Cover not available
Article published In:
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
Vol. 29:2 (2024) ► pp.155–188

The inverse frequency effect

An exploratory study

ORCID logo | University of Rochester
Rare syntactic constructions show an especially strong tendency to be repeated, but some rare constructions exhibit this tendency much more strongly than others. The reasons for this variation are not well understood. This exploratory study examines five rare noun-phrase (NP) expansions in English: <the A> (the rich), <a Nprop Nprop> (a Bob Gates), <Nsing Nprop Nprop> (architect Julia Morgan), <D Npl Nsing> (the jobs data), and <Nsing A Nsing> (home electronic equipment). Repetition tendencies are very strong in the first and second of these and somewhat strong in the third; in the fourth and fifth they are much weaker, only slightly higher than those of common NP expansions such as <D A Nsing> (the black dog). To explain this variation, we suggest that constructions may be associated with different types of discourse: constructions with high repetition tendencies tend to occur in persuasive rather than informative discourse.
Keywords: priming, discourse, coordination, parallelism, inverse frequency effect
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Previous work on syntactic repetition
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Choice and definition of syntactic constructions
    • 3.2Measuring close repetition and parallelism
  • 4.Results
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1Explaining the results
    • 5.2Limitations
  • 6.Conclusions and future directions
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 9 October 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.22080.tem
References (41)
References
Aylett, M., & Turk, A. (2004). The smooth signal redundancy hypothesis: A functional explanation for relationships between redundancy, prosodic prominence, and duration in spontaneous speech. Language and Speech, 47 (1), 31–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bock, J. K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18 (3), 355–387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brewer, W. F. (1980). Literary theory, rhetoric, and stylistics: Implications for psychology. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension (pp. 221–239). Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Chang, F., Dell, G. S., & Bock, K. (2006). Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review, 113 (2), 234–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Charniak, E., Blaheta, D., Ge, N., Hall, K., Hale, J., & Johnson, M. (2000). Bllip 1987–89 WSJ corpus release 1. Linguistic Data Consortium, 36 1.Google Scholar
Cleland, A. A., & Pickering, M. J. (2003). The use of lexical and syntactic information in language production: Evidence from the priming of noun-phrase structure. Journal of Memory and Language, 49 (2), 214–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corbett, E. (1971). Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student (2nd Edition). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2009). The 385+ million word Corpus of Contemporary American English (1990–2008+): Design, architecture, and linguistic insights. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14 (2), 159–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dubey, A., Keller, F., & Sturt, P. (2008). A probabilistic corpus-based model of syntactic parallelism. Cognition, 109 (3), 326–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fenk, A., & Fenk, G. (1980). Konstanz im Kurzzeitgedächtnis – Konstanz im sprachlichen Informationsfluß? Zeitschrift für Experimentelle und Angewandte Psychologie, 27 (3), 400–414.Google Scholar
Ferreira, V. S. (2003). The persistence of optional complementizer production: Why saying “that” is not saying “that” at all. Journal of Memory and Language, 48 (2), 379–398. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). A mechanistic framework for explaining audience design in language production. Annual Review of Psychology, 70 (1), 29–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frank, A., & Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Speaking rationally: Uniform information density as an optimal strategy for language production. In B. C. Love, K. McRae, & V. M. Sloutsky (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 939–944). [URL]
Frazier, L., Munn, A., & Clifton, C. (2000). Processing coordinate structures. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29 (4), 343–370. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garside, R., & Smith, N. (1997). A hybrid grammatical tagger: CLAWS4. In R. Garside, G. Leech, & A. McEnery, A. (Eds.), Corpus Annotation: Linguistic Information from Computer Text Corpora (pp. 102–121). Longman. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. T. (2005). Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34 (4), 365–399. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hale, J. (2001). A probabilistic Earley parser as a psycholinguistic model. In In R. Levy & R. Reitter (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Vol 21., pp. 159–166). Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J., Kolk, H. H., & Huiskamp, P. (1999). Priming word order in sentence production. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 52 (1), 129–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heycock, C., & Zamparelli, R. (2003). Coordinated bare definites. Linguistic Inquiry, 34 (3), 443–469. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (2008). Construction after construction and its theoretical challenges. Language, 84 (1), 8–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, T. F., & Snider, N. E. (2013). Alignment as a consequence of expectation adaptation: Syntactic priming is affected by the primes prediction error given both prior and recent experience. Cognition, 127 (1), 57–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Konopka, A. E., & Bock, K. (2009). Lexical or syntactic control of sentence formulation? Structural generalizations from idiom production. Cognitive Psychology, 58 (1), 68–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition, 106 (3), 1126–1177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levy, R., & Jaeger, T. F. (2007). Speakers optimize information density through syntactic reduction. In B. Schölkopf, J. Platt, & T. Hofmann (Eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 19: Proceedings of the 2006 Conference (pp. 849–856). MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marcus, M. P., Kim, G., Marcinkiewicz, M. A., MacIntyre, R., Bies, A., Ferguson, M., Katz, K., & Schasberger, B. (1994). The Penn Treebank: Annotating predicate argument structure. In ARPA Proceedings of the Workshop on Human Language Technology (pp. 114–119). Morgan Kaufmann. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McQuarrie, E. F., & Mick, D. G. (1996). Figures of rhetoric in advertising language. Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (4), 424–438. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Menninghaus, W., Wagner, V., Wassiliwizky, E., Jacobsen, T., & Knoop, C. A. (2017). The emotional and aesthetic powers of parallelistic diction. Poetics, 631, 47–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myslín, M., & Levy, R. (2016). Comprehension priming as rational expectation for repetition: Evidence from syntactic processing. Cognition, 147 1, 29–56. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pickering, M. J., & Branigan, H. P. (1998). The representation of verbs: Evidence from syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 39 (4), 633–651. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27 (2), 169–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Longman.Google Scholar
Reitter, D., Keller, F., & Moore, J. D. (2006). Computational Modelling of Structural Priming in Dialogue. In R. C. Moore, J. Bilmes, J. Chu-Carroll, & M. Sanderson (Eds.), Proceedings of the Human Language Technology Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 121–124). Association for Computational Linguistics. [URL]. DOI logo
(2011). A computational cognitive model of syntactic priming. Cognitive Science, 35 (4), 587–637. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sanders, T. (1997). Semantic and pragmatic sources of coherence: On the categorization of coherence relations in context, Discourse Processes, 24 (1), 119–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scheepers, C. (2003). Syntactic priming of relative clause attachments: Persistence of structural configuration in sentence production. Cognition, 89 (3), 179–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B. (2005). Language users as creatures of habit: A corpus-based analysis of persistence in spoken English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1 (1), 113–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Temperley, D. (2022). Music and language. Annual Review of Linguistics, 8 1, 153–170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Temperley, D., & Gildea, D. (2015). Information density and syntactic repetition. Cognitive Science, 39 (8), 1802–1823. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trueswell, J. C., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (1994). Toward a lexicalist framework for constraint-based syntactic ambiguity resolution. In C. Clifton, L. Frazier, & K. Rayner (Eds.), Perspectives on Sentence Processing (pp. 155–179). Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.Google Scholar
Vickers, B. (1994). Repetition and emphasis in rhetoric: Theory and practice. In A. Fischer (Ed.), Repetition (Swiss Papers in English Language and Literature, 7) (pp. 85–114). Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar