2004
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Nederlandse Taalkunde
  4. Volume 30, Issue 1/2
  5. Article
Volume 30, Issue 1/2
  • ISSN: 1384-5845
  • E-ISSN: 2352-1171

Abstract

Abstract

This study investigates the processing of middle constructions (middles) in Dutch, German and English. Middles combine a non-agentive subject with an action verb in the active form, fitting into the loose vs. tight fit typology established by Hawkins (1986) to capture the main contrasts between German and English. In English, they lead to greater ambiguity and vagueness in forms (loose fit), as in middles, while in German they result in more one-to-one mappings of form and meaning (tight fit). Middles, as instances of flexible argument structure, contribute to a loose fit as they add to the semantic diversity of grammatical relations (cf. Hawkins 1986; Müller-Gotama 1994; Levshina 2020).

a. easily.

b. gemakkelijk.

c. *(sich) leicht.

Building on a fruitful research line that positions Dutch linguistically between English and German (Van Haeringen 1956), our study investigated native speakers of Dutch, German and English by means of a self-paced reading task, in order to demonstrate processing differences in non-agentive subject-verb combinations in various types of middles, and determine the position of Dutch in the loose vs. tight fit-typology.

Our results reveal that German speakers experience greater difficulty processing middles, as evidenced by slower reading times compared to English speakers. Reading times for Dutch speakers fall between those of English and German speakers but exhibit greater similarity to English, suggesting that Dutch aligns more closely with the loose fit languages.

The experiment indicates that both documented and undocumented (extended) middles are read faster in Dutch and English than in German. These findings suggest fundamental differences in processing strategies for semantically diverse subject-verb combinations. Our results enable us to discuss hypotheses based on psycholinguistically informed comparisons of German and English (most notably by Hawkins 1995; 2012; 2014) and address the question of diachronic-causal relations in language change from a language processing perspective, in line with the view that grammars are deeply shaped by processing (Christiansen & Chater 2008; Sinnemäki 2014).

© Anne Renzel, Gunther De Vogelaer & Jens Bölte
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2025.1-2.006.RENZ
2025-07-01
2025-08-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aaronson, D. & H. S.Scarborough (1976). Performance theories for sentence coding: Some quantitative evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance2, 56-70.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Ackema, P. & M.Schoorlemmer (2006). Middles. In: M.Everaert & H.van Riemsdijk (red.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Vol. III. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 131-203.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Anderson, M. (2006). Affectedness. In: M.Everaert & H.van Riemsdijk (red.). The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Vol.1. 121-141. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Auwera, J. van der & D.Noël (2011). Raising: Dutch between English and German. Journal of Germanic Linguistics23(1), 1-36.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I., F.Kretzschmar, S.Tune, L.Wang, S.Genç, M.Philipp, D.Roehm & M.Schlesewsky (2011). Think globally: Cross-linguistic variation in electrophysiological activity during sentence comprehension. Brain & Language117, 133–152.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, I. & M.Schlesewsky (2020). Cross-linguistic neuroscience of language. In: D.Poeppel, G. R.Mangun & M. S.Gazzaniga (red.), The Cognitive Neurosciences. 6th ed. Cambridge: MIT Press, 841-848.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bruening, B. (2024). English middles and implicit arguments. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics9(1), 1–46.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. ChristiansenM. H. & N.Chater (2008). Language as shaped by the brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences31, 489–509.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Comrie, B. (1989). Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Corbett, G. G., Fraser, N. M. & S.McGlashan (red.) (1993). Heads in Grammatical Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Den Besten, H. & J. A.Edmondson (1983). The verbal complex in continental West Germanic. On the formal syntax of the Westgermania3, 155-216.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Dixon, W. J. (1980). Efficient analyses of experimental observations. Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology20, 441-462.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Dreschler, G. (2019). Changes in argument structure. The case of Dutch ‘vernieuwen’. Linguistics in the Netherlands36(1), 115–129.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Dreschler, G. (2020). ‘Fifty pounds will buy me a pair of horses for my carriage’: the history of permissive subjects in English. English Language & Linguistics24(4), 719–744.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Engelhardt, P. E., Filipović, L. & J. A.Hawkins (2024). Prediction in SVO and SOV languages: processing and typological considerations. Linguistics62(2), 349–383.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Findlay, J. Y. (2016). The prepositional passive in Lexical Functional Grammar. In: D.Arnold, M.Butt, B.Crysmann, T.King, T.Holloway & S.Müller (red.), Proceedings of the Joint 2016 Conference on Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar and Lexical Functional Grammar, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, 255–275.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Frazier, L. (1985). Syntactic Complexity. In: D.Dowty, L.Karttunen & A.Zwicky (red.), Natural Language Parsing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 129–89.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Frazier, L. (1993). Processing Dutch Sentence Structures. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research22(2), 85-108.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Friederici, A. D. & S.Frisch (2010). Verb Argument Structure Processing: The Role of Verb-Specific and Argument-Specific Information. Journal of Memory and Language43, 476–507.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. García de la Maza, C. (2016). The argument-structure configuration of English middle and related structures. In: T.Ruchot & P.Van Praet (red.), Atypical predicate-argument relations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 115-131.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Gelderen, E. van (2011). Valency changes in the history of English. Journal of Historical Linguistics1(1), 106–143.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Gibson, E., C. T.Schütze & A.Salomon (1996). The relationship between the frequency and the processing complexity of linguistic structure. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research25(1), 59–92.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Girden, E. R. (1992). ANOVA: Repeated measures. Sage university papers. Quantitative applications in the social sciences: no. 07-084. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Greenberg, J. H. (1966). Language universals (Vol. 8). The Hague: Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Haeringen, C. B. van (1956). Nederlands tussen Duits en Engels. Den Haag: Servire.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Hawkins, J. A. (1986). A comparative typology of English and German. Unifying the contrasts. London: Croom Helm.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Hawkins, J. A. (1995). Argument-Predicate Structure in Grammar and Performance: A Comparison of English and German. In: I.Rauch & G. F.Carr (red.), Insights in Germanic Linguistics. 1. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 127-44.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Hawkins, J. A. (2004). Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Hawkins, J. A. (2012). The Drift of English Towards Invariable Word Order from a Typological and Germanic Perspective. In: T.Nevalainen & E. C.Traugott (red.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 622–632.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Hawkins, J. A. (2014). Cross-linguistic variation and efficiency. Oxford: University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Hoekstra, T. & I.Roberts (1993). Middle constructions in Dutch and English. In: E.Reuland & WernerAbraham (red.), Knowledge and language. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 183-220.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Huang, J., G.Zhang, J.Dang, Y.Chen & S.Miyamoto (2023). Semantic Processing Mechanisms During Continuous Speech Production: An Analysis from Eye Movements and Eeg. Huang, J., Zhang, G., Dang, J., Chen, Y., and Miyamoto, S. (2023). Semantic processing during continuous speech production: an analysis fromeyemovements and EEG. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 17:1253211.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Hulk, A. & L.Cornips (2000). Reflexives in Middles and the Syntax–Semantics Interface. In: H.Bennis, M.Everaert & E.Reuland (red.), Interface Strategies. Amsterdam: Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences, 207-222.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Hundt, M. (2007). English Mediopassive Constructions: A Cognitive, Corpus-based Study of their Origin, Spread and Current Status. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Hüning, M. (2006). Nederlands, Duits, Engels: tussen-dimensies. In: M.Hüning, U.Vogl, T.van der Wouden, A.Verhagen (red.), Nederlands tussen Duits en Engels. Handelingen van de workshop op 30 september en 1 oktober 2005 aan de Freie Universität Berlin. Leiden: Stichting Neerlandistiek Leiden, 9-18.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Jegerski, J. (2014). Self-paced reading. In: J.Jegerski & B.Van Patten (red.), Research methods in second language psycholinguistics. New York: Routledge, 20-49.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Jurafsky, D. (2003). Probabilistic Modeling in Psycholinguistics: Linguistic Comprehension and Production. In: R.Bod, J.Hay & S.Jannedy (red.), Probabilistic Linguistics. Cambridge: MIT, 1-30.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Kamide, Y., C.Scheepers & G. T. M.Altmann (2003). Integration of Syntactic and Semantic Information in Predictive Processing: Cross-Linguistic Evidence from German and English. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research32, 37–55.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Keenan, E. L. (1979). On Semantically Based Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry3(4), 413-461.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Kirkwood, H. W. (1978). Options and Constraints in the Surface Ordering of Noun Phrases in English and German. Journal of Pragmatics2, 225-245.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. König, E. & V.Gast (2018). Understanding English-German contrasts. 4e ed. Berlin: Erich Schmidt.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Koster, J. (1975). Dutch as an SOV language. Linguistic Analysis1, 111-136.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Levshina, N. (2020). How tight is your language? A semantic typology based on Mutual Information. In: K.Evang, L.Kallmeyer, R.Ehren, S.Petitjean, E.Seyffarth, & D.Seddah (red.), Proceedings of the 19th International Workshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theories. Stroudsburg, PA, USA: Association for Computational Linguistics, 70–78.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. LevshinaN. (2021). Cross-Linguistic Trade-Offs and Causal Relationships Between Cues to Grammatical Subject and Object, and the Problem of Efficiency-Related Explanations. Frontiers in Psychology12. 648200.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Los, B. (2018). ‘Permissive’ subjects and the decline of adverbial linking in the history of English. In: H.Cuykens, H.De Smet, L.Heyvaert & C.Maekelberghe (red.), Explorations in English historical syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 23–49.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Melinger, A., T.Pechmann & S.Pappert (2009). Case in Language Production. In: A.Malchukov & A.Spencer (red.), Oxford Handbook of Case. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 384-401.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Miller, D. G. (1993). Complex Verb Formation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Mitchell, D. C. & D. W.Green (1978). The effects of context and content on immediate processing in reading. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology30, 609-636.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Müller-Gotama, F. (1994). Grammatical Relations: A Cross-linguistic Perspective on their Syntax and Semantics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Onnis, L., A.Lim, S.Cheung & F.Huettig (2022). Is the mind inherently predicting? Exploring forward and backward looking in language processing. Cognitive Science46(10), 1551–6709.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Oya, T. (2003). Überlegungen zu zwei Unterschieden zwischen der Mittelkonstruktion des Deutschen, Englischen und Niederländischen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft22(2), 213-242.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Peirce, J. W., Gray, J. R., Simpson, S., MacAskill, M. R., Höchenberger, R., Sogo, H., Kastman, E. & J.Lindeløv (2019). PsychoPy2: experiments in behavior made easy. Behavior research methods51, 195-203.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Pritchett, B. L. (1991). Head position and parsing ambiguity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research20, 251–270.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Rösler, F., T.Pechmann, J.Streb, B.Order & F.Henninghausen (1998). Parsing of sentences in a language with varying word order: word-by-word variations of processing demands are revealed by event-related brain potentials. Journal of Memory and Language38, 150-176.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Sapir, E. (1921). Language. An introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Sinnemäki, K. (2014). Complexity trade-offs: a case study. In: F. J.Newmeyer & L. B.Preston (red.), Measuring Grammatical Complexity. Oxford University Press, 179-195.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Soshi, T. & H.Hagiwara (2016). Non-economical Verbal Information Processing Driven by a ‘‘Look-ahead’’ Strategy Under Poor Availability of Structural Information. Interdisciplinary Information Sciences22(1), 123–141.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Steinbach, M. (2002). The Middle Voice: A comparative study in the syntax-semantics interface of German. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Strang, B. M. H. (1991). A History of English. London/New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Tanenhaus, M. K., J. E.Boland, S. M.Garnsey & G. N.Carlson (1989). Lexical structure in parsing long-distance dependencies. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research18, 37–50.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Traxler, M. J. (2023). Introduction to psycholinguistics: Understanding language science (Second Edition). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Ueno, M. & M.Polinsky (2009). Does headedness affect processing? A new look at the VO–OV contrast. Journal of Linguistics45(3), 675–710.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Vismans, R., M.Hüning & F.Weerman (red.) (2010). Dutch between English and German. Journal of Germanic Linguistics (Special Issue) 22(4).
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Visser, F. T. (1963-1973). An Historical Syntax of the English Language. (3 Vols.) Leiden: E.J. Brill.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Vogelaer, G. De, D.Koster & T.Leuschner (2020). German and Dutch in Contrast. Synchronic, Diachronic and Psycholinguistic Perspectives. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2025.1-2.006.RENZ
Loading
Dit leest lekker!(?)
NedTaal 30, 106 (2025); https://doi.org/10.5117/NEDTAA2025.1-2.006.RENZ
/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2025.1-2.006.RENZ
/content/journals/10.5117/NEDTAA2025.1-2.006.RENZ
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Keyword(s): contrastive linguistics; Germanic Sandwich; language processing; look ahead vs. look back parsing; middle construction; self-paced reading; word order

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error