Language, Usage and Cognition

By Joan Bybee. 2010

1,442 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Language and Linguistics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0a84381037a8a7d81c6a202d21a1e611a3d99e70

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

In Language and Linguistics

Citations in the corpus

User Demographics and Language in an Implicit Social Network (2012, background): “The theoretical signiﬁcance of this result is that it provides support for the usage-based view on language (Bybee, 2010), namely that the person’s language is largely shaped by the interactions with her social environment.”
Formulaic language (2008, neutral): “2010 Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage and cognition.”
Harm inflation: Making sense of concept creep (2020, methodology): “Several computational methods for doing so have been developed in recent years, all based on changes in how language is used (Bybee, 2010).”
Collostructional analysis and other ways of measuring lexicogrammatical attraction: Theoretical premises, practical problems and cognitive underpinnings (2013, background): “…– discussed within the scope of a usage-based framework which assumes that the frequencies of repeated linguistic processing events translate into different strengths of associations in the network representing linguistic knowledge (cf. e.g. Langacker 2000; Barlow and Kemmer 2000; Bybee 2010).”
Change in modal meanings: Another look at the shifting collocates of may (2016, background): “Where the present proposal goes beyond that view is in the following: Taking the findings of usage-based linguistics (Tomasello 2003; Bybee 2010) and collostructional studies (Stefanowitsch & Gries 2003) seriously, it is argued here that knowledge of a construction includes probabilistic knowledge…”
Effects of input on the early grammatical development of bilingual children (2010, background): “It has been argued, however, that verb type frequency is more telling with respect to productivity of grammatical rules (Bybee, 2001, 2010; Clark, 1993), and is more revealing with respect to developmental delays (Rieckborn, 2006, cited in Meisel, 2007).”
Essentials of a Theory of Language Cognition (2019, background): “…emerges from the collaboration of the memories of all the meaningful interactions in their entire history of language usage (Behrens, 2009; Bybee, 2010; Dabrowska & Divjak, 2015; N. Ellis, 2015; N. Ellis et al., 2013; Robinson & N. Ellis, 2008; Tomasello, 2003; Trousdale & Hoffmann,…”
Effects of input properties, vocabulary size, and L1 on the development of third person singular –s in child L2 English (2012, neutral): “Since the studies of Dulay and Burt (1973, 1974) it has been known that children learning English as a second language (L2) make errors with grammatical morphemes and that one of the last morphemes to be acquired is the third person singular (3SG) –s inflection. This inflection marks the third perso”
ATTENTION, AWARENESS, AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN LANGUAGE LEARNING (2012, background): “…are " rich memory representations … [containing] at least potentially, all the information a language user can perceive in a linguistic experience " (Bybee, 2010, p. 14), including phonetic detail, lexical items, their meanings, properties of the physical and social context, even sometimes voice…”
Usage‐Based Language: Investigating the Latent Structures That Underpin Acquisition (2013, background): “Various usage-based/functionalist/cognitive linguists (e.g., Boyd & Goldberg, 2009; Bybee, 2008, 2010; Ellis, 2008a; Goldberg, 2006; Goldberg, Casenhiser, & Sethuraman, 2004; Lieven & Tomasello, 2008; Ninio, 1999, 2006) suspect that it is the Zipfian coming together of linguistic form and function…”
Argument Structure in Usage-Based Construction Grammar: Experimental and corpus-based perspectives (2015, background): “Usage-based theory takes the view that the cognitive representation of language emerges through, and is shaped by, language use (Langacker, 1987, 2000; Hopper, 1987; Barlow & Kemmer, 2000; Bybee, 2006, 2010, 2013; Bybee & Hopper, 2001; Bybee & McClelland, 2005).”
Pronouns and pointing in sign languages (2013, background): “The types of processes that underpin language structure are not specific to language but are applicable in many cognitive domains -- e.g., categorisation, chunking, analogy, and rich memory storage (Bybee, 2010).”
of construction probability on word durations during spontaneous incremental sentence production (2012, background): “Another kind of theory predicts a direct linkage between continuous phonetic variation and higher-level construction frequencies: (multilevel) exemplar theory (cf. Bybee, 2002, 2007, 2010; Gahl and Yu, 2006; Walsh, Moebius, Wade, & Schuetze, 2010).”
Iconicity is in the eye of the beholder: How language experience affects perceived iconicity (2017, background): “…understand the effects of frequency and variation on the organization and grammaticalization of language, as well as offering insight into the role that general cognitive processes, such as schematization and analogy, play in language structure and language use (Bybee, 2001, 2010; Langacker, 2008).”