Cover not available

Article published In: Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 13:1 (2015) ► pp.191–219

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Intonation unit boundaries and the storage of bigrams

Evidence from bidirectional and directional association measures

Published online: 23 June 2015
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.13.1.08wah
Much recent work on language and cognition has examined the psychological status of collocations/formulas/multi-word expressions as mentally stored units. These studies have used a variety of statistical metrics to quantify the degree of strength or association of these sequences, and then they have correlated these strengths with particular behavioral effects that evidence mental storage. However, the relationship between intonational prosody and storage of collocations has received little attention. Through a corpus-based approach, this study examines the hypothesis that boundaries between successive intonation units avoid splitting word bigrams that exhibit high statistical association, with such high association taken to be an index of mental storage of these bigrams. Conversely, bigrams exhibiting lower statistical association ought to be more likely to be split by intonation unit boundaries under this hypothesis.
References (50)
Altenberg, B. (1990a). Automatic text segmentation into tone units. In J. Svartvik (Ed.), The London-Lund corpus of spoken English: Description and research (pp. 287–324). Lund, UK: Lund University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1990b). Predicting text segmentation into tone units. In J. Svartvik (Ed.), The London-Lund corpus of spoken English: Description and research (pp. 275–86). Lund, UK: Lund University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Amir, N., Silber-Varod, V., & Izre’el, S. (2004). Characteristics of intonation unit boundaries in spontaneous spoken Hebrew: Perception and acoustic correlates. In B. Bel & I. Marlien (Eds.), Speech prosody 2004 (pp. 677–680). Conference proceedings. Nara, Japan, March 23–26.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arnon, I., & Snider, N. (2010). More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 62(1), 67–82. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, D. (2013). From “intonation units” to cesuring: An alternative approach to the prosodic-phonetic structuring of talk-in-interaction. In B. Szczepek Reed & G. Raymond (Eds.), Units of talk: Units of action (pp. 91–124). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brook O’Donnell, M. (2011). The adjusted frequency list: A method to produce cluster-sensitive frequency lists. ICAME Journal, 351, 135–169.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2002). Sequentiality as the basis of constituent structure. In T. Givón & B.F. Malle (Eds.), The evolution of language out of pre-language (pp. 109–132). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2010). Language, usage, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chafe, W.L. (1987). Cognitive constraints on information flow. In R.S. Tomlin (Ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse (pp. 21–51). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (1994). Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W. (1995). Intonation units and grammatical structure. Linguistics, 331, 839–882. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cruttenden, A. (1997). Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crystal, D. (1969). Prosodic systems and intonation in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Daudaravičius, V., & Marcinkevičienė, R. (2004). Gravity counts for the boundaries of collocations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(2), 321–348. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Du Bois, J.W. (2008). Intonation unit cues in context. Unpublished manuscript. University of California, Santa Barbara.
Du Bois, J.W., Chafe, W.L., Meyers, C., & Thompson, S.A. (2000). Santa Barbara corpus of spoken American English, part 1. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Du Bois, J.W., Chafe, W.L., Meyers, C., Thompson, S.A., & Martey, N. (2003). Santa Barbara corpus of spoken American English, part 2. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Du Bois, J.W., & Englebretson, R. (2004). Santa Barbara corpus of spoken American English, part 3. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2005). Santa Barbara corpus of spoken American English, part 4. Philadelphia: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dunning, T.E. (1993). Accurate methods for the statistics of surprise and coincidence. Computational Linguistics, 19(1), 61–74.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Durrant, P., & Doherty, A. (2010). Are high-frequency collocations psychologically real? Investigating the thesis of collocational priming. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 6(2), 125–155. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, N.C., & Ferreira-Junior, F. (2009). Constructions and their acquisition: Islands and the distinctiveness of their occupancy. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 71, 187–220. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, N.C., Frey, E., & Jalkanen, I. (2009). The psychological reality of collocation and semantic prosody. In U. Romer & R. Schulze (Eds.), Exploring the lexis-grammar interface (pp. 89–114). Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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, 42(3), 375–396. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Erman, B., & Warren, B. (2000). The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text, 20(1), 29–62. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Evert, S. (2005). The statistics of word cooccurrences: Word pairs and collocations. Dissertation. Universität Stuttgart.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferreira da Silva, J., Dias, G., Guilloré, S., & Lopes, J.G.P. (1999). Using LocalMax algorithm for the extraction of contiguous and non-contiguous multiword lexical units. In P. Barahona & J.J. Alferes (Eds.), Progress in artificial intelligence: 9th Portuguese conference on artificial intelligence – EPIA ‘99 (pp. 113–132.). Conference proceedings. Evora, Portugal, September 21–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gregory, M.L., Raymond, W.D., Bell, A., Fosler-Lussier, E., & Jurafsky, D. (1999). The effects of collocational strength and contextual predictability in lexical production. In Proceedings of the 35th annual Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago.
Gries, S.T. (2013a). 50-something years of work on collocations: What is or should be next … International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(1), 137–165. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. (2013b). Statistics for linguistics with R. Boston: Walter de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, S.T., & Mukherjee, J. (2010). Lexical gravity across varieties of English: An ICE-based study of n-grams in Asian Englishes. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(4), 520–548. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K. (1967). Intonation and grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jurafsky, D., Bell, A., Gregory, M., & Raymond, W.D. (2000). Probabilistic relations between words: Evidence from reduction in lexical production. In J. Bybee & P. Hopper (Eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (pp. 229–254). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Knowles, G., & Lawrence, L. (1987), Automatic intonation assignment. In R. Garside, G. Leech, & G. Sampson (Eds.), The computational analysis of English: A corpus-based approach (pp. 139–148). London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lin, P.M.S. (2010). The phonology of formulaic sequences: A review. In D. Wood (Ed.), Perspectives on formulaic language: Acquisition and communication (pp. 174–193). London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Manning, C.D., & Schütze, H. (1999). Foundations of statistical natural language processing. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mcdonald, S.A., & Shillcock, R.C. (2003). Eye movements reveal the on-line computation of lexical probabilities during reading. Psychological Science, 14(6), 648–652. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nespor, M., & Vogel, R. (1986). Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Onnis, L., & Thiessen, E. (2013). Language experience changes subsequent learning. Cognition, 126(2), 168–284. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pecina, P. (2009). Lexical association measures: Collocation extraction. Prague: Charles University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perruchet, P., & Peereman, R. (2004). The exploitation of distributional information in syllable processing. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 171, 97–119. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1999). Words and rules. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reali, F., & Christiansen, M.H. (2007). Word chunk frequencies affect the processing of pronominal object-relative clauses. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psycholinguistics, 60(2), 161–170. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rescorla, R.A. (1968). Probability of shock in the presence and absence of CS in fear conditioning. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 661, 1–5. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Saffran, J., Newport, E., & Aslin, R.N. (1996). Word segmentation: The role of distributional cures. Journal of Memory and Language, 351, 606–621. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shannon, C.E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal, 271, 379–423. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steedman, M. (1990). Structure and intonation. Technical reports (CIS). Paper 571. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wahl, A. (2014). A computational approach to extracting (dis)continuous collocations of un-prespecified length. 6th international conference on corpus linguistics . Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain, May 22–24.
Wulff, S. (2008). Rethinking idiomaticity: A usage-based approach. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (9)

Cited by nine 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
Chen, Alvin Cheng-Hsien
2025. From sequentiality to schematization: network-based analysis of covarying collexemes in Mandarin degree adverb constructions. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 21:3 ► pp. 475 ff. DOI logo
Chen, Alvin Cheng‐Hsien
2019. Assessing Phraseological Development in Word Sequences of Variable Lengths in Second Language Texts Using Directional Association Measures. Language Learning 69:2 ► pp. 440 ff. DOI logo
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle
2024. The Processing of Multiword Units by Learners of English: Evidence from Pause Placement in Writing Process Data. Languages 9:2 ► pp. 51 ff. 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
Meng, Fanqi, Yujie Zheng, Songbin Bao & Jingdong Wang
2021. 2021 10th IEEE International Conference on Communication Systems and Network Technologies (CSNT), ► pp. 886 ff. DOI logo
Schneider, Ulrike
2018. ΔP as a measure of collocation strength. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 0:0 DOI logo
Wahl, Alexander & Stefan Th. Gries
2018. Multi-word Expressions: A Novel Computational Approach to Their Bottom-Up Statistical Extraction. In Lexical Collocation Analysis [Quantitative Methods in the Humanities and Social Sciences, ], ► pp. 85 ff. DOI logo
Wahl, Alexander & Stefan Th. Gries
2020. Computational extraction of formulaic sequences from corpora. In Computational Phraseology [IVITRA Research in Linguistics and Literature, 24], ► pp. 83 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 november 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue