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 (38)
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