Weighting the Contraints on Word-order Variation in Germanqitl/slides/SLIDES_bader_haeussler.pdfWeighting the Contraints on Word-order Variation in German Markus Bader & Jana Haussler¨

Weighting the Contraints on Word-order

Variation in German

Markus Bader & Jana Haussler

University of Konstanz

QITL 2 - Osnabruck 2006 – p. 1

Introduction

The expression of focus – syntax vs. phonology

Sentence-focus (Context: What happened?):

Rightmost stress and canonical word-order in English andItalian

(1) a. English: [F John has LAUGHED]b. Italian: [F Gianni ha RISO]

Subject-focus (Context: Who has laughed?):

English retains canonical word-order,Italian retains rightmost stress

(2) a. English: [F JOHN] has laughedb. Italian: Ha riso [F GIANNI]


Introduction

Sentence-focus (Context: What happened?):

Rightmost stress and canonical word-order(3) [F Jan hat GELACHT]

John has laughed

Subject-focus (Context: Who has laughed?):

Either canonical word-order is retained, or rightmost stress(4) a. [F JAN] hat gelacht

John has laughedb. Gelacht hat [F JAN]

laughed has John


Introduction

Strategies to express focus

English: fixed word-order and flexible focus assignment

Italian: flexible syntax and fixed focus structure

German: flexible syntax and flexible focus assignment

Flexibility in German includes the ordering between subjectand object: Who called the minister?(5) a. [F Der VATER] hat den Pfarrer angerufen

the father-NOM has the minister-ACC calledb. Den Pfarrer hat [F der VATER] angerufen

the minister-ACC has the father-NOM called


Introduction

Questions of the current study

What are the relevant factors determining the orderbetween subject and object in German? (Are all factorssuggested in the literature indeed necessary todetermine word-order in German?)

What is the weight of each of these factors?

Do the factors (or their weight) differ for embedded vs.main clauses?


Introduction

Outline of the talk

The grammar of word-order variation

Previous corpus studies of word-order variation inGerman

The current corpus study

A comparison with results from languagecomprehension

General discussion



‘Word-order’ freedom involving the prefield (SpecCP):(Only possible in main clauses)

(6) a. Der Vater hat den Pfarrer besuchtthe father-NOM has the minister-ACC visited

b. Den Pfarrer hat der Vater besuchtthe minister-ACC has the father-NOM visited



‘Word-order’ freedom involving the middlefield(between C◦ and the clause-final verb(s)):

(7) a. Sicher hat der Vater den Pfarrer besuchtSurely has the father-NOM the minister-ACC visited

b. Sicher hat den Pfarrer der Vater besuchtSurely has the minister-ACC the father-NOM visited

(8) a. dass der Vater den Pfarrer besucht hatthat the father-NOM the minister-ACC visited has

b. dass den Pfarrer der Vater besucht hatthat the minister-ACC the father-NOM visited has



For German, SO is considered to be the canonicalword-order.

Two sources have been proposed for using OS:

Information structure :In order to have focus in its default pre-verb position,a non-focused object may be moved to the left.In order to have the topic in its preferred initialposition, an object in topic function might be movedto the left.

Argument structure : Particular verbs (e.g.psych-verbs, unaccusative verbs) license the use of OS.



Factors that have been suggested to affect word-order

discourse related properties:definiteness: definite < indefinitefocus/backgroundtopichood: topic first

semantic properties:agency: agent < non-agentanimacy: animate < inanimate

length: favoring OS when the object is shorter than thesubject


Previous corpus studies

Hoberg (1981): Base word order

(N–D–A)pron – ((N–D–A)+ani – (N–D–A)−ani)nom – (N,D,A)FN

pronominal argument < non-pronominal argument

ordering of pronouns: NOM < ACC < DAT

non-pronominal arguments: animate < inanimate

Semantically opaque arguments are adjacent to theverb (‘Funktionsverbgefüge’)



Data base

Newspaper corpus of the IDS (Mannheim)

We queried for den (object introduced by the definitearticle den) with further restrictions (see below).

Motivation for den: combination of corpus andcomprehension studies

Focus of comprehension studies: Syntactic ambiguityresolution

Depending on the noun, objects with den areambiguous between dative and accusative



Sentences were randomly sampled by theCOSMAS-System

four sets: 2 clause types x 2 positional restrictionsdass (...) den: embedded clauses, unconstrainedwrt. to the position of the objectdass den: embedded clauses, object-initial(immediately following the complementizer)den: main clauses, unconstrained wrt. to theposition of the objectDen: main clauses, object-initial

Sentences in which den was not a verbal argumentwere subsequently removed (e.g. den within PPs)



The sentence sets were annotated for the followingproperties:

case

voice

animacy

definiteness

pronominality

length of subject and object (number of words)



Table 1: Overview of embedded clausesUnconstrained Object-initial

Total 1178 930S=Nominal 835 838S=Pronominal 335 0no S 8 911 NP Arg 8 912 NP Args 1019 8283 NP Args 151 114 NP Args 0 0



Table 2: Overview of main clausesUnconstrained Object-initial

Total 668 827S=Nominal 518 602S=Pronominal 146 198no S 4 271 NP Arg 4 272 NP Args 559 7193 NP Args 104 804 NP Args 1 1



The position of subject pronouns:

Embedded clauses : In our data, a pronominal subjectprecedes the non-pronominal den-object withoutexceptionThis confirms earlier observations of a categorialconstrain “S[+pron] < O[−pron]” in the middlefield

Main clauses : Both orderings are attested, but whenthe object precedes a pronominal subject, the object isalways in the prefield.This is expected given that the prefield and themiddlefield-initial position have different syntacticcharacteristics.


Focus of this Presentation

Factors determining word-order in German

Comparison of word order in the middlefield andword-order involving the prefield

Word-order variation in the middlefield: corporacontaining embedded clauses (possible differencesbetween the middlefield in main and embeddedclauses won’t be discussed)Word-order variation involving the prefield: corporacontaining main clauses, with all sentences in whichboth subject and object are in the middlefieldremoved

Note: In the following, we will present data for sentenceswith a non-pronominal subject only.


Word-order: Basic Results

Table 3: Percentages of SO-sentences by case and

nr. of argumentsMiddlefield (emb.) Prefield (main)

Accusative Dative Accusative Dative2 Args. 99.25 50.93 89.2 49.23 Args. 98.65 96.10 87.5 94.3



Table 4: Percentages of accusative-sentences by

order and nr. of argumentsMiddlefield (emb.) Prefield (main)

Sub>Obj Obj>Sub Sub>Obj Obj>Sub2 Args. 88.0 5.4 (6.4) 91.6 56.2 (76.0)3 Args. 49.7 25.0 (0) 48.5 71.4 (67.0)



Summary for 2-argument sentences:

OS-order in the middlefield occurs mainly with dativeobjects

For dative objects, there is no difference betweenmiddlefield and prefield

For accusative objects, prefield OS is much morefrequent than middlefield OS

Summary for 3-argument sentences:

Sentences with three arguments were almost alwaysrealized with SO-order.


Lexical-Conceptual Factors

Animacy in accusative sentences

020

4060

8010

0

Distribution of Animacy Features

Per

cent

age

of s

ente

nces

S[+an]O[+an]

S[+an]O[−an]

S[−an]O[+an]

S[−an]O[−an]

SO MiddlefieldSO Prefield

OS MiddlefieldOS Prefield



Animacy in accusative sentences

020

4060

8010

0


Per

cent

age

of s

ente

nces

S[+an]O[+an]

S[+an]O[−an]

S[−an]O[+an]

S[−an]O[−an]

SO MiddlefieldSO Prefield

OS MiddlefieldOS Prefield



Animacy in dative sentences

020

4060

8010

0


Per

cent

age

of s

ente

nces

S[+an]O[+an]

S[+an]O[−an]

S[−an]O[+an]

S[−an]O[−an]

SO MiddlefieldSO PrefieldOS MiddlefieldOS Prefield



Animacy in dative sentences

020

4060

8010

0


Per

cent

age

of s

ente

nces

S[+an]O[+an]

S[+an]O[−an]

S[−an]O[+an]

S[−an]O[−an]

SO MiddlefieldSO PrefieldOS MiddlefieldOS Prefield



Animacy in OS sentences

020

4060

8010

0


Per

cent

age

of s

ente

nces

S[+an]O[+an]

S[+an]O[−an]

S[−an]O[+an]

S[−an]O[−an]

Acc MiddleAcc Pre

Dat MiddleDat Pre



Summary:

In the middlefield:OS-order occurs mainly with S[−animate] andO[+animate]

Animate subjects occur mainly in the order SO.

For dative objects, middlefield OS and prefield OSpattern together

For accusative objects, prefield OS and middlefield SOpattern together


Verb-Related Factors

What kind of constructions occur with inanimate subjectand animate object?

Passivized ditransitive verbs (cf. (9)) → dative object

Unaccusative verbs (cf. (10)) → dative object

(9) . . . dass dem Kind ein Bär geschenkt wurdethat the child-DAT a bear-NOM given was

(10) . . . dass dem Kind ein Witz eingefallen istthat the child-DAT a joke-NOM come-to-mind is



What kind of constructions occur with inanimate subjectand animate object?

Object-experiencer verbs take either an accusative (cf.(11)) or a dative object (cf. (12)).

(11) . . . dass das Kind der Witz gelangweilt hatthat the child-ACC the joke-NOM annoyed has

(12) . . . dass dem Kind der Witz gefallen hatthat the child-DAT the joke-NOM pleased has



Table 5: Percentages of passive usage and sein-

auxiliary by orderMiddlefield (emb.) Prefield (main)

Sub>Obj Obj>Sub Sub>Obj Obj>Sub% Pass. 9.1 46.7 (41.0) 18.0 21.0 (37.0)% ‘sein’ 27.1 69.6 (66.7) 27.8 33.3 (43.9)



Summary:

Passivized ditransitive verbs and unaccusative verbsaccount for a substantial amount of OS sentences withdative objects.

These constructions are not compatible with accusativecase. This accounts for the finding that OS-order in themiddlefield is rare with accusative objects.

Topics under current investigation:

Can the factor ‘animacy’ and the verb-related factors(passivization, unaccusativity) be reduced to the lexicalsemantics of verbs?


Constituent Length

Question: Does constituent weight affect the orderingbetween subject and object?

So far, we have only computed weight in terms ofconstituent length measured by number of words.

Phenomena like extraposition have not yet been takeninto account.


Constituent Length

Table 6: Mean difference between length of object

and length of subject (measured in words)Middlefield (emb.) Prefield (main)

Sub>Obj Obj>Sub Sub>Obj Obj>SubAccusative 0.84 -0.45 -0.02 0.34Dative 0.48 0.05 -0.45 0.02


Constituent Length

Middlefield SO sentences: Difference in length (O−S)

Den

sity

−10 −5 0 5 10 15 20 25

0.00

0.20

Middlefield OS sentences: Difference in length (O−S)

Den

sity

−10 −5 0 5 10 15 20 25

0.00

0.20


Constituent Length

Prefield SO sentences: Difference in length (O−S)

Den

sity

−40 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20

0.00

0.20

Prefield OS sentences: Difference in length (O−S)

Den

sity

−40 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20

0.00

0.10


Constituent Length

Table 7: Mean length of subject (measured in

words)Middlefield (emb.) Prefield (main)

Sub>Obj Obj>Sub Sub>Obj Obj>SubAccusative 2.67 3.91 3.94 4.34Dative 2.82 3.16 3.32 4.43


Constituent Length

Table 8: Mean length of object (measured in words)Middlefield (emb.) Prefield (main)

Sub>Obj Obj>Sub Sub>Obj Obj>SubAccusative 3.51 3.45 3.92 4.68Dative 3.3 3.21 2.86 4.45


Constituent Length

Middlefield OS sentences: Object length

Den

sity

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0.0

0.3

0.6

Prefield OS sentences: Object length

Den

sity

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0.0

0.3

0.6


Constituent Length

Summary:

In the middlefield, there is a slight tendency for initialsubjects to be shorter than non-initial subjects, but noeffect for objects.

For prefield sentences, no clear tendency is visible.Subjects are somewhat shorter when in the prefield, butthe reverse is true for objects.

Overall, there is a tendency for “short before long” in themiddlefield but “long before short” when S or O is in theprefield.


A Logistic Regression Model

A logistic regression model with the following factors wasfitted to the sentence set “embedded clauses with orderunconstrained”:

object case accusative or dativeanimacy of subject animate or inanimateanimacy of object animate or inanimatevoice active or passiveperfect auxiliary ‘haben’ (have) or ‘sein’ (be)determiner of subject indefinite or definitenr of arguments 2 or 3∆ length (O minus S)



Estimate Pr(>|z|)(Intercept) 0.7332 0.59955object case = DAT -2.1063 3.4e-05 ***sAni = inanimate -1.8847 1.1e-05 ***oAni = inanimate 1.9801 7.8e-06 ***voice = passive -1.3986 0.00842 **aux = ‘sein’(be) -1.4053 0.00067 ***sDet = definite 1.5183 5.0e-05 ***nr of arguments 1.2614 0.03964 *∆ length (O minus S) -0.0443 0.42250



The sentence set contains 86% SO-sentences

The model correctly classifies 96% of all sentences(with p < 0.5 taken as OS and p ≥ 0.5 as SO).

Correctness broken down by order and case:SO OS

ACC 1.00 0.0DAT 0.85 0.9

When applied to the set ‘embedded clauses withOS-sentences only’, the model correctly classified 80%of all sentences (0% ACC, 86% DAT).

When applied to the set ‘main clauses withOS-sentences only’, the model correctly classified 15%of all sentences (0% ACC, 61% DAT).


A Note on Comprehension

Method:

Procedure: Speeded grammaticality judgments

Material: Ambiguous and unambiguous sentences ofvarious syntactic structures with den-objects. Onlyresults for unambiguous embedded clauses are shown.

Table 9: Selected Results (% correct) from experi-

ments with den-objectsS[+an]/O[+an] S[-an]/O[+an]

Sub>Obj Obj>Sub Sub>Obj Obj>SubAccusative 90 70 93 95Dative 93 86 90 94


A Note on Comprehension

For comparison: Difficult garden-path sentences like (13)receive mean judgments of about 50%.(13) . . . dass Maria die Kinder besucht haben

that Maria-ACC the children-NOM visited have

Conclusion:

Even the rarest kind of OS-sentences are clearlycomprehensible, as shown in particular by thecomparison to garden-path sentences.

To some degree, the rareness of OS-structures isreflected in the comprehension results (in particular,ACC with S[+an]/O[+an])


Summary

Our corpus results are compatible with a ratherconventional syntactic analysis which claims . . .

The grammar can base-generate both SO- andOS-structures in the middlefield.

The particular order is determined by argumentstructure properties of the verb.

The prefield has to be filled by movement.

Movement allows the deviation from thebase-generated order.

Movement within the middlefield (‘scrambling’)Fronting to SpecCP


Summary

The source of OS in our corpus

In the middlefield, OS is by and large restricted tobase-generation. Scrambling is rare (although peopleclearly can comprehend scrambled sentences).

OS with O in the prefield has two sources:An OS structure is base-generated in the middlefieldand O—as the highest argument—is fronted toSpecCP by default.An SO structure is base-generated in the middlefieldand O is fronted to SpecCP for discourse reasons.


Documents

Weighting the Contraints on Word-order Variation in Germanqitl/slides/SLIDES_bader_haeussler.pdfWeighting the Contraints on Word-order Variation in German Markus Bader & Jana Haussler¨