Chapter published in:
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.
Published online: 01 March 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.192.09bec
References

References

Alegre, Maria & Gordon, Peter
1999 Frequency effects and the representational status of regular inflections. Journal of Memory and Language 40: 41–61. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Arnon, Inbal & Snider, Neal
2010 More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language 62: 67–82. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002a Phonological evidence for exemplar storage of multiword sequences. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(02), 215–221. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82: 711–733. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 Frequency of Use and the Organization of Language. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 Language, Usage, and Cognition. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William
2001 Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Davies, Mark
2008– The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 450 million words 1990–present. http://​www​.americancorpus​.org
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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Erman, Britt & Warren, Beatrice
2000 The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text 20(1): 29–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Firth, David
1993 Bias reduction of maximum likelihood estimates. Biometrika 80: 27–38. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hay, Jennifer
2001 Lexical frequency in morphology: Is everything relative? Linguistics 39(6): 1041–1070. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hay, Jennifer & Baayen, R. Harald
2005 Shifting paradigms: Gradient structure in morphology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9(7): 342–348. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
King, Gary & Zeng, Langche
2001 Logistic regression in rare events data. Political Analysis 9(2): 137–163. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William
1969 Contraction, deletion, and inherent variability of the English copula. Language 45: 715–762. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1986b Frequency and the lexical storage of regularly inflected forms. Memory and Cognition 14(1): 17–26. CrossrefGoogle 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. Crossref
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wray, Alison
2002 Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 Formulaic language. In Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, Vol. 4, Keith Brown (ed.), 590–597. Oxford: Elsevier. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008 Formulaic Language: Pushing the Boundaries. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar