Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-n7x5d Total loading time: 2.494 Render date: 2021-12-06T05:54:05.567Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Bibliography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 July 2017

Marianne Hundt
Affiliation:
Universität Zürich
Sandra Mollin
Affiliation:
Universität Heidelberg
Simone E. Pfenninger
Affiliation:
Universität Salzburg
Get access

Summary

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Changing English Language
Psycholinguistic Perspectives
, pp. 348 - 406
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

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): 9951026CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Abney, Steven P. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Doctoral dissertation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Abraham, Werner, and Århammar, Ritva (eds.) 1987. Linguistik in Deutschland: Akten des 21. Linguistischen Kolloqiums, Groningen 1986. Tübingen: NiemeyerCrossRefGoogle 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 GruyterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adamson, Sylvia 1998. ‘The literary language’, in Romaine, (ed.), pp. 589692
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: 814–23CrossRefGoogle 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): e0119613CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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. 147
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. 736–43
Akhtar, Nameera 1999. ‘Acquiring basic word order: Evidence for data-driven learning of syntactic structure’, Journal of Child Language 26(2): 339–56CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aksu-Koç, Ayhan 1988. The acquisition of aspect and modality: The case of past perfect in Turkish. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle 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. 159–67
Allan, Keith, and Jaszczolt, Kasia M. (eds.) 2012. The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle 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): 147–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allerton, David J. 2009. ‘Tag questions’, in Rohdenburg, and Schlüter, (eds.), pp. 306–23
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): e7678CrossRefGoogle 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): 146–52CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Altmann, Gerry T. M., and Kamide, Yuki 1999. ‘Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference’, Cognition 73(3): 247–64CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Altmann, Gerry T. M., and Steedman, Mark 1988. ‘Interaction with context during human sentence processing’, Cognition 30(3): 191238CrossRefGoogle 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): 239–73CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ambridge, Ben, and Lieven, Elena V. M. 2011. Child language acquisition: Contrasting theoretical approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambridge, Ben, and Lieven, Elena V. M. 2015. ‘A constructivist account of child language acquisition’, in MacWhinney, and O’Grady, (eds.), pp. 478510
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): 4762CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ambridge, Ben, and Rowland, Caroline F. 2009. ‘Predicting children’s errors with negative questions: Testing a schema-combination account’, Cognitive Linguistics 20(2): 225–66CrossRefGoogle 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): 519–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, Henning 1973. ‘Abductive and deductive change’, Language 49(4): 765–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, Henning 2001a. ‘Actualization and the (uni)directionality of change’, in Andersen, (ed.), pp. 225–48
Andersen, Henning (ed.) 2001b. Actualization: Linguistic change in progress. Amsterdam: John BenjaminsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, Roger W. 1984. ‘The one-to-one principle of interlanguage construction’, Language Learning 34(4): 7795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, John R. 1982. ‘Acquisition of cognitive skill’, Psychological Review 89(4): 369406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, John R. 1983. The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressGoogle ScholarPubMed
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): 471517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, John R. 1992. ‘Automaticity and the ACT theory’, American Journal of Psychology 105(2): 165–80CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, John R. 1996. ‘ACT: A simple theory of complex cognition’, American Psychologist 51(4): 355–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, John R. 2000. Cognitive psychology and its implications. 5th edition. New York: W.H. FreemanGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, John R. 2009. Cognitive psychology and its implications. 7th edition. New York: Worth PublishersGoogle ScholarPubMed
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): 1626CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anttila, Raymond 2003. ‘Analogy: The warp and woof of cognition’, in Joseph, and Janda, (eds.), pp. 425–40
Arcodia, Giorgio Francesco 2007. ‘Chinese: A language of compound words?’, in Montermini, , Boyé, and Hathout, (eds.), pp. 7990
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: BenjaminsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnon, Inbal, and Snider, Neal 2010. ‘More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases’, Journal of Memory and Language 62(1): 6782CrossRefGoogle 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): 170–76CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 PressCrossRefGoogle 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): 3156CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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): 3048–58CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baars, Bernard J. 1997. ‘In the theatre of consciousness: Global workspace theory, a rigorous scientific theory of consciousness’, Journal of Consciousness Studies 4(4): 292309Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald 1993. ‘On frequency, transparency and productivity’, in Booij, and van Marle, (eds.), pp. 181208
Baayen, R. Harald 1994. ‘Productivity in language production’, Language and Cognitive Processes 9(3): 447–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald 2005. ‘Morphological productivity’, in Köhler, , Altmann, and Piotrowski, (eds.), pp. 243–56
Baayen, R. Harald 2011a. ‘Corpus linguistics and naive discriminative learning’, Brazilian Journal of Applied Linguistics 11(2): 295328Google 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. 337–72
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): 329–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald, Kuperman, Victor, and Bertram, Raymond 2010. ‘Frequency effects in compound processing’, in Scalise, and Vogel, (eds.), pp. 257270
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): 438–81CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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. 99120
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): 106–28CrossRefGoogle 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): 121–31CrossRefGoogle 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. 225–42
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): 235–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Carl L. 1995. ‘Contrast, discourse prominence, and intensification, with special reference to locally free reflexives in British English’, Language 71(1): 63101CrossRefGoogle 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 ScholarPubMed
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): 445–59CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baltin, Mark, and Collins, Chris (eds.) 2001. The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory. Oxford: BlackwellCrossRefGoogle 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): 241–48CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barabási, Albert-László 2005. ‘The origin of bursts and heavy tails in human dynamics’, Nature Reviews Neuroscience 435(7039): 207–11Google ScholarPubMed
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: BenjaminsCrossRefGoogle 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): 540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1999. ‘Perceptual symbol systems’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22(4): 577660Google ScholarPubMed
Barsalou, Lawrence W. 2008. ‘Grounded cognition’, Annual Review of Psychology 59: 617–45CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barsalou, Lawrence W., Huttenlocher, Janellen, and Lamberts, Koen 1998. ‘Basing categorization on individuals and events’, Cognitive Psychology 36(3): 203–72CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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. 157–93
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): 341–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie 2001. Morphological productivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bavin, Edith L. 1995. ‘The obligation modality in Western Nilotic languages’, in Bybee, and Fleischman, (eds.), pp. 107–33
Bayley, Robert, Cameron, Richard, and Lucas, Ceil (eds.) 2013. The Oxford handbook of sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle 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. 235–66
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): 126Google Scholar
Beckner, Clay, and Bybee, Joan L. 2009. ‘A usage-based account of constituency and reanalysis’, Language Learning 59(s1): 2746CrossRefGoogle 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. 7283
Behrens, Heike 2006. ‘The input-output relationship in first language acquisition’, Language and Cognitive Processes 21(1–3): 224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behrens, Heike (ed.) 2008. Corpora in language acquisition research: History, methods, perspectives. Amsterdam: John BenjaminsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behrens, Heike 2009. ‘Usage-based and emergentist approaches to language acquisition’, Linguistics [Special Issue: Current Approaches to Language Learning] 47(2): 383411Google Scholar
Behrens, Heike 2011. ‘Cues to form and function in the acquisition of German number and case inflection’, in Clark, and Arnon, (eds.), pp. 3551
Behrens, Heike, and Pfänder, Stefan (eds.) 2016. Experience counts: Frequency effects in language. Berlin: Mouton de GruyterCrossRefGoogle 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. 8594
Bergen, Benjamin, and Chang, Nancy 2013. ‘Embodied construction grammar’, in Hoffmann, and Trousdale, (eds.), pp. 168–90
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. 249–76
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 GruyterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernolet, Sarah, and Hartsuiker, Robert J. 2010. ‘Does verb bias modulate syntactic priming?’, Cognition 114(3): 455–61CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 ScholarPubMed
Bernolet, Sarah, Hartsuiker, Robert J., and Pickering, Martin J. 2009. ‘Persistence of emphasis in language production: A cross-linguistic approach’, Cognition 112(2): 300–17CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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): 503–16CrossRefGoogle 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): 287306CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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): 683715CrossRefGoogle 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. 6972Google 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 GruyterCrossRefGoogle 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. 4758
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 GruyterCrossRefGoogle 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: e110009CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bock, J. Kathryn 1986. ‘Syntactic persistence in language production’, Cognitive Psychology 18(3): 355–87CrossRefGoogle 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): 437–58CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bock, J. Kathryn, and Ferreira, Victor S. 2014. ‘Syntactically speaking’, in Goldrick, , Ferreira, and Miozzo, (eds.), pp. 2146
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 ScholarPubMed
Bock, J. Kathryn, and Levelt, Willem J. M. 1994. ‘Language production: Grammatical encoding’, in Gernsbacher, (ed.), pp. 741–79
Bod, Rens 2009. ‘From exemplar to grammar: A probabilistic analogy-based model of language learning’, Cognitive Science 33(5): 752–93CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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. 135–54
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. 1257–319
Bowerman, Melissa 1988. ‘The “no negative evidence” problem: How do children avoid constructing an overgeneral grammar?’, in Hawkins, (ed.), pp. 73101
Bowerman, Melissa, and Brown, Penelope 2006a. ‘Introduction’, in Bowerman, and Brown, (eds.), pp. 126
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. 387427
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): 5583CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boye, Kasper, and Harder, Peter 2012. ‘A usage-based theory of grammatical status and grammaticalization’, Language 88(1): 144CrossRefGoogle 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): 1104CrossRefGoogle 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): 539–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branigan, Holly P., Pickering, Martin J., and Cleland, Alexandra A. 2000. ‘Syntactic co-ordination in dialogue’, Cognition 75(2): B13B25CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Branigan, Holly P., Pickering, Martin J., McLean, Janet F., and Cleland, Alexandra A. 2007. ‘Syntactic alignment and participant role in dialogue’, Cognition 104(2): 163–97CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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): 4157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brems, Lieselotte 2003. ‘Measure noun constructions: An instance of semantically-driven grammaticalization’, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2): 238312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brems, Lieselotte 2011. Layering of size and type noun constructions in English. Berlin and New York: Mouton de GruyterCrossRefGoogle 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): 180202CrossRefGoogle 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 ScholarPubMed
Bresnan, Joan 2007. ‘Is syntactic knowledge probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation’, in Featherston, and Sternefeld, (eds.), pp. 7796
Bresnan, Joan, Cueni, Anna, Nikitina, Tatiana, and Baayen, R. Harald 2007. ‘Predicting the dative alternation’, in Bouma, , Krämer, and Zwarts, (eds.), pp. 6994
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]
Brinton, Laurel J. 1996. Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin and New York: Mouton de GruyterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2008. The comment clause in English: Syntactic origins and pragmatic development. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J., and Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2005. Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Britt, M. Anne 1994. ‘The interaction of referential ambiguity and argument structure’, Journal of Memory and Language 33(2): 251–83CrossRefGoogle 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): 1325–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Roger 1973. A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressCrossRefGoogle 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. 167204
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 BenjaminsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1998. ‘A functionalist approach to grammar and its evolution’, Evolution of Communication 2(2): 249–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2001. Phonology and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2002. ‘Sequentiality as the basis of constituent structure’, in Givón, and Malle, (eds.), pp. 109–34
Bybee, Joan L. 2003. ‘Mechanisms of change in grammaticalization: The role of frequency’, in Joseph, and Janda, (eds.), pp. 602–23
Bybee, Joan L. 2006. ‘From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition’, Language 82(4): 711–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2008a. ‘Grammaticalization: Implications for a theory of language’, in Guo, , Lieven, , Budwig, , Ervin-Tripp, , Nakamura, and Őzçalişkan, (eds.), pp. 345–55
Bybee, Joan L. 2008b. ‘Usage-based grammar and second language acquisition’, in Robinson, and Ellis, (eds.), pp. 216–36
Bybee, Joan L. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2013. ‘Usage-based theory and exemplar representations of constructions’, in Hoffmann, and Trousdale, (eds.), pp. 4969
Bybee, Joan L. 2014. ‘Analytic and holistic processing in the development of constructions’, in Arnon, , Casillas, , Kurumada, and Estigarribia, (eds.), pp. 303–13
Bybee, Joan L., and Beckner, Clay 2014. ‘Language use, cognitive processes and linguistic change’, in Bowern, and Evans, (eds.), pp. 503–18
Bybee, Joan L., and Fleischman, Suzanne (eds.) 1995. Modality in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam: John BenjaminsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., and Hopper, Paul (eds.) 2001. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Typological Studies in Language 45. Amsterdam: John BenjaminsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., and Pagliuca, William 1987. ‘The evolution of future meaning’, in Giacalone Ramat, , Carruba, and Bernini, (eds.), pp. 108–22
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): 575–96CrossRefGoogle 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): 265–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., and Thompson, Sandra 1997. ‘Three frequency effects in syntax’, in Bailey, , Moore, and Moxley, (eds.), pp. 378–88
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): 431–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron-Faulkner, Thea, Lieven, Elena V. M., and Tomasello, Michael 2003. ‘A construction based analysis of child directed speech’, Cognitive Science 27(6): 843–73CrossRefGoogle 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. 371–80
Carey, Kathleen 1994. ‘The grammaticalization of the perfect in Old English: An account based on pragmatics and metaphor’, in Pagliuca, (ed.), pp. 103–17
Carreiras, Manuel, and Clifton, Charles 1993. ‘Relative clause interpretation preferences in Spanish and English’, Language and Speech 36(4): 353–72CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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): 8595CrossRefGoogle 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): 185211CrossRefGoogle 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): 234–72CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chapman, Carol 1995. ‘Perceptual salience and analogical change: Evidence from vowel lengthening in modern Swiss German dialects’, Journal of Linguistics 31(1): 113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chater, Nick, and Manning, Christopher 2006. ‘Probabilistic models of language processing and acquisition’, Trends in Cognitive Science 10(7): 335–44CrossRefGoogle 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. 560607
Chiarcos, Christian 2011. ‘On the dimensions of discourse salience’. www.linguistics.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/bla/beyondsem2011/chiarcos_final.pdf [accessed April 19, 2016]
Chiarcos, Christian, Claus, Berry, and Grabski, Michael 2011a. ‘Introduction’, in Chiarcos, , Claus, and Grabski, (eds.), pp. 128
Chiarcos, Christian, Claus, Berry, and Grabski, Michael (eds.) 2011b. Salience: Multidisciplinary perspectives on its function in discourse. Berlin and New York: Mouton de GruyterCrossRefGoogle 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 ScholarPubMed
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 ScholarPubMed
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): 489509Google Scholar
Christiansen, Morten H., and Chater, Nick 2016. Creating language: Integrating evolution, acquisition, and processing. Cambridge, MA: The MIT PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christiansen, Morten H., and Kirby, Simon (eds.) 2003. Language evolution. Oxford: Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Christianson, Kiel, Hollingworth, Andrew, Halliwell, John F., and Ferreira, Fernanda 2001. ‘Thematic roles assigned along the garden path linger’, Cognitive Psychology 42(2): 368407CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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): 9911060CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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): 225–55CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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. 239–68
Clark, Andy. 2013. ‘Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36(3): 181204Google ScholarPubMed
Clark, Eve V. 1978. ‘Discovering what words can do’, in Farkas, , Jacobsen, and Todrys, (eds.), pp. 3457
Clark, Eve V. 1982. ‘Language change during language acquisition’, in Lamb, and Brown, (eds.), pp. 171–95
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 PressCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, Herbert H., and Wilkes-Gibbs, Deanna 1986. ‘Referring as a collaborative process’, Cognition 22(1): 139CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cleeremans, Axel, and McClelland, James L. 1991. ‘Learning the structure of event sequences’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 120(3): 235–53Google ScholarPubMed
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): 214–30CrossRefGoogle 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. 151216
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): 136–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard 2003. ‘Reconstruction, typology and reality’, in Hickey, (ed.), pp. 243–57
Corder, Stephen P. 1967. ‘The significance of learners’ errors’, International Review of Applied Linguistics 5(1–4): 161–69CrossRefGoogle 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): e0129031CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cottrell, Garrison W., and Plunkett, Kim 1994. ‘Acquiring the mapping from meaning to sounds’, Connection Science 6(4): 379412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, Colette G. (ed.) 1986. Noun classes and categorization. Amsterdam: John BenjaminsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crocker, Matthew W. 1996. Computational psycholinguistics: An interdisciplinary approach to the study of language. Dordrecht: Kluwer AcademicCrossRefGoogle 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 PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William A. 2010. ‘The origins of grammaticalization in the verbalization of experience’, Linguistics 48(1): 148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William, and Cruse, Alan D. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle 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): 73105CrossRefGoogle 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): 133–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutting, J. Cooper, and Bock, J. Kathryn 1997. ‘That’s the way the cookie bounces: Syntactic and semantic components of experimentally elirefd idiom blends’, Memory and Cognition 25(1): 5771CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dąbrowska, Ewa 2000. ‘From formula to schema: The acquisition of English questions’, Cognitive Linguistics 11(1–2): 83102Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa 2001. ‘Learning a morphological system without a default: The Polish genitive’, Journal of Child Language 28(3): 545–74CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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): 219–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa, and Divjak, Dagmar (eds.) 2015. Handbook of cognitive linguistics. Berlin and New York: Mouton de GruyterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danchev, Andrei, and Kytö, Merja 1994. ‘The construction be going to + infinitive in Early Modern English’, in Kastovsky, (ed.), pp. 5978
Danks, David 2003. ‘Equilibria of the Rescorla-Wagner model’, Journal of Mathematical Psychology 47(2): 109–21CrossRefGoogle 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. 353–88
Davidse, Kristin 2009. ‘Complete and sort of: From identifying to intensifying?’, Transactions of the Philological Society 107(3): 262–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, Mark 2010. ‘The corpus of contemporary American English as the first reliable monitor corpus of English’, Literary and Linguistic Computing 25(4): 447–64CrossRefGoogle 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.
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. 199220
Declerck, Renaat 1982. ‘The triple origin of participial perception verb complements’, Linguistic Analysis 10: 126Google 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. 4352
de Houwer, Annick 2007. ‘Parental language input patterns and children’s bilingual use’, Applied Psycholinguistics 28(3): 411–24CrossRefGoogle 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): 329–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, Robert M. 2001. ‘Automaticity and automatization’, in Robinson, (ed.), pp. 125–51
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): 20120394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demberg, Vera, and Keller, Frank 2008. ‘Data from eye-tracking corpora as evidence for theories of syntactic processing complexity’, Cognition 109(2): 193210CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Denison, David 1985. ‘Why Old English had no prepositional passive’, English Studies 66: 189204CrossRefGoogle 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 2002
Denison, David 2006. ‘Category change and gradience in the determiner system’, in van Kemenade, and Los, (eds.), pp. 279304
Denison, David 2010a. ‘Category change in English with and without structural change’, in Traugott, and Trousdale, (eds.), pp. 105–28
Denison, David 2010b. ‘SKT-constructions: The relation between synchronic and diachronic analysis’. Paper presented at SLE 43, Vilnius
Denison, David 2012. ‘On the history of English (and) word classes’. Paper presented at ICEHL17, Zurich
Denison, David 2013. ‘Parts of speech: Solid citizens or slippery customers?’, Journal of the British Academy 1: 151–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denison, David in preparation. English word classes: Categories and their limits. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
de Smedt, Liesbeth 2005. Functions of the T-nouns kind, sort and type: A comprehensive, data-based description. MA thesis. University of Leuven
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. 227–57
de Smet, Hendrik 2009. ‘Analysing reanalysis’, Lingua 119(11): 1728–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Smet, Hendrik 2012. ‘The course of actualization’, Language 88(3): 601–33CrossRefGoogle 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): 433–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger 1999. Demonstratives: Form, function, and grammaticalization. Amsterdam: BenjaminsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger 2004. The acquisition of complex sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger 2007. ‘Frequency effects in language acquisition, language use, and diachronic change’, New Ideas in Psychology 25(2): 108–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger 2011. ‘Grammaticalization and language acquisition’, in Heine, and Narrog, (eds.), pp. 130–41
Diessel, Holger 2012. ‘Diachronic change and language acquisition’, in Bergs, and Brinton, (eds.), pp. 1599–613
Diessel, Holger, and Tomasello, Michael 2001. ‘The acquisition of finite complement clauses in English: A corpus-based analysis’, Cognitive Linguistics 12(2): 97141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele 2002. ‘A model for relevant types of contexts in grammaticalization’, in Wischer, and Diewald, (eds.), pp. 103–20
Diewald, Gabriele 2006. ‘Context types in grammaticalization as constructions’, Constructions 1: 129. 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: BenjaminsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drachman, Geberell 1978. ‘Child language and language change: A conjecture and some refutations’, in Fisiak, (ed.), pp. 123–44
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. 343–65
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): 353–61CrossRefGoogle 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): 125–55CrossRefGoogle 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 ScholarPubMed
Eckardt, Regine 2006. Meaning change in grammaticalization. An enquiry into semantic reanalysis. Oxford: Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle 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): 332CrossRefGoogle 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. 211–82
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): 91126CrossRefGoogle 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): 143–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Nick C. 2005. ‘At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27(2): 305–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Nick C. 2006a. ‘Language acquisition as rational contingency learning’, Applied Linguistics 27(1): 124CrossRefGoogle 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): 164–94CrossRefGoogle 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. 734
Ellis, Nick C. 2013. ‘Construction grammar and second language acquisition’, in Hoffmann, and Trousdale, (eds.), pp. 365–78
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. 239–54
Ellis, Nick C., and Beaton, Alan 1993. ‘Psycholinguistic determinants of foreign language vocabulary learning’, Language Learning 43(4): 559617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Nick C., and Larsen-Freeman, Diane 2006. ‘Language emergence: Implications for applied linguistics’, Applied Linguistics 27(4): 558589CrossRefGoogle 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): 553–80CrossRefGoogle 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): 589624CrossRefGoogle 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): 307–36CrossRefGoogle 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): 6178CrossRefGoogle 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): 375–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elman, Jeffrey L. 1990. ‘Finding structure in time’, Cognitive Science 14(2): 179211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elman, Jeffrey L. 2003. ‘Generalization from sparse input’. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, pp. 175200
Elman, Jeffrey L. 2004. ‘An alternative view of the mental lexicon’, Trends in Cognitive Science 8(7): 301–6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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. 399436
Erkelens, Maria A. 2009. ‘Learning to categorize verbs and nouns: Studies on Dutch’. Leiden: LOT dissertation, Nr. 211
Erman, Britt, and Kotsinas, Ulla-Britt 1993. Pragmaticalization: The case of ‘ba’ and ‘you know’, Studier i Modernspråkvetenskap 10: 7693.
Erman, Britt, and Warren, Beatrice 2000. ‘The idiom principle and the open choice principle’, Text 20(1): 2962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas, and Wilkins, David 2000. ‘In the mind’s ear: The Semantic extensions of perception verbs in Australian languages’, Language 76(3): 546–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan, and Pourcel, Stephanie S. (eds.) 2009. New directions in cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: BenjaminsCrossRefGoogle 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: BenjaminsCrossRefGoogle 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): 164203CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferreira, Fernanda, and Clifton, Charles 1986. ‘The independence of syntactic processing’, Journal of Memory and Language 25(3): 348–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, Fernanda, and Henderson, John M. 1991. ‘Recovery from misanalyses of garden-path sentences’, Journal of Memory and Language 30(6): 725–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, Fernanda, and Patson, Nikole D. 2007. ‘The “good enough” approach to language comprehension’, Language and Linguistics Compass 1(1–2): 7183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, Victor S., Bock, J. Kathryn, Wilson, Michael P., and Cohen, Neal J. 2008. ‘Memory for syntax despite amnesia’, Psychological Science 19(9): 940–46CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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: L07001CrossRefGoogle 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 ScholarPubMed
Field, John 2008. ‘Bricks or mortar: Which parts of the input does a second language listener rely on?’, Tesol Quarterly 42(3): 411–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1977. ‘The case for case reopened’, in Cole, and Sadock, (eds.), pp. 5981
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): 551–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firbas, Jan 1992. Functional sentence perspective in written and spoken communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle 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. 6788
Fischer, Olga 1994. ‘The development of quasi-auxiliaries in English and changes in word order’, Neophilologus 78(1): 137–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga 2000. ‘Grammaticalization: Unidirectional, non-reversable? The case of to before the infinitive in English’, in Fischer, , Rosenbach, and Stein, (eds.), pp. 149–70
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. 3142
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. 120–50
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.)
Fischer, Olga, Rosenbach, Annette, and Stein, Dieter (eds.) 2000. Pathways of change: Grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: BenjaminsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, Olga, and van der Wurff, Wim 2006. ‘Syntax’, in Hogg, and Denison, (eds.), pp. 109–98
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): 4181CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fisiak, Jacek (ed.) 1978. Recent developments in historical phonology. Berlin and New York: Mouton de GruyterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisiak, Jacek (ed.) 1980. Historical morphology. The Hague, Paris and New York: MoutonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisiak, Jacek (ed.) 1985. Historical semantics. Historical word-formation. Berlin, New York and Amsterdam: Mouton de GruyterCrossRefGoogle 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 PressCrossRefGoogle 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): 407–34CrossRefGoogle 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. 2162
Forster, Kenneth I. 1976. ‘Accessing the mental lexicon’, in Wales, and Walker, (eds.), pp. 231–56
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): 4586CrossRefGoogle 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.
Frazier, Lyn 1987. ‘Sentence processing: A tutorial review’, in Coltheart, (ed.), pp. 559–86
Frazier, Lyn, and Clifton, Charles 1996. Construal. Cambridge, MA: The MIT PressGoogle ScholarPubMed
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): 178210CrossRefGoogle 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): 129CrossRefGoogle 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): 643–69CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friederici, Angela 2002. ‘Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6(2): 7884CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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. 159–80
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): 5789CrossRefGoogle 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’.
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): 789806CrossRefGoogle 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 BenjaminsCrossRefGoogle 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): 2428CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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): 5893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrett, Andrew 2011. ‘The historical syntax problem: Reanalysis and directionality’, in Jonas, , Whitman, and Garrett, (eds.), pp. 5272
Garrod, Simon, and Anderson, Anthony 1987. ‘Saying what you mean in dialogue: A study in conceptual and semantic co-ordination’, Cognition 27(2): 181218CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garrod, Simon, and Clark, Aileen 1993. ‘The development of dialogue co-ordination skills in schoolchildren’, Language and Cognitive Processes 8(1): 101–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrod, Simon, and Doherty, Gwyneth 1994. ‘Conversation, co-ordination and convention: An empirical investigation of how groups establish linguistic conventions’, Cognition 53(3): 181215CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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): 155–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentner, Dedre 1988. ‘Metaphor as structure mapping: The relational shift’, Child Development 59(1): 4759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentner, Dedre 2003. ‘Why we’re so smart’, in Gentner, and Goldin-Meadow, (eds.), pp. 195235
Gentner, Dedre 2010. ‘Bootstrapping the mind: Analogical processes and symbol systems’, Cognitive Science 34(5): 752–75CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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): 1173–88CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gentner, Dedre, and Colhoun, Julie 2010. ‘Analogical processes in human thinking and learning’, in Glatzeder, , Goel, and Müller, (eds.), pp. 3548
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): 224–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentner, Dedre, and Markman, Arthur B. 1997. ‘Structure mapping in analogy and similarity’, American Psychologist 52(1): 4556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentner, Dedre, and Medina, Jose 1998. ‘Similarity and the development of rulesCognition 65(2): 263–97CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gentner, Dedre, and Namy, Laura L. 2006. ‘Analogical processes in language learning’, Current Directions in Psychological Science 15(6): 297301CrossRefGoogle 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): 524–75CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gentner, Dedre, and Smith, Linsey 2012. ‘Analogical reasoning’, in Ramachandran, (ed.), pp. 130–36
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 BenjaminsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giacalone Ramat, Anna, Mauri, Caterina, and Molinelli, Piera (eds.) 2013. Synchrony and diachrony: A dynamic interface. Amsterdam: BenjaminsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, Edward 1991. A computational theory of human linguistic processing: Memory limitations and processing breakdown. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Carnegie Mellon.
Gibson, Edward 1998. ‘Syntactic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies’, Cognition 68(1): 175CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, Edward, and Pearlmutter, Neal 1998. ‘Constraints on sentence comprehension’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2(7): 262–68CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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): 113–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gick, Mary L., and Holyoak, Keith J. 1980. ‘Analogical problem solving’, Cognitive Psychology 12(3): 306–55CrossRefGoogle 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): 395427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giora, Rachel 1997. ‘Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded salience hypothesis’, Cognitive Linguistics 8(3): 183206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giora, Rachel 2003. On our mind: Salience, context, and figurative language. New York: Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giora, Rachel 2012. ‘The psychology of utterance processing’, in Allan, and Jaszczolt, (eds.), pp. 151–67
Givón, Talmy 1971. ‘Historical syntax and synchronic morphology: An archeologist’s field trip’, Chicago Linguistic Society 7(1): 394415Google 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): 45116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy 2002. ‘The visual information-processing system as an evolutionary precursor of human language’, in Givón, and Malle, (eds.), pp. 350
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: BenjaminsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glatzeder, Britt, Goel, Vinod, and Müller, Albrecht (eds.) 2010. On thinking, vol. 2: Towards a theory of thinking. Berlin: SpringerCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gleitman, Lila R. 1990. ‘The structural sources of verb meaning’, Language Acquisition 1(1): 355CrossRefGoogle 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): 269–76CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 GruyterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gnutzmann, Claus 1975. ‘Some aspects of grading’, English Studies 56(5): 421–33CrossRefGoogle 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): 325–31CrossRefGoogle 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. 177200
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): 219–24CrossRefGoogle 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 PressCrossRefGoogle 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): 150CrossRefGoogle 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): 156–70CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.
Goosens, Louis 1982. ‘On the development of the modals and of the epistemic function in English’, in Ahlqvist, (ed.), pp. 7484
Gould, Stephen Jay 1977. Ontogeny and phylogeny. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressGoogle ScholarPubMed
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): 221–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2003. ‘Towards a corpus-based identification of prototypical instances of constructions’, Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 1(1): 127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2005. ‘Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach’, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 34(4): 365–99CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gries, Stefan Th. 2008. ‘Dispersions and adjusted frequencies in corpora’, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 13(4): 403–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2010. ‘Dispersions and adjusted frequencies in corpora: Further explorations’, in Gries, , Wulff, and Davies, (eds.), pp. 197212
Gries, Stefan Th. 2013. ‘Sources of variability relevant to the (cognitive) sociolinguist, and quantitative corpus methods to handle them’, Journal of Pragmatics 52(6): 516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2015. ‘The most underused statistical method in corpus linguistics: Multi-level (and mixed-effects) models’, Corpora 10(1): 95125CrossRefGoogle 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. 5775
Gries, Stefan Th., and Divjak, Dagmar S. (eds.) 2012. Frequency effects in language learning and processing. Berlin and New York: Mouton de GruyterCrossRefGoogle 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): 635–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th., and Stefanowitsch, Anatol 2004. ‘Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on “alternations”’, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(1): 97129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th., Wulff, Stefanie, and Davies, Mark (eds.) 2010. Corpus linguistic applications: Current studies, new directions. Amsterdam: RodopiCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffin, Zenzi M. 2001. ‘Gaze durations during speech reflect word selection and phonological encoding’, Cognition 82(1): B1B14CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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): 313–60CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haiman, John 1983. ‘Iconic and economic motivation’, Language 59(4): 781819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haiman, John (ed.) 1985. Iconicity in syntax. Amsterdam: John BenjaminsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haiman, John 1994. ‘Ritualization and the development of language’, in Pagliuca, (ed.), pp. 328
Hale, John T. 2004. Grammar, uncertainty and sentence processing. Doctoral dissertation. The Johns Hopkins University.
Hale, John T. 2011. ‘What a rational parser would do’, Cognitive Science 35(3): 399443CrossRefGoogle 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: 5472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanks, Patrick 2013. Lexical analysis: Norms and exploitations. Cambridge, MA: The MIT PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Björn, and de Haan, Ferdinand 2009. Modals in the languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de GruyterCrossRefGoogle 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): 491528CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 PressCrossRefGoogle 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): 214–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartsuiker, Robert J., and Kolk, Herman H. J. 1998. ‘Syntactic persistence in Dutch’, Language and Speech 41(2): 143–84CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haselow, Alexander 2011. ‘Discourse marker and modal particle: The functions of utterance-final then in spoken English’, Journal of Pragmatics 43(14): 3603–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haselow, Alexander 2012. ‘Discourse organization and the rise of final then in the history of English’, in Hegedüs, and Fodor, (eds.), pp. 153–75
Haspelmath, Martin 1998. ‘Does grammaticalization need reanalysis?’, Studies in Language 22(2): 315–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin 1999. ‘Why is grammaticalization irreversible?’, Linguistics 37(6): 1043–68CrossRefGoogle 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 PressCrossRefGoogle 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. 622–32
Hawkins, John A. 2014. Cross-linguistic variation and efficiency. Oxford: Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, Jennifer 2001. ‘Lexical frequency in morphology: Is everything relative?’, Linguistics 39(6): 1041–70CrossRefGoogle 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: BenjaminsCrossRefGoogle 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. 83101
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, 2014
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 PressCrossRefGoogle 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): 443–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendrix, Peter 2015. Experimental explorations of a discrimination learning approach to language processing. Doctoral dissertation. University of Tübingen
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): 217–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hickey, Raymond (ed.) 2003. Motives for language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hickey, Raymond 2013. ‘English as a contact language in Ireland and Scotland’, in Schreier, and Hundt, (eds.), pp. 206–46
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. 565–89
Hilpert, Martin 2008. Germanic future constructions: A usage-based approach to language change. Amsterdam: John BenjaminsCrossRefGoogle 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): 435–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, Martin 2013. Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle 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): 385401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 2004. ‘Lexicalization and grammaticization: Opposite or orthogonal?’, in Bisang, , Himmelmann, and Wiemer, (eds.), pp. 2142
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. 150
Hock, Hans Heinrich 1991. Principles of historical linguistics. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodge, Carleton 1970. ‘The linguistic cycle’, Linguistic Sciences 13(7): 17Google 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 PressCrossRefGoogle 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. 3140
Hogg, Richard M., and Denison, David (eds.) 2006. A history of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollmann, Willem B. 2003. Synchrony and diachrony of English periphrastic causatives: A cognitive perspective. Doctoral dissertation. University of Manchester.
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): 668–89CrossRefGoogle 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): 4756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooper, Joan B. 1976. ‘Word frequency in lexical diffusion and the source of morphophonological change’, in Christie, (ed.), pp. 96105
Hooper, Joan B. 1980. ‘Child morphology and morphophonemic change’, in Fisiak, (ed.), pp. 157–87
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 BenjaminsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 1998. ‘Emergent grammar’, in Tomasello, (ed.), pp. 155–75
Hopper, Paul J., and Thompson, Sandra A. 1980. ‘Transitivity in grammar and discourse’, Language 56(2): 251–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J., and Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2003. Grammaticalization. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, Laurence R. 1984. ‘Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature’, in Schiffrin, (ed.), pp. 1142
Huang, Yi Ting, and Pinker, Steven 2010. ‘Lexical semantics and irregular inflection’, Language and Cognitive Processes 25(10): 1411–61CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huddleston, Rodney D., and Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle 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. 2069–72
Hundt, Marianne (ed.) 2014a. Late Modern English syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne 2014b. ‘The demise of the being to V construction’, Transactions of the Philological Society 112(2): 167–87CrossRefGoogle 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. 175–88
Huttenlocher, Janellen, Vasilyeva, Marina, Cymerman, Elina, and Levine, Susan 2002. ‘Language input and child syntax’, Cognitive Psychology 45(3): 337–74CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huttenlocher, Janellen, Vasilyeva, Marina, and Shimpi, Priya 2004. ‘Syntactic priming in young children’, Journal of Memory and Language 50(2): 182–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ibbotson, Paul 2013. ‘The scope of usage-based theory’, Frontiers in Psychology 4: 255CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ibbotson, Paul, and Tomasello, Michael 2009. ‘Prototype constructions in early language acquisition’, Language and Cognition 1(1): 5985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Itkonen, Esa 2005. Analogy as structure and process. Amsterdam: BenjaminsCrossRefGoogle 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): 193209CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackendoff, Ray 2002. Foundations of language. Oxford: Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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): 119Google ScholarPubMed
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): 5783CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jäger, Gerhard, and Rosenbach, Anette 2008. ‘Priming and unidirectional language change’, Theoretical Linguistics 34(2): 85113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, William 1890a. The principles of psychology, vol. 1. New York: DoverCrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, William 1890b. The principles of psychology, vol. 2. New York: HoltCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jankowski, Bridget 2004. ‘A transatlantic perspective of variation and change in English deontic modality’, Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 23: 85113Google 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): 687715CrossRefGoogle 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): 433–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Christopher R. 1999. Constructional grounding: The role of interpretational overlap in lexical and constructional acquisition. Doctoral dissertation. University of California, Berkeley
Johnson, Christopher R. 2001. ‘Constructional grounding: On the relation between deictic and existential there constructions in acquisition’, in Cienki, , Luka, and Smith, (eds.), pp. 123–36
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 9
Jonas, Dianne, Whitman, John, and Garrett, Andrew (eds.) 2011. Grammatical change: Origins, nature, outcomes. Oxford: Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Benjamin F. 2005. ‘The burden of knowledge and the “death of the Renaissance man”: Is innovation getting harder?’ Working Paper 11360.
Jones, Gregory V. 1985. ‘Deep dyslexia, imageability, and ease of predication’, Brain and Language 24(1): 119CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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 GruyterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, Brian D., and Janda, Richard D. (eds.) 2003. The handbook of historical linguistics. Oxford: BlackwellCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. 1995. Historical pragmatics: Pragmatic developments in the history of English. Amsterdam: BenjaminsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jurafsky, Daniel 2002. ‘Probabilistic modeling in psycholinguistics: Linguistic comprehension and production’, in Bod, , Hay, and Jannedy, (eds.), pp. 3996
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. 229–54
Kamide, Yuki, and Mitchell, Don 1999. ‘Incremental pre-head attachment in Japanese parsing’, Language and Cognitive Processes 14(5–6): 631–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamin, Leon J. 1969. ‘Predictability, surprise, attention, and conditioning’, in Campbell, and Church, (eds.), pp. 279–96
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): 276–90CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaschak, Michael P. 2006. ‘What this construction needs is generalized’, Memory and Cognition 34(2): 368–79CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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): 862–78CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaschak, Michael P., and Glenberg, Arthur M. 2004. ‘This construction needs learned’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 133(3): 450–67Google ScholarPubMed
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): 728–43CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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): 381–88CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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. 145–58
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): 129–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan 2012. ‘Sociopragmatics and cross-cultural and intercultural studies’, in Allan, and Jaszczolt, (eds.), pp. 599616
Kecskes, Istvan 2013. Intercultural pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keizer, Evelien 2007. The English noun phrase: The nature of linguistic categorization. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle 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): 223–32CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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): 430–46CrossRefGoogle 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): 4373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, Alan, Radach, Ralph, Heller, Dieter, and Pynte, Joël (eds.) 2000. Reading as a perceptual process. Amsterdam: North-Holland/Elsevier Science PublishersCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kepser, Stephan, and Reis, Marga (eds.) 2005. Linguistic evidence. Empirical, theoretical, and computational perspectives. Berlin and New York: Mouton de GruyterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerswill, Paul 1996. ‘Children, adolescents and language change’, Language Variation and Change 8(2): 177202CrossRefGoogle 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. 81110
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. 170202
Kiparsky, Paul 2014. ‘New perspectives in historical linguistics’, in Bowern, and Evans, (eds.), pp. 64102
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: 132 [DOI: 10.1111/cogs.12407]
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): 629–57CrossRefGoogle 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): 1091–114CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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): 313–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang 1998. ‘The contribution of second language acquisition research’, Language Learning 48(4): 527–50CrossRefGoogle 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. 261–84
Konopka, Agnieszka E., and Bock, J. Kathryn 2005. ‘Helping syntax out: What do words do?’ Paper presented at the CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, Tucson, Arizona
Konopka, Agnieszka E., and Bock, J. Kathryn 2009. ‘Lexical or syntactic control of sentence formulation? Structural generalizations from idiom production’, Cognitive Psychology 58(1): 68101CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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): 293319CrossRefGoogle 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 Freiburg
Kroch, Anthony 2001. ‘Syntactic change’, in Baltin, and Collins, (eds.), pp. 699729
Krug, Manfred G. 1998. ‘String frequency. A cognitive motivating factor in coalescence, language processing, and linguistic change’, Journal of English Linguistics 26(4): 286320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krug, Manfred G. 2000. Emerging English modals: A corpus-based study of grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de GruyterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruschke, John K. 2006. ‘Learned attention’. Fifth International Conference on Development and Learning, June 2006. Indiana University
Kruschke, John K., and Blair, Nathaniel J. 2000. ‘Blocking and backward blocking involve learned inattention’, Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 7(4): 636–45CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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): 514Google 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): 2261–71CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuryłowicz, Jerzy 1949. ‘La nature des procès dits “analogiques”’, Acta Linguistica 5(1): 1537Google 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 PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William 1982. ‘Building on empirical foundations’, in Lehmann, and Malkiel, (eds.), pp. 1792
Laird, John E., Newell, Allen, and Rosenbloom, Paul S. 1987. ‘Soar: An architecture for general intelligence’, Artificial intelligence 33(1): 164CrossRefGoogle 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): 1146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago PressCrossRefGoogle 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. 396412
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lang, Jürgen, and Neumann-Holzschuh, Ingrid (eds.) 1999. Reanalyse und Grammatikalisierung in den Romanischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer VerlagCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1977. ‘Syntactic reanalysis’, in Li, (ed.), pp. 57139
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. 163
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langer, Jonas 2000. ‘The descent of cognitive development’, Developmental Science 3(4): 361–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, Diane 1997. ‘Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition’, Applied Linguistics 18(2): 141–65CrossRefGoogle 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): 793824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Łęcki, Andrzej M. 2010. Grammaticalisation paths of have in English. Bern: Peter LangCrossRefGoogle 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 PressCrossRefGoogle 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): 315–44CrossRefGoogle 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]
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: BenjaminsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenker, Ursula 2010. Argument and rhetoric. Adverbial connectors in the history of English. Berlin and New Work: Mouton de GruyterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levelt, Willem J. M., and Kelter, Stephanie 1982. ‘Surface form and memory in question answering’, Cognitive Psychology 14(1): 78106CrossRefGoogle 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): 138Google ScholarPubMed
Levinson, Stephen C. 1995. ‘Three levels of meaning’, in Palmer, (ed.), pp. 90115
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]
Lieberman, Erez, Michel, Jean-Baptiste, Jackson, Joe, Tang, Tina, and Nowak, Martin A. 2007. ‘Quantifying the evolutionary dynamics of language’, Nature 449(7163): 713–16CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lieven, Elena V. M. 2008. ‘Learning the English auxiliary: A usage-based approach’, in Behrens, (ed.), pp. 6198
Lieven, Elena V. M. 2010. ‘Input and first language acquisition: Evaluating the role of frequency’, Lingua 120(11): 2546–56CrossRefGoogle 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 ScholarPubMed
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): 287310CrossRefGoogle 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. 168–96
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): 171–92CrossRefGoogle 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 PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, David 2010. ‘Language acquisition and language change’, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 1(5): 677–84Google ScholarPubMed
Lima, Susan D., Corrigan, Roberta L., and Iverson, Gregory K. (eds.) 1994. The reality of linguistic rules. Amsterdam: John BenjaminsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindquist, Hans, and Mair, Christian (eds.) 2004. Corpus approaches to grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam: BenjaminsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lipka, Leonhard 1985. ‘Inferential features in historical semantics’, in Fisiak, (ed.), pp. 339–54
Lively, Scott E., Pisoni, David B., and Goldinger, Stephen D. 1994. ‘Spoken word recognition: Research and theory’, in Gernsbacher, (ed.), pp. 265301
Loebell, Helga, and Bock, J. Kathryn 2003. ‘Structural priming across languages’, Linguistics 41(5): 791824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
López-Couso, María José 2007. ‘Frequency effects: Middle English nis as a case in point’, in Mazzon, (ed.), pp. 165–78
López-Couso, María José 2011. ‘Developmental parallels in diachronic and ontogenetic grammaticalization: Existential there as a test case’, Folia Linguistica 45(1): 81102CrossRefGoogle 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 PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loudermilk, Brandon C. 2013. ‘Psycholinguistic approaches’, in Bayley, , Cameron, and Lucas, (eds.), pp. 132–52
Luce, Paul A. 1986. ‘A computational analysis of uniqueness points in auditory word recognition’, Perception and Psychophysics 39(3): 155–58CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lüdeling, Anke and Evert, Stefan 2005. ‘The emergence of non-medical -itis. Corpus evidence and qualitative analysis’, in Kepser, and Reis, (eds.), pp. 315–33
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): 436–59CrossRefGoogle 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): 345–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, John 1995. Linguistic semantics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar