This study examined the prosodic realization of recurrent multiword combinations (RMC) in Mandarin spontaneous speech production and asked (a) whether speakers produce RMCs differently compared to novel combinations, and (b) how the RMC durational patterns are connected to its distributional properties and constituent structures. RMCs were first defined based on their distributional criteria in a large representative corpus, and a subset of these RMCs used in a phone-aligned spontaneous speech corpus were identified for the analyses of the relationship between their duration on one end and their distributional statistics (RMC frequency and lexical associations in two directions) and constituent structures (projected constituent level and boundary) on the other. The results suggest that Mandarin speakers are sensitive to the multifaceted multiword distributional properties, which are mediated by the constituent structures of RMCs. We discuss how these distinct durational patterns contribute to our understanding of the pragmatic and interactional role of multiword units in language processing and development.
AijmerK. (1996). Conversational routines in English: Convention and creativity. Routledge.
2.
AltenbergB.Eeg-OlofssonM. (1990). Phraseology in spoken English: Presentation of a project. In AartsJ.MeijsW. (Eds.), Theory and practice in corpus linguistics (pp. 1–26). Rodopi.
3.
AppelR.TrofimovichP. (2017). Transitional probability predicts native and non-native use of formulaic sequences. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 27, 24–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12100
4.
ArnonI.McCauleyS. M.ChristiansenM. H. (2017). Digging up the building blocks of language: Age-of-acquisition effects for multiword phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 92, 265–280.
5.
ArnonI.PrivaU. C. (2013). More than words: The effect of multi-word frequency and constituency on phonetic duration. Language and Speech, 56, 349–
371. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830913484891
6.
ArnonI.PrivaU. C. (2014). Time and again: The changing effect of word and multiword frequency on phonetic duration for highly frequent sequences. The Mental Lexicon, 9, 377–400. https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.9.3.01arn
7.
ArnonI.SniderN. (2010). More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 67–
82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.005
BakerM.McCarthyM. (1988). Multiword units and things like that. Mimeograph, 1-35.
10.
BannardC.MatthewsD. (2008). Stored word sequences in language learning: The effect of familiarity on children’s repetition of four-word combinations. Psychological Science, 19, 241–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02075.x
11.
BatesD.MaechlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48.
12.
BiberD.ConradS. (1999). Lexical bundles in conversation and academic prose. In HasselgårdH.OksefjellS. (Eds.), Out of corpora: Studies in honour of Stig Johansson (pp. 181–
190). Rodopi.
13.
BiberD.ConradS.CortesV. (2004). If you look at . . .: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25, 371–
405. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.3.371
14.
BybeeJ. (2002a). Phonological evidence for exemplar storage of multiword sequences. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 215–221. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102002061
15.
BybeeJ. (2002b). Sequentiality as the basis of constituent structure. In GivónT.MalleB. F. (Eds.), The evolution of language out of prelanguage (pp. 109–
134). John Benjamins.
16.
BybeeJ.ScheibmanJ. (1999). The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: The reduction of don’t in English. Linguistics: An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences, 37, 575–596. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.37.4.575
17.
CarrolG.ConklinK. (2020). Is all formulaic language created equal? Unpacking the processing advantage for different types of formulaic sequences. Language and Speech, 63(1), 95–
122.
18.
ChenA. C.-H. (2019). Assessing phraseological development in word sequences of variable lengths in L2 texts using directional association measures. Language Learning, 69(2), 440–477. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12340
19.
ChenA. C.-H. (in press). Words, constructions and corpora: Network representations of constructional semantics for Mandarin space particles. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2020-0012
20.
ChenA. C.-H.TsengS.-C. (2019). Prosodic encoding in Mandarin spontaneous speech: Evidence for clause-based advanced planning in language production. Journal of Phonetics, 76, 1–
22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2019.100912
21.
ChristiansenM. H.ArnonI. (2017). More than words: The role of multiword sequences in language learning and use. Topics in Cognitive Science, 9, 542–
551. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12274
22.
ConklinK.SchmittN. (2008). Formulaic sequences: Are they processed more quickly than nonformulaic language by native and nonnative speakers?Applied Linguistics, 29, 72–89. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm022
23.
CowieA. P. (1981). The treatment of collocations and Idioms in learners’ dictionaries. Applied Linguistics, 2(3), 223–
235. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ii.3.223
24.
DiesselH. (2019). The grammar network: How linguistic structure is shaped by language use. Cambridge University Press.
25.
DurrantP.DohertyA. (2010). Are high-frequency collocations psychologically real? Investigating the thesis of collocational priming. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 6, 125–155. https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt.2010.006
26.
DurrantP.SchmittN. (2009). To what extent do native and non-native writers make use of collocations?IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 47, 157–
177. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2009.007
EllisN. C. (2017). Cognition, corpora, and computing: Triangulating research in usage-based language learning. Language Learning, 67(S1), 40–
65. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12215
30.
EllisN. C.Ferreira-JuniorF. (2009). Constructions and their acquisition: Islands and the distinctiveness of their occupancy. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 187–220. https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.7.08ell
31.
EllisN. C.O’DonnellM. B.RömerU. (2014). The processing of verb-argument constructions is sensitive to form, function, frequency, contingency and prototypicality. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(1), 55–
98.
32.
EllisN. C.OgdenD. C. (2017). Thinking about multiword constructions: Usage-based approaches to acquisition and processing. Topics in Cognitive Science, 9, 604–620. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12256
FerreiraF.SwetsB. (2002). How incremental is language production? Evidence from the production of utterances requiring the computation of arithmetic sums. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 57–84. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2001.2797
35.
FirthJ. R. (1957). Modes of meaning. In PalmerF. R. (Ed.), Papers in linguistics 1934-1951 (pp. 190–215). Oxford University Press.
36.
FonJ.JohnsonK.ChenS. (2011). Durational patterning at syntactic and discourse boundaries in Mandarin spontaneous speech. Language and Speech, 54(1), 5–32.
37.
FoxJ. (2003). Effect displays in R for generalized linear models. Journal of Statistical Software, 8(15), 1–
27.
38.
GablasovaD.BrezinaV.McEneryT. (2017). Collocations in corpus-based language learning research: Identifying, comparing, and interpreting the evidence. Language Learning, 67, 155–179. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12225
39.
GriesS. T. (2013). 50-something years of work on collocations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18, 137–
165. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.18.1.09gri
40.
HernándezM.CostaA.ArnonI. (2016). More than words: multiword frequency effects in non-native speakers. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31, 785–800. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2016.1152389
KeatingP.Shattuck-HufnagelS. (2002). A prosodic view of word form encoding for speech production. UCLA Working Papers in Phonetics, 101, 112–156.
44.
LangackerR. W. (1991). Concept, image and symbol. The cognitive basis of grammar. Mouton de Gruyter.
45.
LauferB.WaldmanT. (2011). Verb-noun collocations in second language writing: A corpus analysis of learners’ English. Language Learning, 61, 647–672. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00621.x
46.
LeveltW. J. M.RoelofsA.MeyerA. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 1–
75. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x99001776
47.
LinP. M. S. (2012). Sound evidence: The missing piece of the jigsaw in formulaic language research. Applied Linguistics, 33, 342–347. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams017
48.
LinP. M. S. (2013). The prosody of formulaic expression in the IBM/Lancaster Spoken English Corpus. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18, 561–588. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.18.4.05lin
49.
LiuY.-F.TsengS.-C. (2009). Linguistic patterns detected through a prosodic segmentation in spontaneous Taiwan Mandarin speech. In TsengS.-C. (Ed.), Linguistic patterns in spontaneous speech (pp. 147–166). Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.
50.
McCauleyS. M.ChristiansenM. H. (2019). Language learning as language use: A cross-linguistic model of child language development. Psychological Review, 126(1), 1–
51.
51.
NationP. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge University Press.
52.
NesselhaufN. (2005). Collocations in a learner corpus. John Benjamins.
53.
PawleyA.SyderF. H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In RichardsJ. C.SchmidtR. W. (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 191–
225). Longman.
PetersA. M. (1977). Language learning strategies: Does the whole equal the sum of the parts?Language, 53, 560–
573. https://doi.org/10.2307/413177
56.
PetersA. M. (1983). The units of language acquisition. Cambridge University Press.
57.
PinheiroJ.BatesD.DebRoyS.SarkarD. & R Core Team. (2020). nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models (R package version 3.1-147). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme.
58.
PinkerS. (1999). Words and rules: The ingredients of language. Basic Books.
59.
PrévotL.TsengS.-C.PeshkovK.ChenA. C.-H. (2015). Processing units in conversation: A comparative study of French and Mandarin data. Language and Linguistics, 16, 69–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1606822X14556605
60.
SelkirkE. (1986). On derived domains in sentence phonology. Phonology Yearbook, 3, 371–405.
61.
ShaoZ.van ParidonJ.PoletiekF. (2019). Effects of phrase and word frequencies in noun phrase production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45(1), 147–
165.
62.
Simpson-VlachR.EllisN. C. (2010). An academic formulas list: New methods in phraseology research. Applied Linguistics, 31, 487–512. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp058
63.
SinclairJ. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford University Press.
64.
Siyanova-ChanturiaA.ConklinK.SchmittN. (2011). Adding more fuel to the fire: An eye-tracking study of idiom processing by native and non-native speakers. Second Language Research, 27, 251–272.
65.
Siyanova-ChanturiaA.ConklinK.van HeuvenW. J. B. (2011). Seeing a phrase ’time and again’ matters: The role of phrasal frequency in the processing of multiword sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 776–784. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022531
66.
SonbulS. (2015). Fatal mistake, awful mistake, or extreme mistake? Frequency effects on off-line/on-line collocational processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 18, 419–
437. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728914000674
67.
SwertsM. (1997). Prosodic features at discourse boundaries of different length. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101, 514–521. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.418114
68.
TabossiP.FanariR.WolfK. (2008). Processing idiomatic expressions: Effects of semantic compositionality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 313–327. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.34.2.313
69.
TremblayA.BaayenH. (2010). Holistic processing of regular four-word sequences: A behavioral and ERP study of the effects of structure, frequency, and probability on immediate free recall. In WoodD. (Ed.), Perspectives on formulaic language: Acquisition and communication (pp. 151–
173). The Continuum International Publishing Group.
70.
TremblayA.DerwingB.LibbenG.WestburyC. (2011). Processing advantages of lexical bundles: Evidence from self-paced reading and sentence recall tasks. Language Learning, 61, 569–613. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00622.x
71.
WahlA. (2015). Intonation unit boundaries and the storage of bigrams. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 13, 191–
219. https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.13.1.08wah
72.
WeiN.LiJ. (2013). A new computing method for extracting contiguous phraseological sequences from academic text corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18, 506–
535. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.18.4.03wei
73.
WolterB.GyllstadH. (2013). Frequency of input and L2 collocational processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 451–482. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263113000107
74.
WoodD. (2015). Fundamentals of formulaic language: An introduction. Bloomsbury Publishing.
75.
WrayA. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge University Press.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
