The Emergent Lexicon - Joan Bybee - Linguística e Aquisição da Linguagem

1 Emergence The Emergent Lexicon Joan Bybee University of New Mexico In the traditional view the lexicon is a storage area for all and only the content words or morphemes of a language The lexicon is relatively static compared to the grammar which contains all the moving parts of sentence generation in the metaphor of a dictionary lexical items are just passive items on a list which wait to be recruited into syntactic structures In this conception also memory for linguistic material is thought to be lodged primarily in the lexicon while the grammar is not so much a matter of memory as it is of abstract structure Rather than arguing that a lexicon of this type does not exist I am going to argue that if such a lexicon does exist it is because it is emergent from the storage of linguistic experience which is of a very different nature than the traditional conception of a lexicon would suggest The point of this paper then is to explore the properties of stored linguistic experience The data examined provide support for the proposals that much of linguistic knowledge is procedural knowledge that chunks of linguistic experience much larger than the analytic units of morphemes or even words are the usual units of storage and processing that there is no real separation of lexicon from grammar and that phonological alternations whose domain is larger than a word can indicate the size of processing units This paper obviously owes a great deal to the 1987 paper of Paul Hoppers to which the title alludes Emergent Grammar In fact my basic point is the same as the one Hopper made in that paper that the knowledge underlying the fluent use of language is not grammar in the sense of abstract structure but is rather a large store of categorized and sorted previous utterances which form the basis for the production and comprehension of new utterances The only difference between Hoppers approach and mine is that his goal was the explication of the view of grammar that arises from such a theory and mine will be the view of the lexicon that is entailed by this theory Since we would both argue that the grammar and lexicon are not separable our papers are both about really about the same set of issues 2 The lexicon reflects linguistic experience I have argued in various places Bybee 1985 1988 1998a b especially in connection with morphology that lexical storage is highly affected by language use We know that highly frequent morphological formations such as irregular nouns and verbs tend to resist leveling and maintain their irregularities over time I have called the mechanism behind this tendency lexical strength This notion corresponds to the psycholinguistic notion that high frequency items have a CLS 34 The Panels 1998 421435 1998 by the Chicago Linguistic Society All rights reseJVed 422 JOAN BYBEE higher level of resting activation being easier to access they are less likely to be replaced by regular formations In other avenues of research I have looked into the role of frequency of use in the phonological and semantic reduction of words and phrases In a number of cases documentation on sound change in progress shows a significant frequency effect High frequency words undergo sound change at a faster rate than low frequency words for example in tiddeletion in American English Bybee 1998b and the examples cited there as well as those cited in Phillips 1984 Furthermore all of these changes are phonetically gradual My account of the frequency effect in the diffusion of sound change is as follows sound change has its source in the reduction and retiming of articulatory gestures that affect words or phrases as they are used in context The memory representation of the phonetic shape of a word is a categorization of the tokens of use that have been experienced and thus represents a range of variation Johnson 1997 see also Cole and Hualde this volume Thus each use of a word or phrase has an effect on the stored representation Words that are used more often in contexts where reduction and change are favored familiar speech situations high frequency phrases will undergo a gradual shift in phonetic representation at a faster rate than other words Both of the frequency effects I have just described imply that it is actual tokens of use that are stored in memory and not smaller units such as bound morphemes which do not occur as tokens of use I have argued in Bybee 1985 that the internal structure of words is derivable from sets of connections made between words that have related parts Affixes and roots or stems have no separate representation but exist only as relations of similarity among words see Figure 1 Recurrent patterns such as those shown in Figure 1 are the emergent generalizations or schemas that can be used to produce new combinations It has been shown for morphology that one important determinant of productivity is the type frequency of a pattern that is the greater the number of distinct stems a pattern applies to the greater is the likelihood that it will apply to new items MacWhinney 1978 Bybee 1985 1995 Lobben 1991 Thus some schemas will be very strong and easily accessible for applying to a great many items and others will be much less so The model described here which I will call the Network Model is highly redundant since the same string of features that is the same morpheme or word can occur in many different combinations This redundancy does not entail that any valid generalizations are being missed it is of course an empirical question what type of generalizations native speakers make but all of these can be captured in schemas which can be formulated in varying degrees of abstraction Moreover redundant representation does not entail that all the potential words of a language exist in storage Not all words have the same status those that are used frequently have very strong representations or possibly even multiple THE EMERGENT LEXICON 423 representations but those that are used infrequently or are potential but have not been used may have no representation readable washable unbelievable V unattractive unwarranted Figure 1 3 Storage and processing of larger units In the following I will extend the model of morphology that I have just reviewed to larger units arguing that evidence for it is also found in the behavior of phrases and even syntactic constructions My proposal is that memory for language consists of a large store of units of varying sizes from word to phrase or even clause with varying degrees of strength productivity and connection with other units The knowledge represented by these units is not just declarative or propositional knowledge but is also procedural knowledge According to Anderson 1993 declarative knowledge is factual knowledge that people can report or describe ie Washington D C is the capital of the USA but procedural knowledge is only manifest in peoples performance of a skill such as speaking a language or driving a car These two types of knowledge entail different memory processes Procedural knowledge is highly affected by repetition In fact with repetition propositional knowledge can become procedural knowledge Units of procedure become larger with repetition as recurring sequences of actions come to be represented as a single action increasing fluency Boyland 1997 In addition frequently used actions become fluent more quickly Anderson 1993 Boyland 1997 My suggestion is then that 424 JOAN BYBEE linguistic units stored in memory are processing units units of planning production and perception This proposal for viewing grammar and lexicon as closely tied to performance has farreaching consequences and of necessity is somewhat vague at the moment To proceed with articulating it more clearly empirical evidence of many different sorts must be considered In this paper I will mention some of the relevant evidence To begin I will consider some cases in which evidence exists for memory storage of strings consisting of more than one word in particular idioms high frequency phrases and grammaticizing constructions 31 Idioms It is not controversial to claim that idioms are instances of multiword sequences that are stored in memory It is interesting however to observe the similarities of idioms to multimorphemic units that are lexically stored and to further observe that the network model just presented solves some of the problems in the analysis of idioms First observe that idioms often contain conservative lexical items and conservative grammatical usage Examples of words that appear only in idioms are familiar from the literature bated occurs only in wait with bated breath dint occurs only in by dint of hale occurs only in hale and hearty Each of these phrases preserves a word that has been lost elsewhere from the language This preservation is evidence that the whole phrase is a storage item in memory Such cases are parallel to the morphological cases in which otherwise obsolete affixes are locked into certain formations as in the old er plural marker which occurs as the r in children In inflectional forms such items occur only in very high frequency formations in derivation extreme high frequency does not seem to be a prerequisite for the preservation of otherwise nonproductive or obsolete affixes in the words handsome steadfast piecemeal for example the second half of each was formerly a derivational affix Similarly idioms do not have to be of especially high frequency to preserve archaic words A check of Francis and Kucera 1978 revealed no occurrences of bated dint or hale suggesting that the phrases they occur in are not frequently used Idioms and set phrases can also preserve obsolete grammar Observe the SOV word order in the phrase with this ring I thee wed or as Hopper 1987 points out the older sense of the indefinite article to mean one and the same in birds of a feather or its use to mean one in a penny saved is a penny earned The fact that idioms like irregular morphological formations preserve otherwise obsolete lexical items as well as archaic grammar is evidence that they are stored as units Just because idioms are remembered as wholes does not mean that their component parts and the semantic contribution they make are not recognized Nunberg Sag and Wasow 1994 have pointed out that even though a phrase such as pull strings as in John was able to pull strings to get the job has a meaning THE EMERGENT LEXICON 425 that is different from the literal combination of its parts speakers recognize the two words in the phrase as the same as those occurring in other combinations and even recognize the semantic contribution of these words Nunberg et al point out that strings can be thought of metaphorically as connections with certain influential people and pull can refer to the exploitation or the exertion of pressure on these strings a verbobject relation Such an idiom or idiomatically combining expression as Nunberg et al call it is not frozen and unanalyzed but connected both lexically and grammatically to other expressions in English Such connections can be diagrammed as in Figure 2 pull pull strings strings Figure 2 32 Frequent phrases Like idioms high frequency phrases also provide evidence for lexical storage of multiword items a single units but units which are nonetheless analyzable into their morphosemantic components It is wellknown that high frequency phrases change phonetically and semantically in a way that suggests storage as a single unit In a recent study of the reduction of dont in English conversation Bybee and Scheibman to appear and Scheibman 1997 found that the reduction of the o vowel of dont to schwa occurs only in the contexts in which dont most frequently occurs ie after I and before certain verbs Scheibman also shows that the use of I dont know in conversation serves certain pragmatic purposes and does not literally mean I dont know Both the phonetic change and the functional change suggest that I dont know airro is a storage and processing unit Similarly I dont think and why dont you are other phrases using dont that are phonetically reduced and have a meaning that is not the literal combinations of their parts This means that dont which people do still identify as a word occurs in at least three combinations in storage the phrases I dont know I dont think and why dont you verb But we cant stop there because dont also occurs with its vowel reduced to schwa in other phrases such as I dont mean I dont care and I dont have suggesting that these phrases are also storage and processing units In 426 JOAN BYBEE fact since dont in our corpus only occurs in the reduced form with schwa after I it might be that I dont is also a processing unit as other combinations of pronoun with auxiliary undoubtedly are for instance Im Id hes shes weve and other contracted forms Krug 1998 In fact in a count of 414 tokens of I in a conversational corpus the two most frequent items to follow I were m and dont each one accounting for more than 10 of the tokens The efficiency of processing Im and I dont as units is evidence for their representation as units in storage but it does not rule out the possibility that the sequences I am and I dont can be compiled from individual units In fact such online concatenation probably occurs in the production of the these units in their full unreduced forms This means that I dont am I dont Im I dont know and many other phrases are stored in memory and are accessible in production and comprehension See Figure 3 I I am Im am 33 Grammaticizing constructions I d o n t t k know Figure 3 In its reduction and change in meaning the phrase I dont know resembles a grammaticizing constructionit is undergoing both phonological reduction and functional change that is typical of grammaticization Boyland 1997 argues that grammaticization is the automatization of a processing unit The frequency increase characteristic of grammaticizing constructions and the changes conditioned by frequency point to grammaticizing constructions as storage and processing units Indeed one fact that was often overlooked earlier in grammaticization studies is that grammaticization takes place in particular THE EMERGENT LEXICON 427 constructions On a synchronic level it is a fact that grammatical morphemes are always associated with particular constructions There is no reason to suppose that grammatical morphemes have any independent existence since they always occur in and derive their meaning from a specific construction Thus grammaticization occurs when a new construction or a specific instance of an old construction becomes a processing and storage unit For instance it is often said that English has a gofuture or from a diachronic perspective that a movement verb has become a future marker in English But in fact it is not go alone that has grammaticized As is often pointed out the construction involves the Present Progressive of go plus the goalmarker to and just as important a subject and a main verb Thus be going to or gonna with the meaning of future exists only in the construction seen in 1 1 Subject BE gonna Verb This sequence is not just a construction but is a processing unit that produces a clause when specific lexical material is supplied for the more open slots in the construction 4 Constructions as processing units Croft 1995 analyzes almost 2000 previouslycoded intonation units from Chafes pear stories and finds that in 97 of the cases intonation units are grammatical units the most frequent of these being simple clauses and the next most frequent noun phrases Croft proposes The Intonation Unit Storage Hypothesis on the basis of this study The constructions that are stored or precompiled are the grammatical units that normally occur in a single intonation unit p 872 He goes on to say that singly embedded NPsPPs are almost certainly stored precompiled constructions Syntactically they are relatively simple structures almost never break across IU s and are fairly frequent p 872 Crofts usage based approach makes the very plausible suggestion that the units employed for spoken communication are basically the units stored as constructions in the mind pp 8723 See also Ono and Thompson 1995 for a similar claim Similarly Hopper 1987 and Langacker 1987 3536 note the highly formulaic nature of actual speech and the frequent occurrence of certain phrases such as the problem is you take a little bit living in a fantasy world one question after another Hopper argues that the systematicity of linguistic systems is due to the lateral associations of real utterances That is real pieces of speech are stored sorted categorized for both phonological and functional similarity but they do not however merge into the kind of uniform grammar which would lead one to posit a uniform mental representation to subtend them p 147 428 JOAN BYBEE Constructions are not of course set phrases but rather abstractions that range over many specific phrases The slots in a construction are of varying degrees of generality the different parts of constructions are productive to varying degrees For example the wayconstruction as in we made our way home Kemmer 1994 Goldberg 1995 has four parts each having a different range of possible lexical or grammatical material 2 verb possessive pronoun way directional adverb Each of these positions may contain the following material examples from Kemmer 1994 I The verb is restricted to one which signifies motion manner path creation or means went his way swiggled his way made our way cut their way 2 The possessive pronoun is a closed grammatical class 3 way is a unique lexical item which is not replaceable 4 The adverbial is usually a prepositional phrase although it may include other elements tooting its way through London singing its way down from the heights In fact most constructions contain some specific lexical or grammatical material Here are some of the constructions Ono and Thompson 1995 extracted from seven 510 minute conversations 3 construction like to Verbal Expression to have NP V ed NP replaced with NP NP or something NPdoaN onNP NP say CLAUSE get off ONEs NP rear body part examnle Id like to have to have my lungs replaced replaced with asbestos asbestos or something they did a post mortem on her the doctor said there wasnt any get off my ass The point to note in these examples is that very specific lexical and grammatical material is essential to the construction In addition note that certain tokens of constructions with specific lexical material are clearly stored units due to their frequency For instance the prototype make ones way could be a stored unit in addition to wend ones way which must be stored as a unit because wend does not occur in other constructions Ono and Thompson also propose that the following very generalized constructional schemas exist for producing clauses in English 4 NPVNP NPVNPPP NPVNPPPPP THE EMERGENT LEXICON 429 Such highly generalized constructional schemas would arise from the representations of much more specific stored units In my own view the evidence for the more specific schemas is much stronger than for the very abstract ones proposed in 4 The fact that lexical and grammatical material is embedded in the construction in which it occurs explains how lexical and grammatical splits occur For instance what was originally a single verb have is now used in many different constructions and phrases indicating that it has multiple representations Phonological evidence suggests that the more lexical uses of have in phrases have split from the auxiliary have of the Perfect construction since the latter contracts with the subject Ive done it while the former does not in American English Ive ten dollars These facts all point to the need to investigate the hypothesis that production involves the accessing concatenation and overlapping of distinct stretches of speech that have been formed into processing units by repetition A possible further argument for this hypothesis arises from another observation made by Croft 1995 and others who have studied intonation units Croft observes that consecutive parallel structures are in different intonation units that is conjoined clauses conjoined verb phrases and noun phrases in apposition are almost always in different intonation units A possible interpretation of this finding would follow from the proposal that constructions are processing units in that case each use of the same construction would require beginning a new processing unit Embedded clauses then would occur in the same construction as the main clause since no intonation break necessarily occurs between the main and subordinate clause Clearly the relations among intonation units processing units and construction presents a potentially fruitful area of investigation 5 The intertwining of lexicon and grammar Many arguments have been developed over the last few decades for a strong interdependence between lexicon and grammar Langacker 1987 takes the position that there is no discrete cut off point between lexicon and grammar as do many other linguists The basic observation is that lexical items in particular verbs must be stored with a lot of information about the syntactic contexts in which they occur eg Levin 1993 Goldberg 1995 From the other perspective it is also the case that syntactic constructions often contain very specific lexical material as shown above or semantically welldefined classes of lexical items as shown in Goldberg 1995 and other works on construction grammar Rather than reviewing these arguments here I would like to add two other pieces of evidence that support the hypothesis that lexicon and grammar are not separate 430 JOAN BYBEE psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic evidence of syntactic priming and phonological evidence of alternations that apply across word boundaries 51 Priming of constructions A wellknown effect in lexical access is the priming effect In word recognition tasks the second instance of the same word is accessed much more quickly by a subject than the first instance The general explanation for this phenomenon is that words are activated as they are used and their activation remains high for a short period after use making them easier to access during that period An important argument for viewing words and constructions as stored in memory and accessed in similar ways is the fact that constructions also show the priming effect Branigan et al 1995 Bock 1986 presented subjects with either one of the sentences in 5 which they were asked to repeat Then they were shown pictures that could be described using either a prepositionalobject or a doubleobject construction For example the picture might show a girl handing a paintbrush to a man Bock found that subjects tended to produce a sentence with the same structure as the prime 5 a The rock star sold some cocaine to an undercover agent b The rock star sold an undercover agent some cocaine Since other experiments have shown that priming occurs between comprehension and production Branigan et al conclude that both production and comprehension access the syntactic information associated with the construction thereby activating it much as a lexical item is activated in comprehension and production Interestingly this sort of priming effect has been demonstrated to occur in natural discourse as well Many sociolinguistic studies of variation have turned up the interesting fact that one of the best predictors of the use of a construction is its use in immediately preceding discourse For instance Poplack and Tagliamonte 1996 find that in Nigerian Pidgin English where all tenseaspect forms are optional the strongest predictor of the occurrence of a tenseaspect marker with a verb is an immediately preceding verb with the same marker Weiner and Labov 1983 studied the use of the agentless passive in American English conversation looking at all the sociolinguistic and pragmatic factors that might influence its use Their data showed that one of the most powerful factors in the choice of the agentless passive was its use in one of the five preceding clauses and this factor was independent of pragmatic factors such as what was given or new information These findings are consistent with the idea that access to a construction in comprehension or production activates that construction and makes it available for subsequent use Tannen 1989 among others discusses the pervasive use of repetition in spontaneous conversation She sees an advantage in the use of repetition for both production and comprehension She argues that repetition enables a speaker to THE EMERGENT LEXICON 431 produce language in a more efficient less energydraining way It facilitates the production of more language more fluently p 48 She does not mention the psycholinguistic factor behind this facilitation but clearly it is the priming factor It is simply easier to access words phrases and constructions that have recently been accessed Her argument from the point of view of the hearer is similar repetitions and variations inserting words into justused constructions facilitate comprehension by providing semantically less dense discourse p 49 Again this facilitation is due to the priming effect recently activated material is easier to access again 52 Phonological effects within constructions It is wellknown that most phonological or morphophonological alternations occur within words In particular most frozen or nonproductive alternations such as Vowel Shift as in divine divinity or in Velar Softening as in critic criticize occur at the word level That is why the few cases of frozen alternations that appear to be conditioned across word boundaries have attracted so much attention Much research has been directed toward the syntaxphonology interface with an eye to discovering which syntactic configurations condition phonological alternations Of course some alternations of this sort are rather easy to describe for instance the alternation in the indefinite article in English while others such as the reduction of dont or contraction in English are much more difficult Another way of viewing the alternations that appear to take place across word boundaries is to suppose that the units in which such alternations occur are not composed of separate lexical units but rather are themselves unitary with respect to memory storage Bybee 1998a That is as I mentioned earlier the reduction of dont occurs only in fixed high frequency phrases involving dont The persistence of the alternation in alan suggests that this small grammatical morpheme is not an independent lexical unit but rather a part of a construction alan Adj Noun Many stored units contain the indefinite article an apple an hour an instant a moment a day a friend and a more schematic construction may also exist which includes the phonological information about the variants of alan Others have also argued that the nonautomatic rules of phonology that appear to refer to syntax occur only in precompiled phrases Hayes 1990 Zwicky 1987 As evidence we note that by far the most common cases of allegedly syntaxsensitive alternations involve particular grammatical morphemes Since grammatical morphemes exist only in constructions these alternations exist within constructions that is storage units just as wordlevel alternations exist within storage units Probably the most famous case of alternations conditioned across word boundaries is the complex set of alternations in French liaison Tranel 1981 All of these alternations involve grammatical morphemes in specific constructions 6 demonstrates liaison codified in the orthography in questions 7 shows that the final consonant of certain prepositions appears when 432 JOAN BYBEE the following word begins with a vowel 8 shows the appearance of z in articles and the plural marker for nouns and adjectives when the following word is vowelinitial The liaison contexts which involve classes of lexical items affect only small closed classes of adjectives those that can occur prenominally and a few adverbs as in 9 6 a chantetil sattill does he sing cf il chante ilsatl he sings b allonsy aGzi lets go cf allons aG we go 7 prepositions a dans un mois dazemwa in a month cf dans trois mois datKwamwa within three months b pendant un mois padatemwal for a month cf pendant trois mois padatKwamwa for three months 8 plural of articles adjectives and nouns a les enfants lezafa the children b les petits animaux leptizanimo 1 the little animals 9 small closed classes such as the prenominal adjectives petit grande etc adverbs assez enough trop too etc It is my view then that fixed lexical alternations occur only within storage and processing units and could not be maintained if they were indeed applying across boundaries between processing units Also the more phonetic variable changes that occur within phrases such as the reduction of dont discussed above or the palatalization in phrases such as did you occur only in frequent phrases Both types of phonological alternations that appear to be conditioned across traditional word boundaries actually provide evidence for the size and nature of processing units and point to constructions rather than words as the minimal unit for storage and processing The traditional studies of such cases under the rubric of the phonologysyntax interface have assumed that the proposed syntactic structure is correct and the phonology is in some way aberrant not following established syntactic conventions in some cases However I would propose that the phonology is providing a more direct indication of the true nature of the processing units and thus the constituents involved 6 Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency Pawley and Syder 1983 discuss the fact that the rules of grammar generate many more utterances than would be considered idiomatic or nativelike see also Pawley 1986 Langacker 1987 3536 For example they suggest that instead of I want to marry you one could grammatically utter some of the following though the effect would be decidedly nonidiomatic THE EMERGENT LEXICON 1 0 I wish to be wedded to you I desire you to become married to me Your marrying me is desired by me 433 Rather than exploiting the full range of grammatical possibilities we have certain standardized or conventionalized ways of saying things not just for specific contexts such as telling time where we say its twenty totil six rather than its six less twenty but in almost every context and almost every utterance we produce We all know that in learning a language learning the vocabulary and rules of grammar is not sufficient preparation for actually using the language for everyday activities To sound like a native one must learn a large set of stock phrases Pawley and Syder argue that actual language production consists of accessing many clauses already or at least largely preformed They estimate that the stock of such phrases in the native speaker may range into the hundreds of thousands Being able to access such automated sequences is essential for fluency in both the native and the nonnative speaker Actual language seems to rely on memory much more than on abstract analysis A significant implication for language acquisition is that along with categorization and generalization as mechanisms for acquisition there is also an important role for imitation One must learn by example in context what are the customary ways of formulating ones ideas requests questions and so on Moreover the process of automating such sequences requires repetition the active repetition of production None of these points comes as a surprise to anyone who has ever observed a child acquiring a language nor to anyone who has ever tried to learn or teach a language However they are points that have up to now with the notable exception of the work of Pawley and Syder which I have just cited been regarded as having practical but not theoretical consequences Recognizing their general theoretical significance may result in a greater focus on their practical consequences Clearly the question for both general theory and acquisition theory is how the particular conventionalized phrases and clauses give rise to the abstract generalizations that allow the production of more novel utterances 7 Conclusions Clearly all words phrases and utterances of a persons experience are not separately stored in memory The brain is a powerful categorization device for the efficient sorting and storing of the pieces of our experience including the units of language use One type of efficiency is achieved by storing and processing larger chunks rather than smaller ones It is apparently easier to access produce and comprehend a precompiled chunk than to assemble it part by part for production see Anderson 1993 Boyland 1997 However this task would be beyond our powerful brains were we not also able to categorize these chunks and generalize over them 434 JOAN BYBEE Linguistic knowledge is not just propositional or representational knowledge A large portion of the stored knowledge that makes language possible is procedural knowledge Stored chunks are procedural chunks embedded in context not just cognitively and socially but also embedded physically in the production and comprehension systems along whose paths they run and also physically in the articulatory gestures and the manual gestures that are co produced with them Evidence for the procedural nature of linguistic chunks is the fact that they are affected by frequency of use If linguistic knowledge were abstract propositional knowledge frequency of use would not be important The model proposed here places a much heavier burden on memory and access of memory than models with simpler lexicons and more complex combinatorial rules In fact the task of accessing appropriate units would be impossible were it not for the networks making associations among linguistic units and between linguistic units and context The role of the extralinguistic and the linguistic context is extremely important the context itself activates linguistic units making relevant words and phrases very easy to access under appropriate conditions Similarly the same units in other contexts may be difficult to perceive correctly or to access in production Our understanding of both language structure and language use is enhanced by the recognition that memory for language is highly affected by language use The memory representation of language consists of units that can constitute utterances or intonation units that is not just words but also phrases and constructions The smaller units familiar from structural analysisstem morphemes grammatical morphemesare not independent units but rather emerge from these larger stored units via a network of connections among them References Anderson John R 1993 Rules of the mind Hillsdale NJ Erlbaum Bock J K 1986 Syntactic persistence in language production Cognitive Psychology 1835587 Boyland Joyce Tang 1997 Morphosyntactic change in progress A psycholinguistic approach Berkeley University of California dissertation Branigan Holly P Martin J Pickering Simon P Liversedge Andrew J Stewart and Thomas P Urbach 1995 Syntactic priming Investigating the mental representation of language Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 24489506 Bybee Joan L 1985 Morphology A study of the relation between meaning and form Philadelphia Benjamins 1988 Morphology as lexical organization Theoretical morphology ed by M Hammond and M Noonan 11941 San Diego Academic Press 1995 Regular morphology and the lexicon Language and Cognitive Processes 10542555 1998a Lexicalization of sound change and alternating environments Laboratory Phonology V Language acquisition and the lexicon ed by M Broe and J Pierrehumbert Cambridge Cambridge University Press 1998b The Phonology of the lexicon Evidence from lexical diffusion Usagebased models of language ed by M Barlow and S Kemmer Stanford CSLI and Joanne Scheibman To appear The effect of usage on degrees of constituency The reduction of dont in English Constituency and Discourse ed by S Cumming Amsterdam John Benjamins THE EMERGENT LEXICON 435 Croft William 1995 Intonation units and grammatical structure Linguistics 3383982 Francis W Nelson and Henry Kucera 1982 Frequency analysis of English usage Boston Houghton Mifflin Goldberg Adele 1995 Constructions A construction grammar approach to argument structure Chicago University of Chicago Press Hayes Bruce 1990 Precompiled phrasal phonology The phonologysyntax connection ed by Sharon Inkelas and Drag a Zec 85108 Chicago University of Chicago Press Hopper Paul J 1987 Emergent grammar Berkeley Linguistic Society 1313957 Johnson Keith 1997 Speech perception without speaker normalization Talker variability in speech processing ed by Keith Johnson and J W Mullinex 14566 New York Academic Press Kemmer Suzanne 1994 Pattern crystallization in syntactic change Paper presented at the Symposium on Synchronic and Diachronic Aspects of Grammaticalization Sophienberg Slot Rungsted Denmark October 911 1994 Krug Manfred 1998 String frequency A cognitive motivating factor in coalescence language processing and linguistic change ms Langacker Ronald 1987 Foundations of cognitive grammar I Theoretical prerequisites Stanford Stanford University Press Levin Beth 1993 English verb classes and alternations Chicago University of Chicago Press Lobben Marrit 1991 Pluralization of Hausa nouns viewed from psycholinguistic experiments and child language data Oslo University of Oslo thesis Losiewicz B L 1992 The effect of frequency on linguistic morphology Austin University of Texas dissertation MacWhinney B 1978 The acquisition of morphophonology Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 4311 Nunberg Geoffrey Ivan A Sag and Thomas Wasow 1994 Idioms Language 70491538 Ono Tsuyoshi and Sandra A Thompson 1995 What can conversation tell us about syntax Alternative linguistics ed by Philip W Davis 21371 Amsterdam and Philadelphia John Benjamins Pawly Andrew 1986 Lexicalization Languages and linguistics The interdependence of theory data and application ed by Deborah Tannen and James E Alatis 98120 Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1985 Washington DC Georgetown University Press and Frances Hodgetts Syder 1983 Two puzzles for linguistic theory Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency Language and Communication ed by Jack C Richards and Richard W Smith 191225 London and New York Longmans Phillips Betty S 1984 Word frequency and the actuation of sound change Language 6032042 Poplack Shana and Tagliamonte 1996 Nothing in context Variation grammaticization and past time marking in Nigerian Pidgin English Changing meanings changing functions Papers relating to grammaticalization in contact languages ed by P Baker 7194 Westminster UK University Press Scheibman Joanne 1997 I dunno but A usagebased account of the phonological reduction of dont in conversation ms Tannen Deborah 1989 Talking voices Repetition dialogue and imagery in conversational discourse Cambridge Cambridge University Press Tranel Bernard 1981 Concreteness in generative phonology evidence from French Berkeley and Los Angeles University of California Press Weiner Judith E and William Labov 1983 Constraints on the agentless passive Journal of Linguistics 192958 Zwicky Arnold 1987 French prepositions No peeking Phonology Yearbook 421127