Experimental evidence for the influence of structure and meaning on linear order in the noun phrase

Abstract

Recent work has used artificial language experiments to argue that hierarchical representations drive learners' expectations about word order in complex noun phrases like these two green cars (Culbertson & Adger 2014; Martin, Ratitamkul, et al. 2019). When trained on a novel language in which individual modifiers come after the Noun, English speakers overwhelmingly assume that multiple nominal modifiers should be ordered such that Adjectives come closest to the Noun, then Numerals, then Demonstratives (i.e., N-Adj-Num-Dem or some subset thereof). This order transparently reflects a constituent structure in which Adjectives combine with Nouns to the exclusion of Numerals and Demonstratives, and Numerals combine with Noun+Adjective units to the exclusion of Demonstratives. This structure has also been claimed to derive frequency asymmetries in complex noun phrase order across languages (e.g., Cinque 2005). However, we show that features of the methodology used in these experiments potentially encourage participants to use a particular metalinguistic strategy that could yield this outcome without implicating constituency structure. Here, we use a more naturalistic artificial language learning task to investigate whether the preference for hierarchy-respecting orders is still found when participants do not use this strategy. We find that the preference still holds, and, moreover, as Culbertson & Adger (2014) speculate, that its strength reflects structural distance between modifiers. It is strongest when ordering Adjectives relative to Demonstratives, and weaker when ordering Numerals relative to Adjectives or Demonstratives relative to Numerals. Our results provide the strongest evidence yet for the psychological influence of hierarchical structure on word order preferences during learning.

A Universal Cognitive Bias in Word Order: Evidence From Speakers Whose Language Goes Against It

“…Experimental results showing consistent homomorphism preference across the two-speaker populations (English results reproduced from Experiment 3 of Martin et al, 2020). The dashed line represents chance.…”

“…We found a statistically significant difference between the full and null models, β = 2.94, SE = 1.3, χ 2 (1) = 7.01, p < .01, indicating an above-chance preference for homomorphic orders. We also compared the preferences of our Kîîtharaka-speaking participants with those of the English-speaking participants from Martin et al (2020). We designed a full model with homomorphic as the binary dependent variable along with population as a deviation-coded factor and by-participant random intercepts; we then compared this model to a simpler model excluding the population factor.…”

“…The procedure followed Martin et al (2020) but was adapted for this population by spreading the training and testing over 2 days. All participant recruitment and testing was done in Kîîtharaka by a local team member.…”

“…Culbertson and Adger (2014) and Martin et al (2020) found that English speakers who were taught miniature artificial languages favored orders that were linearly different from English but homomorphic, like noun-adjective-demonstrative, over nonhomomorphic orders like noun-demonstrative-adjective, which maintain the same linear order of modifiers found in English (i.e., demonstrative preceding adjective). Martin et al (2019) replicated this for Thai speakers, who also ignored the linear order of modifiers in their native language in favor of an order that is homomorphic to the hierarchy.…”

Implementing Stylistics in IELTS Writing Preparation Focusing on Noun Phrases

“…The head of a phrase comes from the lexical word class, such as nouns, verbs, or adjectives (Baker & Croft, 2017), and is modified by non-lexical words to form phrases. In NP, the head is from the noun class, and it may have modifier(s) to describe the noun (Martin, Holtz, Abels, Adger, & Culbertson, 2020;Wright, & Hope, 1996). The construction of an NP is presented in Figure 1.…”