Article published In:
Bridging the Methodological Divide: Linguistic and psycholinguistic approaches to formulaic languageEdited by Stefanie Wulff and Debra Titone
[The Mental Lexicon 9:3] 2014
► pp. 377–400
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
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.
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. 
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.
Arnon, I., & Snider, N.
(2010) More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 62(1), 67–82.
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.
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.
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S.
(2013) lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4.
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, 601, 92–111.
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, 1131, 1001–1024.
Biber, D.
(1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow, England; [New York]: Longman.
(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.
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.
Bybee, J.
(1995) Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10(5), 425–455.
(2002) Word frequency and context of use in the lexical diffusion of phonetically conditioned sound change. Language Variation and Change, 14(03), 261–290.
Bybee, J.L.
(2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bybee, J.L., & Hopper, P.J.
(2001) Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam; [Great Britain]: John Benjamins.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ellis, N.C., Simpson-Vlach, R., & Maynard, C.
(2008) Formulaic language in native and second-language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 411, 375–396.
Ellis, N.C.
(2012) Formulaic language and second language acquisition: Zipf and the phrasal teddy bear. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 321, 17–44.
Elman, J.L.
(2009) On the meaning of words and dinosaur bones: Lexical knowledge without a lexicon. Cognitive Science, 33(4), 547–582.
Fox, J., & Weisberg, S.
(2011) An R companion to applied regression (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
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.
Gahl, S., & Garnsey, S.M.
(2004) Knowledge of grammar, knowledge of usage: Syntactic probabilities affect pronunciation variation. Language, 80(4), 748–775.
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.
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.
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.
Katz, J.
(2012) Compression effects in English. Journal of Phonetics, 401, 390–402.
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. 11, 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.
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).
Martinez, R., & Schmitt, N.
(2012) A phrasal expressions list. Applied Linguistics, 33(3), 299–320.
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.
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.
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, 181, 83–108.
Pawley, A., & Syder, F.H.
(1983) Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. Language and Communication, 1911, 225.
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.
Pinker, S.
(1999) Words and rules: The ingredients of language. New York: Harper Collins.
Pinker, S., & Ullman, M.T.
(2002) The past and future of the past tense. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(11), 456–463.
Pitt, Mark, Dilley, Laura, Johnson, Keith, Kiesling, Scott, Raymond, William, Hume, Elizabeth, and Fosler-Lussier, Eric
(2007) Buckeye Corpus of Conversational Speech (2nd release) [[URL]]. 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.
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.
Schmitt, N.
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.
Simpson-Vlach, R., & Ellis, N.C.
(2010) An academic formulas list: New methods in phraseology research. Applied Linguistics, 31(4), 487–512.
Sinclair, J.
(1991) Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
Siyanova-Chanturia, A., & Martinez, R.
(2014) The idiom principle revisited. Applied Linguistics, amt054. DOI .
.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ullman, M.T., & Walenski, M.
(2005) Moving past the past tense. Brain and Language, 93(2), 248–252.
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.
Weide, R.
(1998) The CMU pronunciation dictionary, release 0.6.
Wray, A.
(2002) Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
(2008) Formulaic language: Pushing the boundaries. Oxford: OUP.
(2013) Formulaic language. Language Teaching, 46(03), 316–334.
Wurm, L.H., & Fisicaro, S.A.
(2014) What residualizing predictors in regression analyses does. Journal of Memory and Language, 721, 37–48.
Cited by
Cited by 34 other publications
Arnon, Inbal
2016. The nature of CDS in Hebrew. In Acquisition and Development of Hebrew [Trends in Language Acquisition Research, 19], ► pp. 201 ff. 
ARNON, Inbal
2021. The Starting Big approach to language learning. Journal of Child Language 48:5 ► pp. 937 ff.
Arnon, Inbal, Stewart M. McCauley & Morten H. Christiansen
2017. Digging up the building blocks of language: Age-of-acquisition effects for multiword phrases. Journal of Memory and Language 92 ► pp. 265 ff.
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
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.
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.
Chantavarin, Suphasiree, Emily Morgan & Fernanda Ferreira
2022. Robust Processing Advantage for Binomial Phrases with Variant Conjunctions. Cognitive Science 46:9
Cohen Priva, Uriel
2017. Not so fast: Fast speech correlates with lower lexical and structural information. Cognition 160 ► pp. 27 ff.
Contreras Kallens, Pablo & Morten H. Christiansen
2022. Models of Language and Multiword Expressions. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence 5
Du, Lingli, Anna Siyanova-Chanturia & Irina Elgort
2023. Chapter 8. Cross-language influences in the processing of L2 multi-word expressions. In Cross-language Influences in Bilingual Processing and Second Language Acquisition [Bilingual Processing and Acquisition, 16], ► pp. 187 ff.
Goldrick, Matthew & Jennifer Cole
2023. Advancement of phonetics in the 21st century: Exemplar models of speech production. Journal of Phonetics 99 ► pp. 101254 ff.
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
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
GÖYMEN, Dilek & Mehmet AYGÜNEŞ
2020. The Processing of Speech Formulas on Turkish: A Masked Priming Study. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi 31:2 ► pp. 207 ff.
HAVRON, NAOMI & INBAL ARNON
2017. Reading between the words: The effect of literacy on second language lexical segmentation. Applied Psycholinguistics 38:1 ► pp. 127 ff.
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.
Jacobs, Cassandra L., Gary S. Dell & Colin Bannard
2017. Phrase frequency effects in free recall: Evidence for redintegration. Journal of Memory and Language 97 ► pp. 1 ff.
Jaeger, T. Florian & Esteban Buz
2017. Signal Reduction and Linguistic Encoding. In The Handbook of Psycholinguistics, ► pp. 38 ff.
Jeong, Hyein, Emiel van den Hoven, Sylvain Madec & Audrey Bürki
2021. Behavioral and Brain Responses Highlight the Role of Usage in the Preparation of Multiword Utterances for Production. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 33:11 ► pp. 2231 ff.
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.
Kessler, Ruth & Claudia K. Friedrich
2022. Delayed prediction of idiom constituent meaning points to weak holistic multi-word representation in children. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 37:8 ► pp. 1040 ff.
Kirjavainen, Minna, Ludivine Crible & Kate Beeching
2022. Can filled pauses be represented as linguistic items? Investigating the effect of exposure on the perception and production of um. Language and Speech 65:2 ► pp. 263 ff.
Linke, Maja & Michael Ramscar
2020. How the Probabilistic Structure of Grammatical Context Shapes Speech. Entropy 22:1 ► pp. 90 ff.
Shantz, Kailen
2017. Phrase frequency, proficiency and grammaticality interact in non-native processing: Implications for theories of SLA. Second Language Research 33:1 ► pp. 91 ff.
Siyanova‐Chanturia, Anna & Phoebe M.S. Lin
2018. Production of ambiguous idioms in English: A reading aloud study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 28:1 ► pp. 58 ff.
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.
Supasiraprapa, Sarut
2019. Frequency effects on first and second language compositional phrase comprehension and production. Applied Psycholinguistics 40:4 ► pp. 987 ff.
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.
Tang, Kevin & Jason A. Shaw
2021. Prosody leaks into the memories of words. Cognition 210 ► pp. 104601 ff.
Vilkaitė, Laura & Norbert Schmitt
2019. Reading Collocations in an L2: Do Collocation Processing Benefits Extend to Non-Adjacent Collocations?. Applied Linguistics 40:2 ► pp. 329 ff.
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.
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.
[no author supplied]
2021. References. In Foundations of Familiar Language, ► pp. 386 ff.
[no author supplied]
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 december 2023. 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.