Efficiency and complexity in grammars

By J. Hawkins. 2004

1,217 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/cad367e8eda04958918ea2001ca2fb009152d243

How researchers see this paper

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

In Language and Linguistics

Citations in the corpus

Weighted Constraints in Generative Linguistics (2009, neutral): “Furthermore, theories of language learning and processing are being used increasingly in the explanation of typological generalizations (for a range of viewpoints, see Hawkins, 2004 and Newmeyer, 2005 on syntax; and Bybee, 2001 and Moreton, 2008 on phonology).”
Across-Language Perspective on Speech Information Rate (2011, background): “Since numerous studies in linguistics (Bybee (2006); Hay et al. (2001); inter alia) and psycholinguistics (e.”
Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density (2010, background): “…syntactic production (e.g. work on accessibility effects, e.g. Bock & Warren, 1985; Ferreira, 1994; Ferreira & Dell, 2000; Prat-Sala & Branigan, 2000; dependency length minimization, e.g. Elsness, 1984; Hawkins, 1994, 2001, 2004; syntactic priming, e.g. Bock, 1986; Pickering & Ferreira, 2008).”
A New Look at the Acquisition of Relative Clauses (2005, background): “…the main clause and was introduced by a relative marker, who, whose, or that.6 The GEN-relatives comprised 3 Wanner and Maratsos’s hypothesis has been implemented in more recent theories of sentence processing (cf. Frazier 1987, Clifton & Frazier 1989, Hawkins 1994, 2004, Gibson 1998, 2000).”
Frequency effects in language acquisition, language use, and diachronic change (2007, background): “…by information processing (cf. Givón 1976; Shibatani 1991), and that the cross-linguistic word order correlations described by Greenberg and others are motivated by competing pressures from syntactic parsing, information processing, and semantics (Hawkins 1994, 2004; see also Diessel 2001, 2005).”
Framework-Free Grammatical Theory (2009, background): “Explanatory grammatical theory of this sort (as exemplified by works such as Givón 1979; Bybee et al. 1994; Heine 1997; Frajzyngier and Shay 2003; Hawkins 2004) has no need for (descriptive/theoretical) frameworks.”
Investigating locality effects and surprisal in written English syntactic choice phenomena. (2016, positive): “He validates his prediction using Japanese data, and subsequent research builds on EIC predictions in language production studies in Japanese (Yamashita & Chang 2001) and Korean (Choi 2007).”
Communicative efficiency in language production: Optional case-marking in Japanese (2015, methodology): “This is the prediction we test in this paper (a similar prediction is made by Hinds (1982) and Kuno (1973), who propose that an omission is possible when the grammatical function assignment is recoverable).”
Learning to order words: A connectionist model of heavy NP shift and accessibility effects in Japanese and English (2009, background): “How is the Dual-path model related to the distance minimization accounts of heavy NP shift (Gibson, 1998; Hawkins, 1994; Hawkins, 2004)? Both theories can account for the difference in the direction in heavy NP shift in English and Japanese and both posit that language features like verb position ar”
How language production shapes language form and comprehension (2012, background): “However, Hawkins (2004) describes some notable exceptions in Japanese and other “head-final” languages, casting doubt on production as a source of typological patterns of word order: “The preference for long before short in Japanese is not predicted by current models of language production, all of…”
Agent-Based Models of Strategies for the Emergence and Evolution of Grammatical Agreement (2013, background): “Agentbased experiments are complementary to other approaches that also investigate how economizing principles shape human language: by conducting artificial language learning experiments [45], or by observing language games with human subjects [46,47].”