Frequency Effects in Language Representation 2012
DOI: 10.1515/9783110274073.165
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Measuring Mental Entrenchment of Phrases with Perceptual Identification, Familiarity Ratings, and Corpus Frequency Statistics

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
13
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
1
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This study has quantified the effect that frequency of occurrence has on acceptability for low‐frequent phenomena at the syntax‐lexis interface: Two‐thirds of verbs studied occur fewer than 0.66 ipm with the that ‐clause, and this extends the range of frequencies included in this study below the lower bound set in previous research in this area (cf. Caldwell‐Harris et al., ). The reported results were obtained in an off‐line acceptability rating experiment that reduces real‐time processing pressures.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This study has quantified the effect that frequency of occurrence has on acceptability for low‐frequent phenomena at the syntax‐lexis interface: Two‐thirds of verbs studied occur fewer than 0.66 ipm with the that ‐clause, and this extends the range of frequencies included in this study below the lower bound set in previous research in this area (cf. Caldwell‐Harris et al., ). The reported results were obtained in an off‐line acceptability rating experiment that reduces real‐time processing pressures.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For 26/95 verbs, the that ‐construction was not attested in the 1.5 billion word corpus; since reliable statistical inference is in principle impossible even for hapax (and dis) legomena (Evert, : 133, 166), these verbs are removed from the sample and analyzed separately (see Section ; these verbs are marked “no” in column 4 “attested in that ‐clause” in the verb‐list in Data S2). Of the attested 69 verbs, 51 occur fewer than 1,000 times in the that‐ construction in the 1.5 billion corpus, that is, fewer than 0.66 times per million words, making the that ‐alternative a “legal” (in the terminology of Caldwell‐Harris, Berant, & Edelman, ) option at best. This study thus extends the range of frequencies studied further downwards (compare Bannard & Matthews, ; Snider & Arnon, ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…3 A creative approach to obtaining a large corpus based on spoken language is SUBTL, a large database of frequency norms based on a corpus of subtitles from TV and films (Brysbaert and New 2009). Subjective frequency measures are known to correlate moderately to highly with counts from corpora (Balota et al 2001;Caldwell-Harris, Berant, Edelman, 2012). Using frequency counts based on a large database of subtitles from TV and films results in higher correlations with processing times than do frequencies from texts Brysbaert and New (2009).…”
Section: Type Versus Token Frequencymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It has been most common to study frequency effects using single isolated words, and indeed, the (single) word frequency effect is one of the most robust findings in experimental psychology (Monsell 1991). Frequency effects have also been found for phonemes, morphemes and multi-word expressions, and have been attested for items across the low to high frequency range although less research exists on the former (see Bannard and Matthews 2008, Caldwell-Harris et al 2012, Snider and Arnon 2012 review for recent work on these effects in low frequency structures). Although most of our citations below concern the word frequency effect, note that usage-based linguists propose singlesystem models and predict frequency effects for all linguistic units: simple and complex, lexical and grammatical.…”
Section: Types Of Frequency Effectsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The role of frequency in the construction and use of linguistic representations in usage-based theories has sparked interest in variation across speakers. Various studies (Balota et al 2004;Caldwell-Harris et al 2012;Dąbrowska 2008;Dąbrowska. 2010, 2014;Wells et al 2009, to name just a few) have shown groups of participants to differ significantly in ease and speed of processing and in the use of a wide range of constructions that vary in size, schematicity, complexity, and dispersion.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%