Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T14:03:37.182Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does headedness affect processing? A new look at the VO–OV contrast1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 September 2009

MIEKO UENO  and
MARIA POLINSKY
MIEKO UENO*
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego
MARIA POLINSKY*
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego
*
Authors' addresses: (Ueno) Department of Linguistics, 0108, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA92093-0108, USA[email protected]
(Polinsky) Department of Linguistics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA02138, USA[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper examines the relationship between headedness and language processing and considers two strategies that potentially ease language comprehension and production. Both strategies allow a language to minimize the number of arguments in a given clause, either by reducing the number of overtly expressed arguments or by reducing the number of structurally required arguments. The first strategy consists of minimizing the number of overtly expressed arguments by using more pro-drop for two-place predicates (Pro-drop bias). According to the second strategy, a language gives preference to one-place predicates over two-place predicates, thus minimizing the number of structural arguments (Intransitive bias). In order to investigate these strategies, we conducted a series of comparative corpus studies of SVO and SOV languages. Study 1 examined written texts of various genres and children's utterances in English and Japanese, while Study 2 examined narrative stories in English, Spanish, Japanese, and Turkish. The results for these studies showed that pro-drop was uniformly more common with two-place predicates than with one-place predicates, regardless of the OV/VO distinction. Thus the Pro-drop bias emerges as a universal economy principle for making utterances shorter. On the other hand, SOV languages showed a much stronger Intransitive bias than SVO languages. This finding suggests that SOV word order with all the constituents explicitly expressed is potentially harder to process; the dominance of one-place predicates is therefore a compensatory strategy in order to reduce the number of preverbal arguments. The overall pattern of results suggests that human languages utilize both general (Pro-drop bias) and headedness-order-specific (Intransitive bias) strategies to facilitate processing. The results on headedness-order-specific strategies are consistent with other researchers' findings on differential processing in head-final and non-head-final languages, for example, Yamashita & Chang's (2001) ‘long-before-short’ parameterization.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 45 , Issue 3 , November 2009 , pp. 675 - 710
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

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]

This work was supported by an NIMH postdoctoral training fellowship (T32 MH19554) at the University of Illinois and a Faculty Research Award at the University of Oregon to the first author and an award from the Harvard FAS Fund to the second author. We would like to thank Kay Bock, Bernard Comrie, Wind Cowles, Jeanette Gundel, Robert Kluender, Andrew Nevins, Johanna Nichols, and two anonymous JL referees for helpful suggestions, and Orin Gensler for the insightful comments on the pre-final version of this paper. We are grateful to Shin Fukuda, Alper Mizrak, Anita Saalfeld, and Marisol Garrido for help with data coding, and Mary Theresa Seig for providing us with her ‘frog story’ data in English and Japanese. All errors are our sole responsibility.

References

REFERENCES

Aoshima, Sachiko, Phillips, Colin & Weinberg, Amy. 2004. Processing of filler–gap dependencies in a head-final language. Journal of Memory and Language 51, 23–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentivoglio, Paola. 1992. Linguistic correlations between subjects of one-argument verbs and subjects of more-than-one-argument verbs in spoken Spanish. In Hirschbühler, Paul & Koerner, Konrad (eds.), Romance languages and modern linguistic theory: 20th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL XX), Ottawa, 10–14 April 1990, 11–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berman, Ruth A. & Slobin, Dan I.. 1994. Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental study. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bloom, Lois. 1970. Language development: Form and function in emerging grammars. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bloom, Paul. 1990. Subjectless sentences in child language. Linguistic Inquiry 21, 491–504.Google Scholar
Bloom, Paul. 1993. Grammatical continuity in language development: The case of subjectless sentences. Linguistic Inquiry 24, 721–734.Google Scholar
Braine, Martin D. S. 1976. Children's first word combinations (Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 41). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics and point of view. In Li, Charles N. (ed.), Subject and topic, 25–56. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1993. Language universals and linguistic typology: Data-bases and explanations. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 46, 3–14.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 2008. Alignment of case marking. In Haspelmath, et al. (eds.), chapter 98.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2007. Word order. In Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Clause structure, language typology and syntactic description, 2nd edn., vol. 1, 61–131. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2008. Order of subject, object, and verb. In Haspelmath, et al. (eds.), chapter 81.Google Scholar
Dubinsky, Stanley. 1993. Case-motivated movement to non-argument positions: Evidence from Japanese. In Clancy, Patricia M. (ed.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics 2, 338–354. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 1987. The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63, 805–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, Victor S. & Dell, Gary S.. 2000. The effect of ambiguity and lexical availability on syntactic and lexical production. Cognitive Psychology 40, 296–340.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fukuda, Shin. 2005. Transitivity bias and the acquisition of verbs with transitivity alternation in English and Japanese. Ms. University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Fukuda, Shin & Choi, Soonja. 2009. The acquisition of transitivity in Japanese and Korean children. Iwasaki, Shoichi, Hoji, Hajime, Clancy, Patricia M. & Sohn, Sung-Ock (eds.), Japanese/Korean Linguistics 17, 613–624. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Garnsey, Susan M., Pearlmutter, Neal J., Myers, Elizabeth & Lotocky, Melanie A.. 1997. The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language 37, 58–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, Edward & Hickok, Gregory. 1993. Sentence processing with empty categories. Language and Cognitive Processes 8, 147–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilligan, Gary. 1987. A cross-linguistic approach to the pro-drop parameter. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Gorrell, Paul. 1993. Evaluating the direct association hypothesis: A reply to Pickering and Barry (1991). Language and Cognitive Processes 8, 129–146.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1966. Universals of language, 2nd edn.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1990. Understood subjects in English diaries: On the relevance of theoretical syntax for the study of register variation. Multilingua 9, 157–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin, Dryer, Matthew S., Gil, David & Comrie, Bernard (eds.). 2008. The world atlas of language structures online. Munich: Max Planck Digital Library. Available at http://wals.info/feature (accessed on 2 April 2009).Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1999. Processing complexity and filler–gap dependencies across grammars. Language 75, 244–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 2002. Symmetries and asymmetries: Their grammar, typology and parsing. Theoretical Linguistics 28, 95–149.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haywood, Sarah L., Pickering, Martin J. & Branigan, Holly P.. 2005. Do speakers avoid ambiguities during dialogue? Psychological Science 16, 362–366.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hewitt, George. 1979. Abkhaz (Lingua Descriptive Studies 2). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Hyams, Nina & Wexler, Kenneth. 1993. On the grammatical basis of null subjects in child language. Linguistic Inquiry 24, 421–459.Google Scholar
Kameyama, Megumi. 1985. Zero anaphora: The case of Japanese. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Kameyama, Megumi. 1988. Japanese zero pronominal binding: Where syntax and discourse meet. In Poser, William J. (ed.), 2nd International Workshop on Japanese Syntax, 47–73. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kamide, Yuki, Altmann, Gerry T. M. & Haywood, Sarah L.. 2003. The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language 49, 133–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamide, Yuki & Mitchell, Don C.. 1999. Incremental pre-head attachment in Japanese parsing. Language and Cognitive Processes 14, 631–662.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax (Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 25). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kidd, Evan, Brandt, Silke, Lieven, Elena & Tomasello, Michael. 2007. Object relatives made easy: A cross-linguistic comparison of constraints influencing young children's processing of relative clauses. Language and Cognitive Processes 22, 860–897.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu & Johnson, Yuki. 2005. On the non-canonical double nominative constructions in Japanese. Studies in Language 29, 285–328.Google Scholar
Kural, Murat. 1997. Postverbal constituents in Turkish and the Linear Correspondence Axiom. Linguistic Inquiry 28, 498–519.Google Scholar
Lindsley, James R. 1975. Producing simple utterances: How far ahead do we plan? Cognitive Psychology 7, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, Mercer. 1969. Frog, where are you? New York: Dial.Google Scholar
Mazuka, Reiko, Lust, Barbara, Wakayama, Tatsuko & Snyder, Wendy. 1986. Distinguishing effects of parameters in early syntax acquisition: A cross-linguistic study of Japanese and English. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 25, 73–82.Google Scholar
Moro, Andrea. 2000. Dynamic antisymmetry (Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 38). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna, Peterson, David A. & Barnes, Jonathan. 2004. Transitivizing and detransitivizing languages. Linguistic Typology 8, 149–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nomura, Matsuko & Shirai, Yasuhiro. 1997. Overextension of intransitive verbs in the acquisition of Japanese. In Clark, Eve V. (ed.), 28th Annual Child Language Research Forum, 233–242. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
O'Grady, William. 1997. Syntactic development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
O'Grady, William. 2005. Syntactic carpentry: An emergentist approach to syntax. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, Colin. 1996. Order and structure. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Phillips, Colin. 2003. Linear order and constituency. Linguistic Inquiry 34, 37–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, Colin. 2006. The real-time status of island phenomena. Language 82, 795–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, Martin [J.]. 1993. Direct association and sentence processing: A reply to Gorrell and to Gibson and Hickok. Language and Cognitive Processes 8, 163–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, Martin [J.] & Barry, Guy. 1991. Sentence processing without empty categories. Language and Cognitive Processes 6, 229–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, Ellen. 1999. Subject pro-drop in Yiddish. In Bosch, Peter & van der Sandt, Rob (eds.), Focus: Linguistic, cognitive, and computational perspectives, 82–104. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pritchett, Bradley. 1992. Grammatical competence and parsing performance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rispoli, Matthew. 1987. The acquisition of verbs in Japanese. First Language 7, 183–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1994. Root null subjects and early null subjects. In Hoekstra, Teun & Schwartz, Bonnie (eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar, 151–176. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seig, Mary Theresa DiGennaro. 1999. A crosslinguistic comparison: Episodic boundaries in Japanese and English narratives. Ph.D. dissertation, Oklahoma State University.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1976. Grammatical relations and surface cases. Language 53, 789–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1990. The languages of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Siewerska, Anna. 1996. Word order type and alignment type. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 49, 149–176.Google Scholar
Svartvik, Jan. 1966. On voice in the English verb. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Takezawa, Koichi. 1987. The dative-marked subject and the nominative-marked object in Japanese: Configurational evidence. University of Washington Working Papers in Linguistics 9, 37–50.Google Scholar
Tao, Hongyin. 1996. Units in Mandarin conversation: Prosody, discourse, and grammar. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trueswell, John C., Tanenhaus, Michael K. & Kello, Christopher. 1993. Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 19, 528–553.Google ScholarPubMed
Tsujimura, Natsuko. 2006. Why not all verbs are learned equally: The intransitive verb bias in Japanese. In Gagarina, Natalia & Gülzow, Insa (eds.), The acquisition of verbs and their grammar: The effect of particular languages, 105–124. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Turan, Ümit Deniz. 1998. Ranking forward-looking centers in Turkish: Universal and language-specific properties. In Walker, Marilyn A., Joshi, Aravind K. & Prince, Ellen F. (eds.), Centering theory in discourse, 139–161. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Walker, Marilyn A., Iida, Masayo & Cote, Sharon. 1994. Japanese discourse and the process of centering. Computational Linguistics 20, 193–231.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 1997. Remarks on grammatical weight. Language Variation and Change 9, 81–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yamashita, Hiroko & Chang, Franklin. 2001. ‘Long before short’ preference in the production of a head-final language. Cognition 81, B45–B55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yamashita, Hiroko, Chang, Franklin & Hirose, Yuki. 2005. Producers build structures only with overt arguments. Presented at the Eighteenth Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, The University of Arizona, Tucson.Google Scholar
Yngve, Victor H. 1960. A model and an hypothesis for language structure. The American Philosophical Society 104, 444–466.Google Scholar