The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: the reduction of don't in English
Abstract
In this paper we take the position that there are many degrees of constituency and that these derive in a direct manner from the frequency with which elements are used together: elements that are frequently found next to each other show a tighter constituent structure than those that collocate less frequently. We use both phonological and functional evidence from conversation to argue that repetition conditions chunking (Haiman 1994), sometimes overriding the syntactic and semantic logic of the organization of utterances. Our study examines the reduction of don't in American English conversation. We find that don't is reduced the most in the contexts in which it occurs the most, that is, after I and before certain verbs, such as know . While a generalized constituent structure may be an emergent property arising from many analogous utterances, specific combinations that are frequently used may diverge from the general pattern because frequency conditions autonomy in storage and renders internal analysis unnecessary. This phenomenon reveals the essential role of repetition in the creation of constituent structure: while semantic and pragmatic factors determine what occurs together in discourse, the actual repetition of stretches of talk triggers the chunking mechanism that binds them into constituents.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Regular morphology and the lexicon
Bybee, J. (1995) · Language and Cognitive Processes · doi:10.1080/01690969508407111 · Cited by 1,541
Self-citation
Cited by
Bybee, J. (2010) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511750526 · Cited by 3,488
Self-citationCroft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511803864 · Cited by 3,316
Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C. (2003) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139165525 · Cited by 2,135
More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases
Arnon, I., & Snider, N. (2010) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/j.jml.2009.09.005 · Cited by 791
The Now-or-Never bottleneck: A fundamental constraint on language
Christiansen, M. H., & Chater, N. (2016) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x1500031x · Cited by 733
Metadata
- Authors
- Bybee, J., & Scheibman, J.
- Venue
- Linguistics
- Publisher
- Walter de Gruyter GmbH
- Published
- 1999-01-01
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 4
- ISSN
- 0024-3949 (ISSN-L)
- 1613-396X
- OpenAlex
- W2113201368
- Cited by
- 661
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 41.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: the reduction of don't in English. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1515/ling.37.4.575
- The paper
- Bybee, J., & Scheibman, J. (1999). The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: the reduction of don't in English. Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.37.4.575
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.