2004
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Nederlandse Taalkunde
  4. Volume 29, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 29, Issue 2
  • ISSN: 1384-5845
  • E-ISSN: 2352-1171

Abstract

Abstract

This study presents a psycholinguistic approach to the complex phenomenon of word order variation in Dutch where speakers can freely choose the position of the past participle and the auxiliary verb in bipartite final verb clusters.

(1) Jeroen beweert dat Bregje de hele middag .

(2) Jeroen beweert dat Bregje de hele middag .

‘Jeroen claims that Bregje all afternoon.’

Previous corpus studies have shown that a range of factors associated with the variability can be related to processing complexity of the cluster’s context. More specifically, it is claimed that one of the orders is the default word order that is easier to process, used in circumstances of heavy processing demands (De Sutter 2007; Bloem et al. 2017). Evidence diverges about which of the two orders is the default.

In a self-paced reading experiment and a ‘puzzle’ production experiment conducted with 60 native speakers of Dutch, we (i) test a variety of morphosyntactic factors indicating a higher or lower processing complexity to (ii) clarify the issue of default word order. From the self-paced reading experiment it emerges that both length of the middle field before the cluster and placement of the prepositional object in extraposition have an effect on processing of the two orders. Since this effect is apparent for factors that change the structure and length of the sentence and is absent when it comes to definiteness and inheritance of preverbal constituents, it is argued that not all proposed factors are equally related to processing complexity and that there is not necessarily a default order. Furthermore, we find evidence that processing of the orders is influenced in a very different way than production.

© Anne Renzel
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2024.2.001.RENZ
2024-09-01
2024-12-30
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aaronson, D. & H. S.Scarborough (1976). Performance theories for sentence coding: Some quantitative evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance2, 56-70.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Ainsworth, W. & K.Paliwal (1984). Correlation between the production and perception of the English glides /w, r, l, j/. Journal of Phonetics12, 237–243.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Altmann, G. T. M. & Y.Kamide (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition73, 247-264.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Arfs, M. (2007). Rood of groen? De interne woordvolgorde in tweeledige werkwoordelijke eindgroepen in Nederlandse bijzinnen. Proefschrift, Göteborgs Universiteit.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Atasoy, A. (2022). Production, perception, and processing of focus in Turkish. Proefschrift, Universiteit Potsdam.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Baese-Berk, M. M. (2019). Interactions between speech perception and production during learning of novel phonemic categories. Atten Percept Psychophys81, 981–1005.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bell-Berti, F., L. J.Raphael, D.Pisoni & J. R.Sawusch (1979). Some relationships between speech production and perception. Phonetica36, 373–383.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. van Bergen, G. (2011). Who’s first and what’s next. Animacy and word order variation in Dutch language production. Proefschrift, Radboud Universiteit.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Bloem, J., A.Versloot & F.Weerman (2014). Applying automatically parsed corpora to the study of language variation. In: J.Hajic & J.Tsujii (red.). Proceedings of COLING 2014, the 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers. Dublin: Dublin City University and Association for Computational Linguistics, 1974–1984.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Bloem, J., A.Versloot & F.Weerman (2017). Verbal cluster order and processing complexity. Language Sciences, 94-119.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Bloem, J. (2021). Processing verb clusters. Proefschrift, Universiteit van Amsterdam.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Bouma, G. (2017). Om-omission. In: M.Wieling, M.Kroon, G.van Noord, & G.Bouma (red.). From Semantics to Dialectometry, 65–73.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Bresnan, J., A.Cueni, T.Nikitina & H. R.Baayen (2007). Predicting the dative alternation. In: G.Bouma, I.Kraemer, & J.Zwarts (red.). Cognitive foundations of interpretation. Amsterdam: KNAW, 69–94.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. ChengH. S., C.A.Niziolek, A.Buchwald & T.McAllister (2021). Examining the Relationship Between Speech Perception, Production Distinctness, and Production Variability. Front. Hum. Neurosci.15:660948. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2021.660948.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Conklin, K. & N.Schmitt (2008). Formulaic sequences: Are they processed more quickly than nonformulaic language by native and nonnative speakers?Applied Linguistics29, 72–89.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Coupé, G. (2015). Syntactic extension. The historical development of Dutch verb clusters. Proefschrift, Radboud Universiteit.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Coussé, E. (2003). Volgordevariatie en herinterpretatie in de tweeledige werkwoordelijke eindgroep in de bijzin. Taal en Tongval55, 138-156.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Coussé, E. (2008). Motivaties voor volgordevariatie. Een diachrone studie van werkwoordvolgorde in het Nederlands. Proefschrift, Universiteit Gent.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Coussé, E., M.Arfs & G.De Sutter (2008). Variabele werkwoordsvolgorde in de Nederlandse werkwoordelijke eindgroep: een taalgebruiksgebaseerd perspectief op de synchronie en diachronie van de zgn. rode en groene woordvolgorde. In: G.Rawoens (red.). Taal aan den lijve: Het gebruik van corpora in taalkundig onderzoek en taalonderwijs. Gent: Academia Press, 29–47.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Demuth, K. (2018). Perception, production, and individual differences. Applied Psycholinguistics39, 735-741.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Deo, A. (2007). Derivational morphology in inheritance-based lexica: Insights from Pāṇini. Lingua117, 175–201.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. De Schutter, G. (1976). De bouw van de Nederlandse zin. Beschrijving en voorstel tot beregeling. Verslagen en mededelingen van de Koninklijke Academie voor Taal en Letterkunde2, 165-282.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. De Schutter, G. (1996). De volgorde in tweeledige werkwoordelijke eindgroepen met voltooid deelwoord in spreek- en schrijftaal. Nederlandse Taalkunde3, 207-220.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. De Sutter, G. (2003). Woordvolgorde in tweeledige werkwoordelijke eindgroepen: Naar een statistische evaluatie van zes factoren. In: T.Koole (red.). Artikelen van de vierde sociolinguïstische Conferentie. Delft: Eburon, 111-121.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. De Sutter, G. (2005). Rood, groen, corpus! Een taalgebruiksgebaseerde analyse van woordvolgordevariatie in tweeledige werkwoordelijke eindgroepen. Proefschrift, KU Leuven.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. De Sutter, G. (2007). Naar een corpusgebaseerde, cognitief-functionele verklaring van de woordvolgordevariatie in tweeledige werkwoordelijke eindgroepen. Nederlandse Taalkunde12, 302–330.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. De Sutter, G. (2009). Towards a multivariate model of grammar: The case of word order variation in Dutch clause final verb clusters. In: A.Dufter, J.Fleischer & G.Seiler (red.). Describing and Modeling Variation in Grammar. Berlijn: De Gruyter, 225–255.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. De Sutter, G., D.Speelman & D.Geeraerts (2005). Regionale en stilistische effecten op de woordvolgorde in werkwoordelijke eindgroepen. Nederlandse Taalkunde10, 97-128.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. De Sutter, G., D.Speelman & D.Geeraerts (2007). Luisteren schrijvers naar hun innerlijke stem? De invloed van ritmische factoren op de woordvolgorde in geschreven werkwoordelijke eindgroepen. Neerlandistiek7, 1-85.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Dijkstra, A. & G.Kempen (1993). Taalpsychologie. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Dixon, W. J. (1980). Efficient analyses of experimental observations. Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology20, 441-462.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Dryer, M. S. (2013). Order of subject, object and verb. In: M.Dryer & M.Haspelmath, The World Atlas of Language Structures Online (WALS Online). https://wals.info/chapter/81.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Evers, A. (1975). The transformational cycle in Dutch and German. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Fedzechkina, M., T. F.Jaeger & E. L.Newport (2012). Language learners restructure their input to facilitate efficient communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences109, 17897–17902.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Gibson, E. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition68, 1–76.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Gibson, E., C. T.Schütze & A.Salomon (1996). The relationship between the frequency and the processing complexity of linguistic structure. Journal of Psycholinguistik Research25, 59–92.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Gisborne, N. & A.Hippisley (2017). Defaults in linguistics. In: N.Gisborne & A.Hippisley (red.). Defaults in Morphological Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1-17.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Gries, S. (2001). A multifactorial analysis of syntactic variation: Particle movement revisited. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics8, 33–50.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. van Haeringen, C. B. (1956). Nederlands tussen Duits en Engels. Den Haag: Servire.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Haeseryn, W. (1990). Syntactische normen in het Nederlands. Eenempirisch onderzoek naar volgordevariatie in de werkwoordelijke eindgroep. Proefschrift, Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Haeseryn, W., K.Romijn, G.Geerts, J.de Rooij & M. C.van den Toorn (red.) (1997). Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. 2de ed. Groningen: Nijhoff.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Harrell, F. E. jr. (2001). Regression modelling strategies. With applications to linear models, logistic regression, and survival analysis. New York: Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Hartsuiker, R. J. & H. H.Kolk (1998). Syntactic persistence in Dutch. Language and Speech41, 143–184.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Haspelmath, M. (2006). Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics42, 1-37.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Hawkins, J. A. (2004). Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Hawkins, J. A. (2014). Cross-linguistic variation and efficiency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Proefschrift, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Hemphill, R. M. (1999). On the perception/production interface in speech processing. Proefschrift, University of Chicago.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Jaeger, T. F & H.Tily (2011). On language ‘utility’: Processing complexity and communicative efficiency. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science2, 323–335.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Jegerski, J. (2014). Self-paced reading. In: J.Jegerski & B.Van Patten (red.), Research methods in second language psycholinguistics. New York: Routledge, 20-49.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Kampen, J. van (2010). Typological guidance in the acquisition of V2 Dutch. Lingua120, 264–283.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. de Kleijn, P. & E.Nieuwborg (1999). Basiswoordenboek Nederlands. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Levy, R. P. & F.Keller (2013). Expectation and locality effects in German verb-final structures. Journal of Memory and Language68, 199–222.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. MacDonald, M. C. (2013). How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology4, 226.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Meyer, C. & F.Weerman (2016). Cracking the cluster. Nederlandse taalkunde21, 181-212.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Mitchell, D. C. & D. W.Green (1978). The effects of context and content on immediate processing in reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology30, 609-636.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Olthof, M., M.Westendorp, J.Bloem & F.Weerman (2017). Synchronic variation and diachronic change in Dutch two-verb clusters. Tijdschrift voor Taal- & Letterkunde133, 34-60.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Peirce, J. W. (2007). PsychoPy – Psychophysics software in Python. Journal of Neuroscience Methods162, 8-13.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Pinget, A. F., R.Kager & H.Van de Velde (2020). Linking Variation in Perception and Production in Sound Change: Evidence from Dutch Obstruent Devoicing. Language and Speech63, 660-685.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Poeppel, D., W. J.Idsardi & V.van Wassenhove (2008). Speech Perception at the Interface of Neurobiology and Linguistics. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences 363(1493), The Perception of Speech: From Sound to Meaning12, 1071-1086.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Prather, J., K.Okanoya & J. J.Bolhuis (2017). Brains for birds and babies: Neural parallels between birdsong and speech acquisition. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews81, 225–237.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Sabel, J. & M.Saito (2005). The Free Word Order Phenomenon. Its Syntactic Sources and Diversity. Berlijn: De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Schaeffer, J., M.van Witteloostuijn & D.de Haan (2014). Article choice in children with High Functioning Autism (HFA) and in children with Specific Language Impairment (SLI). Linguistics in the Netherlands31, 107–128.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Stroop, J. (1970). Systeem in gesproken werkwoordsgroepen. Taal en Tongval22, 128-147.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Swerts, M. (1998). Ritme als verklarende factor voor de keuze tussen groene en rode volgorde in het Nederlands. Nederlandse Taalkunde3, 299-308.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Swerts, M. & R.Collier (2000). Preferentieoordelen van luisteraars voor uitingen met groene of rode werkwoordvolgorde. In: S.Gillis, J.Nuyts & J.Taeldeman (red.). Met taal om de tuin geleid: Een bundel opstellen voor Georges De Schutter ter gelegenheid van zijn pre-emeritaat. Antwerpen: UIA, 311-316.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Swerts, M. & J.van Wijk (2005). Prosodic, lexico-syntactic and regional influences on word order in Dutch verbal endgroups. Journal of Phonetics33, 243-262.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Underwood, G., N.Schmitt & A.Galpin (2004). The eyes have it: An eye-movement study into the processing of formulaic sequences. In: N.Schmitt (red.). Formulaic Sequences: Acquisition, processing and use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 153–172.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Wijnen, F. (1997). Functionele categorieën in taalverwerving en taalgebruik. Nederlandse Taalkunde2, 178–198.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Wike, E. L. (2006). Data Analysis: A Statistical Primer for Psychology Students. New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Willems, A. & G.De Sutter (2015). Reassessing the effect of the complexity principle on PP placement in Dutch. Nederlandse Taalkunde20, 339-366.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Willems, A. (2016). Een extra positie?Nederlandse Taalkunde21, 285-296.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Zuckerman, S. (2001). The acquisition of “optional” movement. Proefschrift, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2024.2.001.RENZ
Loading
Experimenteel clusteren
NedTaal 29, 149 (2024); https://doi.org/10.5117/NEDTAA2024.2.001.RENZ
/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2024.2.001.RENZ
/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2024.2.001.RENZ
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Keyword(s): default; processing complexity; self-paced reading; verb clusters; word order variation

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error