If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

Ten Lectures on Corpus Linguistics with R

Applications for Usage-Based and Psycholinguistic Research

Series:

  • AdelmanJames S.Gordon D. A. Brown and José F. Quesada. 2006. Contextual diversity, nor word frequency, determines word-naming and lexical decision times. Psychological Science 17(9) 814823.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • AmbridgeBenAnne TheakstonElena V. M. Lieven and Michael Tomasello. 2006. The distributed learning effect for children’s acquisition of an abstract grammatical construction. Cognitive Development 21(2) 174193.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • AndersonJohn R. 2009. Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications (7th ed). New York: Worth.

  • AslinRichard N. and Elissa L. Newport. 2012. Statistical learning: From acquiring specific items to forming general rules. Current Directions in Psychological Science 21(3) 170176.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • BaayenR. Harald. 2008. Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics with R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • BaayenR. Harald. 2010. Demythologizing the word frequency effect: A discriminative learning perspective. The Mental Lexicon 5(3) 436461.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • BallLinden J.Jaswinder Shoker and Jeremy N. V. Miles. 2010. Odour-based context reinstatement effects with indirect measures of memory: The curious case of rosemary. British Journal of Psychology 101(4) 655678.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • BalotaDavid A. and Daniel H. Spieler. 1998. The utility of item level analyses in model evaluation: a reply to Seidenberg and Plaut. Psychological Science 9(3) 238240.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Barnwell Brendan B. 2014. Effects of Nonlinguistic Context on Language Production. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation.

  • BartlettF.C. 1932 (1967). Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

  • BecknerClayNick C. EllisRichard BlytheJohn HollandJoan BybeeJinyun KeMorten H. ChristiansenDiane Larsen-FreemanWilliam Croftand Tom Schoenemann. 2009. Language is a complex adaptive system: position paper. Language Learning 59 (Suppl. 1) 126.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • BernoletSarahTimothy Colleman and Robert Hartsuiker. 2014. The ‘sense boost’ to dative priming: evidence for sense-specific verb-structure links. Journal of Memory and Language 76(1) 113126.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Blumenthal-DraméAlice. 2016. What corpus-based Cognitive Linguistics can and cannot expect from neurolinguistics. Cognitive Linguistics 27(4) 493505.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • BockJ. Kathryn. 1986. Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology 18(3) 355387.

  • BowkerLynne and Jennifer Pearson. 2002. Working with Specialized Language: A Practical Guide to Using Corpora. London: Routledge.

  • BoydJeremy K. and Adele E. Goldberg. 2011. Learning what not to say: the role of statistical preemption and categorization in a-adjective production. Language 87(1) 5583.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • BraniganHolly P.Martin J. PickeringSimon P. LiversedgeAndrew J. Stewart and Thomas P. Urbach. 1995. Syntactic priming: investigating the mental representation of language. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 24(6) 489506.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • BybeeJoan. 2006. From usage to grammar: the mind’s response to repetition. Language 82(4) 711733.

  • BybeeJoan. 2010. Language Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • BybeeJoan and Clay Beckner. 2009. Usage-based theory. In Bernd Heine and Heiko Narrog (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis827856. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • BybeeJoan and Paul J. Hopper. 2001. Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • BybeeJoan and James L. McClelland. 2005. Alternatives to the combinatorial paradigm of linguistic theory based on domain general principles of human cognition. The Linguistic Review 22(2–4) 381410.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • BybeeJoan and Sandra A. Thompson. 1997. Three frequency effects in syntax. Berkeley Linguistics Society 236585.

  • CalliesMarcus. 2013. Agentivity as a determinant of lexico-grammatical variation in L2 academic writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18(3) 357390.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • CasenhiserDevin M. and Adele E. Goldberg. 2005. Fast mapping of a phrasal form and meaning. Developmental Science 8(6) 500508.

  • CattellJames M. 1886. The time it takes to see and name objects. Mind XI. 6365.

  • ChangFranklin. Gary S. DellJ. Kathryn Bock and Zenzi Griffin. 2000. Structural priming as implicit learning: a comparison of models of sentence production. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29(2) 217229.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ChristiansenMorten H. and Nick Chater. 2016. Creating Language: Integrating Evolution Acquisition and Processing. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ClarkAndy. 2013. Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36(3) 181204.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • DąbrowskaEwa. 2008. Words as constructions. In Vyvyan Evans and Stephanie S. Pourcel (eds.) New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics201223. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • DąbrowskaEwa. 2016. Cognitive Linguistics’ seven deadly sins. Cognitive Linguistics 27(4) 479491.

  • DembergVera and Frank Keller. 2008. Data from eye-tracking corpora as evidence for theories of syntactic processing complexity. Cognition 109(2) 193210.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • DivjakDagmar S.Natalia Levshina and Jane Klavan. 2016. Cognitive linguistics: looking back, looking forward. Cognitive Linguistics 27(4) 447463.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • DoğruözA. Seza and Stefan Th. Gries. 2014. Spread of on-going changes in an immigrant language: Turkish in the Netherlands. In Martin PützJustyna Robinson and Monika Reif (eds.) Cognitive Sociolinguistics: Social and Cultural Variation on Cognition and Language Use161185. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • DunnJames. 2018. Multi-unit association measures: moving beyond pairs of words. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 23(2) 183215.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • DurhamMercedes. 2011. I think (that) something’s missing: Complementizer deletion in non-native emails. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching 1(3) 421445.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • EbbinghausHermann. 1885. Memory: A contribution to Experimental Psychology. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.

  • EllisNick C. 2002. Frequency effects in language processing and acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24(2) 143188.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • EllisNick C. 2006. Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied Linguistics 27(1) 124.

  • Ellis Nick C. and Rita Simpson-Vlach. 2005. An academic formulas list (AFL): extraction validation prioritization. Paper presented at Phraseology 2005 Université Catholique Louvain-la-Neuve.

  • Ellis Nick C. Rita Simpson-Vlach and Carson Maynard. 2007. The processing of formulas in native and L2 speakers: psycholinguistic and corpus determinants. Paper presented at the Symposium on Formulaic Language University of Wisconsin- Milwaukee.

  • EllisNick C.Ute Römer and Matthew Brook O’Donnell. 2016. Usage-based Approaches to Language Acquisition and Processing. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • FidelholtzJames L. 1975. Word frequency and vowel reduction in English. Chicago Linguistic Society 11200213.

  • FirthJohn R. 1957. Papers in Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • ForsterKenneth I. and Susan M. Chambers. 1973. Lexical access and naming time. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 12(6) 627635.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Francom Jerid. 2009. Experimental Syntax: Exploring the Effect of Repeated Exposure to Anomalous Syntactic Structure: Evidence from Rating and Reading Tasks. Ph.D. dissertation University of Arizona.

  • GablasovaDana. Vaclav Brezina and Tony McEnery. 2017. Exploring learner language through corpora: comparing and interpreting corpus frequency information. Language Learning 67(S1) 130154.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • GeeraertsDirk. 2006. Methodology in cognitive linguistics. In Gitte KristiansenMichel AchardRené Dirven and Francisco J. Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (eds.) Cognitive Linguistics: Current Applications and Future Perspectives2149. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • GlenbergArthur M. 1976. Monotonic and nonmonotonic lag effects in paired- associate and recognition memory paradigms. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 15(1) 115.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • GlenbergArthur M. 1979. Component-levels theory of the effects of spacing of repetitions on recall and recognition. Memory and Cognition 7(2) 95112.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • GoddenDuncan R. and Alan D Baddeley. 1975. Context-dependent memory in two natural environments: On land and underwater. British Journal of Psychology 66(3) 325331.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • GoldbergAdele E.Devin M. Casenhiser and Nitya Sethuraman. 2004. Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics 15(3) 289316.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • GómezRebecca L. 2002. Variability and detection of invariant structure. Psychological Science 13(5) 431436.

  • GriesStefan Th. 2006. Exploring variability within and between corpora: some methodological considerations. Corpora 1(2) 109151.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • GriesStefan Th. 2010. Dispersions and adjusted frequencies in corpora: further explorations. In Stefan Th. GriesStefanie Wulff and Mark Davies (eds.) Corpus Linguistic Applications: Current Studies New Directions197212. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • GriesStefan Th. 2012. Frequencies, probabilities, association measures in usage-/exemplar-based linguistics: some necessary clarifications. Studies in Language 36(3) 477510.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • GriesStefan Th. 2015. More (old and new) misunderstandings of collostructional analysis: on Schmid and Küchenhoff (2013). Cognitive Linguistics 26(3) 505536.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • GriesStefan Th. 2018. On over- and underuse in learner corpus research and multifactoriality in corpus linguistics more generally. Journal of Second Language Studies 1(2) 276308.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • GriesStefan Th. 2019. 15 years of collostructions: some long overdue additions/corrections (to/of actually all sorts of corpus-linguistics measures). International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 24(3) 385412.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • GriesStefan Th. and Allison S. Adelman. 2014. Subject realization in Japanese conversation by native and non-native speakers: exemplifying a new paradigm for learner corpus research. In Jesús Romero-Trillo (ed.) Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2014: New Empirical and Theoretical Paradigms3554. Cham: Springer.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • GriesStefan Th. and Sandra C. Deshors. 2014. Using regressions to explore deviations between corpus data and a standard/target: two suggestions. Corpora 9(1) 109136.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • GriesStefan Th. and Stefanie Wulff. 2005. Do foreign language learners also have constructions? Evidence from priming, sorting, and corpora. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 3182200.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • GriesStefan Th. and Stefanie Wulff. 2009. Psycholinguistic and corpus linguistic evidence for L2 constructions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 7163186.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • GriesStefan Th. forthcoming. Priming of syntactic alternations by learners of English: an analysis of sentence-completion and collostructional results. In Jesse A. Egbert and Paul Baker (eds.) Using corpus methods to triangulate linguistic analysis219238. New York and London: Routledge.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • HallidayMichael A. K. 2005. Computational and Quantitative Studies. London and New York: Continuum.

  • Hardie Andrew. 2008. message # 12240 to Corpora List 14 August 2008.

  • HarrisZelig S. 1970. Papers in Structural and Transformational Linguistics. Dordrecht: Reidel.

  • HawkinsJohn A. 1994. A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • HortonWilliam S. 2007. The influence of partner-specific memory associations on language production: Evidence from picture naming. Language and Cognitive Processes 22(7) 11141139.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • HowesDavis H. and Richard L. Solomon. 1951. Visual duration threshold as a function of word probability. Journal of Experimental Psychology 41(6) 401410.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • HuttenlocherJanellen and Lorraine F. Kubicek. 1983. The source of relatedness effects on naming latency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition 9(3) 486496.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • JaegerT. Florian. 2010. Redundancy and reduction: speakers manage syntactic information density. Cognitive Psychology 61(1) 2362.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • JaegerT. Florian. 2011. Corpus-based research on language production: information density and reducible subject relatives. In Emily M. Bender and Jennifer E. Arnold. (eds.) Language from a Cognitive Perspective: Grammar Usage and Processing. Studies in honor of Tom Wasow161197. Stanford: CSLI Publications.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • JaegerT. Florian and Neal Snider. 2008. Implicit learning and syntactic persistence: surprisal and cumulativity. Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society Conference10611066.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • JaegerT. Florian and Neal E. Snider. 2013. Alignment as a consequence of expectation adaptation: Syntactic priming is affected by the prime’s prediction error given both prior and recent experience. Cognition 127(1) 5783.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • KaschakMichael P.Timothy J. Kutta and J. Leah Jones. 2011. Structural priming as implicit learning: cumulative priming effects and individual differences. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 18(6) 11331139.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kelly Michael H. 1986. On the Selection of Linguistic Options. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation Cornell University.

  • LachmanRoy. 1973. Uncertainty effects on time to access the internal lexicon. Journal of Experimental Psychology 99(2) 199208.

  • LachmanRoyJuliet Popper Shaffer and Deborah Hennrikus. 1974. Language and cognition: effects of stimulus codability, name-word frequency, and age of acquisition on lexical reaction time. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 13(6) 613625.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • LakoffGeorge. 1991. Cognitive versus generative linguistics: how commitments influence results. Language and Communication 11(1–2) 5362.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • LangackerRonald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar I: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

  • LangackerRonald W. 2016. Working toward a synthesis. Cognitive Linguistics 27(4) 465477.

  • Leech Geoffrey N. 1992. Corpora and theories of linguistic performance. In Jan Svartvik (ed.) Directions in Corpus Linguistics. Proceedings of Nobel Symposium 82 Stockholm 4–8 August 105–122. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • LesterNicholas A. 2019. That’s hard: Relativizer use in spontaneous L2 speech. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 5(1) 132.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • LesterNicholas A.Daniel Baum and Tirza Biron. forthcoming. Phonetic duration of nouns depends on de-lexicalized syntactic distributions: Evidence from naturally occurring conversation. Proceedings of the 40th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • LesterNicholas A. and Fermín Moscoso del Prado Martín. 2017. Syntactic flexibility in the noun: evidence from picture naming. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society25852590.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • LesterNicholas A.Laurie B. Feldman and Fermín Moscoso del Prado Martín. 2017. You can take a noun out of syntax …: Syntactic similarity effects in lexical priming. Proceedings of the 39th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society25372542.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • LinzenTal and T. Florian Jaeger. 2015. Uncertainty and expectation in sentence processing: evidence From subcategorization distributions. Cognitive Science 40(6) 13821411.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • McDonaldScott A. and Richard C. Shillcock. 2001. Rethinking the word frequency effect: the neglected role of distributional information in lexical processing. Language and Speech 44(3) 295323.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • McEneryTony and Andrew Wilson. 1996. Corpus Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

  • MeyerCharles F. 2002. English Corpus Linguistics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • NessetTore. 2016. Does historical linguistics need the cognitive commitment? Prosodic change in East Slavic. Cognitive Linguistics 27(4) 573585.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • NewmeyerFrederick J. 2006a. Grammar and usage: a response to Gregory R. Guy. Language 82(2) 399404.

  • NewmeyerFrederick J. 2006b. On Gahl and Garnsey on grammar and usage. Language 82(4) 705706.

  • OldfieldR. and A. Wingfield. 1965. Response latencies in naming objects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A(17) 273281.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • OnnisLuca. Padraic MonaghanMorten H. Christiansen and Nick Chater. 2004. Variability is the spice of learning, and a crucial ingredient for detecting and generalizing in nonadjacent dependencies. Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society 2616781683.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ParkerAmanda. Henny Ngu and Helen J. Cassaday. 2001. Odour and Proustian memory: Reduction of context-dependent forgetting and multiple forms of memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology 15(2) 159171.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • PickeringMartin J. and Holly P. Branigan. 1998. The representation of verbs: Evidence from syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language 39(4) 633651.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • PickeringMartin J. and Simon Garrod. 2013. An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36(4) 329347.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • RescorlaRobert A. 1988. Behavioral studies of Pavlovian conditioning. Annual Review of Neuroscience 11(1) 329352.

  • RescorlaRobert A. and Allen R. Wagner. 1972. A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In Abraham H. Black and William F. Prokasy (eds.) Classical Conditioning II: Current Theory and Research6499. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • RowlandCaroline F.Franklin ChangBen AmbridgeJulian M. Pine and Elena V. M. Lieven. 2012. The development of abstract syntax: Evidence from structural priming and the lexical boost. Cognition 125(1) 4963.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • RumelhartDavid E.Geoffrey E. HintonRonald J. Williams. 1986. Learning representations by back-propagating errors. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 323(6088) 533536.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • SaffranJenny R.Richard N. Aslin and Elissa L. Newport. 1996. Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science 274(5294) 19261928.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • SavageCeri. Elena V. M. LievenAnna Theakston and Michael Tomasello. 2006. Structural priming as implicit learning in language acquisition: The persistence of lexical and structural priming in 4-year-olds. Language Learning and Development 2(1) 2749.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • ScheepersChristoph. 2003. Syntactic priming of relative clause attachments: Persistence of structural configuration in sentence production. Cognition 89(3) 179205.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • SchmidHans-Jörg. 2010. Does frequency in the text instantiate entrenchment in the cognitive system? In Dylan Glynn and Kerstin Fischer (eds.) Quantitative Methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven Approaches101133. Berlin and Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • SchneiderUlrike. forthcoming. ΔP as a measure of collocation strength. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory.

  • SchoolerLael J. and John R. Anderson. 1997. The role of process in the rational analysis of memory. Cognitive Psychology 32(3) 219250.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • SchuchardtHugo. 1885. Über die Lautgesetze: Gegen die Junggrammatiker. Berlin: Oppenheim.

  • SeidenbergMark S. and Mayellen C. MacDonald. 1999. A probabilistic constraints approach to language acquisition and processing. Cognitive Science 23(4) 569588.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • SmithNathaniel and Roger Levy. 2013. The effect of word predictability on reading time is logarithmic. Cognition 128(3) 302319.

  • SmithSteven M. 1979. Remembering in and out of context. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory 5(5) 460471.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • SmithSteven M. 1985. Background music and context-dependent memory. The American Journal of Psychology 98(4) 591603.

  • SmithSteven M.Fred R. Heath and Edward Vela. 1990. Environmental context-dependent homophone spelling. The American Journal of Psychology 103(2) 229242.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • SniderNeal. 2009. Similarity and structural priming. Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science815820.

  • SpielerDaniel H. and David A. Balota. 1997. Bringing computational models of word naming down to the item level. Psychological Science 8411416.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • StubbsMichael. 1993. British traditions in text analysis: From Firth to Sinclair. In Mona BakerF. Francis and Elena Tognini-Bonelli (eds.) Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair146. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • SzmrecsanyiBenedikt. 2005. Language users as creatures of habit: A corpus-linguistic analysis of persistence in spoken English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1(1) 113150.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • SzmrecsanyiBenedikt. 2006. Morphosyntactic Persistence in Spoken English. A Corpus Study at the Intersection of Variationist Sociolinguistics Psycholinguistics and Discourse Analysis. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • TagliamonteSali A. and Jennifer Smith. 2005. No momentary fancy! The zero ‘complementizer’ in English dialects. English Language and Linguistics 9(2) 289309.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • TeubertWolfgang. 2005. My version of Corpus Linguistics. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 10(1) 113.

  • ThompsonSandra A. and Anthony Mulac. 1991. The discourse conditions for the use of the complementizer that in conversational English. Journal of Pragmatics 15(3) 237251.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Tognini-BonelliElena. 2001. Corpus Linguistics at Work. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

  • Torres CacoullosRena and James A. Walker. 2009. On the persistence of grammar in discourse formulas: A variationist study of that. Linguistics 47(1) 143.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Trautscholdt Martin. Experimentelle Untersuchungen über die Association der Vorstellungen. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation University of Leipzig.

  • WillsAndy J. 2009. Prediction errors and attention in the presence and absence of feedback. Current Directions in Psychological Science 1895100.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • WulffStefanie. 2016. A friendly conspiracy of input, L1, and processing demands: That-variation in German and Spanish learner language. In Lourdes OrtegaAndrea E. TylerHae In Park and Mariko Uno (eds.). The Usage-based Study of Language Learning and Multilingualism115136. Georgetown: Georgetown University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • WulffStefanieNicholas Lester and Maria T. Martinez-Garcia. 2014. That-variation in German and Spanish L2 English. Language and Cognition 6271299.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • WulffStefanieStefan Th. Gries and Nicholas Lester. 2018. Optional that in complementation by German and Spanish learners. In Andrea Tyler and Carol Moder (eds.) What is Applied Cognitive Linguistics? Answers from Current SLA Research99120. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • WulffStefanie and Stefan Th. Gries. forthcoming. Explaining individual variation in learner corpus research: Some methodological suggestions. In Bert Le Bruyn and Magali Paquot (eds.) Learner Corpora and Second Language Acquisition Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 39 39 3
Full Text Views 4 4 1
PDF Downloads 2 2 1