Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Predicting head-marking variability in Yucatec Maya relative clause production

  • ELISABETH NORCLIFFE (a1) and T. FLORIAN JAEGER (a2)
Abstract

Recent proposals hold that the cognitive systems underlying language production exhibit computational properties that facilitate communicative efficiency, i.e., an efficient trade-off between production ease and robust information transmission. We contribute to the cross-linguistic evaluation of the communicative efficiency hypothesis by investigating speakers’ preferences in the production of a typologically rare head-marking alternation that occurs in relative clause constructions in Yucatec Maya. In a sentence recall study, we find that speakers of Yucatec Maya prefer to use reduced forms of relative clause verbs when the relative clause is more contextually expected. This result is consistent with communicative efficiency and thus supports its typological generalizability. We compare two types of cue to the presence of a relative clause, pragmatic cues previously investigated in other languages and a highly predictive morphosyntactic cue specific to Yucatec. We find that Yucatec speakers’ preferences for a reduced verb form are primarily conditioned on the more informative cue. This demonstrates the role of both general principles of language production and their language-specific realizations.

Copyright
Corresponding author
Address for correspondence: Elisabeth Norcliffe, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, PO Box 310, 6500 AH Nijmegen, The Netherlands. e-mail: elisabeth.norcliffe@mpi.nl
References
Hide All
Aissen, J. (1999). Agent focus and inverse in Tzotzil. Language, 75, 451485.
Aissen, J. (2003). Differential coding, partial blocking and bi-directional OT. In Nowak, P. & Yoquelet, C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 29th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 116). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Arnold, J. (2008). Reference production: production-internal and addressee-oriented processes. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(4), 495527.
Aylett, M. P., & Turk, A. (2004). The smooth signal redundancy hypothesis: a functional explanation for relationships between redundancy, prosodic prominence and duration in spontaneous speech. Language and Speech, 47(1), 3156.
Aylett, M. P., & Turk, A. (2006). Language redundancy predicts syllabic duration and the spectral characteristics of vocalic syllable nuclei. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119, 30483058.
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255278.
Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Bolker, B. (2012). Lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using s4 classes. R package version 0.999999-0, online <http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4>.
Bates, E., Masling, M., & Kintsch, W. (1978). Recognition memory for aspects of dialogue. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4(3), 187197.
Bell, A., Brenier, J. M., Gregory, M., Girand, C., & Jurafsky, D. (2009). Predictability effects on durations of content and function words in conversational English. Journal of Memory and Language, 60(1), 92111.
Bell, A., Jurafsky, D., Fosler-Lussier, E., Girand, C., Gregory, M., & Gildea, D. (2003). Effects of disfluencies, predictability, and utterance position on word form variation in English conversation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 113(2), 10011024.
Bock, J. K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 355387.
Bock, J. K., & Irwin, D. E. (1980). Syntactic effects of information availability in sentence production. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 467484.
Bock, J. K., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1994). Language production: grammatical encoding. In Gernsbacher, M. A. (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 945984). London: Academic Press.
Bock, J. K., & Warren, R. K. (1985). Conceptual accessibility and syntactic structure in sentence formulation. Cognition, 21(1), 4767.
Bod, R. (1998). Beyond grammar: an experience-based theory of language. Stanford: CSLI Publications & Cambridge University Press.
Bohnemeyer, J. (2002). The grammar of time reference in Yukatek Maya. Munich: LINCOM.
Bohnemeyer, J. (2009). Linking without grammatical relations in Yucatec Maya: alignment, extraction and control. In Helmbrecht, J.Nishina, Y.Shin, Y.-M.Skopeteas, S., & Verhoeven, E. (Eds.), Form and function in language research: papers in honour of Christian Lehmann (pp. 185214). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Branigan, H. P., Pickering, J., & Tanaka, M. (2008). Contributions of animacy to grammatical function assignment and word order during production. Lingua, 118, 172189.
Breslow, N., & Clayton, D. G. (1993). Approximate inference in generalized linear mixed models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 88(9), 925.
Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T., & Baayen, H. (2007). Predicting the dative alternation. In Boume, G.Kraemer, I., & Zwarts, J. (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation (pp. 6994). Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.
Bresnan, J., & Hay, J. (2007). Gradient grammar: an effect of animacy of the syntax of give in New Zealand and American English. Lingua, 118(2), 245259.
Brown, P., & Dell, G. S. (1987). Adapting production to comprehension: the explicit mention of instruments. Cognitive Psychology, 19(4), 441472.
Brown-Schmidt, S., & Konopka, A. E. (2008). Little houses and casas pequeñas: message formulation and syntactic form in unscripted speech with speakers of English and Spanish. Cognition, 109(2), 274280.
Butler, L., Bohnemeyer, J. B., & Jaeger, T. F. (2014). Plural marking in Yucatec Maya at the syntax-processing interface. In Machicao y Priemer, A., Nolda, A., & Sioupi, A. (Eds.), Zwischen Kern und Peripherie [Between core and periphery: studies on peripheral phenomena in language and grammar] (Studia Grammatica 76), (pp. 181208). Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Bybee, J. (1988). The diachronic dimension in explanation. In Hawkins, J. A. (Ed.), Explaining language universals (pp. 350379). Oxford: Blackwell.
Bybee, J., & Schiebman, J. (1999). The effect of usage on degree of constituency: the reduction of don’t in American English. Linguistics, 37, 575596.
Caballero, G., & Kapatsinski, V. (to appear). Perceptual functionality of morphological redundancy in Choguita Rarámuri (Tarahumara). In Norcliffe, E., Harris, A., & Jaeger, T. F. (Eds.), The cross-linguistic study of language understanding and production (Special Issue of Language, Cognition and Neuroscience).
Christianson, K., & Cho, H. (2009). Interpreting null pronouns (pro) in isolated sentences. Lingua, 119, 9891008.
Christianson, K., & Ferreira, F. (2005). Planning in sentence production: evidence from a free word-order language (Odawa). Cognition, 98, 105135.
Clark, H. H., & Fox Tree, J. E. (2002). Using uh and um in spontaneous speech. Cognition, 84, 73111.
Croft, W. (2000). Explaining language change: an evolutionary approach. London: Pearson.
Dahan, D. (2010). The time course of interpretation in speech comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(2), 121126.
Elsness, J. (1984). That or zero? A look at the choice of object clause connective in a corpus of American English. English Studies, 65, 519533.
Ferreira, V. S. (1996). Avoid ambiguity! (if you can). CRL Technical Reports, 18, 313.
Ferreira, V. S. (2003). The persistence of optional complementizer mention: why saying a ‘that’ is not saying ‘that’ at all. Journal of Memory and Language, 48, 379398.
Ferreira, V. S. (2008). Ambiguity, accessibility and a division of labor for communicative success. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 49, 209246.
Ferreira, V. S., & Dell, G. S. (2000). Effect of ambiguity and lexical availability on syntactic and lexical production. Cognitive Psychology, 40(4), 296340.
Ferrer i Cancho, R. (2005). Zipf’s law from a communicative phase transition. European Physical Journal B – Condensed Matter and Complex Systems, 47(3), 449457.
Ferrer i Cancho, R., & del Prado Martín, F. M. (2011). Information content versus word length in random typing. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2011(12), L12002.
Ferrer i Cancho, R., & Díaz-Guilera, A. (2007). The global minima of the communicative energy of natural communication systems. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2007(06), P06009.
Fox, B., & Thompson, S. A. (2007). Relative clauses in English conversation: relativizers, frequency and the notion of construction. Studies in Language, 3, 293326.
Fox Tree, J. E., & Clark, H. H. (1997). Pronouncing ‘the’ as ‘thee’ to signal problems in speaking. Cognition, 62, 151167.
Frank, A., & Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Speaking rationally: uniform information density as an optimal strategy for language production. In Love, B. C.McRae, K., & Sloutsky, V. M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci08) (pp. 939944). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
Gahl, S., & Garnsey, S. M. (2004). Knowledge of grammar, knowledge of usage: syntactic probabilities affect pronunciation variation. Language, 80(4), 748775.
Gennari, S. P., Mirković, J., & MacDonald, M. C. (2012). Animacy and competition in relative clause production: a cross-linguistic investigation. Cognitive Psychology, 65, 141176.
Genzel, D., & Charniak, E. (2002). Entropy rate constancy in text. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 199206). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Gibson, E., Piantadosi, S. T., Brink, K., Bergen, L., Lim, E., & Saxe, R. (2013). A noisy channel account of cross linguistic word order variation. Psychological Science, 24(7), 10791088.
Givón, T. (1991). Markedness in grammar: distributional, communicative and cognitive correlates of syntactic structure. Studies in Language, 15(2), 335370.
Givón, T. (1992). On interpreting text-distributional correlations: some methodological issues. In Payne, D. L. (Ed.), Pragmatics of word order flexibility (pp. 305320). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., Johnson, M., & Lee, Y. (2006). Similarity-based interference during language comprehension: evidence from eye tracking during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 32(6), 13041321.
Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., & Levine, W. H. (2002). Memory-load interference in syntactic processing. Psychological Science, 13(5), 425430.
Graff, P., & Jaeger, T. F. (2009). Locality and feature specificity in OCP effects: evidence from Aymara, Dutch, and Javanese. In Bochnak, R.Nicola, N.Klecha, P.Urban, J.Lemieux, A., & Weaver, C. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Main Session of the 45th Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 115). Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistics Society.
Gries, S. T. (2005). Syntactic priming: a corpus-based approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34(4), 365399.
Gutiérrez-Bravo, R., & Monforte, J. (2009). Focus, agent focus and relative clauses in Yucatec Maya. In Avelino, H., Coon, J., & Norcliffe, E. (Eds.), New perspectives in Mayan linguistics (MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 59).
Gutiérrez-Bravo, R., & Monforte, J. (2010). On the nature of word order in Yucatec Maya. In Camacho, J., Gutiérrez-Bravo, R., & Sánchez, L. (Eds.), Information structure in languages of the Americas (pp. 139170). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Haiman, J. (1983). Iconic and economic motivation. Language, 59, 781819.
Hale, J. (2003). Grammar, uncertainty and sentence processing. Unpublished PhD thesis, Johns Hopkins University.
Hanks, W. F. (1990). Referential practice, language and lived space among the Maya. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Haspelmath, M. (1999). Optimality and diachronic adaptation. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 18(2), 180205.
Haspelmath, M. (2004). Explaining the ditransitive person-role constraint: a usage-based account. Constructions, (2), online <http://www.digijournals.de/constructions/articles/35>.
Haspelmath, M. (to appear). On system pressure competing with economic motivation. In MacWhinney, B., Malchukov, A. L., & Moravcsik, E. A. (Eds.), Competing motivations.
Hawkins, J. A. (1978). Definiteness and indefiniteness: a study in reference and grammaticality prediction. New Jersey & London: Humanities Press & Croom Helm.
Hawkins, J. A. (2004). Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2/3), 6183.
Houde, J. F. (1998). Sensorimotor adaptation in speech production. Science, 279(5354), 12131216.
Hume, E., & Mailhot, F. (2013). The role of entropy and surprisal in phonologization and language change. In Yu, A. (Ed.), Origins of sound patterns: approaches to phonologization (pp. 2950). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jaeger, T. F. (2006). Redundancy and syntactic reduction in spontaneous speech. Unpublished PhD thesis, Stanford University.
Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434446.
Jaeger, T. F. (2010). Redundancy and reduction: speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology, 61, 2362.
Jaeger, T. F. (2011). Corpus-based research on language production: information density and reducible subject relatives. In Bender, E. M. & Arnold, J. E. (Eds.), Language from a cognitive perspective: grammar, usage, and processing (pp. 161197). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Jaeger, T. F. (2013). Production preferences cannot be understood without reference to communication. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 230.
Jaeger, T. F., & Ferreira, V. S. (2013). Seeking predictions from a predictive framework. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(4), 3132.
Jaeger, T. F., Furth, K., & Hilliard, C. (2012). Incremental phonological encoding during unscripted sentence production. Frontiers in Psychology, 3.
Jaeger, T. F., & Norcliffe, E. (2009). The cross-linguistic study of sentence production: state of the art and a call for action. Language and Linguistic Compass, 3(4), 866887.
Jaeger, T. F., & Tily, H. (2011). On language utility: processing complexity and communicative efficiency. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2(3), 323335.
Jaeger, T. F., & Wasow, T. (2006). Processing as a source of accessibility effects on variation. In Cover, R. & Kim, Y. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS) (pp. 169180). Ann Arbor, MI: Sheridan Books.
Keller, R. (1994). Language change: the invisible hand in language. London: Routledge.
Kurumada, C., & Jaeger, T. F. (2013). Communicatively efficient language production and case-marker omission in Japanese. In Knauff, M.Pauen, M.Sebanz, N., & Wachsmuth, I. (Eds.), The 35th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (Cogsci13) (pp. 858863). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
Lehmann, C. (1998). Possession in Yucatec Maya. Munich: LINCOM Europa.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: from intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Levy, R., Bicknell, K., Slattery, T., & Rayner, K. (2009). Eye movement evidence that readers maintain and act on uncertainty about past linguistic input. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(50), 2108621090.
Levy, R., & Jaeger, T. F. (2007). Speakers optimize information density through syntactic reduction. In Schlökopf, B., Platt, J., & Hoffman, T. (Eds.), Advances in neural information processing systems (NIPS) 19 (pp. 849856). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lewis, R., & Nakayama, M. (2001). Syntactic and positional similarity effects in the processing of Japanese embeddings. In Nakayama, M. (Ed.), Sentence processing in East Asian Languages (pp. 85113). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Lindblom, B. (1990). Explaining phonetic variation: a sketch of the H&H theory. In Hardcastle, W. & Marchal, A. (Eds.), Speech production and speech modeling (pp. 403439). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Lockridge, C. B., & Brennan, S. E. (2002). Addressees’ needs influence speakers’ early syntactic choices. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9(3), 550557.
Lucy, J. (1992). Grammatical categories and cognition: a case study of the linguistic relativity hypothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MacDonald, M. C. (2013). How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(226), 116.
Mahowald, K., Fedorenko, E., Piantadosi, S. T., & Gibson, E. (2013). Info/information theory: speakers choose shorter words in predictive contexts. Cognition, 126(2), 313318.
Mair, C. (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), 105131.
Manning, C. (2003). Probabilistic syntax. In Bod, R.Hay, J., & Jannedy, S. (Eds.), Probabilistic linguistics (pp. 289341). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Maurits, L., Perfors, A., & Navarro, D. (2010). Why are some word orders more common than others? A uniform information density account. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 23, 15851593.
Mondloch, J. (1978). Disambiguating subjects and objects in Quiche Mayan. Journal of Mayan Linguistics, 1, 319.
Nichols, J. (1986). Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar. Language, 62, 56119.
Nichols, J., & Bickel, B. (2011). Locus of marking: whole language typology. In Dryer, M. S. & Haspelmath, M. (Eds.), The world atlas of language structures online. Max Planck Digital Library, chapter 25.
Norcliffe, E. (2009a). Head-marking in usage and grammar: a study of variation and change in Yucatec Maya. Unpublished PhD thesis, Stanford University.
Norcliffe, E. (2009b). Revisiting agent focus in Yucatec. In Avelino, H.Coon, J., & Norcliffe, E. (Eds.), New perspectives in Mayan Linguistics (Vol. 59). MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.
Norcliffe, E., & Konopka, A. E. (in press). Vision and language in cross-linguistic research on sentence production. In Mishra, R. K., Srinivasan, N., & Huettig, F. (Eds.), Attention and vision in language processing. New York: Springer.
Norcliffe, E., Konopka, A. E., Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (forthcoming). Word order affects the time-course of sentence formulation in Tzeltal. In Norcliffe, E., Harris, A., & Jaeger, T. F. (Eds.), The cross-linguistic study of language understanding and production (Special Issue of Language, Cognition and Neuroscience).
Pellegrino, F., Coupé, C., & Marsico, E. (2011). A cross-language perspective on speech information rate. Language, 87(3), 539558.
Piantadosi, S. T., Tily, H., & Gibson, E. (2011). Word lengths are optimized for efficient communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(9), 35263529.
Pickering, M. J., & Branigan, H. P. (1998). The representation of verbs: evidence from syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language, 39(4), 633651.
Pluymaekers, M., Ernestus, M., & Baayen, R. H. (2005). Lexical frequency and acoustic reduction in spoken Dutch. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118, 25612569.
Post, M., & Jaeger, T. F. (2010). Word production in spontaneous speech: availability and communicative efficiency. Poster presented at The 23rd CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, NYC, NY.
Prat-Sala, M., & Branigan, H. P. (2000). Discourse constraints on syntactic processing in language production: a cross-linguistic study of English and Spanish. Journal of Memory and Language, 42(2), 168182.
Prince, E. F. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given–new information. In Cole, P. (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 223256). New York: Academic Press.
Qian, T., & Jaeger, T. F. (2012). Cue effectiveness in communicatively efficient discourse production. Cognitive Science, 36(7), 13121336.
R Development Core Team (2005). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Resnik, P. (1996). Selectional constraints: an information-theoretic model and its computational realization. Cognition, 61, 127159.
Roche, J., Dale, R., & Kreuz, R. J. (2010). The resolution of ambiguity during conversation: more than mere mimicry? In Ohlsson, S. & Catrambone, R. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 206211). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
Rohdenburg, G. (2006). The role of functional constraints in the evolution of the English complementation system. In Dalton-Puffer, C.Kastovsky, D.Ritt, N., & Schendl, H. (Eds.), Syntax, style and grammatical norms (pp. 143166). Bern: Peter Lang.
Roland, D., Dick, F., & Elman, J. L. (2007). Frequency of basic English grammatical structures: a corpus analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 57(3), 348379.
Roland, D., Elman, J. L., & Ferreira, V. S. (2006). Why is that? Structural prediction and ambiguity resolution in a very large corpus of English sentences. Cognition, 98(3), 245272.
Rosenbach, A. (2002). Genitive variation in English: conceptual factors in synchronic and diachronic studies (Topics in English Linguistics 42). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rosenbach, A. (2003). Aspects of iconicity and economy in the choice between the s-genitive and the of-genitive in English. In Rohdenburg, G. & Mondorf, B. (Eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English (Topics in English Linguistics) (pp. 379411). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Sachs, J. S. (1967). Recognition memory for syntactic and semantic aspects of connected discourse. Perception and Psychophysics, 2, 437442.
Santesteban, M., Pickering, M. J., & Branigan, H. P. (2013). The effects of word order on subject–verb and object–verb agreement: evidence from Basque. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(2), 160179.
Sauppe, S., Norcliffe, E., Konopka, A. E., Van Valin, R. D. Jr., & Levinson, S. C. (2013). Dependencies first: eye tracking evidence from sentence production in Tagalog. In Knauff, M.Pauen, M.Sebanz, N., & Wachsmuth, I. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 12651270). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
Shannon, C. (1948). A mathematical theory of communications. Bell Systems Technical Journal, 27(4), 623656.
Shriberg, E., & Stolke, A. (1996). Word predictability after hesitations: a corpus-based study. In Bunnell, H. T. & Idsardi, W. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Spoken Language Processing (pp. 18681871). Philadelphia, PA: IEEE.
Snow, C. E. (1977). Mother’s speech research: from input to interactions. In Snow, C. E. & Ferguson, C. A. (Eds.), Talking to children: language input and acquisition (pp. 3149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Szmrecsányi, B. M. (2005). Language users as creatures of habit: a corpus-linguistic analysis of persistence in spoken English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1(1), 113150.
Tanaka, M., Branigan, H. P., & Pickering, M. J. (2011). The production of head-initial and head-final languages. In Yamashita, H., Hisore, Y., & Packard, J. (Eds.), Processing and producing head-final structures (pp. 113129). Dordrecht: Springer.
Tanenhaus, M. K. (2013). All P’s or mixed vegetables? Frontiers in Psychology, 4(234).
Temperley, D. (2003). Ambiguity avoidance in English relative clauses. Language, 79(3), 464484.
Tily, H., & Kuperman, V. (2012). Rational phonological lengthening in spoken Dutch. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 132(6), 39353940.
Tily, H., & Piantadosi, S. (2009). Refer efficiently: use less informative expressions for more predictable meanings. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Production of Referring Expressions: Bridging the gap between computational and empirical approaches to reference, CogSci 2009.
Tottie, G. (1995). The man ø I love: an analysis of factors favouring zero relatives in written British and American English. In Melchers, G. & Warren, B. (Eds.), Studies in Anglistics (pp. 201215). Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.
Tourville, J., Reilly, K. J., & Guenther, F. H. (2008). Neural mechanisms underlying auditory feedback control of speech. NeuroImage, 39(3), 14291443.
Traugott, E. C., & Heine, B. (1991). Introduction. In Traugott, E. C. & Heine, B. (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, Vol. I (pp. 114). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
van Son, R. J. J. H., & Pols, L. C. W. (2003). How efficient is speech? In Berkman, E. H. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Institute of Phonetic Sciences, Vol. 25 (pp. 171184). Amsterdam: IFA.
van Son, R. J. J. H., & van Santen, J. P. H. (2005). Duration and spectral balance of intervocalic consonants: a case for efficient communication. Speech Communication, 47, 464484.
van Summers, W., Pisoni, D. B., Bernacki, R. H., Pedlow, R. I., & Stokes, M. A. (1988). Effects of noise on speech production: acoustic and perceptual analyses. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 84(3), 917928.
Verhoeven, E. (2007). Experiental Cconstructions in Yucatec Maya. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Villacorta, V. M., Perkell, J. S., & Guenther, F. H. (2007). Sensorimotor adaptation to feedback perturbations of vowel acoustics and its relation to perception. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 122(4), 23062319.
Wasow, T., Jaeger, T. F., & Orr, D. (2011). Lexical variation in relativizer frequency. In Simon, H. & Wiese, H. (Eds.), Expecting the unexpected: exceptions in grammar (pp. 175195). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.
Wedel, A., Jackson, S., & Kaplan, A. (2013). Functional load and the lexicon: evidence that syntactic category and frequency relationships in minimal lemma pairs predict the loss of phoneme contrasts in language change. Cognition, 128(2), 179186.
Zipf, G. K. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley Press.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Language and Cognition
  • ISSN: 1866-9808
  • EISSN: 1866-9859
  • URL: /core/journals/language-and-cognition
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed