Adjective placement in three modes of Spanish:
the role of syllabic weight in novels, presidential speeches, and
spontaneous speech
Mark R. Hoff
Indiana University
Syllabic weight has been posited as a potential explanation for the variable positioning of
certain adjectives, relative to the nouns they modify, in Spanish. While some scholars
question its utility, File-Muriel (2006) finds strong supporting evidence for a syllabic
weight principle. The present study examines the placement of 18 adjectives in three
modes- novels, presidential speeches, and spontaneous speech- to determine to what
extent these three modes adhere to a heaviness shift rule. Furthermore, cognitive concerns
related to production and processing are called upon to test how presidential speeches, a
mode that is pre-planned yet delivered orally, differ from novels and spontaneous speech
in terms of the placement and syllabic weight of adjectives. This study only partially
supports the idea of a syllabic weight principle, in that spontaneous speech, but not
novels and presidential speeches, behaves as such a rule would predict. Additional
contextual factors appear to be involved. Therefore, as proposed by Prado (1980), it is
perhaps most accurate to speak of a “syllabic weight tendency”. The consequences of
these findings for the idea of a phonology-syntax interface are discussed briefly.
1. Introduction
Although it is often stated, even in academic publications (Lichtman 2009, among
many others), that a basic distinction between English and Spanish syntax is that Spanish
adjectives follow the noun, it is well-known that this is not always the case. Attributive
adjectives, those which occur within the noun phrase and are headed by the noun they
modify, may be pre- or post-nominal in Spanish. Adjective position is, of course, not a
universal source of variation, as many languages allow only one of these positioning
options. Speaking very generally, those languages that tend to place adjectives before
nouns allow few cases of post-positioning. Languages that favor post-nominal adjective
position, however, often have a smaller set of adjectives which may also appear prenominally. Furthermore, adjective position does not fit into typological patterning the
same way that word order or the use of prepositions or postpositions does. While it is true
that many languages with OV word order make use of pre-posed adjectives, many VO
languages (such as English) also share this quality. It is important to remember that,
because of these and other major differences across languages, the findings of the present
study regarding the factors constraining adjective position Spanish may not be
generalizable to other languages.
With regards to Spanish specifically, various explanations for the variation in
adjective position have been proposed, ranging from primarily semantic arguments to
theories based on syllable length and production or processing concerns. The importance
of semantics is made especially clear in cases such as (1) and (2):
(1) Mi viejo amigo
(‘My old friend’- a friend I have known for quite some time)
(2) Mi amigo viejo
(‘My old friend’- my friend who is elderly)
These two NPs, which have vastly different truth values, are syntactically identical except
that in (1) the attributive adjective viejo is pre-nominal and in (2) it is post-nominal.
Other examples, such as un coche nuevo (‘a brand new car’) vs. un nuevo coche (‘a car
that is new to me’) and un buen hombre (‘a good man’ in a general sense) vs. un hombre
bueno (‘a man who is morally upright’), both of which may suffer changes in meaning
when adjective placement is altered, are also commonly cited to demonstrate the crucial
role of semantics in the determination of adjective position. However, adjectives without
such a semantic distinction (e.g. grandes problemas vs. problemas grandes ‘big
problems’) also exhibit variation, suggesting that semantics alone is unable to explain or
predict the positioning of many adjectives relative to the nouns they modify.
2
Production and processing are relevant to adjective position in that, according to
the heaviness shift 1 rule, longer adjectives (in terms of syllable count, relative to the
modified noun) represent more complex linguistic material and thus tend to be post-posed
to ease the burdens of both production for the speaker and processing for the hearer.
Although authors such as Prado (1980), Terker (1985), and Miller, Pullum, and Zwicky
(1997) argue against such a rule, considering it to be a discourse tendency at best, FileMuriel (2006) offers interesting findings to support it. He concludes that a heaviness shift
rule, although not categorical, is supported by empirical evidence and that this weight
constraint is more closely adhered to in spoken than in written registers.
File-Muriel (2006) also offers evidence to support the widely-held view that
written and spoken language are fundamentally different and must be studied as such.
This suggests that many linguists’ analytic bias toward written language is problematic,
as written data behaves differently from spoken data, especially with respect to attributive
adjective position and other performance-related phenomena. In his concluding remarks,
File-Muriel cautions against analyzing written data sources and generalizing about
spoken language based on his results.
2. Review of Literature
Fernández (1951) represents one of the first treatments of adjective position in
which syllabic weight is a primary factor. In his grammar, Fernández examined the
construction con + (indefinite article) + noun-adjective(NA)/adjective-noun(AN) (e.g.
1
Throughout this paper, the terms syllabic weight rule and heaviness shift rule are used synonymously. In
previous studies, both terms have been used to refer to the principle that adjectives with greater syllable
counts than the nouns they modify, because they represent more complex linguistic material, tend to appear
post-nominally.
3
con un buen chico vs. con un chico bueno ‘with a good boy’ and con pura agua vs. con
agua pura ‘with pure water’) in literary prose. Fernández found that, of the 40 cases
when the indefinite article was used, 30 were of the order NA and 10 were AN. In these
40 cases, the syllable weight of the final element was always greater than or equal to that
of the preceding element. In other words, in every case that an adjective occurred postnominally, it was syllabically equal to or heavier than the noun it modified. When
adjectives were pre-posed, the opposite condition was true. In cases with no indefinite
article, 60% of a total 58 cases were AN, and 40% were NA. However, here the syllabic
weight rule did not apply 100% of the time. These findings led Fernández (1951) to
conclude that, in terms of general tendencies of Spanish literary prose, adjectives tend to
appear post-nominally, unless they are shorter than the noun they modify, in which case
they may be pre-posed.
Concerning the cognitive notions of production and processing and their relation
to a heaviness shift rule, Hawkins (1994) highlights the central role of the listener or
receiver, whereas Wasow (1997) emphasizes the importance of weight effects on the
producer of an utterance. These authors, when taken in tandem, demonstrate the
importance of considering both participants in a linguistic exchange, whether the
interaction be via written or spoken media. Wasow joins with co-authors Arnold,
Ginstrom, and Losongco (2000) to present a more general description of the ways in
which these double-sided processing constraints affect constituent order. In carrying out
two experiments on dative shift, one a corpus study and the other an elicitation
experiment, these authors found that both indirect object weight relative to the direct
object and the newness of the information expressed in the dative were significant factors
4
in the determination of constituent order. Lighter, older constituents followed heavier,
newer elements. For example, in the elicitation experiment where participants were asked
to issue instructions about giving objects (the theme) to characters (the goal) as prompted
by illustrated cards, participants were more likely to say “Give the red dog the orange
striped ball” than to place the more complex NP orange striped ball before red dog. The
authors interpret these findings as evidence supporting a general preference for givenbefore-new and light-before-heavy patterns.
However, other studies find little to no evidence for a syllabic weight rule. Prado
(1980), for example,analyzed adjective position in four novels and found little correlation
between an adjective’s syllabic weight and its position relative to the noun. The four
novels he considered exhibited varying degrees of adherence to the heaviness principle,
ranging from 58-75% adherence for AN order and 80-83% for NA order. This variability
led Prado to conclude that there is insufficient evidence to support a syllabic weight rule.
He claimed instead that although lighter adjectives tend to precede nouns, semantic
factors are the primary determiner of adjective positioning.
Terker (1985) argued even more strongly against a syllabic weight rule and
claimed that mere tendencies are not helpful in discussing adjective positioning. He did,
however, consider syntactic complexity to be a valuable contribution to the discussion,
highlighting the obligatory post-positioning of complex adjective phrases (e.g. el hombre
experto en lenguas romances ‘the man skilled in Romance languages’). Miller, Pullum,
and Zwicky (1997) also argue vehemently against a syllabic weight rule, in part because
it is contrary to their proposed Principle of Phonology-Free Syntax (PPFS), but also
because they, like Terker (1985), give little credence to tendencies of usage. These
5
authors claim that, although speakers do position adjectives based on what sounds best to
them, the so-called syllabic weight rule is not a grammatical rule at all and therefore not a
reliable predictor of adjective placement.
All of the aforementioned studies inform and motivate File-Muriel’s (2006) study
of adjective position. Based on the findings of these prior works, File-Muriel presents
three main arguments. First, he argues that the post-nominal position is the favored place
for attributive adjectives in spoken Spanish due to the fact that they are generally longer
than the nouns they modify. Although this generalization is confirmed in File-Muriel’s
data, such was not the case in the present study. The mean syllabic weight for adjectives
in the data set was 2.127 syllables, versus an average of 2.991 syllables for nouns.
Second, File-Muriel argues that, at least in spoken Spanish, the pre-nominal position is
reserved for adjectives that are light and frequently occurring. Third and finally, FileMuriel claims that a process of grammaticalization of adjective position may be
underway in Spanish due to factors of production and processing.
In making these claims, File-Muriel (2006) joins Bock (1987) in arguing against a
top-down phonology-free syntax. That is to say, both File-Muriel and Bock oppose the
model proposed in Garret (1982) and assumed by many to be true ever since, that
information flows from the syntactic to the phonetic plane and not in the opposite
direction. The results of File-Muriel’s investigation on adjective position in spoken and
written modes suggest that information does not flow unidirectionally from the positional
to the functional level as Miller, Pullum, and Zwicky (1997) and other proponents of
PPFS would claim. Instead, File-Muriel and Bock argue that performance constraints can
and do affect the syntactic plane, as in the case of grammaticalization. The present study
6
will not address the flow of information from syntax to phonology, as this is easily
observable in the case of adjectives, which when frequently pre-posed also tend to suffer
reduction (bueno -> buen, malo -> mal, grande -> gran 2). This study will, however,
contribute to the discussion on the ways in which phonology influences and shapes
syntax in its treatment of adjective syllable weight and pre- or post-nominal positioning.
3. Research Questions and Hypotheses
Based on findings of related studies, as well as the further questions these findings
create, the present study aims to answer two primary research questions.
1) To what degree do novels, presidential speeches, and spontaneous speech data
adhere to a heaviness shift rule?
2) How do presidential speeches, a mode that is pre-planned yet delivered orally,
fit in with written and spoken modes in terms of adherence to a heaviness shift rule, and
what does this mean for our understanding of message production and processing?
With regard to the first research question, it is hypothesized that all three modes
will adhere fairly consistently to a syllabic weight rule. Put another way, syllabic weight
will be a reliable predictor of pre- or post-nominal adjective positioning. Regarding the
second, it is predicted that presidential speeches, because they are pre-planned like
novels, yet delivered orally in a way very similar to spontaneous speech data (although
they are undoubtedly more formal than much spontaneous speech), will behave as a sort
of intermediate mode in terms of adherence to a heaviness shift rule. In other words, it is
2
Interestingly enough, however, several cases of pre-nominal grande were observed in the spontaneous
speech mode of the data set (e.g. un grande amigo).
7
hypothesized that spontaneous speech data will show the most rigid adherence to a
heaviness shift rule, followed by presidential speeches, with novels adhering least to such
a principle. If this is determined not to be the case, a reconsideration of the ways in which
syllabic weight and other production and processing concerns influence the shaping and
delivery of linguistic messages may be in order.
4. Methodology
Following File-Muriel’s (2006) warning against over-reliance on written data, the
present study incorporates three modes, each of which includes data sources from a
variety of dialects. The dialect regions used to organize and analyze the data include:
Iberian, North American, Central American, Caribbean, Andean, and Rioplatense.
Although dialect was included in the codification scheme, it was never chosen as a
statistically significant factor in the statistical analysis and therefore is discussed here
only insomuch as it demonstrates the distribution of the data and the breadth of language
varieties included in this study.
In terms of the three modes considered here, the written data is comprised of
contemporary novels by Spanish-native authors 3. As authors are not likely to manipulate
adjective position (a primarily cognitive process) in such a way that dialogue and
narration would show significant differences, no such distinction was made in the
collection and coding of tokens. Great care was taken, however, to ensure that all texts
were originally written in Spanish by native Spanish speakers so as to reduce the
3
Journalistic prose from newspaper editorials from several different countries was also gathered, but data
from this source was more difficult to obtain and, in order to maintain a balance of modes, these tokens
were not included in the final analysis.
8
potential effects of bilingualism, especially in the case of the Iberian and Andean dialect
regions.
The data for the oral mode was gathered from a variety of online corpora,
including several corpora made available by the Project for the Sociolinguistic Study of
Spanish from Spain and America (PRESEEA) (Ávila Muñoz et al. 2008, Briceño et al.
2010) and the Macrocorpus de la Norma Lingüística Culta de las Principales Ciudades de
España y América (Samper Padilla et al. 1997). This data included spontaneous speech
taken from informal sociolinguistic interviews 4.
The third mode, that of presidential speeches, includes official addresses by the
heads of state of many nations in the Spanish-speaking world. The transcripts of these
speeches were obtained from the web pages of the respective governments and are
publically accessible. For all three modes, all tokens included in the data set were from
the year 2000 or more recent. This was held constant in order to eliminate the effects of
diachronic language change, as many scholars have shown that adjective position
tendencies have shifted throughout the history of Spanish. Table 1 provides the initial
data distribution by dialect region and mode. For each dialect, the total number of NPs +
adjective (of either order, AN or NA) included for each mode is listed, along with the
percent of cases of each dialect region that value represents.
4
While educational and socioeconomic level of speakers between these two corpora was not controlled, the
effect of such differences, if indeed they exist, is thought to be minimal, as the previous literature has
shown adjective placement to be primarily cognitively, not socioculturally, determined.
9
Table 1: Data Distribution by Dialect Region and Mode
Iberian
Fiction
Presidential Speeches
Spontaneous Speech
Dialect Region Total
North American
Fiction
Presidential Speeches
Spontaneous Speech
Dialect Region Total
Central American
Fiction
Presidential Speeches
Spontaneous Speech
Dialect Region Total
Caribbean
Fiction
Presidential Speeches
Spontaneous Speech
Dialect Region Total
Andean
Fiction
Presidential Speeches
Spontaneous Speech
Dialect Region Total
Rioplatense
Fiction
Presidential Speeches
Spontaneous Speech
Dialect Region Total
Total
215 (36%)
55 (9%)
329 (55%)
599 (23%)
65 (32%)
70 (34%)
70 (34%)
205 (8%)
115 (43%)
85 (32%)
69 (26%)
269 (11%)
80 (11%)
101 (14%)
532 (75%)
713 (28%)
198 (42%)
187 (40%)
83 (18%)
468 (18%)
85 (28%)
79 (26%)
142 (46%)
306 (12%)
2560 tokens
The adjectives considered in the analysis are the following: buen(o) 5, mal(o),
lindo, bonito, bello, hermoso, verdadero, libre, alto, bajo, nuevo, gran(de), terrible,
5
Although the pre- or post-positioning of buen(o) and nuevo may, in certain contexts, result in clear
differences in meaning, such cases are not considered here as they would skew results. Thus, only cases in
which both positions convey approximately the same meaning are analyzed in the present study.
10
enorme, profundo, mejor, siguiente 6. These particular adjectives were chosen for their
frequency and because they are known to vary in position relative to the nouns they
modify, although this is by no means an exhaustive list of the adjectives in Spanish that
can appear either pre- or post-posed. All forms of these 17 adjectives (masculine and
feminine, singular and plural) were considered. Only eight of these adjectives were
included in File-Muriel (2006), as his study had a more narrow scope. File-Muriel
examined a total of 518 tokens, while the present study analyzed 2,560. Furthermore,
File-Muriel examined only Costa Rican oral data and Costa Rican newspaper editorials
while this study includes multiple dialects (although dialect was never chosen as
significant in the statistical analysis) and three modes- novels, spontaneous speech, or
presidential addresses. Because of these appreciable differences in sample size and
adjectives considered, the present study aims to provide a larger-scale perspective of
adjective positioning in Spanish.
The adjective coding scheme of the present study followed File-Muriel’s model in
certain respects and diverged from it in several others. Adjective position, as in FileMuriel was coded binarily as pre- or post-nominal. Also as in File-Muriel, the syllabic
weight of an adjective relative to the noun it modified was coded in a scalar fashion to
allow for a detailed analysis of all from the lightest to the heaviest adjectives. For
example, altas expectativas ‘high expectations’ would be coded as -3, as al-tas has only 2
syllables while ex-pec-ta-ti-vas has 5, thus making the syllable count of the adjective
altas 3 fewer than the noun it modifies. In File-Muriel, all adjectives were also coded for
6
buen(o): ‘good’; mal(o): ‘bad’; lindo, bonito: ‘pretty’; bello, hermoso: ‘beautiful’; verdadero: ‘true’; libre:
‘free’; alto: ‘high, tall’; bajo: ‘low, short’; nuevo: ‘new’; gran(de): ‘large, great’; terrible: ‘terrible’; enorme:
‘enormous’; profundo: ‘deep, profound’; mejor: ‘better’; siguiente: ‘following’.
11
semantic class, per Delbecque’s (1990) criteria. Table 2 below demonstrates the semantic
class divisions used in File-Muriel for the eight adjectives he considered.
Table 2: Delbecque’s (1990) Semantic Class Categorization as used in File-Muriel
(2006) 7
gran(de), alto, bajo, libre
mal(o), buen(o), mejor
nuevo
Shape & Space
Evaluation
Temporal
In this categorization, it is unclear why libre ‘free’ is assigned to the class Shape
and Space. Additionally, in one case that File-Muriel (2006) provides as an example from
his spoken data, muy malos ojos ‘very bad eyes’, the adjective malo ‘bad’ is classified
under Evaluation. Why Delbecque’s (1990) more appropriate category Physical Property
Markers was not used in this particular case is unclear.
Several other problems arise with a classification such as File-Muriel’s (2006),
which aims to establish more general, abstract links between adjective semantics and
positioning. The grouping together of cases such as los grandes edificios ‘the large
buildings’ and un gran espíritu ‘a great spirit’ is just one example. In using this sort of
categorization, File-Muriel loses all distinction between metaphoric and non-metaphoric
uses of the same adjective, and adjectives that refer to physical qualities are treated as
semantically equivalent to those of a much more figurative, evaluative nature. In order to
avoid inconsistent semantic assignments and also because several adjectives were
introduced in this study that File-Muriel did not include, a different system was chosen
for the present study wherein individual adjectives were coded as metaphoric or non-
7
Delbecque (1990) presents a more comprehensive, eight-class semantic categorization of adjectives.
12
metaphoric, as determined by context rather than by semantic class. However, not all
adjectives allow for such a distinction; only alto, bajo, gran(de), enorme, and profundo
were coded this way. Table 3 below provides examples of these adjectives in NPs where
they express metaphoric and non-metaphoric meanings.
Table 3: Metaphoric and non-metaphoric adjective use
Adjective
alto ‘high, tall’
bajo ‘low, short’
gran(de) ‘large, great’
enorme ‘enormous’
profundo ‘deep, profound’
Non-metaphoric Use
la carpa más alta del campo
‘the tallest tent in the field’
casitas bajas pequeñas
‘short little houses’
grandes canastos
‘large baskets’
un enorme camión
‘an enormous truck’
las profundas cavernas
‘the deep caves’
Metaphoric Use
un porcentaje muy alto
‘a very high percentage’
sus bajas pasiones
‘his low passions’
su gran enemigo
‘his great enemy’
una paciencia enorme
‘an enormous patience’
una reforma profunda
‘a profound reform’
Furthermore, several elements of adjective phrase complexity were taken into
account in order to better capture the ways in which adjectives modified by adverbs,
appearing with determiners, or appearing with coordinated or sequential adjectives
behave in terms of positioning. This thorough treatment of complexity is a key element
that is missing in File-Muriel’s (2006) coding scheme. Whereas File-Muriel treats all
adjectives equally, regardless of the variable complexity of the contexts in which they
appear, the present study uses a two-category system to define complexity. The third
category, the most complex, is then divided into several sub-categories. Table 4
exemplifies the ways in which complexity was operationalized in the coding process.
Actual cases from the data are provided as examples.
13
Table 4: Adjective complexity
Category 1a: Adjective with optional articles (definite/indefinite) (ex. un buen hombre ‘a
good man’)
Category 1b: Adjective with determiners (possessive/deictic) (ex. esta gran mujer ‘this
great woman’)
Category 2: Adjective with additional adjectives, adverbs, etc.
Adverb (+/-) (ex. la más grande obra ‘the greatest work’, muy buena escuela ‘very
good school’)
Coordinated adjective (+/-) (ex. precioso y profundo ombligo ‘precious and deep
belly button’)
Sequential adjective (+/-) (ex. el gran hombre salvaje ‘the large wild man’)
As the cases above make clear, adjectives appear in contexts of widely varying
complexity. Surely the differences between simple cases such as una nueva casa ‘a new
house’ and more complex constructions such as una etapa cualitativamente nueva ‘a
qualitatively new period’ or nuevas bases contraterroristas ‘new counterrorist bases’
cannot be ignored. Adjectives appearing alone or with a possessive or deictic determiner
(Categories 1a and 1b) were distinguished from the more complex structures of Category
2, which were coded for the presence or absence of an adverb or an additional
coordinated or sequential adjective. This coding scheme represents an effort to quantify
and account for the possible effects of differences in NP complexity.
A necessary part of data collection and coding is the exclusion of invariable cases.
In the present study, this included adjectives occurring in fixed phrases or “chunks” such
as buen día ‘good day’, or mala suerte ‘bad luck’, as well as cases where adjective
position is categorically either pre- or post-nominal, such as día libre ‘free day’ or horas
libres ‘free time/hours’. These invariable contexts were determined through consultation
with two native speakers, one from Spain and the other from Mexico, and through
14
searches in Google Books Ngram Viewer (Michel et al. 2010) 8, an online service that
allows users to search its digitized libraries and view the history of frequency of a given
phrase. In addition to this case-by-case determination, uses of mejor ‘better, best’ as a
superlative (la mejor idea ‘the best idea’) were also excluded because they do not allow
for post-nominal positioning. Finally, cases containing English loans (un shock profundo
‘a deep shock’), NPs with adjectives modifying proper nouns (una mejor Venezuela ‘a
better Venezuela’), and NPs with adjectives modifying more than one noun (nuevos
cambios y ajustes ‘new changes and adjustments’) were excluded as well. Cases of
adjectives modifying a noun phrase with de ‘of’ such as mejor calidad de vida ‘better
quality of life’ were initially included and coded for, but as they turned out to be very
few, were eliminated from the data set.
5. Statistical Analysis
In order to most thoroughly examine the factors constraining pre- or post-nominal
adjective position in Spanish, two separate rounds of multivariate analyses were
performed in the variable rule program GoldVarbX (Sankoff et al. 2005). First, all modes
were viewed together to provide a general idea of the factors affecting adjective position
in Spanish. This analysis provided preliminary evidence for a phonology-syntax
interface, in that syllabic weight, a phonological property, appears to affect the ordering
of elements in the syntactic plane. Next, each mode was analyzed individually in order to
determine the differences between adjective position constraints and the application of a
phonology-syntax interface in novels, presidential speeches, and spontaneous speech.
8
http://books.google.com/ngrams
15
Analysis of all modes together
The first round of analysis included 2,154 tokens (758 from novels, 577 from
presidential speeches, and 819 from oral interviews) of the original dataset of 2,560
because of an imbalance in the data which required leveling of the spontaneous speech
mode. Distributional issues in the data also required that syllable weights (of the adjective
relative to the noun, as before) be consolidated as follows: +1 to +2; 0; -1; -2 to -5. This
consolidated metric of syllabic weight, while it does represent a slight loss in detail, was
necessary precisely because adjectives four or five syllables shorter than the nouns they
modify are relatively rare in Spanish. This metric was used in all succeeding analyses as
well. Table 5 provides those factors chosen as significant in the binominal up and down
logistic regression analysis.
16
Table 5: Significant Factors for Adjective Position with Leveling of Modes
(Application Value Pre-Nominal Position)
Input .717
Log likelihood
Total N
Sig. p = .004
1005.236
2154
N
Factor Weight
%
.742
.586
.276
.228
51
86
75.9
50.1
44.9
567
475
288
132
.706
.586
.282
42
88.2
72
49.8
508
546
408
.556
.170
39
73.5
28.6
1385
77
.506
.268
24
68.6
37.7
1442
20
.542
.384
16
75.4
51
519
125
Syllable Weight Relative to Noun
-2 to -5
-1
0
1 to 2
Range
Mode
Presidential Speeches
Novels
Spontaneous Speech
Range
Adverb
Absent
Present
Range
Coordinated adjective
Absent
Present
Range
Metaphoric/Non-metaphoric
Metaphoric
Non-metaphoric
Range
The ranges listed above make clear that syllable weight is the strongest predictor
of adjective position, with the lightest adjectives relative to the nouns they modify
favoring pre-nominal placement most strongly. Equal or greater syllabic weight strongly
disfavors adjective pre-posing. This finding is in line with File-Muriel’s (2006)
conclusions that attributive adjectives tend to be post-nominal, unless they are shorter
than their nouns, in which case they may be pre-posed.
17
The variable Mode, the next strongest predictor of adjective position, yields some
unexpected findings. Contrary to what was hypothesized, presidential speeches do not
appear to behave as a hybrid of the novel and spontaneous speech modes, with
intermediate favoring of pre-nominal adjective placement. Instead, these presidential
addresses very strongly favor pre-positioning, even more so than do novels. This may be
a result of the greater formality inherent to this mode. Novels and spontaneous speech,
however, do appear to function as expected when production and processing constraints
are considered. That is, it makes sense that a written medium would allow for more prepositioning of syllabically heavy adjectives than spontaneous speech, where production
and processing concerns for speaker and hearer would favor the post-position of more
complex linguistic material to ease these cognitive burdens. As these results clearly show
that differences in adjective positioning exist across modes, separate logistic regression
analyses in GoldVarbX were performed for spontaneous speech, novels, and presidential
speeches in order to more closely examine evidence for a heaviness shift rule and a
phonology-syntax interface in each mode. The results of these analyses appear in Tables
6-8 below.
In terms of the effects of other syntactic elements such as adverbs and other
adjectives, it is not surprising that those adjectives which are not accompanied by an
adverb, as well as those which do not co-occur with a coordinated adjective, are more
likely to be pre-posed, as they contain less linguistic material. However, sequential
adjectives were not chosen as significant in this run. This is likely a result of the fact that,
in many cases of sequential adjectives in the data, when the attributive adjective under
consideration (one of the 17 adjectives listed previously) appears before the noun, the
18
sequential adjective often appears post-nominally and vice versa (e.g. la gran tradición
cultural ‘the great cultural tradition’ or muchas mujeres hermosas ‘many beautiful
women’). Although this is not always the case and the two adjectives do at times cooccur either pre- or post-nominally (e.g. una perspectiva histórica completamente nueva
‘a completely new historical perspective’), it is likely that the possibility of pre-posing
one adjective and post-posing the other caused this variable to be insignificant.
Analysis of each mode separately
In the separate examination of each mode, the leveling process used in the
previous analysis was not necessary. In the following statistical analyses, all 2,560 tokens
of the data set were included.
19
Table 6: Syllable Weight in Novels (Application Value Pre-Nominal Position)
Input .284
Log likelihood
Total N
Metaphoric/Non-metaphoric
Non-metaphoric
Metaphoric
Range
Coordinated adjective
Present
Absent
Range
Syllable Weight Relative to Noun
1 to 2
0
-1
-2 to -5
Range
Positioning of Adjective
Pre-nominal
Post-nominal
Range
Adverb
Absent
Present
Range
Factor Weight
%
.771
.396
38
56.9
20.7
.844
.491
35
Sig. p = .010
-1395.986
2560
N
63
28.9
161
168
34
724
.678
.571
.466
.386
29
45.1
33.2
27.5
21.3
161
226
206
165
.575
.363
21
32.9
23.6
546
212
.524
.357
17
32.3
13.4
710
48
Table 6 lends support to the claim made earlier that in this data, the written
medium tends to allow for the pre-positioning of more syllabically heavy material.
Because novels are a mode planned in advance and delivered in such a way that on-line
processing limitations are less of a concern, it is not surprising that they more frequently
allow pre-nominal placement of adjectives which are syllabically heavier than the nouns
they modify. Interestingly, this mode also shows a strong presence of coordinated
adjectives in pre-nominal position, which processing factors would also disfavor in online delivery. Regarding adjective interpretation, it is interesting that, at least in this data
20
and with these particular 17 adjectives, the creative literary genre of novels shows more
literal than metaphorical adjective use.
Finally, that adverbs are discouraged in a mode favoring post-nominal adjectives
is to be expected, although this is interesting in light of this mode’s allowance of
coordinated and syllabically heavier adjectives in pre-nominal position. However,
adverbs are also discouraged in presidential speeches and in spontaneous speech, as seen
in Tables 7 and 8 below. This suggests that adverbs, which are categorically disfavored,
and coordinated or sequential adjectives, which are favored in some modes but
disfavored in others, have fundamentally different roles in adjective positioning, in spite
of the fact that they all represent additional linguistic material.
21
Table 7: Syllable Weight in Presidential Speeches (Application Value Pre-Nominal
Position)
Input .167
Log likelihood
Total N
Sig. p = .000
-1177.976
2560
N
Factor Weight
%
.646
.152
49
33.9
3.9
275
11
.615
.296
32
30.6
7.6
509
68
.702
.472
23
38.9
20.5
113
464
.535
.531
.529
.314
22
25*
18.8*
30.3*
7.6
187
128
235
27
24.7
9.5
543
34
Metaphoric/Non-metaphoric
Metaphoric
Non-metaphoric
Range
Positioning of Adjective
Pre-nominal
Post-nominal
Range
Sequential adjective
Present
Absent
Range
Syllable Weight Relative to Noun
-1
0
-2 to -5
1 to 2
Range
Adverb
Absent
Present
Range
.522
.368
33
As Table 7 makes clear, presidential speeches make great use of metaphorical
adjective interpretation, unlike novels, yet strongly favor pre-nominal positioning for
these adjectives, in a way similar to novels. However, as explained earlier, metaphorical
adjectives generally occur in pre-nominal position, so this pattern is not particularly
surprising. It is also not surprising that, in a formal register such as presidential speeches,
there is a considerable use of sequential adjectives as well. Regarding a heaviness shift
rule, it is clear that adjectives shorter than the nouns they modify tend to be pre-posed in
22
presidential speeches. However, as indicated by the asterisks, there were slight
interactions in the variable Syllable Weight in this run. Such interactions are difficult to
avoid and testify to the complexity of this issue and the multitude of factors involved.
Table 8: Syllable Weight in Spontaneous Speech (Application Value Pre-Nominal
Position)
Input .431
Log likelihood
Total N
Factor Weight
Positioning of Adjective
Post-nominal
Pre-nominal
Range
Coordinated adjective
Absent
Present
Range
Adverb
Absent
Present
Range
Syllable Weight Relative to Noun
-2 to -5
-1
0
1 to 2
Range
Sequential adjective
Absent
Present
Range
Metaphoric/Non-metaphoric
Metaphoric
Non-metaphoric
Range
.725
.372
35
68.8
36.5
607
618
.508
.181
33
48.4
24.1
1212
13
.712
.463
25
43.1
77.2
948
277
.585
.519
.425
.419
17
48.4*
47.5*
47.9*
47.3
235
187
128
27
.516
.378
14
49.7
33.7
1126
99
45.4
39.2
369
111
.530
.413
12
23
%
Sig. p = .000
-1561.041
2560
N
Table 8 demonstrates that spontaneous speech, unlike the other two modes,
strongly favors the post-nominal placement of adjectives. This finding is in line with the
theory that production and processing concerns have a greater effect in a spontaneous
orally-delivered mode than in a written mode received through reading or a pre-planned
discourse characterized by a high level of formality. As this same logic would expect,
both coordinated and sequential adjectives, as well as adverbs, are disfavored in this
mode characterized by simplicity and efficiency. Finally, metaphoric adjective use is
favored. Whereas the elevated formality and stylistic differences may explain this greater
frequency of metaphoric adjectives in presidential speeches, here a more appropriate
explanation might be the nature of the interviews from which the spontaneous speech
data was collected. Perhaps the personal, subjective nature of the interviews led to more
use of grande ‘large, great’ and profundo ‘deep, profound’, to give just two examples, as
evaluative rather than physical descriptions. Without a more detailed examination of
these metaphoric adjectives, however, these explanations are merely conjecture.
6. Discussion and Conclusions
The results of the present study provide strong evidence for File-Muriel’s (2006)
assertion that written and spoken language behave differently. This is seen in their
adherence (or non-adherence) to a heaviness shift rule, as well as in the ways in which
other linguistic factors, such as metaphoric or literal adjective interpretation or the
presence of coordinated or sequential adjectives, contribute to the determination of preor post-nominal adjective position. What is more, the findings of the present study
suggest that a binary division of written and spoken language is unable to fully describe
the differences in mode which affect adjective position. Novels in this study (and in
24
Prado (1980) as well) do not exhibit the same adherence to a heaviness shift rule that
File-Muriel (2006) observed in journalistic prose. Additionally, presidential speeches,
although delivered orally, do not behave the same way as the more informal mode of
spontaneous speech. Nor do presidential speeches behave as an intermediary mode, as
was hypothesized based on the logic that pre-planned, yet orally delivered language
would exhibit production and processing-related characteristics of both written and
spoken media. The specific reasons for this unexpected behavior are beyond the scope of
this study, as they require a more detailed examination of each of these modes.
In terms of a heaviness shift rule, which constitutes the primary focus in FileMuriel (2006), the present study, like many others before it, provides partial but not
complete support of its validity. In the first round of analyses, with all modes considered
together, adjectives’ syllable weight relative to the nouns they modify was the strongest
determiner of its placement. The heaviness shift rule as conceptualized in File-Muriel
was quite neatly carried out, with the shortest adjectives favoring pre-positioning most
strongly and the longest adjectives most strongly disfavoring it. Adjectives equal in
syllabic weight to their nouns tended to be post-posed, thus corroborating File-Muriel’s
claim that attributive adjectives tend to appear post-nominally, unless they are shorter
than the noun, in which case they may be pre-posed. It is interesting that this pattern is
maintained in this data, in spite of the fact that, on average, the adjectives were actually
slightly shorter than the nouns.
However, this neat adherence to a heaviness shift rule seen in the general analysis
was not observed when each mode was examined separately. Spontaneous speech
followed a heaviness shift rule (although multiple other factors were also relevant to
25
adjective positioning in this mode), but presidential speeches demonstrated only partial
adherence and novels defied this rule completely. Although File-Muriel did predict that
speech would adhere more closely to a heaviness shift rule than written modes, the
evidence seen here seems to agree with studies such as Prado (1980) that call the
heaviness shift principle a tendency rather than a rule. While a fairly good predictor of
adjective positioning in spontaneous speech, it appears that syllabic weight may be just
one of many relevant factors. A message’s content, register, stylistic considerations, and
the other syntactic variables described previously may at times outweigh the effects of an
adjective’s syllable count or other factors related to message production and processing.
The idea of a heaviness shift rule is most important because of its implications for
the existence of a phonology-syntax interface. Garret (1982) denied the existence of such
an interface, claiming that there is a one-way flow of information from the syntactic to
the phonetic plane. Miller, Pullum, and Zwicky (1997) adhered to the same view and
proposed a Principle of Phonology-Free Syntax, which also argues for this unidirectional
flow. File-Muriel (2006) and Bock (1987) argue against such a separation, citing as
evidence the impact of performance constraints on syntax, as in the case of
grammaticalization. The present study, in obtaining results similar to those in FileMuriel, offers some evidence to support the existence of a phonology-syntax interface.
When all modes are considered together, syllabic weight, a phonological property, does
have a significant effect on adjective position relative to the noun it modifies, which is
related to the syntactic plane. The implementation of this phonology-syntax interface may
be mode-specific, however, as the present study’s findings regarding adjective behavior
26
across modes suggest only partial adherence to a heaviness shift rule in presidential
addresses and little if any adherence in novels.
7. Future Research
Although the present study has provided useful perspectives on adjective position
in three modes, further research is still needed in order to more completely understand
some of the variables that constrain pre- and post-nominal adjective placement. First, a
better means of measuring semantic differences between adjectives is needed. Although
this study addressed the possibility of metaphorical and non-metaphorical adjective
interpretation, a novel contribution to the discussion, many of the adjectives included in
the study did not allow for such a distinction, yet may still carry slightly different
meanings based on pre- or post-nominal placement. As these meanings seem to be
discourse-sensitive in many cases, the inclusion of pragmatics would be a valuable
contribution to the study of this topic.
Additionally, a more specific and more comprehensive metric for noun phrase
complexity is needed. The inclusion of adjectives modifying NPs with de ‘of’, such as
mejor calidad de vida ‘better quality of life’, which were excluded from this study due to
low token count and difficulty of classification, would be a good beginning point.
Furthermore, a more careful treatment of compounds is necessary. In the present study,
cases such as gran explorador anatómico ‘great anatomic explorer’ were treated no
differently from other instances of sequential adjectives and only gran and explorador
were measured for syllabic weight. However, if a heaviness shift rule is thought to be
involved in adjective positioning, explorador anatómico may be best viewed as a single
27
unit with the syllable count including both words, since gran(de) must appear either
before both or after both words.
The findings of this study also suggest that a closer examination of coordinated
and sequential multiple adjective constructions may be needed, as these variables were
only sporadically significant throughout the logistic regression runs and did not always
behave in the same way. Studies considering the effects of dialect on adjective position,
with data sets more apt for cross-dialectal comparison, may also contribute to linguists’
understanding of this phenomenon and complement this study’s findings regarding the
potentially variable application of a phonology-syntax interface in different contexts.
Finally, frequency may be a valuable focus in future studies in order to better define its
role in the selection of adjectives favoring pre-nominal position.
28
References
Arnold, Jennifer E, Thomas Wasow, Anthony Losongco, and Ryan Ginstrom. 2000.
Heaviness vs. Newness: The Effects of Structural Complexity and Discourse
Status on Constituent Ordering. Language 76 (1). 28-55.
Ávila Muñoz, A. M., Lasarte Cervantes, M. C., & Villena Ponsoda, J. A. (Eds). 2008. El
español hablado en Málaga II. Corpus oral para su estudio sociolingüístico. Nivel
de estudios medio (includes a CD-ROM). Málaga: Editorial Sarriá.
Bock, Kathryn. 1987. An Effect of the Accessibility of Word Forms on Sentence
Structures. Journal of Memory and Language 26. 119-137.
Briceño, D. L., Fernández, M. F., Maldonado, J., Velazco, J., & Palm, P. 2010. Un nuevo
corpus sociolingüístico del habla de Mérida: PRESEEA-MÉRIDA-VE. Lengua y
Habla, 14, 1-11. Accessed at:
http://erevistas.saber.ula.ve/index.php/lenguayhabla/article/view/1080.
Bull, William E. 1950. Spanish Adjective Position: Present Rules and Theories. Hispania
33 (4). 297-303.
Centeno-Pulido, Alberto. 2012. Variability in Spanish adjectival position: A corpus
analysis. Sintagma 24. 33-48.
Debecque, N. 1990. Word Order as a Reflection of Alternate Conceptual Construals in
French and Spanish: Similarities and Divergences in Adjective Position.
Cognitive Linguistics 1.349-416.
29
Demonte Barreto, Violeta. 1999. El adjetivo. Clases y usos. La posición del adjetivo en el
sintagma nominal. In I. Bosque and V. Demonte (eds.), Gramática descriptiva de
la lengua española I, 129-215. Madrid: Espasa Calpe, RAE, Colección Nebrija y
Bello.
Fernández, Salvador. 1951. Gramática española. Madrid: Revista de Occidente.
File-Muriel, Richard J. 2006. Spanish Adjective Position: Differences between Written
and Spoken Discourse. In J. Clancy Clements and Jiyoung Yoon (eds.),
Functional approaches to Spanish syntax: Lexical semantics, discourse, and
transitivity, 203-218. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan.
Garret, M. F. 1982. Production of Speech: Observations from Normal and Pathological
Language Use. In A. Ellis (ed.), Normality and Pathology in Cognitive Functions,
19-76. London: Academic Press.
Lichtman, Karen. 2009. Acquisition of Attributive and Predicate Adjective Agreement in
L2 Spanish. In Melissa Bowles et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 10th Generative
Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference (GASLA), 231-247.
Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Michel, Jean-Baptiste, Yuan Kui Shen, Aviva Presser Aiden, Adrian Veres, Matthew K.
Gray, William Brockman, The Google Books Team, Joseph P. Pickett, Dale
Hoiberg, Dan Clancy, Peter Norvig, Jon Orwant, Steven Pinker, Martin A.
Nowak, and Erez Lieberman Aiden. 2010. Quantitative Analysis of Culture
Using Millions of Digitized Books. Science. (Published online ahead of print:
12/16/2010).
30
Miller, P. H., G. K. Pullum, and A. M. Zwicky. 1997. The Principle of Phonology-Free
Syntax: Four Apparent Counterexamples in French. Journal of Linguistics 33. 6790.
Prado, Marcial. 1980. The Semantics of Adjective Position in Spanish. Selecta 9. 1-8.
Samper Padilla, José Antonio, Clara Eugenia Hernández Cabrera, and Magnolia Troya
Déniz. 1997. Macrocorpus de la Norma Lingüística Culta de las Principales
Ciudades de España y América. Universidad Las Palmas de Gran Canaria.
Sankoff, David, Sali Tagliamonte, and Eric Smith. 2005. GoldVarbX. Computer
Program. Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto, Canada.
http://individual.utoronto.ca/tagliamonte/Goldvarb/GV_index.htm.
Terker, Andrew. 1985. On Spanish Adjective Position. Hispania 68 (3). 502-509.
Wasow, Thomas. 1997. Remarks on grammatical weight. Language Variation and
Change 9. 81-105.
31