Syntactic Complexity fix something to eat yourself less probable

79

4.1.6 Syntactic Complexity

The last important significant feature toward the choice of benefactive alternation is syntactic complexity or in another word length different . In the model, syntactic complexity is scale valued, thus there is no categorical values for this feature See Appendices 1 and 2 for the detailed identification and annotating process of the benefactive data. There is no default of syntactic complexity, whereas the default of the benefactive construction is benefactive PP. However, the feature of syntactic complexity can be seen as log scale obtained by substracting the beneficiary length with the theme length. When the beneficiary is longer than theme, positive log scale will be achieved. In contrary, when the theme is longer, the log scale results in negative. The p value of the feature syntactic complexity reaches the number 0.000 See Table 4.3 and Appendix 3 which is less than the conventional significance level 0.05. Thus, the feature syntactic complexity is proven to be relevant to the choice of benefactive construction. The crosstabulation table of syntactic complexity toward ditransitivity shows stable effects. All of the negative log-scaled instances ranging from -6 to - 12 take double object construction. 75 of -5 log-scaled instances take double object construction, and the rest 25 take benefactive PP construction. 80 of -4 log-scaled instances take double object construction and the rest 20 take benefactive PP construction. 73.7 of -3 log-scaled instances take double object construction, while the rest 26.3 take benefactive PP. 68,9 of -2 log-scaled instances take double object construction, while the rest 31.1 take benefactive PP construction. 58,4 of -1 log-scaled instances take double object construction, 80 whereas the rest 41.6 take benefactive PP. Interestingly, 81.1 of 0 log-scaled instances take benefactive PP construction and the rest 18.9 take double object construction. 98.2 of +1 log-scaled instances take benefactive PP, and the rest 1.8 take double object construction. All of instances with +2 log scale until +7 log scale take benefactive PP construction. Statistically, positive and zero log- scaled instances favor benefactive PP construction, while negative log-scaled instances favor double object construction. See the figure below to see the detailed information of occurrences. Figure 4.2 Tabular data showing distribution of syntactic complexity in benefactive alternation The result also shows that the feature syntactic complexity possesses positive coefficient B of 0.597. It means that when the log scale is positive, it favors the default benefactive PP construction. On the other hand, when the log 81 scale is negative, the construction seems to appear in double object construction. The size of the effect of the feature is explainable through the odds ratio expB of 1.817. It suggests that positive log-scaled instance is almost 2 times likely to take benefactive PP construction. The 95 confidence interval CI supports the claim, showing positive log-scaled instance tends to choose benefactive PP construction between 1.319 to 2.501 times. Conversely, if the log scale is negative, the sentence will tend to appear in the double object construction. The coefficient B, odds ratio expB, and 95 CI above are presented in Table 4.3 See also Appendix 3. The examples below illustrate the probability of the choice of benefactive construction based on the length different between beneficiary and theme. 21 a. make room for that rosy-cheeked girl. more probable b. make that rosy-cheeked girl room less probable theme: room 1 beneficiary: that rosy-cheeked girl 1 2 3 4 log scale= beneficiary length - theme length = 4 – 1 = 3 positive 22

a. fixing lunch for her five-year-old son more probable