Article published in:
Bridging the Methodological Divide: Linguistic and psycholinguistic approaches to formulaic language
Edited by Stefanie Wulff and Debra Titone
[The Mental Lexicon 9:3] 2014
► pp. 377–400

Time and again

The changing effect of word and multiword frequency on phonetic duration for highly frequent sequences

| Hebrew University
| Brown University
There is growing evidence that multiword information affects processing. In this paper, we look at the effect of word and multiword frequency on the phonetic duration of words in spontaneous speech to (a) extend previous findings and (b) ask whether the relation between word and multiword information changes across the frequency continuum. If highly frequent sequences are stored holistically, then the effect of word frequency should disappear. If alternatively, increased sequence usage causes a change in the prominence of word and multiword information, we should see reduced effects of word frequency, and increased effects of sequence frequency for high frequency sequences. We first extend previous findings by showing that trigram frequency affects single word duration, even when controlling for word predictability. We then show that the effect of trigram frequency increases while the effect of word frequency decreases — but does not disappear — for highly frequent sequences. The findings provide further support for the effect of multiword information on processing and document the growing prominence of multiword information with repeated usage.
Keywords: speech production, phonetic duration, formulaic sequences, usage-based, multiword frequency, holistic storage
Published online: 23 January 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.9.3.01arn
Cited by

Cited by 19 other publications

Arnon, Inbal
2016.  In Acquisition and Development of Hebrew [Trends in Language Acquisition Research, 19], ► pp. 201 ff. Crossref logo
ARNON, Inbal
2021. The Starting Big approach to language learning. Journal of Child Language ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Beck, Sara D. & Andrea Weber
2021. Phrasal Learning Is a Horse Apiece: No Recognition Memory Advantages for Idioms in L1 and L2 Adult Learners. Frontiers in Psychology 12 Crossref logo
Blumenthal-Dramé, Alice, Volkmar Glauche, Tobias Bormann, Cornelius Weiller, Mariacristina Musso & Bernd Kortmann
2017. Frequency and Chunking in Derived Words: A Parametric fMRI Study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 29:7 ► pp. 1162 ff. Crossref logo
Bürki, Audrey
2018. Variation in the speech signal as a window into the cognitive architecture of language production. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 25:6 ► pp. 1973 ff. Crossref logo
Grimm, Robert, Giovanni Cassani, Steven Gillis & Walter Daelemans
2017. Facilitatory Effects of Multi-Word Units in Lexical Processing and Word Learning: A Computational Investigation. Frontiers in Psychology 8 Crossref logo
Grimm, Robert, Giovanni Cassani, Steven Gillis & Walter Daelemans
2019. Children Probably Store Short Rather Than Frequent or Predictable Chunks: Quantitative Evidence From a Corpus Study. Frontiers in Psychology 10 Crossref logo
GÖYMEN, Dilek & Mehmet AYGÜNEŞ
2020. Türkçede Konuşma Kalıplarının İşlemlenmesi: Maskelenmiş Çağrıştırma Çalışması. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi ► pp. 67 ff. Crossref logo
HAVRON, Naomi & Inbal ARNON
2021. Starting Big: The Effect of Unit Size on Language Learning in Children and Adults. Journal of Child Language 48:2 ► pp. 244 ff. Crossref logo
Jaeger, T. Florian & Esteban Buz
2017.  In The Handbook of Psycholinguistics, ► pp. 38 ff. Crossref logo
Jiang, Shang, Xin Jiang & Anna Siyanova-Chanturia
2020. The processing of multiword expressions in children and adults: An eye-tracking study of Chinese. Applied Psycholinguistics 41:4 ► pp. 901 ff. Crossref logo
Kirjavainen, Minna, Ludivine Crible & Kate Beeching
2021. Can filled pauses be represented as linguistic items? Investigating the effect of exposure on the perception and production of um. Language and Speech ► pp. 002383092110112 ff. Crossref logo
Linke, Maja & Michael Ramscar
2020. How the Probabilistic Structure of Grammatical Context Shapes Speech. Entropy 22:1 ► pp. 90 ff. Crossref logo
Skarabela, Barbora, Mitsuhiko Ota, Rosie O'Connor & Inbal Arnon
2021. ‘Clap your hands’ or ‘take your hands’? One-year-olds distinguish between frequent and infrequent multiword phrases. Cognition 211 ► pp. 104612 ff. Crossref logo
Supasiraprapa, Sarut
2019. Frequency effects on first and second language compositional phrase comprehension and production. Applied Psycholinguistics 40:4 ► pp. 987 ff. Crossref logo
Tang, Kevin & Ryan Bennett
2018. Contextual predictability influences word and morpheme duration in a morphologically complex language (Kaqchikel Mayan). The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 144:2 ► pp. 997 ff. Crossref logo
Tang, Kevin & Jason A. Shaw
2021. Prosody leaks into the memories of words. Cognition 210 ► pp. 104601 ff. Crossref logo
Zeng, Tianjiao, Holly P. Branigan & Martin J. Pickering
2020. Do bilinguals represent between-language relationships beyond the word level in their lexicon?. Journal of Neurolinguistics 55 ► pp. 100892 ff. Crossref logo
Öksüz, Doğuş, Vaclav Brezina & Patrick Rebuschat
2021. Collocational Processing in L1 and L2: The Effects of Word Frequency, Collocational Frequency, and Association. Language Learning 71:1 ► pp. 55 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 august 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

References

References

Arnon, I., & Clark, E.V.
(2011) Why brush your teeth is better than teeth – children’s word production is facilitated in familiar sentence-frames. Language Learning and Development, 7(2), 107–129. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Arnon, I., & Cohen Priva, U.
(2013) More than words: The effect of multi-word frequency and constituency on phonetic duration. Language and Speech, 56(3), 349–371. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Arnon, I., & Snider, N.
(2010) More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 62(1), 67–82. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Aylett, M., & Turk, A.
(2004) The smooth signal redundancy hypothesis: A functional explanation for relationships between redundancy, prosodic prominence, and duration in spontaneous speech. Language and Speech, 47(1), 31–56. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bannard, C., & Matthews, D.
(2008) Stored word sequences in language learning The effect of familiarity on children’s repetition of four-word combinations. Psychological Science, 19(3), 241–248. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S.
(2013) lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4.Google Scholar
Bell, A., Brenier, J., Gregory, M., Girand, C., & Jurafsky, D.
(2009) Predictability effects on durations of content and function words in conversational English. Journal of Memory and Language, 60, 92–111. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bell, A., Jurafsky, D., Fosler-Lussier, E., Girand, C., Gregory, M., & Gildea, D.
(2003) Effects of disfluencies, predictability, and utterance position on word form variation in English conversation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 113, 1001–1024. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D.
(1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow, England; [New York]: Longman.Google Scholar
(2009) A corpus-driven approach to formulaic language in English: Multi-word patterns in speech and writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14(3), 275–311. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, B., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T., & Baayen, H.
(2007) Predicting the dative alternation. In 
G. Boume, I. Kraemer & J. Zwarts (Eds), Cognitive foundations of interpretation (pp. 69–94). Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar
Bybee, J.
(1995) Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10(5), 425–455. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2002) Word frequency and context of use in the lexical diffusion of phonetically conditioned sound change. Language Variation and Change, 14(03), 261–290. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J.L.
(2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J.L., & Hopper, P.J.
(2001) Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam; [Great Britain]: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J., & Scheibman, J.
(1999) The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: The reduction of don’t in English. Linguistics, 37(4), 575–596. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cieri, C., Miller, D., & Walker, K.
(2004) The fisher corpus: A resource for the next generations of speech-to-text. In Proceedings of the Language Resources and Evaluation Conference.
Cohen Priva, U.
(2012) Sign and signal: Deriving linguistic generalizations from information utility. Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N.
(2008) Formulaic sequences: Are they processed more quickly than nonformulaic language by native and nonnative speakers? Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 72–89. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Cock, S.
(1998) A recurrent word combination approach to the study of formulae in the speech of native and non-native speakers of English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 3(1), 59–80. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N.C., Simpson-Vlach, R., & Maynard, C.
(2008) Formulaic language in native and second-language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 375–396. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N.C.
(2012) Formulaic language and second language acquisition: Zipf and the phrasal teddy bear. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 17–44. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Elman, J.L.
(2009) On the meaning of words and dinosaur bones: Lexical knowledge without a lexicon. Cognitive Science, 33(4), 547–582. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fox, J., & Weisberg, S.
(2011) An R companion to applied regression (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Gahl, S.
(2008) Time and thyme are not homophones: The effect of lemma frequency on word durations in spontaneous speech. Language, 84(3), 474–496. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gahl, S., & Garnsey, S.M.
(2004) Knowledge of grammar, knowledge of usage: Syntactic probabilities affect pronunciation variation. Language, 80(4), 748–775. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gahl, S., Yao, Y., & Johnson, K.
(2012) Why reduce? Phonological neighborhood density and phonetic reduction in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language, 66(4), 789–806. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Godfrey, J., Holliman, E., & McDaniel, J.
(1992) SWITCHBOARD: Telephone speech corpus for research and development. Proceedings of ICASSP-92 , 517–520.
Jurafsky, D., Bell, A., Gregory, M.L., & Raymond, W.D.
(2001) Probabilistic relations between words: Evidence from reduction in lexical production. In J.L. Bybee & P. Hopper (Eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (pp. 229–254). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kapatsinski, V., & Radicke, J.
(2009) Frequency and the emergence of prefabs: Evidence from monitoring. In R. Corrigan, E. Moravcsik, H. Ouali, & K. Wheatley (Eds.), Formulaic language (pp. 499–522). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Katz, J.
(2012) Compression effects in English. Journal of Phonetics, 40, 390–402. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kneser, R., & Ney, H.
(1995) Improved backing-off for M-gram language modeling. In 1995 International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, 1995. ICASSP-95 (Vol. 1, pp. 181–184).
Kuperman, V., Pluymaekers, M., Ernestus, M., & Baayen, H.
(2007) Morphological predictability and acoustic duration of interfixes in Dutch compounds. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 121(4), 2261–2271. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P.B., & Christensen, R.H.B.
(2013) lmerTest: Tests for random and fixed effects for linear mixed effect models (lmer objects of lme4 package).Google Scholar
Martinez, R., & Schmitt, N.
(2012) A phrasal expressions list. Applied Linguistics, 33(3), 299–320. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McClelland, J.L., Botvinick, M.M., Noelle, D.C., Plaut, D.C., Rogers, T.T., Seidenberg, M. S., & Smith, L.B.
(2010) Letting structure emerge: Connectionist and dynamical systems approaches to cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(8), 348–356. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, D.C., Cuetos, F., Corley, M.M.B., & Brysbaert, M.
(1995) Exposure-based models of human parsing: Evidence for the use of coarse-grained (nonlexical) statistical records. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24(6), 469–488. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
O’Donnell, M.B., Romer, U., & Ellis, N.C.
(2013) The development of formulaic sequences in first and second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18, 83–108. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pawley, A., & Syder, F.H.
(1983) Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. Language and Communication, 191, 225.Google Scholar
Piantadosi, S.T., Tily, H., & Gibson, E.
(2011) Word lengths are optimized for efficient communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(9), 3526–3529. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S.
(1999) Words and rules: The ingredients of language. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Pinker, S., & Ullman, M.T.
(2002) The past and future of the past tense. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(11), 456–463. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pitt, Mark, Dilley, Laura, Johnson, Keith, Kiesling, Scott, Raymond, William, Hume, Elizabeth, and Fosler-Lussier, Eric
(2007) Buckeye Corpus of Conversational Speech (2nd release) [www​.buckeyecorpus​.osu​.edu]. Department of Psychology, Ohio State University.
R Core Team
(2014) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Reali, F., & Christiansen, M.H.
(2007) Processing of relative clauses is made easier by frequency of occurrence. Journal of Memory and Language, 57(1), 1–23. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, N.
(2004) Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing, and use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schuppler, B., Ernestus, M., Scharenborg, O., & Boves, L.
(2011) Acoustic reduction in conversational Dutch: A quantitative analysis based on automatically generated segmental transcriptions. Journal of Phonetics, 39(1), 96–109. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Simpson-Vlach, R., & Ellis, N.C.
(2010) An academic formulas list: New methods in phraseology research. Applied Linguistics, 31(4), 487–512. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J.
(1991) Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Siyanova-Chanturia, A., Conklin, K., & van Heuven, W.
(2011) Seeing a phrase ‘time and again’ matters: The role of phrasal frequency in the processing of multi-word sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Language, Memory, and Cognition, 37(3), 776–784. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Siyanova-Chanturia, A., & Martinez, R.
(2014) The idiom principle revisited. Applied Linguistics, amt054. DOICrossref.Google Scholar
Siyanova-Chanturia, A.
under review). On the holistic nature of multiword expressions: A word of caution.
Snider, N., & Arnon, I.
(2012) A unified lexicon and grammar? Compositional and non-compositional phrases in the lexicon. In S. Gries & D. Divjak (Eds.), Frequency effects in language (pp. 127–164). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sosa, A.V., & MacFarlane, J.
(2002) Evidence for frequency-based constituents in the mental lexicon: Collocations involving the word of. Brain and Language, 83(2), 227–236. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tily, H., Gahl, S., Arnon, I., Snider, N., Kothari, A., & Bresnan, J.
(2009) Syntactic probabilities affect pronunciation variation in spontaneous speech. Language and Cognition, 1(2), 147–165. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tremblay, A., & Baayen, R.H.
(2010) Holistic processing of regular four-word sequences: A behavioral and ERP study of the effects of structure, frequency, and probability on immediate free recall. In D. Wood (Ed.), Perspectives on formulaic language: Acquisition and communication (pp. 151–173). London: The Continuum International Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Tremblay, A., & Tucker, B.V.
(2011) The effects of N-gram probabilistic measures on the recognition and production of four-word sequences. The Mental Lexicon, 6(2), 302–324. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trueswell, J.C., Tanenhaus, M.K., & Garnsey, S.M.
(1994) Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(3), 285–318. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ullman, M.T., & Walenski, M.
(2005) Moving past the past tense. Brain and Language, 93(2), 248–252. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Underwood, G., Schmitt, N., & Galpin, A.
(2004) The eyes have it: An eye-movement study into the processing of formulaic sequences. In N. Schmitt (Eds.), Formulaic Sequences: Acquisition, Processing and Use (pp. 153–172). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Weide, R.
(1998) The CMU pronunciation dictionary, release 0.6.Google Scholar
Wray, A.
(2002) Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Formulaic language: Pushing the boundaries. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
(2013) Formulaic language. Language Teaching, 46(03), 316–334. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wurm, L.H., & Fisicaro, S.A.
(2014) What residualizing predictors in regression analyses does. Journal of Memory and Language, 72, 37–48. CrossrefGoogle Scholar