1 Givón, T. Markedness in grammar: distributional, communicative and cognitive correlates of syntactic structure. Stud Lang 1991, 15:335–370.
2 Givón, T. On Interpreting Text‐Distributional Correlations. Some Methodological Issues. In: Payne DL, ed. Pragmatics of word order flexibility
. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co; 1992, 305–320.
3 Zipf, GK. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort
. Cambridge, MA: Addison‐Wesley Press
4 Slobin, DI. %22Cognitive prerequisites for the development of grammar.%22 In: Ferguson, CA, Slobin, DI, eds. Studies of Child Language Development
. New York: Holf, Rinehart %26 Winston
5 Hockett, C. The origin of speech. Sci Am 1960, 203: 88–96.
6 Bates, EA, MacWhinney, B. Functionalism and the competition model. In: MacWhinney B, Bates EA, eds. The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing
. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; 1989, 3–73.
7 Givón, T. Syntax, vol. I–II. Amsterdam %26 Philadelphia: John Benjamins
8 Croft, W, Cruse, D. Cognitive Linguistics
. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
9 Hawkins, JA. Efficiency and Complexity in Grammar
. Oxford: Oxford University Press
10 Hawkins, JA. The relative ordering of prepositional phrases in English: going beyond manner‐place‐time. Lang Var Change 1999, 11:231–266.
11 Christiansen, MH, Chater, N. Language as shaped by the brain. Behav Brain Sci 2008, 31:489–509.
12 Gibson, E. Linguistic complexity: locality of syntactic dependencies. Cognition 1998, 68:1–76.
13 Gibson, E. %22The dependency locality theory: a distance‐based theory of linguistic complexity.%22 In: Miyashita, Y, Marantx, P, O`Neil, W, eds. Image, Language, Brain
. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
; 2000, 95–112.
14 Hawkins, JA. A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency
. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
15 Lewis, RL, Vasishth, S. An activation‐based model of sentence processing as skilled memory retrieval. Cogn Sci 2005, 29:375–419.
16 Lewis, RL, Vasishth, S, Van Dyke, JA. Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends Cogn Sci 2006, 10:447–454.
17 King, J, Just, MA. Individual differences in syntactic processing: the role of working memory. J Mem Lang 1991, 30:580–602.
18 Just, M, Carpenter, P. A capacity theory of comprehension: individual differences in working memory. Psychol Rev 1992, 99:122–149.
19 Perlmutter, NJ, MacDonald, MC. Individual differences and probabilistic constraints in syntactic ambiguity resolution. J Mem Lang 1995, 34:521–542.
20 Daneman, M, Merikle, PM. Working memory and language comprehension: a meta‐analysis. Psych Bull Rev 1996, 3:422–433.
21 Wanner, E, Maratsos, M. %22An ATN approach to comprehension.%22 In: Halle, M, Bresnan, J, Miller, GA, eds. Linguistic Theory and Psychological Reality
. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
; 1978, 119–161.
22 Fedorenko, E, Gibson, E, Rohde, D. The nature of working memory capacity in sentence comprehension: Evidence against domain‐specific working memory resources. J Mem Lang 2006, 54:541–553.
23 Gordon, PC, Hendrick, R, Levine, W. Memory‐load interference in syntactic processing. Psychol Sci 2002, 425–430.
24 Ford, M. A method for obtaining measures of local parsing complexity throughout sentences. J Verb Learn Verb Behav 1983, 22:203–218.
25 Grodner, DJ, Gibson, E. Consequences of the serial nature of linguistic input for sentential complexity. Cogn Sci 2005, 29:261–290.
26 Gordon, PC, Hendrick, R, Johnson, M. Memory interference during language processing. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 2001, 27:1411–1423.
27 McElree, B, Foraker, S, Dyer, L. Memory structures that subserve sentence comprehension. J Mem Lang 2003, 48:67–91.
28 Vasishth, S, Lewis, R. Argument‐head distance and processing complexity: explaining both locality and anti‐locality effects. Language 2006, 82:767–794.
29 Wasow, T. Postverbal Behavior
. Stanford: CSLI Publications
30 Szmrecsányi, BM. %22On operationalizing syntactic complexity.%22 In: Purnelle, G, Fairon, C, Dister, A, eds. Le Poids des mots. 7th International Conference on Textual Data Statistical Analysis, vol. II. Louvain‐la‐Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain
; 2004, 1032–1039.
31 Hawkins, JA. Why are categories adjacent? J Ling 2001, 37:1–34.
32 Arnold, JE, Wasow, T, Asudeh, A, Alrenga, P. Avoiding attachment ambiguities: the role of constituent ordering. J Mem Lang 2004, 55:55–70.
33 Arnold, JE, Wasow, T, Losongco, T, Ginstrom, R. Heaviness vs. newness: the effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language 2000, 76:28–55.
34 Bresnan, J, Cueni, A, Nikitina, T, Baayen, H. %22Predicting the Dative Alternation.%22 In: Boume, G, Kraemer, I, Zwarts, J, eds. Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation
. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Royal Academy of Science
; 2007, 69–94.
35 Bresnan, J, Hay, J. Gradient grammar: an effect of animacy of the syntax of give
in New Zealand and American English. Lingua 2007, 118:245–259.
36 Lohse, B, Hawkins, J, Wasow, T. Processing domains in English verb‐particle construction. Language 2004, 80:238–261.
37 Wasow, T. End‐weight from the speaker`s perspective. J Psycholinguist Res 1997, 26:347–362.
38 Yamashita, H. Scrambled sentences in Japanese: linguistic properties and motivations for productions. Text 2002, 22:597–633.
39 Yamashita, H, Chang, F. Long before short preference in the production of a head‐final language. Cognition 2001, 81:B45–B55.
40 Choi, HW. Length and order: a corpus study of Korean dative‐accusative construction. Discour Cogn 2007, 14:207–227.
41 Hawkins, JA. Processing typology and why psychologists need to know about it. New Ideas Psychol 2007, 25:87–107.
42 Anderson, J, Bothell, D, Byrne, M, Douglass, S, Lebiere, C, Qin, Y. An integrated theory of the mind. Psychol Rev 2004, 111:1036–1060.
43 Van Dyke, J, McElree, B. Retrieval interference in sentence comprehension. J Mem Lang 2006, 55: 157–166.
44 Lewis, RL. Interference in short‐term memory: The magical number two (or three) in sentence processing. J Psycholinguist Res 1996, 25:93–115.
45 Gordon, PC, Hendrick, R, Johnson, M. Effects of noun phrase type on sentence complexity. J Mem Lang 2004, 51:97–114.
46 Lewis, RL, Nakayama, M. %22Syntactic and positional similarity effects in the processing of Japanese embeddings.%22 In: Nakayama, M, ed. Sentence Processing in East Asian Languages
. Stanford, CA: CLSI Publications
; 2001, 85–113.
47 Gordon, PC, Hendrick, R, Johnson, M, Lee, Y. Similarity‐based interference during language comprehension: evidence from eye tracking during reading J Exp Psychol Learn MemCogn 2006, 32:1304.
48 McKoon, G, Ratcliff, R. Priming in item recognition: the organization of propositions in memory for text. J Verb Learn Verb Behav 1980, 19:369–386.
49 Schwanenflugel, PJ. %22Why are abstract concepts hard to understand?%22 In: Schwanenflugel, PJ, ed. The Psychology of Word Meanings
. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
; 1991, 223–250.
50 Kounios, J, Holcomb, P. Concreteness effects in semantic processing: ERP evidence supporting dual‐coding theory. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 1994, 20: 804–823.
51 Swaab, T, Baynes, K, Knight, R. Separable effects of priming and imageability on word processing: an ERP study. Cogn Brain Res 2002, 15:99–103.
52 Ariel, M. %22Accessibility theory: an overview.%22 In: Sanders, T, Schilperoord, J, Spooren, W, eds. Text Representation: Linguistic and Psycholinguistic Aspects
. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
; 2001, 29–87.
53 Warren, T, Gibson, E. The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity. Cognition 2002, 85: 79–112.
54 Warren, T, Gibson, E. Effects of NP type in reading cleft sentences in English. Lang Cogn Process 2005, 20:751–767.
55 Bock, JK, Warren, R. Conceptual accessibility and syntactic structure in sentence formulation. Cognition 1985, 21:47–67.
56 Kelly, MH, Bock, JK, Keil, FC. Prototypicality in a linguistic context: effects on sentence structure. J Mem Lang 1986, 25:59–74.
57 Onishi, KH, Murphy, GL, Bock, JK. Prototypicality in sentence production. Cogn Psychol 2008, 56: 103–141.
58 Bock, JK, Loebell, H, Morey, R. From conceptual roles to structural relations: bridging the syntactic cleft. Psychol Rev 1992, 99:150–171.
59 Branigan, HP, Pickering, MJ, Tanaka, M. Contributions of animacy to grammatical function assignment and word order during production. Lingua 2008, 118: 172–189.
60 Prat‐Sala, M, Branigan, HP. Discourse constraints on syntactic processing in language production: a cross‐linguistic study in English and Spanish. J Mem Lang 2000, 42:168–182.
61 Bock, JK, Irwin, DE. Syntactic effects of information availability in sentence production. J Verb Learn Verb Behav 1980, 19:467–484.
62 Ferreira, VS, Yoshita, H. Given‐new ordering effects on the production of scrambled sentences in Japanese. J Psycholinguist Res 2003, 32:669–692.
63 MacWhinney, B, Bates, EA. Sentential devices for conveying givenness and newness: a cross‐cultural developmental study. J Verb Learn Verb Behav 1978, 17: 539–558.
64 Bock, JK. Meaning, sound, and syntax: lexical priming in sentence production. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 1986, 12:575–586.
65 Igoa, JM. %22The relationship between conceptualization and formulation processes in sentence production: some evidence from Spanish.%22 In: Carreiras, M, Garcia‐Albea, JE, Sebastián‐Gallés, N, eds. Language Processing in Spanish
. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
; 1996, 305–351.
66 Ferreira, VS, Dell, GS. Effect of ambiguity and lexical availability on syntactic and lexical production. Cogn Psychol 2000, 40:296–340.
67 Jaeger, TF, Wasow, T. %22Processing as a source of accessibility effects on variation.%22 In: Cover, RT, Kim, Y, eds. Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society
. Ann Arbor: Sheridan Books
; 2006, 169–180.
68 Kempen, G, Harbusch, K. %22A corpus study into word order variation in German subordinate clauses: animacy effects linearization independently of grammatical function assignment.%22 In: Pechmann, T, Habel, C, eds. Multidisciplinary Approaches to Language Production
. Berlin, Germany: Mouton De Gruyter
; 2004, 173–181.
69 Tanaka, MN. Branigan, HP, Pickering, MJ. Conceptual influences on word order and voice in Japanese sentence production (forthcoming).
70 Jaeger, TF, Norcliffe, E. The cross‐linguistic study of sentence production: state of the art and a call for action. Linguist Lang Comp 2009, 3:866–887.
71 Jaeger, TF. Redundancy and reduction: speakers manage syntactic information density. Cogn Psychol 2010, 61:23–62.
72 Jaeger, TF. Redundancy and Syntactic Reduction in Spontaneous Speech
. Unpublished PhD thesis, Stanford: Stanford University; 2006.
73 Bever, T. %22The cognitive basis for linguistic structures.%22 In: Hayes, JR, ed. Cognition and the Development of Language
. John Wiley %26 Sons
; 1970, 279–362.
74 Kimball, J. Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language. Cognition 1973, 2:15–47.
75 Frazier, L, Fodor, J. The sausage machine: a new two‐stage parsing model. Cognition 1978, 6:291–325.
76 Frazier, L. %22Syntactic complexity.%22 In: Dowty, DR, Karttunen, L, Zwicky, AM, eds. Natural Language Parsing: Psychological, Computational, and Theoretical Perspectives
. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
; 1985, 129–189.
77 Pickering, MJ, Van Gompel, RPG. %22Syntactic parsing.%22 In: Gaskell, G, ed. Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics
. Oxford: Oxford University Press
78 Ferreira, VS. Ambiguity, accessibility, and a division of labor for communicative success. Psychol Learn Motiv 2008, 49:209–246.
79 Jaeger, TF, Corpus‐based research on language production: information density and reducible subject relatives (submitted).
80 Altmann, GTM, Kamide, Y. Incremental interpretation at verbs: restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition 1999, 73:247–264.
81 Altmann, GTM, Kamide, Y. Discourse‐mediation of the mapping between language and the visual world: eye movements and mental representation. Cognition 2009, 111:55–71.
82 Garnsey, SM, Perlmutter, NJ, Meyers, E, Lotocky, MA. The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. J Mem Lang 1997, 37:58–93.
83 Kamide, Y, Altmann, GTM, Haywood, SL. The time‐course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: evidence from anticipatory eye movements. J Mem Lang 2003, 49:133–156.
84 MacDonald, MC, Pearlmutter, NJ, Seidenberg, MS. Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychol Rev 1994, 191:676–703.
85 Ni, W. Sidestepping garden paths: assessing the contributions of syntax, semantics and plausibility in resolving ambiguities. Lang Cogn Process 1996, 11:283–334.
86 Staub, A, Clifton, CJ. Syntactic prediction in language comprehension: evidence from either…
or. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 2006, 32:435–436.
87 Trueswell, JC, Tanenhaus, MK, Kello, C. Verb‐specific constraints in sentence processing: separating effects of lexical preference from garden‐paths. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 1993, 19:528–553.
88 Trueswell, JC, Tanenhaus, MK, Garnsey, SM. Semantic influence on syntactic processing: use of thematic information in syntactic disambiguation. J Mem Lang 1994, 33:265–312.
89 Trueswell, J, Tanenhaus, M. Toward a lexical framework of constraint‐based syntactic ambiguity resolution. Perspect Sent Process 1994, 155–179.
90 Hale, J. %22A probabilistic Earley parser as a psycholinguistic model.%22 North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL)
. Morristown, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics
; 2001, 1–8.
91 Hale, J. The information conveyed by words in sentences. J Psycholinguist Res 2003, 32:101–123.
92 Jurafsky, D. A probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and disambiguation. Cogn Sci 1996, 20: 137–194.
93 Levy, R. Expectation‐based syntactic comprehension. Cognition 2008, 106:1126–1177.
94 Narayanan, S, Jurafsky, D. A Bayesian model predicts human parse preference and reading times in sentence processing. Advances in Neural Information. Processing Systems (NIPS) 14: Proceedings of the 2002 Conference
95 Levy, R. Probabilistic Models of Word Order and Syntactic Discontinuity
. Stanford University; 2005.
96 Frank, SL. Surprisal‐based comparison between a symbolic and a connectionist model of sentence processing. In: Taatgen NA, van Rijn H, eds. Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society
. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society; 2009, 1139–1144.
97 Hale, J. Uncertainty about the rest of the sentence. Cogn Sci Multidiscip J 2006, 30:643–672.
98 Levy, R, Bicknell, K, Slattery, T, Rayner, K. Eye movement evidence that readers maintain and act on uncertainty about past linguistic input. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2009, 106:21086–21090.
99 Demberg, V, Keller, F. Data from eye‐tracking corpora as evidence for theories of syntactic processing complexity. Cognition 2008, 109:193–210.
100 Boston, M, Hale, J, Kliegl, R, Patil, U, Vasishth, S. Parsing costs as predictors of reading difficulty: An evaluation using the Potsdam Sentence Corpus. J Eye Movement Res 2008, 2:1–12.
101 McDonald, SA, Shillcock, RC. Low‐level predictive inference in reading: the influence of transitional probabilities on eye movements. Vis Res 2003, 43: 1735–1751.
102 Jurafsky, D. Probabilistic modeling in psycholinguistics: linguistic comprehension and production. In: Bod R, Hay J, Jannedy S, eds. Probabilistic Llinguistics
. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2003, 39–95.
103 McClelland, J, Rumelhart, D. An interactive activation model of the effect of context on language learning (part 1). Psychol Rev 1981, 88:375–401.
104 Shriberg, E, Stolcke, A. Word predictability after hesitations: a corpus‐based study. Proceedings of ICSLP 96
105 Schnadt, MJ, Corley, M. %22The influence of lexical, conceptual and planning based factors on disfluency production.%22 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society
. Vancouver, BC; 2006.
106 Cook, SW, Jaeger, TF, Tanenhaus, MK. %22Producing less preferred structures: more gestures, less fluency.%22 In: Taatgen, NA, Rijn, H. v., eds. Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society
. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society
; 2009, 62–67.
107 Cook, SW, Jaeger, TF, Tanenhaus, MK. Producing less preferred structures: what happens when speakers take the road less traveled (submitted).
108 Tily, H, Gahl, S, Arnon, I, Snider, N, Kothari, A, Bresnan, J. Syntactic probabilities affect pronunciation variation in spontaneous speech. Lang Cogn 2009, 1: 147–165.
109 Aylett, MP, Turk, A. The smooth signal redundancy hypothesis: a functional explanation for relationships between redundancy, prosodic prominence, and duration in spontaneous speech. Lang Speech 2004, 47: 31–56.
110 Bell, A, Jurafsky, D, Fosler‐Lussier, E, Girand, C, Gregory, M, Gildea, D. Effects of disfluencies, predictability, and utterance position on word form variation in English conversation. J Acoust Soc Am 2003, 113:1001–1024.
111 Bell, A, Brenier, JM, Gregory, M, Girand, C, Jurafsky, D. Predictability effects on durations of content and function words in conversational English. J Mem Lang 2009, 60:92–111.
112 Gahl, S, Garnsey, SM. Knowledge of grammar, knowledge of usage: syntactic probabilities affect pronunciation variation. Language 2004, 80:748–775.
113 Gahl, S, Garnsey, SM, Fisher, C, Matzen, L. “That sounds unlikely”: phonetic cues to garden paths. Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society
114 Shannon, C. A mathematical theory of communications. Bell Syst Tech J 1948, 27:623–656.
115 Genzel, D. Charniak, E. %22Entropy rate constancy in text.%22 Proceedings of ACL‐2002
. Philadelphia; 2002, 199–206.
116 van Son, R, Pols, LCW. %22How efficient is speech?%22 Proceedings of the Institute of Phonetic Sciences, vol. 25, Amsterdam; 2003, 171–184.
117 Aylett, MP, Turk, A. Language redundancy predicts syllabic duration and the spectral characteristics of vocalic syllable nuclei. J Acoust Soc Am 2006, 119:3048.
118 van Son, R, van Santen, JPH. Duration and spectral balance of intervocalic consonants: a case for effcient communication. Speech Commun 2005, 47:464–484.
119 Levy, R, Jaeger, TF. %22Speakers optimize information density through syntactic reduction.%22 In: Schlökopf, B, Platt, J, Hoffman, T, eds. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS)
. vol. 19 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
; 2007, 849–856.
120 Jaeger, TF, Kidd, C. Toward a Unified Model of Redundancy Avoidance and Strategic Lengthening
. Paper presented at the 21st Annual CUNY CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Chapel Hill, NC; 2008.
121 Bybee, JL. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Form and Meaning
. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
122 Bybee, JL. %22Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency.%22 The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell
; 2003, 602–623.
123 Bybee, JL. Frequency of Use and the Organization of Language
. New York: Oxford University Press
124 Bybee, JL, Hopper, P. %22Introduction to frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure%22. In: Bybee, JL, Hopper, P, eds. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company
; 2001, 1–24.
125 Hopper, PJ, Traugott, EC. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
126 Bybee, J, Hopper, P. 2001. Introduction to frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure
127 Croft, W. %22Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy.%22 In: Cuyckens, H, Berg, T, Dirven, R, Panther, K, eds. Motivation in Language: Studies in Honour of Guenter Radden, Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Science, Series 4
. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins; 2003, 49–68.
128 Haspelmath, M. %22Creating economical morphosyntactic patterns in language change%22. In: Good, J, ed. Language universals and language change. Oxford: Oxford University Press
; 2008, 185–214.
129 Haspelmath, M. Frequency vs. iconicity in explaining grammatical asymmetries. Cogn Linguist 2008, 19: 1–33.
130 van Son, R, Pols, LCW. %22How efficient is speech?%22 In: Proceedings of the Institute of Phonetic Sciences. Amsterdam; 2003, 25:171–184.
131 Cohen Priva, U. %22Using information content to predict phone deletion.%22 In: Abner, N, Bishop, J, eds. Proceedings of the 27th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics
. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla; 2008, 90–98.
132 Frank, A, Jaeger, TF. Speaking Rationally: Uniform Information Density as an Optimal Strategy for Language Production. The 30th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci08);
133 Wasow, T, Jaeger, TF, Orr, D. %22Lexical variation in relativizer frequency.%22 In: Wiese, H, Simon, H, eds. Proceedings of the Workshop on Expecting the Unexpected: Exceptions in Grammar at the 27th Annual Meeting of the German Linguistic Association
. Germany: University of Cologne
134 Genzel, D. Charniak, . E. Variation of entropy and parse trees of sentences as a function of the sentence number Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Sapporo; 2003, 65–72.
135 Gomez Gallo, C, Jaeger, TF, Smyth, R. Incremental Syntactic Planning across Clauses. Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci08)
; 2008, 845–850.
136 Qian, T, Jaeger, TF. Evidence for Efficient Language Production in Chinese. Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society
137 Qian, T, Jaeger, TF. Entropy profiles in language: a cross‐linguistic investigation (submitted).
138 Bates, EA, MacWhinney, B. %22Functionalist approaches to grammar.%22 In: In, WE, Gleitman, LR, eds. Language Acquisition: The State of the Art
. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
; 1982, 173–218.
139 Tomasello, M. Constructing a Language: A Usage‐Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
140 Lieven, E, Behrens, H, Speares, J, Tomasello, M. Early syntactic creativity: a usage‐based approach. J Child Lang 2003, 30:333–370.
141 Diessel, H. Frequency effects in language acquisition, language use, and diachronic change. New Ideas Psychol 2007, 25:104–123.
142 Wells, J, Christiansen, M, Race, D, Acheson, D, MacDonald, M. Experience and sentence processing: statistical learning and relative clause comprehension. Cogn Psychol 2009, 58:250–271.
143 Rosenbach, A, Jäger, G. Priming and unidirectional language change. Theor Linguist 2008, 34:85–113.
144 Zipf, GK. The Psychobiology of Language: An Introduction to Dynamic Philology
. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin
145 Ferrer i Cancho, R, Solé, RV. Least effort and the origins of scaling in human language. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2003, 100:788.
146 Ferrer i Cancho, R, Riordan, O, Bollobas, B. The consequences of Zipf`s law for syntax and symbolic reference. Proc R Soc Lond B 2005, 272:561–565.
147 Gasser, M. The origins of arbitrariness in language. Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society 2004, 26:1–6.
148 Piantadosi, ST, Tily, HJ, Gibson, E. The Communicative Lexicon Hypothesis
. Paper presented at the 22nd Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing; 2009.
149 Piantadosi, ST, Tily, HJ, Gibson, E. The communicative function of ambiguity in language (submitted).
150 Graff, P, Jaeger, TF. Locality and Feature Specificity in OCP Effects: Evidence from Aymara, Dutch, and Javanese
. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Main Session of the 45th Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago, IL; 2009.
151 Kuperman, V, Ernestus, M, Baayen, R. Frequency distribution of uniphones, diphones, and triphones in spontaneous speech. The J Acoust Soc Am 2008, 124:3897–3908.
152 Ferrer i Cancho, R. Zipf`s law from a communicative phase transition. Eur Phys J B 2005, 47:449–457.
153 Gildea, D, Temperley, D. Optimizing Grammars for Minimum Dependency Length
. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Association of Computational Linguistics, Prague, Czech Republic; 2007.
154 Perfors, A. Simulated evolution of language: a review of the field. J Artif Soc Social Simul
2002, 5. Available from: http://jass.soc.surrey.ac.uk/5/1/4/.html
155 Christiansen, MH, Kirby, S. Language evolution: consensus and controversies. Trends Cogn Sci 2003, 7: 300–307.
156 Steels, L. %22How to do experiments in artificial language and why.%22 In: Cangelosi, A, Smith, A, Smith, J, eds. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on The Evolution of Language (EVOLANG6)
. London: World Scientific Publishing
; 2006, 323.
157 Van Everbroeck, E. Language type frequency and learnability from a connectionist perspective. Linguist Typol 2003, 7:1–50.
158 Kirby, S. Function, Selection, and Innateness: The Emergence of Language Universals
. USA: Oxford University Press
159 Christiansen, MH, Devlin, JT. %22Recursive inconsistencies are hard to learn: a connectionist perspective on universal word order correlations.%22 Nineteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society
. Stanford University: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
; 1997, 113.
160 Galantucci, B. An experimental study of the emergence of human communication systems. Cogn Sci 2005, 29:737–767.
161 Griffiths, T, Christian, B, Kalish, M. Using category structures to test iterated learning as a method for identifying inductive biases. Cogn Sci 2008, 32:68–107.
162 Fay, N, Garrod, S, Roberts, L. The fitness and functionality of culturally evolved communication systems. Phil Trans B 2008, 363:3553.
163 Reali, F, Griffiths, T. The evolution of frequency distributions: Relating regularization to inductive biases through iterated learning. Cognition 2009, 111: 317–328.
164 Kirby, S, Cornish, H, Smith, K. Cumulative cultural evolution in the laboratory: an experimental approach to the origins of structure in human language. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2008, 105:10681–10686.
165 Goldin‐Meadow, S, So, WC, Ozyurek, A, Mylander, C. How speakers of different languages represent events nonverbally. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2008, 105: 9163–9168.
166 Saffran, J, Aslin, R, Newport, E. Statistical learning by 8‐month‐old infants. Science 1996, 274.
167 Wonnacott, E, Newport, E, Tanenhaus, M. Acquiring and processing verb argument structure: distributional learning in a miniature language. Cogn Psychol 2008, 56:165–209.
168 Christiansen, MH. %22Using artificial language learning to study language evolution: exploring the emergence of word order universals.%22 In: Dessalles, JL, Ghadakpour, L, eds. The Evolution of Language: 3rd International Conference
. Paris, France: Ecole Nationale Superieure des Telecommunications
; 2000, 45–48.