Abstract
This paper presents a corpus study of the position of object pronouns relative to a non-pronominal subject in embedded clauses of German. A total of 4322 embedded clauses from the deWaC corpus (Baroni, Marco, Silvia Bernardini, Adriano Ferraresi & Eros Zanchetta. 2009. The WaCky Wide Web: A collection of very large linguistically processed web-crawled corpora. Language Resources and Evaluation Journal 23(3). 209–226), a corpus of written German Internet texts, were analyzed. In 67.0% of all clauses, the object pronoun occurred in front of the subject. Several factors that have been proposed in the literature on word order alternations were found to govern the choice between subject–object and object–subject order in the corpus under investigation. The most important findings are: (i) The Extended Animacy Hierarchy and the Semantic Role Hierarchy independently contribute to the choice of word order. (ii) The Definiteness Hierarchy has a strong effect on the position of the object pronoun. (iii) Word order effects of constituent weight, measured as length in number of words, cannot be reduced to effects of grammatical factors, nor can effects of grammatical factors be reduced to effects of weight.
Appendix: List of OS verbs selecting haben as perfect auxiliary
| Verb | case | OS order | n | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | gefallen ‘to please’ | dat | 0.97 | 148 |
| 2 | fehlen ‘to lack’ | dat | 0.98 | 45 |
| 3 | interessieren ‘to interest’ | acc | 1.00 | 34 |
| 4 | liegen ‘to lie’ | dat | 0.85 | 27 |
| 5 | treffen ‘to hit’ | acc | 0.88 | 24 |
| 6 | stehen ‘to stand’ | dat | 0.88 | 24 |
| 7 | zustehen ‘to be entitled to’ | dat | 1.00 | 24 |
| 8 | stören ‘to disturb’ | acc | 1.00 | 17 |
| 9 | zusagen ‘to please’ | dat | 0.88 | 17 |
| 10 | passen ‘to fit’ | dat | 1.00 | 15 |
| 11 | faszinieren ‘to fascinate’ | acc | 0.88 | 8 |
| 12 | reichen ‘to be enough for’ | dat | 0.71 | 7 |
| 13 | drohen ‘to threaten’ | dat | 0.67 | 6 |
| 14 | schmecken ‘to taste’ | dat | 0.60 | 5 |
| 15 | gehören ‘to belong to’ | dat | 0.75 | 4 |
| 16 | ereilen ‘to overtake’ | acc | 1.00 | 3 |
| 17 | erschrecken ‘to frighten’ | acc | 1.00 | 3 |
| 18 | plagen ‘to plague’ | acc | 1.00 | 3 |
| 19 | beißen ‘to bit’ | acc | 0.00 | 2 |
| 20 | enttäuschen ‘to disappoint’ | acc | 0.50 | 2 |
| 21 | langweilen ‘to bore’ | acc | 1.00 | 2 |
| 22 | befallen ‘affect’ | acc | 0.00 | 1 |
| 23 | drücken ‘to press’ | acc | 0.00 | 1 |
| 24 | schockieren ‘to shock’ | acc | 1.00 | 1 |
| 26 | gebühren ‘to be due to’ | dat | 1.00 | 1 |
References
Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: lconicity vs. economy. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 21. 435–483. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1024109008573.10.1023/A:1024109008573Search in Google Scholar
Arnold, Jennifer E., Thomas Wasow, Ash Asudeh & Peter Alrenga. 2004. Avoiding attachment ambiguities: The role of constituent ordering. Journal of Memory and Language 51. 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2004.03.006.Search in Google Scholar
Arnold, Jennifer E., Ryan Ginstrom, Anthony Losongco & Thomas Wasow. 2000. Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language 76. 28–53. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2000.0045.Search in Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 2008. Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511801686Search in Google Scholar
Bader, Markus & Jana Häussler. 2010a. Toward a model of grammaticality judgments. Journal of Linguistics 46(2). 273–330. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226709990260.Search in Google Scholar
Bader, Markus & Jana Häussler. 2010b. Word order in German: A corpus study. Lingua 120(3). 717–762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2009.05.007.Search in Google Scholar
Bader, Markus & Michael Meng. 1999. Subject-object ambiguities in German embedded clauses: An across-the-board comparison. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 28. 121–143. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1023206208142.10.1023/A:1023206208142Search in Google Scholar
Bader, Markus & Yvonne Portele. 2019. Givenness and the licensing of object-first order in German: The effect of referential form. In Featherston Sam, Hörnig Robin, Steinberg Reinhild, Umbreit Birgit, & Wallis Jennifer (eds.), Proceedings of Linguistic Evidence 2018. Empirical, Theoretical, and Computational Perspectives. 208–228. University of Tübingen, online publication system. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1023206208142.10.1023/A:1023206208142Search in Google Scholar
Baroni, Marco, Silvia Bernardini, Adriano Ferraresi & Eros Zanchetta. 2009. The WaCky Wide Web: A collection of very large linguistically processed web-crawled corpora. Language Resources and Evaluation Journal 23(3). 209–226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-009-9081-4.Search in Google Scholar
Behaghel, Otto. 1909/1910. Beziehungen zwischen Umfang und Reihenfolge von Satzgliedern. Indogermanische Forschungen 25. 110–142.Search in Google Scholar
Behaghel, Otto. 1930. Von deutscher Wortstellung. Zeitschrift für Deutschkunde 44. 81–89.Search in Google Scholar
van Bergen, Geertje & Peter de Swart. 2010. Scrambling in spoken Dutch: Definiteness versus weight as determinants of word order variation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 6(2). 267–295. https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt.2010.010.Search in Google Scholar
Blake, Barry. 2001. Case, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139164894Search in Google Scholar
Bock, J. Kathryn & Richard K. Warren. 1985. Conceptual accessibility and syntactic structure in sentence formulation. Cognition 21. 47–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(85)90023-X.10.1016/0010-0277(85)90023-XSearch in Google Scholar
Bohnet, Bernd. 2010. Top accuracy and fast dependency parsing is not a contradiction. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING 2010). Beijing, China. https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/C10-1011.pdf.Search in Google Scholar
Bouma, Gerlof J. 2008. Starting a sentence in Dutch: A corpus study of subject- and object-fronting. Groningen: University of Groningen dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Branigan, Holly P., Martin J. Pickering & Mikihiro Tanaka. 2008. Contributions of animacy to grammatical function assignment and word order during production. Lingua 118(2). 172–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.003.Search in Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Anna Cueni, Tatiana Nikitina & R. Harald Baayen. 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. In Joost Zwarts, Irene Krämer & Gerlof Bouma (eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation, 69–94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Search in Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Marilyn Ford. 2010. Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language 86(1). 168–213. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0189.10.1353/lan.0.0189Search in Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Jonni M. Kanerva. 1989. Locative inversion in Chichewa: A case study of factorization in grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 20. 1–50.Search in Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2003. Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511840579Search in Google Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert. 2000. Does constituent length predict German word order in the middle field?. In Josef Bayer & Christine Römer (eds.), Von der Philologie zur Grammatiktheorie: Peter Suchsland zum 65. Geburtstag, 63–77. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Search in Google Scholar
Ferreira, Fernanda. 1994. Choice of passive voice is affected by verb type and animacy. Journal of Memory and Language 33. 715–736. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1034.Search in Google Scholar
Ferreira, Victor S. & Gary S. Dell. 2000. Effect of ambiguity and lexical availability on syntactic and lexical production. Cognitive Psychology 40. 296–340. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0730.Search in Google Scholar
Gelman, Andrew & Jennifer Hill. 2007. Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511790942Search in Google Scholar
Gildea, Daniel & David Temperley. 2010. Do grammars minimize dependency length?. Cognitive Science 34. 286–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01073.x.Search in Google Scholar
Haider, Hubert. 2010. The syntax of German. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511845314Search in Google Scholar
Harrell, Frank E.Jr. 2001. Regression modeling strategies: With applications to linear models, logistic regression, and survival analysis. New York: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4757-3462-1Search in Google Scholar
Harrell, Frank E.Jr. 2012. rms: Regression modeling strategies. R package version 3.5-0. http://CRAN.Rproject.org/package=rms.Search in Google Scholar
Hawkins, John. 1992. Syntactic weight versus information structure in word order variation. In Joachim Jacobs (ed.), Informationsstruktur und Grammatik, 196–219. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.10.1007/978-3-663-12176-3_7Search in Google Scholar
Hawkins, John. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511554285Search in Google Scholar
Hawkins, John. 1995. Argument-predicate structure in grammar and performance: A comparison of English and German. In Irmengard Rauch & Gerald F. Carr (eds.), Insights in Germanic linguistics, 127–144. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110810868.127Search in Google Scholar
Hawkins, John. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Heck, Fabian. 2000. Tiefenoptimierung. Linguistische Berichte 184. 441–468.Search in Google Scholar
Heylen, Kris. 2005. A quantitative corpus study of German word order variation. In Stephan Kepser & Marga Reis (eds.), Linguistic evidence: Empirical, theoretical and computational perspectives, 241–263. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110197549.241Search in Google Scholar
Hoberg, Ursula. 1981. Die Wortstellung in der geschriebenen deutschen Gegenwartssprache. Munich: Hueber.Search in Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. & Bernard Comrie. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8. 63–99.10.4324/9781315880259-11Search in Google Scholar
Kempen, Gerard & Karin Harbusch. 2004. A corpus study into word order variation in German subordinate clauses: Animacy affects linearization independently of grammatical function assignment. In Thomas Pechmann & Christopher Habel (eds.), Multidisciplinary approaches to language production, 173–181. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110894028.173Search in Google Scholar
Kempen, Gerard & Karin Harbusch. 2005. The relationship between grammaticality ratings and corpus frequencies: A case study into word-order variability in the midfield of German clauses. In Stephan Kepser & Marga Reis (eds.), Linguistic evidence: Empirical, theoretical and computational perspectives, 329–349. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110197549.329Search in Google Scholar
Kurz, Daniela. 2000. A statistical account on word order variation in German. In Anne Abeillé, Thorsten Brants & Hans Uszkoreit (eds.), Proceedings of the COLING-2000 Workshop on Linguistically Interpreted Corpora. https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W00-1905.pdf.Search in Google Scholar
Lenerz, Jürgen. 1992. Zur Syntax der Pronomina im Deutschen. Sprache und Pragmatik 29.Search in Google Scholar
Levin, Beth & Malka Rappaport Hovav. 2005. Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511610479Search in Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon. 1999. Optimality, markedness, and word order in German. Linguistics 37. 777–818. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.37.5.777.Search in Google Scholar
Peng, Chao-Ying J., Kuk L. Lee & Gary M. Ingersoll. 2002. An introduction to logistic regression analysis and reporting. The Journal of Educational Research 96(1). 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670209598786.Search in Google Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2005. Animacy versus weight as determinants of grammatical variation in English. Language 81. 613–644. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2005.0149.Search in Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 1993a. On the interplay of factors in the determination of word order. In Joachim Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld & Theo Vennemann (eds.), Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research, 826–846. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110095869.1.13.826Search in Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 1993b. Syntactic weight vs. information structure and word order variation in Polish. Journal of Linguistics 29(02). 233–265. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022226700000323.Search in Google Scholar
Temperley, David. 2007. Minimization of dependency length in written English. Cognition 105. 300–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.09.011.Search in Google Scholar
Uszkoreit, Hans. 1986. Constraints on order. Linguistics 24. 883–906. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1986.24.5.883.Search in Google Scholar
Verhoeven, Elisabeth. 2014. Thematic prominence and animacy asymmetries. Evidence from a cross-linguistic production study. Lingua 143. 129–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2014.02.002.Search in Google Scholar
Verhoeven, Elisabeth. 2015. Thematic asymmetries do matter! A corpus study of German word order. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 27(01). 45–104. https://doi.org/10.1017/s147054271400021x.Search in Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 2002. Postverbal behavior. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Search in Google Scholar
Weber, Andrea & Karin Müller (eds.). 2004. Word order variation in German main clauses: A corpus analysis Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Geneva, Switzerland. 71–77.Search in Google Scholar
Weiß, Helmut. 2013. UG und syntaktische (Mikro-)Variation. In Werner Abraham & Elisabeth Leiss (eds.), Dialektologie und Mikrolinguistik. Sonderheft Linguistische Berichte. Hamburg: Buske.Search in Google Scholar
Wiechmann, Daniel & Arne Lohmann. 2013. Domain minimization and beyond: Modeling prepositional phrase ordering. Language Variation and Change 25(01). 65–88. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954394512000233.Search in Google Scholar
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
