Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published online by De Gruyter Mouton March 30, 2017

Coalescence and contraction of V-to-Vinf sequences in American English – Evidence from spoken language

  • David Lorenz EMAIL logo and David Tizón-Couto


This paper addresses the issue of coalescence of frequent collocations and its consequences for their realization and mental representation. The items examined are ‘semi-modal’ instantiations of the type V-to-Vinf, namely have to, used to, trying to and need to, in American English. We explore and compare their realization variants in speech, considering the effects of speech-internal and extra-linguistic factors (speech rate, stress accent, phonological context, speech situation, age of the speaker), as well as possible effects of analogy with established contractions like gonna, wanna. Our findings show a high degree of coalescence in the items under study, but no clear pattern of contraction. The propensity for contraction in analogy to gonna/wanna is strongly affected by phonological properties – it is inhibited by the presence of a fricative in have/used to. Moreover, the most frequent reduced realizations are conservative in terms of transparency and still allow morphological parsing of the structure. More radical contractions are restricted to rapid and informal speech, and less entrenched as variants. This shows the limitations of reduction as a frequency effect in light of the balance between articulatory ease and explicitness in speaker–hearer interaction. Even in highly frequent and strongly coalesced items, reduction (articulatory ease) is restricted by a tendency to retain cues to morphological structure (explicitness). Finally, we propose a network of pronunciation variants that includes representation strengths as well as analogy relations across constructional types.

Funding statement: Autonomous Government of Galicia (Grant / Award Number: ‘GPC2014/060’, ‘POS-B/2016/029-PR’), Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness and the European Regional Development Fund (Grant / Award Number: ‘FFI2013-44065-P’, ‘FFI2016-77018-P’).


Andrews, Avery. 1978. Remarks on to adjunction. Linguistic Inquiry 9. 261–268.Search in Google Scholar

Beckner, Clay, Richard Blythe, Morten H. Joan Bybee, William Croft Christiansen, Nick C. Ellis, John Holland, Ke Jinyun, Diane Larsen-Freeman & Tom Schoenemann (a.k.a. “The Five Graces Group”). 2009. Language is a complex and adaptive system. Language Learning 59(1). 1–26.10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00533.xSearch in Google Scholar

Berglund, Ylva. 2000. Gonna and going to in the spoken component of the British National Corpus. In Christian Mair & Marianne Hundt (eds.), Corpus linguistics and linguistic theory – papers from the twentieth international conference on English language research on computerized corpora (ICAME 20), 35–49. Amsterdam: Rodopi.10.1163/9789004490758_005Search in Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. The Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Blumenthal-Dramé, Alice. 2012. Entrenchment in usage-based theories: What corpus data do and do not reveal about the mind. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110294002Search in Google Scholar

Boas, Hans C. 2004. You wanna consider a constructional approach towards wanna-contraction? In Michel Achard & Suzanne Kemmer (eds.), Language, culture, and mind, 479–491. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Boersma, Paul & David Weenink. 2014. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [computer program]. Version 5.4.03. (accessed 1 December 2013).Search in Google Scholar

Bolinger, Dwight. 1981. Consonance, dissonance and grammaticality: The case of wanna. Language and Communication 1. 189–206.10.1016/0271-5309(81)90012-4Search in Google Scholar

Broadbent, Judith M. & Evi Sifaki. 2013. To-contract or not to-contract? That is the question. English Language and Linguistics 17(3). 513–535.10.1017/S1360674313000142Search in Google Scholar

Bürki, Audrey & Ulrich H. Frauenfelder. 2012. Producing and recognizing words with two pronunciation variants: Evidence from novel schwa words. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 65(4). 796–824.10.1080/17470218.2011.634915Search in Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 2002. Phonological evidence for exemplar storage of multiword sequences. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24(2). 215–221.10.1017/S0272263102002061Search in Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82(4). 711–733.10.1353/lan.2006.0186Search in Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511750526Search in Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 2013. Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions. In Thomas Hoffmann & Graeme Trousdale (eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar, 49–69. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195396683.013.0004Search in Google Scholar

Byrd, Dani. 1994. Relations of sex and dialect to reduction. Speech Communication 15. 39–54.10.1016/0167-6393(94)90039-6Search in Google Scholar

Connine, Cynthia M. 2004. It’s not what you hear, but how often you hear it: On the neglected role of phonological variant frequency in auditory word recognition. Psychological Bulletin and Review 11. 1084–1089.10.3758/BF03196741Search in Google Scholar

Connine, Cynthia M. & Eleni Pinnow. 2006. Phonological variation in spoken word recognition: Episodes and abstractions. The Linguistic Review 23. 235–245.10.1515/TLR.2006.009Search in Google Scholar

Dankel, Philipp. 2015. Strategien unter der Oberfläche: Die Emergenz von Evidentialität im Sprachkontakt Spanisch – Quechua. Freiburg: Rombach.Search in Google Scholar

Diessel, Holger. 2007. Frequency effects in language acquisition, language use, and diachronic change. New Ideas in Psychology 25. 108–127.10.1016/j.newideapsych.2007.02.002Search in Google Scholar

Diessel, Holger. 2015. Usage-based Construction Grammar. In Ewa Dąbrowska & Dagmar Divjak (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 296–321. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110292022-015Search in Google Scholar

Du Bois, John W., Robert Engelbertson, Wallace L. Chafe, Charles Meyer, Sandra A. Thompson & Nii Martey. 2000–2005. Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English, Parts 1–4. Philadelphia. (accessed 1 December 2013).Search in Google Scholar

Egan, Thomas. 2008. Emotion verbs with to-infinitive complements: From specific to general predication. In Maurizio Gotti, Marina Dossena & Richard Dury (eds.), English historical linguistics 2006. Volume 1: Syntax and morphology, 223–240. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.295.16egaSearch in Google Scholar

Ellis, Nick C. 2002a. Frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24(2). 143–188.10.1017/S0272263102002024Search in Google Scholar

Ellis, Nick C. 2002b. Reflections on frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24(2). 297–339.10.1017/S0272263102002140Search in Google Scholar

Ernestus, Miriam & Natasha Warner. 2011. An introduction to reduced pronunciation variants. Journal of Phonetics 39. 253–260.10.1016/S0095-4470(11)00055-6Search in Google Scholar

Fox Tree, Jean E. & Herbert H. Clark. 1997. Pronouncing ‘the’ as ‘thee’ to signal problems in speaking. Cognition 62. 151–167.10.1016/S0010-0277(96)00781-0Search in Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199268511.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Greenberg, Steven, Hannah Carvey & Leah Hitchcock. 2002. The relation between stress accent and pronunciation variation in spontaneous American English discourse. Proceedings of the International Speech Communication Association Workshop on Prosody and Speech Processing 2002, 351–354.Search in Google Scholar

Greenberg, Steven & Fosler-Lussier. Eric 2000. The uninvited guest: Information’s role in guiding the production of spontaneous speech. Proceedings of the CREST workshop on models of speech production: Motor planning and articulatory modeling, 129–132.Search in Google Scholar

Gregory, Michelle L., William D. Raymond, Alan Bell, Eric Fosler-Lussier & Daniel Jurafsky. 1999. The effects of collocational strength and contextual predictability in lexical production. Communication and Linguistic Studies 35. 151–166.Search in Google Scholar

Harrell, Frank E. 2015. Regression modeling strategies. 2nd edition. Cham: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-19425-7Search in Google Scholar

Hay, Jennifer B. & R. Harald Baayen. 2005. Shifting paradigms: Gradient structure in morphology. Trends in Cognitive Science 9(7). 342–348.10.1016/j.tics.2005.04.002Search in Google Scholar

Hildebrand-Edgar, Nicole. 2016. Disentangling frequency effects and grammaticalization. Working Papers of the Linguistics Circle of the University of Victoria 26(1). 1–23.Search in Google Scholar

Hollmann, Willem B. & Anna Siewierska. 2011. The status of frequency, schemas, and identity in cognitive sociolinguistics: A case study on definite article reduction. Cognitive Linguistics 22(1). 25–54.10.1515/cogl.2011.002Search in Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul & Elizabeth C. Traugott. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Inhoff, Albrecht, Cynthia M. Connine & Ralph Radach. 2002. A contingent speech technique in eye movement research on reading. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 34. 471–480.10.3758/BF03195476Search in Google Scholar

Jurafsky, Daniel, Alan Bell, Eric Fosler-Lussier, Cynthia Girand & William Raymond. 1998. Reduction of English function words in Switchboard. Proceedings of ICSLP-98 7. 3111–3114.10.21437/ICSLP.1998-801Search in Google Scholar

Jurafsky, Daniel, Alan Bell, Michelle Gregory & William D. Raymond. 2001. Probabilistic relations between words: Evidence from reduction in lexical production. In Joan Bybee & Paul Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, 229–254. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.45.13jurSearch in Google Scholar

Krug, Manfred. 1998. String frequency: A cognitive motivating factor in coalescence, language processing, and linguistic change. Journal of English Linguistics 26. 286–320.10.1177/007542429802600402Search in Google Scholar

Krug, Manfred G. 2000. Emerging English modals: A corpus-based study of grammaticalization. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110820980Search in Google Scholar

Lakoff, George. 1970. Global rules. Language 46(3). 627–639.10.2307/412310Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Lindblom, Björn. 1990. Explaining phonetic variation: A sketch of the H and H theory. In William J. Hardcastle & Alain Marchal (eds.), Speech production and speech modelling, 403–439. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.10.1007/978-94-009-2037-8_16Search in Google Scholar

Lorenz, David. 2013a. Contractions of English semi-modals: The emancipating effect of frequency. NIHIN Studies. Freiburg: Rombach.Search in Google Scholar

Lorenz, David. 2013b. From reduction to emancipation: Is gonna a word? In Hilde Hasselgård, Jarle Ebeling & Signe Oksefjell Ebeling (eds.), Corpus perspectives on patterns of lexis, 133–152. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/scl.57.11lorSearch in Google Scholar

Marslen-Wilson, William D. 2001. Access to lexical representations: Cross-linguistic issues. Language and Cognitive Processes 16(5-6). 699–708.10.1080/01690960143000164Search in Google Scholar

Marslen-Wilson, William D. & Alan Welsh. 1978. Processing interactions and lexical access during word-recognition in continuous speech. Cognitive Psychology 63. 10–29.10.1016/0010-0285(78)90018-XSearch in Google Scholar

Myhill, John. 1996. The development of the strong obligation system in American English. American Speech 71(4). 339–388.10.2307/455712Search in Google Scholar

Palmer, Frank R. 2001. Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139167178Search in Google Scholar

Patterson, David & Cynthia M. Connine. 2001. Variant frequency in flap production: A corpus analysis of variant frequency in American English flap production. Phonetica 58. 254–275.10.1159/000046178Search in Google Scholar

Pellegrino, François, Christophe Coupé & Egidio Marsico. 2011. A cross-language perspective on speech information rate. Language 87(3). 539–558.10.1353/lan.2011.0057Search in Google Scholar

Pichler, Heike. 2009. The functional and social reality of discourse variants in a northern English dialect: I DON’T KNOW and I DON’T THINK compared. Intercultural Pragmatics 6(4). 561–596.10.1515/IPRG.2009.028Search in Google Scholar

Pitt, Mark A., Laura Dilley & Michael Tat. 2011. Exploring the role of exposure frequency in recognizing pronunciation variants. Journal of Phonetics 39. 304–311.10.1016/j.wocn.2010.07.004Search in Google Scholar

Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1997. The morpholexical nature of English to-contraction. Language 73. 79–102.10.2307/416594Search in Google Scholar

Raymond, William D., Robin Dautricourt & Elizabeth Hume. 2006. Word-internal /t,d/ deletion in spontaneous speech: Modeling the effects of extra-linguistic, lexical, and phonological factors. Language Variation and Change 18. 55–97.10.1017/S0954394506060042Search in Google Scholar

Rimac, Robert & Bruce L. Smith. 1984. Acoustic characteristics of flap productions by American English-speaking children and adults: Implications concerning the development of speech motor control. Journal of Phonetics 12(4). 387–396.10.1016/S0095-4470(19)30898-8Search in Google Scholar

Scheibman, Joanne. 2000. I dunno: A usage-based account of the phonological reduction of don’t in American English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 32. 105–124.10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00032-6Search in Google Scholar

Shockey, Linda. 2003. Sound patterns of spoken English. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470758397Search in Google Scholar

Tagliamonte, Sali A. & Alexandra D’Arcy. 2007. The modals of obligation/necessity in Canadian perspective. English World-Wide 28(1). 47–87.10.1075/eww.28.1.04tagSearch in Google Scholar

Trousdale, Graeme. 2012. Grammaticalization, constructions and the grammaticalization of constructions. In Kristin Davidse, Tine Breban, Lieselotte Brems & Tanja Mortelmans (eds.), Grammaticalization and language change, 167–198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.130.07troSearch in Google Scholar

Tucker, Benjamin V. 2007. Spoken word recognition of the reduced American English flap. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Tucker, Benjamin V. 2011. The effect of reduction on the processing of flaps and /g/ in isolated words. Journal of Phonetics 39. 312–318.10.1016/j.wocn.2010.12.001Search in Google Scholar

Tucker, Benjamin V. & Mirjam Ernestus. 2016. Why we need to investigate casual speech to truly understand language production, processing and the mental lexicon. The Mental Lexicon 11(3). 375–400.10.1075/z.238.04tucSearch in Google Scholar

Tucker, Benjamin V. & Natasha Warner. 2007. Inhibition of processing due to reduction of the American English flap. Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 1949–1952.Search in Google Scholar

Umeda, Noriko. 1977. Consonant duration in American English. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 61(3). 846–858.10.1121/1.381374Search in Google Scholar

Wichmann, Anne. 2011. Grammaticalization and prosody. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 331–341. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199586783.013.0026Search in Google Scholar

Zue, Victor W. & Martha Laferriere. 1979. Acoustic study of medial /t, d/ in American English. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 66(4). 1039–1050.10.1121/1.383323Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2017-3-30

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 23.2.2024 from
Scroll to top button