Cover not available
Part of
Ditransitives in Germanic Languages: Synchronic and diachronic aspects
Edited by Eva Zehentner, Melanie Röthlisberger and Timothy Colleman
[Studies in Germanic Linguistics 7] 2023
► pp. 325–336

The Complexity Principle and lexical complexity in the English and Dutch dative alternation

This study investigates the effects of lexical complexity on the choice of dative alternants in English and Dutch. The lexical complexity of a given word is operationalized as being proportional to how quickly speakers can retrieve it from their mental lexicon, for which I consult the databases of recent megastudies (Keuleers, Diependaele, and Brysbaert 2010: 1). Following the Complexity Principle (Rohdenburg 1996), which states that cognitively complex environments favour the grammatically more explicit variant in linguistic alternations, it could be expected that lexically complex environments favour prepositional datives. However, the models suggest that speakers’ choices are not particularly sensitive to the complexity of larger linguistic environments. Instead speakers aim to place the lexically easier constituent before the more complex one. This turns out to be one of the strongest predictors in both languages.
Keywords: lexical complexity, dative alternation, English, Dutch, statistical classification model, probabilistic grammar, Complexity Principle
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1Lexical complexity
    • 2.2The Complexity Principle
    • 2.3The dative alternation
  • 3.Methods and data
    • 3.1Operationalizing lexical complexity
    • 3.2The corpora
    • 3.3Delimiting dative contexts
    • 3.4Annotation procedure
      • 3.4.1Theme and recipient lexical complexity
      • 3.4.2Lexical complexity difference
      • 3.4.3Preceding word(s) lexical complexity
      • 3.4.4Complexity of the constituents
      • 3.4.5Complexity of the constituents and their preceding word(s)
      • 3.4.6Filtering of the data and supplementary predictor variables
      • 3.4.7Weight difference
      • 3.4.8Discourse status
      • 3.4.9Pronominality
      • 3.4.10Syntactic complexity
      • 3.4.11Definiteness
      • 3.4.12Recipient Animacy
      • 3.4.13Verb position
      • 3.4.14Verb complexity
      • 3.4.15Middle field
    • 3.5Statistical analysis: Conditional random forest analysis
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1CRF analysis of the English dataset
    • 4.2CRF analysis of the Dutch-language dataset
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • 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: 8 August 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sigl.7.10dub
References (67)
References
Arnold, Jennifer E., Anthony Losongco, Thomas Wasow, and Ryan Ginstrom. 2000. “Heaviness vs. Newness: The Effects of Structural Complexity and Discourse Status on Constituent Ordering.” Language 76 (1): 28–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Balota, David A., Michael J. Cortese, Susan D. Sergent-Marshall, Daniel H. Spieler, and Melvin J. Yap. 2004. “Visual Word Recognition of Single-Syllable Words.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 133 (2): 283–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 2005. “Productivity: Theories.” In Handbook of Word-Formation, ed. by Pavol Štekauer, and Rochelle Lieber, 315–334. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beaver, David, Itamar Francez, and Dmitry Levinson. 2006. “Bad Subject: (Non-) Canonicality and NP Distribution in Existentials.” In Proceedings of SALT 15, ed. by Effi Georgala, and Jonathan Howell, 19–43. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Behaghel, Otto. 1909. “Beziehungen zwischen Umfang und Reihenfolge von Satzgliedern.” Indogermanische Forschungen 25: 110–142.Google Scholar
Berlage, Eva. 2014. Noun Phrase Complexity in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bernaisch, Tobias, Stefan Th. Gries, and Joybrato Mukherjee. 2014. “The Dative Alternation in South Asian English(es): Modelling Predictors and Predicting Prototypes.” English World-Wide: A Journal of Varieties of English 35 (1): 7–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bernolet, Sarah, and Timothy Colleman. 2016. “Sense-Based and Lexeme-Based Alternation Biases in the Dutch Dative Alternation.” In Corpus-Based Approaches to Construction Grammar, ed. by Jiyoung Yoon, and Stefan Th. Gries, 165–198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bernolet, Sarah, Timothy Colleman, and Robert J. Hartsuiker. 2014. “The ‘Sense Boost’ to Dative Priming: Evidence for Sense-Specific Verb-Structure Links.” Journal of Memory and Language 76 (C): 113–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bloem, Jelke, Arjen Versloot, and Fred Weerman. 2017. “Verbal Cluster Order and Processing Complexity.” Language Sciences, Complexity in Human Languages: A Multifaceted Approach, 60 (Supplement C): 94–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bock, J. Kathryn. 1982. “Toward a Cognitive Psychology of Syntax: Information Processing Contributions to Sentence Formulation.” Psychological Review 89 (1): 1–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 2007. “Is Syntactic Knowledge Probabilistic? Experiments with the English Dative Alternation.” In Roots: Linguistics in Search of Its Evidential Base, ed. by Sam Featherson, and Wolfgang Sternefeld, 77–96. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Marilyn Ford. 2010. “Predicting Syntax: Processing Dative Constructions in American and Australian Varieties of English.” Language: Journal of the Linguistic Society of America 86 (1): 168–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Anna Cueni, Tatiana Nikitina, R. Harald Baayen. 2007. “Predicting the Dative Alternation.” In Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation, ed. by Gerlof Boume, Irene Kraemer, and Joost Zwarts, 69–94. Amsterdam: Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen.Google Scholar
Brysbaert, Marc, Michaël Stevens, Paweł Mandera, and Emmanuel Keuleers. 2016. “The Impact of Word Prevalence on Lexical Decision Times: Evidence from the Dutch Lexicon Project 2.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 42 (3): 441–458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2006. “From Usage to Grammar: The Mind’s Response to Repetition.” Language 82 (4): 711–733. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chumbley, James I., and David A. Balota. 1984. “A Word’s Meaning Affects the Decision in Lexical Decision.” Memory & Cognition 12 (6): 590–606. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colleman, Timothy. 2006. “De Nederlandse Datiefalternantie: Een constructioneel en Corpusgebaseerd Onderzoek.” Ghent University: PhD Dissertation.Google Scholar
. 2009. “Verb Disposition in Argument Structure Alternations: A Corpus Study of the Dutch Dative Alternation.” Language Sciences 31: 593–611. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. “Ditransitieve Constructies in het Nederlands: Semasiologische en Onomasiologische Kwesties.” Nederlandse Taalkunde 17 (3): 345–361. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, Mark, and Robert Fuchs. 2015. “Expanding Horizons in the Study of World Englishes with the 1.9 Billion Word Global Web-Based English Corpus (GloWbE).” English World-Wide 36 (1): 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Sutter, Gert. 2007. “Naar een corpusgebaseerde, cognitief-functionele verklaring van de woordvolgordevariatie in tweeledige werkwoordelijke eindgroepen.” Nederlandse Taalkunde 12 (4): 302–330.Google Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U. 2012. “On the Acquisition of Inflectional Morphology: Introduction.” Morphology 22 (1): 1–8. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fenk-Oczlon, Gertraud. 2001. “Familiarity, Information Flow, and Linguistic Form.” In Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure, ed. by Joan Bybee, and Paul Hopper, 431–448. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, Victor S., and Gary S. Dell. 2000. “Effect of Ambiguity and Lexical Availability on Syntactic and Lexical Production.” Cognitive Psychology 40 (4): 296–340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garretson, Gregory M., Catherine O’Connor, Barbora Skarabela, and Marjorie Hogan. 2004. “Coding Practices Used in the Project Optimality Typology of Determiner Phrases.” [URL] (accessed 02 Sept 2020).Google Scholar
Greenbaum, Sidney. 1996. Comparing English Worldwide: The International Corpus of English. Oxford, NY: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2001. “A Multifactorial Analysis of Syntactic Variation: Particle Movement Revisited.” Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 8 (1): 33–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grondelaers, Stefan, Katrien Deygers, Hilde Van Aken, Vicky Van den Heede, and Dirk Speelman. 2000. “DigiTaal: het CONDIV-corpus geschreven Nederlands.” Nederlandse Taalkunde 5 (4): 356–363.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1999. “Processing Complexity and Filler-Gap Dependencies across Grammars.” Language 75 (2): 244–285. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004. Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hinrichs, Lars, Benedikt Szmrecsanyi, and Axel Bohmann. 2015. “Which-hunting and the Standard English relative clause.” Language 91 (4): 806–836. DOI logo Google Scholar
Hothorn, Torsten, Peter Buehlmann, Sandrine Dudoit, Annette Molinaro, and Mark Van Der Laan. 2006. “Survival Ensembles.” Biostatistics 7 (3): 355–373. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, Florian T. 2010. “Redundancy and Reduction: Speakers Manage Syntactic Information Density.” Cognitive Psychology 61 (1): 23–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kemmerer, David. 2015. The Cognitive Neuroscience of Language. New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Keuleers, Emmanuel, Paula Lacey, Kathleen Rastle, and Marc Brysbaert. 2012. “The British Lexicon Project: Lexical Decision Data for 28,730 Monosyllabic and Disyllabic English Words.” Behavior Research Methods 44 (1): 287–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keuleers, Emmanuel, Kevin Diependaele, and Marc Brysbaert. 2010. “Practice Effects in Large-Scale Visual Word Recognition Studies: A Lexical Decision Study on 14,000 Dutch Mono- and Disyllabic Words and Nonwords.” Frontiers in Psychology 1: (174). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klavan, Jane, and Dagmar Divjak. 2016. “The Cognitive Plausibility of Statistical Classification Models: Comparing Textual and Behavioral Evidence.” Folia Linguistica 50 (2): 355–384. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levshina, Natalia. 2015. How to Do Linguistics with R: Data Exploration and Statistical Analysis. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lohse, Barbara, John A. Hawkins, and Thomas Wasow. 2004. “Domain Minimization in English Verb-Particle Constructions.” Language 80 (2): 238–261. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacDonald, Maryellen C. 2013. “How Language Production Shapes Language Form and Comprehension.” Frontiers in Psychology 4: 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, Andrea E. 2016. “Language Processing as Cue Integration: Grounding the Psychology of Language in Perception and Neurophysiology.” Frontiers in Psychology 7 : Article 120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morrison, Catriona M., and Andrew W. Ellis. 1995. “Roles of Word Frequency and Age of Acquisition in Word Naming and Lexical Decision.” Journal of Experimental Psychology 21 (1): 116–133.Google Scholar
Nicholson, Hannele Buffy Marie. 2007. Disfluency in Dialogue: Attention, Structure and Function. The University of Edinburgh: PhD Dissertation [URL] (accessed 14 Feb 2019).Google Scholar
Oostdijk, Nelleke. 2000. “The Spoken Dutch Corpus: Overview and First Evaluation.” In Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, ed. by Maria Gavrilidou, George Carayannis, Stella Markantontou, Stelios Piperidis, and Gregory Stainhauer, 887–893. Athens: Institute for Language and Speech Processing.Google Scholar
Philipp, Markus, Tim Graf, Franziska Kretzschmar, and Beatrice Primus. 2017. “Beyond Verb Meaning: Experimental Evidence for Incremental Processing of Semantic Roles and Event Structure.” Frontiers in Psychology 8: Article 1806. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Piai, Vitória, Lars Meyer, Robert Schreuder, and Marcel C. M. Bastiaansen. 2013. “Sit down and Read on: Working Memory and Long-Term Memory in Particle-Verb Processing.” Brain and Language 127 (2): 296–306. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pijpops, Dirk, Dirk Speelman, Stefan Grondelaers, and Freek Van De Velde. 2018. “Comparing explanations for the Complexity Principle: Evidence from Argument Realization.” Language and Cognition 10 (3): 514–543. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1994. The Language Instinct. New York, NY: Harper Perennial. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Plag, Ingo. 2003. Word-formation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team. 2017. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. [URL] (accessed 02 Sept 2020).
Rohdenburg, Günter. 1996. “Cognitive Complexity and Increased Grammatical Explicitness in English.” Cognitive Linguistics 7 (2): 149–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. “Functional Constraints in Syntactic Change: The Rise and Fall of Prepositional Constructions in Early and Late Modern English.” English Studies 88 (2): 217–233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. “Testing Two Processing Principles with Respect to the Extraction of Elements out of Complement Clauses in English.” English Language and Linguistics 20 (3): 463–486. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Röthlisberger, Melanie. 2018. “The Dative Alternation across Varieties of English.” KU Leuven: PhD Dissertation.Google Scholar
Röthlisberger, Melanie, Jason Grafmiller, and Benedikt Szmrecsanyi. 2017. “Cognitive Indigenization Effects in the English Dative Alternation.” Cognitive Linguistics 28 (4): 673–710. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rowland, Caroline F., and Claire L. Noble. 2010. “The Role of Syntactic Structure in Children’s Sentence Comprehension: Evidence from the Dative.” Language Learning and Development 7 (1): 55–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Strobl, Caroline, Anne-Laure Boulesteix, Achim Zeileis, and Torsten Hothorn. 2007. “Bias in Random Forest Variable Importance Measures: Illustrations, Sources and a Solution.” BMC Bioinformatics 8 (25). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Strobl, Caroline, Anne-Laure Boulesteix, Thomas Kneib, Thomas Augustin, and Achim Zeileis. 2008. “Conditional Variable Importance for Random Forests.” BMC Bioinformatics 9 : Article 307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Su, Yi-Ching. 2010. “Knowledge of Structural Constraints on the Dative Alternation in Children’s Pronoun Interpretation.” Lingua 120 (1): 1–21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2009. “Typological Parameters of Intralingual Variability: Grammatical Analyticity versus Syntheticity in Varieties of English.” Language Variation and Change 21 (3): 319–353. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A., and R. Harald Baayen. 2012. “Models, Forests, and Trees of York English: Was/Were Variation as a Case Study for Statistical Practice.” Language Variation and Change 24 (2): 135–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Timmers, Inge, Francesco Gentile, M. Estela Rubio-Gozalbo, and Bernadette M. Jansma. 2013. “Temporal Characteristics of Online Syntactic Sentence Planning: An Event-Related Potential Study.” PLoS One 8 (12): e82884. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel. 2014. “On the Use of Uh and Um in American English.” Functions of Language 21 (1): 6–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 1997a. “Remarks on Grammatical Weight.” Language Variation and Change 9 (1): 81–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1997b. “End-Weight from the Speaker’s Perspective.” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 26 (3): 347–361. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolk, Christoph, Joan Bresnan, Anette Rosenbach, and Benedikt Szmrecsanyi. 2013. “Dative and Genitive Variability in Late Modern English: Exploring Cross-Constructional Variation and Change.” Diachronica 30 (3): 382–419. DOI logoGoogle Scholar