Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T01:18:17.212Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Predicting head-marking variability in Yucatec Maya relative clause production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 December 2014

ELISABETH NORCLIFFE  and
T. FLORIAN JAEGER Open the ORCID record for T. FLORIAN JAEGER [Opens in a new window]
ELISABETH NORCLIFFE*
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics
T. FLORIAN JAEGER
Affiliation:
Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, University of Rochester, and Department of Computer Science, University of Rochester
*
†Address for correspondence: Elisabeth Norcliffe, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, PO Box 310, 6500 AH Nijmegen, The Netherlands. e-mail: elisabeth.norcliffe@mpi.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.

Keywords

cross-linguistic sentence productioncommunicative efficiencymorphosyntactic variationhead-markingYucatec Maya
Type
Research Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , June 2016 , pp. 167 - 205
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2014 

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.)

References

references

Aissen, J. (1999). Agent focus and inverse in Tzotzil. Language, 75, 451–485.Google Scholar
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. 1–16). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Arnold, J. (2008). Reference production: production-internal and addressee-oriented processes. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(4), 495–527.Google Scholar
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), 31–56.Google Scholar
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, 3048–3058.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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), 255–278.Google Scholar
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>..>Google Scholar
Bates, E., Masling, M., & Kintsch, W. (1978). Recognition memory for aspects of dialogue. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4(3), 187–197.Google Scholar
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), 92–111.Google Scholar
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), 1001–1024.Google Scholar
Bock, J. K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 355–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, J. K., & Irwin, D. E. (1980). Syntactic effects of information availability in sentence production. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 467–484.Google Scholar
Bock, J. K., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1994). Language production: grammatical encoding. In Gernsbacher, M. A. (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 945–984). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bock, J. K., & Warren, R. K. (1985). Conceptual accessibility and syntactic structure in sentence formulation. Cognition, 21(1), 47–67.Google Scholar
Bod, R. (1998). Beyond grammar: an experience-based theory of language. Stanford: CSLI Publications & Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bohnemeyer, J. (2002). The grammar of time reference in Yukatek Maya. Munich: LINCOM.Google Scholar
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. 185–214). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Branigan, H. P., Pickering, J., & Tanaka, M. (2008). Contributions of animacy to grammatical function assignment and word order during production. Lingua, 118, 172–189.Google Scholar
Breslow, N., & Clayton, D. G. (1993). Approximate inference in generalized linear mixed models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 88(9), 9–25.Google Scholar
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. 69–94). Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar
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), 245–259.Google Scholar
Brown, P., & Dell, G. S. (1987). Adapting production to comprehension: the explicit mention of instruments. Cognitive Psychology, 19(4), 441–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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), 274–280.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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. 181–208). Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (1988). The diachronic dimension in explanation. In Hawkins, J. A. (Ed.), Explaining language universals (pp. 350–379). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bybee, J., & Schiebman, J. (1999). The effect of usage on degree of constituency: the reduction of don’t in American English. Linguistics, 37, 575–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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).Google Scholar
Christianson, K., & Cho, H. (2009). Interpreting null pronouns (pro) in isolated sentences. Lingua, 119, 989–1008.Google Scholar
Christianson, K., & Ferreira, F. (2005). Planning in sentence production: evidence from a free word-order language (Odawa). Cognition, 98, 105–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Fox Tree, J. E. (2002). Using uh and um in spontaneous speech. Cognition, 84, 73–111.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2000). Explaining language change: an evolutionary approach. London: Pearson.Google Scholar
Dahan, D. (2010). The time course of interpretation in speech comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(2), 121–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elsness, J. (1984). That or zero? A look at the choice of object clause connective in a corpus of American English. English Studies, 65, 519–533.Google Scholar
Ferreira, V. S. (1996). Avoid ambiguity! (if you can). CRL Technical Reports, 18, 3–13.Google Scholar
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, 379–398.Google Scholar
Ferreira, V. S. (2008). Ambiguity, accessibility and a division of labor for communicative success. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 49, 209–246.Google Scholar
Ferreira, V. S., & Dell, G. S. (2000). Effect of ambiguity and lexical availability on syntactic and lexical production. Cognitive Psychology, 40(4), 296–340.Google Scholar
Ferrer i Cancho, R. (2005). Zipf’s law from a communicative phase transition. European Physical Journal B – Condensed Matter and Complex Systems, 47(3), 449–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Fox, B., & Thompson, S. A. (2007). Relative clauses in English conversation: relativizers, frequency and the notion of construction. Studies in Language, 3, 293–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox Tree, J. E., & Clark, H. H. (1997). Pronouncing ‘the’ as ‘thee’ to signal problems in speaking. Cognition, 62, 151–167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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. 939–944). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Gahl, S., & Garnsey, S. M. (2004). Knowledge of grammar, knowledge of usage: syntactic probabilities affect pronunciation variation. Language, 80(4), 748–775.Google Scholar
Gennari, S. P., Mirković, J., & MacDonald, M. C. (2012). Animacy and competition in relative clause production: a cross-linguistic investigation. Cognitive Psychology, 65, 141–176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Genzel, D., & Charniak, E. (2002). Entropy rate constancy in text. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 199–206). Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
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), 1079–1088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. (1991). Markedness in grammar: distributional, communicative and cognitive correlates of syntactic structure. Studies in Language, 15(2), 335–370.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1992). On interpreting text-distributional correlations: some methodological issues. In Payne, D. L. (Ed.), Pragmatics of word order flexibility (pp. 305–320). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
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), 1304–1321.Google Scholar
Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., & Levine, W. H. (2002). Memory-load interference in syntactic processing. Psychological Science, 13(5), 425–430.Google Scholar
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. 1–15). Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Gries, S. T. (2005). Syntactic priming: a corpus-based approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34(4), 365–399.Google Scholar
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).Google Scholar
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. 139–170). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Haiman, J. (1983). Iconic and economic motivation. Language, 59, 781–819.Google Scholar
Hale, J. (2003). Grammar, uncertainty and sentence processing. Unpublished PhD thesis, Johns Hopkins University.Google Scholar
Hanks, W. F. (1990). Referential practice, language and lived space among the Maya. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (1999). Optimality and diachronic adaptation. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 18(2), 180–205.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2004). Explaining the ditransitive person-role constraint: a usage-based account. Constructions, (2), online <http://www.digijournals.de/constructions/articles/35>.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (to appear). On system pressure competing with economic motivation. In MacWhinney, B., Malchukov, A. L., & Moravcsik, E. A. (Eds.), Competing motivations.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (1978). Definiteness and indefiniteness: a study in reference and grammaticality prediction. New Jersey & London: Humanities Press & Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (2004). Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heim, I. (1982). The semantics of definite and indefinite noun phrases. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2/3), 61–83.Google Scholar
Houde, J. F. (1998). Sensorimotor adaptation in speech production. Science, 279(5354), 1213–1216.Google Scholar
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. 29–50). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. F. (2006). Redundancy and syntactic reduction in spontaneous speech. Unpublished PhD thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434–446.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jaeger, T. F. (2010). Redundancy and reduction: speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology, 61, 23–62.Google Scholar
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. 161–197). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. F. (2013). Production preferences cannot be understood without reference to communication. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 230.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. F., & Ferreira, V. S. (2013). Seeking predictions from a predictive framework. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(4), 31–32.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. F., Furth, K., & Hilliard, C. (2012). Incremental phonological encoding during unscripted sentence production. Frontiers in Psychology, 3.Google Scholar
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), 866–887.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. F., & Tily, H. (2011). On language utility: processing complexity and communicative efficiency. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2(3), 323–335.Google Scholar
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. 169–180). Ann Arbor, MI: Sheridan Books.Google Scholar
Keller, R. (1994). Language change: the invisible hand in language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
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. 858–863). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Lehmann, C. (1998). Possession in Yucatec Maya. Munich: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: from intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
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), 21086–21090.Google Scholar
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. 849–856). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
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. 85–113). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
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. 403–439). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Lockridge, C. B., & Brennan, S. E. (2002). Addressees’ needs influence speakers’ early syntactic choices. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9(3), 550–557.Google Scholar
Lucy, J. (1992). Grammatical categories and cognition: a case study of the linguistic relativity hypothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
MacDonald, M. C. (2013). How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(226), 1–16.Google Scholar
Mahowald, K., Fedorenko, E., Piantadosi, S. T., & Gibson, E. (2013). Info/information theory: speakers choose shorter words in predictive contexts. Cognition, 126(2), 313–318.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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), 105–131.Google Scholar
Manning, C. (2003). Probabilistic syntax. In Bod, R.Hay, J., & Jannedy, S. (Eds.), Probabilistic linguistics (pp. 289–341). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
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, 1585–1593.Google Scholar
Mondloch, J. (1978). Disambiguating subjects and objects in Quiche Mayan. Journal of Mayan Linguistics, 1, 3–19.Google Scholar
Nichols, J. (1986). Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar. Language, 62, 56–119.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Norcliffe, E. (2009a). Head-marking in usage and grammar: a study of variation and change in Yucatec Maya. Unpublished PhD thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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).Google Scholar
Pellegrino, F., Coupé, C., & Marsico, E. (2011). A cross-language perspective on speech information rate. Language, 87(3), 539–558.Google Scholar
Piantadosi, S. T., Tily, H., & Gibson, E. (2011). Word lengths are optimized for efficient communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(9), 3526–3529.Google Scholar
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), 633–651.Google Scholar
Pluymaekers, M., Ernestus, M., & Baayen, R. H. (2005). Lexical frequency and acoustic reduction in spoken Dutch. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 118, 2561–2569.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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), 168–182.Google Scholar
Prince, E. F. (1981). Toward a taxonomy of given–new information. In Cole, P. (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 223–256). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Qian, T., & Jaeger, T. F. (2012). Cue effectiveness in communicatively efficient discourse production. Cognitive Science, 36(7), 1312–1336.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team (2005). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Resnik, P. (1996). Selectional constraints: an information-theoretic model and its computational realization. Cognition, 61, 127–159.Google Scholar
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. 206–211). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
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. 143–166). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Roland, D., Dick, F., & Elman, J. L. (2007). Frequency of basic English grammatical structures: a corpus analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 57(3), 348–379.Google Scholar
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), 245–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. 379–411). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sachs, J. S. (1967). Recognition memory for syntactic and semantic aspects of connected discourse. Perception and Psychophysics, 2, 437–442.Google Scholar
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), 160–179.Google Scholar
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. 1265–1270). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Shannon, C. (1948). A mathematical theory of communications. Bell Systems Technical Journal, 27(4), 623–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. 1868–1871). Philadelphia, PA: IEEE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. 31–49). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
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), 113–150.Google Scholar
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. 113–129). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Tanenhaus, M. K. (2013). All P’s or mixed vegetables? Frontiers in Psychology, 4(234).Google Scholar
Temperley, D. (2003). Ambiguity avoidance in English relative clauses. Language, 79(3), 464–484.Google Scholar
Tily, H., & Kuperman, V. (2012). Rational phonological lengthening in spoken Dutch. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 132(6), 3935–3940.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. 201–215). Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
Tourville, J., Reilly, K. J., & Guenther, F. H. (2008). Neural mechanisms underlying auditory feedback control of speech. NeuroImage, 39(3), 1429–1443.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Heine, B. (1991). Introduction. In Traugott, E. C. & Heine, B. (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, Vol. I (pp. 1–14). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
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. 171–184). Amsterdam: IFA.Google Scholar
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, 464–484.Google Scholar
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), 917–928.Google Scholar
Verhoeven, E. (2007). Experiental Cconstructions in Yucatec Maya. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
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), 2306–2319.Google Scholar
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. 175–195). Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
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), 179–186.Google Scholar
Zipf, G. K. (1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley Press.Google Scholar