Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-6jg5l Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-19T16:14:45.847Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From usage to grammar: The mind's response to repetition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Joan Bybee
Joan Bybee*
Affiliation:
University of New Mexico
*
MSC03-2130, Linguistics, 1 University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131, [jbybee@unm.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A usage-based view takes grammar to be the cognitive organization of one's experience with language. Aspects of that experience, for instance, the frequency of use of certain constructions or particular instances of constructions, have an impact on representation that is evidenced in speaker knowledge of conventionalized phrases and in language variation and change. It is shown that particular instances of constructions can acquire their own pragmatic, semantic, and phonological characteristics. In addition, it is argued that high-frequency instances of constructions undergo grammaticization processes (which produce further change), function as the central members of categories formed by constructions, and retain their old forms longer than lower-frequency instances under the pressure of newer formations. An exemplar model that accommodates both phonological and semantic representation is elaborated to describe the data considered.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 82 , Issue 4 , December 2006 , pp. 711 - 733
Copyright
Copyright © 2006 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

Anderson, John R. 1993. Rules of the mind. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Barlow, Michael. 2000. Usage, blends and grammar. In Barlow & Kemmer, 315–45.Google Scholar
Barlow, Michael, and Kemmer, Suzanne (eds.) 2000. Usage-based models of language. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan; and Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Bod, Rens. 1998. Beyond grammar: An experience-based theory of language. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1961. Syntactic blends and other matters. Language 37. 366–81.10.2307/411078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyland, Joyce Tang. 1996. Morphosyntactic change in progress: A psycholinguistic approach. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley dissertation.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1998. The emergent lexicon. Chicago Linguistic Society 34. 421–35.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2000a. Lexicalization of sound change and alternating environments. Papers in laboratory phonology 5: Acquisition and the lexicon, ed. by Broe, Michael and Pierrehumbert, Janet, 250–68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2000b. The phonology of the lexicon: Evidence from lexical diffusion. In Barlow & Kemmer, 65–85.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511612886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2002. Word frequency and context of use in the lexical diffusion of phonetically conditioned sound change. Language Variation and Change 14. 261–90.10.1017/S0954394502143018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2003a. Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency. The handbook of historical linguistics, ed. by Joseph, Brian D. and Janda, Richard D., 602–23. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2003b. Cognitive processes in grammaticalization. The new psychology of language, vol. 2, ed. by Tomasello, Michael, 145–67. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, and Eddington, David. 2006. A usage-based approach to Spanish verbs of ‘becoming’. Language 82. 323–55.10.1353/lan.2006.0081CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, and Hopper, Paul J. (eds.) 2001. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Perkins, Revere; and Pagliuca, William. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, and Scheibman, Joanne. 1999. The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: The reduction of don't in English. Linguistics 37. 575–96.10.1515/ling.37.4.575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, and Thompson, Sandra A. 1997. Three frequency effects in syntax. Berkeley Linguistics Society 23. 378–88.Google Scholar
Campbell, A. 1959. Old English grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chandler, Steve. 2002. Skousen's analogical approach as an exemplar-based model of categorization. Analogical modeling, ed. by Skousen, Royal, Lonsdale, Deryle, and Parkinson, Dilworth B., 51–105. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.10.07chaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.10.1515/9783112316009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Crespo, Luis A. 1949. To become. Hispania 32. 210–12.10.2307/333076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299554.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danchev, Andrei, and Kytö, Merja. 1994. The construction be going to + infinitive in Early Modern English. Studies in Early Modern English, ed. by Kastovsky, Dieter, 59–77. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110879599.59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Saussure, Ferdinand. 1915 [1915]. Course in general linguistics. New York: McGrawHill.Google Scholar
DuBois, John. 1985. Competing motivations. Iconicity in syntax, ed. by Haiman, John, 343–65. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Eddington, David. 1999. On ‘becoming’ in Spanish: A corpus analysis of verbs of expressing change of state. Southwest Journal of Linguistics 18. 23–46.Google Scholar
Erman, Britt, and Warren, Beatrice. 2000. The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text 20. 29–62.Google Scholar
Fente, R. 1970. Sobre los verbos de cambio o devenir. Filología Moderna 38. 157–72.Google Scholar
Fidelholtz, James L. 1975. Word frequency and vowel reduction in English. Chicago Linguistic Society 11. 200–213.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Kay, Paul; and O'Connor, Mary C. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions. Language 64. 501–38.10.2307/414531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1979. On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2003. Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Science 7. 219–24.10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00080-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldinger, Stephen D. 1996. Words and voices: Episodic traces in spoken word identification and recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 22. 1166–83.Google ScholarPubMed
Greenberg, Joseph. 1966. Language universals: With special reference to feature hierarchies. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Gregory, Michelle L., Raymond, William D., Bell, Alan, Fosler-Lussier, Eric; and Jurafsky, Daniel. 1999. The effects of collocational strength and contextual predictability in lexical production. Chicago Linguistic Society 35. 151–66.Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. Syntax and semantics, vol. 3: Speech acts, ed. by Cole, Peter and Morgan, Jerry L., 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Haiman, John. 1994. Ritualization and the development of language. Perspectives on grammaticalization, ed. by Pagliuca, William, 3–28. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.109.07haiCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1998. Does grammaticalization need reanalysis? Studies in Language 22. 315–51.10.1075/sl.22.2.03hasCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, Jennifer. 2001. Lexical frequency in morphology: Is everything relative? Linguistics 39. 1041–70.10.1515/ling.2001.041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Claudi, Ulrike; and Hunnemeyer, Frederike. 1991. Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hooper, Joan. 1976. Word frequency in lexical diffusion and the source of morphophonological change. Current progress in historical linguistics, ed. by Christie, William, 96–105. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1987. Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society 13. 139–57.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J., and Thompson, Sandra A. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56. 251–99.10.2307/413757CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J., and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence. 1985. Towards a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. Meaning, form, and use in context, ed. by Schiffrin, Deborah, 11–42. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Christopher. 1997. The acquisition of the ‘What's X doing Y?‘ construction. Proceedings of the 21st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, vol. 2, ed. by Hughes, Elizabeth, Hughes, Mary, and Greenhill, Annabel, 343–53. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Keith. 1997. Speech perception without speaker normalization. Talker variability in speech processing, ed. by Johnson, Keith and Mullennix, John W., 145–65. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, Daniel, Bell, Alan, Gregory, Michelle; and Raymond, William D. 2001. In Bybee & Hopper, 229–54.Google Scholar
Kay, Paul, and Fillmore, Charles. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The what's X doing Y? construction. Language 75. 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 2000. A dynamic usage-based model. In Barlow & Kemmer, 1–63.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, Diane. 1997. Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 18.141 -65.10.1093/applin/18.2.141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieven, Elena, Tomasello, Michael, Behrens, Heike; and Speares, Jennifer. 2003. Early syntactic creativity: A usage-based approach. Journal of Child Language 30. 333–70.10.1017/S0305000903005592CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lightfoot, David. 1979. Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David. 1991. How to set parameters: Arguments from language change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lindblom, Björn, MacNeilage, Peter; and Studdert-Kennedy, Michael. 1984. Self-organizing processes and the explanation of phonological universals. Explanations for language universals, ed. by Butterworth, Brian, Comrie, Bernard, and Dahl, Östen, 181–203. New York: Mouton.Google Scholar
Mossé, Fernand. 1952. A handbook of Middle English. Trans. by James A. Walker. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
Murray, Denise E. 1989. Social and functional uses of the present progressive. TESL Reporter 22. 72–77.Google Scholar
Nosofsky, Robert M. 1988. Similarity, frequency and category representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 14. 54–65.Google Scholar
Nunberg, Geoffrey, Sag, Ivan A.; and Wasow, Thomas. 1994. Idioms. Language 70. 491–538.10.2307/416483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogura, Mieko. 1993. The development of periphrastic do in English: A case of lexical diffusion in syntax. Diachronica 10. 51–85.10.1075/dia.10.1.04oguCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ono, Tsuyoshi, Suzuki, Ryoko; and Thompson, Sandra A. 2000. The pragmatic nature of the so-called subject marker ga in Japanese: Evidence from conversation. Discourse Studies 2. 55–84.10.1177/1461445600002001003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pawley, Andrew, and Syder, Frances Hodgetts. 1983. Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. Language and communication, ed. by Richards, Jack C. and Schmidt, Richard W., 191–226. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet. 2001. Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition and contrast. In Bybee & Hopper, 137–58.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet. 2002. Word-specific phonetics. Laboratory phonology 7, ed. by Gussenhoven, Carlos and Warner, Natasha, 101–39. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Poplack, Shana. 2001. Variability, frequency and productivity in the irrealis domain of French. In Bybee & Hopper, 405–28.Google Scholar
Poplack, Shana, and Tagliamonte, Sali. 1999. The grammaticization of going to in (African American) English. Language Variation and Change 11. 315–42.10.1017/S0954394599113048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poplack, Shana, and Tagliamonte, Sali. 2001. African American English in the diaspora. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Roberts, Ian G., and Roussou, Anna. 2003. Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sankoff, Gillian, and Brown, Penelope. 1976. On the origins of syntax in discourse: A case study of Tok Pisin relatives. Language 52. 631–66.10.2307/412723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savage, Ceri, Lieven, Elena, Theakston, Anne; and Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Testing the abstractness of young children's linguistic representations: Lexical and structural priming of syntactic constructions? Developmental Science 6. 557–67.10.1111/1467-7687.00312CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scheibman, Joanne. 2000. I dunno: A usage-based account of the phonological reduction of don't in American English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 32. 105–24.10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00032-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuchardt, Hugo. 1885. Uber die Lautgesetze: Gegen die Junggrammatiker. Berlin: Robert Oppenheim.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John. 1991. Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Skousen, Royal. 1989. Analogical modeling of language. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Smith, K. Aaron. 2001. The role of frequency in the specialization of the English anterior. In Bybee & Hopper, 361–82.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A., and Hopper, Paul J. 2001. Transitivity, clause structure, and argument structure: Evidence from conversation. In Bybee & Hopper, 27–60.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel. 1991. Lexical diffusion in syntactic change: Frequency as a determinant of linguistic conservatism in the development of negation in English. Historical English syntax, ed. by Kastovsky, Dieter, 439–67. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65. 31–55.10.2307/414841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Constructions in grammaticalization. The handbook of historical linguistics, ed. by Joseph, Brian D. and Janda, Richard D., 624–47. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs, and Dasher, Richard B. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wedel, Andrew. 2004. Category competition drives contrast maintenance within an exemplar-based production/perception loop. Proceedings of the Workshop of the ACL Special Interest Group in Computational Phonology, Association for Computational Linguistics. Online: http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/acl2004/sigphon/pdf/wedel.pdf.10.3115/1622153.1622154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wray, Alison. 2002. Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511519772CrossRefGoogle Scholar