Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Diffusion of Linguistic Innovation as Social Coordination Cover

Diffusion of Linguistic Innovation as Social Coordination

Psychology of Language and Communication
Volume 16 (2012): Issue 2 (December 2012)
By:  and    
Open Access
|Dec 2012
References

References

  1. Altmann, E.G., Pierrehumbert, J.B., & Motter, A.E. (2011). Niche as a determinant of word fate in online groups.6 (5): e19009.
    Search in Google Scholar
  2. Bandura, A. (1977).Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Benson, P. (2010). SLA after YouTube: New literacies and new language learning. Inv. talk, Univ. Warsaw.
    Search in Google Scholar
  3. Blank, A. & Solomon, S. (2000). Power laws in cities population, financial markets and internet sites: Scaling and systems with a variable number of components.287, 279-288.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  4. Castells, M. (2007). Communication, power and counter-power in the network society.1 (1), 238-266.
    Search in Google Scholar
  5. Castells, M. (2009).New York: Oxford University Press. Clauset, A., Shalizi, C.R., & Newman, M.E.J. (2009). Power-law distributions in empirical data.51 (4), 661-703.
    Search in Google Scholar
  6. Dawkins, R. (1976).Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Search in Google Scholar
  7. Davies, J. (2007). Display, identity and the everyday: Self-presentation through digital image sharing.28 (4), 549-564.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  8. Dennett, D.C. (1990). Memes and the Exploitation of Imagination.48 (2), 127-135.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  9. Gabaix, X. (1999). Zipf’s law for cities: An explanation., 114, 739-67.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  10. Gibrat, R. (1931).égééParis: Librairie du Recueil Sirey.
    Search in Google Scholar
  11. Gladwell, M. (2010). Small change: Why the revolution will not be tweeted.October 4, 2010.
    Search in Google Scholar
  12. Global Language Monitor (2009). Death of Michael Jackson. Retrieved from:
    Search in Google Scholar
  13. Granovetter, M. (1978). Threshold models of collective behavior., 83 (6), 1420-1443.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  14. Henrich, J., & Boyd, R. (2002). On modeling cognition and culture: Why cultural evolution does not require replication of representations. Journal of Cognition and Culture 2(2), 87-112.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  15. Newman, M.E.J. (2005). Power laws, Pareto distributions and Zipf’s law.46 (5), 323-351.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  16. O’Dell, J. (2010). Does online buzz mean better TV ratings? Retrieved from:
    Search in Google Scholar
  17. Paradowski, M.B. (2009). Applying a complexity science approach to analysing and modelling language phenomena. Invited lecture, Higher English Language Seminar, Dept English, Stockholm Univ.
    Search in Google Scholar
  18. Paradowski, M.B. & Jonak, L. (2012). Understanding the social cascading of geek­speak and the upshots for social cognitive systems. In A. Galton & Z. Wood (Eds.),(pp. 27-32). AISB/ IACAP World Congress, 2-6 July 2012, Birmingham, UK.
    Search in Google Scholar
  19. Paradowski, M.B., Jonak, L., & Kuscsik, Z. (2010). Tracking the diffusion of lexical innovation in online social networks. Workshop on Data-Driven Dynamical Networks, l’Ecole de Physique des Houches.
    Search in Google Scholar
  20. Project for Excellence in Journalism (2010). New media, old media. How Blogs and Social Media Agendas Relate and Differ from Traditional Press. Retrieved from:
    Search in Google Scholar
  21. Rogers, E.M. (2003).New York: Free Press.
    Search in Google Scholar
  22. Sornette, D. & Cont, R. (1997). Convergent multiplicative processes repelled from zero: Power laws and truncated power laws.7 (3), 431-444.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  23. Sperber, D. (2000). An objection to the memetic approach to culture. In R. Aunger (Ed.),(pp. 163-173). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Search in Google Scholar
  24. Tabor, W. & Tanenhaus, M.K. (2001). Dynamical systems for sentence processing. In M.H. Christiansen & N. Chater (Eds.),(pp. 177­211). Westport, CT: Ablex. de Tarde, G. (1890).Paris: Felix Alcan.
    Search in Google Scholar
  25. The “Five Graces Group”, Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M.H., Croft, W., Ellis, N.C., Holland, J., Ke, J., Larsen-Freeman, D., & Schoenemann, T. (2009). Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper.59 (Suppl. 1), 1-26.
    Search in Google Scholar
  26. Valente, T.W. (1995).Cresskill, NJ, Hampton Press.
    Search in Google Scholar
  27. Van Geert, P. (2009). A comprehensive dynamic systems theory of language devel­opment. In K. De Bot & R.W. Schrauf (Eds.),(pp. 60-104). New York/London: Routledge.
    Search in Google Scholar
  28. Vander Wal, Th. (2007, Feb 2). Folksonomy coinage and definition. Retrieved from:
    Search in Google Scholar
  29. Watts, D.J. (2007). The accidental influentials.85 (2), 22-23.
    Search in Google Scholar
  30. Winters, M.E., Tissari, H., & Allan, K. (2010).Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
  31. Zipf, G.K. (1949).Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
    Search in Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/v10057-012-0010-z | Journal eISSN: 2083-8506 (formerly 1234-2238) | Journal ISSN: 1234-2238
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 131 - 142
Published on: Dec 28, 2012
Published by: Faculty of Psychology, University of Warsaw
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Keywords:
linguistic creativity,
neologisms,
tags,
innovation diffusion,
social networks,
influence,
social coordination
Related subjects:
Social sciences,
Psychology,
Applied psychology

© 2012 Michał B. Paradowski, Łukasz Jonak, published by Faculty of Psychology, University of Warsaw
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Volume 16 (2012): Issue 2 (December 2012)
Previous article
Next article