Lexical Variation in Relativizer Frequency

An exception to a non-categorical generalization consists of a lexical item that exhibits the general pattern at a rate radically different – either far higher or far lower – from the norm. Lexical differences in noun phrases containing non-subject relative clauses (NSRCs) correlate with large differences in the likelihood that the NSRC will begin with that. In particular, the choices of determiner, head noun, and prenominal adjective in an NP containing an NSRC may dramatically raise or lower rates of that in the NSRC. These lexical variations can be partially explained in terms of predictability: more predictable NSRCs are less likely to begin with that. This generalization can be plausibly explained in terms of processing, assuming that facilitates processing and/or signals difficulty. The correlations between lexical choices in the NP and the predictability of an NSRC can, in turn, be explained in terms of the semantics of the lexical items and the pragmatics of reference.

[1]  H. Fowler,et al.  A Dictionary of Modern English Usage , 1926 .

[2]  Otto Jespersen,et al.  Essentials of English Grammar , 1933 .

[3]  張奭鎭 Third Texas Conference on Problems of Linguistic Analysis in English , 1966 .

[4]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Topics in the Theory of Generative Grammar , 1966 .

[5]  John Robert Ross,et al.  Constraints on variables in syntax , 1967 .

[6]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory , 1975 .

[7]  John R. Anderson The Adaptive Character of Thought , 1990 .

[8]  P. Resnik Selectional constraints: an information-theoretic model and its computational realization , 1996, Cognition.

[9]  Adwait Ratnaparkhi,et al.  A Simple Introduction to Maximum Entropy Models for Natural Language Processing , 1997 .

[10]  Joshua B. Tenenbaum,et al.  Bayesian Modeling of Human Concept Learning , 1998, NIPS.

[11]  Daniel Kersten,et al.  High-level Vision as Statistical Inference , 1999 .

[12]  M. Gazzaniga,et al.  The new cognitive neurosciences , 2000 .

[13]  G. Dell,et al.  Effect of Ambiguity and Lexical Availability on Syntactic and Lexical Production , 2000, Cognitive Psychology.

[14]  Frederick J. Newmeyer,et al.  Grammar is Grammar and Usage is Usage , 2003 .

[15]  H. Hughes The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language , 2003 .

[16]  Maryellen C. MacDonald,et al.  The use of "that" in the Production and Comprehension of Object Relative Clauses , 2003 .

[17]  Louis C. W. Pols,et al.  How efficient is speech , 2003 .

[18]  Dan Jurafsky,et al.  Effects of disfluencies, predictability, and utterance position on word form variation in English conversation. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[19]  Susan M. Garnsey,et al.  Knowledge of Grammar, Knowledge of Usage: Syntactic Probabilities Affect Pronunciation Variation , 2004 .

[20]  Alice Turk,et al.  The Smooth Signal Redundancy Hypothesis: A Functional Explanation for Relationships between Redundancy, Prosodic Prominence, and Duration in Spontaneous Speech , 2004, Language and speech.

[21]  J. Hawkins Efficiency and complexity in grammars , 2004 .

[22]  M. Landy,et al.  Optimal Compensation for Changes in Task-Relevant Movement Variability , 2005, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[23]  Thomas Wasow,et al.  Processing as a Source of Accessibility Effects on Variation , 2005 .

[24]  Lutz Marten,et al.  The Dynamics of Language , 2005 .

[25]  T. Florian Jaeger,et al.  Optional that indicates production difficulty: evidence from disfluencies , 2005, DiSS.

[26]  Susanne Gahl,et al.  Knowledge of Grammar Includes Knowledge of Syntactic Probabilities , 2006 .

[27]  Nancy C Kula,et al.  Syntactic and phonological phrasing in Bemba Relatives , 2006 .

[28]  Roger Levy,et al.  Speakers optimize information density through syntactic reduction , 2006, NIPS.

[29]  Barbara A. Fox,et al.  Relative Clauses in English conversation Relativizers , frequency , and the notion of construction * , 2005 .

[30]  J. Bresnan,et al.  The Gradience of the Dative Alternation , 2008 .