Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T02:56:53.390Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quirky quadratures: on rhythm and weight as constraints on genitive variation in an unconventional data set1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 June 2014

KATHARINA EHRET ,
CHRISTOPH WOLK  and
BENEDIKT SZMRECSANYI
KATHARINA EHRET
Affiliation:
Hermann Paul School of Linguistics, Platz der Universität 3, 79089 Freiburg, [email protected]
CHRISTOPH WOLK
Affiliation:
Department of English – English Linguistics, Justus Liebig University, Otto-Behaghel-Str. 10 B, 35394 Giessen, [email protected]
BENEDIKT SZMRECSANYI
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, Research unit Quantitative Lexicology and Variational Linguistics (QLVL), KU Leuven, Blijde-Inkomststraat 21, PO Box 03308, B-3000 Leuven, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article explores measures, operationalisations and effects of rhythm and weight as two constraints on the variation between the s-genitive and the of-genitive. We base the analysis on interchangeable genitives in the news and letters sections of ARCHER (A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers), which covers the period between 1650 and 1999. Thus, we are ultimately concerned with the applicability of two factors that have their roots in speech (rhythm: phonology; weight: online processing) to an ‘unconventional’, written data set with a historical dimension. As for weight, we focus on the comparison of simple single-constituent and more complex multi-constituent measurements. Our notion of rhythm centres on the ideally even distribution of stressed and unstressed syllables. We find that in our data set, both rhythm and weight show theoretically unexpected quadratic effects: rhythmically better-behaved s-genitives are not necessarily preferred over of-genitives, and short constituents exhibit odd weight effects. In conclusion, we argue that while rhythm is only a minor player in our data set, the quadratic quirks it exhibits should inspire further study. Weight, on the other hand, is a crucial factor which, however, likewise comes with measurement and modelling complications.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 18 , Issue 2: Genitive variation in English , July 2014 , pp. 263 - 303
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

We are grateful for feedback from the audience of the ISLE 2 workshop on ‘Genitive variation in English’ in June 2011. In addition, two anonymous referees provided us with extremely helpful comments and suggestions. The usual disclaimers apply. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under grant no. BCS-1025602.

References

Abercrombie, David. 1967. Elements of general phonetics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Altenberg, Bengt. 1982. The genitive v. the of-construction: A study of syntactic variation in 17th century English. Malmö: CWK Gleerup.Google Scholar
Anttila, Arto, Adams, Matthew & Speriosu, Michael. 2010. The role of prosody in the English dative alternation. Language and Cognitive Processes 25 (7/8/9), 946–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, Jennifer E., Losongco, Anthony, Wasow, Thomas & Ginstrom, Ryan. 2000. Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language 76, 28–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 2008. Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates Douglas, Martin Maechler, Bolker, Ben & Walker, Steven. 2013. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R package version 0.999999-2. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4Google Scholar
Behaghel, Otto. 1909. Beziehungen zwischen Umfang und Reihenfolge von Satzgliedern. Indogermanische Forschungen 25, 110–42.Google Scholar
Behaghel, Otto. 1930. Von Deutscher Wortstellung. Zeitschrift für Deutschkunde, Jahrgang 44 der Zeitschrift für Deutschen Unterricht 25, 81–9.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 2003. Compressed noun-phrase structure in newspaper discourse: The competing demands of popularization vs. economy. In Aitchison, Jean & Lewis, Diana M. (eds.), New media language, 169–81. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Finegan, Edward & Atkinson, Dwight. 1994. ARCHER and its challenges: Compiling and exploring A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers. In Fries, Udo, Tottie, Gunnel & Schneider, Peter (eds.), Creating and using English language corpora: Paper from the Fourteenth International Conference on English Language Research and Computerized Corpora, 1–13. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Börjars, Kersti, Denison, David & Scott, Alan (eds.). 2013. Morphosyntactic categories and the expression of possession. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Börjars, Kersti, Denison, David, Krajewski, Grzegorz & Scott, Alan. 2013. Expression of possession in English. The significance of the right edge. In Börjars, Kersti, Denison, David & Scott, Alan (eds.), Morphosyntactic categories and the expression of possession, 123–48. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Ford, Marilyn. 2010. Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language 86 (1), 186–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Cueni, Anna, Nikitina, Tatiana & Baayen, R. Harald. 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. In Boume, Gerlof, Kraemer, Irene & Zwarts, Joost (eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation, 69–94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar
Burnham, Kenneth P. & Anderson, David R.. 2002. Model selection and multimodal inference: A practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edition. New York: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. & Clark, Eve V.. 1977. Psychology and language: An introduction to psycholinguistics. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Dahl, Lisa. 1971. The s-genitive with non-personal nouns in modern English journalistic style. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 72, 140–72.Google Scholar
Gibson, Edward. 1998. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68 (1), 1–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grafmiller, Jason. Forthcoming. Variation in English genitives across modality and genre. English Language and Linguistics 18 (3).Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2007. New perspectives on old alternations. In Cihlar, Jonathan E., Franklin, Amy L. & Kaiser, David W. (eds.), Papers from the 39th Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society 2, 274–92. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, Lars & Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2007. Recent changes in the function and frequency of standard English genitive constructions: A multivariate analysis of tagged corpora. English Language and Linguistics 11 (3), 437–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne. 2004. Animacy, agentivity, and the spread of the progressive in Modern English. English Language and Linguistics 8 (1), 47–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingason, Anton & MacKenzie, Laurel. 2011. ‘Heaviness’ as evidence for a derive-and-compare grammar. Paper presented at the 19th Manchester Phonology meeting, Manchester, UK.Google Scholar
Jankowski, Bridget Lynn. 2009. That which survives? Relatives in written and formal spoken Canadian English. Paper presented at NWAV 38, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, 2009.Google Scholar
Jankowski, Bridget Lynn. 2013. A variationist approach to cross-register language variation and change. PhD dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Kelly, Michael. 1989. Rhythm and language change in English. Journal of Memory and Language 28, 690–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, Michael & Bock, Kathryn. 1988. Stress in time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human perception and performance 14, 389–403.Google ScholarPubMed
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 2001. Adnominal possession. In Haspelmath, Martin, König, Ekkehard, Oesterreicher, Wulf & Raible, Wolfgang (eds.), Language typology and language universals, vol. 2, 960–70. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 2002. Adnominal possession in European languages: Form and function. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 55, 141–72.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Some principles of linguistic methodology. Language in Society 1 (1), 97–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacMahon, Michael K. C. 1999. Phonology. In Romaine, Suzanne (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. 4, 373–535. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, Janet L., Bock, Kathryn & Kelly, Michael. 1993. Word and world order: Semantic, phonological, and metrical determinants of serial position. Cognitive Psychology 25, 188–230.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Minkova, Donka. 1990. Adjectival inflexion relics and speech rhythm in Late Middle and Early Modern English. In Adamson, Sylvia, Law, Vivien, Vincent, Nigel & Wright, Susan (eds.), Papers from the 5th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics, 313–37. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minkova, Donka. 1991. The history of final vowels in English: The sound of muting. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondorf, Britta. 2003. Support for more-support. In Rohdenburg, Günter & Mondorf, Britta (eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English, 251–304. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nares, Robert. 1784. Elements of orthoepy: Containing a distinct view of the whole analogy of the English language; so far as it relates to pronunciation, accent, and quantity. London: printed for T. Payne and Son.Google Scholar
Nespor, Marina & Vogel, Irene. 1989. On clashes and lapses. Phonology 6, 69–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Connor, Catherine, Maling, Joan & Skarabela, Barbora. 2013. Nominal categories and the expression of possession. In Bӧrjars, Kersti, Denison, David & Scott, Alan (eds.), Morphosyntactic categories and the expression of possession, 89–121. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
R Core Team 2013. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R foundation for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria. www.R-project.org.Google Scholar
Raab-Fischer, Roswitha. 1995. Löst der Genitiv die of-Phrase ab? Eine korpusgestützte Studie zum Sprachwandel im heutigen Englisch. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 43 (2), 123–32.Google Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2002. Genitive variation in English: Conceptual factors in synchronic and diachronic studies. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2003. Aspects of iconicity and economy in the choice between the s-genitive and the of-genitive in English. In Rohdenburg, Günter & Mondorf, Britta (eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English, 379–412. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2005. Animacy versus weight as determinants of grammatical variation in English. Language 81, 613–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette & Vezzosi, Letizia. 2000. Genitive constructions in Early Modern English: New evidence from a corpus analysis. In Sornicola, Rosanna, Poppe, Erich & Shisha-Halevy, Ariel (eds.), Stability, variation and change of word-order patterns over time, 285–307. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, Kevin M. 2013. Onset weight, word weight, and the perceptual interval. Paper presented at the Phonology 2013 meeting, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Sakamoto, Yosiyuki & Akaike, Hirotugo. 1978. Analysis of cross-classified data by AIC. Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics 30 (1), 185–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlüter, Julia. 2002a. Das Prinzip der Rhythmischen Alternation in der englischen Syntax: Empirische Fakten und theoretische Implikationen. In Rapp, Reinhard (ed.), Sprachwissenschaft auf dem Weg in das dritte Jahrtausend: Akten des 34. Linguistischen Kolloquiums in Germersheim 1999. Teil I: Text, Bedeutung, Kommunikation, 197–205. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.Google Scholar
Schlüter, Julia. 2002b. Morphology recycled: The principle of rhythmic alternation at work in Early and Late Modern English grammatical variation. In Fanego, Teresa, López-Couso, María José & Pérez-Guerra, Javier (eds.), English historical syntax and morphology: Selected Papers from 11 ICEHL, Santiago de Compostela, 7–11 September 2000, 255–81. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlüter, Julia. 2005. Rhythmic grammar: The influence of rhythm on grammatical variation and change in English. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlüter, Julia. 2008. Constraints on the attributive use of ‘predicative-only’ adjectives: A reassessment. In Gisborne, Nikolas & Trousdale, Graeme (eds.), Constructional explanations in English grammar (TiEL), 164–79. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schlüter, Julia. Forthcoming. Rhythmic influence on grammar: Scope and limitations. In Vogel, Ralf & van de Vijver, Ruben (eds.), Rhythm in phonetics, grammar and cognition. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Schlüter, Julia & Rohdenburg, Günter. 2000. Determinanten grammatischer Variation im Früh- und Spätneuenglischen. Sprachwissenschaft 25, 443–96.Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1984. Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA, and London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Shih, Stephanie & Grafmiller, Jason. 2011. Weighing in on end weight. Paper presented at the Linguistic Society of America 85th Annual Meeting, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Shih, Stephanie, Grafmiller, Jason, Futrell, Richard & Bresnan, Joan. Forthcoming. Rhythm's role in genitive construction choice in spoken English. In Vogel, Ralf & van de Vijver, Ruben (eds.), Rhythm in phonetics, grammar and cognition. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2004. On operationalizing syntactic complexity. In Purnelle, Gérard, Fairon, Cédrick & Dister, Anne (eds.), Le poids des mots. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Textual Data Statistical Analysis, vol. 2, 1032–9. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2010. The English genitive alternation in a cognitive sociolinguistics perspective. In Geeraerts, Dirk, Kristiansen, Gitte & Peirsman, Yves (eds.), Advances in cognitive sociolinguistics, 141–66. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2013. The great regression: genitive variability in Late Modern English news texts. In Bӧrjars, Kersti, Denison, David & Scott, Alan (eds.), Morphosyntactic categories and the expression of possession, 59–88. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt & Hinrichs, Lars. 2008. Probabilistic determinants of genitive variation in spoken and written English: A multivariate comparison across time, space, and genres. In Nevalainen, Terttu, Taavitsainen, Irma, Pahta, Päivi & Korhonen, Minna (eds.), The dynamics of linguistic variation: Corpus evidence on English past and present, 291–309. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, Rosenbach, Anette, Bresnan, Joan & Wolk, Christoph. Forthcoming. Culturally conditioned language change? Genitive constructions in Late Modern English. In Hundt, Marianne (ed.), Late Modern English syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Temperley, David. 2007. Minimization of dependency length in written English. Cognition 105, 300–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vogel, Ralf & van de Vijver, Ruben (eds.). Forthcoming. Rhythm in phonetics, grammar, and cognition. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 1997. Remarks on grammatical weight. Language Variation and Change 9, 81–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 2002. Postverbal behaviour. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Wolk, Christoph, Bresnan, Joan, Rosenbach, Anette & Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2013. Dative and genitive variability in Late Modern English: Exploring cross-constructional variation and change. Diachronica 30 (3), 382–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaenen, Annie, Carlette, Jean, Garretson, Gregory, Bresnan, Joan, Koontz-Garboden, Andrew, Tatiana Nikitina, M. Catherine O'Connor & Tom Wasow 2004. Animacy encoding in English: Why and how. In Bonnie Webber & Donna Byron (eds.), Proceedings of the 2004 ACL Workshop on Discourse Annotation, 118--25. East Stroudsberg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zec, Draga & Inkelas, Sharon. 1990. Prosodically constrained syntax. In Inkelas, Sharon & Zec, Draga (eds.), The phonology–syntax connection, 365–78. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1987. Suppressing the Zs. Journal of Linguistics 23, 133–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar