Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T18:00:44.120Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Formulaicity as a determinant of processing efficiency: investigating clause ordering in complex sentences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 October 2016

DANIEL WIECHMANN  and
ELMA KERZ
DANIEL WIECHMANN
Affiliation:
Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of Amsterdam, Spuistraat 210, 1012 VT Amsterdam, [email protected]
ELMA KERZ
Affiliation:
Department of English Linguistics, RWTH Aachen University, Kármánstr. 17/19, 52062 Aachen, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Prior research has identified a large number of processing-related factors that affect language users’ choices between two (or more) competing linguistic variants. However, one factor that up until now has not been taken into account is the reliance on formulaic language. This is surprising given a growing body of evidence demonstrating that recurrent multiword units – formulaic sequences and low-scope constructional patterns – play a key role in language learning and processing. Building on insights from research on formulaic language and usage-based constructionist models of language, we take a first step towards determining whether and to what extent formulaicity affects choices language users make in encoding the preverbal message. Focusing on clause ordering in English complex sentences with adverbial clauses (ACs), we investigate whether the choice between a preposed and a postposed AC is affected by the degree of formulaicity of the clause, as measured by (1) the amount of formulaic sequences in the AC and (2) the degree of entrenchment of an AC when treated as a low-scope pattern. Based on a reanalysis of the data in Diessel (2008), we found that the likelihood of an AC being produced in the cognitively more demanding sentence-initial position increased with higher degrees of formulaicity for both measures investigated. We conclude that reliance on formulaic language can be conceived of as a ‘support strategy’ compensating for increased processing effort.

Type
Research Article
Information
English Language & Linguistics , Volume 20 , Special Issue 3: Support strategies in language variation and change , November 2016 , pp. 421 - 437
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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

Abbot-Smith, Kirsten & Tomasello, Michael. 2006. Exemplar-learning and schematization in a usage-based account of syntactic acquisition. Linguistic Review 23 (3), 275–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing noun phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Arnon, Inbal & Snider, Neal. 2010. More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language 62 (1), 67–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bannard, Colin & Lieven, Elena. 2012. Formulaic language in language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 32, 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bannard, Colin & Matthews, Danielle. 2008. Stored word sequences in language learning. Psychological Science 19, 241–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Branigan, Holly P., Pickering, Martin J. & Tanaka, Mikihiro. 2008. Contributions of animacy to grammatical function assignment and word order during production. Lingua 118, 172–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Cueni, Anna, Nikitina, Tatiana & Baayen, Harald. 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. In Bouma, Gerlof, Kraemer, Irene & Zwarts, Joost (eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation, 69–94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar
Brown, Paula & Dell, Garry. 1987. Adapting production to comprehension: The explicit mention of instruments. Cognitive Psychology 19 (4), 441–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnard, Lou. 1995. Users’ reference guide for the British National Corpus, version 1.0. Oxford: Oxford University Computing Services.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, Franklin, Dell, Gary & Bock, Kathryn. 2006. Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review 113 (2), 234–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christiansen, Morten & Chater, Nick. 2008. Language as shaped by the brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31 (5), 489–509.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Conklin, Katy & Schmitt, Norbert. 2012. The processing of formulaic language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 32, 45–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corrigan, Roberta, Moravcsik, Edith, Quali, Hamid & Wheatley, Kathleen. 2009a. Formulaic language, vol. 1: Distribution and historical change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Corrigan, Roberta, Moravcsik, Edith, Quali, Hamid & Wheatley, Kathleen. 2009b. Formulaic language, vol. 2: Acquisition, loss, psychological reality, and functional explanations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1990. Possible verbs and the structure of events. In Tsohatzidis, Savas L. (ed.), Meanings and prototypes: Studies in linguistic categorization, 48–73. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dabrowska, Ewa. 2008. Rules or schemas? Evidence from Polish. Language and Cognitive Processes 19, 225–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dabrowska, Ewa & Lieven, Elena. 2005. Towards a lexically specific grammar of children's question constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 16 (3), 437–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dabrowska, Ewa, Rowland, Caroline & Theakston, Anna. 2009. The acquisition of questions with long-distance dependencies. Cognitive Linguistics 20 (3), 571–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 1987. Transitivity in grammar and cognition. In Tomlin, Russel (ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse, 53–68. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2004. The acquisition of complex sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2005. Competing motivations for the ordering of main and adverbial clauses. Linguistics 43, 449–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2008. Iconicity of sequence: A corpus-based analysis of the positioning of temporal adverbial clauses in English. Cognitive Linguistics 19, 457–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Nick. 2012. Formulaic language and second language acquisition: Zipf and the phrasal teddy bear. Annual Review of Applied Language 32, 17–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Nick, Simpson-Vlach, Rita & Maynard, Carson. 2008. Formulaic language in native and second language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics and TESOL. TESOL Quarterly 42 (3), 375–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evert, Stefan. 2004. The statistics of word co-occurrences: Word pairs and collocations. PhD thesis, University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Frank, Austin & Jaeger, T. Florian. 2008. Speaking rationally: Uniform information density as an optimal strategy for language production. The 30th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 939–44. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Frank, Stefan L. 2013. Uncertainty reduction as a measure of cognitive load in sentence comprehension. Topics in Cognitive Science 5, 475–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, Edward. 1998. Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68, 1–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, Edward. 2000. The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Marantz, Alec, Miyashita, Yasushi & O'Neil, Wayne (eds.), Image, language, brain, 95–126. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1995. Functionalism and grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2003. Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: A study of particle placement. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Hale, John. 2001. A probabilistic Earley parser as a psycholinguistic model. Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Hastie, Trevor. 2015. gam: Generalized Additive Models. R package version 1.12. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=gam Google Scholar
Hastie, Trevor & Tibshirani, Robert. 1990. Generalized additive models. London: Chapman & Hall CRC.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees. 1989. Layers and operators in functional grammar. Journal of Linguistics 25, 127–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinrichs, Lars & Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2007. Recent changes in the function and frequency of Standard English genitive constructions: A multivariate analysis of tagged corpora. English Language and Linguistics 11 (3), 437–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas. 2011. Preposition placement in English: A usage-based approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Thompson, Sandra A.. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56, 252–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iwata, Seizi. 2008. Locative alternation: A lexical-constructional approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, T. Florian 2010. Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology 61, 23–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jaeger, T. Florian & Wasow, Tom. 2008. Processing as a source of accessibility effects on variation. Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, 169–80. Ann Arbor, MI: Sheridan.Google Scholar
Kay, Paul & Fillmore, Charles J.. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The What's X doing Y? construction. Language 75, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kidd, Evan, Lieven, Elena V.M. & Tomasello, Michael. 2010. Lexical frequency and exemplar-based learning effects in language acquisition. Language Sciences 32, 132–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Roland W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1990. Settings, participants, and grammatical relations. In Tsohatzidis, Savas L. (ed.), Meanings and prototypes: Studies in linguistic categorization, 213–38. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2000. A dynamic usage-based model. In Barlow, Michael & Kemmer, Susanne (eds.), Usage-based models of language, 1–63. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Levy, Roger & Jaeger, T. Florian. 2007. Speakers optimize information density through syntactic reduction. In Schlökopf, Bernhard, Platt, John & Hoffman, Thomas (eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems, 849–56. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
MacDonald, Maryellen C., Pearlmutter, Neal J. & Seidenberg, Mark S.. 1994. The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review 101, 676–703.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacWhinney, Brian. 1998. Models of the emergence of language. Annual Review of Psychology 101, 676–703.Google Scholar
Matthews, Danielle & Bannard, Colin. 2010. Children's production of unfamiliar word sequences is predicted by positional variability and latent classes in a large sample of child-directed speech. Cognitive Science 34, 465–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, Don C., Cuetos, Fernando, Corley, Martin & Brysbaert, Mark. 1995. Exposure-based models of human parsing: Evidence for the use of coarse-grained (non-lexical) statistical records. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 24, 469–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondorf, Britta. 2009. More support for more-support: The role of processing constraints on the choice between synthetic and analytic comparative forms. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, Ellen. 1981. Toward a taxonomy of given/new information. In Cole, Peter (ed.), Radical pragmatics, 223–55. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2015. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. www.R-project.org.Google Scholar
Race, David. S. & MacDonald, Maryellen C.. 2003. The use of ‘that’ in the production and comprehension of object relative clauses. In Proceedings of the 26th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 946–51. Chicago: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Reali, Florencia & Christiansen, Morten. 2007. Processing of relative clauses is made easier by frequency of occurrence. Journal of Memory and Language 53, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Resnik, Philip. 1996. Selectional constraints: An information-theoretic model and its computational realization. Cognition 61, 127–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenbach, Anette. 2002. Genitive variation in English: Conceptual factors in synchronic and diachronic studies. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaoul, Cyrus & Westbury, Chris. 2011. Formulaic sequences: Do they exist and do they matter? The Mental Lexicon 6 (1), 171–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, Norbert. 2004. Formulaic sequences. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Temperley, David. 2007. Minimization of dependency length in written English. Cognition 105 (2), 300–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tremblay, Antoine & Tucker, Benjamin V.. 2011. The effect of N-gram probabilistic measures on the recognition and production of four-word sequences. The Mental Lexicon, 6, 302–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trueswell, John C., Tanenhaus, Michael K. & Garnsey, Susan M.. 1994. Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 33, 285–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verhagen, Arie. 2005. Constructions of intersubjectivity: Discourse, syntax and cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Verstraete, Jean-Christophe. 2004. Initial and final position of adverbial clauses in English: The constructional basis of the discursive and syntactic differences. Linguistics 42, 819–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wasow, Tom. 2002. Postverbal behavior. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Weiner, Judith E. & Labov, William. 1983. Constraints on the agentless passive. Journal of Linguistics 19, 29–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiechmann, Daniel. 2008. On the computation of collostruction strength. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 4 (2), 253–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiechmann, Daniel. 2014. Understanding relative clauses: A usage-based view on the processing of complex constructions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wiechmann, Daniel & Kerz, Elma. 2013. The positioning of concessive adverbial clauses in English: Assessing the importance of discourse-pragmatic and processing-based constraints. English Language & Linguistics 17 (1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiechmann, Daniel, Kerz, Elma, Snider, Neal & Jaeger, T. Florian (eds.). 2013. Parsimony and redundancy in models of language. Language and Speech 56 (3), 257–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wood, Simon N. 2011. Fast stable restricted maximum likelihood and marginal likelihood estimation of semiparametric generalized linear models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (B) 73 (1), 3–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wray, Alison. 2000. Formulaic sequences in second language teaching: Principle and practice. Applied Linguistics 21 (4), 463–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wray, Alison. 2008. Formulaic language: pushing the boundaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wray, Alison & Perkins, Michael R.. 2000. The functions of formulaic language: An integrated model. Language & Communication 20, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar