Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T06:37:21.990Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The dynamic interaction between lexical and contextual frequency: A case study of (ING)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2017

Jon Forrest
Jon Forrest*
Affiliation:
North Carolina State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

To identify how contextual usage frequency and lexical frequency interact when controlling for traditional linguistic constraints, this study analyzes the effect of frequency on (ING), taking into account a word's frequent context of occurrence. The data consist of 13,167 tokens of (ING) from interviews with 132 speakers conducted in Raleigh, North Carolina. Results from mixed-effect logistic regression show a strong effect of frequency on the realization of (ING), and this effect interacts with phonological context of occurrence. Frequent occurrence in environments that favor -in amplify the effect of lexical frequency; conversely, frequent occurrence in environments that favor –ing dampen the effect of overall frequency. Frequency also interacts with year of birth, showing an entrenchment of high-frequency words, lagging behind the community change toward the –ing variant in apparent time. Overall, these findings support the usage-based position of frequency effects as the result of a dynamic interplay between context of use and cognitive systems.

Type
Research Article
Information
Language Variation and Change , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , July 2017 , pp. 129 - 156
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Abramowicz, Łukasz. (2007). Sociolinguistics meets exemplar theory: Frequency and recency effects in (ing). University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 13:27–37.Google Scholar
Anshen, Frank, & Aronoff, Mark. (1988). Producing morphologically complex words. Linguistics 26:641–656.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald, Piepenbrock, Richard, & Gulikers, Leon. (1996). Celex2. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium. CD-ROM.Google Scholar
Baker, Adam, Archangeli, Diana, & Mielke, Jeff. (2011). Variability in American English s-retraction suggests a solution to the actuation problem. Language Variation and Change 23:347–374.Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Maechler, Martin, Bolker, Ben, & Walker, Steven. (2017). Package ‘lme4’. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Blevins, James P. (2006). Word-based morphology. Journal of Linguistics 42:531–573.Google Scholar
Brown, Esther L., & Raymond, William D. (2012). How discourse context shapes the lexicon: Explaining the distribution of Spanish f-/h words. Diachronica 29:139–161.Google Scholar
Brysbaert, Marc &, New, Boris. (2009) Moving beyond Kucera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods 41:977–990.Google Scholar
Burgess, Curt, & Livesay, Kay. (1998). The effect of corpus size in predicting reaction time in a basic word recognition task: Moving on from Kučera and Francis. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 30:272–277.Google Scholar
Burnham, Kenneth P., & Anderson, David R. (2004). Multimodel inference understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociological Methods and Research 33:261–304.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. (1985). Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Vol. 9. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. (1999). Usage-based phonology. Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics 1:211–242.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. (2002). Word frequency and context of use in the lexical diffusion of phonetically conditioned sound change. Language Variation and Change 14:261–290.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind's response to repetition. Language 82:711–733.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. (2010). Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Lynn, & Watson, Kevin. (2011). Testing claims of a usage-based phonology with Liverpool English t-to-r. English Language and Linguistics 15:523–547.Google Scholar
Cofer, Thomas. (1972). Linguistic variability in a Philadelphia community . Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. (2007). Frequency effects in language acquisition, language use, and diachronic change. New Ideas in Psychology 25:108–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dinkin, Aaron J. (2008). The real effect of word frequency on phonetic variation. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 14:97–106.Google Scholar
Dodsworth, Robin. (2013). Retreat from the Southern Vowel Shift in Raleigh, NC: Social factors. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 19:31–40.Google Scholar
Dodsworth, Robin, & Kohn, Mary. (2012). Urban rejection of the vernacular: The SVS undone. Language Variation and Change 24:221–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erker, Daniel, & Guy, Gregory R. (2012). The role of lexical frequency in syntactic variability: Variable subject personal pronoun expression in Spanish. Language 88:526–557.Google Scholar
Fischer, John L. (1958). Social influences on the choice of a linguistic variant. Word-Journal of the International Linguistic Association 14:47–56.Google Scholar
Forrest, Jon. (2015). Community rules and speaker behavior: Individual adherence to group constraints on (ING). Language Variation and Change 27:377–406.Google Scholar
Francis, W. Nelson, & Kucera, Henry. (1982). Frequency analysis of English usage: Lexicon and grammar. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Gahl, Susanne. (2008). Time and thyme are not homophones: The effect of lemma frequency on word durations in spontaneous speech. Language 84:474–496.Google Scholar
Guy, Gregory R. (1991a). Explanation in variable phonology: An exponential model of morphological constraints. Language Variation and Change 3:1–22.Google Scholar
Guy, Gregory R. (1991b). Contextual conditioning in variable lexical phonology. Language Variation and Change 3:223–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guy, Gregory R. (2007). Lexical exceptions in variable phonology. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 13:109–119.Google Scholar
Guy, Gregory R., Hay, Jen, & Walker, Abby. (2008). Phonological, lexical, and frequency factors in coronal stop deletion in early New Zealand English. Paper presented at Laboratory Phonology 11, Wellington, New Zealand, June 30–July 2.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer B., & Baayen, R. Harald. (2005). Shifting paradigms: Gradient structure in morphology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9:342–348.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer, & Drager, Katie. (2010). Stuffed toys and speech perception. Linguistics 48:865–892.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer, & Foulkes, Paul. (2016). The evolution of medial/t/over real and remembered time. Language 29:298–330.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer, Nolan, Aaron, & Drager, Katie. (2006). From fush to feesh: Exemplar priming in speech perception. Linguistic Review 23:351–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, Jennifer B., Pierrehumbert, Janet B., Walker, Abby J., & LaShell, Patrick. (2015). Tracking word frequency effects through 130 years of sound change. Cognition 139:83–91.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer, Warren, Paul, & Drager, Katie. (2006). Factors influencing speech perception in the context of a merger-in-progress. Journal of Phonetics 34:458–484.Google Scholar
Hazen, Kirk. (2008). (ING): A vernacular baseline for English in Appalachia. American Speech 83:116–140.Google Scholar
Hazen, Kirk. (2011). Flying high above the social radar: Coronal stop deletion in modern Appalachia. Language Variation and Change 23:105–137.Google Scholar
Houston, Ann. (1985). Continuity and change in English morphology: The variable (ING) . Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Johnson, Keith. (1997). Speech perception without speaker normalization: An exemplar model. In Johnson, K. and Mullennix, J. (eds.), Talker Variability in Speech Processing. San Diego: Academic Press. 145–165.Google Scholar
Kendall, Tyler. (2013). Speech rate, pause and sociolinguistic variation: Studies in corpus sociophonetics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Koops, Christian, Gentry, Elizabeth, & Pantos, Andrew. (2008). The effect of perceived speaker age on the perception of PIN and PEN vowels in Houston, Texas. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 14:93–101.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (1966). The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (2001). Principles of linguistic change . Vol. 2. Social factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, William. (2010). Principles of linguistic change . Vol. 3. Cognitive and cultural factors. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Labov, William, Ash, Sharon, & Boberg, Charles. (2006). The atlas of North American English: Phonetics, phonology, and sound change: A multimedia reference tool. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lieberman, Erez, Michel, Jean-Baptiste, Jackson, Joe, Tang, Tina, & Nowak, Martin A. (2007). Quantifying the evolutionary dynamics of language. Nature 449:713–716.Google Scholar
Phillips, Betty S. (1984). Word frequency and the actuation of sound change. Language 60:320–342.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (2001). Lenition and contrast. In Bybee, J. and Hopper, P. (eds.), Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 137–157.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (2002). Word-specific phonetics. Laboratory Phonology 7:101–139.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (2006). The next toolkit. Journal of Phonetics 34:516–530.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. (2016). Phonological representation: Beyond abstract versus episodic. Annual Review of Linguistics 2:33–52.Google Scholar
Poplack, Shana, & Tagliamonte, Sali. (2000). The grammaticization of going to in (African American) English. Language Variation and Change 11:315–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, Alan, & Smolensky, Paul. (2008). Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
R Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: http://www.R-project.org/. Accessed July 10, 2015.Google Scholar
Rácz, Peter, Pierrehumbert, Janet B., Hay, Jennifer B., & Papp, Viktoria. (2015). Morphological emergence. In MacWhinney, B. and O'Grady, W. (eds.), The Handbook of Language Emergence. Malden: Wiley Blackwell. 123–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, William D., & Brown, Esther L. (2012). Are effects of word frequency effects of context of use? An analysis of initial fricative reduction in Spanish. Frequency Effects in Language Learning and Processing 1:35–52.Google Scholar
Raymond, William D., Brown, Esther L., & Healy, Alice F. (2016). Cumulative context effects and variant lexical representations: Word use and English final t/d deletion. Language Variation and Change 28:175–202.Google Scholar
Reid, Euan. (1978). Social and stylistic variation in the speech of children: Some evidence from Edinburgh. In Coupland, N. (ed.), Sociolinguistic Patterns in British English. London: Edward Arnold. 158–171.Google Scholar
Seyfarth, Scott. (2014). Word informativity influences acoustic duration: Effects of contextual predictability on lexical representation. Cognition 133:140–155.Google Scholar
Shuy, Roger W., Wolfram, Walter A., & Riley, William K.. (1968). Linguistic correlates of social stratification in Detroit speech. Final report, Cooperative Research Project Number 6-1347. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, Bureau of Research.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali. (2004). Someth [in]’s go [ing] on!: Variable ing at ground zero. Language Variation in Europe: Papers from ICLAVE 2:390–403.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali, & Temple, Rosalind. (2005). New perspectives on an ol' variable:(t, d) in British English. Language Variation and Change 17:281–302.Google Scholar
Tamminga, Meredith J. (2014). Persistence in the production of linguistic variation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Tamminga, Meredith. (2016). Persistence in phonological and morphological variation. Language Variation and Change 28:335–356.Google Scholar
Thomas, Erik. (2010). Sociophonetics: An introduction. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, Rena, & Walker, James A. (2009). The present of the English future: Grammatical variation and collocations in discourse. Language 85:321–354.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. (1974). The social differentiation of English in Norwich. Vol. 13. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Archive.Google Scholar
Wagner, Suzanne Evans. (2012). Real-time evidence for age grad(ing) in late adolescence. Language Variation and Change 24:179–202.Google Scholar
Wald, Benji, & Shopen, Timothy. (1985). A researcher's guide to the sociolinguistic variable (ING). In Clark, P. E. V., & Rosa, A. (eds.), Language: Introductory readings. New York: St. Martin's Press. 219–249.Google Scholar
Walker, James A. (2012). Form, function, and frequency in phonological variation. Language Variation and Change 24:397–415.Google Scholar
Wolfram, Walt, Christian, Donna, & Center for Applied Linguistics. (1976). Appalachian speech. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Yuan, Jiahong, & Liberman, Mark. (2011). Automatic detection of “g-dropping” in American English using forced alignment. In Proceedings of 2011 IEEE Workshop on Automatic Speech Recognition and Understanding (ASRU). New York: IEEE. 490–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zevin, Jason D., & Seidenberg, Mark S. (2002). Age of acquisition effects in word reading and other tasks. Journal of Memory and language 47:1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar