Cover not available
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
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.9.3.01arn
References (65)
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arnon, I., & Snider, N. (2010). More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 62(1), 67–82. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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, 601, 92–111. DOI logoGoogle 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, 1131, 1001–1024. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J.L. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J.L., & Hopper, P.J. (2001). Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam; [Great Britain]: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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, 411, 375–396. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N.C. (2012). Formulaic language and second language acquisition: Zipf and the phrasal teddy bear. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 321, 17–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elman, J.L. (2009). On the meaning of words and dinosaur bones: Lexical knowledge without a lexicon. Cognitive Science, 33(4), 547–582. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gahl, S., & Garnsey, S.M. (2004). Knowledge of grammar, knowledge of usage: Syntactic probabilities affect pronunciation variation. Language, 80(4), 748–775. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Katz, J. (2012). Compression effects in English. Journal of Phonetics, 401, 390–402. DOI logoGoogle 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. 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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, 181, 83–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pawley, A., & Syder, F.H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. Language and Communication, 1911, 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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) [[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.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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, N. (2004). Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing, and use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simpson-Vlach, R., & Ellis, N.C. (2010). An academic formulas list: New methods in phraseology research. Applied Linguistics, 31(4), 487–512. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siyanova-Chanturia, A., & Martinez, R. (2014). The idiom principle revisited. Applied Linguistics, amt054. DOI DOI logo.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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ullman, M.T., & Walenski, M. (2005). Moving past the past tense. Brain and Language, 93(2), 248–252. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2008). Formulaic language: Pushing the boundaries. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. (2013). Formulaic language. Language Teaching, 46(03), 316–334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wurm, L.H., & Fisicaro, S.A. (2014). What residualizing predictors in regression analyses does. Journal of Memory and Language, 721, 37–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (38)

Cited by 38 other publications

Chen, Alvin Cheng-Hsien
2024. Pitch variability in spontaneous speech production and its connection to usage-based grammar. Journal of Phonetics 106 ► pp. 101342 ff. DOI logo
Fan, Kunmeng & Haixiao Wang
2024. The productive processing of formulaic sequences by second language learners in writing. Frontiers in Psychology 15 DOI logo
Tizón-Couto, David & David Lorenz
2024. Learning to predict: Second language perception of reduced multi-word sequences. Second Language Research DOI logo
Du, Lingli, Anna Siyanova-Chanturia & Irina Elgort
2023. 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. DOI logo
Goldrick, Matthew & Jennifer Cole
2023. Advancement of phonetics in the 21st century: Exemplar models of speech production. Journal of Phonetics 99 ► pp. 101254 ff. DOI logo
Chantavarin, Suphasiree, Emily Morgan & Fernanda Ferreira
2022. Robust Processing Advantage for Binomial Phrases with Variant Conjunctions. Cognitive Science 46:9 DOI logo
Contreras Kallens, Pablo & Morten H. Christiansen
2022. Models of Language and Multiword Expressions. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence 5 DOI logo
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. DOI logo
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. DOI 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 DOI logo
Chen, Alvin C.-H.
2021. Durational Patterns of Recurrent Multiword Combinations in Mandarin Spontaneous Speech Production. Language and Speech 64:3 ► pp. 742 ff. DOI logo
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. DOI 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. DOI logo
Tang, Kevin & Jason A. Shaw
2021. Prosody leaks into the memories of words. Cognition 210 ► pp. 104601 ff. DOI 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. DOI logo
GÖYMEN, Dilek & Mehmet AYGÜNEŞ
2020. The Processing of Speech Formulas on Turkish: A Masked Priming Study. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi 31:2 ► pp. 207 ff. DOI 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. DOI logo
Linke, Maja & Michael Ramscar
2020. How the Probabilistic Structure of Grammatical Context Shapes Speech. Entropy 22:1 ► pp. 90 ff. DOI 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. DOI logo
Supasiraprapa, Sarut
2019. Frequency effects on first and second language compositional phrase comprehension and production. Applied Psycholinguistics 40:4 ► pp. 987 ff. DOI logo
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. DOI 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. DOI logo
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. DOI 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. DOI logo
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. DOI 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. DOI logo
Cohen Priva, Uriel
2017. Not so fast: Fast speech correlates with lower lexical and structural information. Cognition 160 ► pp. 27 ff. DOI 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 DOI 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 DOI logo
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. DOI 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. DOI logo
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. DOI logo
Jaeger, T. Florian & Esteban Buz
2017. Signal Reduction and Linguistic Encoding. In The Handbook of Psycholinguistics, ► pp. 38 ff. DOI logo
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. DOI logo
Arnon, Inbal
2016. The nature of CDS in Hebrew. In Acquisition and Development of Hebrew [Trends in Language Acquisition Research, 19], ► pp. 201 ff. DOI logo
ARNON, Inbal
2021. The Starting Big approach to language learning. Journal of Child Language 48:5 ► pp. 937 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2021. References. In Foundations of Familiar Language, ► pp. 386 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. Research Methods in Vocabulary Studies [Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 2], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 december 2024. 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.