP dependents could be separated from the head because of rich formal marking on all constituents, and in the early Germanic languages this was also possible (though not necessary), but in English this ceased to be a possibility precisely after English lost its rich morphology (Sonderegger, 1998); in Kannada, a Dravidian language, accusative-marked NPs can dispense with case marking when they occur adjacent to their transitive verbs but must mark case otherwise (Bhat, 1991:35); and (3) the internal logic of the attrition/redundancy dichotomy is often recognisable in grammatical systems in ways which may not be so clear as one would want them to be, but which are visible anyway. Hawkins (1994Hawkins ( , 2004) mentions a number of them: a. Discontinuity itself is more a property of German or of Spanish than of English.…”

Section: Epilogue: the Function Of Agreement Features And The Supremamentioning

confidence: 99%

The linguistics and psycholinguistics of agreement: A tutorial overview

Acuña-Fariña

2009

Lingua

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Naamvallen zijn complex vanwege de vormvariatie, maar daar zou tegenover staan dat dan de woordvolgorde relatief eenvoudig is, want vrij. Omgekeerd heeft een taal zonder naamvallen weliswaar een eenvoudige inflectionele morfologie (weinig vormen), maar daar staan extra woordvolgorderestricties tegenover (zie bijvoorbeeld Meillet 1949, Siewierska 1998.…”

Section: De Balans Is Zoekunclassified

De januskop van complexiteit

Weerman¹

2014

Patroon en Argument

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Variation in major constituent order; a global and a European perspective

Cited by 87 publications

References 0 publications

Word Order Typology Interacts With Linguistic Complexity: A Cross‐Linguistic Corpus Study

Word Order Typology Interacts With Linguistic Complexity: A Cross‐Linguistic Corpus Study

The linguistics and psycholinguistics of agreement: A tutorial overview

De januskop van complexiteit

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About