Skip to main content Accessibility help

Domain minimization and beyond: Modeling prepositional phrase ordering

  • Daniel Wiechmann (a1) and Arne Lohmann (a2)


An important account of linear ordering in syntax is John A. Hawkins' (2004) theory of cognitive efficiency and the principles of domain minimization formulated therein. In its latest formulation, the theory postulates syntactic and semantic minimization principles. With regard to the relative strength of these principles, prior research into the dynamics of these constraints has come to differing conclusions. Using the relative ordering of prepositional phrases (PPs) in English as a test phenomenon, the present study contributes to the further development of a theory of syntactic serialization through the multifactorial analysis of naturalistic data from a corpus of present-day British English. We find that lexical-semantic dependency constitutes the strongest constraint on serialization followed by the weight-related, syntactic one. More specifically, our results show that although syntactic minimization has much greater data coverage – it applies to a much larger proportion of the data – the lexical-semantic factor has a much greater effect size, thus is more seldomly violated. In addition to assessing the relative importance of the two minimization principles, we also investigate the effects of other potential codeterminants of PP order, namely the manner > place > time generalization and pragmatic information status. Our results suggest that these play statistically significant but tangential roles in PP ordering.



Hide All
Ariel, Mira. (1990). Accessing noun phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.
Ariel, Mira. (2001). Accessibility theory: An overview. In: Sanders, T. et al. , (eds.), Text representation: Linguistic and psycholinguistic aspects. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 2987.
Baayen, Rolf H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Behaghel, Otto. (1932). Deutsche Syntax. Eine geschichtliche Darstellung. Vol. IV. Wortstellung, Periodenbau. Heidelberg: Winter.
Benor, Sarah, & Levy, Roger. (2006). The chicken or the egg? A probabilistic analysis of English binomials. Language 82(2):233278.
Bock, Kathryn, & Cutting, J. Cooper. (1992). Regulating mental energy: Performance units in language production. Journal of Memory & Language 31:99127.
Bock, Kathryn, & Levelt, Willem J. M. (1994). Language production: Grammatical encoding. In Gernsbacher, M. A. (ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics. San Diego: Academic. 945984.
Bresnan, Joan, Cueni, Anna, Nikitina, Tatiana, & Baayen, Harald. (2007). Predicting the dative alternation. In Boume, G., Kraemer, I., & Zwarts, J. (eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science. 6994.
Diessel, Holger. (2005). Competing motivations for the ordering of main and adverbial clauses. Linguistics 43:449470.
Frege, Gottlob. (1948). Sense and reference. The Philosophical Review 57(3):209230.
Gibson, Edward. (1998). Linguistic complexity: Locality and syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68:176.
Gelman, Andrew, & Hill, Jennifer. (2007). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Givón, Talmy. (1992). The grammar of referential coherence as mental processing instructions. Linguistics 30:555.
Gries, Stefan Thomas. (2003). Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: A study of particle placement. New York: Continuum.
Gundel, Jeanette, Hedberg, Nancy, & Zacharski, Ron. (1993). Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69:274307.
Hawkins, John. (1994). A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hawkins, John. (2000). The relative order of prepositional phrases in English: Going beyond manner-place-time. Language Variation and Change 11:231266.
Hawkins, John. (2004). Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hawkins, John. (2009). Language universals and the performance-grammar correspondence hypothesis. In Christiansen, M. H., Collins, C., & Edelman, S. (eds.), Language universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 5478.
Jaeger, T. Florian, & Tily, Harry. (2011). Language processing complexity and communicative efficiency. WIRE: Cognitive Science 2(3):323335.
Kroch, Anthony, & Small, Cathy. (1978). Grammatical ideology and its effect on speech. In Sankoff, D. (ed.), Linguistic variation: Models and methods. New York: Academic Press. 4555.
Lakoff, George, & Johnson, Mark. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lambrecht, Knut. (1994). Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus and the mental representation of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levelt, Willem J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Levy, Roger. (forthcoming). Probabilistic models in the study of language. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Lohmann, Arne. (2011). Constituent order in coordinate constructions—A processing perspective. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hamburg.
Lohse, Barbara, Hawkins, John A., & Wasow, Thomas. (2004). Processing domains in English verb-particle constructions. Language 80(2):238261.
Marblestone, Karen L. (2007). Semantic and syntactic effects on double prepositional phrase ordering across the lifespan. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Southern California.
Nelson, Gerald, Wallis, Sean, & Aarts, Bas. (2002). Exploring natural language: Working with the British Component of the International Corpus of English. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Newmeyer, Frederick J. (1998). Language form and language function. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Prince, Ellen. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In Cole, P. (ed.), Radical pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. 223256.
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey, & Svartvik, Jan. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Harlow: Longman.
R Development Core Team. (2011). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Stallings, Lynne, MacDonald, Maryellen, & O'Seaghdha, Padraig. (1998). Phrasal ordering constraints in sentence production: Phrase length and verb disposition in heavy-NP shift. Journal of Memory & Language 39:392417.
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. (2004). On operationalizing syntactic complexity. In: Purnelle, G., Fairon, C., & Dister, A. (eds.), Le poids des mots. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Textual Data Statistical Analysis. Louvain-la-Neuve, March 10–12, 2004. Vol. 2. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain. 10321039.
Wasow, Thomas. (2002). Postverbal behavior. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Wolk, Christoph, Bresnan, Joan, Rosenbach, Anette, & Szmrecsányi, Benedikt. (forthcoming). Dative and genitive variability in Late Modern English: Exploring cross-constructional variation and change. Diachronica.

Related content

Powered by UNSILO

Domain minimization and beyond: Modeling prepositional phrase ordering

  • Daniel Wiechmann (a1) and Arne Lohmann (a2)


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.