Constituent Ordering in Persian under the Influence of Grammatical Weight: A Processing-based Explanation

Authors
M. Alaee 1
M. Tehrani Doost 2
M. Rasekh Mahand 3
1 General Linguistics Department, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamadan
2 Department of Psychiatry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences
3 General Linguistics Department, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamadan, Iran
Abstract
Introduction: In the framework known as processing approach to grammar, it is argued that processing provides a full-fledged functional explanation for all syntactic phenomena including constituent ordering. Linguistic structure is simply built in a way that eases processing difficulty of sentences and results in efficiency of language use. It seems that the operation of that part of the linguistic representation system that leads to formulation of concepts utilizing lexical access procedure is governed by processing mechanisms. The processing mechanisms, as it has put forward by Hawkins (1994) are those that make it possible for humans to recognize (and produce) grammatical structure in a rapid and efficient manner. The formulator is also planned in a way that minimizes the processing load. Therefore, it appears that some ordering regularities and grammatical constraints in word order and syntactic phenomena such as movement are motivated by the flawless performance of this phase of human linguistic processor. According to performance theory and efficiency principles, constituent ordering is influenced by processing efficiency, i.e. the ordering of constituents is intended to facilitate processing.

Aim: The research aims to study the processing basis of relativisation and syntactic movement known as scrambling and the effects of grammatical weight in Persian by drawing upon evidence from self-paced reading. Adopting an online reading time paradigm, the research was aimed at studying the role of grammatical weight in likelihood of post-verbal movement and processing loads of pairs of corresponding sentences. Hypotheses: Questions increasing the motivation and triggering initiation of doing this research are how different structural configurations of sentences with identical truth condition modify processing level and if the increase of grammatical weight could result in likelihood of syntactic movement. The final questions are how the movement of grammatically heavy constituents including relative clause and scrambled constituents explained in terms of processing implications. Accordingly, four hypotheses were developed in the course of the research.

Method: The aforesaid paradigm, as an efficient experimental technique to assess processing speed of syntactic structures, was designed by Open Sesame Software. Two sets of 24 sentences in three levels of weight (light, medium and heavy) and two structural levels (unmarked preverbal constituent and post-verbal one) were presented to 40 randomly selected Persian-speaking participants (between the ages 18 and 40) with university education. The first set consisted of sentences containing relative clause in two configurations and the second set of pairs of scrambled (post-verbal) and unscrambled sentences. Sentences were followed by a yes/no question. Data was analyzed using SPSS and ANOVA test.

Findings: In light level, the mean reading time of sentences with canonical constituent ordering was less than those with post-verbal constituents. However, this trend got reversed by the increase of grammatical weight of the constituent subjected to scrutiny. In other word, the post-verbal movement of constituents resulted in reduction of mean reading time in medium-weight sentences. This decline was markedly more significant in heavy sentences.

Conclusion: The ordering of constituents and the likelihood of movement is highly weight-sensitive. As a conclusion, the end-weight principle as an incentive to optimize the processing efficiency was approved in Persian.

Keywords

Subjects

• Alaee, M. (2013). The effect of semantic priming on lexical retrieval of typically- developing and hearing impaired-children. Master’s thesis. General Linguistics. Allame Tabataba’ei University. Tehran. [In Persian].
• Arnold, Jennifer E., Th. Wasow; A. Losongco & R. Ginstrom. (2000). Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language; 76(1). Pp. 28–55.
• Behaghel, O. (1909-10). Beziehungen zwischen Umfang und Reihenfolge von Satzgliedern. Insogermanische Forschungen 25.Pp. 110–142.
• Behaghel, O. (1930(. Von deutscher Wortstellung. Zeitschrift fu¨r Deutschkunde, Jargang 44 der Zeitschrift fu¨r deutschen Unterricht.Pp. 81–89.
• Browning, M. & E. Karimi ,(1994), “Scrambling to object position in Persian”. In N. Cover and H. van Riemsdijk (eds.), Studies on Scrambling: Movement and non-movement approaches to free-word-order phenomena (Pp. 61–100). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Chomsky, N. (1975). The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Faghiri, P. & P. Samvelian, (2014), Constituent Ordering in Persian and the Weight Factor. Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics; 10. Pp. 215-232.
• Francis, E. J. (2010). Grammatical weight and relative clause extraposition in English. Cognitive Linguistics; 21–1. Pp. 35–74
• Friederici, A. D.; M. Schlesewsky & C.J. Fiebach, (2003), “WH-Movement versus Scrambling: The Brain Makes a Difference”. In Karimi, S. (ed.) Word Order and Scrambling, Blackwell Publishing.Pp. 325- 344.
• Frommer, P.R. (1981). Post-Verbal phenomena in Colloquial Persian Syntax (Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation). Los Angeles, California: University of Southern California.
• Gibson, E. (1998). “Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies”. Cognition; 68.Pp.1-76.
• Hawkins, J. A. (2001). “Why are categories adjacent?”. Journal of Linguistics; 37(1). Pp. 1–34.
• Hawkins, J. A.(1994). A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Hawkins, J. A.(1999). “Processing Complexity and filler-gap dependencies across grammars”. Language; 75, 2. Pp. 244-285.
• Hawkins, J. A.(2004). Efficiency and Complexity in Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Hawkins, J. A. (2000.( “The relative order of prepositional phrases in English: Going beyond Manner-Place-Time”. Language Variation and Change. 11.Pp. 231-266.
• Huck, G.J. & Y. Na, )1990(. “Extraposition and focus”. Language 66 (1).Pp. 51-77.
• Huck, G.J. (1992(. “Information and contrast”. Stud. Lang. 16 (2).Pp. 325-334.
• Just, M. A.; P. A. Carpenter & J. D. Woolley, (1982), “Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General; 111: 228-238.
• Karimi, S. (1999). “Is Scrambling as strange as we think it is”? MIT Linguistics Working Paper.Pp.159-190.
• Karimi, S. (2003). “On object position, specific and scrambling in Persian”. In Karimi, S. (ed.) Word Order and Scrambling, Blackwell Publishing. Pp. 91-124.
• Karimi, S. (2005). A Minimalist Approach to Scrambling, Evidence from Persian, Berlin/ New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 2005.
• Konieczny, L. (2000). Locality and parsing complexity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research; 29(6).Pp. 627–645.
• Lazard, G. (2005). A Grammar of Contemporary Persian. Translated by Mahasti ahreini. Tehran: Hermes.
• Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to artuculation. Cambridge: MIT Press
• Mahmoodi, S. (2015). “Syntactic account of Persian relative clauses: extraposition”. Language Related Research. 6 (3).Pp. 241-269. [In Persian].
• Mathôt, S.; D. Schreij & J. Theeuwes ,(2012), OpenSesame: An open-source, graphical experiment builder for the social sciences. Behavior Research Methods; 44(2), Pp. 314-324. doi:10.3758/s13428-011-0168-7.
• Modarresi, B. (2009). “Information structure and its realization in Persian”. Grammar. 4.Pp25-57. [In Persian].
• Quirk, R.; S. Greenbaum; G. Leech & J. Svartvik (1972). A Grammar of Contemporary English. Longman, London.
• Rasekh Mahand, M.; A. Alizade Sahraei & R. Izadi Far, (2016). A corpus-based analysis of relative clause extraposition in Persian. Ampersand, 3.Pp. 21-31.
• Rasekh Mahand, M.& M. Ghiasvand, (2015). “A corpus-based study of functional motivations effects on Persian Scrambling”. Grammar. 10.Pp. 163-197. [In Persian].
• Rasekh Mahand, M.(2005). Scrambling and focus structure in Persian. Grammar. 2. Pp. 20–33. [In Persian].
• Rezapour, E. (2015). “Scrambling in Mazandarani Dialect. Language Related Research. 5(5).Pp. 95-115. [In Persian].
• Sekerina, I. A. (2003). Scrambling and Processing: Dependencies, Complexity, and Constraints. In Karimi, S. (ed.) Word Order and Scrambling, Blackwell Publishing; Pp. 301-324.
• Stallings, L.M.; M.C. MacDonald & P.G. O'Seaghdha, (1998), Phrasal Ordering Contsraints in Sentence Production: Phrase Length and Verb Disposition in Heavy-NP shift. Journal of Memory and Language. 39.Pp. 392-417.
• Takami, K. )1999(. A functional constraint on extraposition from NP. In: Kamio, Akio, Takami, Ken-ichi (Eds.), Function and Structure. John Benjamins, Amsterdam Pp. 23-56.
• Wasow, T. (1997a). Remarks on grammatical weight. Language Variation and Change; 9: pp. 81-105.
• Wasow, T. (1997b). End-weight from the speaker's perspective. Journal of Psycholinguistic. Research. 26 (3). Pp. 347-361.
• Wasow, T. (2002). Postverbal Behavior, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publication.
• Yamashita, H. & F. Chang, (2001),Long before short preference in the production of head-final language. Cognition. 81.Pp.B45-B55.
Language Related Research
Volume 9, Issue 5 - Serial Number 47
November and December 2018
Pages 35-65