Cover not available
Article published In:
Cognitive Linguistic Aspects of Information Structure and Flow
Edited by Wei-lun Lu and Jirí Lukl
[Cognitive Linguistic Studies 7:2] 2020
► pp. 284–306

Sequence and word frequency

| University of Auckland
It is well-established that the linear ordering of words in a sentence is influenced by a variety of factors that are typically labelled as grammatical, discourse or cognitive constraints. The aim of the present study is to determine whether frequency effects are visible in the sequencing of words in a sentence. In other words, do “more frequently used units tend to be placed before less frequently used units” (Fenk-Oczlon 2001: 443)? Using a corpus of newspaper articles, we examine the frequency of words in different positions in sentences. That is, using data from thousands of sentences, we investigate the median value for the frequency or rank of words in first position in a sentence, compared with second position, and so on. We find that there is a frequency effect in English: the first element in a sentence has the highest frequency and last element in a sentence has the lowest frequency, with the middle of sentences having a more or less flat frequency profile. We also find that the overall shape of the frequency profile for sentences is rather consistent even when sentence length is taken into account.
Keywords: sequence, frequency, communicative dynamism, newspaper corpus
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Method
  • 3.Results and discussion
    • 3.1Patterns in sentences
    • 3.2Sentence length
    • 3.3Phases of the sentence
    • 3.4Variation among sentences
    • 3.5Articles and other high frequency words
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 1 October 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cogls.00058.bar
References (28)
References
Bolinger, D. L. (1952). Linear modification. Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 671, 1117–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chamonikolasová, J. (2009). Word order and linear modification in English. Brno Studies in English 35(2), 17–28.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Du Bois, J. W. (1987). The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 641, 805–855. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fenk-Oczlon, G. (1989). Word frequency and word order in freezes. Linguistics 271, 517–556. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2001). Familiarity, information flow, and linguistic form. In J. Bybee & P. Hopper (Eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (pp. 431–448). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fenk-Oczlon, G. & Fenk, A. (2002). Zipf’s tool analogy and word order. Glottometrics 51, 22–28.Google Scholar
Firbas, J. (1992). Functional sentence perspective in written and spoken Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. (1984). Syntax: A functional-typological introduction. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, J. H. (1963). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In J. H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of language (pp. 73–113). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Haiman, J. (1980). The iconicity of grammar: isomorphism and motivation. Language 56(3), 515–540. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. F. (2006). Redundancy and syntactic reduction in spontaneous speech. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
(2010). Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology 611, 23–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jurafsky, D., Bell, A., Gregory, M., & Raymond, W. D. (2001). Probabilistic relations between words: Evidence from reduction in lexical production. In J. Bybee & P. Hopper (Eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (pp. 229–254). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. 11. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(2008). Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Longacre, R. E. (1983). The grammar of discourse. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Mathesius, V. (1975). A functional analysis of present-day English on a general linguistic basis (Ed. J. Vachek). Prague: Academia. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mithun, M. (1992). Is basic word order universal? In D. Payne (Ed.), Pragmatics of word order flexibility (pp. 15–61). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Norrick, N. R. (2000). Conversational narratives: Story telling in everyday life. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Payne, D. (1992). Nonidentifiable information and pragmatic order rules in ’O’odham. In D. Payne (Ed.), Pragmatics of word order flexibility (pp. 137–166). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paul, H. (1920). Prinzipien der Sprachgeschicte. Halle an der Saale: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, S. A. (1978). Modern English from a typological point of view: Some implications of the function of word order. Linguistische Berichte 541, 19–35.Google Scholar
Tomlin, R. & Rhodes, R. (1992). Information distribution in Ojibwa. In D. Payne (Ed.), Pragmatics of word order flexibility (pp. 117–135). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zipf, G. K. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort: An introduction to human ecology. Cambridge: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar