Investigating locality effects and surprisal in written English syntactic choice phenomena.

We investigate the extent to which syntactic choice in written English is influenced by processing considerations as predicted by Gibson's (2000) Dependency Locality Theory (DLT) and Surprisal Theory (Hale, 2001; Levy, 2008). A long line of previous work attests that languages display a tendency for shorter dependencies, and in a previous corpus study, Temperley (2007) provided evidence that this tendency exerts a strong influence on constituent ordering choices. However, Temperley's study included no frequency-based controls, and subsequent work on sentence comprehension with broad-coverage eye-tracking corpora found weak or negative effects of DLT-based measures when frequency effects were statistically controlled for (Demberg & Keller, 2008; van Schijndel, Nguyen, & Schuler 2013; van Schijndel & Schuler, 2013), calling into question the actual impact of dependency locality on syntactic choice phenomena. Going beyond Temperley's work, we show that DLT integration costs are indeed a significant predictor of syntactic choice in written English even in the presence of competing frequency-based and cognitively motivated control factors, including n-gram probability and PCFG surprisal as well as embedding depth (Wu, Bachrach, Cardenas, & Schuler, 2010; Yngve, 1960). Our study also shows that the predictions of dependency length and surprisal are only moderately correlated, a finding which mirrors Dember & Keller's (2008) results for sentence comprehension. Further, we demonstrate that the efficacy of dependency length in predicting the corpus choice increases with increasing head-dependent distances. At the same time, we find that the tendency towards dependency locality is not always observed, and with pre-verbal adjuncts in particular, non-locality cases are found more often than not. In contrast, surprisal is effective in these cases, and the embedding depth measures further increase prediction accuracy. We discuss the implications of our findings for theories of language comprehension and production, and conclude with a discussion of questions our work raises for future research.