Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 7Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationCategorization, perception, and languageLanguage Development and Disorders

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Towards a Theory of Communicative Efficiency in Human Languages

Open access
Levshina, Natalia·2018·Zenodo
DOI 10.5281/zenodo.1542856
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This study develops a probabilistic theory of efficiency in natural language. The first part is theoretical and presents the foundation of this theory: the Principle of Efficiency Communication and the related High-Cost and Low-Cost Heuristics. It argues that language users have a bias towards efficient communication, trying to maximize the benefit-to-cost ratio. According to these principles, highly predictable, accessible, activated, expected, stereotypical, etc. information tends to be expressed by less costly forms, which require less effort, whereas less predictable, accessible, etc. information tends to be expressed by costlier forms. Different examples are provided, and possible diachronic mechanisms are discussed. In Parts II and III, the author zooms in on two well-known phenomena in languages of the world: causative constructions and differential case marking. The author uses data from her own typological database and other typological sources, as well as evidence from numerous corpora of different languages, and reports the results of an artificial language learning experiment. The convergent evidence demonstrates that the more probable meanings and more probable associations between the syntactic function and the referential properties of an argument lead to less costly forms. Part IV contains corpus-based synchronic and diachronic studies of several English alternations: help + (to) Infinitive, stative verb + (at) home and go (and) Verb, and want to/wanna + Infinitive. The author provides statistical evidence for the hypothesis of correlation between slot-filler predictability and formal length of constructions. The results of this study are important for functional and cognitive linguistics because they provide a coherent framework for discussing different manifestations of efficiency on all levels of language structure – from phonology to discourse patterns.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.5281/zenodo.1542856

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 233

  1. Allen, Shanley E.M., and Heike Schröder. 2003. Preferred Argument Structure in early Inuktitut spontaneous speech data. In: John W. Du Bois, Lorraine E. Kumpf and William J. Ashby (eds.), Preferred argument structure: Grammar as architecture for function, 301-338. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  2. Amberber, Mengistu. 2000. Valency-changing and valency-encoding devices in Amharic. In: R. M. W. Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.), Changing valency: Case studies in transitivity, 312-332. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  3. Andersen, Henning. 2016. Abduction. In: Ian Roberts and Adam Ledgeway (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Historical Syntax, 301-321. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  4. Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedents. London: Routledge.
  5. Ariel, Mira. 2001. Accessibility theory: An overview. In: Ted Sanders, Joost Schliperoord and Wilbert Spooren (eds.), Text representation, 29-87. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  6. Ariel, Mira. 2008. Pragmatics and Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  7. Arnold, Jennifer E. 2003. Multiple constraints on reference form: Null, pronominal, and full reference in Mapudungun. In: John W. Du Bois, Lorraine E. Kumpf and William J. Ashby (eds.), Preferred argument structure: Grammar as architecture for function. 225-245. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  8. Arnold, Jennifer E. 2010. How speakers refer: The role of accessibility. Language and Linguistics Compass 4(4): 187-203. doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818x.2010.00193.x · DOI
  9. Arnold, Jennifer E. and Zenzi M. Griffin. 2007. The effect of additional characters on choice of referring expression: everyone counts. Journal of Memory and Language 56: 521- 36.
  10. Asr, Fatemeh Torabi, and Vera Demberg. 2012. Implicitness of discourse relations. In: Proceedings of COLING 2012: Technical Papers, 2669-2684. COLING 2012, Mumbai, December 2012.
  11. Aylett, Matthew, and Alice Turk. 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.
  12. Aylett, Matthew, and Alice Turk. 2006. Language redundancy predicts syllabic duration and the spectral characteristics of vocalic syllable nuclei. Journal of Acoustical Society of America 119(5): 3048-3058.
  13. Baese-Berk, Melissa, and Matthew Goldrick. 2009. Mechanisms of interaction in speech production. Language and Cognitive Processes 24(4): 527-554.
  14. Bates, Douglas, Martin Maechler, Ben Bolker and Steve Walker. 2015. Fitting Linear mixed- effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1): 1-48. doi.org/ 10.18637/jss.v067.i0. · DOI
  15. Bell, Alan, Daniel Jurafsky, Eric Fosler-Lussier, Cynthia Girand and Daniel Gildea. 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.
  16. Bell, Alan, Jason Brenier, Michelle Gregory, Cynthia Girand, and Dan Jurafsky. 2009. Predictability effects on durations of content and function words in conversational English. Journal of Memory and Language 60(1): 92-111.
  17. Bentz, Christian, and Ramon Ferrer-i-Cancho. 2016. Zipf's law of abbreviation as a language universal. Capturing Phylogenetic Algorithms for Linguistics. In: Christian Bentz, Gerhard Jäger and Igor Yanovich (eds.), Proceedings of the Leiden Workshop on Capturing Phylogenetic Algorithms for Linguistics. University of Tübingen, online publication system, https://publikationen.uni-tuebingen.de/xmlui/handle/10900/68558.
  18. Bickel, Balthasar, Alena Witzlack-Makarevich and Taras Zakharko. 2015. Typological evidence against universal effects of referential scales on case alignment. In: Ina Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Andrej L. Malchukov and Marc Richards (eds.), Scales, 7- 43. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.
  19. Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  20. Blakemore, Diane. 1987. Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Blackwell, Oxford.
  21. Blumenthal-Dramé, Alice, and Bernd Kortmann. 2017. Causal and concessive relations: Typology meets cognition. Paper presented at the 39 th Annual Conference of the German Linguistic Society, March 8-10 2017, Saarbrücken.
  22. Bouma, Gosse. 2016. Om-omission. In: Martijn Wieling, Martin Kroon, Gertjan van Noord and Gosse Bouma (eds.), From Semantics to Dialectometry: Festschrift in honor of John Nerbonne, 65-74. College Publications.
  23. Bresnan, Joan, Anna Cueni, Tatiana Nikitina and Harald Baayen. 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. In: Gerlof Bouma, Irene Krämer and Joost Zwarts (eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation, 69-94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.
  24. Bruno, Ana Carla. 2003. Waimiri Atroari Grammar: Some Phonological, Morphological, and Syntactic Aspects. Doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona.
  25. Buz, Esteban, Michael K. Tanenhaus and T. Florian Jaeger. 2016. Dynamically adapted context-specific hyper-articulation: Feedback from interlocutors affects speakers' subsequent pronunciations. Journal of Memory and Language 89: 68-86.
  26. Bybee, Joan L. 1994. The grammaticization of zero. Asymmetries in tense and aspect systems. In: William Pagliuca (ed.), Perspectives on grammaticalization, 235-254. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  27. Bybee, Joan L. 1999. Usage-based phonology. In: Michael Darnell, Edith A. Moravcsik, Frederic J. Newmeyer, Michael Noonan and Kathleen Wheatley (eds.), Functionalism and formalism in linguistics. Volume I: General papers, 211-242. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  28. Bybee, Joan L. 2003. Cognitive processes in grammaticalization. In: Michael Tomasello (ed.), The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure. Vol. 2, 145-167. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  29. Bybee, Joan L. 2006. From usage to grammar: the mind's response to repetition. Language 82(4): 711-733.
  30. Bybee, Joan L. 2007. Frequency of use and the organization of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  31. Bybee, Joan L. 2010. Language, Usage, and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  32. Bybee, Joan L., Revere Perkins, and William Pagliuca. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  33. Bybee, Joan, and Joanne Scheibman. 1999. The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: the reduction of don't in English. Linguistics 37(4): 575-596.
  34. Caldwell, Christine A., and Kenny Smith. 2012. Cultural evolution and perpetuation of arbitrary communicative conventions in experimental microsocieties. PLoS ONE 7(8): e43807. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0043807 · DOI
  35. Chatterji, Suniti Kumar. 1926. The Origin and Development of the Bengali Language. Calcutta: Calcutta University Press.
  36. Chui, Ka-Wai. 1992. Preferred argument structure for discourse understanding. In: Proceedings of COLING-92, Nantes, August 23-28 1992, 1142-1146.
  37. Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  38. Cohen Priva, Uriel. 2008. Using information content to predict phone deletion. In Natasha Abner and Jason Bishop (eds.), Proceedings of the 27th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 90-98. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
  39. Comrie, Bernard. 1976. The syntax of causative constructions: Cross-language similarities and divergencies. In: Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), Syntax and Semantic 6: The Grammar of Causative Constructions, 261-312. New York: Academic Press.
  40. Comrie, Bernard. 1978. Ergativity. In: W. P. Lehmann (ed.), Syntactic Typology. Studies in the Phenomenology of Language, 329-394. Austin: The University of Texas Press.
  41. Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Blackwell.
  42. Comrie, Bernard. 1986. Markedness, grammar, people, and the world. In: Eckman, Fred R., Edith A. Moravcsik and Jessica R. Wirth (eds.), Markedness, 85-106. New York: Plenum Press.
  43. Joan L. Bybee and Paul J. Hopper (eds.), Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure, 201-226. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  44. Croft, William. 2003. Typology and universals. 2 nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  45. Cristofaro, Sonia. In press. Taking diachronic evidence seriously: Result-oriented vs. source- oriented explanations of typological universals. In: Karsten Schmidtke-Bode, Natalia Levshina, Susanne M. Michaelis and Ilja Seržant (eds.), Explanation in Typology: Diachronic Sources, Functional Motivations and the Nature of the evidence. Berlin: Language Science Press.
  46. Dahl, Östen. 2000. Egophoricity in discourse and syntax. Functions of Language 7(1): 37-77.
  47. Dahl, Östen, and Kari Fraurud. 1996. Animacy in grammar and discourse. In: Thorstein Fretheim and Jeannette Gundel (eds.), Reference and referent accessibility, 47-64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  48. Dalrymple, Mary, and Irina Nikolaeva. 2011. Objects and information structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  49. de Hoop, Helen, and Peter de Swart (eds.). 2008b. Differential subject marking. Dordrecht: Springer.
  50. de Hoop, Helen, and Andrej L. Malchukov. 2008. Case-marking strategies. Linguistic Inquiry 39(4): 565-587.
  51. Diessel, Holger, and Martin Hilpert. 2016. Frequency effects in grammar. In: Mark Aronoff (ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press. http://linguistics.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.001.0001/acref ore-9780199384655-e-120 · DOI
  52. Divjak, Dagmar, Natalia Levshina and Jane Klavan. 2016. Cognitive Linguistics: Looking back, looking forward. Cognitive Linguistics 27(4): 447-464.
  53. Dixon, Robert M.W. 1991. A New Approach to English Grammar, on Semantic Principles. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  54. Dixon, Robert M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  55. Dixon, R. M. W. 2000. A typology of causatives: Form, syntax and meaning. In R. M. W. Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.), Changing valency: Case studies in transitivity, 30-83. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  56. Dryer, Matthew S., and Martin Haspelmath (eds.). 2013. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online at http://wals.info, Accessed on 2018-11-09.)
  57. Du Bois, John W. 1985. Competing motivations. In: John Haiman (ed.), Iconicity in syntax, 343-65. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  58. Du Bois, John W., Lorraine E. Kumpf and William J. Ashby (eds.). 2003. Preferred argument structure: Grammar as architecture for function. (Studies in discourse and grammar 14.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  59. Eksell Harning, K. 1980. The Analytical Genitive in Modern Arabic Dialects. Doctoral dissertation, Orientalia Gothoburgensia 5. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg Press.
  60. Ellis, Nick C. 2006. Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied Linguistics 27(1): 1-24.
  61. Ellis, Nick C., and Fernando Ferreira-Junior. 2009. Construction Learning as a Function of Frequency, Frequency Distribution, and Function. The Modern Language Journal 93(3): 370-385. doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00896.x · DOI
  62. Escandel-Vidal, Victoria, and Manuel Leonetti. 2011. On the rigidity of procedural meaning. In: Victoria Escandell-Vidal, Manuel Leonetti and Aoife Ahern (eds.), Procedural Meaning: Problems and Perspectives, 81-102. Bingley: Emerald/Brill.
  63. Everett, Caleb. 2009. A reconsideration of the motivation for preferred argument structure. Studies in Language 33(1): 1-24.
  64. Fauconnier, Stefanie. 2011. Differential agent marking and animacy. Lingua 121(3): 533-547.
  65. Fay, Nicolas, and T. Mark Ellison. 2013. The cultural evolution of human communication systems in different sized populations: Usability trumps learnability. PLoS ONE: e71781. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0071781 · DOI
  66. Fedzechkina, Maryia, T. Florian Jaeger and Elissa L. Newport. 2012. Language learners restructure their input to facilitate efficient communication. PNAS 109(44): 17897- 17902. doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1215776109 · DOI
  67. Ferrer-i-Cancho, Ramon, and Fermín Moscoso del Prado Martín. 2011. Information content versus word length in random typing. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment: L12002.
  68. Ferrer-i-Cancho, Ramon, Łukasz Dębowski and Fermín Moscoso del Prado Martín. 2013. Constant conditional entropy and related hypotheses. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 7: L07001. doi:10.1088/1742-5468/2013/07/L07001. · DOI
  69. Filimonova, Elena. 2005. The noun phrase hierarchy and relational marking: Problems and counterevidence. Linguistic Typology 9(1): 77-113.
  70. Fillmore, Charles J. 1986. Pragmatically Controlled Zero Anaphora. In: Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 12: 95-107.
  71. Flach, Susanne K. 2017. Serial Verb Constructions in English: A usage-based approach. Doctoral dissertation, Freie Universität Berlin.
  72. Fodor, Jerry A. 1970. Three reasons for not deriving "kill" from "cause to die". Linguistic Inquiry 1(4): 429-438.
  73. Fowler, Carol A., and Jonathan Housum. 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.
  74. Franke, Michael, and Gerhard Jäger. 2015. Probabilistic pragmatics, or why Bayes' rule is probably important for pragmatics. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 35(1): 3-44.
  75. García García, Marco. 2018. Nominal and verbal parameters in the diachrony of differential object marking in Spanish. In: Ilja Seržant and Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds.), Diachrony of Differential Argument Marking, 209-242. Berlin: Language Science Press.
  76. Geeraerts, Dirk. 2016. The sociosemiotic commitment. Cognitive Linguistics 27(4): 527-542.
  77. Gilligan, Gary Martin. 1987. A Cross-linguistic Approach to the Pro-drop-parameter. Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California.
  78. Givón, Talmy. 1980. The binding hierarchy and the typology of complements. Studies in Language 4(3): 333-377.
  79. Givón, Talmy (ed.). 1983. Topic Continuity in Discourse: A quantitative cross-language study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  80. Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  81. Goldberg, Adele E. 2005. Argument realization: the role of constructions, lexical semantics and discourse factors. In: Jan-Ola Östman and Mirjam Fried (eds.), Construction Grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions, 17-44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  82. Goldberg, Adele E., Devin Casenhiser and Nitya Sethuraman. 2005. The Role of Prediction in Construction Learning. Journal of Child Language 32: 407-426.
  83. Gordon, Peter C., and Davina Chan. 1995. Pronouns, passives, and discourse coherence. Journal of Memory and Language 34: 216-231.
  84. Gregory, Michelle, William D. Raymond, Alan Bell, Eric Fosler-Lussier and Daniel Jurafsky. 1999. The effects of collocational strength and contextual predictability in lexical production. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 35: 151-166.
  85. Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Logic and Conversation. In: Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol.3. Speech Acts, 41-58. New York: Academic Press.
  86. Gries, Stefan Th., and Anatol Stefanowitsch. Extending collostructional analysis: a corpus- based perspective on 'alternations'. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(1): 97-129.
  87. Guirardello, Raquel. 1999. A Reference Grammar of Trumai. Doctoral dissertation, Rice University.
  88. Ha, Renee R. 2010. Cost-Benefit Analysis. In: Michael D. Breed and Janice Moore (eds.), Encyclopedia of Animal Behavior, Vol. 1, 402-405 Oxford: Academic Press.
  89. Haig, Geoffrey. 2018. The grammaticalization of object pronouns: Why differential object indexing is an attractor state. Linguistics 56(4): 781-818. doi.org/10.1515/ling-2018- 0011. · DOI
  90. Haig, Geoffrey, and Stefan Schnell. 2016. The discourse basis of ergativity revisited. Language 92(3): 591-618.
  91. Haiman, John. 1983. Iconic and economic motivation. Language 59(4): 781-819.
  92. Haiman, John. 1985. Natural syntax: Iconicity and erosion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  93. Haiman, John. 1991. From V/2 to subject clitics: evidence from Northern Italian. In: Elizabeth Closs Traugott and Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization. Vol. 1. Focus on theoretical and methodological issues, 135-157. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  94. Haiman, John. 1994. Ritualization and the development of language. In: William Pagliuca (ed.), Perspectives on Grammaticalization, 3-28. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  95. Hampe, Beate. 2011. Metaphor, constructional ambiguity and the causative resultatives. In: Sandra Handl and Hans-Jörg Schmid (eds.), Windows to the Mind, 185-215. Berlin, Mouton de Gruyter.
  96. Haspelmath, Martin. 1993. More on the typology of inchoative/causative verb alternations. In: Bernard Comrie and Maria Polinsky (eds.), Causatives and transitivity, 87-120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  97. Haspelmath, Martin. 2006. Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 42(1): 25-70.
  98. Haspelmath, Martin. 2008a. A frequentist explanation of some universals of reflexive marking. Linguistic Discovery 6(1). DOI:10.1349/PS1.1537-0852.A.331. · DOI
  99. Haspelmath, Martin. 2008b. Frequency vs. iconicity in explaining grammatical asymmetries. Cognitive Linguistics 19(1): 1-33.
  100. Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies. Language 86(3): 663-687.
  101. Haspelmath, Martin. 2017. Explaining alienability contrasts in adpossessive constructions: Predictability vs. iconicity. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 36(2): 193-231. doi.org/ 10.1515/zfs-2017-0009 · DOI
  102. Haspelmath, Martin. Forthcoming-a. Explaining grammatical coding asymmetries: Form- frequency correspondences and predictability. Available from https://www.academia.edu/s/b9e468a978/explaining-grammatical-coding- asymmetries-form-frequency-correspondences-and-predictability
  103. Haspelmath, Martin, and Andres Karjus. 2017. Explaining asymmetries in number marking: Singulatives, pluratives and usage frequency. Linguistics 55(6): 1213-1235.
  104. Haspelmath, Martin, Andreea Calude, Michael Spagnol, Heiko Narrog and Elif Bamyacı. 2014. Coding causal-noncausal verb alternations: A form-frequency correspondence explanation. Journal of Linguistics 50(3): 587-625.
  105. Haude, Katharina, and Alena Witzlack-Makarevich. 2016. Referential hierarchies and alignment: An overview. Linguistics 54(4): 433-441.
  106. Hawkins, John A. 1994. A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 73.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  107. Hawkins, John. 2014. Cross-linguistic Variation and Efficiency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  108. Helmbrecht, Johannes, Lukas Denk, Sarah Thanner and Ilenia Tonetti. 2018. Morphosyntactic coding of proper names and its implications for the Animacy Hierarchy. In: Sonia Cristofaro and Fernando Zúñiga (eds.), Typological hierarchies in synchrony and diachrony, 377-401. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
  109. Hilpert, Martin. 2012. Constructional Change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  110. Hollmann, Willem B. 2003. Synchrony and Diachrony of English Periphrastic Causatives: A cognitive perspective. Doctoral dissertation, University of Manchester.
  111. Hooper, Joan B. 1976. Word frequency in lexical diffusion and the source of morphophonological change. In William M. Christie (ed.), Current Progress in Historical Linguistics, 96-105. Amsterdam: North Holland.
  112. Hopper, Paul J., and Sandra A. Thompson. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56(2): 251-299.
  113. Hopper, Paul J., and Elizabeth C. Traugott. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  114. Horn, Laurence R. 1984. Towards a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R- based implicature. In: Deborah Schiffrin (ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics, 11-42. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
  115. Hothorn, Torsten, Kurt Hornik and Achim Zeileis. 2006. Unbiased recursive partitioning: A conditional inference framework. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 15(3): 651-674.
  116. Howes, David. 1968. Zipf's law and Miller's random-monkey model. The American Journal of Psychology 81(2): 269-272.
  117. Hualde, José Ignacio and Ortiz de Urbina, Jon (eds.). 2003. A Grammar of Basque. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
  118. Huang, Yan. 2007. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  119. Huddleston, Rodney, and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  120. Hudson Kam, Carla L., and Elissa L. Newport. 2009. Getting it right by getting it wrong: When learners change languages. Cognitive Psychology 59: 30-66. doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2009.01.001 · DOI
  121. Jaeger, T. Florian. 2010. Redundancy and reduction: speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology 61 (1): 23-62. doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.02.002. · DOI
  122. Jaeger, T. Florian, and Esteban Buz. 2017. Signal reduction and linguistic encoding. In: Eva M. Fernández and Helen Smith Cairns (eds.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics, 38-81.
  123. Jakobson, Roman. 1932 [1971]. Zur Structur des russischen Verbums. In: Roman Jakobson. Selected Writings. Vol. II. Word and Language, 3-15. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
  124. Jakobson, Roman. 1960 [1971]. Linguistics and Poetics. In: Roman Jakobson. Selected Writings. Vol. III. Poetry of Grammar and Grammar of Poetry, 18-51. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
  125. Keenan, Edward L. 1975. Variation in Universal Grammar. In: Ralph Fasold and Roger Shuy (eds.), Analyzing Variation in Language, 136-148. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
  126. Keenan, Edward L., and Bernard Comrie. 1977. Noun Phrase Accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8(1): 63-99.
  127. Keller, Rudi. 1994. On Language Change: The invisible hand in language. London: Routledge.
  128. Kim, Seongho. 2015. ppcor: An R Package for a Fast Calculation to Semi-partial Correlation Coefficients. Communications for Statistical Applications and Methods 22(6): 665-674.
  129. Kirby, Simon, Tom Griffiths and Kenny Smith. 2014. Iterated learning and the evolution of language. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 28: 108-114. doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2014.07.014 · DOI · Paper page
  130. König, Ekkehard, and Letizia Vezzosi. 2004. The role of predicate meaning in the development of reflexivity. In: Walter Bisang, Nikolaus Himmelmann and Björn Wiemer (eds.), What Makes Grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its components, 213-244. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  131. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 1996. Possessive noun phrases in Maltese: Alienability, iconicity, and grammaticalization. Rivista di Linguistica 8(1): 245-274.
  132. Kulikov, Leonid I. 2001. 2001. Causatives. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wolfgang Oesterreicher and Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language typology and language universals: An international handbook, 886-898. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  133. Kurumada, Chigusa, and T. Florian Jaeger. 2015. Communicative efficiency in language production: Optional case-marking in Japanese. Journal of Memory and Language 83: 152-178.
  134. Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representation of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  135. Landauer, Thomas K. and Susan T. Dumais. 1997. A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review 104(2): 211-240.
  136. Langacker, Ronald W. 1977. Syntactic Reanalysis. In: Charles N. Li (ed.), Mechanisms of Syntactic Change, 57-139. Austin: University of Texas Press.
  137. Langacker, Ronald W. 2011. Grammaticalization and Cognitive Grammar. In: Heike Narrog and Bernd Heine (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, 79-91. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  138. LaPolla, Randy J., and Chenglong Huang. 2003. A Grammar of Qiang with annotated texts and glossary. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
  139. Leben, William. 1973. Suprasegmental phonology. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.
  140. Lee, Hanjung, and Haejeong Choi. 2010. Focus Types and Subject-Object Asymmetry in Korean Case Ellipsis: A New Look at Focus Effects. In: Ryo Otoguro, Kiyoshi Ishikawa, Hiroshi Umemoto, Kei Yoshimoto, Yasunari Harada (eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation, PACLIC 24, Tohoku University, Japan, 4-7 November 2010: 213-222.
  141. Lehmann, Christian. 2015. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. 3 rd edn. Berlin: Language Science Press.
  142. Levinson, Stephen C. Presumptive Meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  143. Levshina, Natalia. 2011. Doe wat je niet laten kan [Do what you cannot let]: A usage-based study of Dutch causatives. Doctoral dissertation, University of Leuven.
  144. 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.
  145. Levshina, Natalia. 2018. Probabilistic grammar and constructional predictability: Bayesian generalized additive models of help + (to) Infinitive in varieties of web-based English. Glossa 3(1): 55. doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.294 · DOI
  146. Levshina, Natalia, and Alena Witzlack-Makarevich. 2018. Explaining scale effects in differential case marking: Evidence from dialogue corpora. Paper presented at the 51st Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea. Tallinn, 1 September 2018. https://www.academia.edu/37325241/Explaining_scale_effects_in_differential_case_
  147. Levy, Roger, and T. Florian Jaeger. 2007. Speakers optimize information density through syntactic reduction. In Bernhard Schlökopf, John Platt and Thomas Hoffman (eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS), vol. 19, 849-856. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  148. Lin, Wan-hua. 2009. Preferred Argument Structure in Chinese: A Comparison Among Conversations, Narratives and Written Texts. In Yun Xiao (ed.), Proceedings of the 21st North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics (NACCL-21) 2009. Vol. 2, 341 -357. Smithfield, Rhode Island: Bryant University.
  149. Lindblom, Björn. 1984. Economy of speech gestures. In Peter F. MacNeilage (ed.), The Production of Speech, 217-245. New York: Springer.
  150. Lindblom, Björn. 1990. Explaining phonetic variation: a sketch of the H & H theory. In: W. J. Hard-castle and A. Marchal (eds.), Speech Production and Speech Modeling, 403-439. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
  151. Little, Hannah, Kerem Eryılmaz and Bart de Boer. 2017. Signal dimensionality and the emergence of combinatorial structure. Cognition 168: 1-15. doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2017.06.011 · DOI
  152. Lohmann, Arne 2011. Help vs. help to -a multifactorial, mixed-effects account of infinitive marker omission. English Language and Linguistics 15(3): 499-521.
  153. Lowrey, Brian. 2012. Early English causative constructions and the "second agent" factor. Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 10. Outposts of Historical Corpus Linguistics: From the Helsinki Corpus to a Proliferation of Resources. http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/journal/volumes/10/lowrey/ (last access 9.11.2018).
  154. MacKay, David J.C. 2003. Information Theory, Inference, and Learning Algorithms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  155. 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.
  156. MacKay, Donald G. 1987. The Organization of Perception and Action: A theory for language and other cognitive skills. New York: Springer.
  157. Malchukov, Andrej L. 2008. Animacy and asymmetries in differential case marking. Lingua 118(2): 203-221.
  158. Maslova, Elena. 2003. A Grammar of Kolyma Yukaghir. [Mouton Grammar Library 27]. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
  159. Matisoff, James A. 1976. Lahu causative constructions: case hierarchies and the morphology/syntax cycle in a Tibeto-Burman perspective. In: Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), Syntax and Semantic 6: The Grammar of Causative Constructions, 413-42. New York: Academic Press.
  160. McCawley, James D. 1978. Conversational implicature and the lexicon. In: Peter Cole (ed.), Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 9. Pragmatics, 245-59. New York: Academic Press.
  161. McEnery, Anthony, and Zhonghua Xiao. 2005. HELP or HELP to: What do corpora have to say? English Studies 86(2): 161-187.
  162. McFarland, Teresa Ann. 2009. The phonology and morphology of Filomeno Mata Totonac. Doctoral dissertation, University of California Berkeley.
  163. McGregor, William B. 2018. Emergence of optional accusative case marking in Khoe languages. In: Ilja Seržant and Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds.), Diachrony of Differential Argument Marking, 243-279. Berlin: Language Science Press.
  164. Michaelis, Susanne M. In press. Support from creole languages for functional adaptation in grammar: Dependent and independent possessive person-forms. In: Karsten Schmidtke-Bode, Natalia Levshina, Susanne M. Michaelis and Ilja Seržant (eds.), Explanation in Typology: Diachronic Sources, Functional Motivations and the Nature of the evidence. Berlin: Language Science Press.
  165. Miller, George A. 1957. Some effects of intermittent silence. The American Journal of Psychology 70 (2): 311-314.
  166. Mithun, Marianne. 2002. An invisible hand at the root of causation: The role of lexicalization in the grammaticalization of causatives. In: Ilse Wischer and Gabriele Diewald (eds.), New Reflections on Grammaticalization, 237-257. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  167. Mondorf, Britta. 2003. Support for more-support. In: Günther Rohdenburg and Britta Mondorf (eds.), Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English, 251-304. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
  168. Edith A. Moravcsik, Andrej Malchukov and Brian MacWhinney (eds.), Competing Motivations in Grammar and Usage, 209-228. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  169. Montaut, Annie. 2018. The rise of differential object marking in Hindi and related languages. In: Ilja Seržant and Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds.), Diachrony of Differential Argument Marking, 281-313. Berlin: Language Science Press.
  170. 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.org/10.14989/227415 · DOI
  171. Moscoso del Prado, Fermin. 2014. Grammatical change begins within the word: Causal modeling of the co-evolution of Icelandic morphology and syntax. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society 36: 2657-2662. Available from https://escholarship.org/uc/cognitivesciencesociety?volume=36;issue=36 (last access 27.07.2017).
  172. Newman, John, and Sally Rice. 2006. Transitivity schemas of English EAT and DRINK in the BNC. In: Stefan Th. Gries and Anatol Stefanowitsch (eds.), Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based Approaches to Syntax and Lexis, 225-260. Amsterdam:
  173. Okrand, Marc. 1977. Mutsun grammar. Doctoral dissertation, University of California Berkeley.
  174. Pechenick, Eitan A., Christopher M. Danforth and Peter Sh. Dodds. 2015. Characterizing the Google Books Corpus: Strong Limits to Inferences of Socio-Cultural and Linguistic Evolution. PLoS ONE 10(10): e0137041. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0137041 · DOI
  175. 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.
  176. Piantadosi, Steven, Harry Tily and Edward Gibson. 2011. Word lengths are optimized for efficient communication, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108(9): 3526.
  177. Pierrehumbert, Janet. 2001. Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition, and contrast. In: Joan Bybee and Paul Hopper (eds.), Frequency effects and the emergence of lexical structure, 137-157. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  178. Poplack, Shana, and Sali Tagliamonte. 1996. Nothing in context: Variation, grammaticization and past time marking in Nigerian Pidgin English. In: Philip Baker and Anand Syea (eds.), Changing Meanings, Changing Functions. Papers related to grammaticalization in contact languages, 71-94. Westminster, UK: University Press.
  179. Popper, Karl. 1972. Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  180. Quine, Willard V. O. 1969. Ontological Relativity and Other Essays, New York: Columbia University Press.
  181. Reali, Florencia, and Thomas L. Griffiths. 2009. The evolution of frequency distributions: Relating regularization to inductive biases through iterative learning. Cognition 111: 317-328. doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.02.012 · DOI
  182. Rohdenburg, Günther. 1996. Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English. Cognitive Linguistics 7(2): 149-182.
  183. Rohdenburg, Günther. 2003. Horror aequi and cognitive complexity as factors determining the use of interrogative clause linkers. In: Günther Rohdenburg and Britta Mondorf (eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English, 205-250. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  184. Rohdenburg, Günther. 2009. Grammatical divergence between British and American English in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In: Ingrid Tieken-Boon van Ostade and Wim van der Wurff (eds.), Current issues in Late Modern English (Linguistic Insights 77), 301-330. Bern: Peter Lang.
  185. Schlüter, Julia. 2009. The conditional subjunctive. In: Günter Rohdenburg and Julia Schlüter (eds.), One language, two grammars?: Differences between British and American English, 277-305. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  186. Schmid, Hans-Jörg, and Helmut Küchenhoff. 2013. Collostructional analysis and other ways of measuring lexicogrammatical attraction: Theoretical premises, practical problems and cognitive underpinnings. Cognitive Linguistics 24(3): 531-577.
  187. Schmidtke-Bode, Karsten. In press. Attractor states and diachronic change in Hawkins' "Processing Typology". In: Karsten Schmidtke-Bode, Natalia Levshina, Susanne M. Michaelis and Ilja Seržant (eds.), Explanation in Typology: Diachronic Sources, Functional Motivations and the Nature of the evidence. Berlin: Language Science Press.
  188. Schmidtke-Bode, Karsten, and Natalia Levshina. 2018. Reassessing scale effects on differential case marking: Methodological, conceptual and theoretical issues in the quest for a universal. In: Ilja A. Seržant and Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds.), Diachrony of Differential Argument Marking, 509-537. Berlin: Language Science Press.
  189. Seiler, Walter. 1984. The main structures of Imonda: a Papuan language. Doctoral Dissertation, The Australian National University.
  190. Seržant, Ilja. In press. Weak universal forced: The discriminatory function of case in differential object marking systems. In: Karsten Schmidtke-Bode, Natalia Levshina, Susanne M. Michaelis and Ilja Seržant (eds.), Explanation in Typology: Diachronic Sources, Functional Motivations and the Nature of the evidence. Berlin: Language Science Press.
  191. Seyfarth, Scott. 2014. Word informativity influences acoustic duration: Effects of contextual predictability on lexical representation. Cognition 133(1): 140-155.
  192. Seyfarth, Scott, Esteban Buz and T. Florian Jaeger. 2016. Dynamic hyperarticulation of coda voicing contrasts. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 139(2): EL31-37.
  193. Shibatani, Masayoshi, and Prashant Pardeshi. 2002. The causative continuum. In: Masayoshi Shibatani (ed.), The Grammar of Causation and Interpersonal Manipulation, 85-126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  194. Siewierska, Anna. 2004. Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  195. Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In: R. M. W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, 112-171. Canberra: Australian Institute for Aboriginal Studies, Canberra.
  196. Sinnemäki, Kaius. 2014. A typological perspective on Differential Object Marking. Linguistics 52(2): 281-313.
  197. Smith, Kenny, Amy Perfors, Olga Fehér, Anna Samara, Kate Swoboda and Elizabeth Wonnacott. 2017. Language learning, language use and the evolution of linguistic variation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 372: 20160051. doi.org/ 10.1098/rstb.2016.0051 · DOI
  198. Smith, Kenny, and Elizabeth Wonnacott. 2010. Eliminating unpredictable variation through iterated learning. Cognition 116: 444-449. doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.06.004 · DOI
  199. Song, Jae Jung. 1996. Causatives and Causation: A Universal-Typological Perspective. London: Addison Wesley Longman.
  200. Sóskuthy, Márton. 2017. Generalised additive mixed models for dynamic analysis in linguistics: a practical introduction. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.05339. · arXiv

200 of 233 shown

Metadata

Authors
Levshina, N.
Affiliations
Leipzig University (DE)
Corresponding author
Levshina, Natalia
ORCID
Levshina, Natalia
Venue
Zenodo
Publisher
Zenodo
Published
2018-11-26
DOI
10.5281/zenodo.1542856
OpenAlex
W3210458148
Cited by
7
References
1
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1
FWCI
7.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (cc-by)
Funders
European Commission (670985)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
Keywords
communicative efficiency, benefit-cost ratio, causative constructions, stative verbs, diachronic language change, artificial language learning

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

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.