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

  • 1 English Department, Universität Freiburg, Rempartstr. 15, Freiburg 79085, Germany
  • 2 Facultade de Filoloxía e Tradución, Universidade de Vigo, E-36310, Vigo, Spain
David Lorenz 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.

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

  • Blumenthal-Dramé, Alice. 2012. Entrenchment in usage-based theories: What corpus data do and do not reveal about the mind. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • 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.

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

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

  • Broadbent, Judith M. & Evi Sifaki. 2013. To-contract or not to-contract? That is the question. English Language and Linguistics 17(3). 513–535.

  • 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.

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

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

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

  • 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.

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

  • 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.

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

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

  • Diessel, Holger. 2007. Frequency effects in language acquisition, language use, and diachronic change. New Ideas in Psychology 25. 108–127.

  • Diessel, Holger. 2015. Usage-based Construction Grammar. In Ewa Dąbrowska & Dagmar Divjak (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 296–321. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • 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).

  • 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.

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

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

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

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

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

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

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

  • 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.

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • Krug, Manfred. 1998. String frequency: A cognitive motivating factor in coalescence, language processing, and linguistic change. Journal of English Linguistics 26. 286–320.

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

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

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

  • 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.

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

  • 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.

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

  • Marslen-Wilson, William D. & Alan Welsh. 1978. Processing interactions and lexical access during word-recognition in continuous speech. Cognitive Psychology 63. 10–29.

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

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

  • 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.

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

  • 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.

  • Pitt, Mark A., Laura Dilley & Michael Tat. 2011. Exploring the role of exposure frequency in recognizing pronunciation variants. Journal of Phonetics 39. 304–311.

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

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

  • 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.

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

  • Tucker, Benjamin V. 2011. The effect of reduction on the processing of flaps and /g/ in isolated words. Journal of Phonetics 39. 312–318.

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

  • Wichmann, Anne. 2011. Grammaticalization and prosody. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 331–341. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • 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.

Purchase article
Get instant unlimited access to the article.
Log in
Already have access? Please log in.

Log in with your institution

Journal + Issues

Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory publishes high-quality, corpus-based research focusing on theoretically-relevant issues in all core areas of linguistic research (phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics) and other recognized topic areas. The journal features articles from a corpus-based approach that develop new methods, evaluate theoretical claims and offer analyses of linguistic phenomena within a theoretical framework.