Cover not available

Article published In: Functions of Language: Online-First Articles

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB

Verbalisation and the One-New-Idea Constraint

ORCiD logo with link | University of Freiburg | University of Bremen
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Open Access publication of this article was funded through a Transformative Agreement with University of Freiburg.

Published online: 12 May 2026
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.26011.pec
Abstract
The One-New-Idea-Constraint (ONICON) is proposed to be an absolute universal on human cognitive capabilities. While the ONICON predicts that we maximally realise one new idea at a time, it does not account for the maximal amount of information that can be realised at any point in discourse. To help us better understand factors influencing information flow in discourse, we may instead wish to turn our focus to verbalisation, the cognitive process behind this act. Examining verbalisation more closely can in turn allow us to better assess the extent to which the ONICON can hold. Using corpus data from three Trans-Himalayan languages, I explore how we choose to verbalise particularly information-rich intonation units and what factors may influence this process. Through investigating how information-rich intonation units are verbalised, I highlight ways in which the ONICON may be refined or challenged to better capture everyday language use.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The One-New-Idea Constraint
  • 3.Verbalisation as a cognitive process
  • 4.Case study
  • 5.Factors affecting verbalisation
    • 5.1Conventionalisation
    • 5.2World knowledge
    • 5.3Intersubjectivity
    • 5.4Interactional goals
  • 6.Discussion
  • Notes
  • References
References (66)
References
Auer, Peter. 2005. Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text: Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse 25(1). 7–36.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baruah, Urmimala & Ruma Bhattacharyya. 2019. Diverse ethnic food practices of the Galo tribe in Arunachal Pradesh. Food Science Research Journal 10(2). 197–202. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bodt, Timotheus Adrianus. 2018a. Duhumbi Stories — Sound files. Zenodo.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018b. Duhumbi Stories — Transcribed, parsed, glossed, translated text files. Zenodo.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2020. Grammar of Duhumbi (Chugpa). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1974. Language and consciousness. Language 50(1). 111–133. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1976. Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Charles N. Li (ed.), Subject and topic, 25–56. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1977. Creativity in verbalization and its implications for the nature of stored knowledge. In Roy O. Freedle (ed.), Discourse production and comprehension, 41–55. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1979. The flow of thought and the flow of language. In Talmy Givón (ed.), Discourse and syntax, 159–181. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1987. Cognitive constraints on information flow. In Russell S. Tomlin (ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse: Outcome of a symposium, Eugene, Oregon, June 1984, 21–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1994. Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018. Thought-based Linguistics. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Christiansen, Morten H. & Nick Chater. 2016. Language as Shaped by the Brain. In Creating Language: Integrating Evolution, Acquisition, and Processing, 19–65. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using language. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1995. Intonation units and grammatical structure. Linguistics 33(5). 839–882. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2007. The origins of grammar in the verbalization of experience. Cognitive Linguistics 18(3). 339–382. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Damron, Rebecca. 2004. Prosodic schemas: Evidence from Urdu and Pakistani English. In Carol Lynn Moder & Aida Martinovic-Zic (eds.), Discourse across languages and cultures, 53–73. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dargue, Nicole, Naomi Sweller & Michael P. Jones. 2019. When our hands help us understand: A meta-analysis into the effects of gesture on comprehension. Psychological Bulletin 145(8). 765–784. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dunbar, R. I. M. 2004. Gossip in evolutionary perspective. Review of General Psychology. SAGE Publications 8(2). 100–110. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. Anders & Herbert A. Simon. 1980. Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review 87(3). 215–251. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1998. How to study thinking in everyday life: contrasting think-aloud protocols with descriptions and explanations of thinking. Mind, Culture, and Activity 5(3). 178–186. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas, Henrik Bergqvist & Lila San Roque. 2018. The grammar of engagement I: Framework and initial exemplification. Language and Cognition 10(1). 110–140. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas & Stephen C. Levinson. 2009. The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32(5). 429–448. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1991. Some substantive issues concerning verb serialization: Grammatical vs. cognitive packaging. In Claire Lefebvre (ed.), Serial verbs: Grammatical, comparative and cognitive approaches, 137–184. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Graesser, Arthur C., Murray Singer & Tom Trabasso. 1994. Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review 101(3). 371–395. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech arts, 41–58. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grigoroglou, Myrto & Anna Papafragou. 2019. Interactive contexts increase informativeness in children’s referential communication. Developmental Psychology 55(5). 951–966. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1995. The category “event” in natural discourse and logic. In Werner Abraham, Talmy Givón & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Discourse, grammar and typology: Papers in honor of John W.M. Verhaar, 139–150. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, Philip Nicholas. 1983. Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Descriptive application. Vol. 21. Stanford: SUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levelt, Willem J. M. 1989. Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge: The MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Linders, Guido M. & Stefan Schnell. 2026. A cross-linguistic computational study on One New Idea per clause. Functions of Language.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Magliano, Joseph P. & Gabriel A. Radvansky. 2001. Goal coordination in narrative comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 8(2). 372–376. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Malt, Barbara C., Steven A. Sloman, Silvia Gennari, Meiyi Shi & Yuan Wang. 1999. Knowing versus naming: Similarity and the linguistic categorization of artifacts. Journal of Memory and Language 40(2). 230–262. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1987. Is basic word order universal? In Russell S. Tomlin (ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse: Outcome of a symposium, Eugene, Oregon, June 1984, 281–328. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2026. The role of information packaging in shaping linguistic structure. Functions of Language.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ozerov, Pavel. 2026. Beyond a single constraint: The “one-new-idea” tendency as an emergent phenomenon. Functions of Language.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Papafragou, Anna & Myrto Grigoroglou. 2019. The role of conceptualization during language production: Evidence from event encoding. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 34(9). 1117–1128. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pawley, Andrew. 1987. Encoding events in Kalam and English: Different logics for reporting experience. In Russell S. Tomlin (ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse: Outcome of a symposium, Eugene, Oregon, June 1984, 329–360. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2011. Event representation in serial verb constructions. In Jürgen Bohnemeyer & Eric Pederson (eds.), Event representation in language and cognition, 13–42. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pawley, Andrew & Frances Hodgetts Syder. 1983. Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In Jack C. Richards & Richard W. Schmidt (eds.), Language and communication, 191–225. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2000. The one-clause-at-a-time hypothesis. In Heidi Riggenbach (ed.), Perspectives on Fluency, 163–199. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peck, Naomi. 2025a. (Re)contextualising serialisation: Multiverbal constructions in the East Himalaya. Freiburg: University of Freiburg PhD thesis.
. 2025b. Kera’a Corpus. OSF.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pickering, Martin J. & Simon Garrod. 2013. An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36(4). 329–347. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Post, Mark W. 2006. Loss of writing. PARADISEC.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Radvansky, Gabriel A. & Jeffrey M. Zacks. 2014. Event cognition. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reinöhl, Uta, Kirsten Culhane, Simon Fries, Naomi Peck & Maria Vollmer. 2023. “One new idea” constraint holds cross-linguistically even in “flat” expressions. Oral Presentation presented at the 16th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Düsseldorf, 7–11 August 2023.
Reinöhl, Uta & T. Mark Ellison. 2026. The one-new-idea constraint, functor-argument metaphors, and holistic language processing. Functions of Language.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reinöhl, Uta & Naomi Peck. 2026. The ‘idea’ in the One-New-Idea Constraint. Functions of Language.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Slobin, Dan I. 1996. From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. In J. J. Gumperz & Stephen C. Levinson (eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity, 70–96. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swallow, Khena M., Jeffrey M. Zacks & Richard A. Abrams. 2009. Event boundaries in perception affect memory encoding and updating. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 138(2). 236–257. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Szala, Anna, Sławomir Wacewicz, Marek Placiński, Aleksandra Ewa Poniewierska, Arkadiusz Schmeichel, Michał Stefańczyk, Przemyslaw Zywiczynski & R. I. M. Dunbar. 2024. How much language use is actually on social topics: Human conversational behavior revisited. Language and Cognition 171. e11. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tenbrink, Thora. 2015. Cognitive Discourse Analysis: Accessing cognitive representations and processes through language data. Language and Cognition 7(1). 98–137. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2005. The clause as a locus of grammar and interaction. Discourse Studies 7(4–5). 481–505. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trueswell, John C. & Anna Papafragou. 2010. Perceiving and remembering events cross-linguistically: Evidence from dual-task paradigms. Journal of Memory and Language 63(1). 64–82. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ünal, Ercenur, Yue Ji & Anna Papafragou. 2021. From event representation to linguistic meaning. Topics in Cognitive Science 13(1). 224–242. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vogels, Jorrig, David M. Howcroft, Elli Tourtouri & Vera Demberg. 2020. How speakers adapt object descriptions to listeners under load. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 35(1). 78–92. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1953. Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yule, George. 1981. New, current and displaced entity reference. Lingua 55(1). 41–52. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zacks, Jeffrey M. & Khena M. Swallow. 2007. Event segmentation. Current Directions in Psychological Science 16(2). 80–84. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue