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

The ‘idea’ in the one-new-idea constraint

ORCiD logo with link | University of Freiburg
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: 1 June 2026
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.26012.rei
Abstract
This paper offers a conceptual clarification and an operationalization of a classic functionalist generalization: the one-new-idea constraint (Chafe, Wallace. 1982. Integration and involvement in speaking, writing, and oral literature. In Deborah Tannen (ed.), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy, 35–53. Norwood, NJ.: Ablex.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, 1987, 1994). While often referenced, this constraint has not, to date, been sufficiently spelled-out or made sufficiently precise to become testable. This paper aims to fill this gap by, first, differentiating the concept of idea into discourse-level and lexical-semantic ideahood. Secondly, we propose that the one-new-idea constraint (onicon) should be investigated in . 1994. Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar original encompassing sense, where not only referents, but also states and events are tracked. The third clarification applies to the unit of application: As a constraint on speech, this should be the intonation unit as suggested by Chafe, rather than the clause or sentence as suggested elsewhere (e.g. . 1990. Syntax: A functional-typological introduction. Vol. 21. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). Based on these conceptual refinements, we develop an operationalization for testing the onicon: the tonic (Testing the One-New-Idea Constraint) annotation scheme. This scheme not only allows for in-depth investigation into the robustness of the onicon, but also into information flow on both discourse as well as lexical-semantic levels more broadly. tonic thus serves as a new tool for more holistic research into information flow.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Conceptual foundations
    • 2.1The idea in the one-new-idea constraint
    • 2.2Tracking states and events
    • 2.3The significance of intonation units
    • 2.4Syntactic and prosodic packaging
  • 3.Testing the one-new-idea constraint
    • 3.1Previous approaches to the one-new-idea constraint
    • 3.2tonic annotation scheme
    • 3.3Using tonic
    • 3.4Applications of tonic
    • 4.Beyond the onicon: Mapping information flow with tonic
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
References (71)
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
. 2024. Online-Syntax: Eine Einführung in die Analyse gesprochener Sprache. Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baddeley, Alan D. 2007. Working memory, thought, and action. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bögels, Sara & Francisco Torreira. 2015. Listeners use intonational phrase boundaries to project turn ends in spoken interaction. Journal of Phonetics 521. 46–57. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1982. Integration and involvement in speaking, writing, and oral literature. In Deborah Tannen (ed.), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy, 35–53. Norwood, NJ.: Ablex.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1992. Information flow in speaking and writing. In Pamela A. Downing, Susan D. Lima & Michael Noonan (eds.), The linguistics of literacy, 17–30. 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, IL: 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
Chand, Vineeta, Kathleen Baynes, Lisa M. Bonnici & Sarah Tomaszewski Farias. 2012. A rubric for extracting idea density from oral language samples. Current Protocols in Neuroscience 58(1). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Some general properties of reference-tracking systems. In Doug Arnold, Martin Atkinson, Jacques Durand, Claire Grover & Louisa Sadler (eds.). Essays on grammatical theory and universal grammar, 37–51. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis. 2020. Remarks on the grammaticalization of identificational clefts. Linguistic Discovery 17(1). 7–20.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
Cruse, Alan. 2000. Meaning in language: An introduction to semantics and pragmatics. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cruttenden, Alan. 1997. Intonation, 2nd edn. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dachkovsky, Svetlana, Christina Healy & Wendy Sandler. 2013. Visual intonation in two sign languages. Phonology 30(2). 211–252. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Damron, Rebecca L. 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
Degand, Liesbeth & Simon, Anne-Catherine. 2009. On identifying basic discourse units in speech: Theoretical and empirical issues. Discours: Revue de linguistique, psycholinguistique et informatique 41. online. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 1987. The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63(4). 805–855. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Foley, William A. 2010. Events and serial verb constructions. In Mengistu Amberber, Brett Baker & Mark Harvey (eds.), Complex predicates: Cross-linguistic perspectives on event structure, 79–109. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garnier, Simon, Noam Ross, Robert Rudis, Antônio P. Camargo, Marco Sciaini & Cédric Scherer. 2024. viridis(Lite) — Colorblind-Friendly Color Maps for R. viridis package version 0.6.5.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gentner, Dedre & Lera Boroditsky. 2001. Individuation, relativity, and early word learning. In Melissa Bowerman & Stephen Levinson (eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development, 215–256. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gijn, Rik van, Jeremy Hammond, Dejan Matić, Saskia van Putten & Ana Vilacy Galucio (eds.). 2014. Information structure and reference tracking in complex sentences. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gobet, Fernand. 2017. Entrenchment, Gestalt formation, and chunking. In Hans-Jörg Schmid (ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge, 245–267. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1967. Intonation and grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1985. An introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2016. The serial verb construction: Comparative concept and cross-linguistic generalizations. Language and Linguistics 17(3). 291–319.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hatcher, Anna Granville. 1956. Theme and underlying question: Two studies in Spanish word order [Supplement to Word 12]. New York, NY: Linguistic Circle of New York.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 1998. Documentary and descriptive linguistics. Linguistics 36(1). 161–195. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2022. Prosodic phrasing and the emergence of phrase structure. Linguistics 60(3). 715–743. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P., Meytal Sandler, Jan Strunk & Volker Unterladstetter. 2018. On the universality of intonational phrases: a cross-linguistic interrater study. Phonology 35(2). 207–245. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Inbar, Maya, Shir Genzer, Anat Perry, Eitan Grossman & Ayelet N. Landau. 2023. Intonation units in spontaneous speech evoke a neural response. The Journal of Neuroscience 43(48). 8189–8200. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Izre’el, Shlomo, Heliana Mello, Alessandro Panunzi & Tommaso Raso (eds.). 2020. In search of basic units of spoken language: A corpus-driven approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kalbertodt, Janina, Beatrice Primus & Petra B. Schumacher. 2015. Punctuation, prosody, and discourse: Afterthought vs. right dislocation. Frontiers in Psychology 61. 1803. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuhn, Max. 2008. Building predictive models in R using the caret package. Journal of Statistical Software 28(5). 1–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert. 2008. Intonational phonology. 2nd ed. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Nouns and verbs. Language 63(1). 53–94. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Laury, Ritva, Tsuyoshi Ono & Ryoko Suzuki. 2019. Questioning the clause as a crosslinguistic unit in grammar and interaction. Studies in Language 43(2). 364–401. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lehmann, Nico, Dina Serova, Julia Lukassek, Sophia Döring, Frank Goymann, Anke Lüdeling & Roodabeh Akbari. 2023. Guidelines for the annotation of parameters of narration. Berlin: Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, Charles N. & Sandra A. Thompson. 1976. Subject and topic: A new typology of language. In Charles N. Li (ed.). Subject and topic, 457–489. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Linders, Guido M. & Stefan Schnell. This volume. A cross-linguistic computational study on One New Idea per clause. Functions of Language.
Matsumoto, Kazuko. 2000. Intonation units, clauses and preferred argument structure in conversational Japanese. Language Sciences 22(1). 63–86. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 2021. The multidimensional organization of speech: Syntactic and prosodic structure. Cadernos de Linguística 2(1). 1–23. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ochs, Elinor. 1979. Planned and unplanned discourse. In Talmy Givón (ed.), Syntax and semantics. Vol. 12. Discourse and syntax, 51–80. New York, NY: Academic Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ozerov, Pavel. This volume. Joint attention, interaction-management, and other factors: The one-new-idea tendency as an emergent phenomenon. Functions of Language.
Partanen, Niko. 2017. FRelan: Parse and analyze ELAN files. R package version 0.37, commit 07b88e112b790afd09c23a272b67052c8ef83d2c, [URL]
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. 2025. (Re)contextualising serialisation: Multiverbal constructions in the East Himalaya. Freiburg: Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg PhD thesis.
. This volume. Verbalisation and the one-new-idea constraint. Functions of Language.
Peck, Naomi & Laura Becker. 2024. Syntactic pausing? Re-examining the associations. Linguistics Vanguard 10(1). 223–237. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peck, Naomi, Kirsten Culhane, Simon Fries & Uta Reinöhl. 2026. TONIC — Testing the one-new-idea constraint annotation guidelines. OSF. March 12. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Post, Mark W. 2006. Loss of writing. PARADISEC. [URL]
R Core Team. 2025. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. [URL]
Reinöhl, Uta, Maria Vollmer, Kirsten Culhane, Simon Fries & Naomi Peck. 2023. One new idea constraint holds cross-linguistically even in flat expressions. Paper presented at the 16th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Düsseldorf, 7–11 August 2023.
. 2024. One new idea constraint holds cross-linguistically even in flat expressions. Paper presented at How much is too much? The one-new-idea constraint and related phenomena at the information-intonation interface, Freiburg, 12 July 2024.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. In prep. Serial verbs and ‘flat’ nominal expressions: Pushing the boundaries of information packaging? In Uta Reinöhl (ed.), Flat constructions reveal entity-event (a)symmetries.
Reinöhl, Uta & T. Mark Ellison. 2024. Metaphor forces argument overtness. Linguistics 62(4). 795–847. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. This volume. The one-new-idea constraint, functor–argument metaphors, and holistic language processing. Functions of Language. 33(1/2).
Riester, Arndt & Stefan Baumann. 2017. The RefLex Scheme: Annotation guidelines. SinSpeC 141. 1–31.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schiborr, Nils, Stefan Schnell & Hanna Thiele. 2018. RefIND — Referent indexing in natural-language discourse: Annotation guidelines. Bamberg: Otto-Friedrich-Universität.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schwarzschild, Roger. 1999. GIVENness, AvoidF and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics 7(2). 141–177. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1984. Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Slone, Lauren K., Drew H. Abney, Linda B. Smith & Chen Yu. 2023. The temporal structure of parent talk to toddlers about objects. Cognition 2301. 105266. 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
Wennerstrom, Ann & Andrew F. Siegel. 2003. Keeping the floor in multiparty conversations: Intonation, syntax, and pause. Discourse Processes 36(2). 77–107. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wickham, Hadley, Mara Averick, Jennifer Bryan, Winston Chang, Lucy D’Agostino McGowan, Romain François, Garrett Grolemund, Alex Hayes, Lionel Henry, Jim Hester, Max Kuhn, Thomas Lin Pedersen, Evan Miller, Stephan Milton Bache, Kirill Müller, Jeroen Ooms, David Robinson, Dana Paige Seidel, Vitalie Spinu, Kohske Takahashi, Davis Vaughan, Claus Wilke, Kara Woo & Hiroaki Yutani. 2019. Welcome to the tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software 4(43). 1686. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilke, Claus O. 2024. ggridges: Ridgeline plots in ‘ggplot2’. R package version 0.5.6, [URL]
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue