Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T14:42:52.878Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Thematic Asymmetries Do Matter! A Corpus Study of German Word Order

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 March 2015

Elisabeth Verhoeven
Elisabeth Verhoeven*
Affiliation:
Humboldt-University Berlin
*
Institut für deutsche Sprache und Linguistik, Unter den Linden 6 10099 Berlin, Germany, [elisabeth.verhoeven@hu-berlin.de]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article addresses the question of whether the influence of thematic roles (in particular, experiencers and patients) on word order is an epiphenomenal effect of other factors (such as information structure and animacy). For this purpose, I have investigated argument realization with different verb classes, including canonical verbs and either agentive or nonagentive experiencer-object verbs with varying case marking (dative or accusative), in a large corpus of written German. The obtained results indicate that the experiencer-first effect is at least to some extent triggered by other factors, in particular animacy. However, after subtracting the effect resulting from these factors, the impact of the thematic properties remains, and therefore it is necessary to explain the whole range of data.*

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Germanic Linguistics , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 45 - 104
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Germanic Linguistics 2015 

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Abbott, Barbara. 2008. Issues in the semantics and pragmatics of definite descriptions in English. Gundel & Hedberg 2008, 61–72.Google Scholar
Aissen, Judith. 1999. Markedness and subject choice in optimality theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17. 673–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arad, Maya. 1998a. VP-Structure and the syntax-lexicon interface. London, UK: University College of London dissertation.Google Scholar
Arad, Maya. 1998b. Psych-notes. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics 10. 203–223.Google Scholar
Bader, Markus, & Häussler, Jana. 2010. Word order in German: A corpus study. Lingua 120. 717–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, Doug, Maechler, Martin, & Bolker, Ben. 2011. lme4: Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using S4 Classes. R package version 0.999375-42.Google Scholar
Bayer, Joseph. 2004. Non-nominative subjects in comparison. Bhaskararao & Subbarao 2004, 49–76.Google Scholar
Belletti, Adriana, & Rizzi, Luigi. 1988. Psych-verbs and θ–theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6. 291–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhaskararao, Peri, & Subbarao, Karumuri Venkata (eds.). 2004. Non-nominative subjects, vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2004. The syntax of experiencers in the Himalayas. Bhaskararao & Subbarao 2004, 77–111.Google Scholar
Bock, Kathryn J., & Warren, Richard K.. 1985. Conceptual accessibility and syntactic structure in sentence formulation. Cognition 21. 47–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bornkessel, Ina, Zysset, Stefan, Angela, D.Friederici, D.von Cramon, Yves, & Schlesewsky, Matthias. 2005. Who does what to whom? The neural basis of argument hierarchies during language comprehension. NeuroImage 26. 221–233.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bornkessel, Ina. 2002. The argument dependency model: A neurocognitive approach to incremental interpretation. Leipzig: MPI-Series in Cognitive Neuroscience.Google Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina, & Schlesewsky, Matthias. 2009. The role of prominence information in real time comprehension of transitive constructions: A cross-linguistic approach. Language and Linguistics Compass 3. 19–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouchard, Denis. 1995. The semantics of syntax: A minimalist approach to grammar. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Branigan, Holly P., & Feleki, Elina. 1999. Conceptual accessibility and serial order in Greek language production. Proceedings of the 21st Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. by Hahn, Martin & Stoness, Scott C., 96–101. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, & Hay, Jennifer. 2008. Gradient grammar: An effect of animacy on the syntax of give in New Zealand and American English. Lingua 118. 245–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, JoanCueni, Anna, Nikitina, Tatiana, & Baayen, R. Harald. 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. Cognitive foundations of interpretation, ed. by Boume, Gerlof, Krämer, Irene, & Zwarts, Joost, 69–94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert, & Haviland, Susan. 1977. Comprehension and the given-new contrast. Discourse production and comprehension, ed. by Freedle, Roy O., 1–40. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Language universals and linguistic typology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cupples, Linda. 2002. The structural characteristics and on-line comprehension of experiencer-verb sentences. Language and Cognitive Processes 17. 125–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Östen, & Fraurud, Kari. 1996. Animacy in grammar and discourse. Reference and referent accessibility, ed. by Fretheim, Thorsten & Jeanette, K. Gundel, 47–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67. 547–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Du, Bois, John, W. 1987. The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63. 805–855.Google Scholar
Engelberg, Stefan. forthcoming. The argument structure of psych-verbs: A quantitative corpus study on cognitive entrenchment. Constructional approaches to argument structure in German, ed. by Boas, Hans & Ziem, Alexander. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert. 2000. Optimal exceptions. Lexicon in focus, ed. by Stiebels, Barbara & Wunderlich, Dieter, 173–209. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert. 2001. Features, θ-roles, and free constituent order. Linguistic Inquiry 32. 405–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert. 2003. Zur Generierung der Abfolge der Satzglieder im Deutschen. Neue Beträge zur Germanistik 112. 3–47.Google Scholar
Ferreira, Fernanda. 1994. Choice of passive voice is affected by verb type and animacy. Journal of Memory and Language 33. 715–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foley, William A., & Van Valin, Robert D., Jr. 1984. Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fraurud, Kari. 1990. Definiteness and the processing of NPs in natural discourse. Journal of Semantics 7. 395–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frey, Werner. 2006. Contrast and movement to the German prefield. The architecture of focus, ed. by Valéria, Molnár & Susanne, Winkler, 235–264. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy (ed.). 1994. Voice and inversion. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1994. The pragmatics of de-transitive voice: Functional and typological aspects of inversion. Givón 1994, 3–44.Google Scholar
Gordon, Peter C., Grosz, Barbara J., & Lilliom, Laura A.. 1993. Pronouns, names, and the centering of attention in discourse. Cognitive Science 17. 311–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grewe, Tanja, Bornkessel, Ina, Zysset, Stefan, Wiese, Richard, von Cramon, Yves D., & Schlesewsky, Matthias. 2006. Linguistic prominence and Broca's area: The influence of animacy as a linearization principle. NeuroImage 32. 1395–1402.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grewendorf, Günther. 1989. Ergativity in German. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane. 1990. Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K., & Hedberg, Nancy (eds.). 2008. Reference. Interdisciplinary perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K., Hedberg, Nancy, & Zacharski, Ron. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69. 274–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K., Hedberg, Nancy, & Zacharski, Ron. 2005. Pronouns without explicit referents: How do we know when a pronoun is referential? Anaphora processing: Linguistic, cognitive, and computational modelling, ed. by Branco, AntonioMcEnery, Tony, & Mitkov, Ruslan, 351–364. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haider, Hubert, & Inger, Rosengren. 2003. Scrambling: Nontriggered chain formation in OV languages. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 15. 203–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haider, Hubert. 1993. Deutsche Syntax — generativ: Vorstudien zur Theorie einer projektiven Grammatik. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Haider, Hubert. 2010. The syntax of German. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2001. Non-canonical marking of core arguments in European languages. Non-canonical marking of subjects and objects, ed. by Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y., Dixon, R. M. W., & Onishi, Masayuki, 53–83. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haupt, Friederike S., Schlesewsky, Matthias, Roehm, Dietmar, Angela, D. Friederici, & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina. 2008. The status of subject-object reanalyses in language comprehension architecture. Journal of Memory and Language 59. 54–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heck, Fabian. 2000. Tiefenoptimierung: Deutsche Wortstellung als wettbewerbsgesteuerte Basisgenerierung. Linguistische Berichte 184. 441–468.Google Scholar
Heylen, Kris, & Speelman, Dirk. 2003. A corpus-based analysis of word order variation: The order of verb arguments in the German middle field. Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics 2003 Conference, ed. by Archer, Dawn, Rayson, Paul, Wilson, Andrew, & McEnery, Tony, 320–329. Lancaster: University Centre for Computer Corpus Research on Language.Google Scholar
Heylen, Kris. 2005. A quantitative corpus study of German word order. Kepser & Reis 2005, 241–264.Google Scholar
Hoberg, Ursula. 1981. Die Wortstellung in der geschriebenen deutschen Gegenwartssprache. München: Hueber.Google Scholar
Ichihashi-Nakayama, Kumiko. 1994. On dative ‘subject’ constructions in Nepali. Aspects of Nepali grammar (University of California Papers in Linguistics 6), ed. by Genetti, Carol, 41–76. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Kempen, Gerard, & Harbusch, Karin. 2004. A corpus study into word order variation in German subordinate clauses: Animacy affects linearization independently of grammatical function assignment. Multidisciplinary approaches to language production, ed. by Pechmann, Thomas & Habel, Christopher, 173–181. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kempen, Gerard, & Harbusch, Karin. 2005. The relationship between grammaticality ratings and corpus frequencies: A case study into word order variability in the midfield of German clauses. Kepser & Reis 2005, 329–349.Google Scholar
Klein, Katharina, & Kutscher, Silvia. 2002. Psych-verbs and lexical economy. Theorie des Lexikons 122 Düsseldorf: University of Düsseldorf.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 2000. When subjects behave like objects: An analysis of the merging of S and O in sentence-focus constructions across languages. Studies in Language 24. 611–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamers, Monique, & de Hoop, Helen. forthcoming. Object fronting in Dutch. Competing motivations in grammar and usage, ed. by MacWhinney, BrianMoravcsik, Edith & Malchukov, Andrej. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lamers, Monique, & de Schepper, Kees. 2010. Argument linearization in Dutch and German: A multifactorial analysis. Paper presented at the Conference on Competing Motivations held in Leipzig, November 24, 2010.Google Scholar
Lamers, Monique. 2007. Verb type, animacy and definiteness in grammatical function disambiguation. Linguistics in the Netherlands 2007, ed. by Los, Bettelou & van Koppen, Marjo, 125–137. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2010. The locative syntax of experiencers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lenerz, Jürgen. 1977. Zum Einfluβ von “Agens” auf die Wortstellung des Deutschen. Grammatik und interdisziplinäre Bereiche der Linguistik. Akten des 11. Linguistischen Kolloquiums Aachen 1976, ed. by Viethen, Hans Werner, Bald, Wolf-Dietrich, & Sprengel, Konrad, 133–142. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth, & Jason, Grafmiller. 2013. Do you always fear what frightens you? From quirky case to representing space: Papers in honor of Annie Zaenen, ed. by Tracy, Holloway King & de Paiva, Valeria, 21–32. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Mathesius, Vilém. 1975. A functional analysis of present day English on a general linguistic basis [ed. by Vachek, Josef]. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 1999. Optimality, markedness, and word order in German. Linguistics 37. 777–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Nice, Kathy Y., & Dietrich, Rainer. 2003. Animacy effects in language production: From mental model to formulator. Mediating between concepts and grammar, ed. by Härtl, Holden & Tappe, Heike, 101–117. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, David. 1995. Zero syntax: Experiencer and cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Piñango, Maria Mercedes. 2000. Canonicity in Broca's sentence comprehension: The case of psychological verbs. Language and the brain: Representation and processing, ed. by Grodzinsky, Yosef, Shapiro, Lewis, & Swinney, David, 327–350. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poesio, Massimo. 2008. Linguistic claims formulated in terms of centering: A re-examination using parametric CB-tracking techniques. Gundel & Hedberg 2008, 216–245.Google Scholar
Prat-Sala, Mercè, & Branigan., Holly P. 2000. Discourse constraints on syntactic processing in language production: A cross-linguistic study in English and Spanish. Journal of Memory and Language 42. 168–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prat-Sala, Mercè, Richard, Shillcock, & Antonella, Sorace. 2000. Animacy effects on the production of object-dislocated descriptions by Catalan-speaking children. Journal of Child Language 27. 97–117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prat-Sala, Mercè. 1997. The production of different word orders: A psycholinguistic and developmental approach. Edinburgh, UK: University of Edinburgh dissertation.Google Scholar
Primus, Beatrice. 1994. Grammatik und Performanz: Faktoren der Wortstellungsvariation im Mittelfeld. Sprache und Pragmatik 32. 39–86.Google Scholar
Primus, Beatrice. 1996. Dependenz und Serialisierung: Das Deutsche im Sprachvergleich. Deutsch–typologisch. Jahrbuch des Instituts für Deutsche Sprache 1995, ed. by Lang, Ewald & Zifonun, Giseal, 57–91. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Primus, Beatrice. 2004. Protorollen und Verbtyp: Kasusvariaton bei psychischen Verben. Semantische Rollen, ed. by Kailuweit, Rolf & Hummel, Martin, 377–401. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 2001. Experiencing derivations. Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistics Theory XI, ed. by Hastings, Rachel, Jackson, Brendan, & Zvolenszky, Zsofia, 365–387. Ithaka, NY: Cornell University.Google Scholar
Richards, Norvin. 2010. Uttering trees. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheepers, Christoph, Hemforth, Barbara, & Konieczny, Lars. 2000. Linking syntactic functions with thematic roles: Psych verbs and the resolution of subject-object ambiguity. German sentence processing, ed. by Hemforth, Barbara & Konieczny, Lars, 95–135. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheepers, Christoph. 1997. Menschliche Satzverarbeitung. Syntaktische und thematische Aspekte der Wortstellung im Deutschen. Freiburg, Germany: Universität Freiburg dissertation.Google Scholar
Skopeteas, Stavros, & Fanselow, Gisbert. 2009. Effects of givenness and constraints on free word order. Information structure: Theoretical, typological, and experimental perspectives, ed. by Zimmerman, Malte & Féry, Caroline, 307–331. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Speyer, Augustin. 2007. Die Bedeutung der Centering Theory für Fragen der Vorfeldbesetzung im Deutschen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 26. 83–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephan, Kepser, & Reis, Marga (eds.). 2005. Linguistic evidence: Empirical, theoretical and computational perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Tomlin, Russell S. 1995. Focal attention, voice, and word order: An experimental, cross-linguistic study. Word order in discourse, ed. by Downing, Pamela & Noonan, Michael P., 517–554. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ueno, Mieko, & Polinsky, Maria. 2009. Does headedness affect processing? A new look at the OV-VO contrast. Journal of Linguistics 45. 675–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verhoeven, Elisabeth. 2009. Subjects, agents, experiencers, and animates in competition: Modern Greek argument order. Linguistische Berichte 219. 355–376.Google Scholar
Walker, Marilyn A.Joshi, Aravind K. & Prince, Ellen F.. 1998. Centering in naturally occurring discourse: An overview. Centering theory in discourse, ed. by Walker, Marilyn A., Joshi, Aravind K., & Prince, Ellen F., 1–28. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Webelhuth, Gerd. 1995. German is configurational. The Linguistic Review 4. 203–246.Google Scholar
Weber, Andrea, & Müller, Karin. 2004. Word order variation in German main clauses: A corpus analysis. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, 71–77. Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Wegener, Heide. 1998. Der Kasus des EXP. Die Kasus im Deutschen. Form und Inhalt, ed. by Vuillaume, Marcel, 71–84. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.Google Scholar
Wunderlich, Dieter. 1997. Cause and the structure of verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 28. 27–68.Google Scholar
Zifonun, Gisela. 1992. Das Passiv im Deutschen: Agenten, Blockaden und (De-) Gradierungen. Deutsche Syntax, ed. by Hoffmann, Ludger, 250–275. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar