Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T16:06:56.126Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Frequency shapes syntactic structure*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2015

HOLGER DIESSEL
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentaries
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 42 , Issue 2 , March 2015 , pp. 278 - 281
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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

Aslin, R. N., & Newport, E. L. (2012). Statistical learning: from acquiring specific items to forming general rules. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 170–177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bod, R. (2009). From exemplar to grammar: a probabilistic analogy-based model of language learning. Cognitive Science, 33, 752–793.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J., & Hopper, P. (eds) (2001). Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J., Perkins, R. D., & Pagliuca, W. (1994). The evolution of grammar: tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Chater, N., & Manning, C. D. (2006). Probabilistic models of language processing and acquisition. Trends in Cognitive Science, 10, 335–344.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Croft, W. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2007). Frequency effects in language acquisition, language use, and diachronic change. New Ideas in Psychology, 25, 108–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2011a). Review article of ‘Language, usage and cognition’ by Joan Bybee. Language, 87, 830–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2011b). Grammaticalization and language acquisition. In Heine, B. & Narrog, H. (eds), Handbook of grammaticalization (pp. 130–141). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2012a). Language change and language acquisition. In Bergs, A. & Brinton, L. (eds), Historical linguistics of English: an international handbook, Vol. 2 (pp. 1599–1613). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2012b). Buehler's two-field theory of pointing and naming and the deictic origins of grammatical morphemes. In Breban, T., Brems, L., Davidse, K., & Mortelmans, T. (eds), New perspectives on grammaticalization: theoretical understanding and empirical description (pp. 35–48). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gómez, R. L., & Gerken, L. A. (1999). Artificial grammar learning by 1-year-olds leads to specific abstract knowledge. Cognition, 70, 109–135.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hopper, P. (1987). Emergent grammar. In Proceedings of the thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 139–157). Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Hopper, P., & Closs Traugott, E. (2003). Grammaticalization [2nd ed.]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jurafsky, D. (1996). A probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and disambiguation. Cognitive Science, 20, 137–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jusczyk, P. W. (1997). The discovery of spoken language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, S., & Jackendoff, R. (2005). The faculty of language: What's special about it? Cognition, 95, 201–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowland, C. F. (2007). Explaining errors in children's questions: auxiliary DO and modal auxiliaries. Cognition, 104, 106–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saffran, J. R., Newport, E. L., & Aslin, R. N. (1996). Word segmentation: the role of distributional cues. Journal of Memory and Language, 35, 606–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar