References
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 September 2020
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
- GrammarA Linguists' Guide for Language Teachers, pp. 192 - 205Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Aboh, E. O. (2015). The Emergence of Hybrid Grammars: Language Contact and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Aijmer, K. (ed.) (2009). Corpora and Language Teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambridge, B., & Lieven, E. (2011). Child Language Acquisition: Contrasting Theoretical Approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Armstrong, N., & MacKenzie, I. E. (2013). Standardization, Ideology and Linguistics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Balcom, P. (1997). Why is this happened? Passive morphology and unaccusativity. Second Language Research, 13, 1–9.Google Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1987). Competition, variation, and language learning. In MacWhinney, B, ed., Mechanisms of Language Acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 157–94.Google Scholar
Beacco, J.-C., & Byram, M. (2007). Guide for the development of language education policies in Europe: From linguistic diversity to plurilingual education. Language Policy Division, Council of Europe, www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/FullGuide_EN.pdf.Google Scholar
Bernstein, T. M. (1965). The Careful Writer: A Modern Guide to English Usage. New York: Atheneum.Google Scholar
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2009). Register, Genre, and Style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (1990). The logical problem of foreign language learning. Linguistic Analysis, 20, 3–49.Google Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R. (2009). The evolving context of the fundamental difference hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 31(2), 175–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blommaert, J. (2010). The Sociolinguistics of Globalisation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blommaert, J., & Rampton, B. (2011). Language and superdiversity. Diversities, 13(2), www.unesco.org/shs/diversities/vol13/issue2/art1.Google Scholar
Blue, G., & Mitchell, R. (eds.) (1996). Language and Education: Selected Papers from the Annual Meeting of the British Association for Applied Linguistics. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Boas, F. (1938). Language. In Boas, F, ed., General Anthropology. Boston, New York: D.C. Heath and Company, pp. 124–45.Google Scholar
Boers, F., & Lindstromberg, S. (eds.). (2008). Cognitive Linguistic Approaches to Teaching Vocabulary and Phraseology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bohnacker, U., & Rosén, C. (2008). The clause-initial position in L2 German declaratives: Transfer of information structure. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30(4), 511–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, C. (2000). The interrelation between speech perception and phonological acquisition from infant to adult. In Archibald, J, ed., Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 4–63.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A First Language: The Early Stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R., & Hanlon, C. (1970). Derivational complexity and order of acquisition in child speech. In Hayes, J. R., Cognition and the development of language. New York: Wiley, pp. 11–53.Google Scholar
Brumfit, C. (2001). Individual Freedom in Language Teaching: Helping Learners to Develop a Dialect of Their Own. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Butzkamm, W. (2003). We only learn language once: The role of the mother tongue in FL classrooms: Death of a dogma. The Language Learning Journal, 28(1), 29–39.Google Scholar
Butzkamm, W., & Caldwell, J. (2009). The Bilingual Reform: A Paradigm Shift in Foreign Language Teaching. Tübingen: Narr-Studienbücher.Google Scholar
Byram, M., & Wagner, M. (2018). Making a difference: Language teaching for intercultural and international dialogue. Foreign Language Annals, 51(1), 140–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camden, W. G. (1979). Parallels in structure of lexicon and syntax between New Hebrides Bislama and the South Santo language as spoken at Tangoa. In Mühlhäusler, P et al., eds., Papers in Pidgin and Creole Linguistics No. 2. Canberra: Australian National University (Pacific Linguistics A-57), pp. 51–117.Google Scholar
Campbell, L., & Mixco, M. (2007). A Glossary of Historical Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Candelier, M. (2008). “Awakening to Languages” and educational language policy. In Cenoz, J & Hornberger, N. H., eds., Encyclopaedia of Language and Education, Vol. 6: Knowledge about Language (2nd ed.). Berlin: Springer, pp. 219–32.Google Scholar
Carlson, G., & Pelletier, F. J. (eds.) (1995). The Generic Book. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Choi, M.-H., & Lardiere, D. (2006). The interpretation of wh-in-situ in Korean second language acquisition. In Belletti, A, Bennati, E, Chesi, C, DiDomenico, E & Ferrari, I, eds., Language Acquisition and Development: Proceedings of GALA 2005. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Press, pp. 125–35.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1971[1965]). Language Teaching. In Allen, J & van Buren, P, eds., Chomsky: Selected Readings. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 148–59.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. (1999). Lexical entries and rules of language: A multidisciplinary study of German inflection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(6), 991–1013.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Felser, C. (2006). Grammatical processing in language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27(1), 3–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cochrane, J. (2003). Between You and I: A Little Book of Bad English. London: Icon Books.Google Scholar
Collins, C., & Postal, P. (2012). Imposters: A Study of Pronominal Agreement. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1989). Language Universals and Linguistic Typology (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cowan, R. (2008). The Teacher’s Grammar of English: A Course Book and Reference Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Craig, C. (1987). Jacaltec: Field work in Guatemala. In Schopen, T, ed., Languages and Their Speakers. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 3–58.Google Scholar
Crain, S., & Thornton, R. (1998). Investigations in Universal Grammar: A Guide to Experiments on the Acquisition of Syntax and Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cummins, J. (2007). Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10, 221–41.Google Scholar
Cummins, J. (2008). Teaching for transfer: Challenging the two solitudes assumption in bilingual Education. In Cummins, J & Hornberger, N. H., eds., Encyclopedia of Language and Education, Vol. 5: Bilingual Education. Berlin: Springer, pp. 65–75.Google Scholar
Cutts, M. (2009). Oxford Guide to Plain English (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cysouw, M. (2013). Inclusive/exclusive distinction in verbal inflection. In Dryer, M, Matthew, S & Haspelmath, M, eds., The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, http://wals.info/chapter/40.Google Scholar
de Carvalho, A., Lidz, J., Tieu, L., Bleam, T., & Christophe, A. (2016). English-speaking preschoolers can use phrasal prosody for syntactic parsing. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 139, EL216–EL222.Google Scholar
Deal, A. R. (2015). Ergativity. In Kiss, T & Alexiadou, A, eds., Syntax – Theory and Analysis: An International Handbook, Vol. 1. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 654–708.Google Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L., Sprouse, R., & Anderson, B. (1997). The interpretive interface in L2 acquisition: The process-result distinction in English-French interlanguage grammars. Language Acquisition, 6(4), 297–332.Google Scholar
Denham, K., & Lobeck, A. (eds.) (2010). Linguistics at School: Language Awareness in Primary and Secondary Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dickey, E. (2016). Learning Latin the ancient way: Latin textbooks from the Ancient World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dulay, H. C., & Burt, M. K. (1974). Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning, 24, 37–53.Google Scholar
Dulay, H. C., Burt, M. K., & Krashen, S. D. (1982). Language Two. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dussias, P., & Sagarra, N. (2007). The effect of exposure on syntactic parsing in Spanish–English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(1), 101–16.Google Scholar
Evans, N., & Sasse, H.-J. (2002). Introduction. In Evans, N & Sasse, H.-J., eds., Problems of Polysynthesis. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
Fanselow, G., & Cavar, D. (2002). Distributed deletion. In Alexiadou, A, ed., Theoretical Approaches to Universals. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 65–109.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1970). The grammar of hitting and breaking. In Jacobs, R & Rosenbaum, P, eds., Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Waltham, MA: Ginn, pp. 12033.Google Scholar
Friedman, V. (2007). Balkanising the Balkan Sprachbund: A closer look at grammatical permeability and feature distribution. In Aikhenvald, A & Dixon, R. M. W., eds., Grammars in Contact: A Cross-Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 201–19.Google Scholar
García, O., & Lin, A. (2017). Extending understandings of bilingual and multilingual education. In García, O, Lin, A. M. Y. & May, S, eds., Bilingual and Multilingual Education. Springer, pp. 1–20.Google Scholar
Garcia, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Gervain, J. (2018). The role of prenatal experience in language development. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 21, 62–7.Google Scholar
Goldschneider, J. M., & DeKeyser, R. M. (2001). Explaining the ‘natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition’ in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 51, 1–50.Google Scholar
Götz, S., & Mukherjee, J. (eds.) (2019). Learner Corpora and Language Teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. (1963). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Greenberg, J, ed., Universals of Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 73–113.Google Scholar
Grüter, T. (2006). Another take on the L2 initial state: Evidence from comprehension in L2 German. Language Acquisition, 13(4), 287–317.Google Scholar
Grüter, T., & Conradie, S. (2006). Investigating the L2 initial state: Additional evidence from the production and comprehension of Afrikaans-speaking learners of German. In Slabakova, R, Montrul, S. A., & Prévost, P, eds., Inquiries in Linguistic Development: In Honor of Lydia White. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 89–114.Google Scholar
Gürel, A. (2002). Linguistic Characteristics of Second Language Acquisition and First Language Attrition: Turkish Overt and Null Pronouns. PhD Dissertation, McGill University, Montreal.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. (2017). Unspeakable sentences: Subject omission in written registers: A cartographic analysis. Linguistic Variation, 17(2), 229–50.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L., & Gueron, J. (1999). English Grammar: A Generative Perspective. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L., & Ihsane, T. (2001). Adult null subjects in the non-pro-drop languages: Two diary dialects. Language Acquisition, 9(4), 329–46.Google Scholar
Hale, K. (1983). Warlpiri and the grammar of non-configurational languages. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 1(1), 5–47.Google Scholar
Halliday, M., & Webster, J. (2009). Continuum Companion to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London; New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Harley, B. (1993). Instructional strategies and SLA in early French immersion. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15(2), 245–70.Google Scholar
Hawkins, E. (1984). Awareness of Language: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hirakawa, M. (2013). Alternations and argument structure in second language English: Knowledge of two types of intransitive verbs. In Whong, M, Gil, K. H., Marsden, H, eds., Universal Grammar and the Second Language Classroom. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 117–38.Google Scholar
Holes, C. (1995). Modern Arabic: Structures, Functions, and Varieties. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Howatt, A. P. R., & Widdowson, H. G. (2004). A History of English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. D., & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hudson, R. (2008). Linguistic theory. In Spolsky, B & Hult, F, eds., The Handbook of Educational Linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 53–65.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In Pride, J. B. & Holmes, J, eds., Sociolinguistics: Selected Readings. Harmondsworth: Penguin, pp. 269–93.Google Scholar
Ionin, T., Ko, H., & Wexler, K. (2004). Article semantics in L2 acquisition: The role of specificity. Language Acquisition, 12(1), 3–69.Google Scholar
Ionin, T., Montrul, S., Kim, J., & Philippov, V. (2011). Genericity distinctions and the interpretation of determiners in second language acquisition. Language Acquisition, 18(4), 242–80.Google Scholar
Jackson, C. N. (2007). The use and non-use of semantic information, word order, and case markings during comprehension by L2 learners of German. Modern Language Journal, 91(3), 418–32.Google Scholar
Jackson, C. N. (2008). Proficiency level and the interaction of lexical and morphosyntactic information during L2 sentence processing. Language Learning, 58(4), 875–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jean, G., & Simard, D. (2011). Grammar teaching and learning in L2: Necessary, but boring? Foreign Language Annals, 44, 467–94.Google Scholar
Kegl, J. (1994). The Nicaraguan sign language project: An overview. Signpost, 7(1), 24–31.Google Scholar
Keesing, R. M. (1988). Melanesian Pidgin and the Oceanic Substrate. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Khamis-Dakwar, R., & Froud, K. (2007). Lexical processing in two language varieties: An event-related brain potential study of Arabic native speakers. In Mughazy, M, ed., Perspectives on Arabic linguistics XX. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 153–68.Google Scholar
Khamis-Dakwar, R., Froud, K., & Gordon, P. (2012). Acquiring diglossia: Mutual influences of formal and colloquial Arabic on children’s grammaticality judgments. Journal of Child Language, 39, 61–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kiparsky, P. (1998). Partitive case and aspect. In Butt, M and Geuder, W, eds., The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compositional Factors. Stanford: CSLI Publication, pp. 265–308.Google Scholar
Klein, W., & Perdue, C. (1997). The Basic Variety (or: Couldn’t natural languages be much simpler?). Second Language Research, 13(4), 301–47.Google Scholar
Kramsch, C. (2008). Applied linguistic theory and second/foreign language education. In Van Deusen-Scholl, N & Hornberger, N. H., eds., Encyclopedia of Language and Education, Vol. 4: Second and Foreign Language Education. Berlin: Springer, pp. 3–15.Google Scholar
Krifka, M., Pelletier, J. M., Carlson, G. N., ter Meulen, A., Chierchia, G., & Link, G. (1995). Generictiy: An introduction. In Carlson, G & Pelletier, F. J., eds., The Generic Book. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 1–124.Google Scholar
Kroeger, P. (2010). The grammar of hitting and breaking (and cutting) in Kimaragang Dusun. Oceanic Linguistics, 49, 2–20.Google Scholar
Langer, N. (2001). Linguistic Purism in Action: How Auxiliary tun Was Stigmatized in Early New High German. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lardiere, D. (1998). Case and tense in the ‘fossilized’ steady-state. Second Language Research, 14(1), 1–26.Google Scholar
Lardiere, D. (2009). Some thoughts on the contrastive analysis of features in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 25(2), 173–227.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003). Teaching Language: From grammar to Grammaring. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2008). Does TESOL share theories with other disciplines? TESOL Quarterly, 42(2), 291–4.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2011). Teaching and testing grammar. In Long, M and Doughty, C, eds., The Handbook of Language Teaching. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, pp. 518–42.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2015). Research into practice: Grammar learning and teaching. Language Teaching, 48(2), 263–80.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Anderson, M. (2011). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lasnik, H., & Sobin, N. (2000). The who / whom puzzle: On the preservation of an archaic feature. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 18, 343–71.Google Scholar
Lee, I., & Ramsey, S. R. (2000). The Korean Language. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Lefebvre, C., White, L., & Jourdan, C. (eds.) (2006). L2 Acquisition and Creole Genesis: Dialogues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Legate, J. A., & Yang, C. (2002). Empirical re-assessment of stimulus poverty arguments. Linguistic Review, 19, 151–62.Google Scholar
Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (2005). Argument Realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1976). Subject and Topic: A New Typology of Language. In Li, C. N., ed., Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press, pp. 457–89.Google Scholar
Li, Wei. (2015). New Chinglish: Bad, uncivilised and ugly, or creatively subversive? Babel: The Language Magazine, 10.Google Scholar
Lin, A. (2013). Toward paradigmatic change in TESOL methodologies: Building Plurilingual pedagogies from the ground up. TESOL Quarterly, 47(3), 521–45.Google Scholar
Loewen, S., Li, S., Fei, F., Thompson, A., Nakatsukasa, K., & Ahn, S. (2009). Second language learners’ beliefs about error instruction and error correction. Modern Language Journal, 93, 91–104.Google Scholar
Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In De Bot, K, Ginsberg, R, & Kramsch, C, eds., Foreign Language Research in Cross-Cultural Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 39–52.Google Scholar
Long, D., & Rothman, J. (2013). Generative approaches and the competing systems hypothesis: Formal acquisition to pedagogical application. In Schwieter, J. W., ed., Innovative Research and Practices in Second Language Acquisition and Bilingualism. John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 63–84.Google Scholar
Lopez, E., & Sabir, M. (2019). Article pedagogy: Encouraging links between linguistic theory and teaching practice. RELC Journal, 50(1), 188–201.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, I. E. (2013). Participle-object agreement in French and the theory of grammatical viruses. Journal of Romance Studies, 13(1), 19–33.Google Scholar
Makoni, S., & Pennycook, A. (eds.) (2007). Disinventing and Reconstituting Languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Marcus, G. F. (1992). Negative evidence in language acquisition. Cognition, 46(1), 53–85.Google Scholar
Marcus, G. F., Brinkmann, U., Clahsen, H., Wiese, R., & Pinker, S. (1995). German inflection: The exception that proves the rule. Cognitive Psychology, 29, 189–256.Google Scholar
Marr, T., & English, F. (2019). Rethinking TESOL in Diverse Global Settings. Oxford: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Marsden, H. (2008). Pair-list readings in Korean-Japanese, Chinese-Japanese and English-Japanese interlanguage. Second Language Research, 24(2), 189–226.Google Scholar
Marsden, H. (2009). Distributive quantifier scope in English-Japanese and Korean-Japanese interlanguage. Language Acquisition, 16(3), 135–77.Google Scholar
Marsden, H., Whong, M., & Gil, K-H. (2018). What’s in the textbook and what’s in the mind. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 40(1), 91–118.Google Scholar
Martinez-Garcia, M. T., & Wulff, S. (2012). Not wrong, yet not quite right: Spanish ESL students’ use of gerundial and infinitival complementation. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 22(2), 225–44.Google Scholar
Massam, D. (ed.) (2012). Count and Mass across Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McArthur, T. (1988). Worlds of Reference: Lexicography, Learning and Language from the Clay Tablet to the Computer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McManus, K. (2019). Awareness of L1 form-meaning mappings can reduce crosslinguistic effects in L2 grammatical learning. Language Awareness, 28(2), 114–38.Google Scholar
McManus, K. & Marsden, E. (2017). L1 explicit instruction can improve L2 online and offline performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39(3), 459–92.Google Scholar
McNeill, D. (1966). Developmental psycholinguistics. In Smith, F & Miller, G. A., eds., The Genesis of Language: A Psycholinguistic Approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 15–84.Google Scholar
McWhorter, J. (2007). Language Interrupted: Signs of Non-native Acquisition in Standard Language Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Medgyes, P. (2017). The (ir)relevance of academic research for the language teacher. ELT Journal, 71(4), 491–98.Google Scholar
Milroy, J., & Milroy, L. (1999). Authority in Language: Investigating Language Prescription and Standardisation. 3rd ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R., Brumfit, C., & Hooper, J. (1994). ‘Knowledge about Language’: policy, rationales and practices. Research Papers in Education, 9(2), 183–205.Google Scholar
Morgan, J., Bonamo, K., & Travis, L. (1995). Negative evidence on negative evidence. Developmental Psychology, 31(2), 180–97.Google Scholar
Mugdan, J. (1977). Flexionsmorphologie und Psycholinguistik. [Inflectional Morphology and Psycholinguistics]. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Myles, F. (2012). Complexity, accuracy and fluency: The role played by formulaic sequences in early interlanguage development. In Housen, A, Kuiken, F, & Vedder, I, eds., Dimensions of L2 Performance and Proficiency: Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency in SLA. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 71–94.Google Scholar
Myles, F., Hooper, J., & Mitchell, R. (1998). Rote or rule? Exploring the role of formulaic language in classroom foreign language learning. Language Learning, 48(3), 323–64.Google Scholar
Newport, E., Gleitman, H., & Gleitman, L. (1977). Mother, I’d rather do it myself: Some effects and non-effects of maternal speech style. In Snow, C. E. & Ferguson, C. A., eds., Talking to Children. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 109–49.Google Scholar
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 Instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417–528.Google Scholar
Olson, G., & Faigley, L. (1991). Language, politics and composition: A conversation with Noam Chomsky. Journal of Advanced Composition, 11, 1–35.Google Scholar
Oshita, H. (2000). What is happened may not be what appears to be happening: A corpus study of ‘passive’ unaccusatives in L2 English. Second Language Research, 16(4), 293–324.Google Scholar
Oshita, H. (2001). The unaccusative trap in second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 279–304.Google Scholar
Paltridge, B. (2001). Genre and the Language Learning Classroom. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Parrott, M. (2010). Grammar for English Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pelletier, J. F. (2012). Lexical nouns are both +mass and +count, but they are neither +mass nor +count. In Massam, D, ed., Count and Mass across Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 9–26.Google Scholar
Pereltsvaig, A. (2012). Languages of the World: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pérez-Llantada, M. C., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2007). New trends in grammar teaching: Issues and applications: An interview with Prof. Diane Larsen-Freeman. Atlantis, 29(1),157–63.Google Scholar
Polinsky, M. (2001). Grammatical voice. In Smelser, N. J. & Baltes, P. B., eds., International Encyclopedia of Social & Behavioral Sciences. Elsevier Science, pp. 6348–53.Google Scholar
Prodromou, L. (2002). The role of the mother tongue in the classroom. International Association of Teachers of English as a Foreign Language Issues, 166, 6–8.Google Scholar
Pullum, G. K. (2018). The usage game: Catering for perverts. In Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I, ed., English Usage Guides. History, Advice, Attitudes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 177–96.Google Scholar
Pullum, G. K., & Scholz, B. (2002). Empirical assessment of stimulus poverty arguments. Linguistic Review, 19, 9–50.Google Scholar
Radford, A., & Felser, C. (2011). On preposition copying and preposition pruning in wh-clauses in English. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics, 60(4), www.essex.ac.uk/linguistics/publications/errl/errl60-4.pdf.Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, M., & Levin, B. (2010). Reflections on manner/result complementarity. In Rappaport Hovav, M, Doron, E & Sichel, I, eds., Syntax, Lexical Semantics, and Event Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 21–38.Google Scholar
Reiser, B., & Tabak, I. (2014). Scaffolding. In Sawyer, R, ed., The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 44–62.Google Scholar
Rothman, J. (2008). Aspectual selection in adult L2 Spanish and the competing systems hypothesis: When pedagogical and linguistic rules conflict. Languages in Contrast, 8(1), 74–106.Google Scholar
Rothman, J. (2010). Theoretical linguistics meets pedagogical practice: Pronominal subject use in Spanish as a second language (L2) as an example. Hispania, 93(1), 52–65.Google Scholar
Sanoudaki, E., & Thierry, G. (2014). Bigrammatism: When the bilingual mind juggles with two grammars. In Thomas, E. M & Mennen, I, eds., Advances in the Study of Bilingualism. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 214–30.Google Scholar
Sato, M., & Loewen, S. (2019). Towards evidence-based second language pedagogy: Research proposals and pedagogical recommendations. In Sato, M & Loewen, S, eds., Evidence-based Second Language Pedagogy: A Collection of Instructed Second Language Acquisition Studies. New York: Routledge, pp. 1–24.Google Scholar
Saxton, M. (2000). Negative evidence and negative feedback: Immediate effects on the grammaticality of child speech. First Language, 20(60), 221–52.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. A. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the Full Transfer/Full Access model. Second Language Research, 12(1), 40–72.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. A. (2013). Generative approaches and the poverty of the stimulus. In Herschensohn, J & Young-Scholten, M, eds., The Cambridge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 137–58.Google Scholar
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10, 209–31.Google Scholar
Selinker, L., & Lamendella, J. T. (1978). Two perspectives on fossilization in interlanguage learning. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 3(2), 143–91.Google Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M. (2017). Introducing Language and Cognition: A Map of the Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sharwood Smith, M., & Truscott, J. (2014). The Multilingual Mind: A Modular Processing Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sick, B. (2004). Der Dativ ist dem Genitiv sein Tod – Ein Wegweiser durch den Irrgarten der deutschen Sprache. [The Dative is to the Genitive its Death – A guide through the maze of the German language]. Cologne: Kiepenheuer und Witsch.Google Scholar
Siegel, J. (2008). The Emergence of Pidgin and Creole Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Siewierska, A. (2013). Passive Constructions. In Dryer, M, Matthew, S, & Haspelmath, M, eds., The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info/chapter/107.Google Scholar
Simons, G. F., & Fennig, C. D. (eds.) (2018). Ethnologue: Languages of the World (21st ed.). Dallas, TX: SIL International. Online version: www.ethnologue.com, accessed July 2018.Google Scholar
Singler, J., & Kouwenberg, S. (eds.) (2008). The Handbook of Pidgin and Creole Studies. London: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Slabakova, R. (2000). L1 transfer revisited: The L2 acquisition of telicity marking in English by Spanish and Bulgarian native speakers. Linguistics, 38(368), 739–70.Google Scholar
Slabakova, R. (2003). Semantic evidence for functional categories in interlanguage grammars. Second Language Research, 19(1), 42–75.Google Scholar
Slabakova, R. (2014). The bottleneck of second language acquisition. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 46(4), 543–59.Google Scholar
Snape, N. (2008). Resetting the nominal mapping [parameter in L2 English: Definite article use and the count–mass distinction. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11(1), 63–79.Google Scholar
Snape, N., & Yusa, N. (2013). Explicit article instruction in definiteness, specificity, genericity and perception. In Whong, M, Gil, K. H., & Marsden, H, eds., Universal Grammar and the Second Language Classroom. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 161–83.Google Scholar
Sobin, N. (1994). An acceptable ungrammatical construction. In Lima, S. D., Corrigan, R, & Iverson, G, eds., The Reality of Linguistic Rules. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 51–66.Google Scholar
Sobin, N. (1997). Agreement, default rules, and grammatical viruses. Linguistic Inquiry, 28, 318–43.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (2000). Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language, 76(4), 859–90.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (2008). Near-nativeness. In Doughty, C. J. & Long, M. H., eds., The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 130–51.Google Scholar
Spada, N., & Tomita, Y. (2010). Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 60(2), 263–308.Google Scholar
Spalek, K., Hoshino, N., Wu, Y. J., Damian, M., & Thierry, G. (2014). Speaking two languages at once: Unconscious native word form access in second language production. Cognition, 133(1), 226–31.Google Scholar
Sugisaki, K. (2016). Quantifier float and structure dependence in child Japanese. Language Acquisition, 23(1), 75–88.Google Scholar
Sundquist, J. D. (2011). Negative movement in the history of Norwegian: The evolution of a grammatical virus. In Jonas, D, Whitman, J & Garret, A, eds., Grammatical Change: Origins, Nature, Outcomes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 293–312.Google Scholar
Suzuki, T., & Yoshinaga, N. (2013). Children’s knowledge of hierarchical phrase structure: Quantifier floating in Japanese. Journal of Child Language, 40, 628–55.Google Scholar
Swales, J., & Feak, C. (1994). Academic Writing for Graduate Students. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalisation patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In Shopen, T, ed., Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Vol. 3: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 57–149.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (1991). Paths to realization: A typology of event conflation. In Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 480–519.Google Scholar
Thomas, M. (2013). History of the study of second language acquisition. In Herschensohn, J & Young-Scholten, M, eds., The Cambridge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 26–45.Google Scholar
Trappes-Lomax, H. (ed.) (2000). Change and Continuity in Applied Linguistics: Selected Papers from the Annual Meeting of the British Association for Applied Linguistics. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Truss, L. (2003). Eats, Shoots and Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation. London: Profile Books.Google Scholar
Turnbull, M., & Dailey-O’Cain, J. (2009). Introduction. In Turnbull, M & Dailey-O’Cain, J, eds., First Language Use in Second and Foreign Language Learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
Ur, P. (2011). Grammar teaching: research, theory and practice. In Hinkel, E, ed., Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 507–22.Google Scholar
Vainikka, A., & Young-Scholten, M. (2011). The Acquisition of German: Introducing Organic Grammar. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Van Dam, J. (1940). Handbuch der deutschen Sprache: 2 Wortlehre. [Handbook of the German Language 2: Lexicology]. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the Language Curriculum: Awareness, Autonomy, and Authenticity. London: Longman.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input Processing and Grammar Instruction: Theory and Research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B. (ed.) (2004). Processing Instruction: Theory, Research and Commentary. Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Vaughan-Evans, A. H., Kuipers, J. R., Thierry, G., & Jones, M. W. (2014). Anomalous transfer of syntax between languages. Journal of Neuroscience, 34(24), 8333–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Verheijen, L., Los, B., & de Haan, P. (2013). Information structure: The final hurdle?: The development of syntactic structures in (very) advanced Dutch EFL writing. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2, 92–107.Google Scholar
Whong, M. (2013). A linguistic perspective on communicative language teaching. Language Learning Journal, 41, 115–28.Google Scholar
Whong, M., Gil, K. H., & Marsden, H. (2014). Beyond paradigm: The ‘what’ and the ‘how’ of classroom research. Second Language Research, 30(4), 551–68.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H. G. (2000a). Object language and the language subject: On the mediating role of applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 20, 21–33.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H. G. (2000b). On the limitations of linguistics applied. Applied Linguistics, 21(1), 3–25.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H. G. (2002). Language teaching: Defining the subject. In Trappes-Lomax, H. R. & Ferguson, G, eds., Language in Language Teacher Education. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 68–81.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H. G. (2003). Defining Issues in English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H. G. (2016). ELF, adaptive variability and virtual language. In Pitzl, M. L., & Osimk-Teasdale, R, eds., English as a Lingua Franca: Perspectives and Prospects: Contributions in Honour of Barbara Seidlhofer. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 31–7.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H. G., & Seidlhofer, B. (2008). Visions and delusions: Language proficiency and educational failure. In Doff, S, Klippel, F, & Huellen, W, eds., Visions of Languages in Education – Visionen der Bildung durch Sprachen. Berlin: Langenscheidt Verlag, pp. 207–13.Google Scholar
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Yang, C. (2002). Knowledge and Learning in Natural Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yip, V. (1995). Interlanguage and Learnability: From Chinese to English. Amsterdam, Philadephia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Yip, V., & Matthews, S. (2017). Basic Cantonese: A Grammar and a Workbook. (2nd ed.) London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Zobl, H. (1989). Canonical typological structures and ergativity in English L2 acquisition. In Gass, S. M. & Schachter, J, eds., Linguistic Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 203–21.Google Scholar