Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:32:40.474Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Branching direction in recursive structures1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 October 2012

THOMAS BERG
THOMAS BERG*
Affiliation:
Department of English, University of Hamburg, Von-Melle-Park 6, 20146 Hamburg, Germanythomas_berg@uni-hamburg.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

English makes regular use of a number of recursive structures spanning the syntax–lexicon continuum. While NPs with recursive relative clauses occupy the syntactic end, nominal compounds are located at the lexical end. In between these extremes we find NPs with recursive periphrastic genitives (towards the syntactic end) and NPs with recursive Saxon genitives (towards the lexical end). This study presents a comparative analysis of the branching direction preferences in these recursive structures. The empirical focus is on double of-genitives, which exhibit an overwhelming predilection for right-branching. This contrasts sharply with the double Saxon genitives, which gravitate towards left-branching. The branching direction decision is argued to be under the sway of several distinct factors: a syntactic factor controlling the alternative between leftward and rightward expansion; a lexical factor regulating the idiomatization of a given pair of elements; and a processing factor geared towards preventing garden path effects. Furthermore, branching direction is determined by listeners’ desire to minimize constituent recognition domains. Taken together, these factors are held accountable for the varying branching direction biases found in the different types of NP.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , November 2012 , pp. 385 - 401
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

It is always gratifying to acknowledge the unflagging service I obtained from Marion Neubauer. As in several other projects, she handled the data collection task so diligently. I am also thankful to Melissa Neitzel, Nigel Isle and Craig Davis for their assistance with the analysis of the data as well as to an anonymous reviewer for helpful hints on how to clarify the presentation.

References

Berg, Thomas. 2003. Right-branching in English derivational morphology. English Language and Linguistics 7, 279–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, Thomas. 2006. The internal structure of four-noun compounds in English and German. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 2, 197–231.Google Scholar
Berg, Thomas. 2011. Recursion introduces a left-branching bias (where possible). Linguistics 49, 977–90.Google Scholar
Berg, Thomas. 2012. Structure in language: A dynamic perspective. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight & Sears, Donald A.. 1981. Aspects of language. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Burton-Roberts, Noel. 1986. Analysing sentences: An introduction to English syntax. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 1992. The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language 68, 81–138.Google Scholar
Frazier, Lyn & Rayner, Keith. 1982. Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences. Cognitive Psychology 14, 178–210.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2002. Understanding morphology. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kösling, Kristina & Plag, Ingo. 2009. Does branching direction determine prominence assignment? An empirical investigation of triconstituent compounds in English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 5, 201–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krott, Andrea, Libben, Gary, Jarema, Gonia, Dressler, Wolfgang U., Schreuder, Robert & Baayen, Harald. 2004. Probability in the grammar of German and Dutch: Interfixation in triconstituent compounds. Language and Speech 47, 83–106.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lieber, Rochelle. 1988. Phrasal compounds in English and the morphology–syntax interface. In Brentari, Diane, Larson, Gary & MacLeod, Lynn (eds.), Papers from the 24th annual regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Part Two: Parasession on agreement in grammatical theory, 202–22. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Moon, Rosamund. 1998. Fixed expressions and idioms in English: A corpus-based approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Palmer, Frank. 1971. Grammar. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Plank, Frans. 1985. How disgrace-ful. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 19, 64–80.Google Scholar
Plank, Frans. 2002. Grouping in multiple attribution: Advantage Albanian. In Bublitz, Wolfram, von Roncador, Manfred & Vater, Heinz (eds.), Philology, typology and language structure, 157–70. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Rayner, Keith, Carlson, Marcia & Frazier, Lyn. 1983. The interaction of syntax and semantics during sentence processing: eye movements in the analysis of semantically biased sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 22, 358–74.Google Scholar
Warren, Beatrice. 1978. Semantic patterns of noun–noun compounds. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1981. On the notions ‘lexically related’ and ‘head of a word’. Linguistic Inquiry 12, 245–74.Google Scholar