The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The dynamic interaction between lexical and contextual frequency: A case study of (ING)
Abstract
To identify how contextual usage frequency and lexical frequency interact when controlling for traditional linguistic constraints, this study analyzes the effect of frequency on (ING), taking into account a word's frequent context of occurrence. The data consist of 13,167 tokens of (ING) from interviews with 132 speakers conducted in Raleigh, North Carolina. Results from mixed-effect logistic regression show a strong effect of frequency on the realization of (ING), and this effect interacts with phonological context of occurrence. Frequent occurrence in environments that favor-in amplify the effect of lexical frequency; conversely, frequent occurrence in environments that favor–ing dampen the effect of overall frequency. Frequency also interacts with year of birth, showing an entrenchment of high-frequency words, lagging behind the community change toward the–ing variant in apparent time. Overall, these findings support the usage-based position of frequency effects as the result of a dynamic interplay between context of use and cognitive systems.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Use of [ɪn] on nouns is less frequent (Labov, 2001; see also Forrest, 2017) and therefore more marked.”
From Swear(ING) ain't play(ING): The interaction of taboo language and the sociolinguistic variable (2023) · cites this paper as Forrest, 2017
Citations
Cites
Stuffed toys and speech perception
Hay, J., & Drager, K. (2010) · Linguistics · doi:10.1515/ling.2010.027 · Cited by 368 · cited 1×
“…results have been replicated with different social priming mechanisms and different linguistic variables; social priming affects linguistic perception of the /ɪ/ vowel by New Zealanders (Hay, Nolan, & Drager, 2006) and encourages classification into a primed social category (Hay & Drager, 2010).”
Result
Research works printed but not linked: 73
- Tamminga Meredith J. (2014). Persistence in the production of linguistic variation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
- Wolfram, 1976, Appalachian speech
- 10.1515/TLR.2006.014 · DOI
- 2017, R: A language and environment for statistical computing
- Prince, 2008, Optimality theory: Constraint interaction in generative grammar
- Houston Ann . (1985). Continuity and change in English morphology: The variable (ING) . Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
- Dinkin, 2008, The real effect of word frequency on phonetic variation, University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 14, 97
- 10.1353/lan.0.0035 · DOI
- 10.1017/S1360674311000153 · DOI
- 10.1017/S0954394516000119 · DOI
- Raymond, 2012, Are effects of word frequency effects of context of use? An analysis of initial fricative reduction in Spanish, Frequency Effects in Language Learning and Processing, 1, 35, 10.1515/9783110274059.35 · DOI
- Thomas, 2010, Sociophonetics: An introduction
- 10.2307/413643 · DOI
- 10.1017/S0954394512000105 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.tics.2005.04.002 · DOI
- Bates, 2017, Package ‘lme4’
- 10.1017/S0954394512000099 · DOI
- Poplack, 2000, The grammaticization of going to in (African American) English, Language Variation and Change, 11, 315, 10.1017/S0954394599113048 · DOI
- Labov, 2001, Social factors
- 10.1075/tsl.9 · DOI · Paper page
- Tagliamonte, 2004, Someth [in]’s go [ing] on!: Variable ing at ground zero, Language Variation in Europe: Papers from ICLAVE, 2, 390
- 10.1057/9781137291448 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.cognition.2015.02.012 · DOI
- 10.3758/BF03200655 · DOI
- Labov, 1972, Sociolinguistic patterns
- 10.1038/nature06137 · DOI
- Labov, 2010, Cognitive and cultural factors
- Pierrehumbert, 2002, Word-specific phonetics, Laboratory Phonology, 7, 101
- 10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030514-125050 · DOI
- 10.1017/S0954394511000135 · DOI
- Fischer, 1958, Social influences on the choice of a linguistic variant, Word-Journal of the International Linguistic Association, 14, 47
- 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.06.013 · DOI
- 10.1515/ling.1988.26.4.641 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.wocn.2005.10.001 · DOI
- 10.1017/S0954394505050118 · DOI
- Wald, 1985, Language: Introductory readings, 219
- Dodsworth, 2013, Retreat from the Southern Vowel Shift in Raleigh, NC: Social factors, University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 19, 31
- 10.1017/S0022226706004191 · DOI
- 10.3758/BRM.41.4.977 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.newideapsych.2007.02.002 · DOI
- 10.1075/dia.29.2.02bro · DOI
- 10.1017/S0954394512000142 · DOI
- 10.1017/S0954394510000220 · DOI
- Francis, 1982, Frequency analysis of English usage: Lexicon and grammar
- 10.1075/slcs.41.12byb · DOI
- Johnson, 1997, Talker Variability in Speech Processing, 145
- Reid, 1978, Sociolinguistic Patterns in British English, 158
- Koops, 2008, The effect of perceived speaker age on the perception of PIN and PEN vowels in Houston, Texas, University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 14, 93
- Rácz, 2015, The Handbook of Language Emergence, 123, 10.1002/9781118346136.ch5 · DOI
- 10.1353/lan.2012.0050 · DOI
- Baayen, 1996, Celex2
- 10.1006/jmla.2001.2834 · DOI
- Guy, 2007, Lexical exceptions in variable phonology, University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 13, 109
- Cofer Thomas . (1972). Linguistic variability in a Philadelphia community . Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
- 10.1177/0049124104268644 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1017/S0954394500000429 · DOI
- 10.1109/ASRU.2011.6163980 · DOI
- Shuy, 1968, Linguistic correlates of social stratification in Detroit speech
- 10.1353/lan.2016.0036 · DOI
- 10.1075/tsl.45.08pie · DOI
- 10.1017/S0954394502143018 · DOI
- 10.1515/9783110167467 · DOI
- 10.1353/lan.0.0110 · DOI
- 10.1353/lan.2006.0186 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.wocn.2006.06.003 · DOI
- Trudgill, 1974, The social differentiation of English in Norwich
- Labov, 1966, The social stratification of English in New York City
- 10.1017/CBO9780511750526 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1017/S0954394500000533 · DOI
- 10.1017/S0954394516000041 · DOI
- 10.1017/S0954394515000137 · DOI
- Abramowicz, 2007, Sociolinguistics meets exemplar theory: Frequency and recency effects in (ing), University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 13, 27
- 10.1215/00031283-2008-008 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Swear(ING) ain't play(ING): The interaction of taboo language and the sociolinguistic variable
Hunt, M., Cotter, C., Pearson, H., & Stockall, L. (2023) · Journal of Sociolinguistics · doi:10.1111/josl.12588 · Cited by 5
Metadata
- Authors
- Forrest, J.
- Venue
- Language Variation and Change
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2017-07
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 129-156
- ISSN
- 0954-3945
- 1469-8021
- Cited by
- 38
- References
- 1
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review