Cover not available
Part of
Functionalist and Usage-based Approaches to the Study of Language: In honor of Joan L. Bybee
Edited by K. Aaron Smith and Dawn Nordquist
[Studies in Language Companion Series 192] 2018
► pp. 199–224

The evidence add ups

An affix shift study of prefabs

| University of Canterbury
In a usage-based model of the lexicon, linguistic elements that repeatedly co-occur in sequence come to form a processing unit (Bybee 2002b). The present study supplements previous psycholinguistic research finding that multiword sequences may form a ‘prefabricated’ sequence. I describe a new experiment designed to elicit ‘affix shift’ speech errors (e.g., adds up → add ups), which give evidence of holistic processing of a multiword sequence. Analysis of the data indicates that affix positioning errors are predicted by a confluence of factors – a high-frequency stimulus sequence (settle down) in tandem with low-frequency component words (settle, down). These findings provide support for a usage-based account, in which linguistic units are not fixed, but gradient and changeable with experience.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Errors of interest, and theoretical background
      • 1.1.1Full affix shifts
      • 1.1.2Double-marked affixes
      • 1.1.3No-marking errors
    • 1.2Predictions, and quantitative corpus metrics
  • 2.Task design
    • 2.1Materials and stimulus design
      • 2.1.1Frequency x Mutual Dependency bins
      • 2.1.2Bigram features matched across bins
      • 2.1.3Bigram stimuli and distractors
    • 2.2Participants and experiment setup
    • 2.3Results and discussion: Affix shifts and other affixation errors on bigram stimuli
      • 2.3.1Participant accuracy
      • 2.3.2Overview of errors: Affix shifts, double-marking errors, no-marking errors
  • 3.Data and analysis
    • 3.1Post hoc analysis: Examining components of the MD metric
  • 4.Discussion and conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 1 March 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.192.09bec
References (64)
References
Alegre, Maria & Gordon, Peter. 1999. Frequency effects and the representational status of regular inflections. Journal of Memory and Language 40: 41–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arnon, Inbal & Snider, Neal. 2010. More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language 62: 67–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baars, Bernard J. 1980. The Competing Plans Hypothesis: An heuristic viewpoint on the causes of errors in speech. In Temporal variables in speech: Studies in honour of Frieda Goldman-Eisler, Hans W. Dechert & Manfred Raupach (eds). The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1992. A dozen competing-plans techniques for inducing predictable slips in speech and action. In Experimental Slips and Human Error: Exploring the Architecture of Volition, Bernard J. Baars (ed.), 195–215. New York NY: Plenum Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beckner, Clay. 2013. Quantitative Determinants of Prefabs: A Corpus-based, Experimental Study of Multiword Units in the Lexicon. PhD dissertation, University of New Mexico.Google Scholar
Beckner, Clay & Bybee, Joan L. 2009. A usage-based account of constituency and reanalysis. Language Learning 59 (Supplement 1): 27–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1976. Meaning and memory. Forum Linguisticum 1(1): 1–14.Google Scholar
Bouma, Gerlof. 2009. Normalized (pointwise) mutual information in collocation extraction. In From Form to Meaning: Processing Texts Automatically, Proceedings of the Biennial GSCL Conference 2009, Christian Chiarcos, Richard Eckart de Castilho & Manfred Stede (eds), 31–40, Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002a. Phonological evidence for exemplar storage of multiword sequences. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(02), 215–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002b. Sequentiality as the basis of constituent structure. In The Emergence of Language out of Pre-language [Typological Studies in Language 53], T. Givón & Bertram F. Malle (eds), 107–132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Reprinted in Bybee. 2007, 313–335. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82: 711–733. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. Frequency of Use and the Organization of Language. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. Language, Usage, and Cognition. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. & McClelland, James L. 2005. Alternatives to the combinatorial paradigm of linguistic theory based on domain general principles of human cognition. In The Role of Linguistics in Cognitive Science, Nancy A. Ritter (ed.). Special issue of The Linguistic Review 22(2–4): 381–410.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. & Scheibman, Joanne. 1999. The effect of usage on degree of constituency: The reduction of don’t in English. Linguistics 37: 575–596. Reprinted in Bybee. 2007, 294–312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2008–. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 450 million words, 1990–present. <[URL]>
Deese, James. 1984. Thought into Speech: The Psychology of Language. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Ellis, Nick. 2002. Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24: 143–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Nick C., Simpson-Vlach, Rita & Maynard, Carson. 2008. Formulaic language in native and second language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL. TESOL Quarterly 42(3): 375–396. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Nick C. & Simpson-Vlach, Rita. 2009. Formulaic language in native speakers: Triangulating psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and education. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 5(1): 61–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erman, Britt & Warren, Beatrice. 2000. The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text 20(1): 29–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Firth, David. 1993. Bias reduction of maximum likelihood estimates. Biometrika 80: 27–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fontenelle, Thierry, Bruls, Walter, Thomas, Luc, Vanallemeersch, Tom & Jansen, Jacques. 1994. Survey of collocation extraction tools. Technical report, University of Liege, DECIDE MLAP-project 93–19.Google Scholar
Fromkin, Victoria A. 1973. The non-anomalous nature of anomalous utterances. Language 47(1): 27–52. Reprinted in Victoria Fromkin (ed.), Speech Errors as Linguistic Evidence, 215–242. Paris: Mouton & Co.Google Scholar
Garnham, Alan, Shillcock, Richard C., Brown, Gordon D. A., Mill, Andrew I. D. & Cutler, Anne. 1981. Slips of the tongue in the London-Lund corpus of spontaneous conversation. Linguistics 19(7–8): 805–817.Google Scholar
Garrett, M. F. 1980. Levels of processing in sentence production. In Language Production, Vol. 1 Brian Butterworth (ed.), 177–220. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Green, Lisa J. 2002. African American English: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gregory, Michelle, Raymond, William D., Bell, Alan, Fosler-Lussier, Eric & Jurafsky, Daniel. 1999. The effects of collocational strength and contextual predictability in lexical production. Chicago Linguistic Society 35: 151–166.Google Scholar
Harrell, Jr., Frank E. 2013. Regression Modeling Strategies: With Applications to Linear Models, Logistic Regression, and Survival Analysis. New York NY: Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. The diachronic externalization of inflection. Linguistics 31: 279–309. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hay, Jennifer. 2001. Lexical frequency in morphology: Is everything relative? Linguistics 39(6): 1041–1070. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hay, Jennifer & Baayen, R. Harald. 2005. Shifting paradigms: Gradient structure in morphology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9(7): 342–348. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heinze, Georg & Ploner, Meinhard. 2003. Fixing the nonconvergence bug in logistic regression with SPLUS and SAS. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine 71: 181–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heinze, Georg, Ploner, Meinhard, Dunkler, Daniela & Southworth, Harry. (2013). logistf: Firth's bias reduced logistic regression. R package version 1.21.Google Scholar
Heinze, Georg & Schemper, Michael. 2002. A solution to the problem of separation in logistic regression. Statistics in Medicine 21(16): 2409–2419. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hermer-Vasquez, Linda, Spelke, Elizabeth S. & Katsnelson, Alla S. 1999. Sources of flexibility in human cognition: Dual-task studies of space and language. Cognitive Psychology 39: 3–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, T. Florian. 2008. Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and toward logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language 59: 434–446. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kapatsinski, Vsevolod & Radicke, Joshua. 2009. Frequency and the emergence of prefabs: Evidence from monitoring. In Formulaic Language, Vol. II: Acquisition, Loss, Psychological Reality, Functional Explanations [Typological Studies in Language 83], Roberta Corrigan, Edith Moravcsik, Hamid Ouali & Kathleen Wheatley (eds), 499–520. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
King, Gary & Zeng, Langche. 2001. Logistic regression in rare events data. Political Analysis 9(2): 137–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klein, Krystal & Yu, Chen. 2009. Joint or conditional probability: Why decide? Paper presented at COGSCI 2009: The Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, VU University, Amsterdam, July 29-August 1.
Krug, Manfred. 2003. Frequency as a determinant in grammatical variation and change. In Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English, Gunter Rodenburg & Britta Mondorf (eds), 7–67. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1969. Contraction, deletion, and inherent variability of the English copula. Language 45: 715–762. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Levelt, Willem J. M. 1989. Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
MacKay, Donald G. 1979. Lexical insertion, inflection, and derivation: Creative processes in word production. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 8(5): 477–498.Google Scholar
Manning, Christopher & Schütze, Hinrich. 1999. Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W. D. 1973. Linguistic structure and speech shadowing at very short latencies. Nature 244: 522–523. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pawley, Andrew & Hodgetts Syder, Frances. 1983. Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In Language and Communication, Jack C. Richards & Richard W. Schmidt (eds), 191–226. New York NY: Longman.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1991. Rules of language. Science 253: 530–535. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Concise Grammar of Contemporary English. New York NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Reali, Florencia & Christiansen, Morten. 2007. Word chunk frequencies affect the processing of pronominal object-relative clauses. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 60(2): 161–170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, John. 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Stemberger, Joseph P. 1984. Structural errors in normal and agrammatic speech. Cognitive Neuropsychology 1(4): 281–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1985. The Lexicon in a Model of Language Production [Garland Outstanding Dissertations Series]. New York NY: Garland. (Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, San Diego, 1982).Google Scholar
Stemberger, Joseph P. & MacWhinney, Brian. 1986a. Form-oriented errors in inflectional processing. Cognitive Psychology 18: 329–354. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1986b. Frequency and the lexical storage of regularly inflected forms. Memory and Cognition 14(1): 17–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thanopoulos, Aristomenis, Fakotakis, Nikos & Kokkinakis, George. 2002. Comparative evaluation of collocation extraction metrics. In Proceedings of the 3rd Language Resources Evaluation Conference, 620–625. Las Palmas, Spain.Google Scholar
Tremblay, Antoine, Derwing, Bruce, Libben, Gary, & Westbury, Chris. 2011. Processing Advantages of Lexical Bundles: Evidence From Self-Paced Reading and Sentence Recall Tasks. Language Learning 61(2): 569–613. DOI logo
Vogel Sosa, Anna & MacFarlane, James. 2002. Evidence for frequency-based constituents in the mental lexicon: Collocations involving the word of . Brain and Language 83: 227–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wray, Alison. 2002. Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Formulaic language. In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Vol. 4, Keith Brown (ed.), 590–597. Oxford: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Formulaic Language: Pushing the Boundaries. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar