Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-f6s65 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-06-27T12:39:49.462Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Grammar is grammar and usage is usage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Frederick J. Newmeyer
Frederick J. Newmeyer*
Affiliation:
University of Washington
*
Department of Linguistics University of Washington Seattle, WA 98195-4340 [fjn@u.washington.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A number of disparate approaches to language, ranging from cognitive linguistics to stochastic implementations of optimality theory, have challenged the classical distinction between knowledge of language and use of language. Supporters of such approaches point to the functional motivation of grammatical structure, language users’ sensitivity to the frequency of occurrence of grammatical elements, and the great disparity between sentences that grammars generate and speakers’ actual utterances. In this article I defend the classical position, and provide evidence from a number of sources that speakers mentally represent full grammatical structure, however fragmentary their utterances might be. The article also questions the relevance of most corpus-based frequency and probability studies to models of individual grammatical competence. I propose a scenario for the origins and evolution of language that helps to explain why grammar and usage are as distinct as they are.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 79 , Issue 4 , December 2003 , pp. 682 - 707
Copyright
Copyright © 2003 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abney, Steven P. 1996. Statistical methods and linguistics. The balancing act: Combining symbolic and statistical approaches to language, ed. by Klavans, Judith L. and Resnik, Philip, 1–26. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R., and Keenan, Edward L. 1985. Deixis. Language typology and syntactic description, vol. 3: Grammatical categories and the lexicon, ed. by Shopen, Timothy, 259–308. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Arnold, Jennifer E., Wasow, Thomas, Losongco, Anthony; and Ginstrom, Ryan. 2000. Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language 76. 28–55.10.1353/lan.2000.0045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berwick, Robert C. 1998. Language evolution and the minimalist program: The origins of syntax. Approaches to the evolution of language: Social and cognitive bases, ed. by Hurford, James R., Studdert-Kennedy, Michael, and Knight, Chris, 320–40. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1995. Dimensions of register variation: A cross-linguistic comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511519871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickerton, Derek. 1990. Language and species. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bod, Rens. 1998. Beyond grammar: An experience-based theory of language. (CSLI lecture notes 88.) Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bod, Rens, Hay, Jennifer; and Jannedy, Stefanie (eds.) 2003. Probabilistic linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan W., Dingare, Shipra; and Manning, Christopher D. 2001. Soft constraints mirror hard constraints: Voice and person in English and Lummi. Proceedings of the LFG-01 conference, ed. by Butt, Miriam and King, Tracy H., 13–32. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. (Typological studies in language 9.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., and Hopper, Paul J. 2001a. Introduction to frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, ed. by Bybee, Joan L. and Hopper, Paul, 1–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., and Hopper, Paul (eds.) 2001b. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. (Typological studies in language 45.) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Matthew, and Wang, William S.-Y. 1975. Sound change: Actuation and implementation. Language 51. 225–81.10.2307/412854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheney, Dorothy, and Seyfarth, Robert. 1990. How monkeys see the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1975. Reflections on language. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. by Martin, Roger, Michaels, David, and Uriagereka, Juan, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2001. Derivation by phrase. Ken Hale: A life in language, ed. by Kenstowicz, Michael, 1–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language universais and linguistic typology. 2nd edn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1998. Reference-tracking: Description and explanation. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 51. 335–46.Google Scholar
Cowart, Wayne. 1997. Experimental syntax: Applying objective methods to sentence judgments. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Craig, Colette G. 1987. The Rama language: A text with grammatical notes. Journal of Chibchan Studies 5.Google Scholar
Crain, Stephen, and McKee, Cecile. 1986. Acquisition of structural restrictions on anaphora. North Eastern Linguistic Society 16. 94–110.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1990. Typology and universais. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2000. Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. London: Longman.Google Scholar
de Waal, Frans B. M. 1996. Good natured: The origins of right and wrong in humans and other animals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dick, Frederic, and Elman, Jeffrey L. 2001. The frequency of major sentence types over discourse levels: A corpus analysis. Newsletter of the Center for Research in Language, University of California, San Diego 13. 3–19.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 1997. On the six-way word order typology. Studies in Language 21. 69–103.10.1075/sl.21.1.04dryCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John. 1985. Competing motivations. Iconicity in syntax, ed. by Haiman, John, 343–65. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John. 1987. The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63. 805–55.Google Scholar
Elman, Jeffrey L., Bates, Elizabeth A., Johnson, Mark H., Karmiloff-Smith, Annette, Parisi, Domenico; and Plunkett, Kim. 1997. Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph E. 1976. A transformational approach to English syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
England, Nora C. 1988. Mam voice. Passive and voice, ed. by Shibatani, Masayoshi, 525–45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Faltz, Leonard M. 1977. Reflexivization: A study in universal syntax. Berkeley: University of California dissertation. [Published, New York: Garland, 1985.].Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara A. 1994. Contextualization, indexicality, and the distributed nature of grammar. Language Sciences 16. 1–38.10.1016/0388-0001(94)90016-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giddens, Anthony. 1984. The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Gilligan, Gary M. 1987. A cross-linguistic approach to the pro-drop parameter. Los Angeles: University of Southern California dissertation.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1995. Functionalism and grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. Some universais of language with special reference to the order of meaningful elements. Universais of language, ed. by Greenberg, Joseph, 73–113. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Harris, Roy. 1980. The language-makers. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Harris, Roy. 1981. The language myth. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1999. Explaining article-possessor complementarity: Economic motivation in noun phrase syntax. Language 75. 227–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauser, Marc D. 1996. The evolution of communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/2867.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauser, Marc D., Chomsky, Noam; and Fitch, W. Tecumseh. 2002. The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science 298. 1569–79.Google ScholarPubMed
Hawkins, John A. 1988. Explaining language universais. Explaining language universais, ed. by Hawkins, John A., 3–28. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.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. 2003. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, and Kuteva, Tania. 2002. On the evolution of grammatical forms. The transition to language, ed. by Wray, Alison, 376–97. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hirsh-Pasek, Kathy, and Golinkoff, Roberta. 1996. The origins of grammar: Evidence from early language comprehension. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/5188.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1987. Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society 13. 139–57.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1988. Emergent grammar and the apriori grammar postulate. Linguistics in context: Connecting observation and understanding, ed. by Tannen, Deborah, 117–34. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1998. Emergent grammar. The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, ed. by Tomasello, Michael, 155–75. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J., and Thompson, Sandra A. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56. 251–99.10.1353/lan.1980.0017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1984. Toward a new taxonomy of pragmatic inference: q- and r-based implicature. Meaning, form, and use in context: Linguistic applications, ed. by Schiffrin, Deborah, 11–42. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1993. Economy and redundancy in a dualistic model of natural language. SKY 1993: Yearbook of the Linguistic Association of Finland, ed. by Shore, Susanna and Vilkuna, Maria, 33–72. Helsinki: Linguistic Association of Finland.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jacobsen, William H. Jr. 1980. Inclusive/exclusive: A diffused pronominal category in native western North America. Chicago Linguistic Society 16.2. 204–27.Google Scholar
Jelinek, Fred. 1997. Statistical methods in speech recognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Johansson, Stig, and Hofland, Knut. 1989. Frequency analysis of English vocabulary and grammar based on the LOB corpus, vol. 1: Tag frequencies and word frequencies. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. 2001. Is there such a thing as ‘grammaticalization’? Language Sciences 23. 2-3. 163–86.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, Dan, and Martin, James H. 2000. Speech and language processing: An introduction to natural language processing, computational linguistics, and speech recognition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1969. Contraction, deletion, and inherent variability of the English copula. Language 45. 716–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1994. Principles of linguistic change, vol. 1: Internal factors. (Language in society 20.) Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1970/1972. Linguistics and natural logic. The semantics of natural language, ed. by Davidson, Donald and Harmon, Gilbert, 545–665. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1973. Fuzzy grammar and the performance/competence terminology game. Chicago Linguistic Society 9. 271–91.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1974. Interview. Discussing language: Dialogues with Wallace L. Chafe, Noam Chomsky, Algirdas J. Greimas [and others], ed. by Parret, Herman, 151–78. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George, and Johnson, Mark. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George, and Ross, John R. 1967/1976. Is deep structure necessary? Syntax and semantics, vol. 7: Notes from the linguistic underground, ed. by McCawley, James D., 159–64. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1987. On the status of SVO sentences in French discourse. Coherence and grounding in discourse, ed. by Tomlin, Russell, 217–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2000. A dynamic usage-based model. Usage-based models of language, ed. by Barlow, Michael and Kemmer, Suzanne, 1–63. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Lavandera, Beatriz R. 1978. Where does the sociolinguistic variable stop? Language in Society 7. 171–82.10.1017/S0047404500005510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levelt, Willem J. M. 1989. Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/6393.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, Charles N. 2002. Missing links, issues and hypotheses in the evolutionary origin of language. The evolution of language out of pre-language, ed. by Givón, Talmy and Malle, Bertram F., 83–106. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.53.05liCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, David W. 1991. How to set parameters: Arguments from language change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian. 2000. Connectionism and language learning. Usage-based models of language, ed. by Barlow, Michael and Kemmer, Suzanne, 121–49. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Manning, Christopher D. 2002a. Probabilistic syntax. Probabilistic linguistics, ed. by Bod, Rens, Hay, Jennifer, and Jannedy, Stefanie, 289–341. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Manning, Christopher D. 2002b. Review of Beyond grammar: An experience-based theory of language, by Bod, Rens. Journal of Linguistics 38. 441–42.Google Scholar
Manning, Christopher D., and Schütze, Hinrich. 1999. Foundations of statistical natural language processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Martin, William A., Church, Kenneth W.; and Patel, Ramesh S. 1987. Preliminary analysis of the breadth-first parsing algorithm: Theoretical and experimental results. Natural language parsing systems, ed. by Bolc, Leonard, 267–328. Berlin: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCawley, James D. 1968. Lexical insertion in a transformational grammar without deep structure. Chicago Linguistic Society 4. 71–80.Google Scholar
McDaniel, Dana, and Cowart, Wayne. 1999. Experimental evidence for a minimalist account of English resumptive pronouns. Cognition 70.B15-B24.10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00006-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1987. Is basic word order universal? Coherence and grounding in discourse, ed. by Tomlin, Russ, 281–328. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Morgan, Jerry L. 1973. Sentence fragments and the notion ‘sentence’. Issues in linguistics: Papers in honor of Henry and Renée Kahane, ed. by Kachru, Braj B., Lees, Robert B., Malkiel, Yakov, Pietrangeli, Angelina, and Saporta, Sol, 719–51. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Nanni, Deborah L. 1978. The ‘easy’ class of adjectives in English. Amherst: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1986. Linguistic theory in America. 2nd edn. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1991. Functional explanation in linguistics and the origins of language. Language and Communication 11. 3–28.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1998. Language form and language function. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/4115.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2001. Where is functional explanation? Chicago Linguistic Society 37.2. 99–122.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2003a. Review of On nature and language, by Chomsky, Noam, The language organ: Linguistics as cognitive physiology, by Anderson, Stephen R. and Lightfoot, David W., Language in a Darwinian perspective, by Bichakjian, Bernard H. Language 79. 583–99.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2003b. ‘Basic word order’ in formal and functional linguistics and the typological status of ‘canonical’ sentence types. Contrastive analysis in language: Identifying linguistic units of comparison, ed. by Willems, Dominique, Defrancq, Bart, Colleman, Timothy, and Noël, Dirk. Basingstoke: Paigrave to appear.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1992. Linguistic diversity in space and time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226580593.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, Doris L. 1990. The pragmatics of word order: Typological dimensions of verbinitial languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110847284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, Doris L. 1992. Nonidentifiable information and pragmatic order rules in ’O’ odham. Pragmatics of word order flexibility, ed. by Payne, Doris L., 137–66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, Betty S. 1984. Word frequency and the actuation of sound change. Language 60. 320–42.10.2307/413643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1989. Leamability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven, and Bloom, Paul. 1990. Natural language and natural selection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13. 707–84.10.1017/S0140525X00081061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollard, Carl, and Sag, Ivan A. 1994. Head-driven phrase structure grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pope, Emily. 1971. Answers to yes-no questions. Linguistic Inquiry 2. 69–82.Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew. 1990. Syntactic theory and the acquisition of English syntax: The nature of early child grammars of English. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Roeper, Thomas, and Siegel, Muffy. 1978. A lexical transformation for verbal compounds. Linguistic Inquiry 9. 199–260.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1973a. A fake NP squish. New ways of analyzing variation in English, ed. by Bailey, Charles-James N. and Shuy, Roger W., 96–140. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1973b. Nouniness. Three dimensions of linguistic theory, ed. by Fujimura, Osamu, 137–258. Tokyo: TEC Company, Ltd.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1973c. The penthouse principle and the order of constituents. You take the high node and I’ll take the low node, ed. by Corum, Claudia, Cedric Smith-Stark, C., and Weiser, Ann, 397–422. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, David E., and McClelland, John L. 1986. On learning the past tenses of English verbs. Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition, ed. by McClelland, John L. and Rumelhart, David E., 216–71. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/5236.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scancarelli, Janine S. 1985. Referential strategies in Chamorro narratives: Preferred clause structure and ergativity. Studies in Language 9. 335–62.10.1075/sl.9.3.03scaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse markers. (Studies in interactional sociolinguistics 5.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuchardt, Hugo. 1885/1972. On sound laws: Against the Neogrammarians. Schuchardt, the Neogrammarians, and the transformational theory of phonological change, ed. by Vennemann, Theo and Wilbur, Terence, 39–72. Frankfurt: Athenäum.Google Scholar
Schuetze-Coburn, Stephan. 1987. Topic management and the lexicon: A discourse profile of three-argument verbs in German. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles M.A. thesis.Google Scholar
Schütze, Carson. 1996. The empirical basis of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Seidenberg, Mark S. 1997. Language acquisition and use: Learning and applying probabilistic constraints. Science 275. 1599–603.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, Wendy. 1996. Spoken narrative and preferred clause structure: Evidence from Modem Hebrew discourse. Studies in Language 20. 163–89.Google Scholar
Smolensky, Paul. 1999. Grammar-based connectionist approaches to language. Cognitive Science 23. 589–613.Google Scholar
Steedman, Mark. 1999. Connectionist sentence processing in perspective. Cognitive Science 23. 615–34.10.1207/s15516709cog2304_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1983. How language structures space. Spatial orientation: Theory, research, and application, ed. by Pick, Herbert L. and Acredolo, Linda P., 225–82. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1985/2000. Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. Toward a cognitive semantics, ed. by Talmy, Leonard, 21–212. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1988. Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science 12. 49–100.10.1207/s15516709cog1201_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., and Hopper, Paul J. 2001. Transitivity, clause structure, and argument structure: Evidence from conversation. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure, ed. by Bybee, Joan L. and Hopper, Paul, 27–60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael (ed.) 2000. Primate cognition (special issue). Cognitive Science 24.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C., and Dasher, Richard B. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wang, William S.-Y. 1969. Competing changes as a cause of residue. Language 45. 9–25.Google Scholar
Wang, William S.-Y. (ed.) 1977. The lexicon in phonological change. The Hague: Mouton.10.1515/9783110802399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 2002. Postverbal behavior. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Weber, David J. 1989. A grammar of Huallaga (Huánaco) Quechua. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Wilkins, Wendy K., and Wakefield, Jennie. 1995. Brain evolution and neurolinguistic preconditions. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 18. 161–226.Google Scholar
Zipf, George. 1935. The psychobiology of language. New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Zipf, George. 1949. Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1999. The grammar and the user’s manual. Paper presented at Linguistic Society of America Summer Institute Forum Lecture, Urbana, IL.Google Scholar