1887
  1. Home
  2. Books
  3. Variation within and across Romance Languages
  4. Chapter

Weight effects across verbal domains

The case of Spanish subjects

image of Weight effects across verbal domains

Abundant research reports that weight affects the position of postverbal constituents (Hawkins 2004; Wasow 1997, 2002; Wasow & Arnold 2003). Weight has been analyzed both as a constraint on production and processing. Our study analyzes whether increasing weight can shift subject position, which is typically preverbal, to the postverbal domain. We focus on Spanish subjects with unaccusative and emission verbs, because they display similar percentages of preverbal and postverbal occurrences. Our sample corpus was extracted from the Corpus de Referencia del Español Actual (CREA). Data was coded as nominal and scalar data in order to compare the validity of the different methodologies adopted by Hawkins (1994) and Gries (2003) respectively. In addition, we investigate which is the most descriptive weight unit: word (Lohse, Hawkins & Wasow 2004), syllable (Gries 2003), or phoneme. Our results indicate that weight is a statistically significant factor in subject placement.

  • Affiliations: 1: University of Alabama at Birmingham; 2: University of Missouri-Columbia

References

  1. Burzio, Luigi
    1981 Intransitive Verbs and Italian Auxiliaries. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. 1986 Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑4522‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-4522-7 [Google Scholar]
  3. Chen, Ping
    1986 “Discourse and Particle Movement in English”. Studies in Language10.79–95. doi: 10.1075/sl.10.1.05che
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.10.1.05che [Google Scholar]
  4. Chomsky, Noam
    1975 The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Dowty, David
    1991 “Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection”. Language67.547–619. doi: 10.1353/lan.1991.0021
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1991.0021 [Google Scholar]
  6. Gries, Stefan T
    1999 “Particle Movement: A cognitive and functional approach”. Cognitive Linguistics10.105–45. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1999.005
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1999.005 [Google Scholar]
  7. 2003 Multifactorial Analysis in Corpus Linguistics: A study of particle placement. New York: Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Hawkins, John A
    1994 A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. 2000 “The Relative Order of Prepositional Phrases in English: Going beyond manner–place–time”. Language Variation and Change11.231–266.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. 2004 Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  11. 2009 “Language Universals and the Performance-Grammar Correspondence Hypothesis”. Language Universalsed. by Morten H. Christiansen, Christopher Collins & Shimon Edelman , 54–79. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195305432.003.0004
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195305432.003.0004 [Google Scholar]
  12. Lipski, John M
    1977 “Preposed Subjects in Questions: Some considerations”. Hispania60:1.61–67. doi: 10.2307/340393
     https://doi.org/10.2307/340393 [Google Scholar]
  13. Lohse, Barbara , John A. Hawkins & Thomas A. Wasow
    2004 “Domain Minimization in English Verb-Particle Constructions”. Language80.238–61. doi: 10.1353/lan.2004.0089
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2004.0089 [Google Scholar]
  14. Mayoral Hernández, Roberto
    2007 “A Variation Study of Verb Types and Subject Position: Verbs of light and sound emission”. Romance Linguistics 2006: Selected papers from the 36th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL)ed. by José Camacho , Nydia Flores-Ferrán , Liliana Sánchez , Viviane Déprez & María José Cabrera , 213–226. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.287
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.287 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2008 “A Typological Approach to the Ordering of Adverbials: Weight, argumenthood and EPP”. A New Relay on Linguisticsed. by Asier Alcázar , Irene Barberia , Rebeka Campos Astorkiza & Susana Huidobro . Anuario del Seminario de Filología Vasca Julio de Urquijo39:2.141–159. Universidad del País Vasco.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Mayoral Hernández, Roberto & Asier Alcázar
    2011 “A Study of Weight and Subject Position in Spanish”. Rasegna Italiana de Linguistica Applicata, Anno XLIII1–2.355–366.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Mcdonald, Janet L. , J. Kathryn Bock & Michael Kelly
    1993 “Word and World Order: Semantic, phonological, and metrical determinants of serial position”. Cognitive Psychology25.188–230. doi: 10.1006/cogp.1993.1005
     https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1993.1005 [Google Scholar]
  18. Mendikoetxea, Amaya
    2000 “Construcciones inacusativas y pasivas”. Gramática descriptiva de la lengua españolaed. by Ignacio Bosque & Violeta Demonte , vol. II, 1575–1629. Madrid: Espasa.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Perlmutter, David
    1978 “Impersonal Passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis”. Proceedings of the 4th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society4.157–189.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Poplack, Shana
    1980 “Deletion and Disambiguation in Puerto Rican Spanish”. Language56.371–385. doi: 10.1353/lan.1980.0033
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1980.0033 [Google Scholar]
  21. Prince, Ellen F
    1981 “Toward a Taxonomy of Given-New Information”. Radical Pragmaticsed. by Peter Cole , 223–256. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Real Academia Española, Banco de datos (CREA) online
    , Corpus de Referencia del Español Actual. [www.rae.es].
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Rosenbach, Anette
    2005 “Animacy Versus Weight as Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English”. Language81.613–44. doi: 10.1353/lan.2005.0149
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2005.0149 [Google Scholar]
  24. Silva-Corvalán, Carmen
    1994 Language Contact and Change: Spanish in Los Angeles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Sorace, Antonella
    2000 “Gradients in Auxiliary Selection with Intransitive Verbs”. Language76.859–890. doi: 10.2307/417202
     https://doi.org/10.2307/417202 [Google Scholar]
  26. Thompson, Sandra A
    1990 “Information Flow and Dative Shift in English Discourse”. Development and Diversity: Language variation across time and spaceed. by Jerold A. Edmondson , Crawford Feagin & Peter Mühlhäusler , 239–253. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and University of Texas at Arlington.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Wasow, Thomas A
    1997 “Remarks on Grammatical Weight”. Language Variation and Change9.81–105. doi: 10.1017/S0954394500001800
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394500001800 [Google Scholar]
  28. 2002 Postverbal Behavior. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Wasow, Thomas A. & Jennifer Arnold
    2003 “Post-Verbal Constituent Ordering in English”. Determinants of Grammatical Variation in Englished. by Günter Rohdenburg & Britta Mondorf , 119–154. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]

References

  1. Burzio, Luigi
    1981 Intransitive Verbs and Italian Auxiliaries. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. 1986 Italian Syntax. Dordrecht: Reidel. doi: 10.1007/978‑94‑009‑4522‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-4522-7 [Google Scholar]
  3. Chen, Ping
    1986 “Discourse and Particle Movement in English”. Studies in Language10.79–95. doi: 10.1075/sl.10.1.05che
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.10.1.05che [Google Scholar]
  4. Chomsky, Noam
    1975 The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Dowty, David
    1991 “Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection”. Language67.547–619. doi: 10.1353/lan.1991.0021
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1991.0021 [Google Scholar]
  6. Gries, Stefan T
    1999 “Particle Movement: A cognitive and functional approach”. Cognitive Linguistics10.105–45. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1999.005
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1999.005 [Google Scholar]
  7. 2003 Multifactorial Analysis in Corpus Linguistics: A study of particle placement. New York: Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Hawkins, John A
    1994 A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. 2000 “The Relative Order of Prepositional Phrases in English: Going beyond manner–place–time”. Language Variation and Change11.231–266.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. 2004 Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199252695.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  11. 2009 “Language Universals and the Performance-Grammar Correspondence Hypothesis”. Language Universalsed. by Morten H. Christiansen, Christopher Collins & Shimon Edelman , 54–79. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195305432.003.0004
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195305432.003.0004 [Google Scholar]
  12. Lipski, John M
    1977 “Preposed Subjects in Questions: Some considerations”. Hispania60:1.61–67. doi: 10.2307/340393
     https://doi.org/10.2307/340393 [Google Scholar]
  13. Lohse, Barbara , John A. Hawkins & Thomas A. Wasow
    2004 “Domain Minimization in English Verb-Particle Constructions”. Language80.238–61. doi: 10.1353/lan.2004.0089
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2004.0089 [Google Scholar]
  14. Mayoral Hernández, Roberto
    2007 “A Variation Study of Verb Types and Subject Position: Verbs of light and sound emission”. Romance Linguistics 2006: Selected papers from the 36th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL)ed. by José Camacho , Nydia Flores-Ferrán , Liliana Sánchez , Viviane Déprez & María José Cabrera , 213–226. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/cilt.287
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.287 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2008 “A Typological Approach to the Ordering of Adverbials: Weight, argumenthood and EPP”. A New Relay on Linguisticsed. by Asier Alcázar , Irene Barberia , Rebeka Campos Astorkiza & Susana Huidobro . Anuario del Seminario de Filología Vasca Julio de Urquijo39:2.141–159. Universidad del País Vasco.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Mayoral Hernández, Roberto & Asier Alcázar
    2011 “A Study of Weight and Subject Position in Spanish”. Rasegna Italiana de Linguistica Applicata, Anno XLIII1–2.355–366.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Mcdonald, Janet L. , J. Kathryn Bock & Michael Kelly
    1993 “Word and World Order: Semantic, phonological, and metrical determinants of serial position”. Cognitive Psychology25.188–230. doi: 10.1006/cogp.1993.1005
     https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1993.1005 [Google Scholar]
  18. Mendikoetxea, Amaya
    2000 “Construcciones inacusativas y pasivas”. Gramática descriptiva de la lengua españolaed. by Ignacio Bosque & Violeta Demonte , vol. II, 1575–1629. Madrid: Espasa.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Perlmutter, David
    1978 “Impersonal Passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis”. Proceedings of the 4th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society4.157–189.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Poplack, Shana
    1980 “Deletion and Disambiguation in Puerto Rican Spanish”. Language56.371–385. doi: 10.1353/lan.1980.0033
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1980.0033 [Google Scholar]
  21. Prince, Ellen F
    1981 “Toward a Taxonomy of Given-New Information”. Radical Pragmaticsed. by Peter Cole , 223–256. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Real Academia Española, Banco de datos (CREA) online
    , Corpus de Referencia del Español Actual. [www.rae.es].
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Rosenbach, Anette
    2005 “Animacy Versus Weight as Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English”. Language81.613–44. doi: 10.1353/lan.2005.0149
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2005.0149 [Google Scholar]
  24. Silva-Corvalán, Carmen
    1994 Language Contact and Change: Spanish in Los Angeles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Sorace, Antonella
    2000 “Gradients in Auxiliary Selection with Intransitive Verbs”. Language76.859–890. doi: 10.2307/417202
     https://doi.org/10.2307/417202 [Google Scholar]
  26. Thompson, Sandra A
    1990 “Information Flow and Dative Shift in English Discourse”. Development and Diversity: Language variation across time and spaceed. by Jerold A. Edmondson , Crawford Feagin & Peter Mühlhäusler , 239–253. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and University of Texas at Arlington.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Wasow, Thomas A
    1997 “Remarks on Grammatical Weight”. Language Variation and Change9.81–105. doi: 10.1017/S0954394500001800
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394500001800 [Google Scholar]
  28. 2002 Postverbal Behavior. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Wasow, Thomas A. & Jennifer Arnold
    2003 “Post-Verbal Constituent Ordering in English”. Determinants of Grammatical Variation in Englished. by Günter Rohdenburg & Britta Mondorf , 119–154. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]

  • From This Site

    /content/books/9789027269164-cilt.333.09her
    dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal
    10
    5
/content/books/9789027269164-cilt.333.09her
dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
-contentType:Journal
10
5
Chapter
content/books/9789027269164
Book
false
Loading
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error