Probabilistic Relations between Words: Evidence from Reduction in Lexical Production
By Dan Jurafsky, Alan Bell, M. Gregory, William D. Raymond. 2008
550 citations recorded by the source corpus.
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a55f99a3f4b0ab3467bfd905b692ace42d1b1dc3
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
- Victor Kuperman
- Inbal Arnon
- Nick C. Ellis
- Erik Cambria
- Neal Snider
- Joan Bybee
- Joan Bresnan
- Aarne Talman
Citations in the corpus
- Testing the role of phonetic knowledge in Mandarin tone sandhi* (2010, background): “…on phonological productivity (e.g. Zuraw 2000, Ernestus & Baayen 2003, Hayes & Londe 2006, Zhang & Lai 2008, Zhang et al. 2009a, b) and production (e.g. Bybee 2000, Jurafsky et al. 2001, Ernestus et al. 2006) typically use regression analyses or binary comparisons between high vs. low frequencies.”
- More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases (2010, background): “Pronunciation of words is phonetically reduced when the word appears as part of a frequent bigram (Bell, Brenier, Gregory, Girand, & Jurafsky, 2009; Bell et al., 2003; Gregory, Raymond, Bell, Fosler-Lussier, & Jurafsky, 1999; Jurafsky et al., 2001).”
- of construction probability on word durations during spontaneous incremental sentence production (2012, background): “Yet another class of theories that predict phonetic effects of construction probability derives from the idea of information-smoothing (e.g., Aylett & Turk, 2004, 2006; Jurafsky et al., 2001; Van Son & Pols, 2003; Van Son & Van Santen, 2005).”
- Consonant lenition and phonological recategorization (2011, background): “Low-level subphonemic frequency effects, such as the durational shortening of frequent words (Jurafsky et al. 2001; AUTHOR’S COPY | AUTORENEXEMPLAR Gahl 2008, see also Bybee 2002: 268, Bybee 2003: 616) may be an online effect of factors such as the presence of intonational pitch-accents and…”
- Selective Attention and Transfer Phenomena in L2 Acquisition: Contingency, Cue Competition, Salience, Interference, Overshadowing, Blocking, and Perceptual Learning (2006, background): “…and entrenchment in the evolution of language: grammaticalized morphemes tend to become more phonologically fused with surrounding material because their frequent production leads to lenition processes resulting in the loss and erosion of gestures (Bybee 2006; Jurafsky et al. 2001; Zuraw 2003).”
- Jumping NLP Curves: A Review of Natural Language Processing Research [Review Article] (2014, background): “Decoding how narratives are generated and processed by the human brain might eventually lead us to truly understand and explain human intelligence and consciousness.”
- Reference production: Production-internal and addressee-oriented processes (2008, unknown): “…deletion of final obstruents (e.g. tha’ instead of that) or the tapped variant of /t/ or /d/ (Bell, Gregory, Brenier, Jurafsky, Ikeno, & Girand, 2002; Bell, Jurafsky, Fosler-Lussier, Girand, Gregory, & Gildea, 2003; Gregory, Raymond, Bell, Fosler-Lussier, & Jurafsky, 1999; Jurafsky et al., 2001).”
- Formulaic Language in Native and Second Language Speakers: Psycholinguistics, Corpus Linguistics, and TESOL (2008, result): “The lack of significant prediction of articulation execution time from formula frequency or MI in native speakers fails to support the findings of Jurafsky et al. (2001), described earlier, which indicated that the articulation time of successive two-word sequences in the SwitchBoard TABLE 3”
- Predictability Effects on Durations of Content and Function Words in Conversational English (2009, methodology): “This is the approach used by Jurafsky et al. (2001) for content words ending in t or d, Bell et al. (2003) for 10 function words, and Pluymaekers et al. (2005a) for seven common Dutch words with the suffix -lijk.”
- An Academic Formulas List: New Methods in Phraseology Research (2010, background): “The phenomenon is graded—the degree of reduction is a function of the frequency of the target word and the conditional probability of the target given the surrounding words (Bybee and Hopper 2001; Jurafsky et al. 2001).”