Article published In: Linguistics in the Netherlands 2022
Edited by Jorrig Vogels and Sterre Leufkens
[Linguistics in the Netherlands 39] 2022
► pp. 21–38
Variation in the processing of grammatical norm violations
Between-participant and between-construction differences
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 Radboud University Nijmegen.
Published online: 4 November 2022
https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00059.cos
https://doi.org/10.1075/avt.00059.cos
Abstract
So far, processing studies on grammatical norm violations (GNVs) in Dutch (i.e. als ‘as’ in
comparatives) have mainly focused on general differences between GNVs and their grammatical and ungrammatical counterparts. The
present study is the first to also systematically investigate between-participant and between-construction variation in the
processing of GNVs, using a self-paced reading task. Age and educational level were investigated as potential sources of
between-participant variation, and between-construction variation was assessed by including three GNVs that vary in the amount of
prescriptive attention they receive in society. Results indeed showed that the processing of GNVs was influenced by the age and
educational level of participants. Moreover, different results were obtained for different norm violations. Based on these
results, we conclude that it is very important to take into account differences between participants and constructions when
studying the processing of GNVs.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Methodology
- 2.1Participants
- 2.2Materials
- 2.3Procedure and design
- 2.4Data pre-processing and analysis
- 3.Results
- 3.1Analysis critical word
- 3.2Analysis spill-over word
- 4.Discussion
- 5.Conclusions
- Acknowledgements
- Note
References
References (20)
Audring, Jenny. 2009. Reinventing
pronoun gender. PhD dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Utrecht: LOT publications.
Bates, Douglas, Martin Mächler, Benjamin M. Bolker & Steven C. Walker 2015. “Fitting Linear
Mixed-Effects Models using lme4.” Journal of Statistical
Software 67 (1): 1–48,
de Hoop, Helen. 2020. “Het
verlies van een persoonlijk voornaamwoord*.” Nederlandse
Taalkunde 25 (2): 355–362,
Delignette-Muller, Marie Laure & Christophe Dutang. 2015. fitdistrplus:
An R Package for Fitting Distributions. Journal of Statistical
Software 64 (4): 1–34, <[URL]>
E-ANS. 2021. Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst (ANS), versie 3.1, 2021, <[URL]>
Ferreira, Fernanda & John M. Henderson 1990. “Use of verb information
in syntactic parsing: evidence from eye movements and word-by-word self-paced reading.” Journal
of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and
cognition 16 (4): 555–568,
Giner, Göknur & Gordon K. Smyth 2016. statmod: Probability
Calculations for the Inverse Gaussian Distribution. R
Journal 8 (1): 339–351, (29 March 2022)..
Grondelaers, Stefan, Paul van Gent & Roeland van Hout. 2022. “On
the Inevitability of Social Meaning and Ideology in Accounts of Syntactic Change: Evidence from Pronoun Competition in
Netherlandic Dutch.” In Explanations in Sociosyntactic
Variation, Tanya Karoli Christensen & Torben Juel Jensen. (eds), 120–143,
Hinskens, F. L. M. P. & H. J. Bennis 2014. “Goed
of fout. Niet-standaard inflectie in het hedendaags Standaardnederlands.” Nederlandse
Taalkunde 19 (2): 131–184,
Hubers, Ferdy & Helen de Hoop. 2013. “The
effect of prescriptivism on comparative markers in spoken Dutch.” Linguistics in the
Netherlands 301: 89–101,
Hubers, Ferdy, Theresa Redl, Hugo de Vos, Lukas Reinarz & Helen de Hoop. 2020b. “Processing
Prescriptively Incorrect Comparative Particles: Evidence From Sentence-Matching and
Eye-Tracking.” Frontiers in Psychology 111,
Hubers, Ferdy, T. M. Snijders & H. de Hoop 2016. “How
the brain processes violations of the grammatical norm: An fMRI study.” Brain and
Language 1631,
Hubers, Ferdy, Thijs Trompenaars, Sebastian Collin, Kees de Schepper & Helen de Hoop. 2020a. “Hypercorrection
as a by-product of education.” Applied
Linguistics 41 (4): 552–574,
Just, M. A., P. A. Carpenter & J. D. Woolley 1982. “Paradigms
and processes in reading comprehension.” Journal of experimental psychology.
General 111 (2): 228–238, <[URL]>
Kuznetsova, Alexandra, Per B. Brockhoff & Rune H. B. Christensen 2017. lmerTest Package:
Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models. Journal of Statistical
Software 82 (13),
Lo, Steson & Sally Andrews. 2015. “To
transform or not to transform: using generalized linear mixed models to analyse reaction time
data.” Frontiers in
Psychology 61: 1171,
R Development Core Team. 2008. R: A
Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, <[URL]>
Schoenmakers, Gert-Jan T. (accepted). “Linguistic judgments
in 3D: The aesthetic quality, linguistic acceptability, and surface probability of stigmatized and non-stigmatized
variation.” Linguistics.