Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory

Founded by Gries, Stefan Th. / Stefanowitsch, Anatol

Ed. by Wulff, Stefanie

IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 1.200
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.386

CiteScore 2017: 0.80

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.288
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.930

See all formats and pricing
More options …

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

David Lorenz / David Tizón-Couto
Published Online: 2017-03-30 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2015-0067


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.

Keywords: coalescence; contraction; phonetic reduction; mental representations; semi-modal construction


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

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

  • Boersma, Paul & David Weenink. 2014. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [computer program]. Version 5.4.03. http://www.praat.org/ (accessed 1 December 2013).

  • Bolinger, Dwight. 1981. Consonance, dissonance and grammaticality: The case of wanna. Language and Communication 1. 189–206.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.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.Google Scholar

  • Bybee, Joan L. 2002. Phonological evidence for exemplar storage of multiword sequences. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24(2). 215–221.Google Scholar

  • Bybee, Joan L. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82(4). 711–733.Google Scholar

  • Bybee, Joan L. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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.Google Scholar

  • Byrd, Dani. 1994. Relations of sex and dialect to reduction. Speech Communication 15. 39–54.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.Google Scholar

  • Connine, Cynthia M. & Eleni Pinnow. 2006. Phonological variation in spoken word recognition: Episodes and abstractions. The Linguistic Review 23. 235–245.Google Scholar

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

  • Diessel, Holger. 2007. Frequency effects in language acquisition, language use, and diachronic change. New Ideas in Psychology 25. 108–127.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.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. www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/research/sbcorpus.html (accessed 1 December 2013).

  • 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.Google Scholar

  • Ellis, Nick C. 2002a. Frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24(2). 143–188.Google Scholar

  • Ellis, Nick C. 2002b. Reflections on frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24(2). 297–339.Google Scholar

  • Ernestus, Miriam & Natasha Warner. 2011. An introduction to reduced pronunciation variants. Journal of Phonetics 39. 253–260.Google Scholar

  • Fox Tree, Jean E. & Herbert H. Clark. 1997. Pronouncing ‘the’ as ‘thee’ to signal problems in speaking. Cognition 62. 151–167.Google Scholar

  • Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.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.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.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.Google Scholar

  • Harrell, Frank E. 2015. Regression modeling strategies. 2nd edition. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar

  • Hay, Jennifer B. & R. Harald Baayen. 2005. Shifting paradigms: Gradient structure in morphology. Trends in Cognitive Science 9(7). 342–348.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.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.Google Scholar

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

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

  • Lakoff, George. 1970. Global rules. Language 46(3). 627–639.Google Scholar

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

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

  • Marslen-Wilson, William D. 2001. Access to lexical representations: Cross-linguistic issues. Language and Cognitive Processes 16(5-6). 699–708.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.Google Scholar

  • Myhill, John. 1996. The development of the strong obligation system in American English. American Speech 71(4). 339–388.Google Scholar

  • Palmer, Frank R. 2001. Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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.Google Scholar

  • Pellegrino, François, Christophe Coupé & Egidio Marsico. 2011. A cross-language perspective on speech information rate. Language 87(3). 539–558.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.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.Google Scholar

  • Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1997. The morpholexical nature of English to-contraction. Language 73. 79–102.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.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.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.Google Scholar

  • Shockey, Linda. 2003. Sound patterns of spoken English. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Tagliamonte, Sali A. & Alexandra D’Arcy. 2007. The modals of obligation/necessity in Canadian perspective. English World-Wide 28(1). 47–87.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.Google Scholar

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

  • Umeda, Noriko. 1977. Consonant duration in American English. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 61(3). 846–858.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.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.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2017-03-30

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’).

Citation Information: Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, ISSN (Online) 1613-7035, ISSN (Print) 1613-7027, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2015-0067.

Export Citation

© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in