mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Uniform Information Density and Syntactic Reduction: Revisiting textitthat-Mentioning in English Complement Clauses

arXiv 2509.05254 ↗First posted 5 Sep 2025cs.CLcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Speakers often have multiple ways to express the same meaning. The Uniform Information Density (UID) hypothesis suggests that speakers exploit this variability to maintain a consistent rate of information transmission during language production. Building on prior work linking UID to syntactic reduction, we revisit the finding that the optional complementizer textitthat in English complement clauses is more likely to be omitted when the clause has low information density (i.e., more predictable). We advance this line of research by analyzing a large-scale, contemporary conversational corpus and using machine learning and neural language models to refine estimates of information density. Our results replicated the established relationship between information density and textitthat-mentioning. However, we found that previous measures of information density based on matrix verbs' subcategorization probability capture substantial idiosyncratic lexical variation. By contrast, estimates derived from contextual word embeddings account for additional variance in patterns of complementizer usage.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 71 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Sep 2025.

Builds on

17 of 71 references.

References · 17

  1. 2014Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimizationcited by 37,240
  2. 2019BERT Rediscovers the Classical NLP Pipelinecited by 1,059
  3. 2019What Does BERT Look At? An Analysis of BERT's Attentioncited by 1,003
  4. 2019BLiMP: The Benchmark of Linguistic Minimal Pairs for Englishcited by 564
  5. 2016Assessing the Ability of LSTMs to Learn Syntax-Sensitive Dependenciescited by 354
  6. 2020Universal Dependencies v2: An Evergrowing Multilingual Treebank Collectioncited by 271
  7. 2020A Systematic Assessment of Syntactic Generalization in Neural Language Modelscited by 165
  8. 2018Dissecting Contextual Word Embeddings: Architecture and Representationcited by 146
  9. 2019Neural Language Models as Psycholinguistic Subjects: Representations of Syntactic Statecited by 138
  10. 2020Syntactic Structure from Deep Learningcited by 99
  11. 2018What do RNN Language Models Learn about Filler-Gap Dependencies?cited by 86
  12. 2021Accounting for Agreement Phenomena in Sentence Comprehension with Transformer Language Models: Effects of Similarity-based Interference on Surprisal and Attentioncited by 27
5 more
  1. 2022Neural reality of argument structure constructionscited by 25
  2. 2021A surprisal--duration trade-off across and within the world's languagescited by 23
  3. 2020How well does surprisal explain N400 amplitude under different experimental conditions?cited by 18
  4. 2023How Abstract Is Linguistic Generalization in Large Language Models? Experiments with Argument Structurecited by 13
  5. 2022Do Language Models Learn Position-Role Mappings?cited by 5

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.