Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistics in the Netherlands 2022
Edited by Jorrig Vogels and Sterre Leufkens
[Linguistics in the Netherlands 39] 2022
► pp. 21–38

Variation in the processing of grammatical norm violations

Between-participant and between-construction differences

| Radboud University
| Radboud University
So far, processing studies on grammatical norm violations (GNVs) in Dutch (i.e. als ‘as’ in comparatives) have mainly focused on general differences between GNVs and their grammatical and ungrammatical counterparts. The present study is the first to also systematically investigate between-participant and between-construction variation in the processing of GNVs, using a self-paced reading task. Age and educational level were investigated as potential sources of between-participant variation, and between-construction variation was assessed by including three GNVs that vary in the amount of prescriptive attention they receive in society. Results indeed showed that the processing of GNVs was influenced by the age and educational level of participants. Moreover, different results were obtained for different norm violations. Based on these results, we conclude that it is very important to take into account differences between participants and constructions when studying the processing of GNVs.
Keywords: grammatical norm violations, processing, between-participant differences, between-construction differences, self-paced reading
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Methodology
    • 2.1Participants
    • 2.2Materials
    • 2.3Procedure and design
    • 2.4Data pre-processing and analysis
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Analysis critical word
    • 3.2Analysis spill-over word
  • 4.Discussion
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Note
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 4 November 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00059.cos
References (20)
References
Audring, Jenny. 2009. Reinventing pronoun gender. PhD dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Utrecht: LOT publications.Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Martin Mächler, Benjamin M. Bolker & Steven C. Walker 2015. “Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models using lme4.” Journal of Statistical Software 67 (1): 1–48, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Hoop, Helen. 2020. “Het verlies van een persoonlijk voornaamwoord*.” Nederlandse Taalkunde 25 (2): 355–362, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delignette-Muller, Marie Laure & Christophe Dutang. 2015. fitdistrplus: An R Package for Fitting Distributions. Journal of Statistical Software 64 (4): 1–34, <[URL]>
E-ANS. 2021. Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst (ANS), versie 3.1, 2021, <[URL]>
Ferreira, Fernanda & John M. Henderson 1990. “Use of verb information in syntactic parsing: evidence from eye movements and word-by-word self-paced reading.” Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition 16 (4): 555–568, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giner, Göknur & Gordon K. Smyth 2016. statmod: Probability Calculations for the Inverse Gaussian Distribution. R Journal 8 (1): 339–351, (29 March 2022).. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan, Paul van Gent & Roeland van Hout. 2022. “On the Inevitability of Social Meaning and Ideology in Accounts of Syntactic Change: Evidence from Pronoun Competition in Netherlandic Dutch.” In Explanations in Sociosyntactic Variation, Tanya Karoli Christensen & Torben Juel Jensen. (eds), 120–143, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hinskens, F. L. M. P. & H. J. Bennis 2014. “Goed of fout. Niet-standaard inflectie in het hedendaags Standaardnederlands.” Nederlandse Taalkunde 19 (2): 131–184, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hubers, Ferdy & Helen de Hoop. 2013. “The effect of prescriptivism on comparative markers in spoken Dutch.” Linguistics in the Netherlands 301: 89–101, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hubers, Ferdy, Theresa Redl, Hugo de Vos, Lukas Reinarz & Helen de Hoop. 2020b. “Processing Prescriptively Incorrect Comparative Particles: Evidence From Sentence-Matching and Eye-Tracking.” Frontiers in Psychology 111, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hubers, Ferdy, T. M. Snijders & H. de Hoop 2016. “How the brain processes violations of the grammatical norm: An fMRI study.” Brain and Language 1631, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hubers, Ferdy, Thijs Trompenaars, Sebastian Collin, Kees de Schepper & Helen de Hoop. 2020a. “Hypercorrection as a by-product of education.” Applied Linguistics 41 (4): 552–574, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Just, M. A., P. A. Carpenter & J. D. Woolley 1982. “Paradigms and processes in reading comprehension.” Journal of experimental psychology. General 111 (2): 228–238, <[URL]> DOI logo
Kuznetsova, Alexandra, Per B. Brockhoff & Rune H. B. Christensen 2017. lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models. Journal of Statistical Software 82 (13), DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lenth, Russell v. 2021. emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means.Google Scholar
Lo, Steson & Sally Andrews. 2015. “To transform or not to transform: using generalized linear mixed models to analyse reaction time data.” Frontiers in Psychology 61: 1171, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Development Core Team. 2008. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, <[URL]>
Schoenmakers, Gert-Jan T. (accepted). “Linguistic judgments in 3D: The aesthetic quality, linguistic acceptability, and surface probability of stigmatized and non-stigmatized variation.” Linguistics.
van Casteren, Maaarten & Matthew H. Davis 2006. “Mix, a program for pseudorandomization.” Behavior Research Methods 38 (4): 584–589, DOI logoGoogle Scholar