User:Gaytonan/sandbox

This user is a participant in WikiProject Linguistics.

Performance and Word Order

Outlined here are three explanations proposed by prominent performance theorists suggesting that performance preferences guide syntactic word order across languages.

John A. Hawkins's Performance-Grammar Correspondence Hypothesis (PGCH) states that the syntactic structures of grammars are conventionalized based on whether and how much the structures are preferred in performance (2004). Performance preference is related to structure complexity and processing, or comprehension, efficiency. Specifically, a complex structure refers to a structure containing more linguistic elements or words at the end of the structure than at the beginning, or “the amount of structure that is associated with the terminal elements, or words, of a sentence” (Hawkins, 2004, p.8). It is this structural complexity that results in decreased processing efficiency since more linguistic units require processing (Hawkins, 2004). Hawkins (2004) proposes a number of principles aimed at increasing processing efficiency including the principle Minimize Domains. This principle states that if a choice is available between a small and a large domain, where domain refers to “the smallest possible string of terminal elements (Hawkins, 2004, p.117)," performance preference will select the smaller domain since processing of the smaller domain requires less effort and is faster (Hawkins, 2004). Important to this idea is the notion that a less complex structure will impose a lighter burden on the processing and working memory machinery than its complex counterpart (Hawkins, 2004). The speaker’s goal is to select the constituents with the least complexity and then order the selected constituents from least to most complex in the sentence. The goal is to maximize the processing efficiency of the listener by providing shorter phrases which enables the listener to predict subsequent structure (Hawkins 2004).

Supporting data: performance data from head initial languages show a preference for short phrases ordered before long phrases in a sentence

English prepositional phrase orderings by relative weight (Hawkins, 2004, p. 105)

n = 323	PP2 > PP1 by 1 word	by 2-4	by 5-6	by 7+
[V PP1 PP2]	60% (58)	86% (108)	94% (31)	99% (68)
[V PP2 PP1]	40% (38)	14% (17)	6% (2)	1% (1)

PP2 = longer PP; PP1=shorter PP. Proportion of short-long to long-short as a percentage; actual numbers of sequences in parentheses. An additional 71 sequences had PPs of equal length (total n=394)

Hungarian noun phrase orderings by relative weight (Hawkins, 2004, p 108)

n = 85	mNP2 > mNP1 by 1 word	by 2	by 3+
[V mNP1 mNP2]	85% (50)	96% (27)	100% (8)
[V mNP2 mNP1]	15% (9)	4% (1)	0% (0)

mNP = any NP constructed on its left periphery. NP2 = longer NP; NP1 = shorter NP. Proportion of short-long to long-short given as a percentage; actual numbers of sequences given in parentheses. An additional 21 sequences had NPs of equal length (total n = 16).

In contrast, Tom Wasow proposes that word order arises as a result of utterance planning benefiting the speaker as opposed to the listener alone (2002). There are very few situations where the interests of the speaker and the listener conflict since, generally, an utterance that is easily produced is also easy to comprehend (Wasow 2002). Recognizing this, he goes on to identify scenarios where the interests of the speaker and listener are in conflict. He introduces the concepts of early versus late commitment where commitment is the point in the utterance where it becomes possible to predict subsequent structure (Wasow 2002). Specifically, early commitment refers to the commitment point present earlier in the utterance and late commitment refers to the commitment point present later in the utterance (Wasow 2002). He explains that early commitment will favour the listener since early prediction of subsequent structure enables faster processing. Comparatively, late commitment will favour the speaker by postponing decision making, giving the speaker more time to plan the utterance (Wasow 2002). The following example illustrates how these ideas relate to word order.

Wasow tests early versus late commitment in heavy-NP shifted (HNPS) sentences. The idea is to look at the patterns of HNPS to determine if the performance data support predictions from the speaker's or the listener's perspective. Two verb categories were looked at:

Vt (transitive verbs): require NP objects.

    1a. Pat brought a box with a ribbon around it to the party
    1b. Pat brought to the party a box with a ribbon around it 

In 1a. the NP is available early but does not provide any additional information about the sentence structure. In contrast, in 1b. as soon as "to" is uttered the listener knows that the VP must contain the NP and a PP. Thus for transitive verbs HNPS results in early commitment and favors the listener.

Vp (prepositional verbs): can take an NP object or an immediately following PP with no NP object

    2a. Pat wrote something about Chris on the blackboard.
    2b. Pat wrote on the blackboard something about Chris. 

In 2b. the listener needs to hear the word "something" in order to know that the utterance contains a PP and an NP since the object NP is optional. Thus for prepositional verbs HNPS results in late commitment and favours the speaker. *All sample sentences and explanations taken from (Wasow 2002, p. 50).

Based on the above information Wasow made the following predictions from the perspective of the speaker and the listener (Wasow 2002, p. 51).

Speaker's Perspective	Listener's Perspective
Vt HNPS rare	HNPS relatively common
Vp HNPS relatively common	HNPS very rare

To test his predictions Wasow analyzed performance data for the rates of occurrence of HNPS for Vt and Vp and found HNPS occurred twice as frequently in Vp than in Vt, therefore supporting the predictions made from the speakers perspective (Wasow 2002). To conclude, the speaker's perspective is the driving force behind word order in English (this was an English based study).