Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T08:06:00.369Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gender asymmetries in ellipsis: An experimental comparison of markedness and frequency accounts in English

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 November 2021

JON SPROUSE ,
TROY MESSICK Open the ORCID record for TROY MESSICK [Opens in a new window]  and
JONATHAN DAVID BOBALJIK
JON SPROUSE
Affiliation:
Program in Psychology, New York University Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi 129188, United Arab Emirates jon.sprouse@nyu.edu
TROY MESSICK
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, Rutgers University, 18 Seminary Place, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA troy.messick@rutgers.edu
JONATHAN DAVID BOBALJIK
Affiliation:
Department of Linguistics, Harvard University, Boylston Hall, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA bobaljik@fas.harvard.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Bobaljik & Zocca (2011) argue that ellipsis reveals the existence of (at least) two classes of gender-paired nouns: in the actor/actress class, the grammatically feminine form is specified for conceptual gender, while the unaffixed form is unspecified, exemplifying the classic markedness asymmetry (Jakobson 1932); in the prince/princess class, both forms are specified for conceptual gender. Here we test two theories of this asymmetry: one that encodes markedness in the linguistic representation (e.g. Merchant 2014, Sudo & Spathas 2016, and Saab 2019), and one that traces the asymmetry to differences in the relative frequency of the forms in each pair (Haspelmath 2006). The frequency approach predicts that the size of the asymmetries (as quantified by acceptability judgments) will correlate with the size of the relative frequency ratio for each pair. We test this prediction in two experiments: the first is a curated set of 16 pairs in English, and the second is a test of 58 pairs that nearly exhausts such pairs in English. We use frequencies from COCA (Davies 2008) to test the prediction of the frequency approach. Our results suggest that the relative frequency hypothesis is not an empirically adequate competitor for the explanation of gender asymmetries.

Keywords

acceptability judgmentsellipsisexperimental syntaxgender asymmetriesword frequency
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 58 , Issue 2 , April 2022 , pp. 345 - 379
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant BCS-1347115 to JS. Portions of this work were completed while the authors held appointments at the University of Connecticut. For comments and suggestions on the material reported here, we would like to thank three anonymous Journal of Linguistics referees, as well as audiences at the University of Vienna and the Workshop on Theoretical and Experimental Approaches to Gender (Berlin).

References

REFERENCES

Ackerman, Lauren. 2019. Syntactic and cognitive issues in investigating gendered coreference. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4.1, 117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bard, Ellen Gurman, Robertson, Dan & Sorace, Antonella. 1996. Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language 72.1, 32–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Maechler, Martin, Bolker, Ben & Walker, Steve. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67.1, 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David & Zocca, Cynthia Levart. 2011. Gender markedness: The anatomy of a counter-example. Morphology 21.2, 141–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joan, Bresnan.. 2007. Is syntactic knowledge probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation. In Featherston, Sam & Sternefeld, Wolfgang (eds.), Roots: Linguistics in search of its evidential base, 77–96. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chen, Zhong, Xu, Yuhang & Xie, Zhiguo. 2020. Assessing introspective linguistic judgments quantitatively: The case of the syntax of Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 29, 311–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton & Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1964. Degrees of grammaticalness. In Fodor, Jerry A. & Katz, Jerrold J. (eds.), The structure of language, 384–389. Englewood, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Corbett, Greville G. 1991. Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowart, Wayne. 1997. Experimental syntax. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2008. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA):600 million words 1990–present. Available online at https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/.Google Scholar
Dillon, Brian, Staub, Adrian, Levy, Joshua & Clifton, Charles Jr. 2017 Which noun phrases is the verb supposed to agree with?: Object agreement in American English. Language 93.1, 65–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Featherston, Sam. 2005. The Decathlon Model of empirical syntax. In Reis, Marga & Kepser, Stephan (eds.), Linguistic evidence: Empirical, theoretical, and computational perspectives, 187–208. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Featherston, Sam. 2009. Relax, lean back, and be a linguist. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 28, 127–132. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph. 1966. Language universals, with special reference to feature hierarchies. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2006. Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42.1, 25–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heim, Irene. 1991. Artikel und Definitheit. In von Stechow, Armin & Wunderlich, Dieter (eds.), Semantik: Ein internationals Handbuch der zeitgenössichen Forschung. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Huang, Nick. 2019. Variation and learnability in constraints on A-bar movement. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1932. Zur Struktur des russischen Verbums. Charisteria Gvilelmo Mathesio qvinqvagenario a discipulis et Circuli Lingvistici Pragensis soladibus oblata, 74–84. Prague. [English translation published as: Jakobson, Roman. 1984. Structure of the Russian verb. In Linda R. Waugh & Morris Halle (eds.), Roman Jakobson: Russian and Slavic grammar. Studies 1931–1981, 1–14. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.]Google Scholar
Keller, Frank. 2000. Gradience in grammar: Experimental and computational aspects of degrees of grammaticality. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Kuznetsova, Alexandra, Per Bruun Brockhoff & Rune Haubo Bojesen Christensen. 2017. lmerTest: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models. Journal of Statistical Software 82.13, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lau, Jey. H., Clark, Alexander & Lappin, Shalom. 2017. Grammaticality, acceptability, and probability: A probabilistic view of linguistic knowledge. Cognitive Science 41.5, 1201–1241.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mahowald, Kyle, Graff, Peter, Hartman, Jeremy & Gibson, Edward. 2016. SNAP judgments: A small N acceptability paradigm (SNAP) for linguistic acceptability judgments. Language 92, 619–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marty, Paul, Chemla, Emmanuel & Sprouse, Jon. 2020. The effect of three basic task features on the sensitivity of acceptability judgment tasks. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 5.1, 72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McConnell-Ginet, Sally. 2015. Gender and its relation to sex: The myth of ‘natural’ gender. In Corbett, Greville G. (ed.), The expression of gender, 3–38. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2014. Gender mismatches under nominal ellipsis. Lingua 151, 9–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2019. Ellipsis: A survey of analytical approaches. In van Cranenbroeck, Jeroen and Temmerman, Tanja (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ellipsis, 19–45. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Morey, Richard D., Romeijn, Jan-Willem & Rouder, Jeffrey N.. 2016. The philosophy of Bayes factors and the quantification of statistical evidence. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 72, 6–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morey, Richard D. & Rouder, Jeffrey N.. 2018. BayesFactor: Computation of Bayes factors for common designs. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=BayesFactor.Google Scholar
Muthmann, Gustav. 1999. Reverse English dictionary based on phonological and morphological principles. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myers, James. 2009. The design and analysis of small-scale syntactic judgment experiments. Lingua 119, 425–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pañeda, Claudia, Lago, Sol, Vares, Elena, Veríssimo, João & Felser, Claudia. 2020. Island effects in Spanish comprehension. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 5.1, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team. 2015. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna. https://www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar
Saab, Andrés. 2019. Nominal ellipsis. In van Cranenbroeck, Jeroen & Temmerman, Tanja (eds.), The Oxford handbook of ellipsis, 526–561. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schütze, Carson T. 1996. The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality Judgments and Linguistic Methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Song, Sanghoun, Choe, Jae-Woong & Oh, Eunjeong. 2014. FAQ: Do non-linguists share the same intuition as linguists?. Language Research 50.2, 357–386.Google Scholar
Sprouse, Jon. 2020. A user’s view of the validity of acceptability judgments as evidence for syntactic theories. In Schindler, Samuel, Drozdzowicz, Anna & Brøcker, Karen (eds.), Linguistic intuitions, 215–232. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprouse, Jon & Almeida, Diogo. 2012. Assessing the reliability of textbook data in syntax: Adger’s Core Syntax. Journal of Linguistics 48, 609–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprouse, Jon & Almeida, Diogo. 2017. Design sensitivity and statistical power in acceptability judgment experiments. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2.1, 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprouse, Jon, Schütze, Carson T. & Almeida, Diogo. 2013. A comparison of informal and formal acceptability judgments using a random sample from Linguistic Inquiry 2001–2010. Lingua 134, 219–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprouse, Jon, Yankama, Beracah, Indurkhya, Sagar, Fong, Sandiway & Berwick, Robert C.. 2018. Colorless green ideas do sleep furiously: Gradient acceptability and the nature of the grammar. The Linguistic Review 35, 575–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sudo, Yasutada & Spathas, Giogros. 2016. Gendered nouns and nominal ellipsis in Greek. Ms., University College London and Universität Stuttgart & Humboldt Universität zu Berlin.Google Scholar
Tiersma, Peter Meijes. 1982. Local and general markedness. Language 58.4, 832–849.Google Scholar