Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density

Cognitive Psychology

Volumn 61, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 23-62

  Florian Jaeger, T ^a  

^a University of Rochester   (United States)

Author keywords

Complementizer that mentioning; Efficient language production; Rational cognition; Syntactic production; Syntactic reduction

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COGNITION; COMPUTER SIMULATION; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; SPEECH;

COGNITION; COMPUTER SIMULATION; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; SPEECH;

EID: 77952741354     PISSN: 00100285     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2010.02.002     Document Type: Article

References (174)

1. Adamson H.D. Social and processing constraints on relative clauses. American Speech 67 2 (1992)
2. Agresti A. An introduction to categorical data analysis. 2nd ed. (2002), John Wiley and Sons Inc, New York, NY
3. Anderson J.R. The adaptive character of thought (1990), Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ
4. Arnold J.E., Wasow T., Asudeh A., and Alrenga P. Avoiding attachment ambiguities: The role of constituent ordering. Journal of Memory and Language 55 1 (2004) 55-70
5. Avgustinova T. Word order and clitics in Bulgarian (1997), German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence
6. Aylett M.P., and Turk A. The smooth signal redundancy hypothesis: A functional explanation for relationships between redundancy, prosodic prominence, and duration in spontaneous speech. Language and Speech 47 1 (2004) 31-56
7. Aylett M.P., and Turk A. Language redundancy predicts syllabic duration and the spectral characteristics of vocalic syllable nuclei. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 119 (2006) 30-48
8. Baayen R.H. Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R (2008), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
9. Baayen R.H., Feldman L., and Schreuder R. Morphological influences on the recognition of monosyllabic monomorphemic words. Journal of Memory and Language 55 2 (2006) 290-313
10. Babyak M. What you see may not be what you get: A brief, nontechnical introduction to overfitting in regression-type models. Psychosomatic Medicine 66 3 (2004) 411-421
11. Badecker, W., & Lewis, R. (2007). A new theory and computational model of working memory in sentence production: Agreement errors as failures of cue-based retrieval. In Proceedings of the 20th annual CUNY conference on human sentence processing.
12. Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Dai, B. (2008). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using s4 classes [R package version 0.999375-28].
13. Bates E., and MacWhinney B. Functionalist approaches to grammar. In: Wanner E., and Gleitman L.R. (Eds). Language acquisition: The state of the art (1982), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK 173-218
14. Bell A., Brenier J., Gregory M., Girand C., and Jurafsky D. Predictability effects on durations of content and function words in conversational English. Journal of Memory and Language 60 1 (2009) 92-111
15. Bell A., Jurafsky D., Fosler-Lussier E., Girand C., Gregory M., and Gildea D. Effects of disfluencies, predictability, and utterance position on word form variation in English conversation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 113 2 (2003) 1001-1024
16. Bock J.K. Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology 18 (1986) 355-387
17. Bock J.K. An effect of the accessibility of word forms on sentence structures. Journal of Memory and Language 26 2 (1987) 119-137
18. Bock J.K., and Cutting J. Regulating mental energy: Performance units in language production. Journal of Memory and Language 31 1 (1992) 99-127
19. Bock J.K., and Griffin Z.M. The persistence of structural priming: Transient activation or implicit learning?. Journal of Experimental Psychology 129 2 (2000) 177-192
20. Bock J.K., and Levelt W. Grammatical encoding. In: Gernsbacher M. (Ed). Handbook of psycholinguistics (1994), Academic Press, San Diego, CA 945-985
21. Bock J.K., and Warren R.K. Conceptual accessibility and syntactic structure in sentence formulation. Cognition 21 1 (1985) 47-67
22. Boersma P., and Hayes B. Empirical tests of the gradual learning algorithm. Linguistic Inquiry 32 1 (2001) 45-86
23. Bolinger, D. (1972). That's that (Vol. 155). The Hague and Paris: Mouton [Studia Memoria Nicolai van Wijk Dedicata].
24. Brennan S.E., and Williams M. The feeling of another's knowing: Prosody and filled pauses as cues to listeners about the metacognitive states of speakers. Journal of Memory and Language 34 (1995) 383-393
25. Breslow N.E., and Clayton D.G. Approximate inference in generalized linear mixed models. Journal of the American Statistical Association 88 421 (1993) 9-24
26. Bresnan, J., Carletta, J., Crouch, R., Nissim, M., Steedman, M., Wasow, T., et al. (2002). Paraphrase analysis for improved generation. In LINK project: HRCR Edinburgh-CLSI Stanford.
27. Bresnan J., Cueni A., Nikitina T., and Baayen R.H. Predicting the dative alternation. In: Bouma G., KrSmer I., and Zwarts J. (Eds). Cognitive foundations of interpretation (2007), Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschapen, Amsterdam 69-94
28. Bresnan, J., & Hay, J. (2006). Gradient grammar: An effect of animacy on the syntax of give in varieties of English [Ms., Stanford University].
29. Brown P., and Dell G.S. Adapting production to comprehension: The explicit mention of instruments. Cognitive Psychology 19 4 (1987) 441-472
30. Brown-Schmidt S., and Konopka A.E. Little houses and casas peque nas: Message formulation and syntactic form in unscripted speech with speakers of English and Spanish. Cognition 109 (2008) 274-280
31. Bybee J. Word frequency and context of use in the lexical diffusion of phonetically conditioned sound change. Language Variation and Change 14 3 (2002) 261-290
32. Bybee J., and Hopper P. Introduction. In: Bybee J.L., and Hopper P.J. (Eds). Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (2001), John Benjamins, Amsterdam 229-254
33. Calhoun, S. (2006). Information structure and the prosodic structure of English: A probabilistic relationship. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Edinburgh.
34. Calhoun, S., Nissim, M., Steedman, M., & Brenier, J. (2005). A framework for annotating information structure in discourse. In Proceedings of Frontiers in corpus annotation II: Pie in the sky, ACL2005 conference workshop, Ann Arbor, MI.
35. Chang F., Dell G.S., and Bock J.K. Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review 113 2 (2006) 234-272
36. Chomsky N. Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36 1 (2005) 1-22
37. Clark H.H. Using language (1996), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
38. Clark H.H., and Carlson T.B. Hearers and speech acts. Language 58 (1982) 332-373
39. Clark H.H., and Fox Tree J.E. Using "uh" and "um" in spontaneous speech. Cognition 84 (2002) 73-111
40. Clark H.H., and Murphy G.L. Audience design in meaning and reference. Language and comprehension (1982), North-Holland, Amsterdam 287-299
41. Clark H.H., and Wasow T. Repeating words in spontaneous speech. Cognitive Psychology 37 (1998) 201-242
42. Clayards M., Tanenhaus M., Aslin R., and Jacobs R. Perception of speech reflects optimal use of probabilistic speech cues. Cognition 108 3 (2008) 804-809
43. Dell G.S., Chang F., and Griffin Z.M. Connectionist models of language production: Lexical access and grammatical encoding. Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal 23 4 (1999) 517-542
44. Deshmukh, N., Ganapathiraju, A., Gleeson, A., Hamaker, J., & Picone, J. (1998). Resegmentation of SWITCHBOARD. In Fifth international conference on spoken language processing.
45. Dhami M., Hertwig R., and Hoffrage U. The role of representative design in an ecological approach to cognition. Psychological Bulletin 130 (2004) 959-988
46. Dor D. Toward a semantic account of that-deletion in English. Linguistics 43 2 (2005) 345-382
47. Elsness J. That or zero? A look at the choice of object clause connective in a corpus of American English. English Studies 65 (1984) 519-533
48. Feng Z., McLerran D., and Grizzle J. A comparison of statistical methods for clustered data analysis with Gaussian error. Statistics in Medicine 15 (1996) 1793-1806
49. Fenk-Oczlon G. Familiarity, information flow, and linguistic form. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (2001) 431-448
50. Ferreira F. Choice of passive voice is affected by verb type and animacy. Journal of Memory and Language 33 (1994) 715
51. Ferreira V.S. Is it better to give than to donate? Syntactic flexibility in language production. Journal of Memory and Language 35 5 (1996) 724-755
52. Ferreira V.S. The persistence of optional complementizer mention: Why saying a "that" is not saying "that" at all. Journal of Memory and Language 48 (2003) 379-398
53. Ferreira V.S. Ambiguity, accessibility, and a division of labor for communicative success. Learning and Motivation 49 (2008) 209-246
54. Ferreira V.S., and Dell G.S. The effect of ambiguity and lexical availability on syntactic and lexical production. Cognitive Psychology 40 (2000) 296-340
55. Ferreira V.S., and Firato C.E. Proactive interference effects on sentence production. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 9 (2002) 795-800
56. Ferreira V.S., and Hudson M. An emotion (that) I second: Effects of formulation difficulty and ambiguity on sentence production. Proceedings of architectures and mechanisms of language processing (2005), Ghent, Belgium
57. Fillmore C. The case of case. In: Bach E., and Harms R. (Eds). Universals in linguistic theory (1968), Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York, NY
58. Finegan E., and Biber D. Register variation and social dialect variation: The register axiom. Style and sociolinguistic variation (2001), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK 235-267
59. Fox B., and Thompson S.A. Relative clauses in English conversation: Relativizers, frequency and the notion of construction. Studies in Language 3 (2007) 293-326
60. Fox Tree J.E., and Clark H.H. Pronouncing "the" as "thee" to signal problems in speaking. Cognition 62 (1997) 151-167
61. Frank, A., & Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Speaking rationally: Uniform information density as an optimal strategy for language production. In The 30th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci08) (pp. 939-944), Washington, DC.
62. Fries C.C. American English grammar (1940), D. Appleton-Century Company, New York, NY
63. Fry J. Ellipsis and wa-marking in Japanese conversation (2003), Routledge
64. Gahl S., and Garnsey S.M. Knowledge of grammar, knowledge of usage: Syntactic probabilities affect pronunciation variation. Language 80 4 (2004) 748-775
65. Garnsey S.M., Pearlmutter N.J., Meyers E., and Lotocky M.A. The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language 37 (1997) 58-93
66. Gelman A., and Hill J. Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models (2006), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
67. Gelman, A., Su, Y.-S., Yajima, M., Hill, J., Pittau, M. G., Kerman, J., et al. (2008). Arm: Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models [R package version 1.1-5].
68. Genzel, D., & Charniak, E. (2002). Entropy rate constancy in text. In Proceedings of the association of computational linguistics (pp. 199-206), Philadelphia, PA.
69. Genzel, D., & Charniak, E. (2003). Variation of entropy and parse trees of sentences as a function of the sentence number. In Proceedings of empirical methods in natural language processing (pp. 65-72).
70. Givón T. On understanding grammar (1979), Academic Press, New York, NY
71. Givón T. Functionalism and grammar (1995), John Benjamins, Amsterdam
72. Godfrey, J., Holliman, E., & McDaniel, J. (1992). SWITCHBOARD: Telephone speech corpus for research and development. In Proceedings of ICASSP-92 (Vol. 1, pp. 517-520).
73. Gómez Gallo, C., Jaeger, T. F., & Smyth, R. (2008). Incremental syntactic planning across clauses. In The 30th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci08) (pp. 1294-1299), Washington, DC.
74. Gordon P.C., Hendrik R., and Johnson M. Memory interference during language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 27 (2001) 1411-1423
75. Griffin Z.M. A reversed word length effect in coordinating the preparation and articulation of words in speaking. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 10 3 (2003) 603-609
76. Gundel J.K., Hedberg N., and Zacharski R. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language 69 2 (1993) 274-307
77. Hale, J. (2001). A probabilistic early parser as a psycholinguistic model. In Proceedings of the North American association of computational linguistics.
78. Hale J. The information conveyed by words in sentences. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 32 2 (2003) 101-123
79. Harding M.C., and Hausman J. Using a laplace approximation to estimate the random coefficients logit model by non-linear least squares. International Economic Review 48 4 (2007) 1311-1328
80. Harrell F.E.J. Regression modeling strategies (2001), Springer-Verlag, Oxford
81. Harrell, F. E. J. (2007). Design: Design package [R package version 2.1-1].
82. Hawkins J.A. A performance theory of order and constituency Vol. 73 (1994), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
83. Hawkins J.A. Why are categories adjacent?. Journal of Linguistics 37 (2001) 1-34
84. Hawkins J.A. Efficiency and complexity in grammars (2004), Oxford University Press, Oxford
85. Haywood S.L., Pickering M.J., and Branigan H.P. Do speakers avoid ambiguities during dialogue?. Psychological Science 16 5 (2005) 362-366
86. Huddleston R., and Pullum G.K. The Cambridge grammar of English (2002), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
87. Jaeger T.F. Optional that indicates production difficulty: Evidence from disfluencies. Proceedings of the disfluency in spontaneous speech workshop (2005), Aix-en-Provence, France 103-109
88. Jaeger, T. F. (2006a). Redundancy and syntactic reduction in spontaneous speech. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
89. Jaeger, T. F. (2006b). TGrep2 database tools: A toolkit for the construction of databases using TGrep2 outputs. .
90. Jaeger T.F. Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language 59 (2008) 434-446
91. Jaeger, T. F. (in press). Phonological optimization and syntactic variation: The case of optional "that". In Proceedings of the 32nd meeting of BLS, Berkeley, CA.
92. Jaeger, T. F. (submitted for publication). Corpus-based research on language production: Information density affects the syntactic reduction of subject relatives.
93. Jaeger, T. F., & Gerassimova, V. A. (2002). Bulgarian word order and the role of the direct object clitic. In Proceedings of the lfg02 conference. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
94. Jaeger, T. F., & Kuperman, V. (2009). Standards in fitting, evaluating, and interpreting regression models. UC Davis [Presentation given at the Workshop on Ordinary and Multilevel Modeling].
95. Jaeger, T. F., & Snider, N. E. (2008). Implicit learning and syntactic persistence: Surprisal and cumulativity. In Proceedings of the 29th annual Cognitive Science Society (CogSci09) (pp. 1061-1066), Washington, DC.
96. Jaeger, T. F., & Wasow, T. (2006). Processing as a source of accessibility effects on variation. In R. T. Cover & Y. Kim (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society (pp. 169-180). Ann Arbor, MN: Sheridan Books.
97. Jescheniak J.D., and Levelt W.J.M. Word frequency effects in speech production: Retrieval of syntactic information and of phonological form. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 20 (1994) 824-843
98. Jurafsky D. A probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and disambiguation. Cognitive Science 20 (1996) 137-194
99. Kaltenböck G. '...That is the question': Complementizer omission in extraposed that-clauses. English Language and Linguistics 10 (2006) 371-396
100. Kamide Y., Altmann G., and Haywood S. The time-course of prediction in incremental sentence processing: Evidence from anticipatory eye movements. Journal of Memory and Language 49 1 (2003) 133-156
101. Keller, F. (2004). The entropy rate principle as a predictor of processing effort: An evaluation against eye-tracking data. In Proceedings of the conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (pp. 317-324).
102. Kraljic T., and Brennan S.E. Prosodic disambiguation of syntactic structure: For the speaker or for the hearer?. Cognitive Psychology 50 (2005) 194-231
103. Landau M. Redundancy, rationality, and the problem of duplication and overlap. Public Administration Review (1969) 346-358
104. Langacker R. Foundations of cognitive grammar Vol. II (1991), Stanford University Press, Stanford
105. Leben, W. (1973). Suprasegmental phonology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
106. Lee H. Parallel optimization in case systems: Evidence from case ellipsis in korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 15 1 (2006) 69-96
107. Levelt W.J.M. Speaking: From intention to articulation (1989), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
108. Levelt W.J.M., and Maassen B. Lexical search and order of mention in sentence production. In: Klein W., and Levelt W.J.M. (Eds). Crossing the boundaries in linguistics (1981), D. Reidel, Dordrecht, The Netherlands 221-252
109. Levy R. Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition 106 3 (2008) 1126-1177
110. Levy R., and Jaeger T.F. Speakers optimize information density through syntactic reduction. In: Schlökopf B., Platt J., and Hoffman T. (Eds). Advances in neural information processing systems (NIPS) Vol. 19 (2007), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA 849-856
111. Lewis R.L. Interference in short term memory: The magical number two (or three) in sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 25 (1996) 93-117
112. Lindstrom M.J., and Bates D.M. Nonlinear mixed effects models for repeated measures data. Biometrics 46 (1990) 673-687
113. Lohse B., Hawkins J.A., and Wasow T. Domain minimization in English verb-particle constructions. Language 80 2 (2004) 238-261
114. MacDonald M.C. Probabilistic constraints and syntactic ambiguity resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes 9 (1994) 157-201
115. Manin D. Experiments on predictability of word in context and information rate in natural language. Journal of Information Processes 6 3 (2006) 229-236
116. Marcus, M. P., Santorini, B., Marcinkiewicz, M. A., & Taylor, A. (1999). Treebank-3.
117. Marr D. Vision: A computational approach (1982), Freeman and Co., San Francisco
118. McDonald S., and Shillcock R. Eye movements reveal the on-line computation of lexical probabilities during reading. Psychological Science 14 6 (2003) 648-652
119. Meteer, M., & colleagues (1995). Dysfluency annotation stylebook for the Switchboard corpus [revised by Ann Taylor].
120. Norcliffe, E. (2009). Head marking in usage and grammar: A study of variation and change in Yucatec Maya. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University.
121. Peduzzi P., Concato J., Kemper E., Holford T., and Feinstein A. A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 49 12 (1996) 1373-1379
122. Piantadosi, S. T., & Gibson, E. (2008). Uniform information density in discourse: A cross-corpus analysis of syntactic and lexical predictability. In Proceedings of 21st annual CUNY conference on sentence processing, Chapel Hill, NC.
123. Piantadosi, S. T., Tily, H., & Gibson, E. (2009). The communicative lexicon hypothesis. In The 31st annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci09) (pp. 2582-2587).
124. Pickering M.J., and Ferreira V.S. Structural priming: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin 134 3 (2008) 427
125. Pluymaekers M., Ernestus M., and Baayen R.H. Articulatory planning is continuous and sensitive to informational redundancy. Phonetica 62 (2005) 146-159
126. Pluymaekers M., Ernestusb M., and Baayen R.H. Lexical frequency and acoustic reduction in spoken Dutch. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 118 (2005) 2561-2569
127. Prat-Sala M., and Branigan H.P. Discourse constraints on syntactic processing in language production: A cross-linguistic study in English and Spanish. Journal of Memory and Language 42 2 (2000) 168-182
128. Qian, T. (2009). Efficiency of language production in native and non-native speakers. B.S. thesis, University of Rochester.
129. Qian, T., & Jaeger, T. F. (2009). Constant entropy rate in Mandarin Chinese. In The 31st annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci09), pp. 851-856.
130. Qian, T., & Jaeger, T. F. (submitted for publication). Entropy profiles in language: A cross-linguistics investigation. Entropy.
131. Quirk R. Relative clauses in educated spoken English. English Studies (1957) 97-109
132. R Development Core Team (2008). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria [ISBN 3-900051-07-0].
133. Race, D. S., & MacDonald, M. C. (2003). The use of "that" in the production and comprehension of object relative clauses. In Proceedings of the 26th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 946-951).
134. Resnik P. Selectional constraints: An information-theoretic model and its computational realization. Cognition 61 (1996) 127-159
135. Rohde, D. (2005). Tgrep2 manual. .
136. Rohdenburg G. Clausal complementation and cognitive complexity in English. In: Neumann F.W., and Schulting S. (Eds). Anglistentag, erfurt (1998), Wissenschaftlicher Verlag, Trier 101-112
137. Rohdenburg G. The role of functional constraints in the evolution of the English complementation system (2004), University of Paderborn
138. Roland D., Dick F., and Elman J. Frequency of basic English grammatical structures: A corpus analysis. Journal of Memory and Language 57 3 (2007) 348-379
139. Roland D., Elman J.L., and Ferreira V.S. Why is that? Structural prediction and ambiguity resolution in a very large corpus of English sentences. Cognition (2005) 1-28
140. Saffran J., Johnson E., Aslin R., and Newport E. Statistical learning of tone sequences by human infants and adults. Cognition 70 1 (1999) 27-52
141. Sakamoto Y., Jones M., and Love B. Putting the psychology back into psychological models: Mechanistic vs. rational approaches. Memory and Cognition 36 (2008) 1057-1065
142. Schuchardt, H. (1885). über die Lautgesetze: Gegen die Junggrammatiker. Berlin: Robert Oppenheim (Excerpted with English translation. In T. Vennemann, & T. H. Wilbur Athenaum, Frankfurt (Eds.) (1972). Schuchardt, the Neogrammarians, and the transformational theory of phonological change).
143. Schwarz G. Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics 6 (1978) 461-464
144. Shannon C. A mathematical theory of communications. Bell Systems Technical Journal 27 4 (1948) 623-656
145. Simon H.A. Bounded rationality. In: Eatwell J., Milgate M., and Newman P. (Eds). 77K New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics Vol. 1 (1987), Macmillan, London 266-268
146. Smith, N., & Levy, R. (2008). Optimal processing times in reading: A formal model and empirical investigation. In The 30th annual meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci08). Washington, DC.
147. Stallings L.M., MacDonald M.C., and O'Seaghdha P.G. Phrasal ordering constraints in sentence production: Phrase length and verb disposition in Heavy-NP Shift. Journal of Memory and Language 39 (1998) 392-417
148. Staub A., and Clifton C.J. Syntactic prediction in language comprehension: Evidence from Either.. Or. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 32 2 (2006) 425-436
149. Staum, L. W., & Jaeger, T. F. (2005). "that"-omission beyond processing: Stylistic and social effects. New York, NY [Presented at NWAV].
150. Tagliamonte S., and Smith J. No momentary fancy! The zero in English dialects. English Language and Linguistics 9 2 (2005) 289-309
151. Tagliamonte S., Smith J., and Lawrence H. No taming the vernacular! Insights from the relatives in northern Britain. Language Variation and Change 17 (2005) 75-112
152. Temperley D. Ambiguity avoidance in English relative clauses. Language 79 3 (2003) 464-484
153. Thompson S.A., and Mulac A. A quantitative perspective on the grammaticization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In: Traugott E., and Heine B. (Eds). Grammaticalization Vol. ii (1991), John Benjamins, Amsterdam 313-339
154. Thompson S.A., and Mulac A. The discourse conditions for the use of complementizer that in conversational English. Journal of Pragmatics 15 (1991) 237-251
155. Tily H., Gahl S., Arnon I., Kothari A., Snider N., and Bresnan J. Pronunciation reflects syntactic probabilities: Evidence from spontaneous speech. Language and Cognition 1 (2009)
156. Tily, H., & Piantadosi, S. T. (2009). Refer efficiently: Use less informative expressions for more predictable meanings. In Proceedings of the workshop on the production of referring expressions: Bridging the gap between computational and empirical approaches to reference, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
157. Torres Cacoullos, R., & Walker, J. A. (2009). On the persistence of grammar in discourse formulas: A variationist study of "that". Linguistics, 47 (1), 1-43.
158. Traugott E.C. Subjectification in grammaticalisation. In: Stein D., and Wright S. (Eds). Subjectivity and subjectivisation: Linguistic perspectives Vol. 1 (1995), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK 31-54
159. Trueswell J.C. The role of lexical frequency in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 35 (1996) 566-585
160. Trueswell J.C., Tanenhaus M.K., and Kello C. Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning, Memory, and Cognition 19 (1993) 528-553
161. van Son, R. J. J. H., Beinum, F. J., Koopmans-van, & Pols, L. C. W. (1998). Efficiency as an organizing principle of natural speech. In Fifth international conference on spoken language processing, Sydney.
162. van Son R.J.J.H., and Pols L.C.W. How efficient is speech?. Proceedings of the Institute of Phonetic Sciences 25 (2003) 171-184
163. van Son R.J.J.H., and van Santen J.P.H. Duration and spectral balance of intervocalic consonants: A case for efficient communication. Speech Communication 47 1 (2005) 100-123
164. Walter, M. A. (2007). Repetition avoidance in human language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
165. Walter, M. A., & Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Constraints on optional that: A strong word form OCP effect. In Proceedings of the main session of the 41st meeting of the Chicago linguistic society (pp. 505-519). Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.
166. Wasow T. Remarks on grammatical weight. Language Variation and Change 9 1 (1997) 81-105
167. Wasow, T., & Arnold, J. (2003). Post-verbal constituent ordering in English. In G. Rohdenburg, & B. Mondorf (Eds.), (pp. 119-154). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
168. Wasow, T., Jaeger, T. F., & Orr, D. (in press). Lexical variation in relativizer frequency. In H. Wiese, & H. Simon (Eds.), Proceedings of the workshop on expecting the unexpected: Exceptions in grammar at the 27th annual meeting of the German Linguistic Association. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
169. Wells J., Christiansen M., Race D., Acheson D., and MacDonald M. Experience and sentence processing: Statistical learning and relative clause comprehension. Cognitive Psychology 58 2 (2009) 250-271
170. Wheeldon L., and Lahiri A. Prosodic units in speech production. Journal of Memory and Language 37 3 (1997) 356-381
171. Yaguchi M. The function of the non-deictic "that" in English. Journal of Pragmatics 33 7 (2001) 1125-1155
172. Zipf G.K. Relative frequency as a determinant of phonetic change. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 40 (1929) 1-95
173. Zipf, G. K. (1935). The psychobiology of language.
174. Zipf G.K. Human behavior and the principle of least effort: An introduction to human ecology (1949), Addison-Wesley