Abstract
Explanations of the tendency to put long, complex constituents at the ends of sentences (“end-weight”) usually take the listener's perspective, claiming it facilitates parsing. I argue for a speaker-oriented explanation of end-weight, based on how it facilitates utterance planning. Parsing is facilitated when as much tree structure as possible can be determined early in the string, but production is easiest when options for how to continue are kept open. That is, listeners should prefer early commitment and speakers should prefer late commitment. Corpus data show that different verbs exhibit different rates of word-order variation that are systematically related to differences in subcategorization possibilities in just the way predicted by a strategy of late commitment. Thus, a speaker-based account of lexical preferences in word ordering does a better job of explaining variation in weight effects than a listener-based account.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Behaghel, O. (1909/10). Beziehungen zwischen Umfang und Reihenfolge von Satzgliedern. Insogermanische Forschungen, 25, 110–42.
Behaghel, O. (1930). Von deutscher Wortstellung. Zeitschrift für Deutschkunde, Jargang 44 der Zeitschrift für deutschen Unterricht: 81–9.
Benson, M., Benson, E. & Ilson, R. (1986). The BBI combinatory dictionary of English: A guide to word combinations. Amsterdam The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Bever, T. G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In J. R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language (pp. 279–362). New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Clark, H. H. (1994). Managing problems in speaking. Speech Communication 15, 243–250.
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, H. H., & Wasow, T. (1996). Repeating words as a strategy in spontaneous speaking. Unpublished manuscript.
Fox Tree, J. E., & Clark, H. H. (1994). Pronouncing ‘the’ as /thiy/ to signal trouble in spontaneous conversation. Paper presented at the Psychonomics Society, St. Louis.
Frazier, L., & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition, 6, 291–325.
Gibson, E., & Pearlmutter, N. J. (1994). A corpus-based analysis of psycholinguistic constraints on PP attachment. In C. Clifton, L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing (pp. 181–198). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hawkins, J. (1990). A parsing theory of word order universals. Linguistic Inquiry, 21, 223–261.
Hawkins, J. (1994). A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Kimball, J. (1973). Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language. Cognition, 2, 15–47.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Marcus, M. P., Santorini, B., & Marcinkiewicz, M. A. (1993). Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn Treebank. Computational Linguistics, 19, 313–330.
Newmayer, F.
Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct. New York: Morrow.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1972). A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman.
Spears, R. A. (1993). NTC's dictionary of phrasal verbs and other idiomatic verbal phrases. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company.
Stallings, L. M., MacDonald, M. C., & O'Seaghdha, P. G. (1995). Phrasal ordering constraints in sentence production: Phrase length and verb disposition in heavy-NP shift. Unpublished manuscript.
Wasow, T. (in press). Remarks on grammatical weight. Language Variation and Change.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wasow, T. End-Weight from the Speaker's Perspective. J Psycholinguist Res 26, 347–361 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025080709112
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025080709112