Cover not available
Part of
Free Variation in Grammar: Empirical and theoretical approaches
Edited by Kristin Kopf and Thilo Weber
[Studies in Language Companion Series 234] 2023
► pp. 22–47

Chapter 2
How free is the position of German object pronouns?

ORCID logo | Goethe University Frankfurt

Corpus studies show that weak object pronouns in German directly precede or follow the subject, depending on properties of the subject, including weight, animacy and thematic role. Whether the same factors also affect the acceptability of sentences with object pronouns was investigated in three magnitude-estimation experiments. The results show that both orders (object pronoun before/after subject) are highly acceptable, with some small acceptability differences depending on weight, animacy and thematic roles. Based on these results, the hypothesis is advanced that the position of weak object pronouns in German relative to the subject is an instance of free variation within the grammar but choosing a specific order during language production follows general production preferences and is thus not random.

Keywords: word order, object pronouns, German, magnitude estimation, language production
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.What governs the position of object pronouns?
  • 3.Experiments 1–3: How the position of an object pronoun affects sentence acceptability
    • 3.1Experiment 1
      • 3.1.1Method
        • Participants
        • Materials
        • Procedure
        • Scoring
      • 3.1.2Results
      • 3.1.3Discussion
    • 3.2Experiment 2
      • 3.2.1Method
        • Participants
        • Materials
        • Procedure
      • 3.2.2Results
      • 3.2.3Discussion
    • 3.3Experiment 3
      • 3.3.1Method
        • Participants
        • Materials
        • Procedure
      • 3.3.2Results
      • 3.3.3Discussion
  • 4.General discussion
  • 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: 31 October 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.234.02bad
References
Anderson, John R.
2009 How can the human mind occur in the physical universe? Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Arppe, Antti & Järvikivi, Juhani
2007 Every method counts: Combining corpus-based and experimental evidence in the study of synonymy. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 3(2): 131–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bader, Markus
2020 The position of object pronouns in the German midfield. Linguistics 58(4): 1059–1115. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
in preparation. Conceptual accessibility and weight in sentence production: The case of German object pronouns. Manuscript in preparation.
Bader, Markus & Häussler, Jana
2010a Toward a model of grammaticality judgments. Journal of Linguistics 46(2): 273–330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010b Word order in German: A corpus study. Lingua 120(3): 717–762. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bard, Ellen G., Robertson, Dan & Sorace, Antonella
1996 Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability. Language 72(1): 32–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baroni, Marco, Silvia Bernardini, Adriano Ferraresi & Eros Zanchetta
2009 The WaCky Wide Web: A collection of very large linguistically processed web-crawled corpora. Language Resources and Evaluation Journal 23(3). 209–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Kliegl, Reinhold, Vasishth, Shravan & Baayen, R. Harald
2015a Parsimonious mixed models. arXiv.org preprint – arXiv:1506.04967 [stat.ME]. [URL] (20 February 2023).
Bates, Douglas, Mächler, Martin, Bolker, Ben & Walker, Steve
2015b Fitting linear mixed- effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1): 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Cueni, Anna, Nikitina, Tatiana & Baayen, R. Harald
2007 Predicting the dative alternation. In Cognitive foundations of interpretation, Joost Zwarts, Irene Krämer & Gerlof Bouma (eds), 69–94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar
Cowart, Wayne
1997 Experimental syntax: Applying objective methods to sentence judgments. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Croft, William
2003 Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Diesing, Molly
1992 Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Drach, Erich
1937 Grundgedanken der deutschen Satzlehre. 4th edition. Frankfurt a. M.: Diesterweg.Google Scholar
Ellsiepen, Emilia & Bader, Markus
2014 The under-additive effect of multiple constraint violations. Cognitive Processing 15(Suppl 1): S100–S102.Google Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert
2021 Acceptability, grammar,and processing. In The Cambridge handbook of experimental syntax, Grant Goodall (ed), 118–153. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Featherston, Sam
2021 Response methods in acceptability experiments. In The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Syntax, Grant Goodall (ed), 39–61. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibson, Edward
2000 The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Image, language, brain. Papers from the first Mind Articulation Project Symposium, Alec Marantz, Yasushi Miyashita & Wayne O’Neil (eds), 95–126. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodall, Grant
2021 Sentence acceptability experiments: What, how, and why. In The Cambridge handbook of experimental syntax, edited by Grant Goodall, 7–38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haider, Hubert
2010 The syntax of German. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John
2004 Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heylen, Kris
2005 A quantitative corpus study of German word order variation. In Linguistic evidence. Empirical, theoretical and computational perspectives, Marga Reis & Stephan Kepser (eds), 241–263. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoberg, Ursula
1981 Die Wortstellung in der geschriebenen deutschen Gegenwartssprache. München: Hueber.Google Scholar
Keller, Frank
2000 Gradience in grammar: Experimental and computational aspects of degrees of grammaticality. PhD dissertation. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.
Kempen, Gerard & Harbusch, Karin
2005 The relationship between grammaticality ratings and corpus frequencies: A case study into word-order variability in the midfield of German clauses. In Linguistic evidence. Empirical, theoretical and computational perspectives, Marga Reis & Stephan Kepser (eds), 329–349. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lenerz, Jürgen
1977 Zur Abfolge nominaler Satzglieder im Deutschen. Tubingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Lerot, Jacques
1985 Zur Wortstellungsnorm im Deutschen. Deutsche Sprache 13(2): 137–142.Google Scholar
Müller, Gereon
1999 Optimality, markedness, and word order in German. Linguistics 37: 777–818. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olsson-Collentine, Anton, Van Assen, Marcel A. L. M. & Hartgerink, Chris H. J.
2019  The prevalence of marginally significant results in psychology over time. Psychological science 30(4): 576–586. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team
2020 R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [URL] (20 February 2023).
Siewierska, Anna
1993 On the interplay of factors in the determination of word order. In Syntax: An international handbook of contemporary research [Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 9.1], Joachim Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld & Theo Vennemann (eds), 826–846. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sorace, Antonella
2000 Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language 76: 859–890. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stevens, Stanley S.
1957 On the psychophysical law. The psychological review 64: 153–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vogel, Ralf
2019 Grammatical taboos: An investigation on the impact of prescription in acceptability judgement experiments. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 38(1): 37–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wasow, Thomas
2002 Postverbal behavior. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Weskott, Thomas
2021 Constituent order and acceptability. In The Cambridge handbook of experimental syntax, Grant Goodall (ed), 315–340. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weskott, Thomas & Fanselow, Gisbert
2011 On the informativity of different measures of linguistic acceptability. Language 87(2): 249–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar