Word frequency and context of use in the lexical diffusion of phonetically conditioned sound change
By Joan Bybee. Language Variation and Change, 2002
580 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Cultural Studies, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Language and Linguistics
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ecfc2bd4b9477fff667114eeb833b15a69b338e3
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Cultural Studies
- N. Chater
- Morten H. Christiansen
- Andrew Garrett
- T. Florian Jaeger
- Sarah Hawkins
- J. Midgley
- Keith Johnson
- Susanne Gahl
In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
- Keith Johnson
- T. Florian Jaeger
- Morten H. Christiansen
- Sarah Hawkins
- N. Chater
- J. Midgley
- Susanne Gahl
- Gregory R. Guy
In Language and Linguistics
- Keith Johnson
- T. Florian Jaeger
- Sarah Hawkins
- Morten H. Christiansen
- N. Chater
- J. Midgley
- Susanne Gahl
- Gregory R. Guy
Citations in the corpus
- Time and Thyme Are not Homophones: The Effect of Lemma Frequency on Word Durations in Spontaneous Speech (2008, result): “…in some usage-based accounts (such as Bybee 2001) on articulatory routinization, it is clear that that work is in fact consistent with the findings presented here: for example, a number of such accounts (Bybee 2002a,b) clearly entail that reduction processes are word-specific and context-specific.”
- Phonetic bias in sound change (2011, background): “4The role of articulatory reduction in sound change has also been emphasized by other modern linguists (e.g. Mowrey and Pagliuca 1995, Bybee 2001, 2007), but they have not yet presented an overall account of how various types of sound change fit together.”
- Consequences of the Now-or-Never bottleneck for signed versus spoken languages (2015, background): “The extent and speed of such sound change is affected by a number of factors, including frequency, word class, and phonological environment (e.g., Bybee 2002; Phillips 2006).”
- Redundancy and reduction: Speakers manage syntactic information density (2010, background): “…involves reduced forms because of ‘‘automatization of neuro-motor sequences which comes about through repetition” (for similar hypotheses that link grammaticalization of reduced forms to frequency of use, see also Bates & MacWhinney, 1982; Bybee, 2002; Givón, 1995; Langacker, 1991; Traugott, 1995).”
- Formant frequencies of RP monophthongs in four age groups of speakers (2005, background): “Future work will also need to take into account the fact that changes may arise for particular words or in particular contexts before they become general (e.g. Wang 1977; Labov 1981, 1994; Bybee 2002).”
- The role of lexical frequency in syntactic variability: Variable subject personal pronoun expression in Spanish (2012, background): “(Bybee 2002c:262) The soundness of this perspective—that frequency is a conditioning factor on par with the other kinds of factors routinely studied in work on linguistic variation—is relatively untested.”
- Defaults and indeterminacy in temporal grammaticalization: The ‘perfect’ road to perfective (2008, background): “Typological approaches have made headway in operational criteria of markedness in showing measurable properties of the unmarked member of a grammatical category (Bybee, 1985:50–58; Greenberg, 1966:25–55; but see Haspelmath, 2006).”