Heaviness vs. Newness in Constituent Ordering #
@cite{arnold-wasow-losongco-ginstrom-2000}
A corpus analysis and an elicitation experiment disentangle two confounded predictors of English constituent ordering:
- Heaviness — structural complexity, measured by relative word count
- Newness — discourse status: given/inferable vs. new
These factors are naturally confounded: new referents require more descriptive material, so they tend to be heavier. Arnold et al. use logistic regression to show that in both constructions studied — dative alternation and heavy NP shift — both weight and newness independently predict construction choice.
Studies #
Corpus analysis (§2): Aligned-Hansard corpus (Canadian parliament debates). Examines dative alternation (verb give, N=269) and heavy NP shift (bring...to N=223, take...into account N=167). Both heaviness and newness significantly predict ordering in both constructions; no interactions.
Give experiment (§3): Elicitation experiment, 48 participants (24 pairs), Stanford community. Dative alternation only (give), N=1684 instructions post-exclusion. Both factors significant, plus a significant interaction: heaviness has the largest effect when both constituents share newness status.
Constructions #
- Double Object (DO): V Recipient Theme — "give Mary the book"
- Prepositional Dative (PD): V Theme to-Recipient — "give the book to Mary"
- Nonshifted (HNPS): V DO PP — "bring the news to the committee"
- Shifted (HNPS): V PP DO — "bring to the committee the news that..."
The "heavy/new last" principle: speakers place heavier and newer constituents later. In DA, DO puts the theme last; PD puts the recipient last. In HNPS, shifting puts the direct object after the PP (later position).
Central Finding #
Both heaviness and newness independently contribute to ordering in both constructions. Neither factor can be reduced to the other. The interaction between them (significant only in the experiment) shows they function as competing constraints: each factor's effect is larger when the other is less constraining.
Bridges #
Core.InformationStructure.DiscourseStatus: Arnold et al. collapse @cite{prince-1981}'s three-way given/inferable/new into two categories. Their "given" (given + inferable) is coarser than @cite{kratzer-selkirk-2020}'s partition.DependencyLength.lean: the "heavy last" effect is DLM's short-before-long (Behaghel's Gesetz der wachsenden Glieder). But DLM cannot model the independent newness effect that Arnold et al. demonstrate.
Constructions studied in the corpus analysis.
- dativeAlternation : Construction
Dative alternation with "give": DO (V Rec Theme) vs. PD (V Theme to-Rec).
- heavyNPShift : Construction
Heavy NP shift: nonshifted (V DO PP) vs. shifted (V PP DO). Uses "bring...to" and "take...into account."
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- Phenomena.WordOrder.Studies.ArnoldEtAl2000.bringTo = { verb := "bring...to", construction := Phenomena.WordOrder.Studies.ArnoldEtAl2000.Construction.heavyNPShift, n := 223 }
Instances For
Equations
- Phenomena.WordOrder.Studies.ArnoldEtAl2000.takeIntoAccount = { verb := "take...into account", construction := Phenomena.WordOrder.Studies.ArnoldEtAl2000.Construction.heavyNPShift, n := 167 }
Instances For
Equations
- Phenomena.WordOrder.Studies.ArnoldEtAl2000.giveCorpus = { verb := "give", construction := Phenomena.WordOrder.Studies.ArnoldEtAl2000.Construction.dativeAlternation, n := 269 }
Instances For
Total corpus examples: 659 (Table 1).
HNPS subcorpus: 390 examples.
Heaviness categories for dative alternation (Table 2). Measured as relative length: theme NP length − goal NP length.
- themeShorter : DAHeaviness
Theme shorter: theme − goal ≤ −2
- themeEqualGoal : DAHeaviness
Theme ≈ goal: theme − goal between −1 and 1
- themeLonger : DAHeaviness
Theme longer: theme − goal ≥ 2
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Heaviness categories for heavy NP shift (Table 3). Measured as relative length: DO length − PP length.
- doMuchShorter : HNPSHeaviness
DO ≪ PP: DO − PP ≤ −4
- doShorter : HNPSHeaviness
DO < PP: DO − PP between −3 and −1
- doEqual : HNPSHeaviness
DO = PP: DO − PP = 0
- doLonger : HNPSHeaviness
DO > PP: DO − PP between 1 and 3
- doMuchLonger : HNPSHeaviness
DO ≫ PP: DO − PP ≥ 4
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Figure 1 cell sizes: "give" dative corpus, by heaviness category.
Equations
- Phenomena.WordOrder.Studies.ArnoldEtAl2000.fig1n Phenomena.WordOrder.Studies.ArnoldEtAl2000.DAHeaviness.themeShorter = 26
- Phenomena.WordOrder.Studies.ArnoldEtAl2000.fig1n Phenomena.WordOrder.Studies.ArnoldEtAl2000.DAHeaviness.themeEqualGoal = 89
- Phenomena.WordOrder.Studies.ArnoldEtAl2000.fig1n Phenomena.WordOrder.Studies.ArnoldEtAl2000.DAHeaviness.themeLonger = 154
Instances For
Figure 1 cell sizes sum to the give corpus total.
Most DA items have theme longer than goal (57%): English datives typically have longer themes, consistent with the heavy-last tendency.
Figure 2 cell sizes: HNPS corpus, by heaviness category.
Equations
- Phenomena.WordOrder.Studies.ArnoldEtAl2000.fig2n Phenomena.WordOrder.Studies.ArnoldEtAl2000.HNPSHeaviness.doMuchShorter = 48
- Phenomena.WordOrder.Studies.ArnoldEtAl2000.fig2n Phenomena.WordOrder.Studies.ArnoldEtAl2000.HNPSHeaviness.doShorter = 114
- Phenomena.WordOrder.Studies.ArnoldEtAl2000.fig2n Phenomena.WordOrder.Studies.ArnoldEtAl2000.HNPSHeaviness.doEqual = 38
- Phenomena.WordOrder.Studies.ArnoldEtAl2000.fig2n Phenomena.WordOrder.Studies.ArnoldEtAl2000.HNPSHeaviness.doLonger = 57
- Phenomena.WordOrder.Studies.ArnoldEtAl2000.fig2n Phenomena.WordOrder.Studies.ArnoldEtAl2000.HNPSHeaviness.doMuchLonger = 133
Instances For
Figure 2 cell sizes sum to the HNPS total.
The DO ≫ PP category is the largest single cell (133/390 = 34%), reflecting the prevalence of heavy direct objects in shifted constructions.
48 participants (24 pairs), 42 sessions included post-exclusion, 1684 instructions in final analysis.
Instances For
Instances For
Equations
Instances For
Newness conditions in the experiment.
- themeGiven : ExpNewness
Theme is given (= goal is new)
- bothGiven : ExpNewness
Both constituents are given
- goalGiven : ExpNewness
Goal is given (= theme is new)
Instances For
Equations
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Figure 8 cell sizes by newness condition.
Equations
- Phenomena.WordOrder.Studies.ArnoldEtAl2000.fig8n Phenomena.WordOrder.Studies.ArnoldEtAl2000.ExpNewness.themeGiven = 808
- Phenomena.WordOrder.Studies.ArnoldEtAl2000.fig8n Phenomena.WordOrder.Studies.ArnoldEtAl2000.ExpNewness.bothGiven = 27
- Phenomena.WordOrder.Studies.ArnoldEtAl2000.fig8n Phenomena.WordOrder.Studies.ArnoldEtAl2000.ExpNewness.goalGiven = 849
Instances For
Figure 8 cell sizes sum to experiment total.
"Both given" is extremely rare (< 2%), confirming the experiment successfully manipulated newness as a between-constituent contrast.
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
- Phenomena.WordOrder.Studies.ArnoldEtAl2000.instBEqRegressionResult.beq x✝¹ x✝ = false
Instances For
Corpus DA: both heaviness and newness significant, no interaction.
Equations
Instances For
Corpus HNPS: heaviness, newness, AND verb significant, no interactions. (Verb effect: take into account has higher shifting rate than bring to, likely because it is an opaque collocation.)
Equations
Instances For
Experiment DA: heaviness, newness, AND their interaction significant. (Production difficulty also significant but omitted from structure.)
Equations
Instances For
Central finding: BOTH factors significantly predict ordering in ALL analyses. Neither can be reduced to the other.
No interaction in either corpus analysis: heaviness and newness contribute independently.
The experiment finds a significant interaction: heaviness has the largest effect when both constituents share newness status, and vice versa.
−2 × Log Likelihood Ratio values (× 10 for integer encoding) from the paper's logistic regressions. Larger values = stronger predictor.
Instances For
Instances For
Equations
Instances For
Instances For
Instances For
In the corpus, heaviness has a far larger effect size than newness in both constructions.
In the experiment, newness dominates: its effect is 30× larger than heaviness. This reversal reflects the narrower heaviness range in the experiment (Table 6: range −8 to 20 words) vs. corpus (−29 to 35).
Heaviness effect is stronger in the corpus than in the experiment, consistent with the wider weight range in naturally occurring data.
Newness effect is stronger in the experiment than in the corpus, consistent with the experiment's more controlled newness manipulation (immediate mention vs. within-agenda-item mention).
Average difference in NP length (phrase 1 − phrase 2, × 10) for each heaviness category, from Table 6. Shows the actual weight contrasts across the three data sets.
For DA: phrase 1 = theme NP, phrase 2 = goal NP. For HNPS: phrase 1 = direct object NP, phrase 2 = prepositional phrase.
Instances For
Equations
- One or more equations did not get rendered due to their size.
Instances For
Equations
- Phenomena.WordOrder.Studies.ArnoldEtAl2000.hnpsRange = { label := "HNPS corpus", rangeMin := -21, rangeMax := 44 }
Instances For
Equations
- Phenomena.WordOrder.Studies.ArnoldEtAl2000.daCorpusRange = { label := "DA corpus", rangeMin := -29, rangeMax := 35 }
Instances For
Equations
- Phenomena.WordOrder.Studies.ArnoldEtAl2000.daExpRange = { label := "DA experiment", rangeMin := -8, rangeMax := 20 }
Instances For
The corpus data spans a far wider heaviness range than the experiment. This explains why heaviness dominates in the corpus but not the experiment: with less variation in weight, there is less for the weight factor to predict.
HNPS has the widest heaviness range overall, spanning 65 words of difference between the lightest and heaviest items.
Arnold et al.'s "given" (previously mentioned or inferable from something
mentioned within the current agenda item in the corpus; established by
question or mention in the immediately preceding utterance in the
experiment) maps to DiscourseStatus.given.
Their classification collapses @cite{prince-1981}'s three-way given/inferable/new into two categories: inferables are grouped with given.
Equations
Instances For
Arnold et al.'s "new" (not previously mentioned and not inferable) maps
to DiscourseStatus.new. This is broader than
@cite{kratzer-selkirk-2020}'s .new — it includes material that K&S
would mark as .focused ([FoC]-marked, contrasted).
Equations
Instances For
DLM: Correct on weight, blind to discourse #
totalDepLength is defined over Dependency = (headIdx × depIdx × DepRel).
The function never accesses t.words, so no property of the words — form,
category, features, discourse status — enters the computation.
Arnold et al.'s finding that newness significantly predicts ordering in BOTH constructions (even after controlling for heaviness) means DLM alone is insufficient as a complete account of constituent ordering.
DLM word-invariance. totalDepLength yields the same value for any
two trees sharing the same dependency structure, regardless of the words.
DLM assigns identical cost to trees differing only in whether NPs are discourse-given or discourse-new.
Even at the single-dependency level, depLength ignores the grammatical
relation. The cost is purely |headIdx - depIdx|.
DLM correctly predicts the weight direction: heavy NP shift reduces dependency length.
A pure-discourse ordering model: the preference for placing a constituent in late position is determined solely by its discourse status.
- latePref : Core.InformationStructure.DiscourseStatus → ℕ
- new_after_given : self.latePref Core.InformationStructure.DiscourseStatus.new > self.latePref Core.InformationStructure.DiscourseStatus.given
The core given-before-new claim.
Instances For
A pure-discourse model is weight-blind by type: for a fixed discourse status, it assigns the same preference regardless of constituent length.
Arnold et al.'s corpus results refute pure-discourse accounts: heaviness is significant in BOTH constructions even after controlling for newness. A weight-blind model cannot explain these results.
The minimal adequate model type: a function of both weight and discourse status, encoding Arnold et al.'s central finding.