Publications

Abstract

We report a hitherto unknown statistical relationship between the corpus frequency of finite verbs and their fixed linear positions (early vs. late) in finite clauses of English, Dutch, and German. Compared to the overall frequency distribution of verb lemmas in the corpora, high-frequency finite verbs are overused in main clauses, at the expense of nonfinite verbs. This finite versus nonfinite split of high-frequency verbs is basically absent from subordinate clauses. Furthermore, this “main-clause bias” (MCB) of high-frequency verbs is more prominent in German and Dutch (SOV languages) than in English (an SVO language). We attribute the MCB and its varying effect sizes to faster accessibility of high-frequency finite verbs, which (1) increases the probability for these verbs to land in clauses mandating early verb placement, and (2) boosts the activation of clause plans that assign verbs to early linear positions (in casu: clauses with SVO as opposed to SOV order).

Abstract

In Dutch and German, the canonical order of subject, object(s) and finite verb is ‘verb-second’ (V2) in main but ‘verb-final’ (VF) in subordinate clauses. This occasionally leads to the production of noncanonical word orders. Familiar examples are causative and argumentative clauses introduced by a subordinating conjunction (Du. omdat, Ger. weil ‘because’): the omdat/weil-V2 phenomenon. Such clauses may also be introduced by coordinating conjunctions (Du. want, Ger. denn), which license V2 exclusively. However, want/denn-VF structures are unknown. We present the results of a corpus study on the incidence of omdat-V2 in spoken Dutch, and compare them to published data on weil-V2 in spoken German. Basic findings: omdat-V2 is much less frequent than weil-V2 (ratio almost 1:8); and the frequency relations between coordinating and subordinating conjunctions are opposite (want >> omdat; denn << weil). We propose that conjunction selection and V2/VF selection proceed partly independently, and sometimes miscommunicate—e.g. yielding omdat/weil paired with V2. Want/denn-VF pairs do not occur because want/denn clauses are planned as autonomous sentences, which take V2 by default. We sketch a simple feedforward neural network with two layers of nodes (representing conjunctions and word orders, respectively) that can simulate the observed data pattern through inhibition-based competition of the alternative choices within the node layers.

Abstract

Four probe latency experiments show that the ‘constituent boundary effect’ (transitions between constituents are more difficult than within constituents) is a retrieval and not a storage phenomenon. The experimental logic used is called paraphrastic reproduction: after verbatim memorization of some sentences, subjects were instructed to reproduce them both in their original wording and in the form of sentences that, whilst preserving the original meaning, embodied different syntactic constructions. Syntactic constructions are defined as pairs which consist of a pattern of conceptual information and a syntactic scheme, i.e. a sequence of syntactic word categories and function words. For example, the sequence noun + finite intransitive main verb (‘John runs’) expresses a conceptual actor-action relationship. It is proposed that for each overlearned and simple syntactic construction there exists a retrieval plan which does the following. It searches through the long-term memory information that has been designated as the conceptual content of the utterance(s) to be produced, looking for a token of its conceptual pattern. The retrieved information is then cast into the format of its syntactic scheme. The organization of such plans is held responsible for the constituent boundary effect.