Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-8bljj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-05T08:36:58.842Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Variation across two dimensions: testing the Complexity Principle and the Uniform Information Density Principle on adjectival data1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 October 2016

HENRIK KAATARI
HENRIK KAATARI*
Affiliation:
Department of English, Uppsala University, Box 527, 751 20 Uppsala, Swedenhenrik.kaatari@engelska.uu.se
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study tests the applicability of the Complexity Principle (Rohdenburg 1996) and the Uniform Information Density Principle (Jaeger 2010) on adjectival data as regards the variation between retaining and omitting the complementizer that in English adjectival complementation constructions. More specifically, the study tests the effect of different factors of potential importance on this variation across extraposed (e.g. It was inevitable (that) he should be nicknamed ‘the Ferret’) and post-predicate clauses (e.g. I'm happy (that) we are married). While both the factors concerned with the Complexity Principle and the Uniform Information Density Principle are found to have an effect on post-predicate clauses, less clear effects are found concerning extraposed clauses. I attribute these findings to the difference between the two constructions in terms of their frequency of co-occurrence with different matrix subject types and with different adjectives.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 20 , Special Issue 3: Support strategies in language variation and change , November 2016 , pp. 533 - 558
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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

I would like to express my gratitude to the members of the Uppsala University English linguistics seminar and two anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions on earlier versions of this article.

References

Biber, Douglas. 1999. A register perspective on grammar and discourse: Variability in the form and use of English complement clauses. Discourse Studies 1, 131–50.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Conrad, Susan, Leech, Geoffrey & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Burnard, Lou. 2007. Reference guide for the British National Corpus (XML edition). www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/docs/URG/ (22 October 2014).Google Scholar
Crawley, Michael J. 2007. The R book. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Elsness, J. 1984. That or zero? A look at the choice of object clause connective in a corpus of American English. English Studies 65, 519–33.Google Scholar
Evert, Stefan. 2006. How random is a corpus? The library metaphor. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 54 (2), 177–90.Google Scholar
Garretson, Gregory & Kaatari, Henrik. 2014. The computer as research assistant: A new approach to variable patterns in corpus data. In Vandelanotte, Lieven, Davidse, Kristin, Gentens, Caroline & Kimps, Ditte (eds.), Recent advances in corpus linguistics: Developing and exploiting corpora, 55–80. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2007. Coll.analysis 3.2a. A program for R for Windows 2.x.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2009. Statistics for linguists with R: A practical introduction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. & Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2004. Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on alternations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9 (1), 97–129.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2010. Collostructional analysis: Measuring associations between constructions and lexical elements. Freiburg: Freiburg Institute for Advanced Studies.Google Scholar
Hoey, Michael. 2005. Lexical priming: A new theory of words and language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jaeger, Florian. 2010. Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology 61, 23–62.Google Scholar
Kaatari, Henrik. 2012. Sampling the BNC – creating a randomly sampled subcorpus for comparing multiple genres. Poster presented at ICAME 33, Leuven, Belgium, 30 May – 3 June 2012.Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther. 2006. . . . That is the question: Complementizer omission in extraposed clauses. English Language and Linguistics 10 (2), 371–96.Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther. 2011. Explaining diverging evidence: The case of clause-initial I think . In Schönefeld, Doris (ed.), Converging evidence: Methodological and theoretical issues for linguistic research, 81–112. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther. 2013. Development of comment clauses. In Aarts, Bas, Close, Joanne, Leech, Geoffrey & Wallis, Sean (eds.), The English verb phrase: Investigating recent change with corpora, 286–317. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mindt, Ilka. 2011. Adjective complementation: An empirical analysis of adjectives followed by that-clauses. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mittlböck, Martina & Schemper, Michael. 1999. Computing measures of explained variation for logistic regression models. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine 58, 17–24.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team 2008. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. www.R-project.org/ (22 October 2014).Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 1995. On the replacement of finite complement clauses by infinitives in English. English Studies 76, 367–88.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 1996. Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English. Cognitive Linguistics 7, 149–82.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Gries, Stefan Th.. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8 (2), 209–43.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Gries, Stefan Th.. 2005. Co-varying collexemes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1 (1), 1–43.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. & Mulac, Anthony. 1991a. A quantitative perspective on the grammaticization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Heine, Bernd (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, vol. 2, 313–39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. & Mulac, Anthony. 1991b. The discourse conditions for the use of the complementizer that in conversational English. Journal of Pragmatics 15 (3), 237–51.Google Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, Rena & Walker, James A.. 2009. On the persistence of grammar in discourse formulas: A variationist study of that . Linguistics 47 (1), 1–43.Google Scholar
Van Bogaert, Julie. 2010. A constructional taxonomy of I think and related expressions: Accounting for the variability of complement-taking mental predicates. English Language and Linguistics 14 (3), 399–427.Google Scholar
Van Bogaert, Julie. 2011. I think and other complement-taking predicates: A case of and for constructional grammaticalization. Linguistics 49 (2), 295–332.Google Scholar
Van linden, An. 2012. Modal adjectives: English deontic and evaluative constructions in synchrony and diachrony. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar