Bibliography

doi:10.1017/9781316091746.016

Abbot-Smith, Kirsten F., and Behrens, Heike 2006. ‘How known constructions influence the acquisition of other constructions: The German passive and future constructions’, Cognitive Science 30(6): 995–1026Google Scholar

Abney, Steven P. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Doctoral dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar

Abraham, Werner, and Århammar, Ritva (eds.) 1987. Linguistik in Deutschland: Akten des 21. Linguistischen Kolloqiums, Groningen 1986. Tübingen: NiemeyerGoogle Scholar

Adams, Michael, Brinton, Laurel J., and Fulk, Robert D. (eds.) 2015. Studies in the history of the English language. VI: Evidence and method in histories of English. Topics in English Linguistics 85. Berlin: Mouton de GruyterCrossRef Google Scholar

Adamson, Sylvia 1998. ‘The literary language’, in Romaine, (ed.), pp. 589–692Google Scholar

Adelman, James, Brown, Gordon D. A., and Quesada, José F. 2006. ‘Contextual diversity, not word frequency, determines word-naming and lexical decision times’, Psychological Science, 17.9: 814–23Google Scholar

Aguado-Orea, Javier, and Pine, Julian 2015. ‘Comparing different models of the development of verb inflection in early child Spanish’, PloS One 10(3): e0119613Google Scholar

Ahlqvist, Anders (ed.) 1982. Papers from the 5th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar

Aijmer, Karin 1984. ‘“Sort of” and “kind of” in English conversation’, Studia Linguistica 38: 118–28Google Scholar

Aijmer, Karin 1996a. Conversational routines in English: Convention and creativity. New York: LongmanGoogle Scholar

Aijmer, Karin 1996b. ‘I think – an English modal particle’, in Swan, and Westvik, (eds.), pp. 1–47Google Scholar

Aitchison, Jean 1991. Language change: Progress or decay? Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Aitchison, Jean. 2003. ‘Psycholinguistic perspectives on language change’, in Joseph, and Janda, (eds.), pp. 736–43Google Scholar

Akhtar, Nameera 1999. ‘Acquiring basic word order: Evidence for data-driven learning of syntactic structure’, Journal of Child Language 26(2): 339–56Google Scholar

Aksu-Koç, Ayhan 1988. The acquisition of aspect and modality: The case of past perfect in Turkish. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Aksu-Koç, Ayhan, and Slobin, Dan I. 1986. ‘A psychological account of the development and use of evidentials in Turkish’, in Chafe, and Nichols, (eds.), pp. 159–67Google Scholar

Allan, Keith, and Jaszczolt, Kasia M. (eds.) 2012. The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Allan, Lorraine G. 1980. ‘A note on measurement of contingency between two binary variables in judgment tasks’, Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 15(3): 147–49Google Scholar

Allerton, David J. 2009. ‘Tag questions’, in Rohdenburg, and Schlüter, (eds.), pp. 306–23Google Scholar

Altmann, Eduardo G., Pierrehumbert, Janet B., and Motter, Adilson E. 2009. ‘Beyond word frequency: Bursts, lulls and scaling in the temporal distributions of words’, PLoS ONE 4(11): e7678Google Scholar

Altmann, Gerry T. M. (ed.) 1990. Cognitive models of speech processing: Psycholinguistic and computational perspectives. Cambridge, MA: The MIT PressGoogle Scholar

Altmann, Gerry T. M. 1998. ‘Ambiguity in sentence processing’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2(4): 146–52Google Scholar

Altmann, Gerry T. M., and Kamide, Yuki 1999. ‘Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference’, Cognition 73(3): 247–64Google Scholar

Altmann, Gerry T. M., and Steedman, Mark 1988. ‘Interaction with context during human sentence processing’, Cognition 30(3): 191–238Google Scholar

Ambridge, Ben, Kidd, Evan J., Rowland, Caroline F., and Theakston, Anna L. 2015. ‘The ubiquity of frequency effects in first language acquisition’, Journal of Child Language 42(2): 239–73Google Scholar

Ambridge, Ben, and Lieven, Elena V. M. 2011. Child language acquisition: Contrasting theoretical approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Ambridge, Ben, and Lieven, Elena V. M. 2015. ‘A constructivist account of child language acquisition’, in MacWhinney, and O’Grady, (eds.), pp. 478–510Google Scholar

Ambridge, Ben, Pine, Julian M., Rowland, Caroline F., Chang, Franklin, and Bidgood, Amy 2013. ‘The retreat from overgeneralization in child language acquisition: Word learning, morphology and verb argument structure’, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Cognitive Science 4(1): 47–62Google Scholar

Ambridge, Ben, and Rowland, Caroline F. 2009. ‘Predicting children’s errors with negative questions: Testing a schema-combination account’, Cognitive Linguistics 20(2): 225–66CrossRef Google Scholar

Ambridge, Ben, Rowland, Caroline F., Theakston, Anna L., and Tomasello, Michael 2006. ‘Comparing different accounts of inversion errors in children’s non-subject wh-questions: “What experimental data can tell us?”’, Journal of Child Language 33(3): 519–57Google Scholar

Andersen, Henning 1973. ‘Abductive and deductive change’, Language 49(4): 765–93Google Scholar

Andersen, Henning 2001a. ‘Actualization and the (uni)directionality of change’, in Andersen, (ed.), pp. 225–48Google Scholar

Andersen, Henning (ed.) 2001b. Actualization: Linguistic change in progress. Amsterdam: John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar

Andersen, Roger W. 1984. ‘The one-to-one principle of interlanguage construction’, Language Learning 34(4): 77–95Google Scholar

Anderson, John R. 1982. ‘Acquisition of cognitive skill’, Psychological Review 89(4): 369–406Google Scholar

Anderson, John R. 1983. The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar

Anderson, John R. 1990. The adaptive character of thought. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumGoogle Scholar

Anderson, John R. 1991. ‘Is human cognition adaptive?’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14(3): 471–517Google Scholar

Anderson, John R. 1992. ‘Automaticity and the ACT theory’, American Journal of Psychology 105(2): 165–80Google Scholar

Anderson, John R. 1996. ‘ACT: A simple theory of complex cognition’, American Psychologist 51(4): 355–65Google Scholar

Anderson, John R. 2000. Cognitive psychology and its implications. 5th edition. New York: W.H. FreemanGoogle Scholar

Anderson, John R. 2009. Cognitive psychology and its implications. 7th edition. New York: Worth PublishersGoogle Scholar

Andronis, Mary, Debenport, Erin, Pycha, Anne, and Yoshimura, Keiko (eds.) 2002. Proceedings of the 38th Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic SocietyGoogle Scholar

Anshen, Frank, and Aronoff, Mark 1999. ‘Using dictionaries to study the mental lexicon’, Brain and Language 68(1): 16–26Google Scholar

Anttila, Raymond 2003. ‘Analogy: The warp and woof of cognition’, in Joseph, and Janda, (eds.), pp. 425–40Google Scholar

Arcodia, Giorgio Francesco 2007. ‘Chinese: A language of compound words?’, in Montermini, , Boyé, and Hathout, (eds.), pp. 79–90Google Scholar

Ariel, Mira 1990. Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar

Arnon, Inbal, Casillas, Marisa, Kurumada, Chigusa, and Estigarribia, Bruno (eds.) 2014. Language in interaction: Studies in honor of Eve V. Clark. Amsterdam: BenjaminsCrossRef Google Scholar

Arnon, Inbal, and Snider, Neal 2010. ‘More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases’, Journal of Memory and Language 62(1): 67–82Google Scholar

Aronoff, Mark 1976. Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: The MIT PressGoogle Scholar

Aslin, Richard N., and Newport, Elissa L. 2012. ‘Statistical learning: From acquiring specific items to forming general rules’, Current Directions in Psychological Science 21(3): 170–76Google Scholar

Auer, Peter 2014. ‘Anmerkungen zum Salienzbegriff in der Soziolinguistik’, Linguistik Online 66(4). http://dx.doi.org/10.13092/lo.66.1569 [accessed April 14, 2016]Google Scholar

Auer, Peter, Hinskens, Frans, and Kerswill, Paul (eds.) 2005. Dialect change: Convergence and divergence in European languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Axmaker, Shelley, Jaisser, Annie, and Singmaster, Helen (eds.) 1988. Berkeley Linguistics Society 14: General session and parasession on grammaticalization. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics SocietyGoogle Scholar

Aylett, Matthew, and Turk, Alice 2004. ‘The smooth signal redundancy hypothesis: A functional explanation for relationships between redundancy, prosodic prominence and duration in spontaneous speech’, Language and Speech 47(1): 31–56Google Scholar

Aylett, Matthew, and Turk, Alice 2006. ‘Language redundancy predicts syllabic duration and the spectral characteristics of vocalic syllable nuclei’, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 119(5): 3048–58Google Scholar

Baars, Bernard J. 1997. ‘In the theatre of consciousness: Global workspace theory, a rigorous scientific theory of consciousness’, Journal of Consciousness Studies 4(4): 292–309Google Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald 1993. ‘On frequency, transparency and productivity’, in Booij, and van Marle, (eds.), pp. 181–208Google Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald 1994. ‘Productivity in language production’, Language and Cognitive Processes 9(3): 447–69Google Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald 2005. ‘Morphological productivity’, in Köhler, , Altmann, and Piotrowski, (eds.), pp. 243–56Google Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald 2011a. ‘Corpus linguistics and naive discriminative learning’, Brazilian Journal of Applied Linguistics 11(2): 295–328Google Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald 2011b. ‘Demythologizing the word frequency effect: A discriminative learning perspective’, The Mental Lexicon 5(3): 436–61Google Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald 2014. ‘Multivariate statistics’, in Podesva, and Sharma, (eds.), pp. 337–72Google Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald, Hendrix, Peter, and Ramscar, Michael 2013. ‘Sidestepping the combinatorial explosion: Towards a processing model based on discriminative learning’, Language and Speech 56(3): 329–47CrossRef Google Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald, Kuperman, Victor, and Bertram, Raymond 2010. ‘Frequency effects in compound processing’, in Scalise, and Vogel, (eds.), pp. 257–270Google Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald, Milin, Petar, Durdević, Dusica Filipović, Hendrix, Peter, and Marelli, Marco 2011. ‘An amorphous model for morphological processing in visual comprehension based on naive discriminative learning’, Psychological Review 118(3): 438–81Google Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald, Milin, Petar, and Ramscar, Michael 2015. ‘Frequency in lexical processing’, Aphasiology 30(11): 1174–220Google Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald, and Ramscar, Michael 2015. ‘Abstraction, storage and naive discriminative learning’, in Dąbrowska, and Divjak, (eds.), pp. 99–120Google Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald, Shaoul, Cyrus, Willits, Jon, and Ramscar, Michael 2016. ‘Comprehension without segmentation: A proof of concept with naive discriminative learning’, Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience 31(1): 106–28Google Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald, van Halteren, Hans, and Tweedie, Fiona 1996. ‘Outside the cave of shadows: Using syntactic annotation to enhance authorship attribution’, Literary and Linguistic Computing 11(3): 121–31Google Scholar

Bach, Emmon, and Harms, Robert T. (eds.) 1968. Universals in linguistic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and WinstonGoogle Scholar

Baddeley, Alan D. 1997. Human memory: Theory and practice. Hove: Psychology PressGoogle Scholar

Bader, Markus, and Lasser, Ingeborg 1994. ‘German verb-final clauses and sentence processing: Evidence for immediate attachment’, in Clifton, , Frazier, and Rayner, (eds.), pp. 225–42Google Scholar

Bailey, Ashlee C., Moore, Kevin E., and Moxley, Jeri L. (eds.) 1997. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, February 14–17, 1997. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics SocietyGoogle Scholar

Bailey, Nathalie, Madden, Carolyn, and Krashen, Stephen D. 1974. ‘Is there a “natural sequence” in adult second language learning?’, Language Learning 24(2): 235–43Google Scholar

Baker, Carl L. 1995. ‘Contrast, discourse prominence, and intensification, with special reference to locally free reflexives in British English’, Language 71(1): 63–101Google Scholar

Balota, David A., and Chumbley, James I. 1984. ‘Are lexical decisions a good measure of lexical access? The role of word frequency in the neglected decision stage’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 10(3): 340–57Google Scholar

Balota, David A., Yap, Melvin J., Cortese, Michael J., Hutchison, Keith I., Kessler, Brett, Loftis, Bjorn, Neely, James H., Nelson, Douglas L., Simpson, Greg B., and Treiman, Rebecca 2007. ‘The English lexicon project’, Behavior Research Methods 39(3): 445–59Google Scholar

Baltin, Mark, and Collins, Chris (eds.) 2001. The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory. Oxford: BlackwellGoogle Scholar

Bannard, Colin, and Matthews, Danielle 2008. ‘Stored word sequences in language learning: The effect of familiarity on children’s repetition of four-word combinations’, Psychological Science 19(3): 241–48Google Scholar

Barabási, Albert-László 2005. ‘The origin of bursts and heavy tails in human dynamics’, Nature Reviews Neuroscience 435(7039): 207–11Google Scholar

Barabási, Albert-László 2010. Bursts: The hidden patterns behind everything we do, from your e-mail to bloody crusades. London: PenguinGoogle Scholar

Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen 2000. Tense and aspect in second language acquisition: Form, meaning and use. Oxford: BlackwellGoogle Scholar

Barðdal, Jóhanna 2008. Productivity: Evidence from case and argument structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: BenjaminsGoogle Scholar

Barlow, Michael, and Kemmer, Suzanne (eds.) 2000. Usage-based models of language. Stanford, CA: CSLI PublicationsGoogle Scholar

Baron, Naomi S. 1977. Language acquisition and historical change. Amsterdam: North-HollandGoogle Scholar

Barry, Christopher, and Seymour, Philip H. 1988. ‘Lexical priming and sound-to-spelling contingency effects in nonword spelling’, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 40(1): 5–40Google Scholar

Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1999. ‘Perceptual symbol systems’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22(4): 577–660Google Scholar

Barsalou, Lawrence W. 2008. ‘Grounded cognition’, Annual Review of Psychology 59: 617–45Google Scholar

Barsalou, Lawrence W., Huttenlocher, Janellen, and Lamberts, Koen 1998. ‘Basing categorization on individuals and events’, Cognitive Psychology 36(3): 203–72Google Scholar

Bartlett, Frederic C. 1967. Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [1st edition 1932]Google Scholar

Bates, Elizabeth, and Goodman, Judith C. 1997. ‘On the inseparability of grammar and the lexicon: Evidence from acquisition, aphasia and real-time processing’, Language and Cognitive Processes 12(5–6): 507–86Google Scholar

Bates, Elizabeth, and MacWhinney, Brian 1987. ‘Competition, variation, and language learning’, in MacWhinney, (ed.), pp. 157–93Google Scholar

Bates, Elizabeth, MacWhinney, Brian, Caselli, Cristina, Devescovi, Antonella, Natale, Francesco, and Venza, Valeria 1984. ‘A crosslinguistic study of the development of sentence interpretation strategies’, Child Development 55(2): 341–54Google Scholar

Bauer, Laurie 2001. Morphological productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Bavin, Edith L. 1995. ‘The obligation modality in Western Nilotic languages’, in Bybee, and Fleischman, (eds.), pp. 107–33Google Scholar

Bayley, Robert, Cameron, Richard, and Lucas, Ceil (eds.) 2013. The Oxford handbook of sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Beals, Katharine (ed.) 1993. Papers from the 29th regional meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic SocietyGoogle Scholar

Becker, Angelika, and Veenstra, Tonjes 2003. ‘Creole prototypes as basic varieties and inflectional morphology’, in Dimroth, and Starren, (eds.), pp. 235–66Google Scholar

Beckett, Samuel 1954. Waiting for Godot. New York: Grove PressGoogle Scholar

Beckner, Clay, Blythe, Richard, Bybee, Joan L., Christiansen, Morten H., Croft, William, Ellis, Nick C., Holland, John, Ke, Jinyun, Larsen-Freeman, Diane, and Schoenemann, Tom 2009. ‘Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper’, Language Learning 59(s1): 1–26Google Scholar

Beckner, Clay, and Bybee, Joan L. 2009. ‘A usage-based account of constituency and reanalysis’, Language Learning 59(s1): 27–46Google Scholar

Behaghel, Otto 1909. ‘Beziehungen zwischen Umfang und Reihenfolge von Satzgliedern’, Indogermanische Forschungen 25: 110–42Google Scholar

Behaghel, Otto 1923–1932. Deutsche Syntax. 4 vols. Heidelberg: WinterGoogle Scholar

Behrens, Heike 2002. ‘Learning multiple regularities: Evidence from overgeneralization errors in the German plural’, in Skarabela, , Fish, and Do, (eds.), pp. 72–83Google Scholar

Behrens, Heike 2006. ‘The input-output relationship in first language acquisition’, Language and Cognitive Processes 21(1–3): 2–24Google Scholar

Behrens, Heike (ed.) 2008. Corpora in language acquisition research: History, methods, perspectives. Amsterdam: John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar

Behrens, Heike 2009. ‘Usage-based and emergentist approaches to language acquisition’, Linguistics [Special Issue: Current Approaches to Language Learning] 47(2): 383–411Google Scholar

Behrens, Heike 2011. ‘Cues to form and function in the acquisition of German number and case inflection’, in Clark, and Arnon, (eds.), pp. 35–51Google Scholar

Behrens, Heike, and Pfänder, Stefan (eds.) 2016. Experience counts: Frequency effects in language. Berlin: Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar

Bello, Paul, Guarini, Marcello, McShane, Marjorie, and Scassellati, Brian (eds.) 2014. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science SocietyGoogle Scholar

Benveniste, Émile 1968. ‘Mutations of linguistic categories’, in Lehmann, and Malkiel, (eds.), pp. 85–94Google Scholar

Bergen, Benjamin, and Chang, Nancy 2013. ‘Embodied construction grammar’, in Hoffmann, and Trousdale, (eds.), pp. 168–90Google Scholar

Bergs, Alex, and Pentrel, Maike 2015. ‘Ælc þara þe þas min word gehierþ and þa wyrcþ …: Psycholinguistic perspectives on early Englishes’, in Adams, , Brinton, and Fulk, (eds.), pp. 249–76Google Scholar

Bergs, Alexander, and Brinton, Laurel J. (eds.) 2012. English historical linguistics. An international handbook, vol. 2. Berlin and New York: Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar

Bergs, Alexander, and Diewald, Gabriele (eds.) 2008. Constructions and language change. Berlin and New York: Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar

Bernolet, Sarah, and Hartsuiker, Robert J. 2010. ‘Does verb bias modulate syntactic priming?’, Cognition 114(3): 455–61Google Scholar

Bernolet, Sarah, Hartsuiker, Robert J., and Pickering, Martin J. 2007. ‘Shared syntactic representations in bilinguals: Evidence for the role of word-order repetition’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 33(5): 931–49Google Scholar

Bernolet, Sarah, Hartsuiker, Robert J., and Pickering, Martin J. 2009. ‘Persistence of emphasis in language production: A cross-linguistic approach’, Cognition 112(2): 300–17Google Scholar

Bernolet, Sarah, Hartsuiker, Robert J., and Pickering, Martin J. 2012. ‘Effects of phonological feedback on the selection of syntax: Evidence from between-language syntactic priming’, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 15(3): 503–16Google Scholar

Bernolet, Sarah, Hartsuiker, Robert J., and Pickering, Martin J. 2013. ‘From language-specific to shared syntactic representations: The influence of second language proficiency on syntactic sharing in bilinguals’, Cognition 127(3): 287–306Google Scholar

Berwick, Robert, and Weinberg, Amy 1984. The grammatical basis of linguistic performance: Language use and acquisition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT PressGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan, and Finegan, Edward 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow, UK: Pearson EducationGoogle Scholar

Bickerton, Derek 1981. Roots of language. Ann Arbor: Karoma PublishersGoogle Scholar

Bickerton, Derek 1990. Language and species. Chicago: University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar

Bien, Heidrun, Baayen, R. Harald, and Levelt, Willem J. M. 2011. ‘Frequency effects in the production of Dutch deverbal adjectives and inflected verbs’, Language and Cognitive Processes 27(4–6): 683–715Google Scholar

Bird, Steven 2006. ‘NLTK: The natural language toolkit’. Proceedings of the COLING/ACL 2006 Interactive Presentation Sessions, Sydney, July 2006. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 69–72Google Scholar

Bird, Steven, Klein, Ewan, and Loper, Edward 2009. Natural language processing with Python. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media, Inc.Google Scholar

Bisang, Walter, Himmelmann, Nikolaus P., and Wiemer, Björn (eds.) 2004. What makes grammaticalization – A look from its fringes and its components. Berlin and New York: Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar

Bittner, Dagmar, and Köpcke, Klaus-Michael 2001. ‘Acquisition of the German plural markings: A case study in natural and cognitive morphology’, in Schaner-Wolles, , Rennison, and Neubarth, (eds.), pp. 47–58Google Scholar

Black, Abraham H., and Prokasy, William F. (eds.) 1972. Classical conditioning II: Current theory and research. New York: Appleton-Century-CroftsGoogle Scholar

Blumenthal-Dramé, Alice 2012. Entrenchment in usage-based theories: What corpus data do and do not reveal about the mind. Berlin and New York: Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar

Blything, Ryan P., Ambridge, Ben, and Lieven, Elena V. M. 2014. ‘Children use statistics and semantics in the retreat from overgeneralization’, PLoS One 9.10: e110009Google Scholar

Bock, J. Kathryn 1986. ‘Syntactic persistence in language production’, Cognitive Psychology 18(3): 355–87Google Scholar

Bock, J. Kathryn, Dell, Gary S., Chang, Franklin, and Onishi, Kristine H. 2007. ‘Persistent structural priming from language comprehension to language production’, Cognition 104(3): 437–58Google Scholar

Bock, J. Kathryn, and Ferreira, Victor S. 2014. ‘Syntactically speaking’, in Goldrick, , Ferreira, and Miozzo, (eds.), pp. 21–46Google Scholar

Bock, J. Kathryn, and Griffin, Zenzi M. 2000. ‘The persistence of structural priming: Transient activation or implicit learning?’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 129(2): 177–92Google Scholar

Bock, J. Kathryn, and Levelt, Willem J. M. 1994. ‘Language production: Grammatical encoding’, in Gernsbacher, (ed.), pp. 741–79Google Scholar

Bod, Rens 2009. ‘From exemplar to grammar: A probabilistic analogy-based model of language learning’, Cognitive Science 33(5): 752–93Google Scholar

Bod, Rens, Hay, Jennifer, and Jannedy, Stefanie (eds.) 2003. Probabilistic linguistics. Cambridge, MA: The MIT PressGoogle Scholar

Bond, Zinny 1999. Slips of the ear: Errors in the perception of casual conversation. New York: Academic PressGoogle Scholar

Booij, Geert E., and van Marle, Jaap (eds.) 1993. Yearbook of morphology. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic PublishersGoogle Scholar

Bornschein, Matthias, and Butt, Matthias 1987. ‘Zum Status des -s- Plurals im gegenwärtigen Deutsch’, in Abraham, and Århammar, (eds.), pp. 135–54Google Scholar

Bouma, Gerlof, Krämer, Irene, and Zwarts, Joost (eds.) 2007. Cognitive foundations of interpretation. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of ScienceGoogle Scholar

Bowerman, Melissa 1973. Early syntactic development. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Bowerman, Melissa 1985. ‘What shapes children’s grammars?’, in Slobin, (ed.), pp. 1257–319Google Scholar

Bowerman, Melissa 1988. ‘The “no negative evidence” problem: How do children avoid constructing an overgeneral grammar?’, in Hawkins, (ed.), pp. 73–101Google Scholar

Bowerman, Melissa, and Brown, Penelope 2006a. ‘Introduction’, in Bowerman, and Brown, (eds.), pp. 1–26Google Scholar

Bowerman, Melissa, and Brown, Penelope (eds.) 2006b. Crosslinguistic perspectives on argument structure: Implications for language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: ErlbaumGoogle Scholar

Bowerman, Melissa, and Choi, Soonja 2003. ‘Space under construction: Language specific spatial categorization in first language acquisition’, in Gentner, and Goldin-Meadow, (eds.), pp. 387–427Google Scholar

Bowern, Claire, and Evans, Bethwyn (eds.) 2014. The Routledge handbook of historical linguistics. London and New York: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar

Boyd, Jeremy K., and Goldberg, Adele E. 2011. ‘Learning what not to say: The role of statistical preemption and categorization in a-adjective production’, Language 87(1): 55–83Google Scholar

Boye, Kasper, and Harder, Peter 2012. ‘A usage-based theory of grammatical status and grammaticalization’, Language 88(1): 1–44Google Scholar

Braine, Martin D. S., and Bowerman, Melissa 1976. ‘Children’s first word combinations’, Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 41(1): 1–104Google Scholar

Brandt, Silke, Kidd, Evan, Lieven, Elena V. M., and Tomasello, Michael 2009. ‘The discourse bases of relativization: An investigation of young German and English-speaking children’s comprehension of relative clauses’, Cognitive Linguistics 20(3): 539–70Google Scholar

Branigan, Holly P., Pickering, Martin J., and Cleland, Alexandra A. 2000. ‘Syntactic co-ordination in dialogue’, Cognition 75(2): B13–B25Google Scholar

Branigan, Holly P., Pickering, Martin J., McLean, Janet F., and Cleland, Alexandra A. 2007. ‘Syntactic alignment and participant role in dialogue’, Cognition 104(2): 163–97Google Scholar

Branigan, Holly P., Pickering, Martin J., Pearson, Jamie, McLean, Janet F., and Brown, Ash 2011. ‘The role of beliefs in lexical alignment: Evidence from dialogues with humans and computers’, Cognition 121(1): 41–57Google Scholar

Brems, Lieselotte 2003. ‘Measure noun constructions: An instance of semantically-driven grammaticalization’, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2): 238–312Google Scholar

Brems, Lieselotte 2011. Layering of size and type noun constructions in English. Berlin and New York: Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar

Brems, Lieselotte, and Davidse, Kristin 2010. ‘The grammaticalisation of nominal type noun constructions with kind/sort of: Chronology and paths of change’, English Studies 91(2): 180–202Google Scholar

Brennan, Susan E., and Clark, Herbert H. 1996. ‘Conceptual pacts and lexical choice in conversation’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 22(6): 1482–93Google Scholar

Bresnan, Joan 2007. ‘Is syntactic knowledge probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation’, in Featherston, and Sternefeld, (eds.), pp. 77–96Google Scholar

Bresnan, Joan, Cueni, Anna, Nikitina, Tatiana, and Baayen, R. Harald 2007. ‘Predicting the dative alternation’, in Bouma, , Krämer, and Zwarts, (eds.), pp. 69–94Google Scholar

Brinton, Laurel J. 1991. ‘The origin and development of quasimodal have to in English’. Paper presented to the 10th ICHL, Amsterdam 1991. Unpublished manuscript. http://faculty.arts.ubc.ca/lbrinton/HAVETO.pdf [accessed April 24, 2016]Google Scholar

Brinton, Laurel J. 1996. Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin and New York: Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar

Brinton, Laurel J. 2008. The comment clause in English: Syntactic origins and pragmatic development. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Brinton, Laurel J., and Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2005. Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Britt, M. Anne 1994. ‘The interaction of referential ambiguity and argument structure’, Journal of Memory and Language 33(2): 251–83Google Scholar

Broeder, Peter, and Murre, Jaap (eds.) 2000. Models of language acquisition: Inductive and deductive approaches. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Brooks, Patricia J., Tomasello, Michael, Lewis, Lawrence B., and Dodson, Kelly 1999. ‘Children’s overgeneralization of fixed transitivity verbs: The entrenchment hypothesis’, Child Development 70(6): 1325–37Google Scholar

Brown, Roger 1973. A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar

Brysbaert, Marc, and Mitchell, Don 1996. ‘Modifier attachment in sentence parsing: Evidence from Dutch’, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 49(3): 664–95Google Scholar

Burrows, John F. 1992. ‘Computers and the study of literature’, in Butler, (ed.), pp. 167–204Google Scholar

Butler, Christopher S. (ed.) 1992. Computers and written texts. Oxford: BlackwellGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 1985. Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 1998. ‘A functionalist approach to grammar and its evolution’, Evolution of Communication 2(2): 249–78Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 2002. ‘Sequentiality as the basis of constituent structure’, in Givón, and Malle, (eds.), pp. 109–34Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 2003. ‘Mechanisms of change in grammaticalization: The role of frequency’, in Joseph, and Janda, (eds.), pp. 602–23Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 2006. ‘From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition’, Language 82(4): 711–33.Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 2008a. ‘Grammaticalization: Implications for a theory of language’, in Guo, , Lieven, , Budwig, , Ervin-Tripp, , Nakamura, and Őzçalişkan, (eds.), pp. 345–55Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 2008b. ‘Usage-based grammar and second language acquisition’, in Robinson, and Ellis, (eds.), pp. 216–36Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 2013. ‘Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions’, in Hoffmann, and Trousdale, (eds.), pp. 49–69Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L. 2014. ‘Analytic and holistic processing in the development of constructions’, in Arnon, , Casillas, , Kurumada, and Estigarribia, (eds.), pp. 303–13Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L., and Beckner, Clay 2014. ‘Language use, cognitive processes and linguistic change’, in Bowern, and Evans, (eds.), pp. 503–18Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L., and Fleischman, Suzanne (eds.) 1995. Modality in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam: John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Joan L., and Hopper, Paul (eds.) 2001. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Typological Studies in Language 45. Amsterdam: John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Joan L., and Pagliuca, William 1987. ‘The evolution of future meaning’, in Giacalone Ramat, , Carruba, and Bernini, (eds.), pp. 108–22Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L., Perkins, Revere, and Pagliuca, William 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar

Bybee, Joan L., and Scheibman, Joanne 1999. ‘The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: The reduction of don’t in English’, Linguistics 37(4): 575–96Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L., and Slobin, Dan I. 1982. ‘Rules and schemas in the development and use of the English past tense’, Language 58(2): 265–89Google Scholar

Bybee, Joan L., and Thompson, Sandra 1997. ‘Three frequency effects in syntax’, in Bailey, , Moore, and Moxley, (eds.), pp. 378–88Google Scholar

Cai, Zhenguang G., Pickering, Martin J., Yan, Hao, and Branigan, Holly P. 2011. ‘Lexical and syntactic representations in closely related languages: Evidence from Mandarin and Cantonese’, Journal of Memory and Language 65(4): 431–45Google Scholar

Cameron-Faulkner, Thea, Lieven, Elena V. M., and Tomasello, Michael 2003. ‘A construction based analysis of child directed speech’, Cognitive Science 27(6): 843–73Google Scholar

Campbell, Byron A., and Church, Russell M. (eds.) 1969. Punishment and aversive behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-CroftsGoogle Scholar

Carey, Kathleen 1990. ‘The role of conversational implicature in the early grammaticalization of the English perfect’, in Hall, , Koenig, , Meacham, , Reinman, , and Sutton, (eds.), pp. 371–80Google Scholar

Carey, Kathleen 1994. ‘The grammaticalization of the perfect in Old English: An account based on pragmatics and metaphor’, in Pagliuca, (ed.), pp. 103–17Google Scholar

Carreiras, Manuel, and Clifton, Charles 1993. ‘Relative clause interpretation preferences in Spanish and English’, Language and Speech 36(4): 353–72Google Scholar

Carreiras, Manuel, and Clifton, Charles (eds.) 2004. The on-line study of sentence comprehension. Hove: Psychology PressGoogle Scholar

Carroll, John B., and White, Margaret N. 1973. ‘Word frequency and age of acquisition as determiners of picture-naming latency’, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 25(1): 85–95Google Scholar

Chafe, Wallace, and Nichols, Johanna (eds.) 1986. Evidentiality. The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood, NJ: AblexGoogle Scholar

Chalmers, David J., French, Robert M., and Hofstadter, Douglas R. 1992. ‘High-level perception, representation, and analogy: A critique of artificial intelligence methodology’, Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 4(3): 185–211Google Scholar

Chambers, Jack K., Trudgill, Peter, and Schilling-Estes, Natalie (eds.) 2002. The handbook of language variation and change. Oxford: BlackwellGoogle Scholar

Chang, Franklin, Dell, Gary S., and Bock, J. Kathryn 2006. ‘Becoming syntactic’, Psychological Review 113(2): 234–72Google Scholar

Chapman, Carol 1995. ‘Perceptual salience and analogical change: Evidence from vowel lengthening in modern Swiss German dialects’, Journal of Linguistics 31(1): 1–13Google Scholar

Chater, Nick, and Manning, Christopher 2006. ‘Probabilistic models of language processing and acquisition’, Trends in Cognitive Science 10(7): 335–44Google Scholar

Cheshire, Jenny, Kerswill, Paul, Fox, Sue, and Torgersen, Eivind 2013. ‘English as a contact language: The role of children and adolescents’, in Schreier, and Hundt, (eds.), pp. 560–607Google Scholar

Chiarcos, Christian 2011. ‘On the dimensions of discourse salience’. www.linguistics.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/bla/beyondsem2011/chiarcos_final.pdf [accessed April 19, 2016]Google Scholar

Chiarcos, Christian, Claus, Berry, and Grabski, Michael 2011a. ‘Introduction’, in Chiarcos, , Claus, and Grabski, (eds.), pp. 1–28Google Scholar

Chiarcos, Christian, Claus, Berry, and Grabski, Michael (eds.) 2011b. Salience: Multidisciplinary perspectives on its function in discourse. Berlin and New York: Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar

Childers, Jane B., and Tomasello, Michael 2001. ‘The role of pronouns in young children’s acquisition of the English transitive construction’, Child Development 37(6): 739–48Google Scholar

Chomsky, Noam 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris PublicationsGoogle Scholar

Christiansen, Morten H., and Chater, Nick (eds.) 2001. Connectionist psycholinguistics. Westport, CO: AblexGoogle Scholar

Christiansen, Morten H., and Chater, Nick 2008. ‘Language as shaped by the brain’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences [Target Article for Multiple Peer Commentary] 31(5): 489–509Google Scholar

Christiansen, Morten H., and Chater, Nick 2016. Creating language: Integrating evolution, acquisition, and processing. Cambridge, MA: The MIT PressGoogle Scholar

Christiansen, Morten H., and Kirby, Simon (eds.) 2003. Language evolution. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Christianson, Kiel, Hollingworth, Andrew, Halliwell, John F., and Ferreira, Fernanda 2001. ‘Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger’, Cognitive Psychology 42(2): 368–407Google Scholar

Christie, William (ed.) 1976. Current progress in historical linguistics. Amsterdam: North HollandGoogle Scholar

Cienki, Alan J., Luka, Barbara J., and Smith, Michael B. (eds.) 2001. Conceptual and discourse factors in linguistic structure. Stanford: CSLI PublicationsGoogle Scholar

Clahsen, Harald 1999. ‘Lexical entries and rules of language: A multidisciplinary study of German inflection’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22(6): 991–1060Google Scholar

Clahsen, Harald, Rothweiler, Monika, Woest, Andreas, and Marcus, Gary F. 1992. ‘Regular and irregular inflection in the acquisition of German noun plurals’, Cognition 45(3): 225–55Google Scholar

Claridge, Claudia, and Kytö, Merja 2014. ‘“You are a bit of a sneak”: Exploring a degree modifier in the Old Bailey Corpus’, in Hundt, (ed.), pp. 239–68Google Scholar

Clark, Andy. 2013. ‘Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36(3): 181–204Google Scholar

Clark, Eve V. 1978. ‘Discovering what words can do’, in Farkas, , Jacobsen, and Todrys, (eds.), pp. 34–57Google Scholar

Clark, Eve V. 1982. ‘Language change during language acquisition’, in Lamb, and Brown, (eds.), pp. 171–95Google Scholar

Clark, Eve V., and Arnon, Inbal (eds.) 2011 Experience, variation, and generalization: Learning a first language. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar

Clark, Herbert H. 1992. Arenas of language use. Chicago: University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar

Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Clark, Herbert H., and Wilkes-Gibbs, Deanna 1986. ‘Referring as a collaborative process’, Cognition 22(1): 1–39Google Scholar

Cleeremans, Axel, and McClelland, James L. 1991. ‘Learning the structure of event sequences’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 120(3): 235–53Google Scholar

Cleland, Alexandra A., and Pickering, Martin J. 2003. ‘The use of lexical and syntactic information in language production: Evidence from the priming of noun-phrase structure’, Journal of Memory and Language 49(2): 214–30Google Scholar

Clifton, Charles, Frazier, Lyn, and Rayner, Keith (eds.) 1994. Perspectives on sentence processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumGoogle Scholar

Clifton, Charles, and Staub, Adrian 2008. ‘Parallelism and competition in syntactic ambiguity resolution’, Language and Linguistics Compass 2(2): 234–50Google Scholar

Coates, Jennifer 1983. The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London: Croom HelmGoogle Scholar

Cole, Peter, and Sadock, Jerrold Murray (eds.) 1977. Syntax and semantics, vol. 8: Grammatical relations. New York: Academic PressGoogle Scholar

Coltheart, Max 1978. ‘Lexical access in simple reading tasks’, in Underwood, (ed.), pp. 151–216Google Scholar

Coltheart, Max (ed.) 1987. Attention and performance XII: The psychology of reading. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum AssociatesGoogle Scholar

Coltheart, Max, and Leahy, Judi 1996. ‘Assessment of lexical and nonlexical reading abilities in children: Some normative data’, Australian Journal of Psychology 48(3): 136–40Google Scholar

Comrie, Bernard 2003. ‘Reconstruction, typology and reality’, in Hickey, (ed.), pp. 243–57Google Scholar

Corder, Stephen P. 1967. ‘The significance of learners’ errors’, International Review of Applied Linguistics 5(1–4): 161–69Google Scholar

Corral, Alvaro, Boleda, Gemma, and Ferrer-i-Cancho, Ramon 2015. ‘Zipf’s law for word frequencies: Word forms versus lemmas in long texts’, PLoS ONE 10(7): e0129031Google Scholar

Cottrell, Garrison W., and Plunkett, Kim 1994. ‘Acquiring the mapping from meaning to sounds’, Connection Science 6(4): 379–412Google Scholar

Craig, Colette G. (ed.) 1986. Noun classes and categorization. Amsterdam: John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar

Crocker, Matthew W. 1996. Computational psycholinguistics: An interdisciplinary approach to the study of language. Dordrecht: Kluwer AcademicGoogle Scholar

Croft, William A. 2000. Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. Harlow, Essex: LongmanGoogle Scholar

Croft, William A. 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Croft, William A. 2010. ‘The origins of grammaticalization in the verbalization of experience’, Linguistics 48(1): 1–48Google Scholar

Croft, William, and Cruse, Alan D. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Crystal, David 2004. The stories of English. New York: The Overlook PressGoogle Scholar

Cuetos, Fernando, and Mitchell, Don 1988. ‘Cross-linguistic differences in parsing: Restrictions on the use of the late closure strategy in Spanish’, Cognition 30(1): 73–105Google Scholar

Culpeper, Jonathan, and Kytö, Merja 2010. Early Modern English dialogues: Spoken interaction as writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Cutler, Anne, and Carter, David M. 1987. ‘The predominance of strong initial syllables in the English vocabulary’, Computer Speech and Language 2(3): 133–42Google Scholar

Cutting, J. Cooper, and Bock, J. Kathryn 1997. ‘That’s the way the cookie bounces: Syntactic and semantic components of experimentally elicited idiom blends’, Memory and Cognition 25(1): 57–71Google Scholar

Dąbrowska, Ewa 2000. ‘From formula to schema: The acquisition of English questions’, Cognitive Linguistics 11(1–2): 83–102Google Scholar

Dąbrowska, Ewa 2001. ‘Learning a morphological system without a default: The Polish genitive’, Journal of Child Language 28(3): 545–74Google Scholar

Dąbrowska, Ewa 2004. Language, mind and brain: Some psychological and neurological constraints on theories of grammar. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University PressGoogle Scholar

Dąbrowska, Ewa 2012. ‘Different speakers, different grammars: Individual differences in native language attainment’, Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 2(3): 219–53Google Scholar

Dąbrowska, Ewa, and Divjak, Dagmar (eds.) 2015. Handbook of cognitive linguistics. Berlin and New York: Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar

Danchev, Andrei, and Kytö, Merja 1994. ‘The construction be going to + infinitive in Early Modern English’, in Kastovsky, (ed.), pp. 59–78Google Scholar

Danks, David 2003. ‘Equilibria of the Rescorla-Wagner model’, Journal of Mathematical Psychology 47(2): 109–21Google Scholar

Daugherty, Kim G., and Seidenberg, Mark S. 1994. ‘Beyond rules and exceptions: A connectionist approach to inflectional morphology’, in Lima, , Corrigan, and Iverson, (eds.), pp. 353–88Google Scholar

Davidse, Kristin 2009. ‘Complete and sort of: From identifying to intensifying?’, Transactions of the Philological Society 107(3): 262–92Google Scholar

Davies, Mark 2010. ‘The corpus of contemporary American English as the first reliable monitor corpus of English’, Literary and Linguistic Computing 25(4): 447–64Google Scholar

Dawkins, Richard 1985. The blind watchmaker. New York: NortonGoogle Scholar

Deacon, Terrence W. 1997. The symbolic species: The co-evolution of language and the brain. New York: W. W. NortonGoogle Scholar

Deacon, Terrence W. 2003. ‘Universal grammar and semiotic constraints’, in Christiansen, and Kirby, (eds.), pp. 111–39.Google Scholar

de Bot, Kees, Lowie, Wander, Thorne, Steven L., and Verspoor, Marjolijn 2013. ‘Dynamic systems theory as a comprehensive theory of second language development’, in Mayo, García, Mangado, Gutierrez, and Adrián, Martínez (eds.), pp. 199–220Google Scholar

Declerck, Renaat 1982. ‘The triple origin of participial perception verb complements’, Linguistic Analysis 10: 1–26Google Scholar

Degand, Liesbeth, and Simon, Anne Catherine 2005. ‘“My brother, he drives like crazy”: Contextual salience, linguistic marking and discourse organisation in spoken French’, in Stede, , Chiarcos, , Grabski, , and Lagerwerf, (eds.), pp. 43–52Google Scholar

de Houwer, Annick 2007. ‘Parental language input patterns and children’s bilingual use’, Applied Psycholinguistics 28(3): 411–24Google Scholar

de Jong, Nivia H., Schreuder, Rob, and Baayen, R. Harald 2000. ‘The morphological family size effect and morphology’, Language and Cognitive Processes 15(4–5): 329–65Google Scholar

DeKeyser, Robert M. 2001. ‘Automaticity and automatization’, in Robinson, (ed.), pp. 125–51Google Scholar

Dell, Gary S., and Chang, Franklin 2014. ‘The P-Chain: Relating sentence production and its disorders to comprehension and acquisition’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 369(1634): 20120394Google Scholar

Demberg, Vera, and Keller, Frank 2008. ‘Data from eye-tracking corpora as evidence for theories of syntactic processing complexity’, Cognition 109(2): 193–210Google Scholar

Denison, David 1985. ‘Why Old English had no prepositional passive’, English Studies 66: 189–204Google Scholar

Denison, David 1993. English historical syntax: Verbal constructions. London and New York: LongmanGoogle Scholar

Denison, David 2002. ‘History of the sort of construction family’. Paper presented at ICCG2: Second International Conference on Construction Grammar, Helsinki, September 2002Google Scholar

Denison, David 2006. ‘Category change and gradience in the determiner system’, in van Kemenade, and Los, (eds.), pp. 279–304Google Scholar

Denison, David 2010a. ‘Category change in English with and without structural change’, in Traugott, and Trousdale, (eds.), pp. 105–28Google Scholar

Denison, David 2010b. ‘SKT-constructions: The relation between synchronic and diachronic analysis’. Paper presented at SLE 43, VilniusGoogle Scholar

Denison, David 2012. ‘On the history of English (and) word classes’. Paper presented at ICEHL17, ZurichGoogle Scholar

Denison, David 2013. ‘Parts of speech: Solid citizens or slippery customers?’, Journal of the British Academy 1: 151–85Google Scholar

Denison, David in preparation. English word classes: Categories and their limits. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

de Smedt, Liesbeth 2005. Functions of the T-nouns kind, sort and type: A comprehensive, data-based description. MA thesis. University of LeuvenGoogle Scholar

de Smedt, Liesbeth, Brems, Lieselotte, and Davidse, Kristin 2007. ‘NP-internal functions and extended uses of the ‘type’ nouns kind, sort, and type: Towards a comprehensive, corpus-based description’, in Facchinetti, (ed.), pp. 227–57Google Scholar

de Smet, Hendrik 2009. ‘Analysing reanalysis’, Lingua 119(11): 1728–55Google Scholar

de Smet, Hendrik 2012. ‘The course of actualization’, Language 88(3): 601–33Google Scholar

des Rosiers, Gabriel, and Ivison, David 1986. ‘Paired-associate learning: Normative data for differences between high and low associate word pairs’, Journal of Clinical Experimental Neuropsychology 8(6): 637–42Google Scholar

de Vincenzi, Marica, and Lombardo, Vincenzo (eds.) 2000. Proceedings of AMLaP-96. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic PressGoogle Scholar

Dewaele, Jean-Marc 2004. ‘Retention or omission of the ne in advanced French interlanguage: The variable effect of extralinguistic factors’, Journal of Sociolinguistics 8(3): 433–50Google Scholar

Diessel, Holger 1999. Demonstratives: Form, function, and grammaticalization. Amsterdam: BenjaminsGoogle Scholar

Diessel, Holger 2004. The acquisition of complex sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Diessel, Holger 2007. ‘Frequency effects in language acquisition, language use, and diachronic change’, New Ideas in Psychology 25(2): 108–27Google Scholar

Diessel, Holger 2011. ‘Grammaticalization and language acquisition’, in Heine, and Narrog, (eds.), pp. 130–41Google Scholar

Diessel, Holger 2012. ‘Diachronic change and language acquisition’, in Bergs, and Brinton, (eds.), pp. 1599–613Google Scholar

Diessel, Holger, and Tomasello, Michael 2001. ‘The acquisition of finite complement clauses in English: A corpus-based analysis’, Cognitive Linguistics 12(2): 97–141Google Scholar

Diewald, Gabriele 2002. ‘A model for relevant types of contexts in grammaticalization’, in Wischer, and Diewald, (eds.), pp. 103–20Google Scholar

Diewald, Gabriele 2006. ‘Context types in grammaticalization as constructions’, Constructions 1: 1–29. http://elanguage.net/journals/index.php/constructions/article/viewFile/24/29 [accessed June 6, 2013]Google Scholar

Dimroth, Christine, and Starren, Marianne (eds.) 2003. Information structure and the dynamics of language acquisition. Amsterdam: BenjaminsGoogle Scholar

Drachman, Geberell 1978. ‘Child language and language change: A conjecture and some refutations’, in Fisiak, (ed.), pp. 123–44Google Scholar

Dreschler, Gea 2015. Passives and the loss of verb second: A study of syntactic and information-structural factors. Utrecht: LOTGoogle Scholar

du Bois, John W. 1985. ‘Competing motivations’, in Haiman, (ed.), pp. 343–65Google Scholar

Dufouil, Carole, Pereira, Ewige, Chêne, Geneviève, Glymour, M. Maria, Alpérovitch, Annick, Saubusse, Elodie, Risse-Fleury, Mathilde, Heuls, Brigitte, Salord, Jean-Claude, Brieu, Marie-Anne, and Forette, Françoise 2014. ‘Older age at retirement is associated with decreased risk of dementia’, European Journal of Epidemiology 29(5): 353–61Google Scholar

Durrant, Philip, and Doherty, Alice 2010. ‘Are high-frequency collocations psychologically real? Investigating the thesis of collocational priming’, Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 6(2): 125–55Google Scholar

Ebbinghaus, Hermann 1885. Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology. New York: Teachers College, Columbia [Trans. Ruger, Henry A. and Bussenius, Clara E., 1913]Google Scholar

Eckardt, Regine 2006. Meaning change in grammaticalization. An enquiry into semantic reanalysis. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Edwards, Jonathan 1752. Misrepresentations corrected, and truth vindicated. In a reply to the Rev. Mr. Solomon Williams’s book, intitled, The True State of the Question Concerning the Qualifications Necessary to Lawful Communion in the Christian Sacraments. Boston: S. KneelandGoogle Scholar

Eisenbeiss, Sonja, Bartke, Sonja, and Clahsen, Harald 2006. ‘Structural and lexical case in child German: Evidence from language-impaired and typically developing children’, HLAC 13(1): 3–32Google Scholar

Ekwall, Eilert 1975. A history of Modern English sounds and morphology. Translated and edited by Ward, Alan. Oxford: BlackwellGoogle Scholar

Ellis, Nick C. 1994a. ‘Vocabulary acquisition: The implicit ins and outs of explicit cognitive mediation’, in Ellis, (ed.), pp. 211–82Google Scholar

Ellis, Nick C. (ed.) 1994b. Implicit and explicit learning of languages. San Diego, CA: Academic PressGoogle Scholar

Ellis, Nick C. 1996. ‘Sequencing in SLA: Phonological memory, chunking, and points of order’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18(1): 91–126Google Scholar

Ellis, Nick C. 2002. ‘Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24(2): 143–88Google Scholar

Ellis, Nick C. 2005. ‘At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27(2): 305–52Google Scholar

Ellis, Nick C. 2006a. ‘Language acquisition as rational contingency learning’, Applied Linguistics 27(1): 1–24Google Scholar

Ellis, Nick C. 2006b. ‘Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning’, Applied Linguistics 27(2): 164–94Google Scholar

Ellis, Nick C. 2012. ‘What can we count in language, and what counts in language acquisition, cognition, and use?’, in Gries, and Divjak, (eds.), pp. 7–34Google Scholar

Ellis, Nick C. 2013. ‘Construction grammar and second language acquisition’, in Hoffmann, and Trousdale, (eds.), pp. 365–78Google Scholar

Ellis, Nick C. 2016. ‘Frequency in language learning and language change: The contributions to this volume from a cognitive and psycholinguistic perspective’, in Behrens, and Pfänder, (eds.), pp. 239–54Google Scholar

Ellis, Nick C., and Beaton, Alan 1993. ‘Psycholinguistic determinants of foreign language vocabulary learning’, Language Learning 43(4): 559–617Google Scholar

Ellis, Nick C., and Larsen-Freeman, Diane 2006. ‘Language emergence: Implications for applied linguistics’, Applied Linguistics 27(4): 558–589Google Scholar

Ellis, Nick C., and Larsen-Freeman, Diane 2009. Language as a complex adaptive system. Oxford: Wiley-BlackwellGoogle Scholar

Ellis, Nick C., Römer, Ute, and O’Donnell, Matthew B. 2016. Usage-based approaches to language acquisition and processing: Cognitive and corpus investigations of construction grammar. Malden, MA: Wiley-BlackwellGoogle Scholar

Ellis, Nick C., and Sagarra, Nuria 2010. ‘The bounds of adult language acquisition: Blocking and learned attention’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 32(4): 553–80Google Scholar

Ellis, Nick C., and Sagarra, Nuria 2011. ‘Learned attention in adult language acquisition: A replication and generalization study and meta-analysis’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 33(4): 589–624Google Scholar

Ellis, Nick C., and Schmidt, Richard 1998. ‘Rules or associations in the acquisition of morphology? The frequency by regularity interaction in human and PDP learning of morphosyntax’, Language and Cognitive Processes 13(2–3): 307–36Google Scholar

Ellis, Nick C., and Simpson-Vlach, Rita 2009. ‘Formulaic language in native speakers: Triangulating psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and education’, Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 5(1): 61–78Google Scholar

Ellis, Nick C., Simpson-Vlach, Rita, and Maynard, Carson 2008. ‘Formulaic language in native and second-language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL’, TESOL Quarterly 42(3): 375–96Google Scholar

Elman, Jeffrey L. 1990. ‘Finding structure in time’, Cognitive Science 14(2): 179–211Google Scholar

Elman, Jeffrey L. 2003. ‘Generalization from sparse input’. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, pp. 175–200Google Scholar

Elman, Jeffrey L. 2004. ‘An alternative view of the mental lexicon’, Trends in Cognitive Science 8(7): 301–6Google Scholar

Elman, Jeffrey L., Bates, Elizabeth A., Johnson, Mark H., Karmiloff-Smith, Anette, Parisi, Domenico, and Plunkett, Kim 1996. Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. Cambridge, MA: The MIT PressGoogle Scholar

Erbaugh, Mary S. 1986. ‘Taking stock: The development of Chinese noun classifiers historically and in young children’, in Craig, (ed.), pp. 399–436Google Scholar

Erkelens, Maria A. 2009. ‘Learning to categorize verbs and nouns: Studies on Dutch’. Leiden: LOT dissertation, Nr. 211Google Scholar

Erman, Britt, and Kotsinas, Ulla-Britt 1993. Pragmaticalization: The case of ‘ba’ and ‘you know’, Studier i Modernspråkvetenskap 10: 76–93.Google Scholar

Erman, Britt, and Warren, Beatrice 2000. ‘The idiom principle and the open choice principle’, Text 20(1): 29–62Google Scholar

Evans, Nicholas, and Wilkins, David 2000. ‘In the mind’s ear: The Semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian languages’, Language 76(3): 546–92Google Scholar

Evans, Vyvyan, and Pourcel, Stephanie S. (eds.) 2009. New directions in cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: BenjaminsGoogle Scholar

Everett, Daniel L. 2012. Language: The cultural tool. New York: Pantheon BooksGoogle Scholar

Facchinetti, Roberta (ed.) 2007. Corpus linguistics 25 years on. Language and Computers – Studies in Practical Linguistics 62. Amsterdam and New York: RodopiGoogle Scholar

Farkas, Donka, Jacobsen, Wesley M., and Todrys, Karol W. (eds.) 1978. Papers from the parasession on the lexicon. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic SocietyGoogle Scholar

Featherston, Sam, and Sternefeld, Wolfgang (eds.) 2007. Roots: Linguistics in search of its evidential base. Berlin and New York: Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar

Felser, Claudia 1999. Verbal complement clauses: A minimalist study of direct perception constructions. Amsterdam: BenjaminsGoogle Scholar

Ferguson, Charles A., and Slobin, Dan I. (eds.) 1973. Studies of child language development. New York: Holt, Reinhart, and WinstonGoogle Scholar

Ferreira, Fernanda 2003. ‘The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences’, Cognitive Psychology 47(2): 164–203Google Scholar

Ferreira, Fernanda, and Clifton, Charles 1986. ‘The independence of syntactic processing’, Journal of Memory and Language 25(3): 348–68Google Scholar

Ferreira, Fernanda, and Henderson, John M. 1991. ‘Recovery from misanalyses of garden-path sentences’, Journal of Memory and Language 30(6): 725–45Google Scholar

Ferreira, Fernanda, and Patson, Nikole D. 2007. ‘The “good enough” approach to language comprehension’, Language and Linguistics Compass 1(1–2): 71–83Google Scholar

Ferreira, Victor S., Bock, J. Kathryn, Wilson, Michael P., and Cohen, Neal J. 2008. ‘Memory for syntax despite amnesia’, Psychological Science 19(9): 940–46Google Scholar

Ferrer-i-Cancho, Ramon, Dębowski, Łukasz, and Moscoso del Prado Martín, Fermín 2013. ‘Constant conditional entropy and related hypotheses’, Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 07: L07001Google Scholar

Ferrer-i-Cancho, Ramon, and Solé, Richard V. 2003. ‘Least effort and the origins of scaling in human language’. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100(3): 788–91Google Scholar

Field, John 2008. ‘Bricks or mortar: Which parts of the input does a second language listener rely on?’, Tesol Quarterly 42(3): 411–32Google Scholar

Fillmore, Charles J. 1977. ‘The case for case reopened’, in Cole, and Sadock, (eds.), pp. 59–81Google Scholar

Fine, Julian M., and Lieven, Elena V. M. 1993. ‘Reanalyzing rote-learned phrases: Individual differences in the transition to multi-word speech’, Journal of Child Language 20(3): 551–71Google Scholar

Firbas, Jan 1992. Functional sentence perspective in written and spoken communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Firth, John R. 1957. A synopsis of linguistic theory, 1930–1955. Oxford: Basil BlackwellGoogle Scholar

Fischer, Kirsten (ed.) 2006. Approaches to discourse markers. Oxford: ElsevierGoogle Scholar

Fischer, Olga 1988. ‘The rise of the “for NP to V” construction: An explanation’, in Nixon, and Honey, (eds.), pp. 67–88Google Scholar

Fischer, Olga 1994. ‘The development of quasi-auxiliaries in English and changes in word order’, Neophilologus 78(1): 137–64Google Scholar

Fischer, Olga 2000. ‘Grammaticalization: Unidirectional, non-reversable? The case of to before the infinitive in English’, in Fischer, , Rosenbach, and Stein, (eds.), pp. 149–70Google Scholar

Fischer, Olga 2007. Morphosyntactic change: Functional and formal perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Fischer, Olga 2011. ‘Grammaticalization as analogically driven change?’, in Narrog, and Heine, (eds.), pp. 31–42Google Scholar

Fischer, Olga 2015. ‘The influence of the grammatical system and analogy in processes of language change: The case of the auxiliation of HAVE-TO once again’, in Toupin, and Lowrey, (eds.), pp. 120–50Google Scholar

Fischer, Olga, and Olbertz, Hella forthcoming. ‘The role played by analogy in processes of language change: The case of English have to compared to Spanish tener que’, in Yáñez-Bouza, , Moore, , Hollmann, and van Bergen, (eds.)Google Scholar

Fischer, Olga, Rosenbach, Annette, and Stein, Dieter (eds.) 2000. Pathways of change: Grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: BenjaminsGoogle Scholar

Fischer, Olga, and van der Wurff, Wim 2006. ‘Syntax’, in Hogg, and Denison, (eds.), pp. 109–98Google Scholar

Fischer, Olga, van Kemenade, Ans, Koopman, Willem, and van der Wurff, Wim 2000. The syntax of early English. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Fisher, Cynthia 1996. ‘Structural limits on verb mapping: The role of analogy in children’s interpretations of sentences’, Cognitive Psychology 31(1): 41–81Google Scholar

Fisiak, Jacek (ed.) 1978. Recent developments in historical phonology. Berlin and New York: Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar

Fisiak, Jacek (ed.) 1980. Historical morphology. The Hague, Paris and New York: MoutonGoogle Scholar

Fisiak, Jacek (ed.) 1985. Historical semantics. Historical word-formation. Berlin, New York and Amsterdam: Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar

Fleischman, Suzanne 1982. The future in thought and language: Diachronic evidence from Romance. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Fletcher, Paul, and Garman, Michael (eds.) 1986. Language acquisition. Studies in first language development. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Fletcher, Paul, and MacWhinney, Brian (eds.) 1994. The handbook of child language. Oxford: BlackwellGoogle Scholar

Fodor, Janet D., and Inoue, Atsu 1994. ‘The diagnosis and cure of garden-paths’, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 23(5): 407–34Google Scholar

Fodor, Janet D., and Inoue, Atsu 2000. ‘Garden path reanalysis: Attach (anyway) and revision as last resort’, in de Vincenzi, and Lombardo, (eds.), pp. 21–62Google Scholar

Forster, Kenneth I. 1976. ‘Accessing the mental lexicon’, in Wales, and Walker, (eds.), pp. 231–56Google Scholar

Fought, Carmen (ed.) 2004. Sociolinguistic variation: Critical reflections. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Francis, Elaine J., and Yuasa, Etsuyo 2008. ‘A multi-modular approach to gradual change in grammaticalization’, Journal of Linguistics 44(1): 45–86Google Scholar

Francis, W. Nelson, and Kučera, Henry 1979. Brown corpus manual. Brown University: Department of LinguisticsGoogle Scholar

Frazier, Lyn 1979. On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Doctoral dissertation. University of Connecticut.Google Scholar

Frazier, Lyn 1987. ‘Sentence processing: A tutorial review’, in Coltheart, (ed.), pp. 559–86Google Scholar

Frazier, Lyn, and Clifton, Charles 1996. Construal. Cambridge, MA: The MIT PressGoogle Scholar

Frazier, Lyn, and Rayner, Keith 1982. ‘Making and correcting errors during sentence comprehension: Eye movements in the analysis of structurally ambiguous sentences’, Cognitive Psychology 14(2): 178–210Google Scholar

Frenck-Mestre, Cheryl, and Pynte, Joël 1997. ‘Syntactic ambiguity resolution while reading in second and native languages’, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 50(1): 119–48Google Scholar

Freudenthal, Daniel, Pine, Julian M., Aguado-Orea, Javier, and Gobet, Fernand 2007. ‘Modelling the developmental patterning of finiteness marking in English, Dutch, German and Spanish using MOSAIC’, Cognitive Science 31(2): 311–41Google Scholar

Freudenthal, Daniel, Pine, Julian M., and Gobet, Fernand 2009. ‘Simulating the referential properties of Dutch, German, and English root infinitives in MOSAIC’, Language Learning and Development 5(1): 1–29Google Scholar

Freudenthal, Daniel, Pine, Julian M., and Gobet, Fernand 2010. ‘Explaining quantitative variation in the rate of optional infinitive errors across languages: A comparison of MOSAIC and the Variational Learning Model’, Journal of Child Language 37(3): 643–69Google Scholar

Friederici, Angela 2002. ‘Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6(2): 78–84Google Scholar

Frisch, Stefan F., Large, Nathan R., Zawaydeh, Bushra, and Pisoni, David B. 2001. ‘Emergent phonotactic generalizations in English and Arabic’, in Bybee, and Hopper, (eds.), pp. 159–80Google Scholar

Fuchs, Susanne, Grice, Martine, Hermes, Anne, Lancia, Leonardo, and Mücke, Doris (eds.) 2014. Proceedings of the 10th International Seminar on Speech Production (ISSP), 5–8 May 2014. Cologne, Germany. Köln: Universität KölnGoogle Scholar

Gaeta, Livio, and Ricca, Davide 2006. ‘Productivity in Italian word formation: A variable-corpus approach’, Linguistics 44(1): 57–89Google Scholar

Gahl, Susanne 2008. ‘Time and thyme are not homophones: The effect of lemma frequency on word durations in spontaneous speech’, Language 84(3): 474–96Google Scholar

Gahl, Susanne, and Baayen, R. Harald in preparation. ‘Vowel space expands over the lifespan’.Google Scholar

Gahl, Susanne, Cibelli, Emily, Hall, Kathleen, and Sprouse, Ronald 2014. ‘The “UP” corpus: A corpus of speech samples across adulthood’, Corpus Linguistics and Lingustic Theory 10(2): 315–28Google Scholar

Gahl, Susanne, Yao, Yao, and Johnson, Keith 2012. ‘Why reduce? Phonological neighborhood density and phonetic reduction in spontaneous speech’, Journal of Memory and Language 66(4): 789–806Google Scholar

Galaburda, Albert M. (ed.) 1989. From reading to neurons. Issues in the Biology of Language and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT PressGoogle Scholar

Galbi, Douglas A. 2002. ‘Long-term trends in personal given name frequencies in England and Wales’, A Journal of Onomastic 51(4): 105–32Google Scholar

García Mayo, María d. P., Gutiérrez Mangado, María J., and Martínez Adrián, María (eds.) 2013. Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar

Gardner, Anne 2014. Derivation in Middle English: Regional and text type variation. Mémoires de la Société Néophilologique de Helsinki 92. Helsinki: Société NéophilologiqueGoogle Scholar

Gardner, Michael K., Rothkopf, Ernst Z., Lapan, Richard, and Lafferty, Toby 1987. ‘The word frequency effect in lexical decision: Finding a frequency-based component’, Memory and Cognition 15(1): 24–28Google Scholar

Garnsey, Susan M., Pearlmutter, Neal J., Myers, Elizabeth, and Lotocky, Melanie A. 1997. ‘The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences’, Journal of Memory and Language 37(1): 58–93Google Scholar

Garrett, Andrew 2011. ‘The historical syntax problem: Reanalysis and directionality’, in Jonas, , Whitman, and Garrett, (eds.), pp. 52–72Google Scholar

Garrod, Simon, and Anderson, Anthony 1987. ‘Saying what you mean in dialogue: A study in conceptual and semantic co-ordination’, Cognition 27(2): 181–218Google Scholar

Garrod, Simon, and Clark, Aileen 1993. ‘The development of dialogue co-ordination skills in schoolchildren’, Language and Cognitive Processes 8(1): 101–26Google Scholar

Garrod, Simon, and Doherty, Gwyneth 1994. ‘Conversation, co-ordination and convention: An empirical investigation of how groups establish linguistic conventions’, Cognition 53(3): 181–215Google Scholar

Gass, Susan M., and Mackey, Alison (eds.) 2012. The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition. London and New York: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar

Geeraerts, Dirk, and Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.) 2007. The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics. Oxford and New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Gentner, Dedre 1983. ‘Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy’, Cognitive Science 7(2): 155–70Google Scholar

Gentner, Dedre 1988. ‘Metaphor as structure mapping: The relational shift’, Child Development 59(1): 47–59Google Scholar

Gentner, Dedre 2003. ‘Why we’re so smart’, in Gentner, and Goldin-Meadow, (eds.), pp. 195–235Google Scholar

Gentner, Dedre 2010. ‘Bootstrapping the mind: Analogical processes and symbol systems’, Cognitive Science 34(5): 752–75Google Scholar

Gentner, Dedre, Anggoro, Florencia K., and Klibanoff, Raquel S. 2011. ‘Structure mapping and relational language support children’s learning of relational categories’, Child Development 82(4): 1173–88Google Scholar

Gentner, Dedre, and Colhoun, Julie 2010. ‘Analogical processes in human thinking and learning’, in Glatzeder, , Goel, and Müller, (eds.), pp. 35–48Google Scholar

Gentner, Dedre, and Goldin-Meadow, Susan (eds.) 2003. Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and cognition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT PressGoogle Scholar

Gentner, Dedre, Holyoak, Keith J., and Kokinov, Boicho K. (eds.) 2001. The analogical mind. Perspectives from cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: The MIT PressGoogle Scholar

Gentner, Dedre, Levine, Susan C., Ping, Raedy, Isaia, Ashley, Dhillon, Sonica, Bradley, Claire, and Honke, Garrett 2016. ‘Rapid learning in a children’s museum via analogical comparison’, Cognitive Science 40(1): 224–40Google Scholar

Gentner, Dedre, and Markman, Arthur B. 1997. ‘Structure mapping in analogy and similarity’, American Psychologist 52(1): 45–56Google Scholar

Gentner, Dedre, and Medina, Jose 1998. ‘Similarity and the development of rules’ Cognition 65(2): 263–97Google Scholar

Gentner, Dedre, and Namy, Laura L. 2006. ‘Analogical processes in language learning’, Current Directions in Psychological Science 15(6): 297–301Google Scholar

Gentner, Dedre, Rattermann, Mary J., and Forbus, Kenneth D. 1993. ‘The roles of similarity in transfer: Separating retrieval from inferential soundness’, Cognitive Psychology 25(4): 524–75Google Scholar

Gentner, Dedre, and Smith, Linsey 2012. ‘Analogical reasoning’, in Ramachandran, (ed.), pp. 130–36Google Scholar

Gernsbacher, Morton A. (ed.) 1994. Handbook of psycholinguistics. San Diego, CA: Academic PressGoogle Scholar

Gescheider, George A. 2013. Psychophysics: The fundamentals. New York and London: Psychology PressGoogle Scholar

Giacalone Ramat, Anna, Carruba, Onofrio, and Bernini, Giuliano (eds.) 1987. Papers from the 7th International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar

Giacalone Ramat, Anna, Mauri, Caterina, and Molinelli, Piera (eds.) 2013. Synchrony and diachrony: A dynamic interface. Amsterdam: BenjaminsGoogle Scholar

Gibson, Edward 1991. A computational theory of human linguistic processing: Memory limitations and processing breakdown. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Carnegie Mellon.Google Scholar

Gibson, Edward 1998. ‘Syntactic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies’, Cognition 68(1): 1–75Google Scholar

Gibson, Edward, and Pearlmutter, Neal 1998. ‘Constraints on sentence comprehension’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2(7): 262–68Google Scholar

Gibson, James J. 1977. The theory of affordances. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumGoogle Scholar

Gick, Bryan 2002. ‘The use of ultrasound for linguistic phonetic fieldwork’, Journal of the International Phonetic Association 32(2): 113–21Google Scholar

Gick, Mary L., and Holyoak, Keith J. 1980. ‘Analogical problem solving’, Cognitive Psychology 12(3): 306–55Google Scholar

Gilhooly, Ken J., and Logie, Robert H. 1980. ‘Age-of-acquisition, imagery, concreteness, familiarity, and ambiguity measures for 1,944 words’, Behavior Research Methods and Instrumentation 12(4): 395–427Google Scholar

Giora, Rachel 1997. ‘Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis’, Cognitive Linguistics 8(3): 183–206Google Scholar

Giora, Rachel 2003. On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Giora, Rachel 2012. ‘The psychology of utterance processing’, in Allan, and Jaszczolt, (eds.), pp. 151–67Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy 1971. ‘Historical syntax and synchronic morphology: An archeologist’s field trip’, Chicago Linguistic Society 7(1): 394–415Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy 1979. On understanding grammar. New York: Academic PressGoogle Scholar

Givón, Talmy 1998. ‘On the co-evolution of language, mind and brain’, Evolution of Communication 2(1): 45–116Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy 2002. ‘The visual information-processing system as an evolutionary precursor of human language’, in Givón, and Malle, (eds.), pp. 3–50Google Scholar

Givón, Talmy 2009. The genesis of syntactic complexity: Diachrony, ontogeny, neuro-cognition, evolution. Amsterdam: John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar

Givón, Talmy, and Malle, Bertram (eds.) 2002. The evolution of language out of pre-language. Amsterdam: BenjaminsGoogle Scholar

Glatzeder, Britt, Goel, Vinod, and Müller, Albrecht (eds.) 2010. On thinking, vol. 2: Towards a theory of thinking. Berlin: SpringerGoogle Scholar

Gleitman, Lila R. 1990. ‘The structural sources of verb meaning’, Language Acquisition 1(1): 3–55Google Scholar

Gluck, Mark A., Meeter, Martijn, and Myers, Catherine E. 2003. ‘Computational models of the hippocampal region: Linking incremental learning and episodic memory’, Trends in Cognitive Science 7(6): 269–76Google Scholar

Glushko, Robert J. 1979. ‘The organization and activation of orthographic knowledge in reading aloud’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 5(4): 674–91Google Scholar

Glynn, Dylan, and Fischer, Kerstin (eds.) 2010. Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches. Berlin and New York: Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar

Gnutzmann, Claus 1975. ‘Some aspects of grading’, English Studies 56(5): 421–33Google Scholar

Godden, Duncan R., and Baddeley, Alan D. 1975. ‘Context-dependent memory in two natural environments: On land and underwater’, British Journal of Psychology 66(3): 325–31Google Scholar

Goebel, Rainer, and Indefrey, Peter 2000. ‘A recurrent network with short-term memory capacity learning the German-s plural’, in Broeder, and Murre, (eds.), pp. 177–200Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar

Goldberg, Adele E. 2003. ‘Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language’, Trends in Cognitive Science 7(5): 219–24Google Scholar

Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at work. The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Goldrick, Matthew, Ferreira, Victor S., and Miozzo, Michele (eds.) 2014. The Oxford handbook of language production. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Goldschneider, Jennifer M., and DeKeyser, Robert 2001. ‘Explaining the “natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition” in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants’, Language Learning 51(1): 1–50Google Scholar

Goldwater, Micah B., Tomlinson, Marc T., Echols, Catharina H., and Love, Bradley C. 2011. ‘Structural priming as structure-mapping: Children use analogies from previous utterances to guide sentence production’, Cognitive Science 35(1): 156–70Google Scholar

Goodman, Judith C., Nusbaum, Howard C., Lee, Lisa, and Broihier, Kevin 1990. ‘The effects of syntactic and discourse variables on the segmental intelligibility of speech’. The First International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, ICSLP 1990, Kobe, Japan, November 18–22.Google Scholar

Goosens, Louis 1982. ‘On the development of the modals and of the epistemic function in English’, in Ahlqvist, (ed.), pp. 74–84Google Scholar

Gould, Stephen Jay 1977. Ontogeny and phylogeny. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar

Graddol, David 2000. The future of English. London: The British CouncilGoogle Scholar

Greene, Robert L. 1986. ‘Sources of recency effects in free recall’, Psychological Bulletin 99(2): 221–28Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th. 2003. ‘Towards a corpus-based identification of prototypical instances of constructions’, Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 1(1): 1–27Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th. 2005. ‘Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach’, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 34(4): 365–99Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th. 2008. ‘Dispersions and adjusted frequencies in corpora’, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 13(4): 403–37Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th. 2010. ‘Dispersions and adjusted frequencies in corpora: Further explorations’, in Gries, , Wulff, and Davies, (eds.), pp. 197–212Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th. 2013. ‘Sources of variability relevant to the (cognitive) sociolinguist, and quantitative corpus methods to handle them’, Journal of Pragmatics 52(6): 5–16Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th. 2015. ‘The most underused statistical method in corpus linguistics: Multi-level (and mixed-effects) models’, Corpora 10(1): 95–125Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th., and David, Caroline 2007. ‘This is kind of/sort of interesting: Variation in hedging in English’, VARIENG e-Series 2: Towards Multimedia in Corpus Studies. Helsinki: Research Unit for Variation, Contacts and Change in English (VARIENG). www.helsinki.fi/varieng/journal/volumes/02/gries_david/ [accessed August 23, 2010]Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th., and Divjak, Dagmar S. 2009. ‘Behavioral profiles: A corpus-based approach towards cognitive semantic analysis’, in Evans, and Pourcel, (eds.), pp. 57–75Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th., and Divjak, Dagmar S. (eds.) 2012. Frequency effects in language learning and processing. Berlin and New York: Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th., and Ellis, Nick C. 2015. ‘Statistical measures for usage-based linguistics’, Currents in Language Learning 65(s1): 228–55Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th., Hampe, Beate, and Schönefeld, Doris 2005. ‘Converging evidence: Bringing together experimental and corpus data on the association of verbs and constructions’, Cognitive Linguistics 16(4): 635–76Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th., and Stefanowitsch, Anatol 2004. ‘Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on “alternations”’, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(1): 97–129Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th., Wulff, Stefanie, and Davies, Mark (eds.) 2010. Corpus linguistic applications: Current studies, new directions. Amsterdam: RodopiGoogle Scholar

Griffin, Zenzi M. 2001. ‘Gaze durations during speech reflect word selection and phonological encoding’, Cognition 82(1): B1–B14Google Scholar

Guo, Jiansheng, Lieven, Elena V. M., Budwig, Nancy, Ervin-Tripp, Susan, Nakamura, Kei, and Őzçalişkan, Seyda (eds.) 2008. Cross-linguistic approaches to the psychology of language: Research in the tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin. New York and London: Psychology PressGoogle Scholar

Hahn, Ulrike, and Nakisa, Ramin C. 2000. ‘German inflection: Single route or dual route?’, Cognitive Psychology 41(4): 313–60Google Scholar

Haiman, John 1983. ‘Iconic and economic motivation’, Language 59(4): 781–819Google Scholar

Haiman, John (ed.) 1985. Iconicity in syntax. Amsterdam: John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar

Haiman, John 1994. ‘Ritualization and the development of language’, in Pagliuca, (ed.), pp. 3–28Google Scholar

Hale, John T. 2004. Grammar, uncertainty and sentence processing. Doctoral dissertation. The Johns Hopkins University.Google Scholar

Hale, John T. 2011. ‘What a rational parser would do’, Cognitive Science 35(3): 399–443Google Scholar

Hall, Kira, Koenig, Jean-Pierre, Meacham, Michael, Reinman, Sondra, and Sutton, Laurel A. (eds.) 1990. Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics SocietyGoogle Scholar

Halle, Michael 1962. ‘Phonology in generative grammar’, Word 18: 54–72Google Scholar

Hanks, Patrick 2013. Lexical analysis: Norms and exploitations. Cambridge, MA: The MIT PressGoogle Scholar

Hansen, Björn, and de Haan, Ferdinand 2009. Modals in the languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar

Hansen Mosegaard, Maj-Britt, and Waltereit, Richard 2006. ‘GCI theory and language change’, Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 38(1): 235–68Google Scholar

Harm, Michael W., and Seidenberg, Mark S. 1999. ‘Phonology, reading acquisition, and dyslexia: Insights from connectionist models’, Psychological Review 106(3): 491–528Google Scholar

Harnad, Steven R., Steklis, Horst D., and Lancaster, Jane (eds.) 1976. The origins and evolution of language and speech. New York: New York Academy of SciencesGoogle Scholar

Harris, Alice C., and Campbell, Lyle 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Hartsuiker, Robert J., Bernolet, Sarah, Schoonbaert, Sophie, Speybroeck, Sara, and Vanderelst, Dieter 2008. ‘Syntactic priming persists while the lexical boost decays: Evidence from written and spoken dialogue’, Journal of Memory and Language 58(2): 214–38Google Scholar

Hartsuiker, Robert J., and Kolk, Herman H. J. 1998. ‘Syntactic persistence in Dutch’, Language and Speech 41(2): 143–84Google Scholar

Haselow, Alexander 2011. ‘Discourse marker and modal particle: The functions of utterance-final then in spoken English’, Journal of Pragmatics 43(14): 3603–23Google Scholar

Haselow, Alexander 2012. ‘Discourse organization and the rise of final then in the history of English’, in Hegedüs, and Fodor, (eds.), pp. 153–75Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin 1998. ‘Does grammaticalization need reanalysis?’, Studies in Language 22(2): 315–51Google Scholar

Haspelmath, Martin 1999. ‘Why is grammaticalization irreversible?’, Linguistics 37(6): 1043–68Google Scholar

Hawkins, John A. (ed.) 1988. Explaining language universals. Oxford: Basil BlackwellGoogle Scholar

Hawkins, John A. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Hawkins, John A. 2012. ‘The drift of English towards invariable word order from a typological and Germanic perspective’, in Nevalainen, and Traugott, (eds.), pp. 622–32Google Scholar

Hawkins, John A. 2014. Cross-linguistic variation and efficiency. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Hay, Jennifer 2001. ‘Lexical frequency in morphology: Is everything relative?’, Linguistics 39(6): 1041–70Google Scholar

Hebb, Donald O. 1949. The organization of behaviour. New York: John Wiley and SonsGoogle Scholar

Hegedüs, Irén, and Fodor, Alexandra (eds.) 2012. English historical linguistics 2010. Amsterdam: BenjaminsGoogle Scholar

Heine, Bernd 1993. Auxiliaries: Cognitive forces and grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Heine, Bernd 2002. ‘On the role of context in grammaticalization’, in Wischer, and Diewald, (eds.), pp. 83–101Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd 2014. ‘Grammaticalization, metaphor, and explanation: What accounts for unidirectionality?’. Plenary paper presented at the Workshop de Gramaticalização II, Universidade Federal Fluminense, Niterói, May 7, 2014Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd, Claudi, Ulrike, and Hünnemeyer, Friederike 1991. Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar

Heine, Bernd, and Narrog, Heiko (eds.) 2011. The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Hendriks, Petra, Englert, Christina, Wubs, Ellis, and Hoeks, John 2008. ‘Age differences in adults’ use of referring expressions’, Journal of Logic, Language and Information 17(4): 443–66Google Scholar

Hendrix, Peter 2015. Experimental explorations of a discrimination learning approach to language processing. Doctoral dissertation. University of TübingenGoogle Scholar

Herron, Daniel, and Bates, Elizabeth 1997. ‘Sentential and acoustic factors in the recognition of open- and closed-class words’, Journal of Memory and Language 37(2): 217–39Google Scholar

Hickey, Raymond (ed.) 2003. Motives for language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Hickey, Raymond 2013. ‘English as a contact language in Ireland and Scotland’, in Schreier, and Hundt, (eds.), pp. 206–46Google Scholar

Hill, Robin L., and Murray, Wayne S. 2000. ‘Commas and spaces: Effects of punctuation on eye movements and sentence parsing’, in Kennedy, , Radach, , Heller, and Pynte, (eds.), pp. 565–89Google Scholar

Hilpert, Martin 2008. Germanic future constructions: A usage-based approach to language change. Amsterdam: John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar

Hilpert, Martin 2011. ‘Dynamic visualizations of language change: Motion charts on the basis of bivariate and multivariate data from diachronic corpora’, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 16(4): 435–61Google Scholar

Hilpert, Martin 2013. Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Hilpert, Martin, and Gries, Stefan Th. 2009. ‘Assessing frequency changes in multi-stage diachronic corpora: Applications for historical corpus linguistics and the study of language acquisition’, Literary and Linguistic Computing 34(4): 385–401Google Scholar

Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2004. ‘Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal?’, in Bisang, , Himmelmann, and Wiemer, (eds.), pp. 21–42Google Scholar

Hinskens, Frans, Auer, Peter, and Kerswill, Paul 2005. ‘The study of dialect convergence and divergence. Conceptual and methodological considerations’, in Auer, , Hinskens, and Kerswill, (eds.), pp. 1–50Google Scholar

Hock, Hans Heinrich 1991. Principles of historical linguistics. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Hodge, Carleton 1970. ‘The linguistic cycle’, Linguistic Sciences 13(7): 1–7Google Scholar

Hoffmann, Sebastian 2005. Grammaticalization and English complex prepositions: A corpus-based study. London and New York: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar

Hoffmann, Thomas, and Trousdale, Graeme (eds.) 2013. Oxford handbook of construction grammar. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Hofstadter, Douglas 1995. Fluid concepts and creative analogies. Computer models of the fundamental mechanisms of thought. New York: Basic BooksGoogle Scholar

Hofstadter, Douglas, and Sander, Emmanuel 2013. Surfaces and essences: Analogy as the fuel and fire of thinking. New York: Basic BooksGoogle Scholar

Hogg, Richard M. 1988. ‘Snuck: The development of irregular preterite forms’, in Nixon, and Honey, (eds.), pp. 31–40Google Scholar

Hogg, Richard M., and Denison, David (eds.) 2006. A history of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Hollmann, Willem B. 2003. Synchrony and diachrony of English periphrastic causatives: A cognitive perspective. Doctoral dissertation. University of Manchester.Google Scholar

Hollmann, Willem, and Siewierska, Anna 2006. ‘Corpora and (the need for) other methods in a study of a Lancashire dialect to require independent factors’, Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 53: 203–16.Google Scholar

Holmes, Virginia, Stowe, Laurie, and Cupples, Linda 1989. ‘Lexical expectations in parsing complement-verb sentences’, Journal of Memory and Language 28(6): 668–89Google Scholar

Holyoak, Keith J., and Thagard, Paul 1995. Mental leaps: Analogy in creative thought. Cambridge, MA: The MIT PressGoogle Scholar

Hooper, Celia R., and Cralidis, Ann 2009. ‘Normal changes in the speech of older adults: You’ve still got what it takes; it just takes a little longer!’, SIG 15 Perspectives on Gerontology 14(2): 47–56Google Scholar

Hooper, Joan B. 1976. ‘Word frequency in lexical diffusion and the source of morphophonological change’, in Christie, (ed.), pp. 96–105Google Scholar

Hooper, Joan B. 1980. ‘Child morphology and morphophonemic change’, in Fisiak, (ed.), pp. 157–87Google Scholar

Hopkins, Gerald M. 1918. ‘Pied Beauty’: Poems of Gerald Manley Hopkins. London: Humphrey MilfordGoogle Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. (ed.) 1982. Tense-aspect: Between semantics and pragmatics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar

Hopper, Paul J. 1998. ‘Emergent grammar’, in Tomasello, (ed.), pp. 155–75Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J., and Thompson, Sandra A. 1980. ‘Transitivity in grammar and discourse’, Language 56(2): 251–99Google Scholar

Hopper, Paul J., and Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2003. Grammaticalization. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Horn, Laurence R. 1984. ‘Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature’, in Schiffrin, (ed.), pp. 11–42Google Scholar

Huang, Yi Ting, and Pinker, Steven 2010. ‘Lexical semantics and irregular inflection’, Language and Cognitive Processes 25(10): 1411–61Google Scholar

Huddleston, Rodney D., and Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Hume, Elizabeth, Johnson, Keith, Seo, Misun, and Tserdanelis, Georgios 1999. ‘A cross-linguistic study of stop place perception’, in Ohala, , Hasegawa, , Ohala, , Granville, and Bailey, (eds.), pp. 2069–72Google Scholar

Hundt, Marianne (ed.) 2014a. Late Modern English syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Hundt, Marianne 2014b. ‘The demise of the being to V construction’, Transactions of the Philological Society 112(2): 167–87Google Scholar

Hundt, Marianne, and Leech, Geoffrey 2012. ‘“Small is beautiful”: On the value of standard reference corpora for observing recent grammatical change’, in Nevalainen, and Traugott, (eds.), pp. 175–88Google Scholar

Huttenlocher, Janellen, Vasilyeva, Marina, Cymerman, Elina, and Levine, Susan 2002. ‘Language input and child syntax’, Cognitive Psychology 45(3): 337–74Google Scholar

Huttenlocher, Janellen, Vasilyeva, Marina, and Shimpi, Priya 2004. ‘Syntactic priming in young children’, Journal of Memory and Language 50(2): 182–95Google Scholar

Ibbotson, Paul 2013. ‘The scope of usage-based theory’, Frontiers in Psychology 4: 255Google Scholar

Ibbotson, Paul, and Tomasello, Michael 2009. ‘Prototype constructions in early language acquisition’, Language and Cognition 1(1): 59–85Google Scholar

Itkonen, Esa 2005. Analogy as structure and process. Amsterdam: BenjaminsGoogle Scholar

Ivanova, Iva, Pickering, Martin J., Branigan, Holly P., McLean, Janet F., and Costa, Albert 2012. ‘The comprehension of anomalous sentences: Evidence from structural priming’, Cognition 122(2): 193–209Google Scholar

Jackendoff, Ray 2002. Foundations of language. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Jacob, Gunnar, and Felser, Claudia 2015. ‘Reanalysis and semantic persistence in native and non-native garden-path recovery’, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 69(5): 1–19Google Scholar

Jaeger, T. Florian, and Snider, Neal E. 2013. ‘Alignment as a consequence of expectation adaptation: Syntactic priming is affected by the prime’s prediction error given both prior and recent experience’, Cognition 127(1): 57–83Google Scholar

Jäger, Gerhard, and Rosenbach, Anette 2008. ‘Priming and unidirectional language change’, Theoretical Linguistics 34(2): 85–113Google Scholar

James, William 1890a. The principles of psychology, vol. 1. New York: DoverGoogle Scholar

James, William 1890b. The principles of psychology, vol. 2. New York: HoltGoogle Scholar

Jankowski, Bridget 2004. ‘A transatlantic perspective of variation and change in English deontic modality’, Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 23: 85–113Google Scholar

Jared, Debra, McRae, Ken, and Seidenberg, Mark S. 1990. ‘The basis of consistency effects in word naming’, Journal of Memory and Language 29(6): 687–715Google Scholar

Jescheniak, Jörg D., and Levelt, Willem J. M. 1994. ‘Word frequency effects in speech production: Retrieval of syntactic information and of phonological form’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 20(4): 824–43Google Scholar

Jespersen, Otto 1909–49. A Modern English grammar on historical principles. 7 vols. Heidelberg: WinterGoogle Scholar

Jespersen, Otto 1922. Language: Its nature, development and origin. London: Allen and UnwinGoogle Scholar

Jiang, Nan, and Nekrasova, Tatiana M. 2007. ‘The processing of formulaic sequences by second language speakers’, The Modern Language Journal 91(3): 433–45Google Scholar

Johnson, Christopher R. 1999. Constructional grounding: The role of interpretational overlap in lexical and constructional acquisition. Doctoral dissertation. University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar

Johnson, Christopher R. 2001. ‘Constructional grounding: On the relation between deictic and existential there constructions in acquisition’, in Cienki, , Luka, and Smith, (eds.), pp. 123–36Google Scholar

Johnson, Christopher R. 2005. ‘Developmental reinterpretation in first language acquisition’. Paper presented at the Symposium ‘Exemplar-based models in linguistics, 79th meeting of the Linguistic Society of America’, Oakland, January 9Google Scholar

Jonas, Dianne, Whitman, John, and Garrett, Andrew (eds.) 2011. Grammatical change: Origins, nature, outcomes. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Jones, Benjamin F. 2005. ‘The burden of knowledge and the “death of the Renaissance man”: Is innovation getting harder?’ Working Paper 11360.Google Scholar

Jones, Gregory V. 1985. ‘Deep dyslexia, imageability, and ease of predication’, Brain and Language 24(1): 1–19Google Scholar

Jones, Mari C., and Esch, Edith (eds.) 2002. Language change: The interplay of internal, external, and extra-linguistic factors. Berlin and New York: Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar

Joseph, Brian D., and Janda, Richard D. (eds.) 2003. The handbook of historical linguistics. Oxford: BlackwellGoogle Scholar

Jucker, Andreas H. 1995. Historical pragmatics: Pragmatic developments in the history of English. Amsterdam: BenjaminsGoogle Scholar

Jurafsky, Daniel 2002. ‘Probabilistic modeling in psycholinguistics: Linguistic comprehension and production’, in Bod, , Hay, and Jannedy, (eds.), pp. 39–96Google Scholar

Jurafsky, Daniel, Bell, Alan, Gregory, Michelle, and Raymond, William D. 2001. ‘Probabilistic relations between words: Evidence from reduction in lexical production’, in Bybee, and Hopper, (eds.), pp. 229–54Google Scholar

Kamide, Yuki, and Mitchell, Don 1999. ‘Incremental pre-head attachment in Japanese parsing’, Language and Cognitive Processes 14(5–6): 631–32Google Scholar

Kamin, Leon J. 1969. ‘Predictability, surprise, attention, and conditioning’, in Campbell, and Church, (eds.), pp. 279–96Google Scholar

Kantola, Leila, and van Gompel, Roger P. G. 2011. ‘Between- and within-language priming is the same: Evidence for shared bilingual syntactic representations’, Memory and Cognition 39(2): 276–90Google Scholar

Kaschak, Michael P. 2006. ‘What this construction needs is generalized’, Memory and Cognition 34(2): 368–79Google Scholar

Kaschak, Michael P., and Borreggine, Kristin L. 2008. ‘Is long-term structural priming affected by patterns of experience with individual verbs?’, Journal of Memory and Language 58(3): 862–78Google Scholar

Kaschak, Michael P., and Glenberg, Arthur M. 2004. ‘This construction needs learned’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 133(3): 450–67Google Scholar

Kaschak, Michael P., Kutta, Timothy J., and Coyle, Jacqueline M. 2014. ‘Long and short term cumulative structural priming effects’, Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 29(6): 728–43Google Scholar

Kaschak, Michael P., Kutta, Timothy J., and Schatschneider, Chris 2011. ‘Long-term cumulative structural priming persists for (at least) one week’, Memory and Cognition 39(3): 381–88Google Scholar

Kastovsky, Dieter (ed.) 1994. Studies in Modern English. Berlin: Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar

Kay, Paul 1997a. ‘The kind of/sort of construction’, in Kay, (ed.), pp. 145–58Google Scholar

Kay, Paul (ed.) 1997b. Words and the grammar of context. Stanford, CA: CSLI PublicationsGoogle Scholar

Ke, Jinyun 2006. ‘A cross-linguistic quantitative study of homophony’, Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 13(1): 129–59Google Scholar

Kecskes, Istvan 2012. ‘Sociopragmatics and cross-cultural and intercultural studies’, in Allan, and Jaszczolt, (eds.), pp. 599–616Google Scholar

Kecskes, Istvan 2013. Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Keizer, Evelien 2007. The English noun phrase: The nature of linguistic categorization. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Keller, Rudi 1994. On language change: The invisible hand in language. London: Routledge [Trans. Nerlich, Brigitte; first published 1990 in German]Google Scholar

Kello, Christopher T., Brown, Gordon D. A., Ferrer-i-Cancho, Ramon, Holden, John G., Linkenkaer-Hansen, Klaus, Rhodes, Theo, and van Orden, Guy C. 2010. ‘Scaling laws in cognitive sciences’, Trends in Cognitive Science 14(5): 223–32Google Scholar

Kemps, Rachel, Ernestus, Mirjam, Schreuder, Robert, and Baayen, R. Harald 2005a. ‘Prosodic cues for morphological complexity: The case of Dutch noun plurals’, Memory and Cognition 33(3): 430–46Google Scholar

Kemps, Rachel, Wurm, Lee H., Ernestus, Mirjam, Schreuder, Robert, and Baayen, R. Harald 2005b. ‘Prosodic cues for morphological complexity in Dutch and English’, Language and Cognitive Processes 20(1–2): 43–73Google Scholar

Kennedy, Alan, Radach, Ralph, Heller, Dieter, and Pynte, Joël (eds.) 2000. Reading as a perceptual process. Amsterdam: North-Holland/Elsevier Science PublishersGoogle Scholar

Kepser, Stephan, and Reis, Marga (eds.) 2005. Linguistic evidence. Empirical, theoretical, and computational perspectives. Berlin and New York: Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar

Kerswill, Paul 1996. ‘Children, adolescents and language change’, Language Variation and Change 8(2): 177–202Google Scholar

Kerswill, Paul, and Williams, Ann 2002. ‘“Salience” as an explanatory factor in language change: Evidence from dialect levelling in urban England’, in Jones, and Esch, (eds.), pp. 81–110Google Scholar

Keuleers, Emmanuel, Stevens, Michaël, Mandera, Pawel, and Brysbaert, Marc 2015. ‘Word knowledge in the crowd: Measuring vocabulary size and word prevalence in a massive online experiment’, The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 66(8): 1665–92Google Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul 1968. ‘Linguistic universals and linguistic change’, in Bach, and Harms, (eds.), pp. 170–202Google Scholar

Kiparsky, Paul 2014. ‘New perspectives in historical linguistics’, in Bowern, and Evans, (eds.), pp. 64–102Google Scholar

Kirby, Simon 1999. Function, selection and innateness. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Kirjavainen, Minna, Lieven, Elena V. M., and Theakston, Anna L. 2016. ‘Can infinitival to omissions and provisions be primed? An experimental investigation into the role of constructional competition in infinitival to omission errors’, Cognitive Science: 1–32 [DOI: 10.1111/cogs.12407]Google Scholar

Kirjavainen, Minna, and Theakston, Anna L. 2011. ‘Are infinitival to omission errors primed by prior discourse? The case of WANT constructions’, Cognitive Linguistics 22(4): 629–57Google Scholar

Kirjavainen, Minna, Theakston, Anna L., and Lieven, Elena V. M. 2009. ‘Can input explain children’s me-for-I errors?’, Journal of Child Language 36(5): 1091–114Google Scholar

Kirjavainen, Minna, Theakston, Anna L., Lieven, Elena V. M., and Tomasello, Michael 2009. ‘“I want hold Postman Pat”: An investigation into the acquisition of infinitival marker to’, First Language 29(3): 313–39Google Scholar

Klein, Wolfgang 1998. ‘The contribution of second language acquisition research’, Language Learning 48(4): 527–50Google Scholar

Köhler, Reinhard 1986. Zur linguistischen Synergetik: Struktur und Dynamik der Lexik. Bochum: BrockmeyerGoogle Scholar

Köhler, Reinhard, Altmann, Gabriel, and Piotrowski, Rajmund G. (eds.) 2005. Quantitative linguistics. An international handbook. Berlin and New York: Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar

Kohnen, Thomas, and Mair, Christian 2012. ‘Technologies of communication’, in Nevalainen, and Traugott, (eds.), pp. 261–84Google Scholar

Konopka, Agnieszka E., and Bock, J. Kathryn 2005. ‘Helping syntax out: What do words do?’ Paper presented at the CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, Tucson, ArizonaGoogle Scholar

Konopka, Agnieszka E., and Bock, J. Kathryn 2009. ‘Lexical or syntactic control of sentence formulation? Structural generalizations from idiom production’, Cognitive Psychology 58(1): 68–101Google Scholar

Köpcke, Klaus-Michael 1993. Schemata bei der Pluralbildung des Deutschen: Versuch einer kognitiven Morphologie. Tübingen: NarrGoogle Scholar

Köpcke, Klaus-Michael 1998. ‘The acquisition of plural marking in English and German revisited: Schemata vs. rules’, Journal of Child Language 25(2): 293–319Google Scholar

Kortmann, Bernd, and Lunkenheimer, Kerstin (eds.) 2013. The Mouton world atlas of variation in English. Berlin and New York: Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar

Krasnegor, Norman A., Rumbaugh, Duane M., Schiefelbusch, Richard L., and Studdert-Kennedy, Michael (eds.) 1991. Biological and behavioral determinants of language development. Mahwah, NJ: ErlbaumGoogle Scholar

Krause, Anne 2017. Frequency effects on entrenchment: converging evidence from ongoing language change. Doctoral dissertation, University of FreiburgGoogle Scholar

Kroch, Anthony 2001. ‘Syntactic change’, in Baltin, and Collins, (eds.), pp. 699–729Google Scholar

Krug, Manfred G. 1998. ‘String frequency. A cognitive motivating factor in coalescence, language processing, and linguistic change’, Journal of English Linguistics 26(4): 286–320Google Scholar

Krug, Manfred G. 2000. Emerging English modals: A corpus-based study of grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar

Kruschke, John K. 2006. ‘Learned attention’. Fifth International Conference on Development and Learning, June 2006. Indiana UniversityGoogle Scholar

Kruschke, John K., and Blair, Nathaniel J. 2000. ‘Blocking and backward blocking involve learned inattention’, Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 7(4): 636–45Google Scholar

Kuiper, Koenraad 1996. Smooth talkers: The linguistic performance of auctioneers and sportscasters. Mahwah, NJ: ErlbaumGoogle Scholar

Küntay, Aylin C., and Slobin, Dan I. 2002. ‘Putting interaction back into child language: Examples from Turkish’, Psychology of Language and Communication 6(1): 5–14Google Scholar

Kuperman, Victor, Pluymaekers, Mark, Ernestus, Mirjam, and Baayen, R. Harald 2007. ‘Morphological predictability and acoustic duration of interfixes in Dutch compounds’, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 121(4): 2261–71Google Scholar

Kuryłowicz, Jerzy 1949. ‘La nature des procès dits “analogiques”’, Acta Linguistica 5(1): 15–37Google Scholar

Kytö, Merja 1991. Manual to the diachronic part of the Helsinki Corpus of English Texts: Coding conventions and lists of source texts. 3rd edition. Helsinki: Department of English, University of HelsinkiGoogle Scholar

Kytö, Merja (ed.) 2012. English corpus linguistics: Crossing paths. Amsterdam: RodopiGoogle Scholar

Kytö, Merja, and Pahta, Päivi (eds.) 2016. The Cambridge handbook of English historical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Labov, William 1982. ‘Building on empirical foundations’, in Lehmann, and Malkiel, (eds.), pp. 17–92Google Scholar

Laird, John E., Newell, Allen, and Rosenbloom, Paul S. 1987. ‘Soar: An architecture for general intelligence’, Artificial intelligence 33(1): 1–64Google Scholar

Laird, John E., Rosenbloom, Paul S., and Newell, Allen 1986. ‘Chunking in Soar: The anatomy of a general learning mechanism’, Machine learning 1(1): 11–46Google Scholar

Lakoff, George 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar

Lamb, Michael E., and Brown, Ann L. (eds.) 1982. Advances in developmental psychology, vol. 2. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumGoogle Scholar

Lamendella, John T. 1976. ‘Relations between the ontogeny and phylogeny of language: A neo-recapitulationist view’, in Harnad, , Steklis, and Lancaster, (eds.), pp. 396–412Google Scholar

Landauer, Thomas K., and Dumais, Susan T. 1997. ‘A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge’, Psychological Review 104.2: 211–40.Google Scholar

Lang, Jürgen, and Neumann-Holzschuh, Ingrid (eds.) 1999. Reanalyse und Grammatikalisierung in den Romanischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer VerlagGoogle Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 1977. ‘Syntactic reanalysis’, in Li, (ed.), pp. 57–139Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University PressGoogle Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar, vol. 2: Descriptive application. Stanford, CA: Stanford University PressGoogle Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 2000. ‘A dynamic usage-based model’, in Barlow, and Kemmer, (eds.), pp. 1–63Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Langer, Jonas 2000. ‘The descent of cognitive development’, Developmental Science 3(4): 361–78Google Scholar

Larsen-Freeman, Diane 1997. ‘Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition’, Applied Linguistics 18(2): 141–65Google Scholar

Lass, Roger (ed.) 1999. The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. 3: 1476–1776. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Laxon, Veronica, Masterson, Jacqueline, and Coltheart, Veronika 1991. ‘Some bodies are easier to read: The effect of consistency and regularity on children’s reading’, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology 43(4): 793–824Google Scholar

Łęcki, Andrzej M. 2010. Grammaticalisation paths of have in English. Bern: Peter LangGoogle Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey 1981. Semantics: The study of meaning. 2nd edition. Harmondsworth: PenguinGoogle Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey, Hundt, Marianne, Mair, Christian, and Smith, Nicholas 2009. Change in contemporary English: A grammatical study. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey, Rayson, Paul, and Wilson, Andrew 2001. Word frequencies in written and spoken English: Based on the British National Corpus. London: LongmanGoogle Scholar

Legate, Julie A., and Yang, Charles 2007. ‘Morphosyntactic learning and the development of tense’, Language Acquisition 14(3): 315–44Google Scholar

Lehmann, Christian 2002. Thoughts on grammaticalization. 2nd edition. Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Erfurt (ASSidUE, 9) [under Schriftenverzeichnis, 2002] www.christianlehmann.eu/ [accessed April 19, 2016]Google Scholar

Lehmann, Winfred P., and Malkiel, Yakov (eds.) 1968. Directions for historical linguistics: A symposium. Austin: University of Texas PressGoogle Scholar

Lehmann, Winfred P., and Malkiel, Yakov (eds.) 1982. Perspectives on historical linguistics. Amsterdam: BenjaminsGoogle Scholar

Lenker, Ursula 2010. Argument and rhetoric. Adverbial connectors in the history of English. Berlin and New Work: Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar

Levelt, Willem J. M., and Kelter, Stephanie 1982. ‘Surface form and memory in question answering’, Cognitive Psychology 14(1): 78–106Google Scholar

Levelt, Willem J. M., Roelofs, Ardi, and Meyer, Antje S. 1999. ‘A theory of lexical access in speech production’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22(1): 1–38Google Scholar

Levinson, Stephen C. 1995. ‘Three levels of meaning’, in Palmer, (ed.), pp. 90–115Google Scholar

Li, Charles N. (ed.) 1977. Mechanisms of syntactic change. Austin, TX and London: University of Texas PressGoogle Scholar

Liberman, Mark 2010. ‘“Begging the question”: We have answers’. http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2290 [accessed April 19, 2016]Google Scholar

Lieberman, Erez, Michel, Jean-Baptiste, Jackson, Joe, Tang, Tina, and Nowak, Martin A. 2007. ‘Quantifying the evolutionary dynamics of language’, Nature 449(7163): 713–16Google Scholar

Lieven, Elena V. M. 2008. ‘Learning the English auxiliary: A usage-based approach’, in Behrens, (ed.), pp. 61–98Google Scholar

Lieven, Elena V. M. 2010. ‘Input and first language acquisition: Evaluating the role of frequency’, Lingua 120(11): 2546–56Google Scholar

Lieven, Elena V. M., Behrens, Heike, Speares, Jennifer, and Tomasello, Michael 2003. ‘Early syntactic creativity: A usage-based approach’, Journal of Child Language 30(1): 333–70Google Scholar

Lieven, Elena V. M., Pine, Julian M., and Dresner Barnes, Helen 1992. ‘Individual differences in early vocabulary development: Redefining the referential expressive dimension’, Journal of Child Language 19(2): 287–310Google Scholar

Lieven, Elena V. M., and Tomasello, Michael 2008. ‘Children’s first language acquisition from a usage-based perspective’, in Robinson, and Ellis, (eds.), pp. 168–96Google Scholar

Lightbown, Patsy M., and Spada, Nina 1999. How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Lightfoot, David 1979. Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Lightfoot, David 1991. How to set parameters: Arguments from language change. Cambridge, MA: The MIT PressGoogle Scholar

Lightfoot, David 1997. ‘Catastrophic change and learning theory’, Lingua 100(1): 171–92Google Scholar

Lightfoot, David 1999. The development of language: Acquisition, change, and evolution. Malden, MA and Oxford: BlackwellGoogle Scholar

Lightfoot, David 2006. How new languages emerge. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Lightfoot, David 2010. ‘Language acquisition and language change’, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 1(5): 677–84Google Scholar

Lima, Susan D., Corrigan, Roberta L., and Iverson, Gregory K. (eds.) 1994. The reality of linguistic rules. Amsterdam: John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar

Lindquist, Hans, and Mair, Christian (eds.) 2004. Corpus approaches to grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam: BenjaminsGoogle Scholar

Lipka, Leonhard 1985. ‘Inferential features in historical semantics’, in Fisiak, (ed.), pp. 339–54Google Scholar

Lively, Scott E., Pisoni, David B., and Goldinger, Stephen D. 1994. ‘Spoken word recognition: Research and theory’, in Gernsbacher, (ed.), pp. 265–301Google Scholar

Loebell, Helga, and Bock, J. Kathryn 2003. ‘Structural priming across languages’, Linguistics 41(5): 791–824Google Scholar

López-Couso, María José 2007. ‘Frequency effects: Middle English nis as a case in point’, in Mazzon, (ed.), pp. 165–78Google Scholar

López-Couso, María José 2011. ‘Developmental parallels in diachronic and ontogenetic grammaticalization: Existential there as a test case’, Folia Linguistica 45(1): 81–102Google Scholar

Lorenz, David 2013. Contractions of English semi-modals: The emancipating effect of frequency. Freiburg: RombachGoogle Scholar

Los, Bettelou 2005. The rise of the to-infinitive. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Loudermilk, Brandon C. 2013. ‘Psycholinguistic approaches’, in Bayley, , Cameron, and Lucas, (eds.), pp. 132–52Google Scholar

Luce, Paul A. 1986. ‘A computational analysis of uniqueness points in auditory word recognition’, Perception and Psychophysics 39(3): 155–58Google Scholar

Lüdeling, Anke and Evert, Stefan 2005. ‘The emergence of non-medical -itis. Corpus evidence and qualitative analysis’, in Kepser, and Reis, (eds.), pp. 315–33Google Scholar

Luka, Barbara J., and Barsalou, Lawrence W. 2005. ‘Structural facilitation: Mere exposure effects for grammatical acceptability as evidence for syntactic priming in comprehension’, Journal of Memory and Language 52(3): 436–59Google Scholar

Luka, Barbara J., and Choi, Heidi 2012. ‘Dynamic grammar in adults: Incidental learning of natural syntactic structures extends over 48 h’, Journal of Memory and Language 66(2): 345–60Google Scholar

Lyons, John 1995. Linguistic semantics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

MacDonald, Maryellen C. 1994. ‘Probabilistic constraints and syntactic ambiguity resolution’, Language and Cognitive Processes 9(2): 157–201Google Scholar

MacDonald, Maryellen C., Pearlmutter, Neal J., and Seidenberg, Mark S. 1994. ‘The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution’, Psychological Review 101(4): 676–703Google Scholar

MacDonald, Maryellen C., and Seidenberg, Mark S. 2006. ‘Constraint satisfaction accounts of lexical and sentence comprehension’, in Traxler, and Gernsbacher, (eds.), pp. 581–611Google Scholar

Mackintosh, Nicholas J. 1975. ‘A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement’, Psychological Review 82(4): 276–98Google Scholar

MacWhinney, Brian 1987a. ‘The competition model’, in MacWhinney, (ed.), pp. 249–308Google Scholar

MacWhinney, Brian (ed.) 1987b. Mechanisms of language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumGoogle Scholar

MacWhinney, Brian 2000. The CHILDES-Project: Tools for analyzing talk. 2 vols. 3rd edition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

MacWhinney, Brian 2004. ‘New directions in the competition model’, in Tomasello, and Slobin, (eds.), pp. 81–110Google Scholar

MacWhinney, Brian 2012. ‘The logic of the unified model’, in Gass, and Mackey, (eds.), pp. 211–27Google Scholar

MacWhinney, Brian, and O’Grady, William (eds.) 2015. The handbook of language emergence. Oxford: Wiley-BlackwellGoogle Scholar

Mair, Christian 2004. ‘Corpus linguistics and grammaticalisation theory: Statistics, frequencies, and beyond’, in Lindquist, and Mair, (eds.), pp. 121–50Google Scholar

Mair, Christian 2012. ‘From opportunistic to systematic use of the web as corpus: Do-Support with got (to) in contemporary American English’, in Nevalainen, and Traugott, (eds.), pp. 245–55Google Scholar

Mair, Christian 2014. ‘Do we got a difference? – Divergent developments of semi-auxiliary (have) got (to) in BrE and AmE’, in Hundt, (ed.), pp. 56–76Google Scholar

Majid, Asifa, Bowerman, Melissa, Kita, Sotaro, Haun, Daniel B. M., and Levinson, Stephen C. 2004. ‘Can language restructure cognition? The case for space’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8(3): 108–14Google Scholar

Malchukov, Andrej, and Siewierska, Anna (eds.) 2011. Impersonal constructions. A cross-linguistic perspective. Amsterdam: BenjaminsGoogle Scholar

Manabe, Kazumi 1989. The syntactic and stylistic development of the infinitive in Middle English. Fukuoka: Kyushu University PressGoogle Scholar

Mańczak, Witold 1958. ‘Tendences générales des changements analogiques’, Lingua 7: 298–325Google Scholar

Mandler, Jean M. 2008. ‘On the birth and growth of concepts’, Philosophical Psychology 21(2): 207–30Google Scholar

Marcus, Gary F., Brinkmann, Ursula, Clahsen, Harald, Wiese, Richard, and Pinker, Steven 1995. ‘German inflection: The exception that proves the rule’, Cognitive Psychology 29(3): 189–256Google Scholar

Marcus, Gary F., Pinker, Steven, Ullman, Michael, Hollander, Michelle, Rosen, T. John, Xu, Fei, and Clahsen, Harald 1992. ‘Overregularization in language acquisition’, Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 57(4): 1–178Google Scholar

Marcus, Gary F., Vijayan, S., Bandi Rao, Shoba, and Vishton, Peter M. 1999. ‘Rule learning by seven-month-old infants’, Science 283(5398): 77–80Google Scholar

Markman, Arthur B., and Gentner, Dedre 1993. ‘Structural alignment during similarity comparisons’, Cognitive Psychology 25(4): 431–67Google Scholar

Marslen-Wilson, William 1973. ‘Linguistic structure and speech shadowing at very short latencies’, Nature 244: 522–33Google Scholar

Marslen-Wilson, William 1990. ‘Activation, competition, and frequency in lexical access’, in Altmann, (ed.), pp. 148–72Google Scholar

Marsolek, Chad J. 2008. ‘What antipriming reveals about priming’, Trends in Cognitive Science 12(5): 176–81Google Scholar

Maslen, Robert J. C., Theakston, Anna L., Lieven, Elena V. M., and Tomasello, Michael 2004. ‘A dense corpus study of past tense and plural overregularization in English’, Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research 47(6): 1319–33Google Scholar

Matthews, Peter H. 2014. The positions of adjectives in English. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Matthey, Marinette 2001. ‘Le changement linguistique: Évolution, variation, hétérogénéité. Actes du colloque de Neuchâtel Université, Neuchâtel, Suisse 2–4 Octobre 2000 [Linguistic change: Evolution, variation, heterogeneity. Proceedings of the University of Neuchâtel colloquium, Neuchâtel, Switzerland, October 2–4, 2000]’, Travaux Neuchâtelois de Linguistique 34: 273–303Google Scholar

Mayerthaler, Willi 1981. Morphologische Natürlichkeit. Wiesbaden: AthenaionGoogle Scholar

Mazzon, Gabriella (ed.) 2007. Studies in Middle English forms and meanings. Frankfurt am Main, etc.: Peter LangGoogle Scholar

Menn, Lise, and Stoel-Gammon, Carol 1994. ‘Phonological development’, in Fletcher, and MacWhinney, (eds.), pp. 335–59Google Scholar

McCauley, Stewart M., and Christiansen, Morten H. 2014. ‘Acquiring formulaic language: A computational model’, Mental Lexicon 9(3): 419–36Google Scholar

McClelland, James L., and Elman, Jeffrey L. 1986. ‘The TRACE model of speech perception’, Cognitive Psychology 18(1): 1–86Google Scholar

McCullough, Gretchen 2012. ‘Because reasons’, All Things Linguistic, July 4, 2012. http://allthingslinguistic.com/post/26522214342/because-reasons [accessed December 27, 2014]Google Scholar

McCullough, Gretchen 2013. ‘Where “because noun” probably came from’, All Things Linguistic, 19 November 2013. http://allthingslinguistic.com/post/67507311833/where-because-noun-probably-came-from [accessed December 27, 2014]Google Scholar

McDaniel, Dana, McKee, Cecile, Cowart, Wayne, and Garrett, Merrill F. 2015. ‘The role of the language production system in shaping grammars’, Language 91(2): 415–41Google Scholar

McDonald, Scott A., and Shillcock, Richard C. 2003a. ‘Eye-movements reveal the on-line computation of lexical probabilities during reading’, Psychological Science 14(6): 648–52Google Scholar

McDonald, Scott A., and Shillcock, Richard C. 2003b. ‘Low-level predictive inference in reading: The influence of transitional probabilities on eye movements’, Vision Research 43(16): 1735–51Google Scholar

McDonough, Kim, and Trofimovich, Pavel 2008. Using priming methods in second language research. London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar

McRae, Ken, and Matsuki, Kazunaga 2013. ‘Constraint-based models of sentence processing’, in van Gompel, (ed.), pp. 51–77Google Scholar

McRae, Ken, Spivey-Knowlton, Michael J., and Tanenhaus, Michael K. 1998. ‘Modeling the influence of thematic fit (and other constraints) in on-line sentence comprehension’, Journal of Memory and Language 38(3): 283–312Google Scholar

McWhorter, John 2001. ‘The world’s simplest grammars are creole grammars’, Language Typology 5(2–3): 125–66Google Scholar

McWhorter, John 2002. The power of Babel: A natural history of language. San Franciso, CA: W. H. Freeman and Co.Google Scholar

McWhorter, John 2004. The story of human language. Lecture 24: Language interrupted. The Great Courses. The Teaching Company Limited PartnershipGoogle Scholar

Meibauer, Jörg, Guttropf, Anja, and Scherer, Carmen 2004. ‘Dynamic aspects of German -er-nominals: A probe into the interrelation of language change and language acquisition’, Linguistics 42(1): 155–93Google Scholar

Meillet, Antoine (ed.) 1951/1958. Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. 2 vols. Paris: Klincksieck/ChampionGoogle Scholar

Meillet, Antoine 1958. ‘L’évolution des formes grammaticales’, in Meillet, (ed.), pp. 130–48 [First published 1912 in Scientia [Rivista di Scienza]: 12]Google Scholar

Meisel, Jürgen 2011. ‘Bilingual language acquisition and theories of diachronic change: Bilingualism as cause and effect of grammatical change’, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 14(2): 121–45Google Scholar

Meisel, Jürgen, Elsig, Martin, and Rinke, Esther 2013. Language acquisition and change: A morphosyntactic perspective. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University PressGoogle Scholar

Meurman-Solin, Anneli, López-Couso, María José, and Los, Bettelou (eds.) 2012. Information structure and syntactic change in the history of English. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Meyerhoff, Miriam 1992. ‘“A sort of something” – Hedging strategies on nouns’, Working Papers on Language, Gender and Sexism 2(1): 59–73Google Scholar

Meylan, Stephan C., and Gahl, Susanne 2014. ‘The divergent lexicon: Lexical overlap decreases with age in a large corpus of conversational speech’, in Bello, , Guarini, , McShane, and Scassellati, (eds.), pp. 1006–11Google Scholar

Michel, Jean-Baptiste, Shen, Yuan Kui, Presser Aiden, Aviva, Veres, Adrian, Gray, Matthew K., The Google Books Team, Pickett, Joseph P., Hoiberg, Dale, Clancy, Dan, Norvig, Peter, Orwant, Jon, Pinker, Steven, Nowak, Martin A., and Lieberman, Aiden, Erez 2011. ‘Quantitative analysis of culture using millions of digitized books’, Science 331(6014): 176–82Google Scholar

Milin, Petar, Feldman, Laurie B., Ramscar, Michael, Hendrix, P., Baayen, R. Harald (2017). ‘Discrimination in lexical decision.’ PLoS ONE, 12(2), e0171935Google Scholar

Miller, George A. 1956. ‘The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information’, Psychological Review 63(2): 81–97Google Scholar

Miller, George A. 1958. ‘Free recall of redundant strings of letters’, Journal of Experimental Psychology 56(6): 485Google Scholar

Miller, George A. 1990. ‘Linguists, psychologists and the cognitive sciences’, Language 66(2): 317–22Google Scholar

Miller, George A., Bruner, Jerome S., and Postman, Leo 1954. ‘Familiarity of letter sequences and tachistoscopic identification’, Journal of General Psychology 50(1): 129–39Google Scholar

Miller, George A., and Selfridge, Jennifer A. 1950. ‘Verbal context and the recall of meaningful material’, The American Journal of Psychology 63(2): 176–85Google Scholar

Milroy, James 1992. Linguistic variation and change: On the historical sociolinguistics of English. Oxford: BlackwellGoogle Scholar

Mintz, Toben H. 2003. ‘Frequent frames as a cue for grammatical categories in child directed speech’, Cognition 90(1): 91–117Google Scholar

Mitchell, Tom M., Shinkareva, Svetlana V., Carlson, Andrew, Chang, Kai-Min, Malave, Vicente L., Mason, Robert A., and Just, Marcel A. 2008. ‘Predicting human brain activity associated with the meanings of nouns’, Science 320(5880): 1191–95Google Scholar

Molnar, Monika, and Sabastián-Galles, Núria (eds.) 2014. The roots of language learning: Infant language acquisition. Hoboken: WileyGoogle Scholar

Montermini, Fabio, Boyé, Gilles, and Hathout, Nabil 2007. Selected proceedings of the 5th Décembrettes: Morphology in Toulouse. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings ProjectGoogle Scholar

Montgomery, Chris 2012. ‘Perceptions of dialects: Changing attitudes and ideologies’, in Nevalainen, and Traugott, (eds.), pp. 457–69Google Scholar

Morton, John 1969. ‘Interaction of information in word recognition’, Psychological Review 76(2): 165–78Google Scholar

Mufwene, Salikoko S. 2001. The ecology of language evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Mufwene, Salikoko S. 2008. Language evolution: Contact, competition and change. London: Continuum International Publishing GroupGoogle Scholar

Mugdan, Joachim 1977. Flexionsmorphologie und Psycholinguistik. Tübingen: NarrGoogle Scholar

Müller, Max 1890. The science of language. New York: Charles ScribnerGoogle Scholar

Naigles, Letitia R., Hoff, Erika, Vear, Donna, Tomasello, Michael, Brandt, Silke, Waxman, Sandra R., Childers, Jane B., and Collins, W. Andrew 2009. ‘Flexibility in early verb use: Evidence from a multiple-N diary study’, Monographs for the Society for Research in Child Development 74(2): 1–144Google Scholar

Narrog, Heiko 2005. ‘Modality, mood, and change of modal meanings: A new perspective’, Cognitive Linguistics 16(4): 677–731Google Scholar

Narrog, Heiko, and Heine, Bernd (eds.) 2011. The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Nesselhauf, Nadja 2010. ‘The development of future time expressions in Late Modern English: Redistribution of forms or change in discourse?’, English Language and Linguistics 14(2): 163–86Google Scholar

Nevala, Minna 2016. ‘Processes of sociolinguistic and sociopragmatic change’, in Kytö, and Pahta, (eds.), pp. 286–300Google Scholar

Nevalainen, Terttu, and Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena 2003. Historical sociolinguistics. London: LongmanGoogle Scholar

Nevalainen, Terttu, and Traugott, Elizabeth C. (eds.) 2012. The Oxford handbook of the history of English. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Newell, Allen 1990. Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT PressGoogle Scholar

Ninio, Anat 2006. Language and the learning curve. A new theory of syntactic development. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Ninio, Anat 2011. Syntactic development, its input and output. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Nixon, Graham, and Honey, John (eds.) 1988. An historic tongue: Studies in English linguistics in memory of Barbara Strang. London and New York: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar

Noël, Dirk 2012. ‘Grammaticalization in diachronic construction grammar’. Lecture held at the Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, Brasil, November 27, 2012Google Scholar

Nowak, Martin A., Komaraova, Natalia L., and Niyogi, Partha 2002. ‘Computational and evolutionary aspects of language’, Nature 417(6889): 611–17Google Scholar

Nunberg, Geoffrey, Sag, Ivan A., and Wasow, Thomas 1994. ‘Idioms’, Language 70(3): 491–538Google Scholar

O’Donnell, Matthew B., Römer, Ute, and Ellis, Nick C. 2013. ‘The development of formulaic sequences in first and second language writing: Investigating effects of frequency, association, and native norm’, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18(1): 83–108Google Scholar

Ohala, John J., Hasegawa, Yoko, Ohala, Manjari, Granville, Daniel, and Bailey, Ashlee C. (eds.) 1999. 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS-14), San Francisco, CA, USA, August 1–7, 1999Google Scholar

Oldfield, Richard C., and Wingfield, Arthur 1965. ‘Response latencies in naming objects’, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 17(4): 273–81Google Scholar

Osgood, Charles E. 1957. The measurement of meaning. Illinois: University of Illinois PressGoogle Scholar

Pagliuca, William (ed.) 1994. Perspectives on grammaticalization. Amsterdam: BenjaminsGoogle Scholar

Paivio, Allan 1971. Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart and WinstonGoogle Scholar

Paivio, Allan 1986. Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Paivio, Allan, Yuille, John C., and Madigan, Stephen A. 1968. ‘Concreteness, imagery, and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns’, Journal of Experimental Psychology 76(1): Suppl.: 1–25Google Scholar

Palmer, Frank R. (ed.) 1995. Grammar and meaning. Essays in honour of Sir John Lyons. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Palmore, Erdman B., and Manton, Kenneth 1973. ‘Ageism compared to racism and sexism’, Journal of Gerontology 28(3): 363–69Google Scholar

Papadopoulou, Despina, and Clahsen, Harald 2003. ‘Parsing strategies in L1 and L2 sentence processing: A study of relative clause attachment in Greek’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 25: 501–28Google Scholar

Papafragou, Anna 2001. ‘Linking early linguistic and conceptual capacities: The role of Theory of Mind’, in Cienki, , Luka, and Smith, (eds.), pp. 169–84Google Scholar

Parker, Frank 1976. ‘Language change and the passive voice’, Language 52(4): 449–60Google Scholar

Partington, Alan 2011. ‘Phrasal irony: Its form, function and exploitation’, Journal of Pragmatics 43(6): 1786–800Google Scholar

Paul, Hermann 1880/1960. Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. 6th edition. Halle: NiemeyerGoogle Scholar

Payne, Doris L. 2011. ‘The Maa (Eastern Nilotic) impersonal construction’, in Malchukov, and Siewierska, (eds.), pp. 257–84Google Scholar

Perdue, Clive (ed.) 1993. Adult language acquisition: Crosslinguistic perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Pérez, Aveline 1990. ‘Time in motion: Grammaticalization of the be going to construction in English’, La Trobe Working Papers in Linguistics 3: 49–64Google Scholar

Perruchet, Pierre, and Pacton, Sebastien 2006. ‘Implicit learning and statistical learning: One phenomenon, two approaches’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10(5): 233–38Google Scholar

Peter, Michelle, Chang, Franklin, Pine, Julian M., Blything, Ryan, and Rowland, Caroline F. 2015. ‘When and how do children develop knowledge of verb argument structure? Evidence from verb bias effects in a structural priming task’, Journal of Memory and Language 81: 1–15Google Scholar

Peters, Ann M. 1983. The units of language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Peterson, Robert R., Burgess, Curt, Dell, Gary S., and Eberhard, Kathleen M. 2001. ‘Disassociation between syntactic and semantic processing during idiom comprehension’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 27(5): 1223–37Google Scholar

Petré, Peter 2009. ‘Leuven English Old to New (LEON): Some ideas on a new corpus for longitudinal diachronic studies’. Paper presented at the Middle and Modern English Corpus Linguistics (MMECL) Conference, University of Innsbruck, July 5–9, 2009Google Scholar

Petré, Peter, and Cuyckens, H. 2008. ‘Bedusted, yet not beheaded: The role of be-’s constructional properties in its conservation’, in Bergs, and Diewald, (eds.), pp. 133–69Google Scholar

Pexman, Penny M., Siakaluk, Paul D., and Yap, Melvin J. 2013. ‘Introduction to the research topic meaning in mind: Semantic richness effects in language processing’, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 7: 723Google Scholar

Pexman, Penny M., Siakaluk, Paul D., and Yap, Melvin J. 2014. Meaning in mind: Semantic richness effects in language processing. Frontiers E-BooksGoogle Scholar

Phillips, Colin 2013. ‘Some arguments and non-arguments for reductionist accounts of syntactic phenomena’, Language and Cognitive Processes 28(1–2): 156–87Google Scholar

Piaget, Jean 1969. ‘Genetic epistemology’, Columbia Forum 12: 4–11Google Scholar

Piantadosi, Steven T., Tily, Harry, and Gibson, Edward 2011. ‘Word lengths are optimized for efficient communication’. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108(9): 3526–9Google Scholar

Piantadosi, Steven T., Tily, Harry, and Gibson, Edward 2012. ‘The communicative function of ambiguity in language’, Cognition 122(3): 280–91Google Scholar

Pica, Teresa 1983. ‘Adult acquisition of English as a second language under different conditions of exposure’, Language Learning 33(4): 465–97Google Scholar

Pickering, Martin J. 2006. ‘The dance of dialogue’, The Psychologist 19(12): 734–37Google Scholar

Pickering, Martin J., and Branigan, Holly P. 1998. ‘The representation of verbs: Evidence from syntactic priming in language production’, Journal of Memory and Language 39(4): 633–51Google Scholar

Pickering, Martin J., and Ferreira, Victor S. 2008. ‘Structural priming: A critical review’, Psychological Bulletin 134(3): 427–59Google Scholar

Pickering, Martin J., and Garrod, Simon C. 2004. ‘Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27(2): 169–225Google Scholar

Pickering, Martin J., and Garrod, Simon C. 2006. ‘Alignment as the basis for successful communication’, Research on Language and Computation 4(2–3): 203–28Google Scholar

Pickering, Martin J., and Garrod, Simon C. 2013. ‘An integrated theory of language production and comprehension’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36(4): 329–47Google Scholar

Pickering, Martin J., McElree, Brian, Frisson, Steven, Chen, Lillian, and Traxler, Matthew 2006. ‘Underspecification and aspectual coercion’, Discourse Processes 42(2): 131–55Google Scholar

Pickering, Martin J., and Traxler, Matthew 1998. ‘Plausibility and recovery from garden paths: An eye-tracking study’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 24(4): 940–61Google Scholar

Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 2001. ‘Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition, and contrast’, in Bybee, and Hopper, (eds.), pp. 137–57Google Scholar

Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 2012. ‘Burstiness of verbs and derived nouns’, in Santos, , Linden, and Ng’ang’a, (eds.), pp. 99–116Google Scholar

Pinker, Steven 1989. Learnability and cognition: The Acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge: The MIT PressGoogle Scholar

Pinker, Steven 1999. Words and rules: The ingredients of language. New York: Basic BooksGoogle Scholar

Pinker, Steven, and Prince, Alan 1988. ‘On language and connectionism: Analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition’, Cognition 28(1): 59–102Google Scholar

Pinker, Steven, and Ullman, Michael T. 2002. ‘The past and future of the past tense’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6(11): 456–63Google Scholar

Pintzuk, Susan, Tsoulas, George, and Warner, Anthony (eds.) 2001. Diachronic syntax: Models and mechanisms. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Plag, Ingo, Homann, Julia, and Kunter, Gero 2014. ‘Homophony and morphology: The acoustics of word-final s in English’. Manuscript. University of Düsseldorf.Google Scholar

Podesva, Robert J., and Sharma, Devyani (eds.) 2014. Research methods in linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Polikarpov, Anatoliy A. 2006. Cognitive model of lexical system evolution and its verification. www.philol.msu.ru/~lex/articles/cogn_ev.htm [accessed April 19, 2016]Google Scholar

Preston, Dennis R. 2004. ‘Three kinds of sociolinguistics: A psycholinguistic perspective’, in Fought, (ed.), pp. 140–58Google Scholar

Pritchett, Bradley 1992. Grammatical competence and parsing performance. Chicago: University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar

Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1997. ‘The morpholexical nature of English to-contraction’, Language 73: 79–102Google Scholar

Pulvermüller, Friedemann 1999. ‘Words in the brain’s language’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22: 253–336Google Scholar

Pye, Clifton 1980. ‘The acquisition of person markers in Quich Mayan’, Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 19: 53–9Google Scholar

Quirk, Randolph 1965. ‘Descriptive statement and serial relationship’, Language 41(2): 205–17Google Scholar

Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey, and Svartvik, Jan 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London and New York: LongmanGoogle Scholar

Rács, Péter 2013. Salience in sociolinguistics: A quantitative approach. Berlin and New York: Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar

Radford, Andrew, Felser, Claudia, and Boxell, Oliver 2012. ‘Preposition copying and pruning in present-day English’, English Language and Linguistics 16(3): 403–26Google Scholar

Ramachandran, Vilayanur S. (ed.) 2012. Encyclopedia of human behavior. Oxford: ElsevierGoogle Scholar

Ramat, Paolo, and Ricca, Davide 1994. ‘Prototypical adverbs: On the scalarity/radiality of the notion ADVERB’, Rivista di Linguistica 6.2: 289–326.Google Scholar

Ramscar, Michael, and Baayen, R. Harald 2013. ‘Production, comprehension, and synthesis: A communicative perspective on language’, Frontiers in Psychology 4: 233Google Scholar

Ramscar, Michael, Dye, Melody, and McCauley, Stewart M. 2013a. ‘Error and expectation in language learning: The curious absence of mouses in adult speech’, Language 89(4): 760–93Google Scholar

Ramscar, Michael, Hendrix, Peter, Love, Bradley, and Baayen, R. Harald 2013b. ‘Learning is not decline: The mental lexicon as a window into cognition across the lifespan’, The Mental Lexicon 8: 450–81Google Scholar

Ramscar, Michael, Hendrix, Peter, Shaoul, Cyrus, Milin, Petar, and Baayen, R. Harald 2014. ‘The myth of cognitive decline: Non-linear dynamics of lifelong learning’, Topics in Cognitive Science 6(1): 5–42Google Scholar

Ramscar, Michael, Smith, Asha Halima, Dye, Melody, Futrell, Richard, Hendrix, Peter, Baayen, R. Harald, and Starr, Rebecca 2013c. ‘The “universal” structure of name grammars and the impact of social engineering on the evolution of natural information systems’. Proceedings of the 35th Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Berlin, Germany, July 31–August 3, 2013.Google Scholar

Ramscar, Michael, Yarlett, Daniel, Dye, Melody, Denny, Katie, and Thorpe, Kirsten 2010. ‘The effects of feature-label order and their implications for symbolic learning’, Cognitive Science 34(6): 909–57Google Scholar

Rasmussen, Nicolas 1991. ‘The decline of recapitulationism in early twentieth-century biology: Disciplinary conflict and consensus on the battleground of theory’, Journal of the History of Biology 24(1): 51–89Google Scholar

Ravid, Dorit 1995. Language change in child and adult Hebrew: A psycholinguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Ravid, Dorit, Dressler, Wolfgang U., Nir-Sagiv, Bracha, Korecky-Kröll, Katharina, Souman, Agnita, Rehfeldt, Katja, Laaha, Sabine, Bertl, Johannes, Basbøll, Hans, and Gillis, Steven 2008. ‘Core morphology in child directed speech: Crosslinguistic corpus analyses of noun plurals’, in Behrens, (ed.), pp. 25–60Google Scholar

Reali, Florencia, and Christiansen, Morten H. 2007. ‘Processing of relative clauses is made easier by frequency of occurrence’, Journal of Memory and Language 57(1): 1–23Google Scholar

Reber, Arthur S. 1993. Implicit learning and tacit knowledge: An essay on the cognitive unconscious. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Reber, Arthur S., Kassin, Saul M., Lewis, Selma, and Cantor, Gary W. 1980. ‘On the relationship between implicit and explicit modes in the learning of a complex rule structure’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory 6(5): 492–502Google Scholar

Reber, Paul J., and Squire, Larry R. 1998. ‘Encapsulation of implicit and explicit memory in sequence learning’, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 10(2): 248–63Google Scholar

Rebuschat, Patrick (ed.) 2015. Implicit and explicit learning of language. Amsterdam: John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar

Rebuschat, Patrick, and Williams, John N. (eds.) 2012. Statistical learning and language acquisition. Berlin: Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar

Redington, Martin, and Chater, Nick 1998. ‘Connectionist and statistical approaches to language acquisition: A distributional perspective’, Language and Cognitive Processes 13(2–3): 129–92Google Scholar

Reitter, David, and Moore, Johanna D. 2014. ‘Alignment and task success in spoken dialogue’, Journal of Memory and Language 76: 29–46Google Scholar

Rescorla, Robert A. 1968. ‘Probability of shock in the presence and absence of CS in fear conditioning’, Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology 66(1): 1–5Google Scholar

Rescorla, Robert A. 1988. ‘Pavlovian conditioning. It’s not what you think it is’, American Psychologist 43(3): 151–60Google Scholar

Rescorla, Robert A., and Wagner, Allan R. 1972. ‘A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement’, in Black, and Prokasy, (eds.), pp. 64–99Google Scholar

Richards, Brian J. 1990. Language development and individual differences: A study of auxiliary verb learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Rissanen, Matti 1999. ‘Syntax’, in Lass, (ed.), pp. 187–331Google Scholar

Robenalt, Clarice, and Goldberg, Adele E. 2015. ‘Judgment evidence for statistical preemption: It is relatively better to vanish than to disappear a rabbit, but a lifeguard can equally well backstroke or swim children to shore’, Cognitive Linguistics 26(3): 467–503Google Scholar

Roberts, Ian 1993. Verbs and diachronic syntax: A comparative history of English and French. Dordrecht: KluwerGoogle Scholar

Roberts, Ian 2015. ‘Formal and functional explanations: New perspective on an old debate’. Paper presented at the 48th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea, Leiden, September 2–5Google Scholar

Roberts, Ian, and Roussou, Anna 2003. Syntactic change: A minimalist approach to grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Roberts, Leah, and Felser, Claudia 2011. ‘Plausibility and recovery from garden-paths in second-language sentence processing’, Applied Psycholinguistics 32(2): 299–331Google Scholar

Robinson, Peter (ed.) 2001. Cognition and second language instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Robinson, Peter, and Ellis, Nick C. (eds.) 2008. Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition. New York and London: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar

Rohdenburg, Günter, and Schlüter, Julia (eds.) 2009. One language, two grammars? Differences between British and American English. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Romaine, Suzanne (ed.) 1998. The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. 4: 1776 to the present day. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Rosemeyer, Malte 2016. ‘Modeling frequency effects in language change’, in Behrens, and Pfänder, (eds.), pp. 179–207Google Scholar

Rowland, Caroline F. 2007. ‘Explaining errors in children’s questions’, Cognition 104(1): 106–34Google Scholar

Rowland, Caroline F., Chang, Franklin, Ambridge, Ben, Pine, Julian M., and Lieven, Elena V. M. 2012. ‘The development of abstract syntax: Evidence from structural priming and the lexical boost’, Cognition 125(1): 49–63Google Scholar

Rowland, Caroline F., and Pine, Julian M. 2000. ‘Subject-auxiliary inversion errors and wh-question acquisition: What children do know?’, Journal of Child Language 27(1): 157–81Google Scholar

Rowland, Caroline F., Pine, Julian M., Lieven, Elena V. M., and Theakston, Anna L. 2003. ‘Determinants of the order of acquisition of wh-questions: Re-evaluating the role of caregiver speech’, Journal of Child Language 30(3): 609–35Google Scholar

Rumelhart, David E., Hinton, Geoffrey E., and Williams, Ronald J. 1986. ‘Learning representations by back-propagating errors’, Nature Reviews Neuroscience 323(9): 533–36Google Scholar

Rumelhart, David E., and McClelland, James L. (eds.) 1986. Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT PressGoogle Scholar

Saffran, Eleanor M., and Martin, Nadine 1997. ‘Effects of structural priming on sentence production in aphasics’, Language and Cognitive Processes 12(5–6): 877–82Google Scholar

Saffran, Jenny R., Aslin, Richard N., and Newport, Elissa L. 1996. ‘Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants’, Science 274(5294): 1926–28Google Scholar

Saffran, Jenny R., Johnson, Elizabeth K., Aslin, Richard N., and Newport, Elissa L. 1999. ‘Statistical learning of tone sequences by human infants and adults’, Cognition 70(1): 27–52Google Scholar

Säily, Tanja 2014. Sociolinguistic variation in English derivational productivity: Studies and methods in diachronic corpus linguistics. Helsinki: Société NéophilologiqueGoogle Scholar

Sampson, Geoffrey 1997. Educating Eve: The ‘Language Instinct’ debate. London: ContinuumGoogle Scholar

Santelmann, Lynn, Berk, Stephanie, Austin, Jennifer, Somashekar, Shamitha, and Lust, Barbara 2002. ‘Continuity and development in the acquisition of inversion in yes/no questions: Dissociating movement and inflection’, Journal of Child Language 29(4): 813–42Google Scholar

Santos, Diana, Linden, Krister, and Ng’ang’a, Wanjiju (eds.) 2012. Shall we play the Festschrift game? Essays on the occasion of Lauri Carlson’s 60th birthday. Berlin: SpringerGoogle Scholar

de Saussure, Ferdinand 1916/1983. Cours de linguistique générale [Course in general linguistics]. Translated and annotated by Roy Harris. London: DuckworthGoogle Scholar

Savage, Ceri, Lieven, Elena V. M., Theakston, Anna, and Tomasello, Michael 2003. ‘Testing the abstractness of children’s linguistic representation: Lexical and structural priming of syntactic constructions in young children’, Developmental Science 6(5): 557–67Google Scholar

Savage, Ceri, Lieven, Elena V. M., Theakston, Anna, and Tomasello, Michael 2006. ‘Structural priming as implicit learning in language acquisition: The persistence of lexical and structural priming in 4-year-olds’, Language Learning and Development 2(1): 27–50Google Scholar

Savin, Harris B. 1963. ‘Word-frequency effects and errors in the perception of speech’, Journal of the Acoustic Society of America 35(2): 200–6Google Scholar

Scalise, Sergio, and Vogel, Irene (eds.) 2010. Cross-disciplinary issues in compounding. Amsterdam: John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar

Schaner-Wolles, Chris, Rennison, John R., and Neubarth, Friedrich (eds.) 2001. Naturally! Linguistic studies in honour of Wolfgang Ulrich Dressler. Torino: Rosenberg and SellierGoogle Scholar

Scheibman, Joanne 2000. ‘I dunno: A usage-based account of the phonological reduction of don’t in American English conversation’, Journal of Pragmatics 32(1): 105–24Google Scholar

Scherer, Carmen 2005. Wortbildungswandel und Produktivität: Eine empirische Studie zur nominalen ‘-er’-Derivation im Deutschen. Berlin and New York: Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar

Schiffrin, Deborah (ed.) 1984. Meaning, form, and use in context: Linguistic applications; Georgetown University Round Table ’84. Washington, DC: Georgetown University PressGoogle Scholar

Schleicher, August 1861. ‘Einige Beobachtungen an Kindern’, Beiträge zur vergleichenden Sprachforschung 2: 497–98Google Scholar

Schlüter, Julia 2005. Rhythmic grammar: The influence of rhythm on grammatical variation and change in English. Berlin and New York: Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar

Schmid, Hans-Jörg 2007. ‘Entrenchment, salience, and basic levels’, in Geeraerts, and Cuyckens, (eds.), pp. 117–38Google Scholar

Schmid, Hans-Jörg 2010. ‘Does frequency in text really instantiate entrenchment in the cognitive system?’, in Glynn, and Fischer, (eds.), pp. 101–33Google Scholar

Schmid, Hans-Jörg (ed.). to appear. Entrenchment, memory and automaticity. The psychology of linguistic knowledge and language learning. Berlin and New York: Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar

Schmid, Hans-Jörg, and Küchenhoff, Helmut 2013. ‘Collostructional analysis and other ways of measuring lexicogrammatical attraction: Theoretical premises, practical problems and cognitive underpinnings’, Cognitive Linguistics 24(3): 531–77Google Scholar

Schmidt, Richard 1984. ‘The strengths and limitations of acquisition: A case study of an untutored language learner’, Language, Learning, and Communication 3: 1–16Google Scholar

Schmidtke-Bode, Karsten 2009. ‘Going-to-V and gonna-V in child language: A quantitative approach to constructional development’, Cognitive Linguistics 20(3): 509–38Google Scholar

Schneider, Edgar W. 2011. English around the world: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Schoenemann, P. Thomas 2005. ‘Conceptual complexity and the brain: Understanding language origins’, in Wang, and Minett, (eds.), pp. 47–83Google Scholar

Schönle, Paul W., Gräbe, Klaus, Wenig, Peter, Höhne, Jörg, Schrader, Jörg, and Conrad, Bastian 1987. ‘Electromagnetic articulography: Use of alternating magnetic fields for tracking movements of multiple points inside and outside the vocal tract’, Brain and Language 31(1): 26–35Google Scholar

Schooler, Lael J. 1993. Memory and the statistical structure of the environment. Doctoral dissertation. Carnegie Mellon UniversityGoogle Scholar

Schoonbaert, Sofie, Hartsuiker, Robert J., and Pickering, Martin J. 2007. ‘The representation of lexical and syntactic information in bilinguals: Evidence from syntactic priming’, Journal of Memory and Language 56(2): 153–71Google Scholar

Schreier, Daniel, and Hundt, Marianne (eds.) 2013. English as a contact language. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Schumann, John H. 1978. The pidginisation process: A model for second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury HouseGoogle Scholar

Schumann, John H. 1987. ‘The expression of temporality in Basilang speech’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 9(1): 21–41Google Scholar

Schütze, Carson 1996. The empirical base of linguistics: Grammaticality judgments and linguistic methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar

Segalowitz, Norman 2010. The cognitive bases of second language fluency. New York: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar

Seidenberg, Mark S. 1997. ‘Language acquisition and use: Learning and applying probabilistic constraints’, Science 275(5306): 1599–603Google Scholar

Seidenberg, Mark S., and Bruck, Maggie 1990. ‘Consistency effects in the generation of past tense morphology’, Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 28(6): 522Google Scholar

Seidenberg, Mark S., and MacDonald, Maryellen C. 1999. ‘A probabilistic constraints approach to language acquisition and processing’, Cognitive Science 23(4): 569–88Google Scholar

Seidenberg, Mark S., and McClelland, J. L. 1989. ‘Visual word recognition and pronunciation: A computational model of acquisition, skilled performance, and dyslexia’, in Galaburda, (ed.), pp. 255–303Google Scholar

Seidenberg, Mark S., Waters, Gloria S., Barnes, Marcia A., and Tanenhaus, Michael K. 1984. ‘When does irregular spelling or pronunciation influence word recognition?’, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 23(3): 383–404Google Scholar

Seidlhofer, Barbara 2004. ‘Research perspectives on teaching English as a Lingua Franca’, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 24: 209–39Google Scholar

Shanks, David R. 1995. The psychology of associative learning. New York: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Shannon, Claude E. 1949. The mathematical theory of communication. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois PressGoogle Scholar

Shaoul, Cyrus 2013. ‘The consequences of accumulating experience for lexical processing’. Paper presented at the 8th International Morphology MeetingGoogle Scholar

Shaoul, Cyrus, Schilling, Natalie A., Bitschnau, S., Arppe, Antti, Hendrix, Peter, and Baayen, R. Harald 2014. NDL2: Naive Discriminative Learning. R package version 1.901 [Development version available upon request]Google Scholar

Shaoul, Cyrus, Willits, Jon, Ramscar, Michael, Milin, Petar, and Baayen, R. Harald under revision. ‘A discrimination-driven model for the acquisition of lexical knowledge in auditory comprehension’ [Under revision]Google Scholar

Shepherd, Susan C. 1982. ‘From deontic to epistemic: An analysis of modals in the history of English, creoles, and language acquisition’, in Ahlqvist, (ed.), pp. 316–23Google Scholar

Shiffrin, Richard M., and Schneider, Walter 1977. ‘Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory’, Psychological Review 84(2): 127–90Google Scholar

Shimpi, Priya M., Gámez, Perla B., Huttenlocher, Janellen, and Vasilyeva, Marina 2007. ‘Syntactic priming in 3- and 4-year-old children: Evidence for abstract representations of transitive and dative forms’, Developmental Psychology 43(6): 1334–46Google Scholar

Simon, Herbert A. 1962. The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: The MIT PressGoogle Scholar

Simpson-Vlach, Rita, and Ellis, Nick C. 2010. ‘An Academic Formulas List: New methods in phraseology research’, Applied Linguistics 31(4): 487–512Google Scholar

Sinclair, John M. 1996. ‘The search for units of meaning’, Textus 9: 75–106Google Scholar

Singh-Manoux, Archana, Kivimaki, Mika, Glymour, M. Maria, Elbaz, Alexis, Berr, Claudine, Ebmeier, Klaus P., Ferrie, Jane E., and Dugravot, Aline 2012. ‘Timing of onset of cognitive decline: Results from Whitehall II prospective cohort study’, British Medical Journal 344: d7622Google Scholar

Skarabela, Barbora, Fish, Sarah, and Do, Anna H.-J. (eds.) 2002. Proceedings of the 26th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD 26). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla PressGoogle Scholar

Skousen, Royal 1989. Analogical modeling of language. Boston, MA: KluwerGoogle Scholar

Skousen, Royal 2002. ‘Introduction’, in Skousen, , Lonsdale, and Parkinson, (eds.), pp. 1–8Google Scholar

Skousen, Royal, Lonsdale, Deryle, and Parkinson, Dilworth B. (eds.) 2002. Analogical modeling: An exemplar-based approach to language. Amsterdam: BenjaminsGoogle Scholar

Slattery, Timothy J., Sturt, Patrick, Christianson, Kiel, Yoshida, Masaya, and Ferreira, Fernanda 2013. ‘Lingering misinterpretations of garden path sentences arise from competing syntactic representations’, Journal of Memory and Language 69(2): 104–20Google Scholar

Slobin, Dan I. 1973. ‘Cognitive prerequisites for the development of grammar’, in Ferguson, and Slobin, (eds.), pp. 175–208Google Scholar

Slobin, Dan I. 1985a. ‘Crosslinguistic evidence for the language-making capacity’, in Slobin, (ed.), pp. 1157–249Google Scholar

Slobin, Dan I. (ed.) 1985b. The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition, vol. 2: Theoretical issues. Mahwah, NJ: ErlbaumGoogle Scholar

Slobin, Dan I. 1992. Psycholinguistics. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and CompanyGoogle Scholar

Slobin, Dan I. 1994. ‘Talking perfectly. Discourse origins of the present perfect’, in Pagliuca, (ed.), pp. 119–33Google Scholar

Slobin, Dan I. 1997a. ‘The universal, the typological, and the particular in language acquisition’, in Slobin, (ed.), pp. 1–39Google Scholar

Slobin, Dan I. (ed.) 1997b. The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition, vol. 5: Expanding the contexts. Mahwah, NJ: ErlbaumGoogle Scholar

Slobin, Dan I. 2002. ‘Language evolution, acquisition and diachrony: Probing the parallels’, in Givón, and Malle, (eds.), pp. 375–92Google Scholar

Slobin, Dan I., and Aksu, Ayhan A. 1982. ‘Tense, aspect and modality in the use of the Turkish evidential’, in Hopper, (ed.), pp. 185–200Google Scholar

Smith, Jeremy J. 2012. ‘History of English historical linguistics: The historiography of the English language’, in Bergs, and Brinton, (eds.), pp. 1295–312Google Scholar

Smith, Nathaniel J., and Levy, Roger 2013. ‘The effect of word predictability on reading time is logarithmic’, Cognition 128(3): 302–19Google Scholar

Sommerer, Lotte 2012. ‘Investigating the emergence of the definite article in Old English: About categorization, gradualness and constructions’, Folia Linguistica Historica 33: 175–213Google Scholar

Spufford, Margaret 1981. Small books and pleasant histories: Popular fiction and its readership in seventeenth-century England. Athens, GA: University of Georgia PressGoogle Scholar

Stadler, Michael A., and Frensch, Peter A. (eds.) 1998. Implicit learning handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage PublicationsGoogle Scholar

Stampe, David 1969. ‘The acquisition of phonetic representation’, Chicago Linguistics Society 5: 443–54Google Scholar

Stanford, James N. 2014. ‘Language acquisition and language change’, in Bowern, and Evans, (eds.), pp. 466–83Google Scholar

Stede, Manfred, Chiarcos, Christian, Grabski, Michael, and Lagerwerf, Luuk (eds.) 2005. ‘Salience in discourse: Multidisciplinary approaches to discourse 2005’. Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Multidisciplinary Approaches to Discourse (MAD-05), Chorin/Berlin, Oct. 2005. Münster: Nordus PublikationenGoogle Scholar

Stefanowitsch, Anatol, and Gries, Stefan Th. 2003. ‘Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions’, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2): 209–43Google Scholar

Stemberger, Joseph P., and MacWhinney, Brian 1986. ‘Frequency and the lexical storage of regularly inflected forms’, Memory and Cognition 14(1): 17–26Google Scholar

Stephany, Ursula 1986. ‘Modality’, in Fletcher, and Garman, (eds.), pp. 375–400Google Scholar

Street, James A., and Dąbrowska, Ewa 2010. ‘More individual differences in language attainment: How much do adult native speakers of English know about passives and quantifiers?’, Lingua 120(8): 2080–94Google Scholar

Stromswold, Karin J. 1990. Learnability and the acquisition of auxiliaries. Doctoral dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology [Distributed by MIT Working Papers in Linguistics]Google Scholar

Studdert-Kennedy, M. 1991. ‘Language development from an evolutionary perspective’, in Krasnegor, , Rumbaugh, , Schiefelbusch, and Studdert-Kennedy, (eds.), pp. 5–28Google Scholar

Stumper, Barbara, and Lieven, Elena V. M. 2011. ‘Pronoun case errors in the acquisition of German are not rare, but systematic’. Poster presented at the 12th Triennial Conference of the International Association for the Study of Child Language (UQAM, Montreal)Google Scholar

Sturt, Patrick 2007. ‘Semantic re-interpretation and garden path recovery’, Cognition 105(2): 477–88Google Scholar

Sturt, Patrick, Pickering, Martin J. and Crocker, Matthew W. 1999. ‘Structural change and reanalysis difficulty in language comprehension’, Journal of Memory and Language 40(1): 136–50Google Scholar

Sturt, Patrick, Pickering, Martin J., Scheepers, Christoph, and Crocker, Matthew W. 2001. ‘The preservation of structure in language comprehension: Is reanalysis the last resort?’, Journal of Memory and Language 45(2): 283–307Google Scholar

Suttle, Laura, and Goldberg, Adele E. 2011. ‘The partial productivity of constructions as induction’, Linguistics 49(6): 1237–69Google Scholar

Swan, Toril, and Westvik, Olaf Jansen (eds.) 1996. Modality in Germanic languages: Historical and comparative perspectives. Berlin and New York: Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar

Sweet, Henry 1888. A history of English sounds. Oxford: Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar

Sweetser, Eve E. 1988. ‘Grammaticalization and semantic bleaching’, in Axmaker, , Jaisser, and Singmaster, (eds.), pp. 389–405Google Scholar

Swets, Benjamin, Desmet, Timothy, Clifton, Charles, and Ferreira, Fernanda 2008. ‘Underspecification of syntactic ambiguities: Evidence from self-paced reading’, Memory and Cognition 36(1): 201–16Google Scholar

Szagun, Gisela 2001. ‘Learning different regularities: The acquisition of noun plurals by German-speaking children’, First Language 21(62): 109–41Google Scholar

Szagun, Gisela 2006. Sprachentwicklung beim Kind: Ein Lehrbuch. 3rd edition. Weinheim and Basel: BeltzGoogle Scholar

Szagun, Gisela, Stumper, Barbara, Sondag, Nina, and Franik, Melanie 2007. ‘The acquisition of gender marking by young German-speaking children: Evidence for learning guided by phonological regularities’, Journal of Child Language 34(3): 445–71Google Scholar

Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt 2006. Morphosyntactic persistence in spoken English. A corpus study at the intersection of variationist sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and discourse analysis. Berlin and New York: Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar

Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt 2013. ‘Diachronic probabilistic grammar’, English Language and Linguistics [Journal of the English Linguistics Society of Korea] 19(3): 41–68Google Scholar

Tabak, Wieke, Schreuder, Robert, and Baayen, R. Harald 2010. ‘Producing inflected verbs: A picture naming study’, The Mental Lexicon 5(1): 22–46Google Scholar

Tabor, Whitney 1993. ‘The gradual development of degree modifier sort of and kind of: A corpus proximity model’, in Beals, (ed.), pp. 451–65Google Scholar

Tagliamonte, Sali A., and D’Arcy, Alexandra 2007. ‘The modals of obligation/necessity in Canadian perspective’, English World-Wide 28(1): 47–87Google Scholar

Tagliamonte, Sali A., D’Arcy, Alexandra, and Jankowski, Bridget 2010. ‘Social work and linguistic systems: Marking possession in Canadian English’, Language Variation and Change 22(1): 149–73Google Scholar

Tannen, Deborah 1989. Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. New York: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Taraban, Roman, and McClelland, James L. 1987. ‘Conspiracy effects in word pronunciation’, Journal of Memory and Language 26(6): 608–31Google Scholar

Terkourafi, Marina 2011. ‘The pragmatic variable: Toward a procedural interpretation’, Language in Society 40(3): 343–72Google Scholar

Terrell, Tracy 1991. ‘The role of grammar instruction in a communicative approach’, The Modern Language Journal 75(1): 52–63Google Scholar

Theakston, Anna L. 2004. ‘The role of entrenchment in constraining children’s verb argument structure overgeneralisations: A grammaticality judgment study’, Cognitive Development 19(1): 15–34Google Scholar

Theakston, Anna L., Lieven, Elena V. M., and Tomasello, Michael 2003. ‘The role of input in the acquisition of third-person singular verbs in English’, Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 46(4): 863–77Google Scholar

Thomason, Sarah G. 2013. ‘Innovation and contact: The role of adults (and children)’, in Schreier, and Hundt, (eds.), pp. 283–97Google Scholar

Thompson, Sandra A., and Mulac, Anthony J. 1991. ‘A quantitative perspective on the grammaticalization of epistemic parentheticals in English’, in Traugott, and Heine, (eds.), pp. 213–329Google Scholar

Thurner, Stefan, Hanel, Rudolf, Liu, Bo, and Corominas-Murtra, Bernat 2015. ‘Understanding Zipf’s law of word frequencies through sample-space collapse in sentence formation’, Journal of The Royal Society Interface 12(108): 20150330Google Scholar

Timberlake, Alan 1977. ‘Reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change’, in Li, (ed.), pp. 141–77Google Scholar

Tomaschek, Fabian, Tucker, Benjamin V., Wieling, Martijn, and Baayen, R. Harald 2014. ‘Vowel articulation affected by word frequency’, in Fuchs, , Grice, , Hermes, , Lancia, and Mücke, (eds.), pp. 429–32Google Scholar

Tomasello, Michael 1992. First verbs: A case study of early grammatical development. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Tomasello, Michael (ed.) 1998. The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumGoogle Scholar

Tomasello, Michael 1999. The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar

Tomasello, Michael 2003. Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Boston, MA: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar

Tomasello, Michael 2008. Origins of human communication. Cambridge, MA: The MIT PressGoogle Scholar

Tomasello, Michael, and Call, Josep 1997. Primate cognition. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Tomasello, Michael, and Slobin, Dan I. (eds.) 2004. Beyond nature-nurture: Essays in honor of Elizabeth Bates. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumGoogle Scholar

Tooley, Kirsten, and Bock, J. Kathryn 2014. ‘On the parity of structural persistence in language production and comprehension’, Cognition 132(2): 101–36Google Scholar

Toupin, Fabienne, and Lowrey, Brian (eds.) 2015. Studies in linguistic variation and change: From Old to Middle English. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars PublishingGoogle Scholar

Townsend, David, and Bever, Thomas 2001. Sentence comprehension: The integration of habits and rules. Cambridge, MA: The MIT PressGoogle Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1989. ‘On the rise of epistemic meaning in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change’, Language 65(1): 31–55Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1995. ‘The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization’. Paper presented at the 12th International Conference on Historical Linguistics (ICHL 12), Manchester, UK, August 13–18, 1995. www.stanford.edu/~traugott/papers/discourse.pdf [accessed April 19, 2016]Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1999. ‘The role of pragmatics in semantic change’, in Verschueren, (ed.), pp. 93–102Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2008a. ‘Testing the hypothesis that priming is a motivation for change’, Theoretical Linguistics 34: 135–42Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2008b. ‘The grammaticalization of NP of NP patterns’, in Bergs, and Diewald, (eds.), pp. 23–45Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2011. ‘Grammaticalization and mechanisms of change’, in Narrog, and Heine, (eds.), pp. 19–30Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2012a. ‘Pragmatics and language change’, in Allan, and Jaszczolt, (eds.), pp. 549–65Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2012b. ‘The status of onset contexts in analysis of micro-changes’, in Kytö, (ed.), pp. 221–55Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth C., and Dasher, Richard B. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth C., and Heine, Bernd (eds.) 1991. Approaches to grammaticalization. 2 vols. Amsterdam: BenjaminsGoogle Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth C., and König, Ekkehard 1991. ‘The semantics-pragmatics of grammaticalization revisited’, in Traugott, and Heine, (eds.), pp. 189–218Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth C., Labrum, Rebecca, and Shepherd, Susan (eds.) 1980. Papers from the Fourth International Conference on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth C., and Trousdale, Graeme 2010a. ‘Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization: How do they intersect?’, in Traugott, and Trousdale, (eds.), pp. 19–44Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth C., and Trousdale, Graeme (eds.) 2010b. Gradience, gradualness and grammaticalization. Amsterdam: BenjaminsGoogle Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth C., and Trousdale, Graeme 2013. Constructionalization and constructional changes. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Traxler, Matthew 2002. ‘Plausibility and subcategorization preference in children’s processing of temporarily ambiguous sentences: Evidence from self-paced reading’, The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 55(1): 75–96Google Scholar

Traxler, Matthew J., and Gernsbacher, Morton A. (eds.) 2006. Handbook of Psycholinguistics. 2nd edition. London: ElsevierGoogle Scholar

Treisman, Anne M., and Gelade, Garry 1980. ‘A feature-integration theory of attention’, Cognitive Psychology 12: 97–136Google Scholar

Tremblay, Antoine, Derwing, Bruce, Libben, Gary, and Westbury, Chris 2011. ‘Processing advantages of lexical bundles: Evidence from self-paced reading and sentence recall tasks’, Language Learning 61(2): 569–613Google Scholar

Trimmer, Pete C., McNamara, John M., Houston, Alasdair I., and Marshall, James A. R. 2012. ‘Does natural selection favour the Rescorla–Wagner rule?’, Journal of Theoretical Biology 302: 39–52Google Scholar

Trousdale, Graeme 2013. ‘Gradualness in language change: A constructional perspective’, in Giacalone Ramat, , Mauri, , and Molinelli, (eds.), pp. 27–42Google Scholar

Trudgill, Peter 1983. On dialect: Social and geographical perspectives. Oxford: BlackwellGoogle Scholar

Trudgill, Peter 2002a. ‘Linguistic and social typology’, in Chambers, , Trudgill, and Schilling-Estes, (eds.), pp. 707–28Google Scholar

Trudgill, Peter 2002b. Sociolinguistic variation and change. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press and Washington, DC: Georgetown University PressGoogle Scholar

Trueswell, John, Sekerina, Irina, Hill, Nicole, and Logrip, Marian 1999. ‘The kindergarden-path effect: Studying on-line sentence processing in children’, Cognition 73(2): 89–134Google Scholar

Trueswell, John, Tanenhaus, Michael, and Garnsey, Susan 1994. ‘Semantic influences on parsing: Use of thematic role information in syntactic ambiguity resolution’, Journal of Memory and Language 33(3): 285–18Google Scholar

Trueswell, John, Tanenhaus, Michael, and Kello, Christopher 1993. ‘Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 19(3): 528–53Google Scholar

Tulving, Endel, and Thomson, Donald M. 1973. ‘Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory’, Psychological Review 80(5): 352–73Google Scholar

Underwood, Geoffrey (ed.) 1978. Strategies of information processing. San Diego, CA: Academic PressGoogle Scholar

van Bergen, Linda 2013. ‘Early progressive passives’, Folia Linguistica Historica 34(1): 173–207Google Scholar

van der Auwera, Johan, and Plungian, Vladimir A. 1998. ‘Modality’s semantic map’, Linguistic Typology 2(1): 79–124Google Scholar

van der Horst, Joop 2008. Geschiedenis van de Nederlandse syntaxis. Leuven: Leuven University PressGoogle Scholar

van de Velde, Freek 2015. ‘Schijnbare syntactische feniksen’, Nederlandse Taalkunde 20: 69–107Google Scholar

van Geert, Paul, and Steenbeek, Henderien 2005. ‘Explaining after by before: Basic aspects of a dynamic systems approach to the study of development’, Developmental Review 25(3–4): 408–42Google Scholar

van Gelderen, Elly 2004. Grammaticalization as economy. Amsterdam: BenjaminsGoogle Scholar

van Gelderen, Elly 2011. The linguistic cycle: Language change and the language faculty. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

van Gompel, Roger (ed.) 2013. Sentence processing. New York: Psychology PressGoogle Scholar

van Halteren, Hans, Baayen, R. Harald, Tweedie, Fiona, Haverkort, Marco, and Neijt, Anneke 2005. ‘New machine learning methods demonstrate the existence of a human stylome’, Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 12(1): 65–77Google Scholar

van Kemenade, Ans, and de Haas, Nynke (eds.) 2012. Historical linguistics 2009: Selected papers from the 19th international conference on historical linguistics, Nijmegen, 10–14 August 2009. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: BenjaminsGoogle Scholar

van Kemenade, Ans, and Los, Bettelou (eds.) 2006. The handbook of the history of English. Oxford: BlackwellGoogle Scholar

van Kemenade, Ans, and Westergaard, Marit 2012. ‘Syntax and information structure: V2 variation in Middle English’, in Meurman-Solin, , López-Couso, and Los, (eds.), pp. 87–118Google Scholar

van Marle, Jaap 1985. On the paradigmatic dimension of morphological creativity. Dordrecht: ForisGoogle Scholar

van Petten, Cyma, and Luka, Barbara J. 2012. ‘Prediction during language comprehension: Benefits, costs, and ERP components’, International Journal of Psychophysiology 83(2): 176–90Google Scholar

van Steenis, Lindsey 2013. The grammaticalization of have to and hebben te: A comparative study between English and Dutch. MA thesis. University of Amsterdam: Faculty of HumanitiesGoogle Scholar

Vasilyeva, Marina, Waterfall, Heidi, Gámez, Perla B., Gómez, Ligia E., Bowers, Edmond, and Shimpi, Priya 2010. ‘Cross-linguistic syntactic priming in bilingual children’, Journal of Child Language 37(5): 1047–64Google Scholar

Vennemann, Theo 1972. ‘Phonetic detail in assimilation: Problems in Germanic phonology’, Language 48(4): 863–92Google Scholar

Veronique, Daniel 1999. ‘L’émergence de catégories grammaticales dans les langues créoles: Grammaticalisation et réanalyse’, in Lang, and Neumann-Holzschuh, (eds.), pp. 181–203Google Scholar

Veronique, Daniel 2001. ‘Genèse(s) et changement(s) grammaticaux: Quelques modestes leçons tirés de l’émergence des créoles et de l’acquisition des langues étrangères’, in Matthey, (ed.), pp. 273–303Google Scholar

Verschueren, Jef (ed.) 1999. Pragmatics in 1998: Selected papers from the 6th international pragmatics conference, vol. 2. Antwerp and Amsterdam: International Pragmatics AssociationGoogle Scholar

Vihman, Marilyn May 1980. ‘Sound change and child language’, in Traugott, , Labrum, and Shepherd, (eds.), pp. 303–20Google Scholar

Vincent, David 1993. Literacy and popular culture: England 1750–1914. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Visser, Frederikus Th. 1963–1973. An historical syntax of the English language. 3 vols. Leiden: BrillGoogle Scholar

Visser, Frederikus Th. 1984. An historical syntax of the English language, vol. 2: Syntactical units with one verb (continued). Leiden: Brill [First edition 1966]Google Scholar

von Eye, Alexander 1990. Introduction to configurational frequency analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Wagner, Michael, Breen, Mara, Flemming, Edward, Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefanie, and Gibson, Edward 2010. ‘Prosodic effects of discourse salience and association with focus’. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Speech Prosody, Chicago, May 11–14, 2010. http://prosodylab.org/~chael/www/papers/wagneretal10only.pdf [accessed April 19, 2016]Google Scholar

Wales, Roger J., and Walker, Edward (eds.) 1976. New approaches to language mechanisms: A collection of psycholinguistics studies. Amsterdam: North HollandGoogle Scholar

Walling, Anne D., and Dickson, Gretchen M. 2012. ‘Hearing loss in older adults’, American Family Physician 85(12): 1150–56Google Scholar

Waltereit, Richard 2006. ‘The rise of discourse markers in Italian: A specific type of language change’, in Fischer, (ed.), pp. 61–76Google Scholar

Wang, William S.-Y., and Minett, James W. (eds.) 2005. Language acquisition, change and emergence: Essays in evolutionary linguistics. Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong PressGoogle Scholar

Warner, Anthony A. 1993. English auxiliaries: Structure and history. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Warrington, Elizabeth K. 1975. ‘The selective impairment of semantic memory’, The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 27(4): 635–57Google Scholar

Waterfall, Heidi R. 2006. A little change is a good thing: Feature theory, language acquisition and variation sets. Doctoral dissertation. University of Chicago: Department of LinguisticsGoogle Scholar

Wegener, Heide 1999. ‘Die Pluralbildung im Deutschen – ein Versuch im Rahmen der Optimalitätstheorie’, Linguistik online 4.3/1999Google Scholar

Weinreich, Uriel, Labov, William, and Herzog, Marvin 1968. ‘Empirical foundations for a theory of language change’, in Lehmann, and Malkiel, (eds.), pp. 95–198Google Scholar

Wexler, Ken 1998. ‘Very early parameter setting and the unique checking constraint: A new explanation of the optional infinitive stage’, Lingua 106(1): 23–79Google Scholar

White, Katherine S., Yee, Eiling, Blumstein, Sheila E., and Morgan, James L. 2013. ‘Adults show less sensitivity to phonetic detail in unfamiliar words, too’, Journal of Memory and Language 68(4): 362–78Google Scholar

Whitman, John 2001. ‘Relabelling’, in Pintzuk, , Tsoulas, and Warner, (eds.), pp. 220–38Google Scholar

Whitman, John 2012. ‘Misparsing and syntactic reanalysis’, in van Kemenade, and de Haas, (eds.), pp. 69–87Google Scholar

Wiechmann, Daniel 2015. Understanding relative clauses – A usage-based view on the processing of complex constructions. Berlin and New York: Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar

Wiechmann, Daniel, Kerz, Elma, Snider, Neal, and Jaeger, T. Florian 2013. ‘Introduction to the Special Issue: Parsimony and redundancy in models of language’, Language and Speech 0(0): 1–8Google Scholar

Wiemer, Björn 2015. ‘Quo vadis grammaticalization theory? Why complex language change is like words’, Folia Linguistica 48(2): 425–67Google Scholar

Wiese, Richard 1996. The phonology of German. Oxford: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar

Wijnen, Frank, Kempen, Masja, and Gillis, Steven 2001. ‘Root infinitives in Dutch early child language’, Journal of Child Language 28(3): 629–60Google Scholar

Williams, Jake R., Lessard, Paul R., Desu, Suma, Clark, Eric M., Bagrow, James P., Danforth, Christopher M., and Dodds, Peter S. 2014. ‘Zipf’s law holds for phrases, not words’, Scientific Reports 5: 12209Google Scholar

Wills, Andy J. 2005. New directions in human associative learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumGoogle Scholar

Wills, Andy J. 2009. ‘Prediction errors and attention in the presence and absence of feedback’, Current Directions in Psychological Science 18(2): 95–100Google Scholar

Winters, Margaret E. 2010. ‘Introduction: On the emergence of diachronic cognitive linguistics’, in Winters, , Tissari, and Allan, (eds.), pp. 3–27Google Scholar

Winters, Margaret E., Tissari, Heli, and Allan, Kathryn (eds.) 2010. Historical cognitive linguistics. Cognitive Linguistics Research 47. Berlin: Mouton de GruyterGoogle Scholar

Wischer, Ilse, and Diewald, Gabriele (eds.) 2002. New reflections on grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar

Wolk, Christoph, Bresnan, Joan, Rosenbach, Anette, and Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt 2013. ‘Dative and genitive variability in Late Modern English: Exploring cross-constructional variation and change’, Diachronica 30(3): 382–419Google Scholar

Wood, Frederick T. 1955–6. ‘Verb-adverb combinations: The position of the adverb’, English Language Teaching 10(1): 18–27Google Scholar

Wood, Simon N. 2006. Generalized Additive Models: An introduction with R. CRC Texts in Statistical Science. New York: Chapman and Hall/CRCGoogle Scholar

Xu, Fei, and Tennenbaum, Joshua B. 2007. ‘Word learning as Bayesian inference’, Psychological Review 114(2): 245–72Google Scholar

Yáñez-Bouza, Nuria, Moore, Emma, Hollmann, Willem, and van Bergen, Linda (eds.) forthcoming. Analysing English syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar

Yanovich, Igor 2013. Four pieces for modality, context and usage. Doctoral dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar

Ziegeler, Debra 1997. ‘Retention in ontogentic and diachronic grammaticalization’, Cognitive Linguistics 8(3): 207–41Google Scholar

Zipf, George K. 1935. The psycho-biology of language: An introduction to dynamic philology. Cambridge, MA: The MIT PressGoogle Scholar

Zipf, George K. 1949. Human behaviour and the principle of least effort: An introduction to human ecology. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley and New York: HafnerGoogle Scholar

Zuraw, Kie 2003. ‘Probability in language change’, in Bod, , Hay, and Jannedy, (eds.), pp. 139–76Google Scholar

Zwaan, Rolf A., and Radvansky, Gabriel A. 1998. ‘Situation models in language comprehension and memory’, Psychological Bulletin 123(2): 162–85Google Scholar

Book contents

Bibliography

Summary

Access options

References

Book contents

Bibliography

Summary

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive