Long English objects and short Chinese objects: language diversity shaped by cognitive universality

References

Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing noun phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Arnold, Jennifer E., Thomas Wasow, Anthony Losongco & Ryan Ginstrom. 2000. Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language 76(1). 28–55. https://doi.org/10.2307/417392.Search in Google Scholar

Baumann, Stefan. 2005. Degrees of givenness and their prosodic marking. Paper presented at the international symposium on “Discourse and prosody as a complex interface”, Aix-en-Provence, 8–9 September.Search in Google Scholar

Behaghel, Otto. 1909. Beziehungen zwischen Umfang und Reihenfolge von Satzgliedern. Indogermanische Forschungen 25. 110–142.Search in Google Scholar

Bresnan, Joan, Anna Cueni, Tatiana Nikitina & R. Harald Baayen. 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. In G. Boume, Irene Krämer & Joost Zwarts (eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation, 69–94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Search in Google Scholar

Chafe, Wallace. 1994. Discourse, consciousness and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Choi, Hye-won. 2007. Length and order: A corpus study of Korean dative-accusative construction. Discourse and Cognition 14(3). 207–227. https://doi.org/10.15718/discog.2007.14.3.207.Search in Google Scholar

Christiansen, Morten & Nick Chater. 2008. Language as shaped by the brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31(5). 489–508. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x08004998.Search in Google Scholar

Christiansen, Morten & Nick Chater. 2016. The now-or-never bottleneck: A fundamental constraint on language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 39. e62. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X1500031X.Search in Google Scholar

Cowan, Nelson. 1995. Attention and memory: An integrated framework. New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Cowan, Nelson. 1999. An embedded processes model of working memory. In Akira Miyake & Priti Shah (eds.), Models of working memory: Mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control, 62–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139174909.006Search in Google Scholar

De Smedt, Koenraad. 1994. Parallelism in incremental sentence generation. In Geert Adriaens & Udo Hahn (eds.), Parallel natural language processing, 421–447. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Search in Google Scholar

Evans, Nicholas & Stephen C. Levinson. 2009. The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32(5). 429–448. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x0999094x.Search in Google Scholar

Faghiri, Pegah & Pollet Samvelian. 2014. Constituent ordering in Persian and the weight factor. In Christopher Piñon & Laurent Roussarie (eds.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics 10, 215–232. Paris: CSSP. http://www.cssp.cnrs.fr/eiss10/eiss10_faghiri-and-samvelian.pdf (accessed 14 September 2019).Search in Google Scholar

Faghiri, Pegah & Pollet Samvelian. 2020. Word order preferences and the effect of phrasal length in SOV languages: Evidence from sentence production in Persian. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 5(1). 86. 1–33. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.1078.Search in Google Scholar

Faghiri, Pegah, Pollet Samvelian & Barbara Hemforth. 2014. Accessibility and word order: The case of ditransitive constructions in Persian. In Stefan Muller (ed.), Proceedings of HPSG 2014, 217–237. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Available at: http://web.stanford.edu/group/cslipublications/cslipublications/HPSG/2014/fsh.pdf.10.21248/hpsg.2014.12Search in Google Scholar

Faghiri, Pegah, Pollet Samvelian & Barbara Hemforth. 2018. Is there a canonical order in Persian ditransitive constructions? Corpus based and experimental studies. In Agnes Korn & Andrej Malchukov (eds.), Ditransitive constructions in a cross-linguistic perspective, 165–185. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Search in Google Scholar

Ferrer-i-Cancho, Ramon. 2004. Euclidean distance between syntactically linked words. Physical Review E 70. 056135. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.70.056135.Search in Google Scholar

Ferrer-i-Cancho, Ramon, Carlos Gómez-Rodríguez, Juan Luis Esteban & Lluís Alemany-Puig. 2022. The optimality of syntactic dependency distances. Physical Review E 105(1). 014308. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.105.014308.Search in Google Scholar

Futrell, Richard, Roger Levy & Edward Gibson. 2020. Dependency locality as an explanatory principle for word order. Language 96(2). 371–413. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2020.0024.Search in Google Scholar

Gibson, Edward. 1998. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68. 1–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0277(98)00034-1.Search in Google Scholar

Gibson, Edward. 2000. The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Alec P. Marantz, Yasushi Miyashita & Wayne O’ Neil (eds.), Image, language, brain, 95–126. Boston: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/3654.003.0008Search in Google Scholar

Givón, T. (ed.). 1983. Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.3Search in Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele E. 2009. Essentialism gives way to motivation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32(5). 455–456. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x09990677.Search in Google Scholar

Haiman, John. 1985. Natural syntax: Iconicity and erosion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Hawkins, John A. 2007. Processing typology and why psychologists need to know about it. New Ideas in Psychology 25(2). 87–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2007.02.003.Search in Google Scholar

Hudson, Richard. 2007. Language networks: A new word grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199267309.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Hudson, Richard. 2010. An introduction to word grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511781964Search in Google Scholar

Hundt, Marianne & Geoffrey Leech. 2012. Small is beautiful – on the value of standard reference corpora for observing recent grammatical change. In Terttu Nevalainen & Elizabeth Traugott (eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of English, 175–188. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199922765.013.0017Search in Google Scholar

Karimi, Hossein & Fernanda Ferreira. 2016. Informativity renders a referent more accessible: Evidence from eyetracking. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 23(2). 507–525. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0917-1.Search in Google Scholar

Kempen, Gerard & Karin Harbusch. 2003. Word order scrambling as a consequence of incremental sentence production. In Holden Hartl & Heike Tappe (eds.), Mediating between concepts and grammar, 141–164. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C. & Dan Dediu. 2013. The interplay of genetic and cultural factors in ongoing language evolution. In Peter J. Richerson & Morten H. Christiansen (eds.), Cultural evolution: Society, technology, language, and religion, 219–232. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/9780262019750.003.0012Search in Google Scholar

Liu, Haitao. 2008. Dependency distance as a metric of language comprehension difficulty. Journal of Cognitive Science 9(2). 159–191. https://doi.org/10.17791/jcs.2008.9.2.159.Search in Google Scholar

Liu, Haitao, Chunshan Xu & Junying Liang. 2017. Dependency distance: A new perspective on syntactic patterns in natural languages. Physics of Life Reviews 21. 171–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2017.03.002.Search in Google Scholar

LOB Corpus. 1981–1986. The Lancaster-Oslo/Bergen Corpus, POS-tagged version. Originally compiled 1970–1978, by Geoffrey Leech, Stig Johansson & Knut Hofland. Available at: https://ota.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/repository/xmlui/handle/20.500.12024/0167.Search in Google Scholar

McEnery, Tony & Richard Xiao. 2004. The Lancaster Corpus of Mandarin Chinese. Available at: https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/projects/corpus/LCMC.Search in Google Scholar

Oberauer, Klaus & Stephan Lewandowsky. 2013. Evidence against decay in verbal working memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 142(2). 380–411. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029588.Search in Google Scholar

O’Grady, William. 2022. Working memory and the design of language. In John W. Schwieter & Zhisheng Wen (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of working memory and language, 322–342. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108955638.019Search in Google Scholar

Olofsson, Arne. 1981. Relative junctions in written American English. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Search in Google Scholar

Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1972. A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Stallings, Lynne M. & Maryellen C. MacDonald. 2011. It’s not just the “heavy NP”: Relative phrase length modulates the production of heavy-NP shift. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 40(3). 177–187. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1998.2586.Search in Google Scholar

Temperley, David & Daniel Gildea. 2018. Minimizing syntactic dependency lengths: Typological/cognitive universal? Annual Review of Linguistics 4. 67–80. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011817-045617.Search in Google Scholar

Temperley, David. 2008. Dependency length minimization in natural and artificial languages. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 15. 256–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/09296170802159512.Search in Google Scholar

Wang, Hua & Haitao Liu. 2014. The effect of length and complexity on constituent ordering in written English. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 50(4). 477–494. https://doi.org/10.1515/psicl-2014-0024.Search in Google Scholar

Wang, Li. 1985. Zhongguo xiandai yufa [A grammar of modern Chinese]. Beijing: Commercial Press.Search in Google Scholar

Wang, Li. 2015. Zhongguo yufa lilun [Theory of Chinese grammar]. Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company.Search in Google Scholar

Wasow, Thomas. 1997. End-weight from the speaker’s perspective. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 26. 347–361. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1025080709112.10.1023/A:1025080709112Search in Google Scholar

Xu, Chunshan & Haitao Liu. 2015. Can familiarity lessen the effect of locality? A case study of Mandarin Chinese subjects and the following adverbials. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 51(3). 463–486. https://doi.org/10.1515/psicl-2015-0018.Search in Google Scholar

Xu, Chunshan. 2018. Differences between English subject post-attributives and object post-attributives: From the perspective of dependency distance. In Jingyang Jiang & Haitao Liu (eds.), Quantitative analysis of dependency structures, 261–276. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110573565-013Search in Google Scholar

Yamashita, Hiroko & Franklin Chang. 2001. Long before short preference in the production of a head-final language. Cognition 81. B45–B55. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0277(01)00121-4.Search in Google Scholar

Yu, Ning. 1993. Chinese as a paratactic language. Journal of Second Language Acquisition and Teaching 1. 1–15.Search in Google Scholar

Zipf, George. 1949. Human behavior and the principle of least effort: An introduction to human ecology. New York: Hafner.Search in Google Scholar