Book contents
References
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 November 2022
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Communicative EfficiencyLanguage Structure and Use, pp. 256 - 287Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Adibifar, Shirin. 2016. Persian. In Haig, Geoffrey and Schnell, Stefan (eds.), Multi-CAST: Multilingual Corpus of Annotated Spoken Texts, Version 2108. https://multicast.aspra.uni-bamberg.de/, accessed 5 April 2022.Google Scholar
Aissen, Judith. 1999. Markedness and subject choice in optimality theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 17: 673–711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 435–483.Google Scholar
Allen, Shanley E.M., and Schröder, Heike. 2003. Preferred Argument Structure in early Inuktitut spontaneous speech data. In Du Bois, John W., Kumpf, Lorraine E. and Ashby, William J. (eds.), Preferred Argument Structure: Grammar as Architecture for Function, 301–338. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Amberber, Mengistu. 2000. Valency-changing and valency-encoding devices in Amharic. In Dixon, R.M.W. and Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (eds.), Changing Valency: Case Studies in Transitivity, 312–332. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Frank C., and Pandy, Marcus G.. 2001. Dynamic optimization of human walking. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering 123: 381–390.Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 1999. The development of person agreement markers: from pronouns to higher accessibility markers. In Michael Barlow and Suzanne Kemmer (eds.), Usage-Based Models of Language, 197–260. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 2001. Accessibility theory: An overview. In Sanders, Ted, Schliperoord, Joost and Spooren, Wilbert (eds.), Text Representation, 29–87. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 2014. Or Constructions: Monosemy versus polysemy. In MacWhinney, Brian, Malchukov, Andrej and Moravcsik, Edith (eds.), Competing Motivations in Grammar and Usage, 333–347. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Arnold, Jennifer E. 2001. The effects of thematic roles on pronoun use and frequency of reference. Discourse Processes 31: 137–162.Google Scholar
Arnold, Jennifer E. 2003. Multiple constraints on reference form: Null, pronominal, and full reference in Mapudungun. In Du Bois, John W., Kumpf, Lorraine E. and Ashby, William J. (eds.), Preferred Argument Structure: Grammar as Architecture for Function, 225–245. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, Jennifer E. 2010. How speakers refer: The role of accessibility. Language and Linguistics Compass 4(4): 187–203. DOI https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818x.2010.00193.x.Google Scholar
Arnold, Jennifer E., and Griffin, Zenzi M.. 2007. The effect of additional characters on choice of referring expression: Everyone counts. Journal of Memory and Language 56(4): 521–536. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.09.007.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arnold, Jennifer E., Losongco, Anthony, Wasow, Thomas and Ginstrom, Ryan. 2000. Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language 76(1): 28–55. DOI https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2000.0045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashby, William B., and Bentivoglio, Paola. 1993. Preferred argument structure in spoken French and Spanish. Language Variation and Change 5(1): 61–76.Google Scholar
Asr, Fatemeh Torabi, and Demberg, Vera. 2012. Implicitness of discourse relations. In Proceedings of COLING 2012: Technical Papers, 2669–2684. COLING 2012, Mumbai, December 2012.Google Scholar
Aylett, Matthew, and Turk, Alice. 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.Google Scholar
Aylett, Matthew, and Turk, Alice. 2006. Language redundancy predicts syllabic duration and the spectral characteristics of vocalic syllable nuclei. Journal of Acoustical Society of America 119(5): 3048–3058.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald, Milin, Petar and Ramscar, Michael. 2016. Frequency in lexical processing. Aphasiology 30(11): 1174–1220. DOI https://doi.org/10.1080/02687038.2016.1147767.Google Scholar
Baese-Berk, Melissa, and Goldrick, Matthew. 2009. Mechanisms of interaction in speech production. Language and Cognitive Processes 24(4): 527–554.Google Scholar
Baggio, Giosuè, and Hagoort, Peter. 2011. The balance between memory and unification in semantics: A dynamic account of the N400. Language and Cognitive Processes 26(9): 1338–1367.Google Scholar
Balodis, Uldis Ivars Jānis. 2011. Yuki Grammar in Its Areal Context with Sketches of Huchnom and Coast Yuki. PhD dissertation. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California.Google Scholar
Bartek, Brian, Lewis, Richard L., Vasishth, Shravan and Smith, Mason R.. 2011. In search of on-line locality effects in sentence comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 37(5): 1178–1198.Google Scholar
Barth, Danielle. 2019. Effects of average and specific context probability on reduction of function words BE and HAVE. Linguistics Vanguard 5(1): 20180055. DOI https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2018-0055.Google Scholar
Bašnáková, Jana, Weber, Kirsten, Petersson, Karl Magnus, van Berkum, Jos and Hagoort, Peter. 2014. Beyond the language given: The neural correlates of inferring speaker meaning. Cerebral Cortex 24: 2572–2578. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bht112.Google Scholar
Bauer, Brigitte M. 2009. Word order. In Baldi, Philip and Cuzzolin, Pierluigi (eds.), New Perspectives on Historical Latin Syntax: Vol 1: Syntax of the Sentence, 241–316. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Beattie, Geoffrey W., and Butterworth, B.L.. 1979. Contextual probability and word frequency as determinants of pauses and errors in spontaneous speech. Language and Speech 22(3): 201–221. DOI https://doi.org/10.1177/002383097902200301.Google Scholar
Behaghel, Otto. 1909. Beziehungen zwischen Umfang und Reihenfolge von Satzgliedern. Indogermanische Forschungen 25: 110–142.Google Scholar
Bell, Alan, Jurafsky, Daniel, Fosler-Lussier, Eric, Girand, Cynthia and Gildea, Daniel. 2003. Effects of disfluencies, predictability, and utterance position on word form variation in English conversation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 113(2): 1001–1024.Google Scholar
Bell, Alan, Brenier, Jason, Gregory, Michelle, Girand, Cynthia, and Jurafsky, Dan. 2009. Predictability effects on durations of content and function words in conversational English. Journal of Memory and Language 60(1): 92–111.Google Scholar
Bell, Allan. 1984. Language style as audience design. Language in Society 13: 145–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellingham, Erika, Evers, Stephanie, Kawachi, Kazuhiro, Mitchell, Alice, Park, Sang-Hee, Stepanova, Anastasia and Bohnemeyer, Jürgen. 2020. Exploring the representation of causality across languages: Integrating production, comprehension and conceptualization perspectives. In Siegal, Elitzur Bar-Asher and Boneh, Nora (eds.), Perspectives on Causation. Selected Papers from the Jerusalem 2017 Workshop, 75–119, Cham: Springer. DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34308-8_3.Google Scholar
Benor, Sarah, and Levy, Roger. 2006. The chicken or the egg? A probabilistic analysis of English binomials. Language 82(2): 233–278.Google Scholar
Bentz, Christian, and Ferrer-i-Cancho, Ramon. 2016. Zipf’s law of abbreviation as a language universal. Capturing phylogenetic algorithms for linguistics. In Bentz, Christian, Jäger, Gerhard and Yanovich, Igor (eds.), Proceedings of the Leiden Workshop on Capturing Phylogenetic Algorithms for Linguistics. University of Tübingen. https://publikationen.uni-tuebingen.de/xmlui/handle/10900/68558.Google Scholar
Berdicevskis, Alexandrs, Schmidtke-Bode, Karsten and Seržant, Ilja. 2020. Subjects tend to be coded only once: Corpus-based and grammar-based evidence for an efficiency-driven trade-off. In Proceedings of the 19th International Workshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theories, October 2020, Düsseldorf, Germany. Düsseldorf: ACL. www.aclweb.org/anthology/2020.tlt-1.8.pdf.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, and Gray, Bethany. 2011. Grammar emerging in the noun phrase: The influence of written language use. English Language and Linguistics 15: 223–250.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan and Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena, Choudhary, Kamal K., Schlesewsky, Matthias and Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina. 2015a. The Neurophysiology of language processing shapes the evolution of grammar: Evidence from case marking. PLoS ONE 10(8): e0132819. DOI https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132819.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena and Zakharko, Taras. 2015b. Typological evidence against universal effects of referential scales on case alignment. In Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina, Malchukov, Andrej L. and Richards, Marc (eds.), Scales, 7–43. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, Nichols, Johanna, Zakharko, Taras, Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena, Hildebrandt, Kristine, Rießler, Michael, Bierkandt, Lennart, Zúñiga, Fernando and Lowe, John B.. 2017. The AUTOTYP Typological Databases. Version 0.1.0. https://github.com/autotyp/autotyp-data/tree/0.1.0.Google Scholar
Bisang, Walter. 2009. On the evolution of complexity: Sometimes less is more in East and mainland Southeast Asia. In Sampson, Geoffrey, Gil, David and Trudgill, Peter (eds.), Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable, 34–49. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bisang, Walter, Malchukov, Andrej and the Mainz Grammaticalization Project Team. 2020. Position paper: Universal and areal patterns in grammaticalization. In Bisang, Walter and Malchukov, Andrej (eds.), Grammaticalization Scenarios: Cross-Linguistic Variation and Universal Tendencies, Vol. 1, 1–87. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Blasi, Damián E., and Roberts, Seán G.. 2017. Beyond binary dependencies in language structure. In Enfield, Nick J. (ed.), Dependencies in Language, 117–128. Berlin: Language Science Press. DOI https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.573774.Google Scholar
Blumenthal-Dramé, Alice, and Kortmann, Bernd. 2017. Causal and concessive relations: Typology meets cognition. Paper presented at the 39th Annual Conference of the German Linguistic Society, March 8–10 2017, Saarbrücken.Google Scholar
Bock, J. Kathryn. 1982. Toward a cognitive psychology of syntax: Information processing contributions to sentence formulation. Psychological Review 89(1): 1–47.Google Scholar
Bock, J. Kathryn. 1986. Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology 18: 355–387.Google Scholar
Bock, J. Kathryn, and Irwin, David E.. 1980. Syntactic effects of information availability in sentence production. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 19(4): 467–484. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90321-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, J. Kathryn, and Warren, Richard K.. 1985. Conceptual accessibility and syntactic structure in sentence formulation. Cognition 21(1): 47–67. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(85)90023-X.Google Scholar
Bock, Kathryn, Loebell, Helga and Morey, Randal. 1992. From conceptual roles to structural relations: bridging the syntactic cleft. Psychological Review 99(1): 150–171. DOI https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.99.1.150.Google Scholar
Bohnemeyer, Jürgen, Enfield, Nicholas J., Essegbey, James and Kita, Sotaro. 2010. The Macro-Event Property: The segmentation of causal chains. In Bohnemeyer, Jürgen and Pederson, Eric (eds.), Event Representation in Language: Encoding Events at the Language-Cognition Interface, 43–67. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bornkessel, Ina, Schlesewsky, Matthias and Friederici, Angela D.. 2003. Eliciting thematic reanalysis effects: The role of syntax-independent information during parsing. Language and Cognitive Processes 18(3): 269–298. DOI https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960244000018.Google Scholar
Bossong, Georg. 1985. Empirische Universalienforschung: Differentielle Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Bouma, Gosse. 2016. Om-omission. In Wieling, Martijn, Kroon, Martin, van Noord, Gertjan and Bouma, Gosse (eds.), From Semantics to Dialectometry: Festschrift in honor of John Nerbonne, 65–74. London: College Publications.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Cueni, Anna, Nikitina, Tatiana and Baayen, Harald. 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. In Bouma, Gerlof, Krämer, Irene and Zwarts, Joost (eds.), Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation, 69–94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar
Britt, Allison E., Ferrara, Casey and Mirman, Daniel. 2016. Distinct effects of lexical and semantic competition during picture naming in younger adults, older adults, and people with aphasia. Frontiers in Psychology 7: 813. DOI https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00813.Google Scholar
Bruno, Ana Carla. 2003. Waimiri Atroarí Grammar: Some Phonological, Morphological, and Syntactic Aspects. PhD dissertation. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Buz, Esteban, Tanenhaus, Michael K. and Jaeger, T. Florian. 2016. Dynamically adapted context-specific hyper-articulation: Feedback from interlocutors affects speakers’ subsequent pronunciations. Journal of Memory and Language 89: 68–86.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation Between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1994. The grammaticization of zero: Asymmetries in tense and aspect systems. In Pagliuca, William (ed.), Perspectives on Grammaticalization, 235–254. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1999. Usage-based phonology. In Darnell, Michael, Moravcsik, Edith A., Newmeyer, Frederic J., Noonan, Michael and Wheatley, Kathleen (eds.), Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics. Volume I: General papers, 211–242. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2003. Cognitive processes in grammaticalization. In Tomasello, Michael (ed.), The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, Vol. 2, 145–167. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.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. 2007. Frequency of Use and the Organization of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2010. Language, Usage, and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., and Pagliuca, William. 1987. The evolution of future meaning. In Ramat, Anna Giacalone, Carruba, Onofrio and Bernini, Giuliano (eds.), Papers from the 7th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, 109–122. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, and Scheibman, Joanne. 1999. The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: The reduction of don’t in English. Linguistics 37(4): 575–596.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, and Thompson, Sandra A.. 1997. Three frequency effects in syntax. Berkeley Linguistics Society 23: 378–388.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., Pagliuca, William and Perkins, Revere. 1990. On the asymmetries in the affixation of grammatical material. In Croft, William, Denning, Keith and Kemmer, Suzanne (eds.), Studies in Typology and Diachrony: Papers Presented to Joseph H. Greenberg on his 75th Birthday, 1–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., Perkins, Revere and Pagliuca, William. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Caldwell, Christine A., and Smith, Kenny. 2012. Cultural evolution and perpetuation of arbitrary communicative conventions in experimental microsocieties. PLoS ONE 7(8): e43807. DOI https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0043807.Google Scholar
Carden, Guy, and Pesetsky, David. 1979. Double-verb constructions, markedness, and a fake co-ordination. In Papers from the Thirteenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 13, 82–92. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. (ed.). 1980. The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural, and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace L. 1987. Cognitive constraints on information flow. In Tomlin, Russell S. (ed.), Coherence and Grounding in Discourse, 21–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chatterji, Suniti Kumar. 1926. The Origin and Development of the Bengali Language. Calcutta: Calcutta University Press.Google Scholar
Chui, Ka-Wai. 1992. Preferred argument structure for discourse understanding. In Proceedings of COLING-92, Nantes, August 23–28 1992, 1142–1146.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H., and Chase, William G.. 1974. Perceptual coding strategies in the formation and verification of descriptions. Memory and Cognition 2: 101–111.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H., and Marshall, Catherine R.. 1981. Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In Joshi, Aravind K., Webber, Bonnie L. and Sag, Ivan A. (eds.), Elements of Discourse Understanding, 10–63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H., and Schaefer, Edward F.. 1989. Contributing to discourse. Cognition 13: 259–294.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H., and Wilkes-Gibbs, Deanna. 1986. Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition 22: 1–39.Google Scholar
Cohen, Gillian, and Faulkner, Dorothy. 1983. Word recognition: Age differences in contextual facilitation effects. British Journal of Psychology 74(2): 239–251. DOI https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1983.tb01860.x.Google Scholar
Cohen Priva, Uriel. 2008. Using information content to predict phone deletion. In Abner, Natasha and Bishop, Jason (eds.), Proceedings of the 27th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 90–98. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1978. Ergativity. In Lehmann, W.P. (ed.), Syntactic Typology. Studies in the Phenomenology of Language, 329–394. Austin, TX: The University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1986. Markedness, grammar, people, and the world. In Eckman, Fred R., Fred R., Moravcsik, Edith A. and Wirth, Jessica R. (eds.), Markedness, 85–106. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cook, Susan W., Jaeger, T. Florian and Tanenhaus, Michael K.. 2009. Producing less preferred structures: More gestures, less fluency. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci09), 62–67. Amsterdam: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Corbett, Grevile, Hippisley, Andrew R., Brown, Dunstan and Marriott, Paul. 2001. Frequency, regularity, and the paradigm: A perspective from Russian on a complex relation. In Bybee, Joan L. and Hopper, Paul J. (eds.), Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure, 201–226. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cotterell, Ryan D., Kirov, Christo, Hulden, Mans and Eisner, Jason. 2019. On the complexity and typology of inflectional morphological systems. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics 7: 327–342. DOI https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00271.Google Scholar
Coupé, Christophe, Yoon Mi, Oh, Dediu, Dan and Pellegrino, François. 2019. Different languages, similar encoding efficiency: Comparable information rates across the human communication niche. Science Advances 5(9): eeaw2594. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaw2594.Google Scholar
Cristofaro, Sonia. 2019. Taking diachronic evidence seriously: Result-oriented vs. source-oriented explanations of typological universals. In Schmidtke-Bode, Karsten, Levshina, Natalia, Michaelis, Susanne M. and Seržant, Ilja (eds.), Explanation in Typology: Diachronic Sources, Functional Motivations and the Nature of the Evidence, 25–46. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2000. Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach. Harlow, Essex: Longman.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2002. On being a student of Joe Greenberg. Linguistic Typology 6(1): 3–8. DOI https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.2002.001.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2003. Typology and Universals, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Culbertson, Jennifer, Smolensky, Paul and Legendre, Géraldine. 2012. Learning biases predict a word order universal. Cognition 122(3): 306–329. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.10.017.Google Scholar
Culbertson, Jennifer, Schouwstra, Marieke and Kirby, Simon. 2020. From the world to word order: Deriving biases in noun phrase order from statistical properties of the world. Language 96(3): 696-717. DOI https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2020.0045.Google Scholar
Cutler, Anne, Hawkins, John A. and Gilligan, Gary. 1985. The suffixing preference: A processing explanation. Linguistics 23: 723–758.Google Scholar
Cysouw, Michael. 2009. The asymmetry of affixation. Snippets (Special issue in honor of Manfred Krifka, ed. by Beck, Sigrid and Gärtner, Hans-Martin) 20: 10–14. www.ledonline.it/snippets/.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 2000. Egophoricity in discourse and syntax. Functions of Language 7(1): 37–77.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 2004. The Growth and Maintenance of Linguistic Complexity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen, and Fraurud, Kari. 1996. Animacy in grammar and discourse. In Fretheim, Thorstein and Gundel, Jeannette (eds.), Reference and Referent Accessibility, 47–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary, and Nikolaeva, Irina. 2011. Objects and Information Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2008–. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 560 million words, 1990–present. https://corpus.byu.edu/coca/.Google Scholar
de Hoop, Helen, and Malchukov, Andrej L.. 2008. Case-marking strategies. Linguistic Inquiry 39(4): 565–587. DOI https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2008.39.4.565.Google Scholar
de Hoop, Helen, and de Swart, Peter (eds.). 2008. Differential Subject Marking. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
De Smedt, Koenraad. 1994. Parallelism in incremental sentence generation. In Adriaens, Geert and Hahn, Udo (eds.), Parallel Natural Language Processing, 421–447. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
De Smedt, Koenraad, and Kempen, Gerard. 1996. Discontinuous constituency in Segment Grammar. In Bunt, Harry and van Horck, Arthur (eds.), Discontinuous Constituency, 141–164. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
De Swart, Peter. 2007. Cross-Linguistic Variation in Object Marking. PhD dissertation. Nijmegen: LOT Publications.Google Scholar
Degen, Judith, Hawkins, Robert D., Graf, Caroline, Kreiss, Elisa and Goodman, Noah D.. 2020. When redundancy is useful: A Bayesian approach to ‘overinformative’ referring expressions. Psychological Review 127(4): 591–621. DOI https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000186.Google Scholar
Delbrück, Berthold. 1919. Einleitung in das Studium der indogermanischen Sprachen, 5th edn. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel. https://archive.org/details/einleitungindas00delbgoog.Google Scholar
Demberg, Vera and Keller, Frank. 2008. Data from eye-tracking corpora as evidence for theories of syntactic processing complexity. Cognition 109: 193–210. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.07.008.Google Scholar
Detges, Ulrich, and Waltereit, Richard. 2002. Grammaticalization vs. reanalysis: A semantic-pragmatic account of functional change in grammar. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 21(2): 151–195. DOI https://doi.org/10.1515/zfsw.2002.21.2.151.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2019. The Grammar Network: How Linguistic Structure Is Shaped by Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M.W. 1991. A New Approach to English Grammar, on Semantic Principles. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 2000. A typology of causatives: Form, syntax and meaning. In Dixon, R.M.W. and Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (eds.), Changing Valency: Case Studies in Transitivity, 30–83. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dressler, Wolfgang U. 1990. The cognitive perspective of ‘naturalist’ linguistic models. Cognitive Linguistics 1: 75–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 1992. The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language 68: 81–138.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2013. Order of Subject, Object and Verb. In Dryer, Matthew S. and Haspelmath, Martin (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/81.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2019. Grammaticalization accounts of word order correlations. In Schmidtke-Bode, Karsten, Levshina, Natalia, Michaelis, Susanne Maria and Seržant, Ilja A. (eds.), Explanation in Typology: Diachronic Sources, Functional Motivations and the Nature of the Evidence, 63–95. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S., and Haspelmath, Martin (eds.). 2013. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 1985. Competing motivations. In Haiman, John (ed.), Iconicity in Syntax, 343–365. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W., Kumpf, Lorraine E. and Ashby, William J. (eds.). 2003. Preferred Argument Structure: Grammar as Architecture for Function (Studies in Discourse and Grammar 14). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W., Chafe, Wallace L., Meyer, Charles, Thompson, Sandra A., Englebretson, Robert and Martey, Nii. 2000–2005. Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English, Parts 1–4. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Eckardt, Regine. 2009. APO: Avoid Pragmatic Overload. In Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard and Visconti, Jacqueline (eds.), Current Trends in Diachronic Semantics and Pragmatics, 21–41. Bingley: Emerald. DOI https://dx.doi.org/10.1163/9789004253216_003.Google Scholar
Eksell Harning, K. 1980. The Analytical Genitive in Modern Arabic Dialects. PhD dissertation, Orientalia Gothoburgensia 5. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, Nick C., and Ferreira-Junior, Fernando. 2009. Construction learning as a function of frequency, frequency distribution, and function. The Modern Language Journal 93(3): 370–385. DOI https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00896.x.Google Scholar
Engelhardt, Paul E., Demiral, Ş. Bariş and Ferreira, Fernanda. 2011. Over-specified referring expressions impair comprehension. Brain and Cognition 77: 304–314.Google Scholar
Ernestus, Mirjam. 2014. Acoustic reduction and the roles of abstractions and exemplars in speech processing. Lingua 142: 27–41. DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2012.12.006.Google Scholar
Escamilla, Ramón M. Jr. 2012. An Updated Typology of Causative Constructions: Form–Function Mappings in Hupa (Californian Athabaskan), Chungli Ao (Tibeto-Burman) and Beyond. PhD dissertation. Berkeley, CA: University of California.Google Scholar
Estrada-Fernándes, Zarina. 2020. Grammaticalization in Uto-Aztecan languages from northwestern Mexico. In Bisang, Walter and Malchukov, Andrej (eds.), Grammaticalization Scenarios: Cross-Linguistic Variation and Universal Tendencies, Vol. 2, 853–902. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas D. 1995. A Grammar of Kayardild: With Historical-Comparative Notes on Tangkic (Mouton Grammar Library 15). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Everett, Caleb. 2009. A reconsideration of the motivation for preferred argument structure. Studies in Language 33(1): 1–24. DOI https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.33.1.02eve.Google Scholar
Faltz, Leonard M. 1985. Reflexivization: A study in Universal Syntax. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Stefanie. 2011. Differential agent marking and animacy. Lingua 121(3): 533– 547. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.10.014.Google Scholar
Fedzechkina, Maryia, Jaeger, T. Florian and Newport, Elissa L.. 2012. Language learners restructure their input to facilitate efficient communication. PNAS 109(44): 17897–17902. DOI https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1215776109.Google Scholar
Fedzechkina, Maryia, Newport, Elissa L. and Jaeger, T. Florian. 2016. Balancing effort and information transmission during language acquisition: Evidence from word order and case marking. Cognitive Science 41(2): 416–446. DOI https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12346.Google Scholar
Fenk, August, and Fenk, Gertraud. 1980. Konstanz im Kurzzeitgedächtnis - Konstanz im sprachlichen Informationsfluß. Zeitschrift für experimentelle und angewandte Pshychologie XXVII(3): 400–414.Google Scholar
Fenk-Oczlon, Gertraud. 1983. Ist die SVO-Wordfolge die ‘Natürlichste’? Papiere zur Linguistik 29(2): 23–32.Google Scholar
Fenk-Oczlon, Gertraud. 1989. Word frequency and word order in freezes. Linguistics 27: 517–556.Google Scholar
Fenk-Oczlon, Gertraud. 1991. Frequenz und Kognition – Frequenz und Markiertheit. Folia Linguistica 25: 361–394.Google Scholar
Fenk-Oczlon, Gertraud. 2001. Familiarity, information flow, and linguistic form. In Bybee, Joan L. and Hopper, Paul J. (eds.), Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure, 431–448. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fenk-Oczlon, Gertraud, and Fenk, August. 2008. Complexity trade-offs between the subsystems of language. In Miestamo, Matti, Sinnemäki, Kaius and Karlsson, Fred (eds.), Language Complexity: Typology, Contact, Change, 43–65. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ferreira, Fernanda. 1991. Effects of length and syntactic complexity on initiation times for prepared utterances. Journal of Memory and Language 30: 210–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, Fernanda. 2003. The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology 47: 164–203. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0285(03)00005-7.Google Scholar
Ferreira, Victor S. 2008. Ambiguity, accessibility, and a division of labor for communicative success. Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory 49: 209–246. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079–7421(08)00006-6.Google Scholar
Ferreira, Victor S., and Dell, Gary S.. 2000. Effect of ambiguity and lexical availability on syntactic and lexical production. Cognitive Psychology 40(4): 296–340. DOI https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0730.Google Scholar
Ferreira, Victor S, and Firato, Carla E.. 2002. Proactive interference effects on sentence production. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 9(4): 795–800. DOI https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196337.Google Scholar
Ferreira, Victor S., and Yoshita, Hiromi. 2003. Given–new ordering effects on the production of scrambled sentences in Japanese. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 32: 669–692. DOI https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026146332132.Google Scholar
Ferrer-i-Cancho, Ramon. 2006. Why do syntactic links not cross? Europhysics Letters 76(6): 1228.Google Scholar
Ferrer-i-Cancho, Ramon. 2017. The placement of the head that maximizes predictability: An information theoretic approach. Glottometrics 39: 38–71.Google Scholar
Ferrer-i-Cancho, Ramon, Gómez-Rodríguez, Carlos and Esteban, J.L.. 2018. Are crossing dependencies really scarce? Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications 493: 311–329. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2017.10.048.Google Scholar
Ferrer-i-Cancho, Ramon, Bentz, Christian and Seguin, Caio. 2020. Optimal coding and the origin of Zipfian laws. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 29(2): 165–194. DOI https://doi.org/10.1080/09296174.2020.1778387.Google Scholar
Filimonova, Elena. 2005. The noun phrase hierarchy and relational marking: Problems and counterevidence. Linguistic Typology 9(1): 77–113. DOI https://doi.org/10.1515/lity.2005.9.1.77.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1986. Pragmatically controlled zero anaphora. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 12: 95–107.Google Scholar
Fischer, Hanna. 2018. Präteritumschwund im Deutschen: Dokumentation und Erklärung eines Verdrängungsprozesses. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fischer, Hanna. 2020. The development of the perfect in selected Middle and New Germanic languages. In Jügel, Thomas and Crellin, Robert (eds), Perfects in Indo-European Languages and Beyond, 96–122. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.352.04fis.Google Scholar
Fischer, Olga. 1995. The distinction between bare and to-infinitival complements in late Middle English. Diachronica 12: 1–30.Google Scholar
Flach, Susanne K. 2017. Serial Verb Constructions in English: A Usage-Based Approach. PhD dissertation. Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry A. 1970. Three reasons for not deriving ‘kill’ from ‘cause to die’. Linguistic Inquiry 1(4): 429–438.Google Scholar
Fowler, Carol A., and Housum, Jonathan. 1987. Talkers’ signaling of ‘new’ and ‘old’ words in speech and listeners’ perception and use of the distinction. Journal of Memory and Language 25: 489–504.Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara A. 1987. The Noun Phrase Accessibility Hierarchy reinterpreted: Subject primacy or the Absolutive Hypothesis? Language 63(4): 856–870.Google Scholar
Frank, Michael C., and Goodman, Noah D.. 2012. Predicting pragmatic reasoning in language games. Science 336(6084): 998. DOI https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1218633.Google Scholar
Frank, Stefan L., and Bod, Rens. 2011. Insensitivity of the human sentence-processing system to hierarchical structure. Psychological Science 22(6): 829–834. DOI https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611409589.Google Scholar
Frank, Stefan L., Otten, Leun J., Galli, Giulia and Vigliocco, Gabriella. 2015. The ERP response to the amount of information conveyed by words in sentences. Brain & Language 140: 1–11. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2014.10.006.Google Scholar
Franke, Michael, and Jäger, Gerhard. 2015. Probabilistic pragmatics, or why Bayes’ rule is probably important for pragmatics. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 35(1): 3–44. DOI https://doi.org/10.1515/zfs-2016-0002.Google Scholar
Frazier, Lyn, and Rayner, Keith. 1990. Taking on semantic commitments: Processing multiple meanings vs. multiple senses. Journal of Memory and Language 29(2): 181–200. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(90)90071-7.Google Scholar
Fromkin, Victoria A. 1973. The non-anomalous nature of anomalous utterances. In Fromkin, Victoria A. (ed.), Speech Errors as Linguistic Evidence, 215–242. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Fukumura, Kumiko, and van Gompel, Roger P.G.. 2012. Producing pronouns and definite noun phrases: Do speakers use the addressee’s discourse model? Cognitive Science 36: 1289–1311. DOI https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2012.01255.x.Google Scholar
Futrell, Richard. 2019. Information-theoretic locality properties of natural language. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Quantitative Syntax (Quasy, SyntaxFest 2019, Paris), 2–15. Paris: ACL. www.aclweb.org/anthology/W19-7902.pdf.Google Scholar
Futrell, Richard, and Levy, Roger. 2017. Noisy-context surprisal as a human sentence processing cost model. In Lapata, Mirella, Blunsom, Phil and Koller, Alexander (eds.), Proceedings of the 15th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Volume 1, Long Papers, 688–698. Valencia: EACL. www.aclweb.org/anthology/E17-1065.Google Scholar
Futrell, Richard, Levy, Roger and Gibson, Edward. 2020. Dependency locality as an explanatory principle for word order. Language 96(2): 371–413.Google Scholar
Futrell, Richard, Hickey, Tina, Lee, Aldrin, Lim, Eunice, Luchkina, Elena and Gibson, Edward. 2015a. Cross-linguistic gestures reflect typological universals: A subject-initial, verb-final bias in speakers of diverse languages. Cognition 136: 215–221. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.11.022.Google Scholar
Futrell, Richard, Mahowald, Kyle and Gibson, Edward. 2015b. Large-scale evidence of dependency length minimization in 37 languages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112(33): 10336–10341. DOI https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1502134112.Google Scholar
Garcia, Erica C., and van Putte, Florimon. 1989. Forms are silver, nothing is gold. Folia Linguistica Historica VIII (1–2): 365–384.Google Scholar
García García, Marco. 2018. Nominal and verbal parameters in the diachrony of differential object marking in Spanish. In Seržant, Ilja and Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena (eds.), Diachrony of Differential Argument Marking, 209–242. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Gast, Volker. 2007. I gave it him – on the motivation of the ‘alternative double object construction’ in varieties of British English. Functions of Language 14(1): 31–56. DOI https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.14.1.04gas.Google Scholar
Gell-Mann, Murray. 1995. What is complexity? Complexity 1(1): 16–19. DOI https://doi.org/10.1002/cplx.6130010105.Google Scholar
Gennari, Silvia P., Mirkovi, Jelena and MacDonald, Maryellen C.. 2012. Animacy and competition in relative clause production: A cross-linguistic investigation. Cognitive Psychology 65(2): 141–176. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2012.03.002.Google Scholar
Gibson, Edward. 1998. Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 68: 1–76.Google Scholar
Gibson, Edward. 2000. The dependency locality theory: A distance-based theory of linguistic complexity. In Marantz, Alec, Miyashita, Yasushi and O’Neil, Wayne (eds.), Image, Language, Brain: Papers from the First Mind Articulation Project Symposium, 94–126. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gibson, Edward, and Warren, Tessa. 2004. Reading-time evidence for intermediate linguistic structure in long-distance dependencies. Syntax 7(1): 55–78. DOI https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1368-0005.2004.00065.x.Google Scholar
Gibson, Edward, Piantadosi, Steven T., Brink, Kimberly, Bergen, Leon, Lim, Eunice and Saxe, Rebecca. 2013. A noisy-channel account of crosslinguistic word-order variation. Psychological Science 24(7): 1079–1088. DOI https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612463705.Google Scholar
Gibson, Edward, Futrell, Richard, Piantadosi, Steven, Dautriche, Isabelle, Mahowald, Kyle, Bergen, Leon and Levy, Roger, 2019. How efficiency shapes human language. Trends in Cognitive Science 23(5): 389-407. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.02.003.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gildea, Daniel, and Temperley, David. 2010. Do grammars minimize dependency length? Cognitive Science 34(2): 286–310. DOI https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01073.x.Google Scholar
Gilligan, Gary Martin. 1987. A Cross-Linguistic Approach to the Pro-Drop-Parameter. PhD dissertation. Los Angeles: University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Giora, Rachel, Givoni, Shir and Fein, Ofer. 2015. Defaultness reigns: The case of sarcasm. Metaphor and Symbol 30(4): 290–313. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2015.1074804.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1980. The binding hierarchy and the typology of complements. Studies in Language 4(3): 333–377.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy (ed.). 1983. Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language Study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1984. Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction, Vol. I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1990. Syntax. A Functional-Typological Introduction, Vol. II. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1995. Markedness as meta-iconicity: Distributional and cognitive correlates of syntactic structure. In Givón, Talmy, Functionalism and Grammar, 25–69. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Glass, Lelia. 2020. Verbs describing routines facilitate object omission in English. In Farrell, Patrick (ed.), Proceedings of the Linguistic Society of America 5(1), 44–58. DOI https://doi.org/10.3765/plsa.v5i1.4663.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2005. Argument realization: The role of constructions, lexical semantics and discourse factors. In Östman, Jan-Ola and Fried, Mirjam (eds.), Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions, 17– 44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E., Casenhiser, Devin and Sethuraman, Nitya. 2004. Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics 15: 289–316. DOI https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2004.011.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E., Casenhiser, Devin and Sethuraman, Nitya. 2005. The role of prediction in construction learning. Journal of Child Language 32: 407–426. DOI https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000904006798.Google Scholar
Goldhahn, Dirk, Eckart, Thomas and Quasthoff, Uwe. 2012. Building large monolingual dictionaries at the Leipzig Corpora Collection: From 100 to 200 languages. In Calzolari, Nicoletta, Choukri, Khalid, Declerck, Thierry et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, 759–765. Istanbul: ELRA. www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2012/pdf/327_Paper.pdf.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, Susan, Nusbaum, Howard, Kelly, Spencer D. and Wagner, Susan. 2001. Explaining math: Gesturing lightens the load. Psychological Science 12(6): 516–522.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, Susan, So, Wing Chee, Özyürek, Aslı and Mylander, Carolyn. 2008. The natural order of events: How speakers of different languages represent events nonverbally. PNAS 105(27): 9163–9168. DOI https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0710060105.Google Scholar
Gordon, Peter C., and Chan, Davina. 1995. Pronouns, passives, and discourse coherence. Journal of Memory and Language 34: 216–231.Google Scholar
Grafmiller, Jason, Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, Röthlisberger, Melanie and Heller, Benedikt. 2018. General introduction: A comparative perspective on probabilistic variation in grammar. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1): 94. DOI http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.690.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Greenberg, Joseph H. (ed.), Universals of Human Language, 73–113. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H.. 1966. Language Universals, with Special Reference to Feature Hierarchies (Janua Linguarum, Series Minor, 59). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Gregory, Michelle, Raymond, William D., Bell, Alan, Fosler-Lussier, Eric and Jurafsky, Daniel. 1999. The effects of collocational strength and contextual predictability in lexical production. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 35: 151–166.Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Cole, Peter and Morgan, Jerry L. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol.3. Speech Acts, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2003. Multifactorial Analysis in Corpus Linguistics: A Study of Particle Placement. New York: Continuum Press.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th., and Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2004. Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(1): 97–129. DOI https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th., Hampe, Beate and Schönefeld, Doris. 2005. Converging evidence: Bringing together experimental and corpus data on the association of verbs and constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 16(4): 635–676. DOI https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2005.16.4.635.Google Scholar
Griffin, Timothy M., and Kram, Rodger. 2000. Penguin waddling is not wasteful. Nature 408: 929.Google Scholar
Grodner, Daniel J., and Gibson, Edward. 2005. Consequences of the serial nature of linguistic input for sentential complexity. Cognitive Science 29: 261–291. DOI https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0000_7.Google Scholar
Guirardello, Raquel. 1999. A Reference Grammar of Trumai. PhD dissertation. Houston, TX: Rice University.Google Scholar
Gulordava, Kristina, and Merlo, Paola. 2015. Diachronic trends in word order freedom and dependency length in dependency-annotated corpora of Latin and Ancient Greek. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Dependency Linguistics (Depling 2015), 121–130. Uppsala, Sweden: ACL.Google Scholar
Ha, Renee R. 2010. Cost–benefit analysis. In Breed, Michael D. and Moore, Janice (eds.), Encyclopedia of Animal Behavior, Vol. 1, 402–405. Oxford: Elsevier Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hagoort, Peter, and Brown, Colin. 1994. Brain responses to lexical ambiguity resolution and parsing. In Clifton, Charles Jr., Frazier, Lyn and Rayner, Keith (eds.), Perspectives on Sentence Processing, 45–80. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hagoort, Peter, Brown, Colin and Groothusen, Jolanda. 1993. The syntactic positive shift (SPS) as an ERP measure of syntactic processing. Language and Cognitive Processes 8(4): 439–483. DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01690969308407585.Google Scholar
Hahn, Michael, Degen, Judith, Goodman, Noah, Jurafsky, Dan and Futrell, Richard. 2018. An information-theoretic explanation of adjective ordering preferences. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci), 1766–1771. URL https://cogsci.mindmodeling.org/2018/papers/0339/index.html.Google Scholar
Hahn, Michael, Degen, Judith and Futrell, Richard. 2021. Modeling word and morpheme order in natural language as an efficient tradeoff of memory and surprisal. Psychological Review 128(4): 726–756. DOI https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000269.Google Scholar
Haig, Geoffrey. 2018. The grammaticalization of object pronouns: Why differential object indexing is an attractor state. Linguistics 56(4): 781–818. DOI https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2018-0011.Google Scholar
Haig, Geoffrey, and Schnell, Stefan. 2016. The discourse basis of ergativity revisited. Language 92(3): 591–618.Google Scholar
Haig, Geoffrey, and Thiele, Hanna. 2016. Northern Kurdish. In Haig, Geoffrey and Schnell, Stefan (eds.), Multi-CAST: Multilingual Corpus of Annotated Spoken Texts, Version 2108. https://multicast.aspra.uni-bamberg.de/, accessed 5 April 2022.Google Scholar
Haiman, John. 1985. Natural Syntax: Iconicity and Erosion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haiman, John. 1994. Ritualization and the development of language. In Pagliuca, William (ed.), Perspectives on Grammaticalization, 3–28. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hale, John. 2001. A probabilistic early parser as a psycholinguistic model. In Proceedings of the 2nd Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Vol. 2, 159–166. Pittsburgh, PA: ACL.Google Scholar
Hale, Kenneth. 1973. Person marking in Walbiri. In Anderson, Stephen R. and Kiparsky, Paul (eds.), A Festschrift for Morris Halle, 308–344. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Hall, Matthew L., Mayberry, Rachel I. and Ferreira, Victor S.. 2013. Cognitive constraints on constituent order: Evidence from elicited pantomime. Cognition 129(1): 1–17 DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.05.004.Google Scholar
Hall, Matthew L., Danbi Ahn, Y., Mayberry, Rachel I. and Ferreira, Victor S.. 2015. Production and comprehension show divergent constituent order preferences: Evidence from elicited pantomime. Journal of Memory and Language 81: 16–33. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2014.12.003.Google Scholar
Hampe, Beate. 2011. Metaphor, constructional ambiguity and the causative resultatives. In Handl, Sandra and Schmid, Hans-Jörg (eds.), Windows to the Mind, 185–215. Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Harmon, Zara, and Kapatsinski, Vsevolod. 2017. Putting old tools to novel uses: The role of form accessibility in semantic extension. Cognitive Psychology 98: 22–24. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2017.08.002.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations. In Comrie, Bernard and Polinsky, Maria (eds.), Causatives and Transitivity, 87–120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics 37: 1043–1068.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2006. Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42(1): 25–70. DOI https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226705003683.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2008a. A frequentist explanation of some universals of reflexive marking. Linguistic Discovery 6(1): 40–63. DOI https://doi.org/10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.331.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2008b. Creating economical morphosyntactic patterns in language change. In Good, Jeff (ed.), Language Universals and Language Change, 185–214. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2008c. Frequency vs. iconicity in explaining grammatical asymmetries. Cognitive Linguistics 19(1): 1–33. DOI https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2008.001.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies. Language 86(3): 663–687.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2013a. Argument indexing: A conceptual framework for the syntactic status of bound person forms. In Bakker, Dik and Haspelmath, Martin (eds.), Languages Across Boundaries, 197–226. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2013b. On the cross-linguistic distribution of same-subject and different-subject ‘want’ complements: Economic vs. iconic motivation. SKY Journal of Linguistics 26: 41–69.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2014. On system pressure competing with economic motivation. In MacWhinney, Brian, Malchukov, Andrej and Moravcsik, Edith (eds.), Competing Motivations in Grammar and Usage, 197–208. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2017. Explaining alienability contrasts in adpossessive constructions: Predictability vs. iconicity. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 36(2): 193-231. DOI https://doi.org/10.1515/zfs-2017-0009.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2019. Differential place marking and differential object marking. STUF – Language Typology and Universals 72(3): 313–334. DOI https://doi.org/10.1515/stuf-2019-0013.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2021a. Explaining grammatical coding asymmetries: Form–frequency correspondences and predictability. Journal of Linguistics 57(3): 605–633. DOI https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226720000535.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2021b. Role-reference associations and the explanation of argument coding splits. Linguistics 59(1): 123–174. DOI https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2020-0252.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin, and Karjus, Andres. 2017. Explaining asymmetries in number marking: Singulatives, pluratives and usage frequency. Linguistics 55(6): 1213–1235.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin, Calude, Andreea, Spagnol, Michael, Narrog, Heiko and Bamyacı, Elif. 2014. Coding causal–noncausal verb alternations: A form–frequency correspondence explanation. Journal of Linguistics 50(3): 587–625.Google Scholar
Haude, Katharina, and Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena. 2016. Referential hierarchies and alignment: An overview. Linguistics 54(4): 433–441.Google Scholar
Havelka, Jiří. 2007. Beyond projectivity: Multilingual evaluation of constraints and measures on non-projective structures. In Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics, 608–615. Prague: ACL.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1986. A Comparative Typology of English and German: Unifying the Contrasts. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1994. A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 73). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 2014. Cross-Linguistic Variation and Efficiency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 2019. Word-external properties in a typology of Modern English: A comparison with German. English Language and Linguistics 23(3): 701–727. DOI https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674318000060.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer. 2001. Lexical frequency in morphology: Is everything relative? Linguistics 39(6): 1041–1070.Google Scholar
Heilbron, Micha, Ehinger, Benedikt, Hagoort, Peter and de Lange, Floris P.. 2019. Tracking naturalistic linguistic predictions with deep neural language models. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Cognitive Computational Neuroscience, 424–427. DOI https://doi.org/10.32470/CCN.2019.1096-0.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2002. On the role of context in grammaticalization. In Wischer, Ilse and Diewald, Gabriele (eds.), New Reflections on Grammaticalization, 83–101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Claudi, Ulrike and Hünnemeyer, Friederike. 1991. Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Helmbrecht, Johannes, Denk, Lukas, Thanner, Sarah and Tonetti, Ilenia. 2018. Morphosyntactic coding of proper names and its implications for the animacy hierarchy. In Cristofaro, Sonia and Zúñiga, Fernando (eds.), Typological Hierarchies in Synchrony and Diachrony, 377–401. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees, and Leufkens, Sterre. 2018. Transparent and non-transparent languages. Folia Linguistica 52(1): 139–175. DOI https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2018-0003.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2012. Constructional Change in English: Developments in Allomorphy, Word Formation, and Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2014. Asymmetries in the prosodic phrasing of function words: Another look at the suffixing preference. Language 90: 927–960.Google Scholar
Hockett, Charles F. 1967. Where the tongue slips, there slip I. In To Honor Roman Jakobson: Essays on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday, 11. October 1966, Vol. 2, 910–936. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Holler, Judith, and Levinson, Stephen C.. 2019. Multimodal language processing in human communication. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 23(8): 639–652. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2019.05.006.Google Scholar
Holler, Judith, Kendrick, Kobin H. and Levinson, Stephen C.. 2018. Processing language in face-to-face conversation: Questions with gestures get faster responses. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 25(5): 1900–1908. DOI https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423–017-1363-z.Google Scholar
Hollmann, Willem B. 2003. Synchrony and Diachrony of English Periphrastic Causatives: A Cognitive Perspective. PhD dissertation. Manchester: University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Hooper, Joan B. 1976. Word frequency in lexical diffusion and the source of morphophonological change. In Christie, William M. (ed.), Current Progress in Historical Linguistics, 96–105. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J., and Thompson, Sandra A.. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56(2): 251–299.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J., and Traugott, Elizabeth C.. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1984. Towards a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In Schiffrin, Deborah (ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics, 11–42. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 2009. Implying and inferring. In Allan, Keith and Jaszczolt, Kasia M. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Pragmatics, 69–86. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Howes, Davis. 1968. Zipf’s law and Miller’s random-monkey model. The American Journal of Psychology 81(2): 269–272.Google Scholar
Howes, Davis, and Solomon, Richard L.. 1951. Visual duration threshold as a function of word-probability. Journal of Experimental Psychology 41(6): 401–410. DOI https://doi.org/10.1037/h0056020.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney, and Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hudson Kam, Carla L., and Newport, Elissa L.. 2009. Getting it right by getting it wrong: When learners change languages. Cognitive Psychology 59: 30–66. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2009.01.001.Google Scholar
Humboldt, Wilhelm von. 1836. Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues und ihren Einfluss auf die geistige Entwicklung des Menschengeschlechts. Berlin: Dümmler.Google Scholar
Hupp, Julie M., Sloutsky, Vladimir M. and Culicover, Peter W.. 2009. Evidence for a domain-general mechanism underlying the suffixation preference in language. Language and Cognitive Processes 24: 876–909. DOI https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960902719267.Google Scholar
Hyman, Larry. 1971. Consecutivization in Fe’fe’. Journal of African Languages 10(2): 29–43.Google Scholar
Hömke, Paul, Holler, Judith and Levinson, Stephen C.. 2017. Eye blinking as addressee feedback in face-to-face conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 50(1): 54–70. DOI https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2017.1262143.Google Scholar
Iemmolo, Giorgio. 2010. Topicality and differential object marking. Evidence from Romance and beyond. Studies in Language 34(2): 239–272. DOI https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.34.2.01iem.Google Scholar
Isaacs, Ellen A., and Clark, Herbert H.. 1987. References in conversation between experts and novices. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 116(1): 26–37.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. Florian. 2006. Redundancy and Syntactic Reduction in Spontaneous Speech. PhD thesis. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. Florian. 2010. Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology 61 (1): 23–62. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.02.002.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. Florian, and Buz, Esteban. 2017. Signal reduction and linguistic encoding. In Fernández, Eva M. and Cairns, Helen Smith (eds.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics, 38–81. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1971 [1932]. Zur Structur des russischen Verbums. In Jakobson, Roman, Selected Writings. Vol. II. Word and Language, 3–15. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1971 [1960]. Linguistics and poetics. In Jakobson, Roman, Selected Writings. Vol. III. Poetry of Grammar and Grammar of Poetry, 18–51. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Just, Erika, and Čéplö, Slavomir. 2019. A corpus based analysis of differential object indexing in Maltese. Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Maltese Linguistics. Jagiellonian University Kraków, 10–11 July 2019.Google Scholar
Just, Erika, and Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena. Forthcoming. A corpus-based analysis of P indexing in Ruuli. South African Journal of African Languages 42(2).Google Scholar
Kanwal, Jasmeen, Smith, Kenny, Culbertson, Jennifer and Kirby, Simon. 2017. Zipf’s Law of Abbreviation and the Principle of Least Effort: Language users optimise a miniature lexicon for efficient communication. Cognition 165: 45–52. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.05.001.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. 1975. Variation in Universal Grammar. In Fasold, Ralph and Shuy, Roger (eds.), Analyzing Variation in Language, 136–148. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L., and Comrie, Bernard. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8(1): 63–99.Google Scholar
Keller, Rudi. 1994. On Language Change: The Invisible Hand in Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kemmer, Susanne, and Verhagen, Arie. 1994. The grammar of causatives and the conceptual structure of events. Cognitive Linguistics 5: 115–156.Google Scholar
Kemp, Charles, Yang, Xu and Regier, Terry. 2018. Semantic typology and efficient communication. Annual Review of Linguistics 4: 109–128. DOI https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011817-045406.Google Scholar
Kim, Taeho. 2008. Subject and Object Markings in Conversational Korean. PhD dissertation. Buffalo, NY: The State University of New York.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1996. The shift to head-initial VP in Germanic. In Thráinsson, Höskuldur, Epstein, Samuel D. and Peter, Steve (eds.), Studies in Comparative Germanic Syntax II, 140–179. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Kirby, Simon, Cornish, Hannah and Smith, Kenny. 2008. Cumulative cultural evolution in the laboratory: An experimental approach to the origins of structure in human language. PNAS 105: 10681–10686. DOI https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0707835105.Google Scholar
Kirby, Simon, Griffiths, Tom and Smith, Kenny. 2014. Iterated learning and the evolution of language. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 28: 108–114. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2014.07.014.Google Scholar
Kirby, Simon, Tamariz, Monica, Cornish, Hannah and Smith, Kenny. 2015. Compression and communication in the cultural evolution of linguistic structure. Cognition 141: 87–102. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2015.03.016.Google Scholar
Konieczny, Lars. 2000. Locality and parsing complexity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29: 627–645.Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard, and Vezzosi, Letizia. 2004. The role of predicate meaning in the development of reflexivity. In Bisang, Walter, Himmelmann, Nikolaus and Wiemer, Björn (eds.), What Makes Grammaticalization? A Look from Its Fringes and Its Components, 213–244. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Koplenig, Alexander, Meyer, Peter, Wolfer, Sascha and Müller-Spitzer, Carolin. 2017. The statistical trade-off between word order and word structure: Large-scale evidence for the Principle of Least Effort. PLoS ONE 12(3): e0173614. DOI https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0173614.Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 1996. Possessive noun phrases in Maltese: Alienability, iconicity, and grammaticalization. Rivista di Linguistica 8(1): 245–274.Google Scholar
Krug, Manfred. 2000. Emerging English Modals: A Corpus-Based Study of Grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kulikov, Leonid I. 2001. Causatives. In Haspelmath, Martin, König, Ekkehard, Oesterreicher, Wolfgang and Raible, Wolfgang (eds.), Language Typology and Language Universals: An International Handbook, 886–898. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kurumada, Chigusa, and Jaeger, T. Florian. 2015. Communicative efficiency in language production: Optional case-marking in Japanese. Journal of Memory and Language 83: 152–178. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2015.03.003.Google Scholar
Kurumada, Chigusa, and Grimm, Scott. 2019. Predictability of meaning in grammatical encoding: Optional plural marking. Cognition 191: 103953. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2019.04.022.Google Scholar
Kwon, Song-Nim, and Zribi-Hertz, Anne. 2008. Differential function marking, case, and information structure: Evidence from Korean. Language 84(2): 258–299.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representation of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2011. Grammaticalization and Cognitive Grammar. In Narrog, Heiko and Heine, Bernd (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, 79–91. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J., and Huang, Chenglong. 2003. A Grammar of Qiang with Annotated Texts and Glossary. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Lastra, Yolanda, and Butragueño, Pedro Martin. 2010. Futuro perifrástico y future morfológico en el Corpus Sociolingüístico de la ciudad de México. Oralia 13: 145–171.Google Scholar
Lee, Hanjung. 2009. Quantitative variation in Korean case ellipsis: Implications for Case Theory. In de Hoop, Helen and de Swart, Peter (eds.), Differential Subject Marking, 41–61. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 2015. Thoughts on Grammaticalization, 3rd edn. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Levelt, Willem J.M. 1989. Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levshina, Natalia. 2011. Doe wat je niet laten kan [Do what you cannot let]: A usage-based study of Dutch causatives. PhD dissertation. Leuven: University of Leuven.Google Scholar
Levshina, Natalia. 2015. European analytic causatives as a comparative concept: Evidence from a parallel corpus of film subtitles. Folia Linguistica 49(2): 487–520.Google Scholar
Levshina, Natalia. 2016. Why we need a token-based typology: A case study of analytic and lexical causatives in fifteen European languages. Folia Linguistica 50(2): 507–542.Google Scholar
Levshina, Natalia. 2018a. Anybody (at) home? Communicative efficiency knocking on the Construction Grammar door. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 6: 71–90. DOI https://doi.org/10.1515/gcla-2018-0004.Google Scholar
Levshina, Natalia. 2018b. Probabilistic grammar and constructional predictability: Bayesian generalized additive models of help + (to) Infinitive in varieties of web-based English. Glossa 3(1): 55. DOI https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.294.Google Scholar
Levshina, Natalia. 2018 [2016]. Finding the best fit for direct and indirect causation: A typological study. Lingua Posnaniensis 58(2): 65–83.Google Scholar
Levshina, Natalia. 2019a. Linguistic Frankenstein, or How to test universal constraints without real languages. In Schmidtke-Bode, Karsten, Levshina, Natalia, Michaelis, Susanne M. and Seržant, Ilja (eds.), Explanation in Linguistic Typology: Diachronic Sources, Functional Motivations and the Nature of the Evidence, 203–223. Berlin: Language Science Press. https://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/220 (open access).Google Scholar
Levshina, Natalia. 2019b. Token-based typology and word order entropy. Linguistic Typology 23(3): 533–572. DOI https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2019-0025.Google Scholar
Levshina, Natalia. 2019c. Universal Dependencies in a galaxy far, far away… What makes Yoda’s English truly alien. In Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Universal Dependencies (UDW, SyntaxFest 2019), 35–45. Paris: ACL. www.aclweb.org/anthology/W19-8005.pdf.Google Scholar
Levshina, Natalia. 2020a. Conditional inference trees and random forests. In Paquot, Magali and Gries, Stefan Th. (eds.), A Practical Handbook of Corpus Linguistics, 611–643. Cham: Springer. DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46216-1_25.Google Scholar
Levshina, Natalia. 2020b. How tight is your language? A semantic typology based on Mutual Information. In Proceedings of the 19th International Workshop on Treebanks and Linguistic Theories, 70–78. Düsseldorf: ACL. www.aclweb.org/anthology/2020.tlt-1.7.pdf.Google Scholar
Levshina, Natalia. 2021a. Communicative efficiency and differential case marking: A reverse-engineering approach. Linguistics Vanguard 7(s3): 20190087. DOI https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2019-0087.Google Scholar
Levshina, Natalia. 2021b. Cross-linguistic trade-offs and causal relationships between cues to grammatical subject and object, and the problem of efficiency-related explanations. Frontiers in Psychology. DOI https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.648200.Google Scholar
Levshina, Natalia. 2022a. Comparing Bayesian and frequentist models of language variation: The case of help + (to) Infinitive. In Schützler, Ole and Schlüter, Julia (eds.), Data and Methods in Corpus Linguistics, 224–258. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levshina, Natalia. 2022b. Frequency, informativity and word length: Insights from typologically diverse corpora. Entropy 24(2): 280. DOI https://doi.org/10.3390/e24020280.Google Scholar
Levshina, Natalia, and Moran, Steven. 2021. Efficiency in human languages: corpus evidence for universal principles. Linguistics Vanguard 7(s3): 20200081. DOI https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2020-0081.Google Scholar
Levy, Elena T., and McNeill, David. 1992. Speech, gesture and discourse. Discourse Processes 15: 277–301.Google Scholar
Levy, Roger. 2008. Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition 106: 1126–1177. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.006.Google Scholar
Levy, Roger, and Jaeger, T. Florian. 2007. Speakers optimize information density through syntactic reduction. In Schlökopf, Bernhard, Platt, John and Hoffman, Thomas (eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), Vol. 19, 849–856. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levy, Roger, Fedorenko, Evelina and Gibson, Edward. 2013. The syntactic complexity of Russian relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language 69: 461–495. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.10.005.Google Scholar
Lewis, Richard L. 1996. Interference in short-term memory: The magical number two (or three) in sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 25(1): 93–115.Google Scholar
Lin, Wan-hua. 2009. Preferred Argument Structure in Chinese: A comparison among conversations, narratives and written texts. In Xiao, Yun (ed.), Proceedings of the 21st North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics (NACCL-21), Vol. 2, 341–357. Smithfield, RI: Bryant University.Google Scholar
Lindblom, Björn. 1984. Economy of speech gestures. In MacNeilage, Peter F. (ed.), The Production of Speech, 217–245. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Lindblom, Björn. 1990. Explaining phonetic variation: A sketch of the H & H theory. In Hardcastle, W.J. and Marchal, A. (eds.), Speech Production and Speech Modeling, 403–439. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Little, Hannah, Eryılmaz, Kerem and de Boer, Bart. 2017. Signal dimensionality and the emergence of combinatorial structure. Cognition 168: 1–15. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.06.011.Google Scholar
Liu, Haitao. 2008. Dependency distance as a metric of language comprehension difficulty. Journal of Cognitive Science 9(2): 159–191.Google Scholar
Liu, Zoey. 2020. Mixed evidence for crosslinguistic dependency length minimization. STUF – Linguistic Typology and Universals 73(4): 605–633. DOI https://doi.org/10.1515/stuf-2020-1020.Google Scholar
Lohmann, Arne. 2011. Help vs. help to: A multifactorial, mixed-effects account of infinitive marker omission. English Language and Linguistics 15(3): 499–521. DOI https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674311000141.Google Scholar
Lowrey, Brian. 2012. Early English causative constructions and the ‘second agent’ factor. Varieng: Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 10. https://varieng.helsinki.fi/series/volumes/10/lowrey/.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia. 2003. Definite referential null objects in Ancient Greek. Indogermanische Forschungen 108: 169–196.Google Scholar
MacDonald, Maryellen C. 2013. How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology 4: 226. DOI https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00226.Google Scholar
MacKay, Donald G. 1987. The Organization of Perception and Action: A Theory for Language and Other Cognitive Skills. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian, Malchukov, Andrej and Moravcsik, Edith A. (eds). 2014. Competing Motivations in Grammar and Usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mahowald, Kyle, Fedorenko, Evelina, Piantadosi, Steven T. and Gibson, Edward. 2013. Info/information theory: Speakers choose shorter words in predictive contexts. Cognition 126: 313–318.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian. 2002. Three changing patterns of verb complementation in Late Modern English: A real-time study based on matching text corpora. English Language and Linguistics 6(1): 105–131.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej L. 2008. Animacy and asymmetries in differential case marking. Lingua 118(2): 203–221.Google Scholar
Manin, Dmitrii Yu. 2006. Experiments on predictability of word in context and information rate in natural language. Information Processes 6(3): 229–236. www.jip.ru.Google Scholar
Manin, Dmitrii Yu. 2012. The right word in the left place: Measuring lexical foregrounding in poetry and prose. Scientific Study of Literature 2(2): 273–300.Google Scholar
Martin, Alexander, and Culbertson, Jennifer. 2020. Revisiting the suffixing preference: Native-language affixation patterns influence perception of sequences. Psychological Science 31(9): 1107–1116.Google Scholar
Martinet, André. 1963. Grundzüge der Allgemeinen Sprachwissenschaft. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
Maslova, Elena. 2003. A Grammar of Kolyma Yukaghir (Mouton Grammar Library 27). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Maurits, Luke. 2011. Representation, Information Theory and Basic Word Order. PhD dissertation. Adelaide: University of Adelaide.Google Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1978. Conversational implicature and the lexicon. In Cole, Peter (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 9. Pragmatics, 245–259. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
McEnery, Anthony, and Xiao, Zhonghua. 2005. HELP or HELP to: What do corpora have to say? English Studies 86(2): 161–187.Google Scholar
McGregor, William B. 2008. Indexicals as sources of case markers in Australian languages. In Josephson, Folke and Söhrman, Ingmar (eds.), Interdependence of Diachronic and Synchronic Analyses, 299–321. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
McGregor, William B. 2018. Emergence of optional accusative case marking in Khoe languages. In Seržant, Ilja and Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena (eds.), Diachrony of Differential Argument Marking, 243–279. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
McWhorter, John. 2007. Language Interrupted: Signs of Non-Native Acquisition in Standard Language Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Meakins, Felicity. 2008. Case-Marking in Contact: The Development and Function of Case Morphology in Gurindji Kriol, an Australian Mixed Language. PhD dissertation. Melbourne: University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
Meillet, Antoine. 1958. Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Merkx, Danny, and Frank, Stefan L.. 2020. Human sentence processing: Recurrence or attention? In Proceedings of the Workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics (CMCL) 2021. DOI https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.cmcl-1.2.Google Scholar
Meylan, Stephan, and Griffiths, Tom. 2021. The challenges of large-scale, web-based language datasets: Word length and predictability revisited. Cognitive Science 45(6): e12983. DOI https://doi.org/0.1111/cogs.12983.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Susanne M. 2017. Asymmetry in path coding: Creole data support a universal trend. Paper presented at the SPCL meeting Tampere, June 2017. DOI https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1456803.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Susanne M. 2019. Support from creole languages for functional adaptation in grammar: Dependent and independent possessive person-forms. In Schmidtke-Bode, Karsten, Levshina, Natalia, Michaelis, Susanne M. and Seržant, Ilja (eds.), Explanation in Typology: Diachronic Sources, Functional Motivations and the Nature of the Evidence, 179–201. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Miller, George A. 1957. Some effects of intermittent silence. The American Journal of Psychology 70(2): 311–314.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1987. Is basic word order universal? In Tomlin, Russell S. (ed.), Coherence and Grounding in Discourse: Outcome of a Symposium, Eugene, Oregon, June 1984, 281–328. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 2002. An invisible hand at the root of causation: The role of lexicalization in the grammaticalization of causatives. In Wischer, Ilse and Diewald, Gabriele (eds.), New Reflections on Grammaticalization, 237–257. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mondorf, Britta. 2003. Support for more-support. In Rohdenburg, Günter and Mondorf, Britta (eds.), Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English, 251–304. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mondorf, Britta. 2014. (Apparently) competing motivations in morpho-syntactic variation. In Moravcsik, Edith A., Malchukov, Andrej and MacWhinney, Brian (eds.), Competing Motivations in Grammar and Usage, 209–228. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Montaut, Annie. 2018. The rise of differential object marking in Hindi and related languages. In Seržant, Ilja and Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena (eds.), Diachrony of Differential Argument Marking, 281–313. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Moriya, Akira. 2017. Causative ‘make’ in the King James Bible (1611): Possible factors influencing the choice of bare and to-infinitives. Zephyr 29: 44–58. DOI https://doi.org/10.14989/227415.Google Scholar
Mosel, Ulrike and Schnell, Stefan. 2016. Teop. In Geoffrey Haig and Stefan Schnell (eds.), Multi-CAST: Multilingual Corpus of Annotated Spoken Texts, Version 2108. https://multicast.aspra.uni-bamberg.de/, accessed 5 April 2022.Google Scholar
Müller-Gotama, Franz. 1994. Grammatical Relations: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective on Their Syntax and Semantics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Napoli, Donna Jo, and Liapis, Stephanie. 2019. Effort reduction in articulation in sign languages and dance. Journal of Cultural Cognitive Science 3: 31–61. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41809–019-00027-3.Google Scholar
Napoli, Donna Jo, Sanders, Nathan, and Wright, Rebecca. 2014. On the linguistic effects of articulatory ease, with a focus on sign languages. Language 90(2): 424–456.Google Scholar
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P., and Otaina, Galina A.. 2013. A Syntax of the Nivkh Language: The Amur Dialect. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Newman, John, and Rice, Sally. 2006. Transitivity schemas of English EAT and DRINK in the BNC. In Gries, Stefan Th. and Stefanowitsch, Anatol (eds.), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-Based Approaches to Syntax and Lexis, 225–260. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2003. Grammar is grammar and usage is usage. Language 79: 682–707.Google Scholar
Nieuwland, Mante S., Ditman, Tali and Kuperberg, Gina R.. 2010. On the incrementality of pragmatic processing: An ERP investigation of informativeness and pragmatic abilities. Journal of Memory and Language 63: 324–346. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2010.06.005.Google Scholar
Nivre, Joakim, and Nilsson, Jens. 2005. Pseudo-projective dependency parsing. In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL’05, 99–106, Stroudsburg, PA: ACL.Google Scholar
Norcliffe, Elisabeth, Konopka, Agnieszka E., Brown, Penelope and Levinson, Stephen C.. 2015. Word order affects the time course of sentence formulation in Tzeltal. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 30(9): 1187–1208. DOI https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2015.1006238.Google Scholar
Nordlinger, Rachel, Rodriguez, Gabriela Garrido and Kidd, Evan. 2022. Sentence planning and production in Murrinhpatha, an Australian ‘free word order’ language. Language 98(2): 187–220.Google Scholar
Okrand, Marc. 1977. Mutsun Grammar. PhD dissertation. Berkeley, CA: University of California.Google Scholar
Olawsky, Knut. 2006. A Grammar of Urarina (Mouton Grammar Library 37). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Osborne, Timothy, and Gerdes, Kim. 2019. The status of function words in dependency grammar: A critique of Universal Dependencies (UD). Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4(1): 17. DOI http://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.537.Google Scholar
Osterhout, Lee, Holcomb, Phillip J. and Swinney, David A.. 1994. Brain potentials elicited by garden-path sentences: Evidence of the application of verb information during parsing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 20(4): 786–803.Google Scholar
Pate, John K., and Goldwater, Sharon. 2015. Talkers account for listener and channel characteristics to communicate efficiently. Journal of Memory and Language 78: 1–17. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2014.10.003/.Google Scholar
Petré, Peter. 2017. The extravagant progressive: An experimental corpus study on the history of emphatic [be Ving]. English Language and Linguistics 21(2): 227–250. DOI https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674317000107.Google Scholar
Piaget, Jean. 1952. The Origins of Intelligence in Children. New York: International Universities Press.Google Scholar
Piantadosi, Steven, Tily, Harry and Gibson, Edward. 2011. Word lengths are optimized for efficient communication. PNAS 108(9): 3526. DOI https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1012551108.Google Scholar
Piantadosi, Steven, Tily, Harry and Gibson, Edward. 2012. The communicative function of ambiguity in language. Cognition 122: 280–291. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.10.004.Google Scholar
Pickering, Martin J., and Branigan, Holly P.. 1998. The representation of verbs: Evidence from syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language 39(4): 633–651.Google Scholar
Pickering, Martin J., and Ferreira, Victor S.. 2008. Structural priming: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin 134(3): 427–459. DOI https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.3.427.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet. 2001. Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition, and contrast. In Bybee, Joan and Hopper, Paul (eds.), Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure, 137–157. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Poplack, Shana, and Tagliamonte, Sali. 1996. Nothing in context: Variation, grammaticization and past time marking in Nigerian Pidgin English. In Baker, Philip and Syea, Anand (eds.), Changing Meanings, Changing Functions. Papers related to grammaticalization in contact languages, 71–94. Westminster, UK: University Press.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1990. Constraints on intransitive quasi-serial verb constructions in modem colloquial English. The Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 39: 218–239.Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2020. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar
Rayner, Keith, and Duffy, Susan A.. 1986. Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory and Cognition 14: 191–201.Google Scholar
Reali, Florencia, and Christiansen, Morten H.. 2007. Processing of relative clauses is made easier by frequency of occurrence. Journal of Memory and Language 57: 1–23. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2006.08.014.Google Scholar
Regel, Stefanie. 2009. The Comprehension of Figurative Language: Electrophysiological Evidence on the Processing of Irony. PhD dissertation. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences.Google Scholar
Resnik, Philip. 1996. Selectional constraints: An information-theoretic model and its computational realization. Cognition 61: 127–159.Google Scholar
Roelofs, Ardi. 1992. A spreading-activation theory of lemma retrieval in speaking. Cognition. 42(1-3): 107–142. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(92)90041-f.Google Scholar
Rohde, Hannah, Futrell, Richard and Lucas, Christopher G.. 2021. What’s new? A comprehension bias in favor of informativity. Cognition 209: 104491. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104491.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 1996. Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English. Cognitive Linguistics 7(2): 149–182.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 2003. Horror aequi and cognitive complexity as factors determining the use of interrogative clause linkers. In Rohdenburg, Günter and Mondorf, Britta (eds.), Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English, 205–250. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 2009. Grammatical divergence between British and American English in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid and van der Wurff, Wim (eds.), Current Issues in Late Modern English (Linguistic Insights 77), 301–330. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Royen, Gerlach. 1929. Die nominalen Klassifikations-Systeme in den Sprachen der Erde. Historische Studie, mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des Indogermanischen. Vienna: Anthropos.Google Scholar
Saldana, Carmen, Oseki, Yohei and Culbertson, Jennifer. 2021. Cross-linguistic patterns of morpheme order reflect cognitive biases: An experimental study of case and number morphology. Journal of Memory and Language 118: 104204. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2020.104204.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt.Google Scholar
Schiborr, Nils Norman. 2016. English. In Haig, Geoffrey and Schnell, Stefan (eds.), Multi-CAST: Multilingual Corpus of Annotated Spoken Texts, Version 2108. https://multicast.aspra.uni-bamberg.de/, accessed 5 April 2022.Google Scholar
Schlüter, Julia. 2003. Phonological determinants of grammatical variation in English: Chomsky’s worst possible case. In Rohdenburg, Günter and Mondorf, Britta (eds.), Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English, 69–118. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schlüter, Julia. 2009. The conditional subjunctive. In Rohdenburg, Günter and Schlüter, Julia (eds.), One Language, Two Grammars? Differences between British and American English, 277–305. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2000. English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells: From Corpus to Cognition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg, and Küchenhoff, Helmut. 2013. Collostructional analysis and other ways of measuring lexicogrammatical attraction: Theoretical premises, practical problems and cognitive underpinnings. Cognitive Linguistics 24(3): 531–577. DOI https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2013-0018.Google Scholar
Schmidtke-Bode, Karsten, and Levshina, Natalia. 2018. Reassessing scale effects on differential case marking: Methodological, conceptual and theoretical issues in the quest for a universal. In Seržant, Ilja A. and Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena (eds.), Diachrony of Differential Argument Marking, 509–537. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Schnadt, Michael J., and Corley, Martin. 2006. The influence of lexical, conceptual and planning based factors on disfluency production. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society 28. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9337x2hk.Google Scholar
Schnell, Stefan. 2016. Vera’a. In Haig, Geoffrey and Schnell, Stefan (eds.), Multi-CAST: Multilingual Corpus of Annotated Spoken Texts, Version 2108. https://multicast.aspra.uni-bamberg.de/, accessed 5 April 2022.Google Scholar
Schnell, Stefan, Schiborr, Nils N. and Haig, Geoffrey. 2021. Efficiency in discourse processing: Does morphosyntax adapt to accommodate new referents? Linguistics Vanguard 7(3s): 20190064. DOI https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2019-0064.Google Scholar
Scholz, Melanie N., Bobbert, Maarten F., Van Soest, A.J., Clark, James R., and van Heerden, Johan. 2008. Running biomechanics: Shorter heels, better economy. Journal of Experimental Biology 211(20): 3266–3271. DOI https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.018812.Google Scholar
Schriefers, Herbert, Meyer, Antje S. and Levelt, Willem J.M.. 1990. Exploring the time course of lexical access in language production: Picture–word interference studies. Journal of Memory and Language 29: 86–102.Google Scholar
Seiler, Walter. 1984. The Main Structures of Imonda: A Papuan Language. PhD dissertation. Canberra: Australian National University.Google Scholar
Selten, Reinhard, and Warglien, Massimo. 2007. The emergence of simple languages in an experimental coordination game. PNAS 104(18): 7361–7366. DOI https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702077104.Google Scholar
Seržant, Ilja. 2019. Weak universal forced: The discriminatory function of case in differential object marking systems. In Schmidtke-Bode, Karsten, Levshina, Natalia, Michaelis, Susanne M. and Seržant, Ilja (eds.), Explanation in Typology: Diachronic Sources, Functional Motivations and the Nature of the Evidence, 149–178. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Seyfarth, Scott. 2014. Word informativity influences acoustic duration: Effects of contextual predictability on lexical representation. Cognition 133(1): 140–155. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.06.013.Google Scholar
Seyfarth, Scott, Buz, Esteban and Florian Jaeger, T.. 2016. Dynamic hyperarticulation of coda voicing contrasts. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 139(2): EL31–37. DOI https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4942544.Google Scholar
Shannon, Claude E. 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal 27(3): 379–423, and (4): 623–656.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi, and Pardeshi, Prashant. 2002. The causative continuum. In Shibatani, Masayoshi (ed.), The Grammar of Causation and Interpersonal Manipulation, 85–126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Shklovsky, Viktor. 2017. Viktor Shklovsky: A Reader (ed. and transl. by Berlina, Alexandra). New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Shosted, Ryan K. 2006. Correlating complexity: A typological approach. Linguistic Typology 10(1): 1–40. DOI https://doi.org/10.1515/LINGTY.2006.001.Google Scholar
Sikos, Les, Venhuizen, Noortje J., Drenhaus, Heiner and Crocker, Matthew W.. 2021. Reevaluating pragmatic reasoning in language games. PLoS ONE 16(3): e0248388. DOI https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248388.Google Scholar
Silverman, Laura B., Bennetto, Loisa, Campana, Ellen and Tanenhaus, Michael K.. 2010. Speech-and-gesture integration in high functioning autism. Cognition 115(3): 380–393. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.01.002.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Dixon, R.M.W. (ed.), Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, 112—171. Canberra: Australian Institute for Aboriginal Studies, Canberra.Google Scholar
Sinnemäki, Kaius. 2008. Complexity trade-offs in core argument marking. In Miestamo, Matti, Sinnemäki, Kaius and Karlsson, Fred (eds.), Language Complexity: Typology, Contact, Change, 67–88. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sinnemäki, Kaius. 2010. Word order in zero-marking languages. Studies in Language 34(4): 869–912. DOI https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.34.4.04sin.Google Scholar
Sinnemäki, Kaius. 2014. A typological perspective on Differential Object Marking. Linguistics 52(2): 281–313. DOI https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2013-0063.Google Scholar
Shopen, Timothy. 1971. Caught in the act: An intermediate stage in a would-be historical process providing syntactic evidence for the psychological reality of paradigms. Papers from the Seventh Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 7: 254–263.Google Scholar
Slobin, Dan I. 1987. Thinking for speaking. In Aske, Jon, Beery, Natasha, Michaelis, Laura and Filip, Hana (eds.), Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 435–445. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Slonimska, Anita, Özyürek, Aslı and Capirci, Olga. 2020. The role of iconicity and simultaneity for efficient communication: The case of Italian Sign Language (LIS). Cognition 200: 104246. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104246.Google Scholar
Smith, Kenny, and Culbertson, Jennifer. 2020. Communicative pressures shape language during communication (not learning): Evidence from casemarking in artificial languages. PsyArXiv. August 18. https://psyarxiv.com/5nwhq/.Google Scholar
Smith, Kenny, and Wonnacott, Elizabeth. 2010. Eliminating unpredictable variation through iterated learning. Cognition 116: 444–449. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.06.004.Google Scholar
Smith, Kenny, Perfors, Amy, Fehér, Olga, Samara, Anna, Swoboda, Kate and Wonnacott, Elizabeth. 2017. Language learning, language use and the evolution of linguistic variation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 372: 20160051. DOI https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0051.Google Scholar
Smith, Mark, and Wheeldon, Linda. 2004. Horizontal information flow in spoken sentence production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 30(3): 675–686. DOI https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.30.3.675.Google Scholar
Smith, Nathaniel J., and Levy, Roger. 2013. The effect of word predictability on reading time is logarithmic. Cognition 128(3): 302–319. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.02.013.Google Scholar
Sommer, Noëlle, and Levshina, Natalia. 2021. Cross-Linguistic Differential and Optional Marking Database (v1.0.0). Zenodo. DOI https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4896007.Google Scholar
Song, Jae Jung. 1996. Causatives and Causation: A Universal-Typological Perspective. London: Addison Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
Sóskuthy, Márton. 2017. Generalised additive mixed models for dynamic analysis in linguistics: a practical introduction. ArXiv. DOI https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1703.05339.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, and Wilson, Deirdre. 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Spirtes, Peter, Glymour, Clark and Scheines, Richard. 2000. Causation, Prediction, and Search, 2nd edn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stallings, Lynne M., and MacDonald, Maryellen C.. 2011. It’s not just the ‘heavy NP’: Relative phrase length modulates the production of heavy-NP shift. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 40: 177–187. DOI https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-010-9163-x.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol, and Stefan, Th. Gries. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2): 209–243. DOI https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste.Google Scholar
Stent, Amanda J., Huffman, Marie K. and Brennan, Susan E.. 2008. Adapting speaking after evidence of misrecognition: Local and global hyperarticulation. Speech Communication 50(3): 163–178. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2007.07.005.Google Scholar
Stephens, Greg J., Silbert, Lauren J. and Hasson, Uri. 2010. Speaker–listener neural coupling underlies successful communication. PNAS 107(32): 14425–14430. DOI https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1008662107.Google Scholar
Sun, Linlin, and Bisang, Walter. 2020. Grammaticalization changes in Chinese. In Bisang, Walter and Malchukov, Andrej (eds.), Grammaticalization Scenarios: Cross-Linguistic Variation and Universal Tendencies, Vol. 1, 609–658. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Sutherland-Smith, Wendy. 1996. Spoken narrative and Preferred Argument Structure: Evidence from modern Hebrew discourse. Studies in Language 20(1): 163–189.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2003. Be going to versus will/shall: Does syntax matter? Journal of English Linguistics 31(4): 295–323. DOI https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424203257830.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2006. Morphosyntactic Persistence in Spoken English: A Corpus Study at the Intersection of Variationist Sociolinguistics, Psycholinguistics, and Discourse Analysis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2009. Typological parameters of intralingual variability: Grammatical analyticity versus syntheticity in varieties of English. Language Variation and Change 21(3): 319–353. DOI https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394509990123.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sally, and Harald Baayen, R.. 2012. Models, forests and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. Language Variation and Change 24(2): 135–178. DOI https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394512000129.Google Scholar
Tal, Shira, Smith, Kenny, Culbertson, Jennifer, Grossman, Eitan and Arnon, Inbal. 2022. The impact of information structure on the emergence of differential object marking: An experimental study. Cognitive Science 46(3): e13119.Google Scholar
Tamariz, Monica. 2016. Experimental studies on the cultural evolution of language. Annual Review of Linguistics 3: 389–407. DOI https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011516-033807.Google Scholar
Tanaka, Mikihiro N., Branigan, Holly P., McLean, Janet F. and Pickering, Martin J.. 2011. Conceptual influences on word order and voice in sentence production: Evidence from Japanese. Journal of Memory and Language 65(3): 318–330. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.04.009.Google Scholar
Taylor, John R. 2012. Mental Corpus: How Language Is Represented in the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Temperley, David. 2008. Dependency-length minimization in natural and artificial languages. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 15(3): 256–282. DOI https://doi.org/10.1080/09296170802159512.Google Scholar
Thomson, Alexander. 1909. Beiträge zur Kasuslehre. Indogermanische Forschungen 24: 293–307.Google Scholar
Tily, Harry. 2010. The Role of Processing Complexity in Word Order Variation and Change. PhD dissertation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar
Tily, Harry, and Piantadosi, Steven. 2009. Refer efficiently: Use less informative expressions for more predictable meanings. In van Deemter, Kees, Gatt, Albert, van Gompel, Roger and Krahmer, Emiel (eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on the Production of Referring Expressions (PRE-Cogsci 2009): Bridging the Gap between Computational and Empirical Approaches to Reference. https://pre2009.uvt.nl/pdf/tilypiantadosi.pdf.Google Scholar
Tosco, Mauro. 1994. On case marking in the Ethiopian language area (with special reference to the subject marking in East Cushitic). In Brugnatelli, Vermondo (ed.), Sem, Cam, Iafet Atti della 7a Giornata di Studi Camito-Semitica e Indeuropei, 225–244. Milan: Centro Studi Camito-Semitici.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2010. Revisiting subjectification and intersubjectification. In Davidse, Kristin, Vandelanotte, Lieven and Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.), Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization, 29–71. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 2011. Sociolinguistic Typology: Social Determinants of Linguistic Complexity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Turnbull, Rory, 2019. Listener-oriented phonetic reduction and theory of mind. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 34(6): 747–768. DOI https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2019.1579349.Google Scholar
Vajrabhaya, Prakaywan. 2016. Cross-Modal Reduction: Repetition of Words and Gestures. PhD dissertation. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.Google Scholar
van der Horst, Joop M. 1998. Doen in Old and Early Middle Dutch: A comparative approach. In Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid, van der Wal, Marijke and van Leuvensteijn, Arjan (eds.), ‘Do’ in English, Dutch and German: History and present-day variation, 53–64. Münster: Nodus Publicationen.Google Scholar
Van Dyke, Jilie M., and McElree, Brian. 2011. Cue-dependent interference in comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 65(3): 247–263. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.05.002.Google Scholar
Vanlangendonck, Flora, Willems, Roel M. and Hagoort, Peter. 2018. Taking common ground into account: Specifying the role of the mentalizing network in communicative language production. PLoS ONE 13(10): e0202943. DOI https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202943.Google Scholar
Vasishth, Shravan, and Lewis, Richard L.. 2006. Argument-head distance and processing complexity: Explaining both locality and antilocality effects. Language 82(4): 767–794.Google Scholar
Venhuizen, Noortje, Crocker, Matthew W. and Brouwer, Harm. 2019. Expectation-based comprehension: Modeling the interaction of world knowledge and linguistic experience. Discourse Processes 56(3): 229–255. DOI https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2018.1448677.Google Scholar
Verhagen, Arie, and Kemmer, Suzanne. 1997. Interaction and causation: Causative constructions in modern standard Dutch. Journal of Pragmatics 27: 61–82.Google Scholar
Verhoef, Tessa. 2012. The origins of the duality of patterning in artificial whistled languages. Language and Cognition 4(4): 357–380. DOI https://doi.org/10.1515/langcog-2012-0019.Google Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus, and Kaiser, Georg A.. 2007. Differential object marking and the lexical semantics of verbs in Spanish. In Kaiser, Georg A. and Leonetti, Manuel (eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop ‘Definiteness, Specificity and Animacy in Ibero-Romance Languages’, 83–109. Universität Konstanz: Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus, and Onea Gáspár, Edgar. 2008. Triggering and blocking effects in the diachronic development of DOM in Romanian. Probus 20(1): 67–110. DOI doi.org/10.1515/PROBUS.2008.003.Google Scholar
Walter, Mary Ann, and Jaeger, T. Florian. 2008. Constraints on optional that: A strong word form OCP effect. In Edwards, Rodney L., Midtlyng, Patrick J., Sprague, Colin L. and Stensrud, Kjersti G. (eds.), Proceedings from the Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 505–519. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Wang, Lin, Bastiaansen, Marcel, Yang, Yufang and Hagoort, Peter. 2010. The influence of information structure on the depth of semantic processing: How focus and pitch accent determine the size of the N400 effect. Neuropsychologia 49: 813–820. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.12.035.Google Scholar
Warren, Tessa, and Gibson, Edward. 2002. The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity. Cognition 85: 79–112. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00087-2.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 1997. End-weight from the speaker’s perspective. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 26(3): 347–361.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 2015. Ambiguity avoidance is overrated. In Winkler, Susanne (ed.), Ambiguity: Language and Communication, 29–47. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas, Jaeger, T. Florian and Orr, David M.. 2011. Lexical variation in relativizer frequency. In Simon, Horst J. and Wiese, Heike (eds.), Expecting the Unexpected: Exceptions in Grammar, 175–195. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas, Levy, Roger, Melnick, Robin, Zhu, Hanzhi and Juzek, Tom. 2015. Processing, prosody, and optional to. In Frazier, Lyn and Gibson, Edward (eds.), Explicit and Implicit Prosody in Sentence Processing, 133–158. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Weiner, E. Judith, and Labov, William. 1983. Constraints on the agentless passive. Journal of Linguistics 19: 29–58.Google Scholar
Wheeldon, Linda R., and Monsell, Stephen. 1994. Inhibition of spoken word production by priming a semantic competitor. Journal of Memory and Language 33(3): 332–356. DOI https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1016.Google Scholar
Whitney, William Dwight. 1875. The Life and Growth of Language. London: Henry S. King & Co. https://archive.org/details/lifeandgrowthla01whitgoog.Google Scholar
Wieling, Martijn. 2018. Analyzing dynamic phonetic data using generalized additive mixed modeling: A tutorial focusing on articulatory differences between L1 and L2 speakers of English. Journal of Phonetics 70: 86–116. DOI https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wocn.2018.03.002.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 2006. English: Meaning and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wilcox, Ethan G., Gauthier, Jon, Hu, Jennifer, Qian, Peng and Levy, Roger P.. 2020. On the predictive power of neural language models for human real-time comprehension behavior. In Proceedings of CogSci 2020. DOI https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2006.01912.Google Scholar
Wilkes-Gibbs, Deanna, and Clark, Herbert H.. 1992. Coordinating beliefs in conversation. Journal of Memory and Language 31: 183–194.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Sperber, Dan. 1993. Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua 90: 1–25.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Sperber, Dan. 2004. Relevance Theory. In Horn, Laurence R. and Ward, Gregory (eds.), The Handbook of Pragmatics, 607–632. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wingfield, Arthur. 1968. Effects of frequency on identification and naming of objects. The American Journal of Psychology 81(2): 226–234.Google Scholar
Witkowski, Stanley R., and Brown, Cecil H.. 1983. Marking-reversals and cultural importance. Language 59(3): 569–582.Google Scholar
Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena, and Seržant, Ilja. 2018. Differential argument marking: Patterns of variation. In Seržant, Ilja and Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena (eds.), Diachrony of Differential Argument Marking, 1–40. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Wood, Simon N. 2006. Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC.Google Scholar
Wulff, Stefanie. 2006. Go-V vs. go-and-V in English: A case of constructional synonymy? In Gries, Stefan Th. and Stefanowitsch, Anatol (eds.). Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics. Corpus-Based Approaches to Syntax and Lexis, 101–125. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Yadav, Himanshu, Husain, Samar and Futrell, Richard. 2021. Do dependency lengths explain constraints on crossing dependencies? Linguistics Vanguard 7 (s3): 20190070. DOI https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2019-0070.Google Scholar
Yamashita, Hiroko, and Chang, Franklin. 2001. ‘Long before short’ preference in the production of a head-final language. Cognition 81: B45–B55.Google Scholar
Yang, Suying. 1995. The Aspectual System of Chinese. PhD dissertation. Victoria: University of Victoria.Google Scholar
Ye, Jingting, 2020. Independent and dependent possessive person forms: Three universals. Studies in Language 44(2): 363–406. DOI https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.19020.ye.Google Scholar
Yngve, Victor H. 1960. A model and an hypothesis for language structure. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 104(5): 444–466.Google Scholar
Zach, Reto. 1979. Shell dropping: Decision-making and optimal foraging in Northwestern crows. Behaviour 68: 106–117. DOI https://doi.org/10.1163/156853979X00269.Google Scholar
Zehentner, Eva. 2022. Ambiguity avoidance as a factor in the rise of the English dative alternation. Cognitive Linguistics 33(1): 3–33. DOI https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2021-0018.Google Scholar
Zeman, Daniel, Nivre, Joakim, Abrams, Mitchell et al. 2020. Universal Dependencies 2.6, LINDAT/CLARIAH-CZ digital library at the Institute of Formal and Applied Linguistics (ÚFAL), Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University. http://hdl.handle.net/11234/1-3226. See also http://universaldependencies.org.Google Scholar
Zemskaja, Elena L., and Kapanadze, L.A. (eds.). 1978. Russkaja Razgovornaja Reč. Teksty [Russian Colloquial Speech. Texts]. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Zipf, George K. 1965 [1935]. The Psychobiology of Language: An Introduction to Dynamic Philology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Zipf, George K. 1949. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort. Cambridge, MA: Addison‐Wesley.Google Scholar