Processing flexible argument structure in Dutch, German, and English
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36505/ExLing-2024/15/0029/000654Keywords:
permissive subjects, sentence parsing, West Germanic languages, SVO/SOV word order, self-paced readingAbstract
Permissive subjects, which are non-agentive subjects combined with action verbs in the active form (e.g., ‘A few years ago a penny would buy you two or three pins’; ‘The tent sleeps four people’), are hardly found in German compared to English. For this contrast, previous research offers an explanation related to processing constraints, proposing that distinct processing strategies account for varying efficiency of processing permissive subjects. The differences in processing strategies are said to correlate with basic typological properties, specifically basic word order. In order to demonstrate cross-linguistic differences in the processing of permissive subjects, we conducted an experiment where native speakers of English, Dutch, and German performed a self-paced reading task. Based on the results, we argue that fundamental differences in processing strategies are present in English and Dutch on the one hand (look ahead parsing) and German on the other (look back parsing). However, our findings challenge the claim that different processing strategies are directly related to contrasts in the basic position of the verb. It is likely that also other contrasts in basic language properties could influence processing permissive subjects, most likely case.
References
Dreschler, G.E. 2020. ‘Fifty pounds will buy me a pair of horses for my carriage’: the history of permissive subjects in English. English Language and Linguistics, 24(4), 719–744.
Engelhardt, P.E., Filipović, L., Hawkins, J.A. 2024. Prediction in SVO and SOV languages: processing and typological considerations. Linguistics, 62(2), 349–383.
Hawkins, J.A. 1986. A comparative typology of English and German. Unifying the contrasts. London: Croom Helm.
Hawkins, J.A. 2014. Cross-linguistic variation and efficiency (First edition). Oxford linguistics. Oxford UK: Oxford University Press.
Levshina, N. 2020. How tight is your language? A semantic typology based on Mutual Information. In K. Evang, L. Kallmeyer, R. Ehren, S. Petitjean, E. Seyffarth, D. Seddah (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th International Workshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theories (pp. 70–78). Stroudsburg, PA, USA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Müller-Gotama, F. 1994. Grammatical Relations: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective on their Syntax and Semantics. Empirical Approaches to Language Typology. Berlin: De Gruyter.
Rohdenburg, G. 1974. Sekundäre Subjektivierungen im Englischen und Deutschen: Vergleichende Untersuchungen zur Verb- und Adjektivsyntax. Bielefeld: CornelsenVelhagen und Klasing.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.