Article published In: Linguistics in the Netherlands 2021
Edited by Mark Dingemanse, Eva van Lier and Jorrig Vogels
[Linguistics in the Netherlands 38] 2021
► pp. 40–64
Are Dutch posture verbs lexical or functional elements?
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.
For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.
Open Access publication of this article was funded through a Transformative Agreement with Utrecht University.
Published online: 29 October 2021
https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00049.mul
https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00049.mul
Abstract
In Dutch, posture verbs like liggen ‘lie’ and staan ‘stand’ are obligatorily
used in locative constructions with inanimate subjects, classifying the spatial Figure-Ground relation. Prima facie, in this use,
posture verbs seem more like functional elements than like lexical verbs.
This paper investigates processing of Dutch posture verbs in a reference resolution task in the visual world
paradigm, to get more clarity on the nature of these verbs. We know that lexical verbs like rinkelen ‘ring’ cause
anticipatory looks towards a matching target referent like telefoon ‘telephone’; and that they suppress looks to
a phonological competitor like telescoop ‘telescope’. The functional property of grammatical gender on
determiners (de vs. het) is less robust in directing looks. When it comes to anticipating the
target referent, and suppressing looks to a phonological competitor, do posture verbs pattern with lexical verbs, or with
functional elements like grammatical gender?
Article outline
- 1.Are Dutch posture verbs lexical or functional elements?
- 2.Processing properties of lexical vs. functional elements
- 3.Eye-tracking experiment comparing posture verbs to lexical verbs and grammatical gender: Method
- 3.1Participants
- 3.2Procedure
- 4.Comparing posture verbs to lexical verbs
- 4.1Materials in the ‘verb’ conditions
- 4.2Predictions for the ‘verb’ conditions
- 4.2.1Anticipatory looks to the matched distractor
- 4.2.2Suppressing looks to the phonological cohort after target word onset
- 4.3Response data
- 4.4Eye-tracking data preprocessing and analysis
- 4.4.1Preprocessing
- 4.4.2Growth curve analysis
- 4.5Eye-tracking results
- 4.5.1Anticipatory looks to the matched distractor
- 4.5.2Suppressing looks to the cohort in the ‘verb’ conditions
- 5.Comparing posture verbs to grammatical gender
- 5.1Materials in the ‘gender’ conditions
- 5.2Predictions for the ‘gender’ conditions
- 5.2.1Anticipatory looks to the matched distractor
- 5.2.2Suppressing looks to the phonological cohort after target word onset
- 5.3Response data
- 5.4Eye-tracking data analysis
- 5.5Results
- 5.5.1Anticipatory looks to the matched distractor
- 5.5.2Suppressing looks to the cohort in the ‘gender’ conditions
- 6.Discussion
- 6.1Could it be frequency?
- 6.2Could it be the pictures?
- 6.3Could it be time?
- 7.Conclusion
- Data archive
- Acknowledgments
- Notes
References
References (31)
Altmann, G. & Y. Kamide. 1999. “Incremental
interpretation at verbs: restricting the domain of subsequent
reference.” Cognition 73(3): 247–264.
Ameka, F. K. & S. C. Levinson. 2007. “Introduction:
the typology and semantics of locative predicates, posturals, positionals and other
beasts.” Linguistics 451: 847–871.
Bates, D., M. Maechler, B. Bolker & S. Walker. 2015. “Fitting
Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4.” Journal of Statistical
Software, 67(1): 1–48.
Boersma, P. 2001. “Praat,
a system for doing phonetics by computer.” Glot
International 5(9): 341–345.
Bogaards, M. 2019. “Sitting
stuck and standing scribbled: Productivity, structure, and meaning of posture verbs combined with a complementive past
participle in Dutch.” MA thesis, Leiden University, [URL]
2020. “Gezichten,
gedachten en gesprekken: Quotatieven in het Nederlands van nu.” Neerlandistiek: Online
tijdschrift voor taal- en letterkunde, [URL]
Brouwer, S., S. Sprenger & S. Unsworth. 2017. “Processing
grammatical gender in Dutch: Evidence from eye movements.” Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology 1591: 50–65,
Cooper, R. M. 1974. “The
control of eye fixation by the meaning of spoken language.” Cognitive
Psychology 61: 84–107.
Dahan, D., D. Swingley, M. Tanenhaus & J. Magnuson. 2000. “Linguistic
Gender and Spoken-Word Recognition in French.” Journal of Memory and
Language 421: 465–480.
Dahan, D. & M. Tanenhaus. 2004. “Continuous
mapping from sound to meaning in spoken-language comprehension: immediate effects of verb-based thematic
constraints.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition 30(2): 498.
Dink, J. W. & B. Ferguson. 2015. eyetrackingR:
An R Library for Eye-tracking Data Analysis. Retrieved from [URL]
Hintz, F., A. S. Meyer & F. Huettig. 2017. “Predictors
of verb-mediated anticipatory eye movements in the visual world.” Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 43(9): 1352.
Hlavac, M. 2018. stargazer:
Well-Formatted Regression and Summary Statistics Tables. R package version
5.2.1.
Hoekstra, T. & R. Mulder. 1990. “Unergatives
as copular verbs; locational and existential predication.” The linguistic
review 71: 1–79.
Hothorn, T., F. Bretz & P. Westfall. 2008. “Simultaneous
Inference in General Parametric Models.” Biometrical
Journal 50(3): 346–363.
Keuleers, E., M. Brysbaert & B. New. 2010. “SUBTLEX-NL:
A new frequency measure for Dutch words based on film subtitles.” Behavior Research
Methods 42(3): 643–650.
Kuznetsova, A., P. B. Brockhoff & R. H. B. Christensen. 2017. “lmerTest
Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models.” Journal of Statistical
Software, 82(13): 1–26,
Lemmens, M. 2002. “The
semantic network of Dutch posture verbs.” Typological Studies in
Language 511: 103–140.
2005. “Aspectual
posture verb constructions in Dutch.” Journal of Germanic
linguistics 17(3): 183–217.
Lemmens, M. & J. Perrez. 2012. “A
quantitative analysis of the use of posture verbs by French-speaking learners of
Dutch.” CogniTextes. Revue de l’Association française de linguistique
cognitive 81.
Loerts, H., M. Wieling & M. S. Schmid. 2013. “Neuter
is not common in Dutch: Eye movements reveal asymmetrical gender processing.” Journal of
psycholinguistic
research 42(6): 551–570.
Mani, N. & F. Huettig. 2012. “Prediction
during language processing is a piece of cake – But only for skilled producers.” Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and
Performance 38(4): 843.
Mirman, D. 2014. Growth
Curve Analysis and Visualization Using R. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC Press.
Mulders, I. & L. Koring. 2020. “The
many ways to stand, lie and sit” (paper presented at the Grote
Taaldag, 31 January, Utrecht).
Newman, J., ed. 2002. The
linguistics of sitting, standing and
lying (Vol. 511). John Benjamins Publishing.
R Core Team. 2020. R: A language and
environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, [URL]
RStudio Team. 2020. RStudio: Integrated
Development Environment for R. RStudio, PBC, Boston, MA, [URL]
Tanenhaus, M., M. Spivey-Knowlton, K. Eberhard & J. Sedivy. 1995. “Integration
of visual and linguistic information during spoken language
comprehension.” Science 2681: 1632–1634,
