References
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 September 2019
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Frequency in LanguageMemory, Attention and Learning, pp. 276 - 321Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Abney, S. 1996. ‘Statistical Methods and Linguistics.’ In Klavans, Judith L. and Resnik, Philip (eds.), The Balancing Act: Combining Symbolic and Statistical Approaches to Language (CogNet: Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
Adelman, J. S., Brown, G. D., and Quesada, J. F.. 2006. ‘Contextual diversity, not word frequency, determines word-naming and lexical decision times’, Psychological Science, 17: 814–23.Google Scholar
Alegre, M., and Gordon, P.. 1999. ‘Frequency effects and the representational status of regular inflections’, Journal of Memory and Language, 40: 41–61.Google Scholar
Alekseev, P. M. 2005. ‘Frequency Dictionaries (Häufigkeitswörterbücher).’ In Köhler, Reinhard, Altmann, Gabriel and Piotrowski, Rajmund G. (eds.), Quantitative Linguistik. Ein internationales Handbuch. Quantitative Linguistics. An international Handbook (Walter de Gruyter: Berlin, New York).Google Scholar
Alkire, M. T., Hudetz, A. G., and Tononi, G.. 2008. ‘Consciousness and anesthesia’, Science, 322: 876–80.Google Scholar
Allan, L. G. 1980. ‘A note on measurement of contingency between two binary variables in judgement tasks’, Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 15: 147–9.Google Scholar
Allen, K., Pereira, F., Botvinick, M., and Goldberg, A. E.. 2012. ‘Distinguishing grammatical constructions with fMRI pattern analysis’, Brain and Language, 123: 174–82.Google Scholar
Allén, S. 1970. Nusvensk frekvensordbok baserad på tidningstext. 1, Graford. Homografkomponenter = Graphic words. Homograph components (Almqvist and Wiksell International: Stockholm).Google Scholar
Allén, S. 1971. Nusvensk frekvensordbok baserad på tidningstext. 2, Lemman = Lemmas (Almqvist and Wiksell International: Stockholm).Google Scholar
Allén, S. 1975. Nusvensk frekvensordbok baserad på tidningstext. 3, Ordförbindelser = Collocations (Almqvist and Wiksell International: Stockholm).Google Scholar
Allén, S. 1980. Nusvensk frekvensordbok baserad på tidningstext. 4, Ordled. Betydelser = Morphemes. Meanings (Almqvist and Wiksell International: Stockholm).Google Scholar
Allopenna, P. D., Magnuson, J. S., and Tanenhaus, M. K.. 1998. ‘Tracking the time course of spoken word recognition using eye movements: evidence for continuous mapping models’, Journal of Memory and Language, 38: 419–39.Google Scholar
Altmann, G. T. M., and Kamide, Y.. 2007. ‘The real-time mediation of visual attention by language and world knowledge: linking anticipatory (and other) eye movements to linguistic processing’, Journal of Memory and Language, 57: 502–18.Google Scholar
Ambridge, B. 2013. ‘How do children restrict their linguistic generalizations? An (un-)grammaticality judgment study’, Cognitive Science, 37: 508–43.Google Scholar
Ambridge, B. 2018. ‘Against stored abstractions: a radical exemplar model of language acquisition.’ Available at SSRN: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3219847Google Scholar
Ambridge, B., Barak, L., Wonnacott, E., Bannard, C., and Sala, G.. 2018. ‘Effects of both pre-emption and entrenchment in the retreat from verb overgeneralization errors: four reanalyses, an extended replication, and a meta-analytic synthesis’, Collabra: Psychology, 4.Google Scholar
Ambridge, B., Bidgood, A., Twomey, K. E., Pine, J. M., Rowland, C. F., and Freudenthal, D.. 2015. ‘Pre-emption versus entrenchment: towards a construction-general solution to the problem of the retreat from verb argument structure overgeneralization’, PLoS ONE, 10: e0123723.Google Scholar
Ambridge, B., Kidd, E., Rowland, C. F., and Theakston, A. L.. 2015. ‘The ubiquity of frequency effects in first language acquisition’, Journal of Child Language, 42: 239–73.Google Scholar
Ambridge, B., and Lieven, E. V. M.. 2011. Child Language Acquisition: Contrasting Theoretical Approaches (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge).Google Scholar
Ambridge, B. and Lieven, E. V. M. 2015. ‘A Constructivist Account of Child Language Acquisition.’ In MacWhinney, Brian and O’Grady, William (eds.), The Handbook of Language Emergence (Wiley Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ).Google Scholar
Ambridge, B., Pine, J. M., and Rowland, C. F.. 2012. ‘Semantics versus statistics in the retreat from locative overgeneralization errors’, Cognition, 123: 260–79.Google Scholar
Ambridge, B., Pine, J. M., Rowland, C. F., and Chang, F.. 2012. ‘The roles of verb semantics, entrenchment, and morphophonology in the retreat from dative argument-structure overgeneralization errors’, Language, 88: 45–81.Google Scholar
Ambridge, B., Pine, J. M., Rowland, C. F., Freudenthal, D., and Chang, F.. 2014. ‘Avoiding dative overgeneralization errors: semantics, statistics or both?’, Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29: 218–43.Google Scholar
Ambridge, B., Theakston, A., Lieven, E. V. M., and Tomasello, M.. 2006. ‘The distributed learning effect for children’s acquisition of an abstract grammatical construction’, Cognitive Development, 21: 174–93.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R. 1982. ‘Acquisition of cognitive skill’, Psychological Review, 89: 369–406.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R. 1990. The Adaptive Character of Thought (Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, Hove, London).Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R., and Milson, R.. 1989. ‘Human memory: an adaptive perspective’, Psychological Review, 96: 703–19.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R., and Schooler, L. J.. 1991. ‘Reflections of the environment in memory’, Psychological Science, 2: 396–408.Google Scholar
Anderson, M. C., Bjork, E. L., and Bjork, R. A.. 2000. ‘Retrieval-induced forgetting: evidence for a recall-specific mechanism’, Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 7: 522–30.Google Scholar
Anderson, M. C., and Spellman, B. A.. 1995. ‘On the status of inhibitory mechanisms in cognition: memory retrieval as a model case’, Psychological Review, 102: 68–100.Google Scholar
Andersson, R., Ferreira, F., and Henderson, J. M.. 2011. ‘I see what you’re saying: the integration of complex speech and scenes during language comprehension’, Acta Psychologica, 137: 208–16.Google Scholar
Annau, Z., and Kamin, L. J.. 1961. ‘The conditioned emotional response as a function of intensity of the US’, Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 54: 428–32.Google Scholar
Antić, E. 2012. ‘Relative Frequency Effects in Russian Morphology.’ In Gries, Stefan Th. and Divjak, Dagmar (eds.), Frequency Effects in Language Learning and Processing. Vol. 1 (De Gruyter Mouton: Berlin, Boston).Google Scholar
Arai, M., and Mazuka, R.. 2014. ‘The development of Japanese passive syntax as indexed by structural priming in comprehension’, The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67: 60–78.Google Scholar
Arnon, I., and Clark, E. V.. 2011. ‘Why brush your teeth is better than teeth: children’s word production is facilitated in familiar sentence-frames’, Language Learning and Development, 7: 107–29.Google Scholar
Arnon, I., and Snider, N.. 2010. ‘More than words: frequency effects for multi-word phrases’, Journal of Memory and Language, 62: 67–82.Google Scholar
Arppe, A. 2008. ‘Univariate, bivariate and multivariate methods in corpus-based lexicography: a study of synonymy’, dissertation, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Arppe, A., Gilquin, G., Glynn, D., Hilpert, M., and Zeschel, A.. 2010. ‘Cognitive corpus linguistics: five points of debate on current theory and methodology’, Corpora, 5: 1–27.Google Scholar
Arppe, A., and Järvikivi, J.. 2007. ‘Every method counts: combining corpus-based and experimental evidence in the study of synonymy’, Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 3: 131–59.Google Scholar
Ashby, F. G., and Alfonso-Reese, L. A.. 1995. ‘Categorization as probability density estimation’, Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 39: 216–33.Google Scholar
Aslin, R. N., Saffran, J. R., and Newport, E. L.. 1998. ‘Computation of conditional probability statistics by eight-month-old infants’, Psychological Science, 9: 321–4.Google Scholar
Awh, E., Belopolsky, A. V., and Theeuwes, J.. 2012. ‘Top-down versus bottom-up attentional control: a failed theoretical dichotomy’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16: 437–43.Google Scholar
Ayres, L. P. 1913. Psychological tests in vocational guidance (Russell Sage Foundation: New York).Google Scholar
Ayres, L. P. 1915. A Measuring Scale for Ability in Spelling (Russell Sage Foundation: New York).Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H. 1993. ‘On Frequency, Transparency, and Productivity.’ In Booij, Geert and van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1992 (Kluwer Academic: Dordrecht).Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H. 2001. Word frequency distributions (Kluwer Academic: Dordrecht, Boston).Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H. 2003. ‘Probabilistic Approaches to Morphology.’ In Bod, Rens, Hay, Jennifer and Jannedy, Stefanie (eds.), Probabilistic linguistics (MIT Press: Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H. 2008. Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, New York).Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H. 2010. ‘Demythologizing the word frequency effect: a discriminative learning perspective’, The Mental Lexicon, 5: 436–61.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H. 2011. ‘Corpus linguistics and naïve discriminative learning’, Brazilian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11: 295–328.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Endresen, A., Janda, L. A., Makarova, A., and Nesset, T.. 2013. ‘Making choices in Russian: pros and cons of statistical methods for rival forms’, Russian Linguistics, 37: 253–91.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H., and Hendrix, P.. 2011. ‘Sidestepping the combinatorial explosion: towards a processing model based on discriminative learning’, Language and Speech, 56 (3): 329–347Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Lieber, R., and Schreuder, R.. 1997. ‘The morphological complexity of simplex nouns’, Linguistics, 35: 861–77.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Milin, P., Durdevic, D. F., Hendrix, P., and Marelli, M.. 2011. ‘An amorphous model for morphological processing in visual comprehension based on naïve discriminative learning’, Psychological Review, 118: 438–81.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Milin, P., and Ramscar, M.. 2016. ‘Frequency in lexical processing’, Aphasiology, 30: 1174–220.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H., and Ramscar, M.. 2015. ‘Abstraction, Storage, and Naïve Discriminative Learning.’ In Dąbrowska, Ewa and Divjak, Dagmar (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (De Gruyter Mouton: Berlin, Boston).Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Shaoul, C., Willits, J., and Ramscar, M.. 2016. ‘Comprehension without segmentation: a proof of concept with naïve discriminative learning’, Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31: 106–28.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Wurm, L. H., and Aycock, J.. 2007. ‘Lexical dynamics for low-frequency complex words. A regression study across tasks and modalities’, The Mental Lexicon, 2: 419–63.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. 1993. ‘Working Memory or Working Attention?’ In Baddeley, Alan and Weiskrantz, Lawrence (eds.), Attention: Selection, Awareness and Control. A Tribute to Donald Broadbent (Oxford University Press: Oxford).Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. 2000. ‘Short-Term and Working Memory.’ In Tulving, E. and Craik, F. I. M. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Memory (Oxford University Press: New York).Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. 2003. ‘Working memory and language: an overview’, Journal of Communication Disorders, 36: 189–208.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A., and Hitch, G.. 1993. ‘The recency effect: implicit learning with explicit retrieval?’, Memory and Cognition, 21: 146–55.Google Scholar
Baddeley, A., and Hitch, G. J.. 1974. ‘Working Memory.’ In Bower, G. A. (ed.), Recent Advances in Learning and Motivation (Academic Press: New York).Google Scholar
Baddeley, A., Lewis, V., Eldridge, M., and Thomson, N.. 1984. ‘Attention and retrieval from long-term memory’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113: 518–40.Google Scholar
Bahrick, H. P. 1984. ‘Semantic memory content in permastore: fifty years of memory for Spanish learned in school’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113: 1–29.Google Scholar
Bahrick, H. P., Bahrick, L. E., Bahrick, A. S., and Bahrick, P. E.. 1993. ‘Maintenance of foreign language vocabulary and the spacing effect’, Psychological Science, 4: 316–21.Google Scholar
Baldwin, D. 1995. ‘Understanding the Link between Joint Attention and Language.’ In Moore, Chris and Dunham, Philip J. (eds.), Joint Attention: Its Origins and Role in Development (Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ).Google Scholar
Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., and Cortese, M. J.. 2012. ‘Megastudies: Large-Scale Analysis of Lexical Processes.’ In Adelman, James S. (ed.), Visual Word Recognition (Psychology Press: London).Google Scholar
Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Hutchison, K. A., Cortese, M. J., Kessler, B., Loftis, B., Neely, J. H., Nelson, D. L., Simpson, G. B., and Treiman, R.. 2007. ‘The English lexicon project’, Behavior Research Methods, 39: 445–59.Google Scholar
Banaji, M. R., and Crowder, R. G.. 1989. ‘The bankruptcy of everyday memory’, American Psychologist, 44: 1185–93.Google Scholar
Bannard, C., and Matthews, D.. 2008. ‘Stored word sequences in language learning: the effect of familiarity on children’s repetition of four-word combinations’, Psychological Science, 19: 241–8.Google Scholar
Bar, M. 2011. Predictions in the Brain: Using Our Past to Generate a Future (Oxford University Press: New York, Oxford).Google Scholar
Bar, M., Aminoff, E., Mason, M., and Fenske, M.. 2007. ‘The units of thought’, Hippocampus, 17: 420–8.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J. 2008. Productivity: Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic (John Benjamins: Amsterdam).Google Scholar
Barlow, H. 1990. ‘Conditions for versatile learning, Helmholtz’s unconscious inference, and the task of perception’, Vision Research, 30: 1561–71.Google Scholar
Baroni, M. 2008. ‘Word Frequency Distributions.’ In Lüdeling, Anke and Kytö, Merja (eds.), Corpus Linguistics. An International Handbook (Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin).Google Scholar
Barrouillet, P., Bernardin, S., Portrat, S., Vergauwe, E., and Camos, V.. 2007. ‘Time and cognitive load in working memory’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33: 570–85.Google Scholar
Bartlett, F. C. 1932. Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
Barto, A., Mirolli, M., and Baldassare, G.. 2013. ‘Novelty or surprise?’, Frontiers in Psychology, 4: 1–15.Google Scholar
Bear, M. F., Connors, B. W., and Paradiso, M. A.. 2016. Neuroscience: Exploring the Brain (Wolters Kluwer: Philadelphia).Google Scholar
Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J. L., Christiansen, M. H., Croft, W., Ellis, N. C., Holland, J., Ke, J., Larsen-Freeman, D., and Schoenemann, T.. 2009. ‘Language is a complex adaptive system: position paper’, Language Learning, 59: 1–26.Google Scholar
Behrens, H., and Pfänder, S. (eds.). 2016. Experience Counts: Frequency Effects in Language (De Gruyter: Berlin, Boston).Google Scholar
Bernolet, S., and Hartsuiker, R. J.. 2010. ‘Does verb bias modulate syntactic priming?’, Cognition, 114: 455–61.Google Scholar
Besner, D., and Humphreys, G. W.. 1991. Basic Processes in Reading: Visual Word Recognition (Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ).Google Scholar
Bever, T. G. 1970. ‘The Cognitive Basis for Linguistic Structure.’ In Hayes, John R. (ed.), Cognition and the Development of Language (John Wiley: New York).Google Scholar
Bicknell, K., Elman, J. L., Hare, M., McRae, K., and Kutas, M.. 2010. ‘Effects of event knowledge in processing verbal arguments’, Journal of Memory and Language, 63: 489–505.Google Scholar
Biederman, I., Glass, A. L., and Stacy, E. W.. 1973. ‘Searching for objects in real-world scenes’, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 97: 22–7.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, L. 1914. ‘Sentence and word’, Transactions of the American Philological Society, 45: 65–75.Google Scholar
Blumenthal-Dramé, A. 2017. ‘Entrenchment from a Psycholinguistic and Neurolinguistic Perspective.’ In Schmid, Hans-Jörg (ed.), Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning: How We Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge (De Gruyter Mouton and APA: Berlin).Google Scholar
Blumenthal-Dramé, A. 2012. Entrenchment in Usage-Based Theories: What Corpus Data Do and Do Not Reveal about the Mind (Mouton De Gruyter: Berlin).Google Scholar
Blything, R. P., Ambridge, B., and Lieven, E. V. M.. 2014. ‘Children use statistics and semantics in the retreat from overgeneralization’, PLoS ONE, 9: e110009.Google Scholar
Bock, K. 1986. ‘Syntactic persistence in language production’, Cognitive Psychology, 18: 355–87.Google Scholar
Bock, K., and Ferreira, V.. 2014. ‘Syntactically Speaking.’ In Goldrick, Matthew, Ferreira, Victor and Miozzo, Michele (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Sentence Production (Oxford University Press: New York).Google Scholar
Bock, K., and Griffin, Z. M.. 2000. ‘The persistence of structural priming: transient activation or implicit learning?’, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 129: 177–92.Google Scholar
Bock, K., Irwin, D. E., and Davidson, D. J.. 2004. ‘Putting First Things First.’ In Henderson, John M. and Ferreira, Fernanda (eds.), The Interface of Language, Vision, and Action: Eye Movements and the Visual World (Psychology Press: New York).Google Scholar
Bock, K., and Levelt, W. J. M.. 2002. ‘Language Production: Grammatical Encoding.’ In Altmann, Gerry T. M. (ed.), Psycholinguistics: Critical Concepts in Psychology (Routledge: London).Google Scholar
Bod, R. 2009. ‘From exemplar to grammar: a probabilistic analogy-based model of language learning’, Cognitive Science, 33: 752–93.Google Scholar
Bod, R., Hay, J., and Jannedy, S.. 2003a. ‘Introduction.’ In Rens Bod, Jennifer Hay and Jannedy, Stefanie (eds.), Probabilistic Linguistics (MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, London).Google Scholar
Bod, R., Hay, J., and Jannedy, S.. 2003b. Probabilistic Linguistics (MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, London).Google Scholar
Boldrini, M. 1948. Le statistiche letterarie e i fonemi elementari nella poesia (Milano).Google Scholar
Bontrager, T. 1991. ‘The development of word frequency lists prior to the 1944 Thorndike–Lorge list’, Reading Psychology, 12 (2): 91–116.Google Scholar
Bouton, M. E. 1991. ‘Context and Retrieval in Extinction and in Other Examples of Interference in Simple Associative Learning.’ In Dachowski, Lawrence and Flaherty, Charles F. (eds.), Current Topics in Animal Learning: Brain, Emotion, and Cognition (Earlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ.).Google Scholar
Bouton, M. E. 1993. ‘Context, time, and memory retrieval in the interference paradigms of Pavlovian learning’, Psychological Bulletin, 114: 80–99.Google Scholar
Bouton, M. E. 1994. ‘Conditioning, remembering, and forgetting’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 20: 219–31.Google Scholar
Bouton, M. E. 2007. Learning and Behavior. A Contemporary Synthesis (Sinauer Associates: Sunderland, MA).Google Scholar
Bowers, J. S., and Davis, C. J.. 2012. ‘Bayesian Just-So Stories in psychology and neuroscience’, Psychological Bulletin, 138: 389–414.Google Scholar
Boyd, J. K. 2014. ‘Statistical Pre-emption.’ In Brooks, Patricia and Kempe, Vera (eds.), Encyclopedia of Language Development (SAGE Reference: Los Angeles).Google Scholar
Boyd, J. K., Ackerman, F., and Kutas, M.. 2012. ‘Adult learners use both entrenchment and preemption to infer grammatical constraints.’ In 2012 IEEE International Conference on Development and Learning and Epigenetic Robotics (ICDL), 1–2.Google Scholar
Boyd, J. K., and Goldberg, A. E.. 2011. ‘Learning what not to say: categorization, statistical pre-emption, and discounting in a-adjective production’, Language, 87: 55–83.Google Scholar
Boye, K., and Engberg-Pedersen, E.. 2010. ‘Introduction.’ In Boye, Kasper and Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth (eds.), Language Usage and Language Structure (De Gruyter Mouton: Berlin, New York).Google Scholar
Bradshaw, J. L. 1984. ‘A guide to norms, ratings, and lists’, Memory and Cognition, 12: 202–6.Google Scholar
Braine, M. D. S., and Brooks, P.. 1995. ‘Verb Argument Structure and the Problem of Avoiding an Overgeneral Grammar.’ In Tomasello, Michael and Merriman, William E. (eds.), Beyond Names for Things: Young Children’s Acquisition of Verbs (Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ).Google Scholar
Branigan, H. P., and Pickering, M. J.. 2017. ‘Structural Priming and the Representation of Language’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40.Google Scholar
Brase, G. L., Cosmides, L., and Tooby, J.. 1998. ‘Individuation, counting, and statistical inference: the role of frequency and whole-object representations in judgment under uncertainty’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127: 3–21.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. 2007. ‘Is Syntactic Knowledge Probabilistic? Experiments with the Dative Alternation.’ In Featherston, Sam and Sternefeld, Wolfgang (eds.), Roots: Linguistics in Search of Its Evidential Base (Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin).Google Scholar
Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T., and Baayen, R. H.. 2007. ‘Predicting the Dative Alternation.’ In Boume, Gerlof, Kraemer, Irene and Zwarts, Joost (eds.), Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation (Royal Netherlands Academy of Science: Amsterdam).Google Scholar
Bresnan, J., and Ford, M.. 2010. ‘Predicting syntax: processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English’, Language, 86: 186–213.Google Scholar
Bright, T. 1588. Characterie. An Arte of shorte, swifte, and secrete writing by character (Windet, I.: London).Google Scholar
Broadbent, D. E. 1959. ‘Review of verbal behavior’, British Journal of Psychology, 50: 371–3Google Scholar
Broadbent, D. E. 1967. ‘Word-frequency effect and response bias’, Psychological Review, 74: 1–15.Google Scholar
Brooks, P., and Tomasello, M.. 1999. ‘How children constrain their argument structure constructions’, Language, 75: 720–38.Google Scholar
Browne, C., Culligan, B., and Phillips, J.. 2013. ‘New General Service List’, www.newgeneralservicelist.org.Google Scholar
Bruner, J. S. 1978. ‘From Communication to Language: A Psychological Perspective.’ In Markova, Ivana (ed.), The Social Context of Language (Wiley: New York).Google Scholar
Brysbaert, M., and New, B.. 2009. ‘Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: a critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English’, Behavior Research Methods, 41: 977–90.Google Scholar
Bush, R. R., and Mosteller, F.. 1951. ‘A mathematical model for simple learning’, Psychological Review, 58: 313–23.Google Scholar
Buswell, G. T. 1935. How People Look at Pictures: A Study of the Psychology of Perception in Art (University of Chicago Press: Chicago).Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. 1985. Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form (John Benjamins: Amsterdam, Philadelphia).Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. 1994. ‘Productivity, Regularity and Fusion: How Language Use Affects the Lexicon.’ In Singh, Rajendra and Desrochers, Richard (eds.), Trubetzkoy’s Orphan: Proceedings of the Montreal Roundtable ‘Morphonology: Contemporary Responses’ (John Benjamins: Amsterdam, Philadelphia).Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. 1995. ‘Regular morphology and the lexicon’, Language and Cognitive Processes, 10: 425–55.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. 2001. Phonology and Language Use (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. 2003. ‘Mechanisms of Change in Grammaticization: The Role of Frequency.’ In Joseph, Brian D. and Janda, Richard D. (eds.), Handbook of Historical Linguistics (Blackwell: Oxford).Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. 2006. ‘From usage to grammar: the mind’s response to repetition’, Language, 82: 711–33.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. 2007. Frequency of Use and the Organization of Language (Oxford University Press: New York, Oxford).Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. 2008. ‘Usage-Based Grammar and Second Language Acquisition.’ In Robinson, Peter and Ellis, Nick C. (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition (Routledge: New York).Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. 2013. ‘Usage-Based Theory and Exemplar Representation.’ In Hoffman, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (Oxford University Press: Oxford).Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L., and Beckner, C.. 2009. ‘Usage-Based Theory.’ In Heine, Bernd and Narrog, Heiko (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis (Oxford University Press: Oxford).Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L., and Eddington, D.. 2006. ‘A usage-based approach to Spanish verbs of “becoming”’, Language, 82: 323–55.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L., and Hopper, P.. 2001a. Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure (John Benjamins: Amsterdam, Philadelphia).Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L., and Hopper, P. 2001b. ‘Introduction.’ In Bybee, Joan L. and Hopper, Paul (eds.), Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure (John Benjamins: Amsterdam, Philadelphia).Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L., and Thompson, S.. 2000. ‘Three Frequency Effects in Syntax.’ In The Twenty-Third Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session and Parasession on Pragmatics and Grammatical Structure., 65–85 (Berkeley Linguistics Society: Berkeley).Google Scholar
Caldwell-Harris, C. L., Berant, J., and Edelman, S.. 2012. ‘Measuring Mental Entrenchment of Phrases with Perceptual Identification, Familiarity Ratings, and Corpus Frequency Statistics.’ In Gries, Stefan Th. and Divjak, Dagmar (eds.), Frequency Effects in Cognitive Linguistics (Vol. 1): Statistical Effects in Learnability, Processing and Change (De Gruyter Mouton: The Hague).Google Scholar
Calude, A. S., and Miller, S.. 2009. ‘Are clefts contagious in conversation?’, English Language and Linguistics, 13: 127–32.Google Scholar
Caplan, D., and Waters, G. S.. 1999. ‘Verbal working memory and sentence comprehension’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22: 77–94.Google Scholar
Carey, S., and Bartlett, E.. 1978. ‘Acquiring a single new word.’ In Proceedings of the Stanford Child Language Conference, 17–29.Google Scholar
Carpenter, S. K., Cepeda, N. J., Rohrer, D., and Kang, S. H. K.. 2012. ‘Using spacing to enhance diverse forms of learning: review of recent research and implications for instruction’, Educational Psychology Review, 24: 369–78.Google Scholar
Casenhiser, D. M., and Bencini, G. M. L.. 2015. ‘Argument Structure Constructions.’ In Dąbrowska, Ewa and Divjak, Dagmar (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (De Gruyter Mouton: Berlin, Boston).Google Scholar
Castel, A. D., and Craik, F. I. M.. 2003. ‘The effects of aging and divided attention on memory for item and associative information’, Psychology and Aging, 18: 873–85.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. 1979. ‘The Flow of Thought and the Flow of Language.’ In Givón, Talmy (ed.), Discourse and Syntax (Academic Press: New York).Google Scholar
Chafe, W. 1982. ‘Integration and Involvement in Speaking, Writing, and Oral Literature.’ In Tannen, Deborah (ed.), Spoken and Written Language: Exploring Orality and Literacy (Ablex: Norwood, NJ).Google Scholar
Chafe, W. 1994. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing (The University of Chicago Press: Chicago).Google Scholar
Chafe, W. 1998. ‘Language and the Flow of Thought.’ In Tomasello, Michael (ed.), The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure (Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ).Google Scholar
Chater, N., and Manning, C. D.. 2006. ‘Probabilistic models of language processing and acquisition’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10: 335–44.Google Scholar
Chelazzi, L., Miller, E. K., Duncan, J., and Desimone, R.. 1993. ‘A neural basis for visual search in inferior temporal cortex’, Nature, 363: 345–7.Google Scholar
Cheng, P. W., and Holyoak, K. J.. 1995. ‘Adaptive Systems as Intuitive Statisticians: Causality, Contingency, and Prediction.’ In Meyer, J.-A. and Roitblat, H. (eds.), Comparative Approaches to Cognition (MIT Press: Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
Cheng, P. W., and Novick, L. R.. 1990. ‘A probabilistic contrast model of causal induction’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58: 545–67.Google Scholar
Cherry, E. C. 1953. ‘Some experiments on the recognition of speech, with one and with two ears’, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 25: 975–9.Google Scholar
Choi, S., and Bowerman, M.. 1991. ‘Learning to express motion events in English and Korean: the influence of language-specific lexicalization patterns’, Cognition, 41: 83–121.Google Scholar
Christiansen, M. H, and Arnon, I. (eds.). 2017. More Than Words: The Role of Multiword Sequences in Language Learning and Use, TopiCS, Special issue, 9 (3): 542–51.Google Scholar
Chun, M. M. 2000. ‘Contextual cueing of visual attention’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4: 170–8.Google Scholar
Chun, M. M., Golomb, J. D., and Turk-Browne, N. B.. 2011. ‘A taxonomy of external and internal attention’, Annual Review of Psychology, 62: 73–101.Google Scholar
Chun, M. M., and Jiang, Y.. 1998. ‘Contextual cueing: implicit learning and memory of visual context guides spatial attention’, Cognitive Psychology, 36: 28–71.Google Scholar
Chun, M. M., and Johnson, M. K.. 2011. ‘Memory: enduring traces of perceptual and reflective attention’, Neuron, 72: 520–35.Google Scholar
Chun, M. M., and Turk-Browne, N. B.. 2007. ‘Interactions between attention and memory’, Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 17: 177–84.Google Scholar
Church, K., and Gale, W.. 1995. ‘Poisson mixtures’, Natural Language Engineering, 1: 163–90.Google Scholar
Church, K. W., and Hanks, P.. 1990. ‘Word association norms, mutual information, and lexicography’, Computational Linguistics, 16: 22–9.Google Scholar
Clark, A. 2013. ‘Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science’, The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36: 181–204.Google Scholar
Clark, A. 2015a. ‘Conservative versus radical predictive processing,’ blog, Schwenkler, John (ed.), The Brains Blog.Google Scholar
Clark, A. 2015c. ‘Surfing uncertainty: prediction, action and the embodied mind,’ blog, Schwenkler, John (ed.), The Brains Blog.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. 1993. The Lexicon in Acquisition (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
Clarke, W. F. 1921. ‘Writing vocabularies’, The Elementary School Journal, 10: 349–51.Google Scholar
Clausner, T. C., and Croft, W.. 1997. ‘Productivity and schematicity in metaphors’, Cognitive Science, 21: 247–82.Google Scholar
Coco, M. I., and Keller, F.. 2015. ‘The interaction of visual and linguistic saliency during syntactic ambiguity resolution’, The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68: 46–74.Google Scholar
Cohen, N. J., and Squire, L. R.. 1980. ‘Preserved learning and retention of pattern-analyzing skill in amnesia: dissociation of knowing how and knowing that’, Science, 210: 207–9.Google Scholar
Colleman, T., and Bernolet, S.. 2012. ‘Alternation Biases in Corpora vs. Picture Description Experiments: Do-Biased and Pd-Biased Verbs in the Dutch Dative Alternation.’ In Divjak, Dagmar and Gries, Stefan Th. (eds.), Frequency Effects in Language Representation (De Gruyter Mouton: Berlin, New York).Google Scholar
Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R., and Ziegler, J.. 2001. ‘DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud’, Psychological Review, 108: 204–56.Google Scholar
Conway, C. M., Bauernschmidt, A., Huang, S. S., and Pisoni, D. B.. 2010. ‘Implicit statistical learning in language processing: word predictability is the key’, Cognition, 114: 356–71.Google Scholar
Conway, M. A., Pleydell-Pearce, C. W., Whitecross, S. E., and Sharpe, H.. 2003. ‘Neurophysiological correlates of memory for experienced and imagined events’, Neuropsychologia, 41: 334–40.Google Scholar
Cooper, R. M. 1974. ‘The control of eye fixation by the meaning of spoken language: a new methodology for the real-time investigation of speech perception, memory, and language processing’, Cognitive Psychology, 6: 84–107.Google Scholar
Corbetta, M., and Shulman, G.. 2002. ‘Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain’, Nature Reviews: Neuroscience, 3: 215–29.Google Scholar
Cordes, A.-K. 2017. ‘The Roles of Analogy, Categorization, and Generalization in Entrenchment.’ In Schmid, Hans-Joerg (ed.), Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning: How We Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge (De Gruyter Mouton and APA: Berlin).Google Scholar
Cosmides, L., and Tooby, J.. 1996. ‘Are humans good intuitive statisticians after all? Rethinking some conclusions from the literature on judgment under uncertainty’, Cognition, 58: 1–73.Google Scholar
Courville, A. C., Daw, N. D., and Touretzky, D. S.. 2006. ‘Bayesian theories of conditioning in a changing world’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10: 294–300.Google Scholar
Cover, T. M., and Thomas, J. A.. 1991. Elements of Information Theory (Wiley: New York; Chichester).Google Scholar
Cover, T. M., and Thomas, J. A. 2006. Elements of Information Theory (John Wiley and Sons, Inc: Hoboken, NJ).Google Scholar
Cowan, N. 1988. ‘Evolving conceptions of memory storage, selective attention, and their mutual constraints within the human information-processing system’, Psychological Bulletin, 104: 163–91.Google Scholar
Cowan, N. 2001. ‘The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24: 87–114.Google Scholar
Cox, R. T. 1946. ‘Probability, frequency and reasonable expectation’, American Journal of Physics, 14: 1–13.Google Scholar
Craik, F. I., and Tulving, E.. 1975. ‘Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104: 268–94.Google Scholar
Craik, F. I., Govoni, R., Naveh-Benjamin, M., and Anderson, N. D.. 1996. ‘The effects of divided attention on encoding and retrieval processes in human memory’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125: 159–80.Google Scholar
Craik, F. I. M., and Lockhart, R. S.. 1972. ‘Levels of processing: a framework for memory research’, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11: 671–84.Google Scholar
Crick, F., and Koch, C.. 1998. ‘Consciousness and neuroscience’, Cerebral Cortex, 8: 97–107.Google Scholar
Crocker, M. W., and Brants, T.. 2000. ‘Wide-coverage probabilistic sentence processing’, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 29: 647–69.Google Scholar
Croft, W. 2009. ‘Toward a Social Cognitive Linguistics.’ In Evans, Vyvyan and Pourcel, Stephanie (eds.), New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics (John Benjamins: Amsterdam, Philadelphia).Google Scholar
Croft, W., and Cruse, D. A.. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
Cutler, A. 1981. ‘Making up materials is a confounded nuisance, or: will we be able to run any psycholinguistic experiments at all in 1990’, Cognition, 10: 65–70.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. 2000. ‘From formula to schema: the acquisition of English questions’, Cognitive Linguistics, 11: 83–102.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. 2004. ‘Rules or schemas? Evidence from Polish’, Language and Cognitive Processes, 19: 225–71.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. 2008. ‘Questions with long-distance dependencies: a usage-based perspective’, Cognitive Linguistics, 19: 391–425.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. 2015. ‘Individual Differences in Grammatical Knowledge.’ In Dąbrowska, Ewa and Divjak, Dagmar (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (De Gruyter: Berlin).Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E., and Divjak, D.. 2015. ‘Introduction.’ In Dąbrowska, Ewa and Divjak, Dagmar (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (De Gruyter de Mouton: Berlin, Boston).Google Scholar
Daelemans, W., and Van den Bosch, A.. 2005. Memory-Based Language Processing (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge).Google Scholar
Dahan, D., and Tanenhaus, M. K.. 2005. ‘Looking at the rope when looking for the snake: conceptually mediated eye movements during spoken-word recognition’, Psychonomic Bulletin and Review: A Journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc., 12: 453–9.Google Scholar
Dahl, Ö. 2013. ‘Tense-aspect-mood-evidentiality (TAME) and the Organization of Human Memory.’ In Molsing, Karina Veronica and Tramunt Ibaños, Anna Maria (eds.), Time and TAME in Language (Cambridge Scholars Publishing: Newcastle upon Tyne).Google Scholar
Davis, M. H., and Gaskell, M. G.. 2009. ‘A complementary systems account of word learning: neural and behavioural evidence’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 364: 3773–800.Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. 1982. The Extended Phenotype: The Gene as the Unit of Selection (Freeman: Oxford).Google Scholar
De Pisapia, N., Repovš, G., and Braver, T. S.. 2008. ‘Computational Models of Attention and Cognitive Control.’ In Sun, Ron (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Computational Psychology (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge UK).Google Scholar
de Saussure, F. 1916/1966. Course in General Linguistics (McGraw-Hill Book Co.: New York).Google Scholar
De Smet, H., and Cuyckens, H.. 2007. ‘Diachronic Aspects of Complementation: Constructions, Entrenchment and the Matching Problem.’ In Cains, C. M. and Russom, G. (eds.), Studies in the History of the English Language III: Managing Chaos, Strategies for identifying Change in English (Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin).Google Scholar
Dell, G. S. 1986. ‘A spreading activation theory of retrieval in language production’, Psychological Review, 93.Google Scholar
Dell, G. S., Schwartz, M. F., Martin, N., Saffran, E. M., and Gagnon, D. A.. 1997. ‘Lexical access in aphasic and nonaphasic speakers’, Psychological Review, 104: 801–939.Google Scholar
Delong, K. A., Troyer, M., and Kutas, M.. 2014. ‘Pre‐processing in sentence comprehension: sensitivity to likely upcoming meaning and structure’, Language and Linguistics Compass, 8: 631–45.Google Scholar
DeLong, K. A., Urbach, T. P., and Kutas, M.. 2005. ‘Probabilistic word pre-activation during language comprehension inferred from electrical brain activity’, Nature Neuroscience, 8: 1117–21.Google Scholar
Dennet, D. 1979. Brainstorms. Philosophical Essays on Mind and Psychology (Harvester Press: Hassocks).Google Scholar
Dennis, S., and Humphreys, M. S.. 2001. ‘A context noise model of episodic word recognition’, Psychological Review, 108.Google Scholar
Desimone, R., and Duncan, J.. 1995. ‘Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention’, Annual Review of Neuroscience, 18: 193.Google Scholar
Deutsch, J. A., and Deutsch, D.. 1963. ‘Attention: some theoretical considerations’, Psychological Review, 70: 80–90.Google Scholar
Dewey, G. 1923. Relative Frequency of English Speech Sounds (Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
Diessel, H. 2007. ‘Frequency effects in language acquisition, language use, and diachronic change’, New Ideas in Psychology, 25: 108–27.Google Scholar
Divjak, D. 2003. ‘On trying in Russian: a tentative network model for near(er) synonyms’, Slavica Gandensia, 30: 25–58.Google Scholar
Divjak, D. 2004. ‘Degrees of verb integration: conceptualizing and categorizing events in Russian’, Ph.D. thesis, Katholieke Universiteit, Leuven, Belgium.Google Scholar
Divjak, D. 2008. ‘On (In)Frequency and (Un)Acceptability.’ In Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, Barbara (ed.), Corpus Linguistics, Computer Tools and Applications: State of the Art (Peter Lang: Frankfurt a. Main).Google Scholar
Divjak, D. 2010. Structuring the Lexicon: A Clustered Model for Near-Synonymy (De Gruyter Mouton: Berlin; New York).Google Scholar
Divjak, D. 2015. ‘Four Challenges for Usage-Based Linguistics.’ In Daems, Jocelyne, Zenner, Eline, Heylen, Kris, Speelman, Dirk and Cuycken, Hubert (eds.), Change of Paradigms: New Paradoxes. Recontextualizing Language and Linguistics (De Gruyter: Berlin).Google Scholar
Divjak, D. 2017. ‘The role of lexical frequency in the acceptability of syntactic variants: evidence from that‐clauses in Polish’, Cognitive Science, 41: 354–82.Google Scholar
Divjak, D. 2018. ‘Binding Scale Dynamics: Fact or Fiction?’ In Van Olmen, Daniël, Mortelmans, Tanja and Brisard, Frank (eds.), Aspects of Linguistic Variation: Studies in Honor of Johan van der Auwera (De Gruyter: Berlin).Google Scholar
Divjak, D., and Arppe, A.. 2013. ‘Extracting prototypes from exemplars: what can corpus data tell us about concept representation?’, Cognitive Linguistics, 24: 221–74.Google Scholar
Divjak, D., Arppe, A., and Baayen, R. H.. 2016. ‘Does Language-as-Used Fit a Self-Paced Reading Paradigm? (The Answer May Well Depend on the Statistical Model You Use).’ In Gattnar, Anja, Anstatt, Tanja and Clasmeier, Christina (eds.), Slavic Languages and the Black Box (Narr-Verlag: Tübingen).Google Scholar
Divjak, D., and Caldwell-Harris, C. L.. 2015. ‘Frequency and Entrenchment.’ In Dąbrowska, Ewa and Divjak, Dagmar (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (Walter de Gruyter: Berlin, Boston).Google Scholar
Divjak, D., Dąbrowska, E., and Arppe, A.. 2016. ‘Machine meets man: evaluating the psychological reality of corpus-based probabilistic models’, Cognitive Linguistics, 27: 1–34.Google Scholar
Divjak, D., and Gries, S. T.. 2006. ‘Ways of trying in Russian clustering behavioral profiles’, Journal of Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 2: 23–60.Google Scholar
Divjak, D., and Gries, S. T. 2012. Frequency Effects in Language Representation (De Gruyter Mouton: Berlin).Google Scholar
Divjak, D., Levshina, N., and Klavan, J.. 2016. ‘Cognitive linguistics: looking back, looking forward’, Cognitive Linguistics, 27: 447–63.Google Scholar
Divjak, D., Szymor, N., and Socha-Michalik, A.. 2015. ‘Towards a usage-based categorization of Polish modals’, Russian Linguistics, 39: 327–49.Google Scholar
Draaisma, D. 2000. Metaphors of Memory: A History of Ideas about the Mind (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
Drobisch, M. W. 1866. ‘Ein statistischer Versuch über die Formen des lateinischen Hexameters’, Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Königlich-Sächsische Gesellschaft, Philologisch-Historische Classe, 18: 75–139.Google Scholar
Dror, I. E., and Gallogly, D. P.. 1999. ‘Computational analyses in cognitive neuroscience: in defense of biological implausibility’, Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 6: 173–82.Google Scholar
Duncan, J. 1996. ‘Cooperating Brain Systems in Selective Perception and Action.’ In Inui, T. and McClelland, J. L. (eds.), Attention and Performance XVI (MIT Press: Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
Duncan, J., and Humphreys, G.. 1992. ‘Beyond the search surface: visual search and attentional engagement’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18: 578–88.Google Scholar
Duncan, J., and Humphreys, G. W.. 1989. ‘Visual search and stimulus similarity’, Psychological Review, 96: 433–58.Google Scholar
Ebbinghaus, H. 1885a. Memory: A Contribution to Experimental Psychology (Dover: New York).Google Scholar
Ebbinghaus, H. 1885b. Über das Gedächtnis. Untersuchungen zur experimentellen Psychologie (Duncker and Humblot: Leipzig).Google Scholar
Eddington, D. 2000. ‘Analogy and the dual-route model of morphology’, Lingua, 110: 281–98.Google Scholar
Edelman, S. 2006. ‘Bridging Language with the Rest of Cognition: Computational, Algorithmic and Neurobiological Issues and Methods.’ In Gonzalez-Marquez, Monica, Mittelberg, Irene, Coulson, Seana and Spivey, Michael J. (eds.), Methods in Cognitive Linguistics (John Benjamins: Amsterdam, Philadelphia).Google Scholar
Edelman, S. 2008. Computing the Mind: How the Mind Really Works (Oxford University Press: Oxford).Google Scholar
Edelman, S. 2011. ‘On Look-Ahead in Language: Navigating A Multitude of Familiar Paths.’ In Bar, Moshe (ed.), Predictions in the Brain: Using Our Past to Generate a Future (Oxford University Press: New York, Oxford).Google Scholar
Egeth, H. E., and Yantis, S.. 1997. ‘Visual attention: control, representation, and time course’, Annual Review of Psychology, 48: 269–97.Google Scholar
Ehrlich, S. F., and Rayner, K.. 1981. ‘Contextual effects on word perception and eye movements during reading’, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20: 641–55.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. 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: 143–88.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. 2006. ‘Language acquisition as rational contingency learning’, Applied Linguistics, 27: 1–24.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. 2012. ‘What Can We Count in Language, and What Counts in Language Acquisition, Cognition, and Use?’ In Gries, Stefan Th. and Divjak, Dagmar (eds.), Frequency Effects in Language Learning and Processing (Vol. 1) (Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin).Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. 2016. ‘Online processing of Verb–Argument Constructions: lexical decision and meaningfulness’, Language and Cognition, special issue, 8 (3): 391–420.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., and Ferreira-Junior, F.. 2009. ‘Construction learning as a function of frequency, frequency distribution, and function’, Modern Language Journal, 93: 370–85.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., and Larsen-Freeman, D.. 2006. ‘Language emergence: implications for applied linguistics: introduction to the special issue’, Applied Linguistics, 27: 558–89.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., Römer, U., and Brook O’Donnell, M.. 2016. Usage-Based Approaches to Language Acquisition and Processing: Cognitive and Corpus Investigations of Construction Grammar (Wiley: West Sussex).Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., and Simpson-Vlach, R.. 2009. ‘Formulaic language in native speakers: triangulating psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and education’, Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 5: 61–78.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., and Wulff, S.. 2015. ‘Second Language Acquisition.’ In Dąbrowska, Ewa and Divjak, Dagmar (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (Gruyter de Mouton: Berlin, Boston).Google Scholar
Elman, J. L. 1991. ‘Distributed representations, simple recurrent networks, and grammatical structure’, Machine Learning, 7: 195–225.Google Scholar
Elman, J. L. 1993. ‘Learning and development in neural networks: the importance of starting small’, Cognition, 48: 71–99.Google Scholar
Elman, J. L. 2009. ‘On the meaning of words and dinosaur bones: lexical knowledge without a lexicon’, Cognitive Science, 33: 547–82.Google Scholar
Elman, J. L., Bates, E. A., Johnson, D. M., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D., and Plunkett, K.. 1996. Rethinking Innateness: A Connectionist Perspective on Development (MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, London).Google Scholar
Engle, R. W., Tuholski, S. W., Laughlin, J. E., and Conway, A. R. A.. 1999. ‘Working memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: a latent-variable approach’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128: 309–31.Google Scholar
Erickson, L. C., and Thiessen, E. D.. 2015. ‘Statistical learning of language: theory, validity, and predictions of a statistical learning account of language acquisition’, Developmental Review, 37: 66–108.Google Scholar
Erk, S., Kiefer, M., Grothe, J., Wunderlich, A. P., Spitzer, M., and Walter, H.. 2003. ‘Emotional context modulates subsequent memory effect’, NeuroImage, 18: 439–47.Google Scholar
Erker, D., and Guy, G. R.. 2012. ‘The role of lexical frequency in syntactic variability: variable subject personal pronoun expression in Spanish’, Language, 88: 526–57.Google Scholar
Estes, W. K. 1950. ‘Toward a statistical theory of learning’, Psychological Review, 57: 94–107.Google Scholar
Estoup, J. B. 1902. Gammes sténographiques. Recueil de textes choisis pour l’acquisition méthodique de la vitesse, précédé d’une introduction par J.-B. Estoup (Institut Sténographique: Paris).Google Scholar
Evans, J. S. B. T., Handley, S. J., Perham, N., Over, D. E., and Thompson, V. A.. 2000. ‘Frequency versus probability formats in statistical word problems’, Cognition, 77: 197–213.Google Scholar
Evans, J. S. B. T., and Over, D.. 1996. Rationality and Reasoning (Psychology Press: Hove).Google Scholar
Evans, N., and Levinson, S. C.. 2009. ‘The myth of language universals: language diversity and its importance for cognitive science’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32: 429–92.Google Scholar
Evert, S. 2005. ‘The statistics of word co-occurrences: word pairs and collocations’, paper, University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Evert, S. 2008. ‘Corpora and Collocations.’ In Lüdeling, Anke and Kytö, Merja (eds.), Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook (Mouton De Gruyter: Berlin).Google Scholar
Faucett, L., and Maki, I.. 1932. A Study of English Word-Values Statistically Determined from the Latest Word-Counts (Matsumura Sanshodo: Oxford).Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. 1985. Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language (MIT Press: Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
Feldman, J. A., Gips, J., Horning, J. J., and Reder, S.. 1969. ‘Grammatical complexity and inference’, paper, Computer Science Department, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
Feldman, L. B., Kostić, A., Basnight-Brown, D. M., Filipović Đurđević, D., and Pastizzo, M. J.. 2010. ‘Morphological facilitation for regular and irregular verb formations in native and non-native speakers: little evidence for two distinct mechanisms’, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13: 119–35.Google Scholar
Fennell, B. A. 2001. A History of English. A Sociolinguistic Approach (Blackwell: Oxford).Google Scholar
Fernandes, M. A., and Moscovitch, M.. 2002. ‘Factors modulating the effect of divided attention during retrieval of words’, Memory and Cognition, 30: 731–44.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F. 2003. ‘The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences’, Cognitive Psychology, 47: 164–203.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F., and Lowder, M. W.. 2016. ‘Chapter six: prediction, information structure, and good-enough language processing’, Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 65: 217–47.Google Scholar
Ferrer i Cancho, R., and Solé, R. V.. 2001. ‘Two regimes in the frequency of words and the origins of complex lexicons: Zipf’s law revisited’, Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 8: 165–73.Google Scholar
Ferretti, T. R., McRae, K., and Hatherell, A.. 2001. ‘Integrating verbs, situation schemas, and thematic role concepts’, Journal of Memory and Language, 44: 516–47.Google Scholar
Filipović-Đurđević, D., and Milin, P.. 2019. ‘Information and Learning in Processing Adjective Inflection’, Cortex, 116: 209–227.Google Scholar
Filipović-Đurđević, D., and Zdravković, S.. 2013. Uvod u kognitivne neuronauke (Gradska narodna biblioteka Zrenjanin: Zrenjanin, RS).Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. 1979. ‘On Fluency.’ In Fillmore, Charles J., Kempler, Daniel and Wang, William S.-Y. (eds.), Individual Differences in Language Ability and Language Behavior (Academic Press).Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. 1982. ‘Frame Semantics.’ In Linguistics Society of Korea (ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm (Hanshin Publishing: Seoul).Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. 1985. ‘Frames and the semantics of understanding’, Quaderni di Semantica, 6: 222–54.Google Scholar
Fine, A. B., and Jaeger, T. F.. 2013. ‘Evidence for implicit learning in syntactic comprehension’, Cognitive Science, 37: 578–91.Google Scholar
Firth, J. R. 1937/1964. The Tongues of Men and Speech (Oxford University Press: London).Google Scholar
Fletcher, P. C., and Frith, C. D.. 2009. ‘Perceiving is believing: a Bayesian approach to explaining the positive symptoms of schizophrenia’, Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10: 48.Google Scholar
Ford, M. 1983. ‘A method for obtaining measures of local parsing complexity throughout sentences’, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22: 203–18.Google Scholar
Ford, M., and Bresnan, J.. 2010. ‘Using Convergent Evidence from Psycholinguistics and Usage.’ In Krug, Manfred and Schlüter, Julia (eds.), Research Methods in Language Variation and Change (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
Ford, M., and Bresnan, J. 2013a. ‘“They Whispered Me the Answer” in Australia and the US: A Comparative Experimental Study.’ In King, Tracy Holloway and de Paiva, Valeria (eds.), From Quirky Case to Representing Space: Papers in Honor of Annie Zaenen (CSLI Publications: Stanford).Google Scholar
Ford, M., and Bresnan, J. 2013b. ‘Using Convergent Evidence from Psycholinguistics and Usage.’ In Krug, Manfred and Schulter, Julia (eds.), Research Methods in Language Variation and Change (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
Forrest, L. 1996. ‘Discourse Goals and Attentional Processes in Sentence Production: The Dynamic Construal of Events.’ In Goldberg, Adele (ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse, and Language (CSLI Publications: Stanford).Google Scholar
Förstemann, E. 1852. ‘Numerische Lautverhältnisse im Griechischen, Lateinischen und Deutschen.’ In Germanische Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachforschung auf dem Gebiete des Deutschen, Griechischen und Lateinischen 1.Google Scholar
Forster, K. I. 1976. ‘Accessing the Mental Lexicon.’ In Wales, F. and Walker, E. (eds.), New Approaches to Language Mechanisms (North Holland: Amsterdam).Google Scholar
Forster, K. I. 1981. ‘Priming and the effects of sentence and lexical contexts on naming time: evidence for autonomous lexical processing’, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33: 465–95.Google Scholar
Forster, K. I., and Chambers, S.. 1973. ‘Lexical access and naming time’, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12: 627–35.Google Scholar
Frakes, W. B., and Baeza-Yates, R. (eds.). 1992. Information Retrieval: Data Structures and Algorithms (Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ).Google Scholar
Frank, S. L. 2013. ‘Uncertainty reduction as a measure of cognitive load in sentence comprehension’, Topics in Cognitive Science, 5: 475–94.Google Scholar
French, N. R., Carter, C. W. Jr, and Koenig, W. Jr. 1930. ‘The words and sounds of telephone conversations’, Bell System Technical Journal, 9: 290–324.Google Scholar
Friederici, A. D. 2011. ‘The brain basis of language processing: from structure to function’, Physiological Review, 91 (4): 1357–92.Google Scholar
Fries, C. C., and Traver, A. A.. 1950. English Word Lists: A Study of Their Adaptability for Instruction: Prepared for the Committee on Modern Languages of the American Council on Education (George Wahr: Ann Arbor).Google Scholar
Frisson, S., Rayner, K., and Pickering, M. J.. 2005. ‘Effects of contextual predictability and transitional probability on eye movements during reading’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31: 862–77.Google Scholar
Friston, K. J. 2005. ‘A Theory of cortical responses’, Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences, 360: 815–36.Google Scholar
Friston, K. 2010. ‘The free-energy principle: a unified brain theory?’, Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11: 127.Google Scholar
Friston, K. J., Pinotsis, D., Bastos, A. M., and Litvak, V.. 2015. ‘LFP and oscillations: what do they tell us?’, Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 31: 1–6.Google Scholar
Frith, C. D. 2007. Making up the Mind: How the Brain Creates Our Mental World (Blackwell: Malden, MA).Google Scholar
Fuster, J. M. 2009. ‘Cortex and memory: emergence of a new paradigm’, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21: 2047–72.Google Scholar
Gahl, S., and Garnsey, S. M.. 2004. ‘Knowledge of grammar, knowledge of usage: syntactic probabilities affect pronunciation variation’, Language, 80: 748–75.Google Scholar
Gallistel, C. R. 1990. The Organization of Learning (Bradford Books/MIT Press: Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
Gallistel, C. R., and Gibbon, J.. 2000. ‘Time, rate, and conditioning’, Psychological Review, 107: 289–344.Google Scholar
Gardner, M. K., Rothkopf, E. Z., Lapan, R., and Lafferty, T.. 1987. ‘The word frequency effect in lexical decision: finding a frequency-based component’, Memory and Cognition, 15: 24–8.Google Scholar
Gaskell, M. G. 2007. The Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics (Oxford University Press: Oxford).Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. 2010a. ‘Recontextualizing Grammar: Underlying Trends in Thirty Years of Cognitive Linguistics.’ In Tabakowska, Elżbieta, Choiński, Michał and Wiraszka, Łukasz (eds.), Cognitive Linguistics in Action: From Theory to Application and Back (De Gruyter Mouton: Berlin, New York).Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. 2010b. ‘Schmidt Redux: How Systematic Is the Linguistic System If Variation Is Rampant.’ In Boye, Kasper and Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth (eds.), Language Usage and Language Structure (De Gruyter Mouton: Berlin, New York).Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. 2017. ‘Entrenchment as Onomasiological Salience.’ In Schmid, Hans-Joerg (ed.), Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning: How We Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge (De Gruyter Mouton and APA: Berlin).Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D., Grondelaers, S., and Bakema, P.. 1994. The Structure of Lexical Variation. Meaning, Naming and Context (Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin, New York).Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D., Kristiansen, G., and Peirsman, Y.. 2010. Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics (De Gruyter Mouton: Berlin, New York).Google Scholar
Geertzen, J., Blevins, J. P., and Milin, P.. 2016. ‘The informativeness of linguistic unit boundaries’, Italian Journal of Linguistics, 28: 25–48.Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. A. 1984. ‘Resolving 20 years of inconsistent interactions between lexical familiarity and orthography, concreteness, and polysemy’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113: 256–81.Google Scholar
Gibbon, J., and Balsam, P. D.. 1981. ‘Spreading Association in Time.’ In Locurto, C. M., Terrace, H. S. and Gibbon, J. (eds.), Autoshaping and Conditioning Theory (Academic Press: New York).Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W. Jr., and Colston, H. L.. 1995. ‘The cognitive psychological reality of image schemas and their transformations’, Cognitive Linguistics, 6: 347–78.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. 2002. Calculated Risks: How to Know When Numbers Deceive You (MIT Press: Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G., and Hoffrage, U.. 1995. ‘How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction: frequency formats’, Psychological Review, 102: 684–704.Google Scholar
Giles, H. 1973. ‘Accent mobility: a model and some data’, Anthropological Linguistics, 15: 87–105.Google Scholar
Gilquin, G. 2006. ‘The verb slot in causative constructions: finding the best fit’, Constructions, 1: 1–46.Google Scholar
Giora, R. 2003. On Our Mind: Salience, Context, and Figurative Language (Oxford University Press: Oxford).Google Scholar
Giuliano, V. E. 1965. ‘Postscript: A Personal Reaction to Reading the Conference Manuscripts.’ In Stevens, Mary Elizabeth, Giuliano, Vincent E. and Heilprin, Laurence B. (eds.), Statistical Association Methods for Mechanized Documentation. Symposium Proceedings Washington 1964 (US Government Printing Office: Washington, DC).Google Scholar
Givón, T. 1983. Topic Continuity in Discourse: Quantified Cross-Language Studies (John Benjamins: Amsterdam).Google Scholar
Givón, T. 1988. ‘The Pragmatics of Word-Order: Predictability, Importance and Attention.’ In Hamond, M., Moravcsik, E. A. and Wirth, J. (eds.), Studies in Syntactic Typology (John Benjamins: Amsterdam).Google Scholar
Givón, T. 1992. ‘The grammar of referential coherence as mental processing instructions’, Linguistics, 30: 5–55.Google Scholar
Glanzer, M., and Cunitz, A. R.. 1966. ‘Two storage mechanisms in free recall’, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 5: 351–60.Google Scholar
Gleitman, L., January, D., Nappa, R., and Trueswell, J.. 2007. ‘On the give-and-take between event apprehension and utterance formulation’, Journal of Memory and Language, 57.Google Scholar
Glynn, D., and Fischer, K.. 2010. Quantitative Methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-Driven Approaches (De Gruyter Mouton: Berlin).Google Scholar
Glynn, D., and Robinson, J. A.. 2014. Corpus Methods for Semantics: Quantitative Studies in Polysemy and Synonymy (John Benjamins: Amsterdam; Philadelphia).Google Scholar
Gobet, F. 2017. ‘Entrenchment, Gestalt formation, and Chunking.’ In Schmid, Hans-Joerg (ed.), Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning: How We Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge (De Gruyter Mouton and APA: Berlin).Google Scholar
Gold, E. M. 1967. ‘Language identification in the limit’, Information and Control, 10: 447–74.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure (University of Chicago Press: Chicago).Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language (Oxford University Press: Oxford).Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. 2009. ‘The nature of generalization in language’, Cognitive Linguistics, 20: 93–127.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. 2011a. ‘Corpus evidence of the viability of statistical pre-emption’, Cognitive Linguistics, 22: 131–54.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. 2011b. ‘Partial productivity of constructions as induction’, Linguistics, 49: 1237–69.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. 2013. ‘Constructionist Approaches to Language.’ In Hoffmann, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme (eds.), Handbook of Construction Grammar (Oxford University Press: Oxford).Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., Casenhiser, D., and Sethuraman, N.. 2004. ‘Learning argument structure generalizations’, Cognitive Linguistics, 15: 289–316.Google Scholar
Gómez, R. L. 2007. ‘Statistical Learning in Infant Language Development.’ In Gaskell, M. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics (Oxford University Press: Oxford).Google Scholar
Gómez, R. L., and Gerken, L.. 1999. ‘Artificial grammar learning by one-year-olds leads to specific and abstract knowledge’, Cognition, 70: 109–35.Google Scholar
Goodman, J. C., Dale, P. S., and Li, P.. 2008. ‘Does frequency count? parental input and the acquisition of vocabulary’, Journal of Child Language, 35: 515–31.Google Scholar
Gordon, P. C., Hendrick, R., and Levine, W. H.. 2002. ‘Memory-load interference in syntactic processing’, Psychological Science, 13: 425–30.Google Scholar
Gordon, W. C., Smith, G. J., and Katz, D. S.. 1979. ‘Dual effects of response blocking following avoidance learning’, Behaviour Research and Therapy, 17: 479–87.Google Scholar
Goulden, R., Nation, P., and Read, J.. 1990. ‘How large can a receptive vocabulary be?’, Applied Linguistics, 11: 341–63.Google Scholar
Green, C. 2017. ‘Usage-based linguistics and the magic number four’, Cognitive Linguistics, 28.Google Scholar
Gries, S. T. 2003. Multifactorial Analysis in Corpus Linguistics: A Study of Particle Placement (Continuum Press: London, New York).Google Scholar
Gries, S. T. 2005a. ‘Null-hypothesis significance testing of word frequencies: a follow-up on Kilgarriff’, Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1: 277–94.Google Scholar
Gries, S. T. 2005b. ‘Syntactic priming: a corpus-based approach’, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34: 365–99.Google Scholar
Gries, S. T. 2008. ‘Dispersions and adjusted frequencies in corpora’, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 13: 403–37.Google Scholar
Gries, S. T. 2009. Statistics for Linguistics with R: A Practical Introduction (Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin, New York).Google Scholar
Gries, S. T. 2010. ‘Dispersions and Adjusted Frequencies in Corpora: Further Explorations.’ In Gries, Stefan Th, Wulff, Stefanie and Davies, Mark (eds.), Corpus Linguistic Applications: Current Studies, New Directions (Rodopi: Amsterdam).Google Scholar
Gries, S. T. 2012. ‘Frequencies, probabilities, association measures in usage-/exemplar-based linguistics: some necessary clarifications’, Studies in Language, 36: 477–510.Google Scholar
Gries, S. T. 2014. ‘Frequencies, Probabilities, Association Measures in Usage-/Exemplar-Based Linguistics: Some Necessary Clarifications.’ In Gisborne, Nikolas and Hollmann, Willem (eds.), Theory and Data in Cognitive Linguistics (John Benjamins: Amsterdam, Philadelphia).Google Scholar
Gries, S. T. 2015. ‘ More (old and new) misunderstandings of collostructional analysis: on Schmid and Küchenhoff (2013)’, Cognitive Linguistics, 26: 505–36.Google Scholar
Gries, S. T., and Divjak, D.. 2012. Frequency Effects in Language Learning and Processing (De Gruyter Mouton: Berlin, Boston).Google Scholar
Gries, S. T., and Ellis, N. C.. 2015. ‘Statistical measures for usage‐based linguistics’, Language Learning, 65: 228–55.Google Scholar
Gries, S. T., Hampe, B., and Schönefeld, D.. 2005. ‘Converging evidence: bringing together experimental and corpus data on the association of verbs and constructions’, Cognitive Linguistics, 16: 635–76.Google Scholar
Gries, S. T., and Hilpert, M.. 2010. ‘Modeling diachronic change in the third person singular: a multifactorial, verb-and author-specific exploratory approach’, English Language and Linguistics, 14: 293–320.Google Scholar
Gries, S. T., and Stefanowitsch, A.. 2004. ‘Extending collostructional analysis: a corpus-based perspectives on “alternations”’, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9: 97–129.Google Scholar
Griffin, Z. M., and Bock, K.. 2000. ‘What the eyes say about speaking’, Psychological Science, 11: 274–9.Google Scholar
Griffiths, T. L., Chater, N., Norris, D., and Pouget, A.. 2012. ‘How the Bayesians got their beliefs (and what those beliefs actually are): comment on Bowers and Davis (2012)’, Psychological Bulletin, 138 (3): 415–22.Google Scholar
Griffiths, T. L., Kemp, C., and Tenenbaum, J. B.. 2008. ‘Bayesian Models of Cognition.’ In Sun, Ron (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Computational Psychology (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
Grondelaers, S., and Speelman, D.. 2007. ‘A variationist account of constituent ordering in presentative sentences in Belgian Dutch’, Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 3: 161–93.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F. 1980. ‘Spoken word recognition processes and the gating paradigm’, Perception and Psychophysics, 28: 267–83.Google Scholar
Gross, M. 1972. Mathematical Methods in Linguistics (Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ).Google Scholar
Guderian, S., Schott, B. H., Richardson-Klavehn, A., and Düzel, E.. 2009. ‘Medial temporal theta state before an event predicts episodic encoding success in humans’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106: 5365–70.Google Scholar
Gülzow, I., and Gagarina, N. (eds.). 2007. Frequency Effects in Language Acquisition. Defining the Limits of Frequency as an Explanatory Concept (De Gruyter Mouton: Berlin, Boston).Google Scholar
Gunter, T. C., and Friederici, A. D.. 1999. ‘Concerning the automaticity of syntactic processing’, Psychophysiology, 36: 126–37.Google Scholar
Gupta, P. 2012. ‘Word Learning as the Confluence of Memory Mechanisms: Computational and Neural Evidence.’ In Faust, M. (ed.), Handbook of the Neuropsychology of Language (Wiley: Oxford).Google Scholar
Gurevich, O., Johnson, M. A., and Goldberg, A. E.. 2010. ‘Incidental verbatim memory for language’, Language and Cognition, 2: 45–78.Google Scholar
Hahne, A., and Friederici, A. D.. 1999. ‘Electrophysiological evidence for two steps in syntactic analysis: early automatic and late controlled processes’, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11: 194.Google Scholar
Hahne, A., and Friederici, A. D. 2002. ‘Differential task effects on semantic and syntactic processes as revealed by ERPs’, Cognitive Brain Research, 13: 339–56.Google Scholar
Hale, J. 2001. ‘A Probabilistic Early Parser as a Psycholinguistic Model’. In NAACL ’01: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics on Language Technologies (Pittsburgh, PA).Google Scholar
Hale, J. 2003. ‘The information conveyed by words in sentences’, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research., 32: 101–23.Google Scholar
Hale, J. 2016. ‘Information‐theoretical complexity metrics’, Language and Linguistics Compass, 10: 397–412.Google Scholar
Hall, J. F. 1954. ‘Learning as a function of word-frequency’, American Journal of Psychology, 67: 138–40.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1976. ‘Theme and Information in the English Clause.’ In Kress, G. (ed.), Halliday: System and Function in Language (Oxford University Press: London).Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1991. ‘Corpus Studies and Probabilistic Grammar.’ In Aijmer, Karin and Altenberg, Bengt (eds.), English Corpus Linguistics: Studies in Honour of Jan Svartvik (Longman: London).Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1993. ‘Quantitative Studies and Probabilities in Grammar.’ In Hoey, Michael (ed.), Data, Description, Discourse. Papers on the English Language in Honour of John McH. Sinclair (Harper Collins: London).Google Scholar
Harder, P. 2010. Meaning in Mind and Society. A Functional Contribution to the Social Turn in Cognitive Linguistics (De Gruyter Mouton: Berlin, New York).Google Scholar
Harm, M. W. and Seidenberg, M. S.. 2004. ‘Computing the meanings of words in reading: cooperative division of labor between visual and phonological processes’, Psychological Review, 111: 662–720.Google Scholar
Harper, D. N., McLean, A. P., and Dalrymple-Alford, J. C.. 1993. ‘List item memory in rats: effects of delay and delay task’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 19: 307–16.Google Scholar
Harris, Z. 1991. A Theory of Language and Information: A Mathematical Approach (Clarendon Press: Oxford).Google Scholar
Hart, B., and Risley, T. R.. 1995. Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experience of Young American Children (P.H. Brookes: Baltimore, MD, London).Google Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J., Bernolet, S., Schoonbaert, S., Speybroeck, S., and Vanderelst, D.. 2008. ‘Syntactic priming persists while the lexical boost decays: evidence from written and spoken dialogue’, Journal of Memory and Language, 58: 214–38.Google Scholar
Hasher, L., and Zacks, R. T.. 1979. ‘Automatic and effortful processes in memory’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 108: 356–88.Google Scholar
Hasher, L., and Zacks, R. T. 1984. ‘Automatic processing of fundamental information: The case of frequency of occurrence’, American Psychologist, 39: 1372–88.Google Scholar
Hay, J. 2001. ‘Lexical frequency in morphology: is everything relative?’, Linguistics: An Interdisciplinary Journal of the Language Sciences, 39: 1041–70.Google Scholar
Heathcote, A., Brown, S., and Mewhort, D.. 2000. ‘The power law repealed: the case for an exponential law of practice’, Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 7: 185–207.Google Scholar
Heister, J., and Kliegl, R.. 2012. ‘Comparing Word Frequencies from Different German Text Corpora.’ In Würzner, Kay-Michael and Pohl, Edmund (eds.), Lexical Resources in Psycholinguistic Research (Universitätsverlag Potsdam: Potsdam).Google Scholar
Hendersen, R. W. 1978. ‘Forgetting of conditioned fear inhibition’, Learning and Motivation, 9: 16–30.Google Scholar
Hendersen, R. W. 1985. ‘Fearful Memories: The Motivational Significance of Forgetting.’ In Brush, F. R. and Overmier, J. B. (eds.), Affect, Conditioning, and Cognition: Essays on the Determinants of Behaviour (Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ).Google Scholar
Henderson, J. 2004. ‘Lookahead in Deterministic Left-Corner Parsing.’ In Proceedings of the Workshop on Incremental Parsing: Bringing Engineering and Cognition Together (Barcelona).Google Scholar
Henderson, J. M. 2003. ‘Human gaze control during real-world scene perception’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7: 498–504.Google Scholar
Hendrix, P. 2015. ‘Experimental explorations of a discrimination learning approach to language processing’, paper, University of Tübingen.Google Scholar
Herdan, G. 1960. Type-Token Mathematics: A Textbook of Mathematical Linguistics (Mouton: The Hague).Google Scholar
Herdan, G. 1966. The Advanced Theory of Language as Choice and Chance (Springer-Verlag: Berlin, New York).Google Scholar
Hernandez, P. J., and Abel, T.. 2008. ‘The role of protein synthesis in memory consolidation: progress amid decades of debate’, Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 89: 293–311.Google Scholar
Hewitt, K. 1973. Context Effects in Memory: A Review (Cambridge University Psychological Laboratory: Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
Hills, T. T., Maouene, J., Riodan, B., and Smith, L. B.. 2010. ‘The associative structure of language: contextual diversity in early word learning’, Journal of Memory and Language, 63: 259–73.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M., and Diessel, H.. 2017. ‘Entrenchment in Construction Grammar.’ In Schmid, Hans-Jörg (ed.), Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning: How We Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge (De Gruyter Mouton and APA: Berlin).Google Scholar
Hintz, F., and Huettig, F.. 2015. ‘The Complexity of the Visual Environment Modulates Language-Mediated Eye Gaze.’ In Mishra, Ramesh, Srinivasan, Narayanan Kumar and Huettig, Falk (eds.), Attention and Vision in Language Processing (Springer: New Delhi).Google Scholar
Hintzman, D. L., and Stern, L. D.. 1978. ‘Contextual variability and memory for frequency’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4: 539–49.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T., and Trousdale, G. (eds.). 2013. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (Oxford University Press: Oxford).Google Scholar
Hopfield, J. J. 1982. ‘Neural networks and physical systems with emergent collective computational abilities’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 79: 2554–8.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. 1987. ‘Emergent Grammar.’ In Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (Berkeley).Google Scholar
Hopper, P., and Thompson, S.. 1980. ‘Transitivity in discourse and grammar’, Language, 56: 251–99.Google Scholar
Hopper, P., and Thompson, S. 1984. ‘The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar’, Language, 60: 703–52.Google Scholar
Horn, E. 1926. A Basic Writing Vocabulary: 10,000 Frequently Used Words in Writing (University of Iowa: Iowa City).Google Scholar
Horning, J. 1969. ‘A study of grammatical inference’, dissertation, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.Google Scholar
Horvitz, J. C. 2000. ‘Mesolimbocortical and nigrostriatal dopamine responses to salient nonreward events’, Neuroscience, 96: 651–6.Google Scholar
Howes, D. H. 1957. ‘On the relation between the intelligibility and frequency of occurrence of English words’, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 29: 296–305.Google Scholar
Howes, D. H., and Solomon, D. L.. 1951. ‘Visual duration threshold as a function of word-probability’, Journal of Experimental Psychology 416: 401–10.Google Scholar
Huettig, F., and Altmann, G. T. M.. 2004. ‘The On-Line Processing of Ambiguous and Unambiguous Words in Context: Evidence from Head-Mounted Eye-Tracking.’ In Carreiras, M. and Clifton, C. (eds.), The On-Line Study of Sentence Comprehension: Eyetracking, ERP and Beyond (Psychology Press: New York).Google Scholar
Huettig, F., and Altmann, G. T. M.. 2005. ‘Word meaning and the control of eye fixation: semantic competitor effects and the visual world paradigm’, Cognition: International Journal of Cognitive Science, 96: B23–B32.Google Scholar
Huettig, F., and Altmann, G. T. M. 2007. ‘Visual-shape competition during language-mediated attention is based on lexical input and not modulated by contextual appropriateness’, Visual Cognition, 15: 985–1018.Google Scholar
Huettig, F., and Mani, N.. 2016. ‘Is prediction necessary to understand language? Probably not’, Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31: 19–31.Google Scholar
Huettig, F., and McQueen, J.. 2007. ‘The tug of war between phonological, semantic and shape information in language-mediated visual search’, Journal of Memory and Language, 57: 460–82.Google Scholar
Huettig, F., Quinlan, P. T., McDonald, S. A., and Altmann, G. T. M.. 2006. ‘Models of high-dimensional semantic space predict language-mediated eye movements in the visual world’, Acta Psychologica, 121: 65–80.Google Scholar
Huettig, F., Rommers, J., and Meyer, A. S.. 2011. ‘Using the visual world paradigm to study language processing: a review and critical evaluation’, Acta Psychologica, 137: 151–71.Google Scholar
Humphries, M. 2017. ‘The Crimes against Dopamine: For They Be Many and Grievous.’ https://medium.com/the-spike/the-crimes-against-dopamine-b82b082d5f3d.Google Scholar
Huttenlocher, J., Haight, W., Bryk, A., Seltzer, M., and Lyons, T.. 1991. ‘Early vocabulary growth: relation to language input and gender’, Developmental Psychology, 27: 236–48.Google Scholar
Hwang, H., and Kaiser, E.. 2009. ‘The Effects of Lexical vs. Perceptual Primes on Sentence Production in Korean: An Online Investigation of Event Apprehension and Sentence Formulation.’ In 22nd CUNY Conference on Sentence Processing (Davis, CA).Google Scholar
Ibbotson, P., Lieven, E. V. M., and Tomasello, M.. 2013. ‘The attention-grammar interface: eye-gaze cues structural choice in children and adults’, Cognitive Linguistics, 24: 457–81.Google Scholar
Imamizu, H., Kuroda, T., Yoshioka, T., and Kawato, M.. 2004. ‘Functional magnetic resonance imaging examination of two modular architectures for switching multiple internal models’, The Journal of Neuroscience: The Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 24: 1173.Google Scholar
Indefrey, P., and Levelt, W. J. M.. 2004. ‘The spatial and temporal signatures of word production components’, Cognition, 92: 101–44.Google Scholar
Itti, L., and Baldi, P.. 2009. ‘Bayesian surprise attracts human attention’, Vision Research, 49: 1295–306.Google Scholar
Itti, L., and Koch, C.. 2000. ‘A saliency-based search mechanism for overt and covert shifts of visual attention’, Vision Research, 40: 1489–506.Google Scholar
Itti, L., Koch, C., and Niebur, E.. 1998. ‘A model of saliency-based visual-attention for rapid scene analysis’, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 20: 1254–9.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 2007. ‘Linguistics in cognitive science: the state of the art’, The Linguistic Review, 24 (4): 347–401.Google Scholar
Jaeger, F. 2010. ‘Redundancy and reduction: speakers manage syntactic information density’, Cognitive Psychology, 61: 23–62.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. F., and Snider, N. 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: 57–83.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. F., and Weatherholtz, K.. 2016. ‘What the Heck Is Salience? How Predictive Language Processing Contributes to Sociolinguistic Perception’, Frontiers in Psychology, 7.Google Scholar
Janda, L. A. 2013. Cognitive Linguistics: the Quantitative Turn. The Essential Reader (De Gruyter Mouton: Berlin).Google Scholar
Jaynes, E. T. 2003. Probability Theory: the Logic of Science (Oxford University Press: Oxford).Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. 1924/1976. ‘Living Grammar.’ In Bornstein, D. D. (ed.), Readings in the Theory of Grammar (Winthrop Publishers: Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
Jiang, Y., and Leung, A. W.. 2005. ‘Implicit learning of ignored visual context’, Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 12: 100–6.Google Scholar
Johns, B. T., Dye, M., and Jones, M. N.. 2014. ‘The Influence of Contextual Variability on Word Learning’ In Bello, P., Guarani, M., McShane, M. and Scassellati, B. (eds.), 36th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Johns, B. T., Dye, M., and Jones, M. N.. 2016. ‘The influence of contextual diversity on word learning’, Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 23: 1214–20.Google Scholar
Johns, B. T., Gruenenfelder, T. M., Pisoni, D. B., and Jones, M. N.. 2012. ‘Effects of word frequency, contextual diversity, and semantic distinctiveness on spoken word recognition’, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 132: EL74–EL80.Google Scholar
Johnson, E. K., and Seidl, A. H.. 2009. ‘At 11 months, prosody still outranks statistics’, Developmental Science, 12: 131.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. 1987. The Body in the Mind. The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason (University of Chicago Press: Chicago, London).Google Scholar
Jones, L. V., and Wepman, J. M.. 1966. ‘A spoken word count’, paper, Language Research Associates, Chicago.Google Scholar
Jones, M. N., Johns, B. T., and Recchia, G.. 2012. ‘The role of semantic diversity in lexical organization’, Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 66: 115–24.Google Scholar
Jones, S., Murphy, M. L., Paradis, C., and Willners, C.. 2012. Antonyms in English: Construals, Constructions and Canonicity (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
Joos, M. 1936. ‘Review of G.K. Zipf, The Psychobiology of Language’, Language, 12: 196–210.Google Scholar
Juhasz, B. J. 2005. ‘Age-of-acquisition effects in word and picture identification’, Psychological Bulletin, 131: 684–712.Google Scholar
Juilland, A. G., Brodin, D. R., and Davidovitch, C.. 1970. Frequency Dictionary of French Words (Mouton: The Hague).Google Scholar
Jurafsky, D. 1996. ‘A probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and disambiguation’, Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal of Artificial Intelligence, Linguistics, Neuroscience, Philosophy, Psychology, 20: 137–94.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, D. 2003. ‘Probabilistic Modeling in Psycholinguistics: Linguistic Comprehension and Production.’ In Bod, Rens, Hay, Jennifer and Jannedy, Stefanie (eds.), Probabilistic Linguistics (MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, London).Google Scholar
Jurafsky, D., Bell, A., Gregory, M., and Raymond, W. D.. 2001. ‘Probabilistic Relations between Words: Evidence from Reduction in Lexical Production.’ In Bybee, Joan and Hopper, Paul (eds.), Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure (John Benjamins: Amsterdam, Philadelphia).Google Scholar
Jurafsky, D., and Martin, J. H.. 2014. Speech and Language Processing (Pearson: London).Google Scholar
Kaan, E. 2007. ‘Event-related potentials and language processing: a brief overview’, Language and Linguistics Compass, 1: 571–91.Google Scholar
Kaeding, F. W. 1898. Häufigkeitswörterbuch der deutschen Sprache: Festgestellt durch einen Arbeitsausschuß der deutschen Stenographiesysteme (Steglitz bei Berlin: Selbstverslag der Herausgebers: Berlin).Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., and Treisman, A.. 1984. ‘Changing Views of Attention and Automaticity.’ In Parasuraman, R. and Davies, D. R. (eds.), Varieties of Attention (Academic Press: New York).Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A.. 1972. ‘Subjective probability: a judgment of representativeness’, Cognitive Psychology, 3: 430–54.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A. 1973. ‘On the psychology of prediction’, Psychological Review, 80: 237–51.Google Scholar
Kakade, S., and Dayan, P.. 2002. ‘Dopamine: generalization and bonuses’, Neural Networks, 15: 549–59.Google Scholar
Kamin, L. J. 1968. ‘“Attention-like” Processes in Classical Conditioning.’ In Jones, M. R. (ed.), Miami Symposium on the Prediction of Behavior: Aversive Stimulation (University of Miami Press: Miami).Google Scholar
Kamin, L. J. 1969. ‘Predictability, Surprise, Attention and Conditioning.’ In Campbell, B. A. and Church, R. M. (eds.), Punishment and Aversive Behavior (Eppleton-Century-Crofts: New York).Google Scholar
Kan, I. P., and Thompson-Schill, S. L.. 2004. ‘Selection from perceptual and conceptual representations’, Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 4: 466–82.Google Scholar
Kendall, M. G. 1952. ‘Obituary: George Udny Yule’, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General), 115: 156–61.Google Scholar
Kendall, T., Bresnan, J., and Van Herk, G.. 2011. ‘The dative alternation in African American English: researching syntactic variation and change across sociolinguistic datasets’, Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 7: 229–44.Google Scholar
Kent, G. H., and Rosanoff, A. J.. 1910. ‘A study of association in insanity’, American Journal of Insanity, 67: 37–96.Google Scholar
Kerswill, P., and Williams, A.. 2002. ‘“Salience” as an Explanatory Factor in Language Change: Evidence from Dialect Levelling in Urban England.’ In Jones, Mari C. and Esch, Edith (eds.), Language Change: the Interplay of Internal, External, and Extra-Linguistic Factors (Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin; New York).Google Scholar
Kilgarriff, A. 2005. ‘Language is never ever ever random’, Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1: 263–76Google Scholar
Kiyonaga, A., and Egner, T.. 2013. ‘Working memory as internal attention: toward an integrative account of internal and external selection processes’, Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 20: 228–42.Google Scholar
Klavan, J. 2012. Evidence in Linguistics: Corpus-Linguistic and Experimental Methods for Studying Grammatical Synonymy (University of Tartu Press: Tartu).Google Scholar
Klavan, J., and Divjak, D.. 2016a. ‘The cognitive plausibility of statistical classification models: comparing textual and behavioral evidence’, Folia Linguistica, Special Issue: From Methodology Back to Theory: How Does Corpus-Based Research Feed Back into Functional Linguistic Theories?, 50: 355–84.Google Scholar
Klavan, J., and Divjak, D. 2016b. ‘The Cognitive Plausibility of Statistical Classification Models: Comparing Textual and Behavioral Evidence’, Folia Linguistica.Google Scholar
Knapp, T. J. 1992. ‘Verbal behavior: the other reviews’, The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 10: 87.Google Scholar
Knoeferle, P. 2015. ‘Visually Situated Language Comprehension in Children and in Adults.’ In Mishra, Ramesh, Srinivasan, Narayanan Kumar and Huettig, Falk (eds.), Attention and Vision in Language Processing (Springer: New Delhi).Google Scholar
Knoeferle, P., Pyykkönen-Klauck, P., and Crocker, M. W. (eds.). 2016. Visually Situated Language Comprehension (John Benjamins: Amsterdam, Philadelphia).Google Scholar
Knudsen, E. I. 2007. ‘Fundamental components of attention’, Annual Review of Neuroscience, 30: 57–78.Google Scholar
Koch, C., and Ullman, S.. 1985. ‘Shifts in selective visual attention: towards the underlying neural circuitry’, Human Neurobiology, 4: 219–27.Google Scholar
Köhler, R., Altmann, G., and Piotrowski, R. G. (eds.). 2005. Quantitative Linguistik. Ein internationales Handbuch. Quantitative Linguistics. An international Handbook (De Gruyter: Berlin, New York).Google Scholar
Komenský, J. A. 1631. Janua linguarum reserata sive seminarium linguarum et scientiarum omnium ([s.l.]).Google Scholar
Kostić, A. 1991. ‘Informational approach to processing of inflected morphology: standard data reconsidered’, Psychological Research, 53: 62–70.Google Scholar
Kostić, A. 1995. ‘Informational Load Constraints on Processing Inflected Morphology.’ In Feldman, Laurie Beth (ed.), Morphological Aspects of Language Processing (Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ).Google Scholar
Kostić, A., Markovı́c, T., and Baucal, A.. 2003. ‘Inflectional Morphology and Word Meaning: Orthogonal or Co-Implicative Domains?’ In Harald Baayen, R. and Schreuder, R. (eds.), Morphological Structure in Language Processing (Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin).Google Scholar
Kristiansen, G., and Dirven, R.. 2008. Cognitive Sociolinguistics: Language Variation, Cultural Models, Social Systems (Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin, New York).Google Scholar
Krug, M. 2003. ‘Frequency as a Determinant in Grammatical Variation and Change.’ In Rohdenburg, Günter and Mondorf, Britta (eds.), Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English (Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin, New York).Google Scholar
Kruschke, J. 2008. ‘Bayesian approaches to associative learning: from passive to active learning’, Learning and Behavior, 36: 210–26.Google Scholar
Kučera, H., and Francis, W. N.. 1967. Computational Analysis of Present-Day American English (Brown University Press: Providence).Google Scholar
Küchenhoff, H., and Schmid, H.-J.. 2015. ‘Reply to “More (old and new) misunderstandings of collostructional analysis: on Schmid and Küchenhoff” by Stefan Th. Gries’, Cognitive Linguistics, 26: 537–47.Google Scholar
Kuhl, B. A., and Chun, M. M.. 2014. ‘Memory and Attention.’ In Nobre, Anna C. and Kastner, Sabine (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Attention (Oxford University Press: Oxford).Google Scholar
Kuperberg, G. R. 2016. ‘Separate streams or probabilistic inference? What the N400 can tell us about the comprehension of events’, Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31: 602–16.Google Scholar
Kuperberg, G. R., and Jaeger, T. F.. 2016. ‘What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension?’, Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31: 32–59.Google Scholar
Kutas, M., DeLong, K. A., and Smith, N. J.. 2011. ‘A Look around at What Lies Ahead: Prediction and Predictability in Language Processing.’ In Bar, Moshe (ed.), Predictions in the Brain : Using Our Past to Generate a Future (Oxford University Press: New York, Oxford).Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind (University of Chicago Press: Chicago, London).Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1990. ‘The invariance hypothesis: is abstract reason based on image-schemas?’, Cognitive Linguistics, 1: 39–74.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., and Johnson, M.. 1980. Metaphors We Live By (University of Chicago Press: Chicago).Google Scholar
Landauer, T. K., and Dumais, S. T.. 1997. ‘A solution to Plato’s problem: the latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge’, Psychological Review, 104: 211–40.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar (Stanford University Press: Stanford).Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Descriptive Application (Stanford University Press: Stanford).Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction (Oxford University Press: New York).Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 2015. ‘Construal.’ In Dąbrowska, Ewa and Divjak, Dagmar (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (De Gruyter Mouton: Berlin, Boston).Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 2016. ‘Working towards a synthesis’, Cognitive Linguistics, 27: 465–77.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 2017. ‘Entrenchment in Cognitive Grammar.’ In Schmid, Hans-Joerg (ed.), Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning: How We Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge (De Gruyter Mouton and APA: Berlin).Google Scholar
Lashley, K. S. 1930. ‘Basic neural mechanisms in behavior’, Psychological Review, 37: 1–24.Google Scholar
Lashley, K. S. 1951. ‘The Problem of Serial Order in Behavior.’ In Jeffress, J. L. (ed.), Cerebral mechanisms in behaviour: the Hixon symposium (Wiley: New York).Google Scholar
Lavie, N. 2005. ‘Distracted and confused? Selective attention under load’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9: 75–82.Google Scholar
Lavie, N., and Dalton, P.. 2014. ‘Load Theory of Attention and Cognitive Control.’ In Nobre, Anna C. and Kastner, Sabine (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Attention (Oxford University Press: Oxford).Google Scholar
Lavie, N., and Tsal, Y.. 1994. ‘Perceptual load as a major determinant of the locus of selection in visual attention’, Perception and Psychophysics, 56: 183–97.Google Scholar
Lee, C., Grossman, M., Morris, J., Stern, M. B., and Hurtig, H. I.. 2003. ‘Attentional resource and processing speed limitations during sentence processing in Parkinson’s disease’, Brain and Language, 85: 347–56.Google Scholar
Leech, G., Rayson, P., and Wilson, A.. 2014. Word Frequencies in Written and Spoken English: Based on the British National Corpus (Routledge: London, New York).Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. 2013. A History of Psycholinguistics: The Pre-Chomskyan Era (Oxford University Press: Oxford).Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M., and Kelter, S.. 1982. ‘Surface form and memory in question answering’, Cognitive Psychology, 14: 78–106.Google Scholar
Levshina, N. 2015. How to Do Linguistics with R: Data Exploration and Statistical Analysis (John Benjamins Publishing Company: Amsterdam, Philadelphia).Google Scholar
Levy, R., and Jaeger, F.. 2007. ‘Speakers optimize information density through syntactic reduction.’ In Proceedings of the 20th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS).Google Scholar
Lidz, J., Gleitman, H., and Gleitman, L.. 2003. ‘Understanding how input matters: verb learning and the footprint of universal grammar’, Cognition: International Journal of Cognitive Science, 87: 151–78.Google Scholar
Lieven, E. V. M. 2010. ‘Input and first language acquisition: evaluating the role of frequency’, Lingua, 120: 2546–56.Google Scholar
Lieven, E. V. M., and Tomasello, M.. 2008. ‘Children’s First Language Acquisition from a Usage-Based Perspective.’ In Robinson, Peter and Ellis, Nick C. (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition (Routledge: New York).Google Scholar
Linder, K., and Hohenberger, A.. 2009. ‘Introduction: concepts of development, learning, and acquisition’, Linguistics, 47: 211–39.Google Scholar
Lisac, J., and Milin, P.. 2006. ‘T-vrednost i zajednička informacija kao mere jačine asocijativne veze u srpskom jeziku’, Psihologija, 39: 57–74.Google Scholar
Loftus, G. R., and Mackworth, N. H.. 1978. ‘Cognitive determinants of fixation location during picture viewing’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 4: 565–72.Google Scholar
Lohnas, L. J., Polyn, S. M., and Kahana, M. J.. 2011. ‘Contextual variability in free recall’, Journal Of Memory And Language, 64: 249–55.Google Scholar
Lukatela, G., Gligorijević, B., Kostić, A., and Turvey, M. T.. 1980. ‘Representation of inflected nouns in the internal lexicon’, Memory and Cognition, 21: 415–23.Google Scholar
Lukatela, G., Mandić, Z., Gligorijević, B., Kostić, A., Savić, M., and Turvey, M. T.. 1978. ‘Lexical decision for inflected nouns’, Language and Speech, 21: 166–73.Google Scholar
Lund, K., and Burgess, C.. 1996. ‘Producing high-dimensional semantic spaces from lexical co-occurrence’, Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 28: 203–8.Google Scholar
Lupyan, G., and Clark, A.. 2015. ‘Words and the world: predictive coding and the language-perception-cognition interface’, Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24: 279–84.Google Scholar
Lutosławski, W. 1897. The Origin and Growth of Plato’s Logic: With an Account of Plato’s Style and of the Chronology of His Writings (Longmans, Green and Co: London).Google Scholar
Lyashevskaya, O., Ovsjannikova, M., Szymor, N., and Divjak, D.. 2018. ‘Looking for Contextual Cues to Differentiating Modal Meanings: A Corpus-Based Study.’ In Kopotev, Mikhail, Lyashevskaya, Olga and Mustajoki, Arto (eds.), Quantitative Approaches to the Russian Language (Routledge: Abingdon, New York).Google Scholar
Lyne, A. A. 1985. The Vocabulary of French Business Correspondence: Word Frequencies, Collocations, and Problems of Lexicometric Method (Slatkine-Champion: Geneva, Paris).Google Scholar
MacCorquodale, K. 1970. ‘On Chomsky’s review of Skinner’s Verbal Behavior’, Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 13: 83–99.Google Scholar
MacKay, D. G. 1982. ‘The problems of flexibility, fluency, and speed-accuracy trade-off in skilled behavior’, Psychological Review, 89: 483–506.Google Scholar
Mackintosh, N. J. 1975. ‘A theory of attention: variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement’, Psychological Review, 82: 276–98.Google Scholar
Mackworth, N. H., and Morandi, A. J.. 1967. ‘The gaze selects informative details within pictures’, Attention, Perception and Psychophysics, 2: 547–52.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. 1978. The Acquisition of Morphophonology (University of Chicago Press: Chicago).Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. 1998. ‘Models of emergence of language’, Annual Review of Psychology, 49: 199–227.Google Scholar
Mandelbrot, B. 1953. ‘An Informational Theory of the Statistical Structure of Languages.’ In Jackson, Willis (ed.), Communication Theory (Butterworth: Woburn, MA).Google Scholar
Manning, C. D. 2003. ‘Probabilistic Syntax.’ In Bod, Rens, Hay, Jennifer and Jannedy, Stefanie (eds.), Probabilistic Linguistics (MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, London).Google Scholar
Manning, C. D., and Schütze, H.. 1999. Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing (MIT Press: Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
Marr, D. 1982. Vision: A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information (W. H. Freeman: San Francisco).Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W. D., and Tyler, L. K.. 2007. ‘Morphology, language and the brain: the decompositional substrate for language comprehension’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 362: 823–36.Google Scholar
Massaro, D. W. 1989. ‘Testing between the TRACE model and the fuzzy logical model of speech perception’, Cognitive Psychology, 21: 398–421.Google Scholar
Matthews, D., and Bannard, C.. 2010. ‘Children’s production of unfamiliar word sequences is predicted by positional variability and latent classes in a large sample of child-directed speech’, Cognitive Science, 34: 465–88.Google Scholar
Matthews, D., and Krajewski, G.. 2015. ‘First Language Acquisition.’ In Dąbrowska, Ewa and Divjak, Dagmar (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (De Gruyter Mouton: Berlin, Boston).Google Scholar
Matthews, P. H. 1972. Inflectional Morphology: A Theoretical Study Based on Aspects of Latin Verb Conjugation (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
Maye, J., Werker, J. F., and Gerken, L.. 2002. ‘Infant sensitivity to distributional information can affect phonetic discrimination’, Cognition, 82: B101–B11.Google Scholar
McClelland, J. L. 2013. ‘Incorporating rapid neocortical learning of new schema-consistent information into complementary learning systems theory’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142 (4): 1190–1210.Google Scholar
McClelland, J. L., and Bybee, J.. 2007. ‘Gradience of gradience: a reply to Jackendoff’, The Linguistic Review, 24: 437–55.Google Scholar
McClelland, J. L., and Elman, J. L.. 1986. ‘The TRACE model of speech perception’, Cognitive Psychology, 18: 1–86.Google Scholar
McClelland, J. L., and Rumelhart, D. E.. 1981. ‘An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings’, Psychological Review, 88: 375–407.Google Scholar
McClelland, J. L., and Rumelhart, D. E. 1985. ‘Distributed memory and the representation of general and specific information’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114: 159–88.Google Scholar
McDonald, S., and Shillcock, R. C.. 2001. ‘Rethinking the word frequency effect: The neglected role of distributional information in lexical processing’, Language and Speech, 44: 295–323.Google Scholar
McDonald, S. A., and Shillcock, R. C.. 2003. ‘Eye movements reveal the on-line computation of lexical probabilities during reading’, Psychological Science, 14: 648–52.Google Scholar
McRae, K., and Matsuki, K.. 2009. ‘People use their knowledge of common events to understand language, and do so as quickly as possible’, Lang Linguist Compass, 3: 1417–29.Google Scholar
Meltzer, N. S., and Herse, R.. 1969. ‘The boundaries of written words as seen by first graders. journal of literacy research’, Journal of Literacy Research, 1: 3–14.Google Scholar
Mesulam, M. 2008. ‘Representation, inference, and transcendent encoding in neurocognitive networks of the human brain’, Annals of Neurology, 64: 367–78.Google Scholar
Meyer, A. S., Sleidernik, A. M., and Levelt, W. J. M.. 1998. ‘Viewing and naming objects: eye movements during noun phrase production’, Cognition, 66: B25–33.Google Scholar
Meyer, A. S., Wheeldon, L., van der Meulen, F., and Konopka, A.. 2012. ‘Effects of speech rate and practice on the allocation of visual attention in multiple object naming’, Frontiers in Psychology, 3.Google Scholar
Mikolov, T., Chen, K., Corrado, G., and Dean, J.. 2013. ‘Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space’, paper, CoRR, abs/1301.3781.Google Scholar
Milin, P., Divjak, D., and Baayen, R. H.. 2017. ‘A learning perspective on individual differences in skilled reading: exploring and exploiting orthographic and semantic discrimination cues’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 43: 1730–51.Google Scholar
Milin, P., Divjak, D., Dimitrijević, S., and Baayen, R. H.. 2016. ‘Towards cognitively plausible data science in language research’, Cognitive Linguistics, 27: 507–26.Google Scholar
Milin, P., Đurđević, D. F., and del Prado Martín, F. M.. 2009. ‘The simultaneous effects of inflectional paradigms and classes on lexical recognition: evidence from Serbian’, Journal of Memory and Language, 60: 50–64.Google Scholar
Milin, P., Feldman, L. B., Ramscar, M., Hendrix, P., and Baayen, R. H.. 2017. ‘Discrimination in Lexical Decision’, PLoS ONE, 12.Google Scholar
Milin, P., Kuperman, V., Kostić, A., and Baayen, R. H.. 2009. ‘Words and Paradigms Bit by Bit: An Information-Theoretic Approach to the Processing of Inflection and Derivation.’ In Blevins, J. P. and Blevins, J. (eds.), Analogy in Grammar: Form and Acquisition (Oxford University Press: Oxford).Google Scholar
Miller, G. 1957. ‘Some effects of intermittent silence’, American Journal of Psychology, 70: 311–14.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A. 1956. ‘The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information’, Psychological Review, 63: 81–97.Google Scholar
Mishra, R. K., Singh, N., Pandey, A., and Huettig, F.. 2012. ‘Spoken language-mediated anticipatory eye-movements are modulated by reading ability: evidence from Indian low and high literates’, Journal of Eye Movement Research, 5: 1–10.Google Scholar
Mishra, R. K. 2015. Interaction between Attention and Language Systems in Humans: a Cognitive Science Perspective (Springer: New Delhi).Google Scholar
Mishra, R. K., Srinivasan, N., and Huettig, F.. 2015. Attention and Vision in Language Processing (Springer: New Delhi).Google Scholar
Mitchell, D. C., Cuetos, F., Corely, M. M. B., and Brysbaert, M.. 1995. ‘Exposure-based models of human parsing: evidence for the use of coarse-grained (nonlexical) statistical records’, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24: 469–88.Google Scholar
Molinaro, N., Monsalve, I. F., and Lizarazu, M.. 2016. ‘Is there a common oscillatory brain mechanism for producing and predicting language?’, Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31: 145–58.Google Scholar
Monsell, S. 1991. ‘The Nature and Locus of Word Frequency Effects in Reading.’ In Besner, Derek and Humphreys, Glyn W. (eds.), Basic Processes in Reading: Visual Word Recognition (Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ).Google Scholar
Montemurro, M. A. 2001. ‘Beyond the Zipf–Mandelbrot law in quantitative linguistics’, Physica A, 300: 567–78.Google Scholar
Moore, K. E. 2014. The Spatial Language of Time: Metaphor, Metonymy and Frames of Reference (John Benjamins: Amsterdam & Philadelphia).Google Scholar
Moray, N. 1959. ‘Attention in dichotic listening: affective cues and the influence of instructions’, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 11: 56–60.Google Scholar
Morrison, C. M., and Ellis, A. W.. 1995. ‘The roles of word frequency and age of acquisition in word naming and lexical decision’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21: 116–33.Google Scholar
Morrison, C. M., Ellis, A. W., and Quinlan, P. T.. 1992. ‘Age of acquisition, not word frequency, affects object naming, not object recognition’, Memory and Cognition, 20: 705–14.Google Scholar
Morton, J. 1969. ‘Interaction of information in word recognition’, Psychological Review, 76: 165–78.Google Scholar
Moscoso del Prado Martín, F., Kostić, A., and Baayen, R. H.. 2004. ‘Putting the bits together: an information theoretical perspective on morphological processing’, Cognition, 94: 1–18.Google Scholar
Mukherjee, J. 2005. English Ditransitive Verbs: Aspects of Theory, Description and a Usage-Based Model (Rodopi: Amsterdam).Google Scholar
Mulligan, N. W. 1997. ‘Attention and implicit memory tests: the effects of varying attentional load on conceptual priming’, Memory and Cognition, 25: 11–17.Google Scholar
Mulligan, N. W. 1998. ‘The role of attention during encoding in implicit and explicit memory’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24: 27–47.Google Scholar
Murray, W. S., and Forster, K. I.. 2004. ‘Serial mechanisms in lexical access: the rank hypothesis’, Psychological Review, 111: 721–56.Google Scholar
Myachykov, A. 2007. ‘Integrating perceptual, semantic and syntactic information in sentence production’, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Glasgow.Google Scholar
Myachykov, A., Garrod, S., and Scheepers, C.. 2010. ‘Perceptual Priming of Syntactic Choice during English and Finnish Sentence Production.’ In Mishra, R. and Srinivasan, N. (eds.), Language and Cognition: State of the Art (Lincom Europa: Munich).Google Scholar
Myachykov, A., Garrod, S., and Scheepers, C. 2012. ‘Determinants of structural choice in visually situated sentence production’, Acta Psychologica, 141: 304–15.Google Scholar
Myachykov, A., Posner, M. I., and Tomlin, R. S.. 2007. ‘A parallel interface for language and cognition in sentence production: theory, method, and experimental evidence’, The Linguistic Review, 24: 457–74.Google Scholar
Myachykov, A., Thompson, D., Scheepers, C., and Garrod, S.. 2011. ‘Visual attention and structural choice in sentence production across languages’, Language and Linguistics Compass, 5: 95–107.Google Scholar
Myachykov, A., and Tomlin, R. S.. 2008. ‘Perceptual priming and syntactic choice in Russian sentence production’, Journal of Cognitive Science, 9: 31–48.Google Scholar
Myachykov, A., Tomlin, R. S., and Posner, M. I.. 2005. ‘Attention and empirical studies of grammar’, The Linguistic Review, 22: 347–64.Google Scholar
Narayanan, S., and Jurafsky, D.. 1998. ‘Bayesian Models of Human Sentence Processing.’ In COGSCI-98 (Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ).Google Scholar
Narayanan, S., and Jurafsky, D.. 2002. ‘A Bayesian Model Predicts Human Parse Preference and Reading Times in Sentence Processing’ In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 14.Google Scholar
Nevat, M., Ullman, M. T., Eviatar, Z., and Bitan, T.. 2017. ‘The neural bases of the learning and generalization of morphological inflection’, Neuropsychologia, 98: 139–55.Google Scholar
New, B., Brysbaert, M., Veronis, J., and Pallier, C.. 2007. ‘The use of film subtitles to estimate word frequencies’, Applied Psycholinguistics, 28: 661–77.Google Scholar
Newport, E. L. 1990. ‘Maturational constraints on language learning’, Cognitive Science, 14: 11–28.Google Scholar
Nieuwland, M., Politzer-Ahles, S., Heyselaar, E., Segaert, K., Darley, E., Kazanina, N., Von Grebmer Zu Wolfsthurn, S., Bartolozzi, F., Kogan, V., Ito, A., Mézière, D., Barr, D. J., Rousselet, G., Ferguson, H., Busch Moreno, S., Fu, X., Tuomainen, J., Kulakova, E., Matthew Husband, E., and Huettig, F.. 2017. ‘Limits on prediction in language comprehension: a multi-lab failure to replicate evidence for probabilistic pre-activation of phonology’. In bioRxiv.Google Scholar
Nobre, A. C., and Kastner, S.. 2014a. ‘Attention: Time Capsule 2013.’ In Nobre, Anna C. and Kastner, Sabine (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Attention (Oxford University Press: Oxford).Google Scholar
Nobre, A. C., and Kastner, S. (eds.). 2014b. The Oxford Handbook of Attention (Oxford University Press: Oxford).Google Scholar
Norcliffe, E., and Konopka, A. E.. 2015. ‘Vision and Language in Cross-Linguistic Research on Sentence Production.’ In Mishra, Ramesh, Srinivasan, Narayanan Kumar and Huettig, Falk (eds.), Attention and Vision in Language Processing (Springer: New Delhi).Google Scholar
Norman, D. A., and Shallice, T.. 1986. ‘Attention to Action: Willed and Automatic Control of Behaviour.’ In Davidson, R. J., Schwartz, G. E. and Shapiro, D. (eds.), Consciousness and Self-Regulation: Advances in Research and Theory (Springer US: New York).Google Scholar
Norris, D. 2006. ‘The Bayesian reader: explaining word recognition as an optimal Bayesian decision process’, Psychological Review, 113: 327–57.Google Scholar
Nosofsky, R. M. 1988. ‘Similarity, frequency and category representation’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14: 54–65.Google Scholar
Núñez, R., and Cooperrider, K.. 2013. ‘The tangle of space and time in human cognition’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17: 220–9.Google Scholar
O’Brien, D. P., Roazzi, A., Athias, R., and M. D. Brandao, C.. 2007. ‘What Sorts of Reasoning Modules Have Been Provided by Evolution? Some Experiments Conducted among Tukano Speakers in Brazilian Amazonia concerning Reasoning about Conditional Propositions and about Conditional Probabilities.’ In Roberts, Maxwell J. (ed.), Integrating the Mind: Domain General versus Domain Specific Processes in Higher Cognition (Psychology Press: New York).Google Scholar
O’Regan, J. K., Rensink, R. A., and Clark, J. J.. 1999. ‘Change-blindness as a result of “mudsplashes”’, Nature, 398: 34.Google Scholar
Oakley, T. 2009. From Attention to Meaning: Explorations in Semiotics, Linguistics, and Rhetoric (Peter Lang: Bern).Google Scholar
Oberauer, K. 2002. ‘Access to information in working memory: exploring the focus of attention’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28: 411–21.Google Scholar
Oberauer, K. 2009. ‘Design for a working memory’, The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 51: 45–100.Google Scholar
Oldfield, R. C., and Wingfield, A.. 1965. ‘Response latencies in naming objects.’, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 17: 273–81.Google Scholar
Olson, D. R., and Filby, N.. 1972. ‘On the comprehension of active and passive sentences’, Cognitive Psychology, 3: 361–81.Google Scholar
Osgood, C. E. 1958. ‘A question of sufficiency’, Contemporary Psychology: a Journal of Reviews, 3: 209–12.Google Scholar
Osgood, C. E. 1971. ‘Exploration in semantic space: a personal diary’, Journal of Social Issues, 27: 5–64.Google Scholar
Osgood, C. E., and Bock, K.. 1977. ‘Salience and Sentencing: Some Production Principles.’ in Rosenberg, S. (ed.), Sentence Production: Developments in Research and Theory (Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ).Google Scholar
Padó, U., Crocker, M. W., and Keller, F.. 2009. ‘A probabilistic model of semantic plausibility in sentence processing’, Cognitive Science, 33: 794–838.Google Scholar
Paller, K. A., and Wagner, A. D.. 2002. ‘Observing the transformation of experience into memory’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6: 93–102.Google Scholar
Palmer, D. C. 2006. ‘On Chomsky’s appraisal of Skinner’s Verbal Behavior: a half century of misunderstanding’, The Behavior Analyst, 29: 253–67.Google Scholar
Pavlov, I. P. 1927. Conditioned Reflexes: An Investigation of the Physiological Activity of the Cerebral Cortex (Oxford University Press: London).Google Scholar
Pearce, J. M. 1997. Animal Learning and Cognition: An Introduction (2nd ed.) (Psychology Press: Hove).Google Scholar
Pearce, J. M., and Hall, G.. 1980. ‘A model for Pavlovian learning: variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not of unconditioned stimuli’, Psychological Review, 87: 532–52.Google Scholar
Pelucchi, B., Hay, J. F., and Saffran, J. R.. 2009. ‘Statistical learning in a natural language by eight-month-old infants.’, Child Development, 80: 674–85.Google Scholar
Perruchet, P., and Poulin-Charronnat, B.. 2012. ‘Word Segmentation: Trading the (New, but Poor) Concept of Statistical Computation for the (Old, but Richer) Associative Approach.’ In Rebuschat, P. and Williams, J. N. (eds.), Statistical Learning and Language Acquisition (De Gruyter: Berlin).Google Scholar
Petri, H. L., and Mishkin, M.. 1994. ‘Behaviorism, cognitivism and the neuropsychology of memory’, American Scientist, 82: 30–7.Google Scholar
Piantadosi, S. T. 2014. ‘Zipf’s word frequency law in natural language: a critical review and future directions’, Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 21: 1112–30.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J., and Branigan, H. P.. 1998. ‘The representation of verbs: evidence from syntactic priming in language production’, Journal of Memory and Language, 39 (4): 633–51.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. B. 2001. ‘Exemplar Dynamics: Word Frequency, Lenition and Contrast.’ In Bybee, Joan and Hopper, Paul (eds.), Frequency Effects and the Emergence of Lexical Structure (John Benjamins: Amsterdam, Philadelphia).Google Scholar
Pine, J. M. 1994. ‘The Language of Primary Caregivers.’ In Gallaway, C. and Richards, B. J. (eds.), Input and Interaction in Language Acquisition (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
Pinker, S. 1984. Language Learnability and Language Development (Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, London).Google Scholar
Plaut, D. C., and Gonnerman, L. M.. 2000. ‘Are non-semantic morphological effects incompatible with a distributed connectionist approach to lexical processing?’, Language and Cognitive Processes, 15: 445–85.Google Scholar
Poeppel, D. 2012. ‘The maps problem and the mapping problem: two challenges for a cognitive neuroscience of speech and language’, Cognitive Neuropsychology, 29: 34–55.Google Scholar
Poggio, T. A. 2010. ‘Afterword to Vision.’ In Marr, David (ed.), Vision (MIT Press: Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
Posner, M. I. 1980. ‘Orienting of attention’, The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32: 3–25.Google Scholar
Postle, B. R. 2006. ‘Working memory as an emergent property of the mind and brain’, Neuroscience, 139: 23–38.Google Scholar
Prat, C. S., Yamasaki, B. L., Kluender, R. A., and Stocco, A.. 2016. ‘Resting-state qEEG predicts rate of second language learning in adults’, Brain and Language, 157–8:44–50.Google Scholar
Prentice, J. 1967. ‘Effects of cuing actor vs. cuing object on word order in sentence production’, Psychonomic Science, 8.Google Scholar
Pullum, G., and Scholz, B.. 2002. ‘Empirical assessment of stimulus poverty arguments’, The Linguistic Review, 19: 8–50.Google Scholar
Pulvermüller, F., Shtyrov, Y., Hasting, A. S., and Carlyon, R. P.. 2008. ‘Syntax as a reflex: neurophysiological evidence for early automaticity of grammatical processing’, Brain and Language, 104: 244–53.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. 1963. ‘Brains and Behavior’. In Butler, Ronald J. (ed.), Analytical Philosophy, second series (Blackwell: Oxford).Google Scholar
Qian, T., Jaeger, F. T., and Aslin, R. N.. 2012. ‘Learning to represent a multi-context environment: more than detecting changes’, Frontiers in Psychology, 3.Google Scholar
Rabagliati, H., Ferguson, B., and Lew-Williams, C.. 2019. ‘The profile of abstract rule learning in infancy: meta-analytic and experimental evidence’, Developmental Science, 22.Google Scholar
Rabagliati, H., Gambi, C., and Pickering, M. J.. 2016. ‘Learning to predict or predicting to learn?’, Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31: 94–105.Google Scholar
Rácz, P. 2013. Salience in Sociolinguistics: A Quantitative Approach (De Gruyter Mouton: Berlin and Boston).Google Scholar
Rainer, F. 2016. ‘Blocking.’ In Aronoff, Mark (ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedias (Oxford University Press: Oxford).Google Scholar
Ramón y Cajal, S. 1894. ‘La fine structure des centres nerveux’, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 55: 443–68.Google Scholar
Ramscar, M., and Port, R.. 2015. ‘Categorization (without Categories).’ In Dąbrowska, Ewa and Divjak, Dagmar (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (De Gruyter Mouton: Berlin, Boston).Google Scholar
Ramscar, M., and Yarlett, D.. 2007. ‘Linguistic self-correction in the absence of feedback: a new approach to the logical problem of language acquisition’, Cognitive Science, 31: 927–30.Google Scholar
Ramscar, M., Yarlett, D., Dye, M., Denny, K., and Thorpe, K.. 2010. ‘The effects of feature‐label‐order and their implications for symbolic learning’, Cognitive Science, 34: 909–57.Google Scholar
Rao, R. P., and Ballard, D. H.. 1999. ‘Predictive coding in the visual cortex: a functional interpretation of some extra-classical receptive-field effects’, Nature Neuroscience, 2: 79–87.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, D., and Eliasmith, C.. 2013. ‘God, the devil, and the details: fleshing out the predictive processing framework’, The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36: 223.Google Scholar
Raymond, W. D., and Brown, E. L.. 2012. ‘Are Effects of Word Frequency Effects of Context Of Use? An Analysis of Initial Fricative Reduction in Spanish.’ In Gries, Stefan Th and Divjak, Dagmar (eds.), Frequency Effects in Language. Vol 2: Learning and Processing (Mouton de Gruyter: The Hague).Google Scholar
Rayner, K. 1998. ‘Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research’, Psychological Bulletin, 124: 372–422.Google Scholar
Rebuschat, P. 2013. ‘Statistical Learning’ In Robinson, P. (ed.), The Routledge Encyclopedia of Second Language Acquisition (Routledge: London).Google Scholar
Redgrave, P., and Gurney, K.. 2006. ‘The short-latency dopamine signal: a role in discovering novel actions?’, Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 7: 967.Google Scholar
Reicher, G. M. 1969. ‘Perceptual recognition as a function of meaningfulness of stimulus material’, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 82: 275–80.Google Scholar
Rescorla, R. A. 1966. ‘Predictability and number of pairings in Pavlovian fear conditioning’, Psychonomic Science, 4: 383–4.Google Scholar
Rescorla, R. A. 1967. ‘Pavlovian conditioning and its proper control procedures’, Psychological Review, 74: 71–80.Google Scholar
Rescorla, R. A. 1968. ‘Probability of shock in the presence and absence of cs in fear conditioning’, Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 66: 1–5.Google Scholar
Rescorla, R. A. 1974. ‘Effect of inflation of the unconditioned stimulus value following conditioning’, Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 86: 101–6.Google Scholar
Rescorla, R. A. 1988. ‘Pavlovian conditioning: it’s not what you think it is’, American Psychologist, 43: 151–60.Google Scholar
Rescorla, R. A., and Wagner, R. A.. 1972. ‘A Theory of Pavlovian Conditioning: Variations in the Effectiveness of Reinforcement and Non-Reinforcement.’ In Black, H. and Prokasy, W. F. (eds.), Classical Conditioning II (Appleton-Century-Crofts: New York).Google Scholar
Riccio, D. C., Richardson, R., and Ebner, D. L.. 1984. ‘Memory retrieval deficits based upon altered contextual cues: A paradox’, Psychological Bulletin, 96: 152–65.Google Scholar
Roark, B. 2001. ‘Probabilistic top-down parsing and language modeling’, Computational Linguistics, 27: 249–76.Google Scholar
Robenalt, C., and Goldberg, A. E.. 2015. ‘Judgment evidence for statistical pre-emption: it is relatively better to vanish than to disappear a rabbit, but a lifeguard can equally well backstroke or swim children to shore’, Cognitive Linguistics, 26: 467–504.Google Scholar
Roediger, H. 1980. ‘Memory metaphors in cognitive psychology’, Memory and Cognition, 8: 231–46.Google Scholar
Roediger, H., and Crowder, R. G.. 1975. ‘The spacing of lists in free recall’, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14: 590–602.Google Scholar
Roelofs, A. 1997. ‘The WEAVER model of word-form encoding in speech production’, Cognition, 64: 249–84.Google Scholar
Rogalsky, C., and Hickok, G.. 2009. ‘Selective attention to semantic and syntactic features modulates sentence processing networks in anterior temporal cortex’, Cerebral Cortex, 19: 786–96.Google Scholar
Rogers, T. T., and McClelland, J. L.. 2004. Semantic Cognition: A Parallel Distributed Processing Approach (MIT Press: Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
Rosch, E. 1975. ‘Cognitive representation of semantic categories.’, Journal of Experimental Psychology 104: 192–233.Google Scholar
Rubenstein, H., Garfield, L., and Millikan, J. A.. 1970. ‘Homographic entries in the internal lexicon’, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 9: 487–94.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E., and McClelland, J. L.. 1982. ‘An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception, 2: the contextual enhancement effect and some tests and extensions of the model’, Psychological Review, 89: 60–94.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D. E., and McClelland, J. L.. 1986. ‘On Learning the Past Tense of English Verbs.’ In Rumelhart, D. E. and McClelland, J. (eds.), Parallel Distributed Processing (MIT Press: Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
Saffran, J. R. 2001a. ‘The use of predictive dependencies in language learning’, Journal of Memory and Language, 44: 493–515.Google Scholar
Saffran, J. R. 2001b. ‘Words in a sea of sounds: The output of statistical learning’, Cognition, 81: 149–69.Google Scholar
Saffran, J. R. 2002. ‘Constraints on statistical language learning’, Journal of Memory and Language, 47: 172–96.Google Scholar
Saffran, J. R. 2003. ‘Statistical language learning: mechanisms and constraints’, Current Directions in Psychological Science 12: 110–14.Google Scholar
Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R. N., and Newport, E. L.. 1996. ‘Statistical Learning by Eight-Month-Old Infants’, Science: 1926–8.Google Scholar
Saffran, J. R., Newport, E. L., and Aslin, R. N.. 1996. ‘Word segmentation: the role of distributional cues’, Journal of Memory and Language, 35: 606–21.Google Scholar
Saffran, J. R., and Wilson, D. P.. 2003. ‘From syllables to syntax: multi-level statistical learning by 12-month-old infants’, Infancy, 4: 273–84.Google Scholar
Sahlgren, M. 2006. ‘The word–space model: using distributional analysis to represent syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations between words in high-dimensional vector spaces’, PhD Dissertation, Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Saling, L. L., and Phillips, J. G.. 2007. ‘Automatic behaviour: efficient not mindless’, Brain Research Bulletin, 73: 1–20.Google Scholar
Salverda, A. P., and Altmann, G. T. M.. 2011. ‘Attentional capture of objects referred to by spoken language’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37: 1122–33.Google Scholar
Sankoff, D., and Labov, W.. 1979. ‘On the uses of variable rules’, Language in Society, 8: 189–222.Google Scholar
Savin, H. B. 1963. ‘Word-frequency effect and errors in the perception of speech’, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 35: 200–6.Google Scholar
Scaife, M., and Bruner, J. S.. 1975. ‘The capacity for joint visual attention in the infant’, Nature, 253: 255–6.Google Scholar
Scarborough, D. L., Cortese, C., and Scarborough, H. S.. 1977. ‘Frequency and repetition effects in lexical memory’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 3: 1–17.Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. 2000. English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells. From Corpus to Cognition (Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin, New York).Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. 2007. ‘Entrenchment, Salience and Basic Levels.’ In Geeraerts, Dirk and Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (Oxford University Press: Oxford).Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. 2010. ‘Does Frequency in Text Instantiate Entrenchment in the Cognitive System.’ In Glynn, Dylan and Fischer, Kerstin (eds.), Quantitative Methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-Driven Approaches (Walter de Gruyter: Berlin).Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. 2015. ‘A blueprint of the entrenchment-and-conventionalization model’, Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 5: 1–27.Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. 2016a. ‘A blueprint of the entrenchment-and-conventionalization Model’, Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, 3: 3–26.Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. 2016b. ‘Why cognitive linguistic must embrace the pragmatic and social dimensions of language and how it could do so more seriously’, Cognitive Linguistics, 27: 543–58.Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J.(ed.). 2017a. Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning: How We Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge (De Gruyter Mouton and APA: Berlin).Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. 2017b. ‘A Framework for Understanding Linguistic Entrenchment and its Psychological Foundations.’ In Schmid, Hans-Joerg (ed.), Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning: How We Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge (De Gruyter Mouton and APA: Berlin).Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J., and Küchenhoff, H.. 2013. ‘Collostructional analysis and other ways of measuring lexicogrammatical attraction: theoretical premises, practical problems and cognitive underpinnings’, Cognitive Linguistics, 24: 531–77.Google Scholar
Schmidhuber, J. 2015. ‘Deep learning in neural networks: an overview’, Neural Networks, 61: 85–117.Google Scholar
Schooler, L. J. 1993. ‘Memory and the statistical structure of the environment’, paper, Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
Schooler, L. J., and Anderson, J. R.. 1997. ‘The role of process in the rational analysis of memory’, Cognitive Psychology, 32.Google Scholar
Schreuder, R., and Baayen, R. H.. 1997. ‘How complex simplex words can be’, Journal of Memory and Language, 37: 118–39.Google Scholar
Schriefers, H., Meyer, A. S., and Levelt, W. J. M.. 1990. ‘Exploring the time course of lexical access in language production: picture-word interference studies’, Journal of Memory and Language, 29: 86–102.Google Scholar
Schultz, W., Dayan, P., and Montague, P.. 1997. ‘A neural substrate of prediction and reward’, Science, 275: 1593–9.Google Scholar
Schupp, H. T., Stockburger, J., Codispoti, M., Junghöfer, M., Weike, A. I., and Hamm, A. O.. 2007. ‘Selective visual attention to emotion’, Journal of Neuroscience, 27: 1082–9.Google Scholar
Schwanenflugel, P., and Shoben, E.. 1983. ‘Differential context effects in the comprehension of abstract and concrete verbal materials’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 9: 82–102.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. L. 2011. Memory: Foundations and Applications (SAGE: Los Angeles, London).Google Scholar
Sedlmeier, P., and Betsch, T.. 2002. Etc.: Frequency Processing and Cognition (Oxford University Press: Oxford, New York).Google Scholar
Seidenberg, M. S., and Gonnerman, L. M.. 2000. ‘Explaining derivational morphology as the convergence of codes’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4: 353–61.Google Scholar
Seidenberg, M. S., and McClelland, J. L.. 1989. ‘A distributed, developmental model of word recognition and naming’, Psychological Review, 96: 523–68.Google Scholar
Serences, J. T., and Kastner, S.. 2014. ‘A Multi-Level Account of Selective Attention.’ In Nobre, Anna C. and Kastner, Sabine (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Attention (Oxford University Press: Oxford).Google Scholar
Settles, B., and Meeder, B.. 2016. ‘A Trainable Spaced Repetition Model for Language Learning.’ In 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 1848–58 (Association for Computational Linguistics: Berlin).Google Scholar
Shannon, C. E. 1948. ‘A mathematical theory of communication’, Bell System Technical Journal, 27: 379–423.Google Scholar
Shaoul, C. 2012. ‘The processing of lexical sequences’, PhD Dissertation, University of Alberta.Google Scholar
Shukla, M., Gervain, J., Mehler, J., and Nespor, M.. 2012. ‘Linguistic Constraints on Statistical Learning in Early Language Acquisition.’ In Rebuschat, P. and William, J. (eds.), Statistical Learning and Language Acquisition (Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin, Boston).Google Scholar
Shukla, M., Nespor, M., and Mehler, J.. 2007. ‘An interaction between prosody and statistics in the segmentation of fluent speech’, Cognitive Psychology, 54: 1–32.Google Scholar
Siegal, S. 1969. ‘Generalization of latent inhibition’, Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 69: 157–9.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. 1956. ‘Rational choice and the structure of the environment’, Psychological Review, 63: 129–38.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. 1957. Models of Man, Social and Rational: Mathematical Essays on Rational Human Behavior in a Social Setting (Wiley, Chapman and Hall: New York, London).Google Scholar
Simons, D. J., and Levin, D. T.. 1997. ‘Change blindness’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 1: 261–7.Google Scholar
Singer, W., and Gray, C. M.. 1995. ‘Visual feature integration and the temporal correlation hypothesis’, Annual Review of Neuroscience, 18: 555–86.Google Scholar
Sivia, D., and Skilling, J.. 2006. Data Analysis: a Bayesian Tutorial (Oxford University Press: Oxford).Google Scholar
Skinner, B. F. 1937. ‘The distribution of associated words’, Psychological Record, 1: 71–6.Google Scholar
Skinner, B. F. 1938. The Behavior of Organisms: an Experimental Analysis (Appleton-Century: New York).Google Scholar
Skousen, R. 1989. Analogical Modeling of Language (Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht).Google Scholar
Smith, N. J., and Levy, R.. 2008. ‘Optimal Processing Times in Reading: a Formal Model and Empirical Investigation.’ In Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (Cognitive Science Society: Austin, TX).Google Scholar
Snider, N., and Arnon, I.. 2012. ‘A Unified Lexicon and Grammar? Compositional and Non-Compositional Phrases in the Lexicon.’ In Divjak, Dagmar and Gries, Stefan Th. (eds.), Frequency Effects in Language Representation (De Gruyter Mouton: Berlin, Boston).Google Scholar
Solan, Z., Horn, D., Ruppin, E., and Edelman, S.. 2005. ‘Unsupervised learning of natural languages’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102: 11629–34.Google Scholar
Sporns, O., Chialvo, D. R., Kaiser, M., and Hilgetag, C. C.. 2004. ‘Organization, development and function of complex brain networks’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8: 418–25.Google Scholar
Squire, L. R., and Kandel, E. R.. 2009. Memory: From Mind to Molecules (Roberts and Company: Totnes).Google Scholar
Stafford, T. 2009. ‘What Use Are Computational Models of Cognitive Processes?’ In Mayor, J., Ruh, N. and Plunkett, K. (eds.), Connectionist Models of Behaviour and Cognition (World Scientific: Singapore).Google Scholar
Stanovich, K., and West, R.. 1979. ‘Mechanisms of sentence context effects in reading: automatic activation and conscious attention’, Memory and Cognition, 7: 77–85.Google Scholar
Staub, A. 2015. ‘The effect of lexical predictability on eye movements in reading: critical review and theoretical interpretation’, Language and Linguistics Compass, 9: 311–27.Google Scholar
Staub, A., Grant, M., Astheimer, L., and Cohen, A.. 2015. ‘The influence of cloze probability and item constraint on cloze task response time’, Journal of Memory and Language, 82: 1–17.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. 2008. ‘Negative entrenchment: a usage-based approach to negative evidence’, Cognitive Linguistics, 19: 513–31.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. 2011. ‘Constructional pre-emption by contextual mismatch: a corpus-linguistic investigation’, Cognitive Linguistics, 22: 107–30.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. 2013. ‘Collostructional Analysis.’ In Trousdale, G. and Hoffmann, T. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar (Oxford University Press: Oxford).Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., and Gries, S. T.. 2003. ‘Collostructions: investigating the interaction between words and constructions’, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8: 209–43.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., and Gries, S. T. 2005. ‘Co-varying collexemes’, Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1: 1–43.Google Scholar
Steinhauer, K., and Drury, J. E.. 2012. ‘On the early left-anterior negativity (ELAN) in syntax studies’, Brain and Language, 120: 135–62.Google Scholar
Stevens, M. E., Giuliano, V. E., and Heilprin, L. B. (eds.). 1965. Statistical Association Methods for Mechanized Documentation. Symposium Proceedings Washington 1964 (U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC).Google Scholar
Steyvers, M., and Malmberg, K. J.. 2003. ‘The effect of normative context variability on recognition memory’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29: 760–6.Google Scholar
Stolcke, A. 1995. ‘An efficient probabilistic context-free parsing algorithm that computes prefix probabilities’, Computational Linguistics, 21: 165–202.Google Scholar
Stone, J. V. 2015. Information Theory: a Tutorial Introduction (Sebtel Press: Sheffield).Google Scholar
Stone, J. V. 2018. Principles of Neural Information Theory: Computational Neuroscience and Metabolic Efficiency (Sebtel Press: Sheffield).Google Scholar
Stroop, J. R. 1935. ‘Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions’, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18: 643–62.Google Scholar
Styles, E. A. 2005. Attention, Perception and Memory: An Integrated Introduction (Psychology Press: Hove, New York).Google Scholar
Suppes, P. 1970. ‘Probabilistic Grammar for Natural Languages.’ In Psychology Series, 34 (Stanford University: Stanford, CA).Google Scholar
Suttle, L., and Goldberg, A. E.. 2011. ‘Partial productivity of constructions as induction’, Linguistics, 49: 1237–69.Google Scholar
Swiggers, P. 1995. ‘How Chomsky skinned Quine, or what “verbal behavior” can do’, Language Sciences, 17: 1–18.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B. 2006. Morphosyntactic Persistence in Spoken English: a Corpus Study at the Intersection of Variationist Sociolinguistics, Psycholinguistics, and Discourse Analysis (Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin, New York).Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B. 2013. ‘Diachronic probabilistic grammar’, English Language and Linguistics, 1: 41–68.Google Scholar
Taft, M. 1979. ‘Recognition of affixed words and the word frequency effect’, Memory and Cognition, 7: 263–72.Google Scholar
Takashima, A., and Bakker, I.. 2016. ‘Memory Consolidation.’ In Schmid, Hans-Joerg (ed.), Entrenchment, and the Psychology of Language Learning: How We Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge (De Gruyter Mouton: Washington, DC).Google Scholar
Talmy, L. 1985. ‘Lexicalization Patterns: Semantic Structure in Lexical Forms.’ In Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Vol. 3: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
Talmy, L. 2007. ‘Attention Phenomena.’ In Geeraerts, Dirk and Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (Oxford University Press: Oxford).Google Scholar
Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., and Sedivy, J. C.. 1995. ‘Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension’, Science, 268: 1632–4.Google Scholar
Tannenbaum, P. H., and Williams, F.. 1968. ‘Generation of active and passive sentences as a function of subject or object focus’, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 7: 246–50.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. G. 2005. ‘On Intelligence: Book review’, Artificial Intelligence, 169: 192–5.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R. 1995. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory (Oxford University Press: Oxford).Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R. 2012. The Mental Corpus. How Language is Represented in the Mind (Oxford University Press: Oxford).Google Scholar
Taylor, W. L. 1953. ‘“Cloze Procedure”: a new tool for measuring readability’, Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 30: 415–33.Google Scholar
Theakston, A. 2004. ‘The role of entrenchment in children’s and adults’ performance on grammaticality judgment tasks’, Cognitive Development, 19: 15–34.Google Scholar
Theeuwes, J., Belopolsky, A. V., and Olivers, C. N. L.. 2009. ‘Interactions between working memory, attention and eye movements’, Acta Psychologica, 132: 106–14.Google Scholar
Theijssen, D., ten Bosch, L., Boves, L., Cranen, B., and van Halteren, H.. 2013. ‘Choosing alternatives: using Bayesian networks and memory-based learning to study the dative alternation’, Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 9: 227–62.Google Scholar
Thomas, M. S. C., and McClelland, J. L.. 2008. ‘Connectionist Models of Cognition.’ In Sun, Ron (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Computational Psychology (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
Thompson, R. K., and Herman, L. M.. 1977. ‘Memory for lists of sounds by the bottle-nosed dolphin: convergence of memory processes with humans?’, Science, 195: 501–3.Google Scholar
Thompson, S. A., and Hopper, P. J.. 2001. ‘Transitivity, Clause Structure, and Argument Structure: Evidence from Conversation.’ In Bybee, Joan and Hopper, Paul (eds.), Frequency Effects and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure (John Benjamins: Amsterdam, Philadelphia).Google Scholar
Thorndike, E. L. 1898. ‘Animal intelligence: an experimental study of the associative processes in animals’, Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 2: i-109.Google Scholar
Thorndike, E. L. 1921. The Teacher’s Word Book (Teachers College, Columbia University: New York).Google Scholar
Thorndike, E. L. 1932b. A Teacher’s Word Book of the Twenty Thousand Words Found Most Frequently and Widely in General Reading for Children and Young People (Teacher’s College, Columbia University: New York).Google Scholar
Thorndike, E. L. 1937. ‘On correlations between measurements which are not normally distributed’, Journal of Educational Psychology, 28: 367–70.Google Scholar
Thorndike, E. L., and Lorge, I.. 1944. The Teacher’s Word Book of 30,000 Words (Teacher’s College, Columbia University: New York).Google Scholar
Tily, H., Gahl, S., Arnon, I., and Snider, N. E.. 2009. ‘Syntactic probabilities affect pronunciation variation in spontaneous speech’, Language and Cognition, 1: 147–65.Google Scholar
Tolman, E. C., Ritchie, B. F., and Kalish, D.. 1946. ‘Studies in spatial learning. II. Place learning versus response learning’, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 36: 221–9.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. 2000. ‘First steps toward a usage-based theory of language acquisition’, Cognitive Linguistics, 11: 61–82.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. 2003. Constructing a language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition (Harvard University Press: Boston).Google Scholar
Tomlin, R. 1995. ‘Focal Attention, Voice, and Word order.’ In Downing, P. and Noonan, M. (eds.), Word Order in Discourse (John Benjamins: Amsterdam).Google Scholar
Tomlin, R. 1997. ‘Mapping Conceptual Representations into Linguistic Representations: The Role of Attention in Grammar.’ In Nuyts, J. and Pederson, E. (eds.), Language and Conceptualization (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
Tomlin, R., Forrest, L., Pu, M. M., and Kim, M. H.. 2010. ‘Discourse Semantics.’ In van Dijk, Teun A. (ed.), Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction (Sage: London).Google Scholar
Tomlin, R., and Myachykov, A.. 2015. ‘Attention and Salience.’ In Dąbrowska, Ewa and Divjak, Dagmar (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (De Gruyter Mouton: Berlin).Google Scholar
Treisman, A. M. 1960. ‘Contextual cues in selective listening’, The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12: 242–8.Google Scholar
Treisman, A. M., and Gelade, G.. 1980. ‘A feature-integration theory of attention’, Cognitive Psychology, 12: 97–136.Google Scholar
Tremblay, A., and Baayen, R. H.. 2010. ‘Holistic Processing of Regular Four-Word Sequences: A Behavioral and ERP Study of the Effects of Structure, Frequency, and Probability on Immediate Free Recall.’ In Wood, D. (ed.), Perspectives on Formulaic Language: Acquisition and Communication (Continuum: London).Google Scholar
Tremblay, A., Derwing, B., Libben, G., and Westbury, C.. 2011. ‘Processing advantages of lexical bundles: evidence from self-paced reading and sentence recall tasks’, Language Learning, 61: 569–613.Google Scholar
Trimmer, P. C., McNamara, J. M., Houston, A. I., and Marshall, J. A. R.. 2012. ‘Does natural selection favour the Rescorla–Wagner rule?’, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 302: 39–52.Google Scholar
Tulving, E., and Donaldson, W.. 1972. Organization of Memory (Academic Press: New York, London).Google Scholar
Tulving, E., and Schacter, D. L.. 1990. ‘Priming and human memory systems’, Science, 247: 301–6.Google Scholar
Tulving, E., and Thomson, D. M.. 1973. ‘Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory’, Psychological Review, 80: 352–73.Google Scholar
Turing, A. M. 1969. ‘Intelligent Machinery.’ In Meltzer, B. and Mitchie, D. (eds.), Machine Intelligence 5 (Edinburg University Press: Edinburgh).Google Scholar
Turk-Browne, N. B., Yi, D. J., and Chun, M. M.. 2006. ‘Linking implicit and explicit memory: common encoding factors and shared representations’, Neuron, 49: 917–27.Google Scholar
Turner, E. A., and Rommetveit, R.. 1968. ‘Focus of attention in recall of active and passive sentences’, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 7: 543–8.Google Scholar
Ullman, M. T. 2001. ‘The declarative/procedural model of lexicon and grammar’, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30: 37–69.Google Scholar
Ullman, M. T. 2004. ‘Contributions of memory circuits to language: the declarative/procedural model’, Cognition, 92: 231–70.Google Scholar
Urrutibétheity, H. N. 1972. ‘The statistical properties of the Spanish lexicon’, Cahiers de lexicologie, 20: 79–95.Google Scholar
Van Berkum, J. J. A., Brown, C. M., Zwitserlood, P., Kooijman, V., and Hagoort, P.. 2005. ‘Anticipating upcoming words in discourse: evidence from ERPs and reading times’, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 31: 443–67.Google Scholar
van der Heijden, A. H. C., and Bem, S.. 1997. ‘Successive approximations to an adequate model of attention’, Consciousness and Cognition, 6: 413–28.Google Scholar
van Petten, C. 1993. ‘A comparison of lexical and sentence-level context effects and their temporal parameters’, Language and Cognitive Processes, 8: 485–532.Google Scholar
Verkoeijen, P. P. J. L., Rikers, R. M. J. P., and Schmidt, H. G.. 2004. ‘Detrimental influence of contextual change on spacing effects in free recall’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30: 796–800.Google Scholar
Vihman, M. M. 1996. Phonological Development: The Origins of Language in the Child (Blackwell: Cambridge, MA, Oxford).Google Scholar
Vogels, J., Krahmer, E., and Maes, A.. 2013. ‘Who is where referred to how, and why? The influence of visual saliency on referent accessibility in spoken language production’, Language and Cognitive Processes, 28: 1323–49.Google Scholar
Von Ehrenfels, C. 1890. ‘Ueber “Gestaltqualitaeten”’, Vierteljahrsschrift fuer wissenschaftliche Philosophie, 14: 249–92.Google Scholar
Wagner, A. R. 1976. ‘Priming in STM: An Information-Processing Mechanism for Self-Generated or Retrieval-Generated Depression in Performance.’ In Tighe, T. J. and Leaton, R. N. (eds.), Habituation: Perspectives from Child Development, Animal Behavior, and Neurophysiology (Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ).Google Scholar
Wagner, A. R. 1978. ‘Expectancies and the Priming of STM.’ In Hulse, S. H., Fowler, H. and Honig, W. K. (eds.), Cognitive Processes in Animal Behavior (Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ).Google Scholar
Wagner, A. R. 1981. ‘SOP: A Model of Automatic Memory Processing in Animal Behavior.’ In Spear, N. E. and Miller, R. R. (eds.), Information Processing in Animals: Memory Mechanisms (Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ).Google Scholar
Wagner, A. R., and Brandon, S. E.. 1989. ‘Evolution of a Structured Connectionist Model of Pavlovian Conditioning (ÆSOP).’ In Klein, S. B. and Mowrer, R. R. (eds.), Contemporary Learning Theories: Pavlovian Conditioning and the Status of Traditional Learning Theories (Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ).Google Scholar
Wagner, A. R., and Brandon, S. E.. 2001. ‘A Componential Theory of Pavlovian Conditioning.’ In Mowrer, R. R. and Klein, S. B. (eds.), Handbook of Contemporary Learning Theories (Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ).Google Scholar
Wagner, A. R., Logan, F. A., and Haberlandt, K.. 1968. ‘Stimulus selection in animal discrimination learning’, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76: 171–80.Google Scholar
Wagner, A. R., and Rescorla, R. A.. 1972. ‘Inhibition in Pavlovian Conditioning: Application of a Theory.’ In Boakes, R. A. and Halliday, M. S. (eds.), Inhibition and Learning (Academic Press.: London).Google Scholar
Waterfall, H. R., Sandbank, B., Onnis, L., and Edelman, S.. 2010. ‘An empirical generative framework for computational modeling of language acquisition’, Journal of Child Language, 37: 671–703.Google Scholar
Waters, G., Caplan, D., and Yampolsky, S.. 2003. ‘On-line syntactic processing under concurrent memory load’, Psychonomic Bulletin and Review: A Journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc., 10: 88–95.Google Scholar
Watson, J. B. 1913. ‘Psychology as the behaviorist views it’, Psychological Review, 20: 158.Google Scholar
West, M. 1953. A General Service List of English Words (Longman, Green and Co: London).Google Scholar
Whaley, C. P. 1978. ‘Word-nonword classification time’, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17: 143–54.Google Scholar
Wicha, N. Y. Y., Moreno, E. M., and Kutas, M.. 2004. ‘Anticipating words and their gender: an event-related brain potential study of semantic integration, gender expectancy, and gender agreement in Spanish sentence reading’, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16: 1272–88.Google Scholar
Wiechmann, D. 2008. ‘On the computation of collostruction strength: testing measures of association as expressions of lexical bias’, Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 4: 253–90.Google Scholar
Wingfield, A. 1968. ‘Effects of frequency on identification.’, American Journal of Psychology, 81: 226–34.Google Scholar
Wise, R. A. 2004. ‘Dopamine, learning and motivation’, Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5: 483.Google Scholar
Wolfe, J. M., Cave, K. R., and Franzel, S. L.. 1989. ‘Guided search: an alternative to the feature integration model for visual search’, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15: 419–33.Google Scholar
Wolk, C., Bresnan, J., Rosenback, A., and Szmrecsanyi, B.. 2013. ‘Dative and genitive variability in Late Modern English: exploring cross-constructional variation and change’, Diachronica, 30: 382–419.Google Scholar
Wolters, G., and Prinsen, A.. 1997. ‘Full versus divided attention and implicit memory performance’, Memory and Cognition, 25: 764–71.Google Scholar
‘Word Encoding by Activation and VERification’, www.socsci.ru.nl/ardiroel/weaver++.htm.Google Scholar
Wray, A. 2002. Formulaic Language and the Lexicon (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
Xiao, R. Z. 2008. ‘Well-Known and Influential Corpora’. In Lüdeling, A. and Kytö, M. Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook (Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin).Google Scholar
Yang, C. D. 2004. ‘Universal grammar, statistics or both?’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8: 451–6.Google Scholar
Yang, C. D. 2015. ‘For and against frequencies’, Journal of Child Language, 42: 287–93.Google Scholar
Yates, F. 1984. ‘Tests of significance for 2 x 2 contingency tables’, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A, 147: 426–63.Google Scholar
Yule, G. U. 1944. The Statistical Study of Literary Vocabulary (Cambridge University Press: London).Google Scholar
Zacks, R. T., and Hasher, L.. 2002. ‘Frequency Processing: A Twenty-Five Year Perspective.’ In Sedlmeier, P. and Betsch, T. (eds.), Frequency Processing and Cognition (Oxford University Press: New York).Google Scholar
Zarcone, A., van Schijndel, M., Vogels, J., and Demberg, V.. 2016. ‘Salience and attention in surprisal-based accounts of language processing’, Frontiers in Psychology, 7: 844.Google Scholar
Zeldes, A. 2012. Productivity in Argument Selection: From Morphology to Syntax (De Gruyter Mouton: Berlin).Google Scholar
Zevin, J. D., and Seidenberg, M. S.. 2004. ‘Age-of-acquisition effects in reading aloud: Tests of cumulative frequency and frequency trajectory’, Memory and Cognition, 32: 31–8.Google Scholar
Zhou, D. W., Mowrey, D. D., Tang, P., and Xu, Y.. 2015. ‘Percolation model of sensory transmission and loss of consciousness under general anesthesia’, Physical Review Letters, 115: 108103.Google Scholar
Zipf, G. K. 1932. Selected Studies of the Principle of Relative Frequencies in Language (MIT Press: Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
Zipf, G. K. 1935. The Psycho-Biology of Language: an Introduction to Dynamic Philology (MIT Press: Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
Zipf, G. K. 1949. Human Behaviour and the Principle of Least Effort : an Introduction to Human Ecology (Hafner: New York).Google Scholar
Zlatev, J. 2016. ‘Turning back to experience in cognitive linguistics via phenomenology’, Cognitive Linguistics, 27: 559–72.Google Scholar