Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Spanish Linguistics
- Cambridge Handbooks In Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Spanish Linguistics
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Abbreviations
- Introduction
- Part I Theories and Approaches to Spanish Linguistics
- Part II The Spanish Sound System
- Part III Spanish Morphosyntax and Meaning
- Part IV Spanish in Social, Geographic, and Historical Contexts
- Part V The Acquisition of Spanish
- Index
- References
Part I - Theories and Approaches to Spanish Linguistics
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 August 2018
Edited by
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Spanish Linguistics
- Cambridge Handbooks In Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Spanish Linguistics
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Abbreviations
- Introduction
- Part I Theories and Approaches to Spanish Linguistics
- Part II The Spanish Sound System
- Part III Spanish Morphosyntax and Meaning
- Part IV Spanish in Social, Geographic, and Historical Contexts
- Part V The Acquisition of Spanish
- Index
- References
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
- The Cambridge Handbook of Spanish Linguistics , pp. 7 - 142Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
References
Ben-Yami, H. (2015). Descartes’ Philosophical Revolution: A Reassessment. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Bonet, E. (1991). Morphology After Syntax: Pronominal Clitics in Romance (Doctoral dissertation). MIT.Google Scholar
Bosque, I. and Gutiérrez-Rexach, J. (2009). Fundamentos de sintaxis formal. Madrid: Akal.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1993). A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory. In Hale, K. and J. Keyser, S. (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 1–52.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist Inquiries: The Framework. In Martin, R., Michaels, D., and Uriagereka, J. (eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 89–155.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by Phase. In Kenstowicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 1–52.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2004). Beyond Explanatory Adequacy. In Belletti, A. (ed.), The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 3: Structures and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 104–131.Google Scholar
Clark, E. (1985). The Acquisition of Romance with Special Reference to French. In Slobin, D. (ed.), The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 688–782.Google Scholar
Contreras, H. (1991). On the Position of Subjects. In Rothstein, S. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 25: Perspectives on Phrase Structure. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 63–79.Google Scholar
den Dikken, M., et al. (2007). Data and Grammar: Means and Individuals. Theoretical Linguistics, 33, 335–352.Google Scholar
Eguren, L. and Fernández Soriano, O. (2004). Introducción a una sintaxis minimista. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Featherstone, S. (2007). Data in Generative Grammar: The Stick and the Carrot. Theoretical Linguistics, 33, 269–318.Google Scholar
Fernández Soriano, O. (2016). Clíticos. In Gutiérrez-Rexach, J. (ed.), Enciclopedia de lingüística hispánica. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gallego, A. (2016). Patterns of Object Agreement in Romance. Paper given at 46th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, Stony Brook University, New York.Google Scholar
Gardner, H. (1985). The Mind’s New Science: A History of the Cognitive Revolution. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
González López, V. (2008). Spanish Clitic Climbing (Doctoral dissertation). Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
Goodall, G. (2004). On the Syntax and Processing of wh-Questions in Spanish. In Schmeiser, B. et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla, pp. 101–114.Google Scholar
Grüter, T. (2008). When Learners Know More than Linguists: (French) Direct Object Clitics are not Objects. Probus, 20, 211–234.Google Scholar
Gupton, T. and Leal Méndez, T. (2013). Experimental Methodologies: Two Case Studies Investigating the Syntax–Discourse Interface. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 6, 139–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutiérrez-Rexach, J. (2014). Interfaces and Domains of Quantification. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Hoot, B. (2016). Narrow Presentational Focus in Mexican Spanish: Experimental Evidence. Probus, 28, 335–365.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. (1975). French Syntax: The Transformational Cycle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1968). Linguistic Universals and Linguistic Change. In Bach, E. and Harms, R. T. (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp. 171–202.Google Scholar
López, L. (2009). A Derivational Syntax for Information Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
López Ornat, S. (1990). La formación de la oración simple: Las omisiones sintácticas (S-V-O) en la adquisición del español. Estudios de Psicología, 11, 41–72.Google Scholar
Lorenzo, G. (2016). Gramática generativa. In Gutiérrez-Rexach, J. (ed.), Enciclopedia de lingüística hispánica. London: Routledge, pp. 138–150.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. (2005). Generative Linguistics within the Cognitive Neuroscience of Language. The Linguistic Review, 22, 429–445.Google Scholar
Martín, J. (2003). Against a Uniform wh-Landing Site for Spanish. In Kempchinsky, P. and Piñeros, C.-E. (eds.), Theory, Practice and Acquisition: Papers from the 6th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla, pp. 156–174.Google Scholar
Matushansky, O. (2006). Head Movement in Linguistic Theory. Linguistic Inquiry, 37, 69–109.Google Scholar
Maynes, J. (2012). Linguistic Intuition and Calibration. Linguistics and Philosophy, 35, 443–460.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, F. (1983). Grammatical Theory: Its Limits and Possibilities. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
O’Grady, W. (2012). Three Factors in the Design and Acquisition of Language. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 3, 493–499.Google Scholar
Olarrea, A. (1998). On the Position of Subjects in Spanish. Anuario del Seminario de Filología Vasca Julio de Urquijo (Universidad del País Vasco), 32, 47–108.Google Scholar
Ordóñez, F. and Olarrea, A. (2006). Microvariation in Caribbean and Non-Caribbean Spanish Interrogatives. Probus, 18, 59–97.Google Scholar
Ormazabal, J. and Romero, J. (2013). Object Clitics, Agreement and Dialectal Variation. Probus, 25, 301–344.Google Scholar
Otero, C. P. (1971). Evolución y revolución en romance, Vol. 1. Barcelona: Seix Barral.Google Scholar
Otero, C. P. (1972). Acceptable Grammatical Sentences in Spanish. Linguistic Inquiry, 3, 233–242.Google Scholar
Otero, C. P. (1976). Evolución y revolución en romance, Vol. 2. Barcelona: Seix Barral.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. (2013). On the Nature of Island Constraints I: Language Processing and Reductionist Accounts. In Sprouse, J. and Hornstein, N. (eds.), Experimental Syntax and Island Effects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 65–108.Google Scholar
Phillips, C., et al. (2011). Grammatical Illusions and Selective Fallibility in Real Time Language Comprehension. In Runner, J. (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 37: Experiments at the Interfaces. Bingley: Emerald Publications, pp. 147–180.Google Scholar
Reglero, L. (2005). Wh-in-situ Constructions: Syntax and/or Phonology? In Alderete, J. et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the 24th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla, pp. 334–342.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1997). The Fine Structure of the Left Periphery. In Haegeman, L. (ed.), Elements of Grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 281–337.Google Scholar
Schütze, C. (1996). The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality Judgments and Linguistic Methodology. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. and Keller, F. (2005). Gradience in Linguistic Data. Lingua, 115, 1497–1524.Google Scholar
Sportiche, D. (1988). A Theory of Floating Quantifiers and its Corollaries for Constituent Structure. Linguistic Inquiry, 19, 425–449.Google Scholar
Sportiche, D. (1996). Clitic Constructions. In Rooryck, J. and Zaring, L. (eds.), Phrase Structure and the Lexicon. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 213–275.Google Scholar
Strozer, J. (1976). Clitics in Spanish (Doctoral dissertation). University of California–Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Suñer, M. (1989). Spanish Syntax and Semantics in the Eighties: The Principles-and-Parameters Approach. Hispania, 72, 832–847.Google Scholar
Suñer, M. (1992). Two Properties of Clitics in Clitic-Doubled Structures. In Huang, C.-T. J. and May, R. (eds.), Logical Structure and Linguistic Structure. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 233–252.Google Scholar
Suñer, M. (2009). Formal Linguistics and the Syntax of Spanish: Past, Present and Future. In Collentine, J. et al. (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 11th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla, pp. 9–26.Google Scholar
Torrego, E. (1995). On the Nature of Clitic Doubling. In Campos, H. and Kempchinsky, P. (eds.), Evolution and Revolution in Linguistic Theory. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 399–418.Google Scholar
Uriagereka, J. (1995). Aspects of the Syntax of Clitic Placement in Western Romance. Linguistic Inquiry, 26, 79–124.Google Scholar
Uribe-Etxebarria, M. (2002). In Situ Questions and Masked Movement. In Pica, P. and Rooryck, J. (eds.), Linguistic Variation Yearbook. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 259–303.Google Scholar
References
Archangeli, D. and Langendoen, T. (1997). Optimality Theory: An Overview. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Bakovic, E. (1998). Optimality and Inversion in Spanish. In Barbosa, P., Fox, D., Hagstrom, P., McGinnis, M., and Pesetsky, D. (eds.), Is the Best Good Enough? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 35–58.Google Scholar
Barlow, J. (2003). Asymmetries in the Acquisition of Consonant Clusters in Spanish. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 48 (3–4), 179–210.Google Scholar
Barlow, J. (2005). Sonority Effects in the Production of Consonant Clusters by Spanish Speaking Children. In Eddington, D. (ed.), Selected Proceedings of the 6th Conference on the Acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese as First and Second Languages. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
Barlow, J. (2006). Constraint Conflict in the Acquisition of Clusters in Spanish. In Martínez-Gil, F. and Colina, S. (eds.), Optimality Theoretic Studies in Spanish Phonology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 523–48.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, R. (2006). Morphological Structure and Phonological Domains in Spanish Denominal Derivation. In Martínez-Gil, F. and Colina, S. (eds.), Optimality Theoretic Studies in Spanish Phonology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 278–311.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, R. (2007). Spanish Pseudoplurals: Phonological Cues in the Acquisition of a Syntax–Morphology Mismatch. In Baerman, M., Corbett, G., Brown, D., and Hippisley, A. (eds.), Deponency and Morphological Mismatches (Proceedings of the British Academy). Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 231–269.Google Scholar
Bermúdez-Otero, R. (forthcoming). Stratal Optimality Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blutner, R. (2000). Some Aspects of Optimality in Natural Language Interpretation. Journal of Semantics, 17 (3), 189–216.Google Scholar
Boersma, P. and Escudero, P. (2008). Learning to Perceive a Smaller L2 Vowel Inventory: An Optimality Theory Account. In Avery, P., Dresher, B. E., and Rice, K. (eds.), Contrast in Phonology: Theory, Perception, Acquisition. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 271–302.Google Scholar
Boersma, P. and Hayes, B. (2001). Empirical Tests of the Gradual Learning Algorithm. Linguistic Inquiry, 32 (1), 45–86.Google Scholar
Bonet, E. (2006). Gender Allomorphy and Epenthesis in Spanish. In Martínez-Gil, F. and Colina, S. (eds.), Optimality Theoretic Studies in Spanish Phonology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 312–338.Google Scholar
Bonet, E. and Harbour, D. (2012). Contextual Allomorphy. In Trommer, J. (ed.), The Morphology and Phonology of Exponence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 195–235.Google Scholar
Bonet, E. and Lloret, M.-R. (2016). Romance Phonology and Morphology in Optimality Theory. In Fischer, S. and Gabriel, C. (eds.), Manual of Grammatical Interfaces in Romance. Berlin and Boston, MA: De Gruyter, pp. 113–147.Google Scholar
Bradley, T. G. (2014). Optimality Theory and Spanish Phonology. Language and Linguistics Compass, 8, 65–88. doi: 10.1111/lnc3.12065.Google Scholar
Bradley, T. G. and Smith, J. (2011). The Phonology–Morphology Interface in Judeo-Spanish Diminutive Formation: A Lexical Ordering and Subcategorization Approach. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 4 (2), 247–300.Google Scholar
Buckley, E. (2014). Spanish Secondary Stress without Gradient Alignment. In Huang, H.-L., Poole, E., and Rysling, A. (eds.), Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association, pp. 39–50.Google Scholar
Buckley, E. (2016). Foot Alignment in Spanish Secondary Stress. In Heinz, J., Goedemans, R., and van der Hulst, H. (eds.), Dimensions of Phonological Stress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 79–100.Google Scholar
Caballero, G. and Inkelas, S. (2013). Word Construction: Tracing an Optimal Path through the Lexicon. Morphology, 23 (2), 103–143.Google Scholar
Cabrelli Amaro, J. (2017). The Role of Prosodic Structure in the L2 Acquisition of Spanish Stop Lenition. Second Language Research, 33 (2), 233–269.Google Scholar
Colina, S. (2006). Optimality-Theoretic Advances in our Understanding of Spanish Syllable Structure. In Martínez-Gil, F. and Colina, S. (eds.), Optimality Theoretic Studies in Spanish Phonology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 172–204.Google Scholar
Colina, S. (2009). Spanish Phonology: A Syllabic Perspective. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Colina, S. (2011). Spanish Morphophonology. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 4 (1), 173–9.1Google Scholar
Colina, S. (2014). La teoría de la optimidad en la fonología del español. In Cedeño, Rafael Núñez, Colina, Sonia, and Bradley, Travis G. (eds.), Fonología generativa contemporánea de la lengua española (2nd edn). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 291–317.Google Scholar
Cutillas Espinosa, J. A. (2003). Teoría lingüística de la optimidad: fonología, morfología y aprendizaje. Murcia: Universidad de Murcia.Google Scholar
Cutillas Espinosa, J. A. (2004). Meaningful Variability: A Sociolinguistically-Grounded Approach to Variation in Optimality Theory. International Journal of English Studies, 4 (2), 165–184.Google Scholar
de Swart, H. (2010). Expression and Interpretation of Negation. An OT Typology. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
de Swart, P. (2007). Cross-Linguistic Variation in Object Marking (Doctoral dissertation). Radboud University, Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Díaz-Campos, M. and Colina, S. (2006). The Interaction between Faithfulness Constraints and Sociolinguistic Variation: The Acquisition of Phonological Variation in First Language Speakers. In Martínez-Gil, F. and Colina, S. (eds.), Optimality-Theoretic Studies in Spanish Phonology. Amsterdam; Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 424–446.Google Scholar
Elsman, M. M. and Holt, D. E. (2009). When Small Words Collide: Morphological Reduction and Phonological Compensation in Old Leonese Contractions. In Leow, R., Campos, H., and Lardiere, D. (eds.), Little Words: Their History, Phonology, Syntax, Semantics, Pragmatics, and Acquisition. Georgetown University Press, pp. 21–33.Google Scholar
Escudero, P. and Boersma, P. (2004). Bridging the Gap between L2 Speech Perception Research and Phonological Theory. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 26 (4), 551–585.Google Scholar
Espinal, M. T., Tubau, S., Borràs-Comes, J., and Prieto, P. (2016). Double Negation in Catalan and Spanish: Interaction between Syntax and Prosody. In Larrivée, P. and Lee, C. (eds.), Negation and Polarity: Experimental Perspectives, Language, Cognition, and Mind. Berlin: Springer, pp. 145–176.Google Scholar
Feldhausen, I. (2014a). Modeling Individual Variation in Prosody: The Case of Spanish Clitic Left-Dislocations. In Fuchs, S., Grice, M., Hermes, A., Lancia, L., and Mücke, M. (eds.), Proceedings of the 10th International Seminar on Speech Production, 5–8 May 2014. Cologne: University of Cologne, pp. 114–117.Google Scholar
Feldhausen, I. (2014b). The Intonation of Left-Dislocations in Spanish and Other Romance Languages – Experimental and Theoretical Studies on Prosodic Phrasing and Inter-Speaker Variation (Habilitation thesis). Goethe-Universität Frankfurt.Google Scholar
Feldhausen, I. (2016). Inter-Speaker Variation, OT, and the Prosody of CLLD in Spanish. Probus, 28 (2), 293–333.Google Scholar
Feldhausen, I. and Vanrell, M. (2014). Prosody, Focus and Word Order in Catalan and Spanish: An Optimality Theoretic Approach. In Fuchs, S., Grice, M., Hermes, A., Lancia, L., and Mücke, M. (eds.), Proceedings of the 10th International Seminar on Speech Production, 5–8 May 2014. Cologne: University of Cologne, pp. 122–125.Google Scholar
Feldhausen, I. and Vanrell, M. (2015). Oraciones hendidas y otras estrategias de marcaje del foco en español: Una aproximación desde la Teoría de la Optimidad Estocástica. Revista Internacional de Lingüística Iberoamericana, 13 (2), 39–60.Google Scholar
Gabriel, C. (2010). On Focus, Prosody, and Word Order in Argentinean Spanish: A Minimalist OT Account. Revista Virtual de Estudos da Linguagem, 4, 183–222.Google Scholar
Goldrick, M., Putnam, M., and Schwarz, L. (2016). Coactivation in Bilingual Grammars: A Computational Account of Code Mixing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19 (5), 857–876.Google Scholar
Grau Sempere, A. (2013). Reconsidering Syllabic Minimality in Spanish Truncation. Estudios de Lingüística Universidad de Alicante, 27, 121–143.Google Scholar
Grice, P. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In Cole, P. and Morgan, J. (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J. (2001). Optimal Clitic Positions and the Lexicon in Romance Clitic Systems. In Legendre, G., Grimshaw, J., and Vikner, S. (eds.), Optimality Theoretic Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 205–240.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez, L. (2009). Procesos fonológicos utilizados en la formación de hipocorísticos: una aproximación desde la fonología no lineal (Doctoral dissertation). Universidad de Concepción, Chile.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez-Bravo, R. (2005). Structural Markedness and Syntactic Structure. New York: Routledge/Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez-Bravo, R. (2007). Prominence Scales and Unmarked Word Order in Spanish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 25 (2), 235–271.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez-Bravo, R. (2008). Topicalization and Preverbal Subjects in Spanish wh-Interrogatives. In Bruhn de Garavito, J. and Valenzuela, E. (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 10th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla, pp. 225–236.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez-Bravo, R. (2010). Inputs and Faithfulness in OT Syntax: The Case of Subjects and Topics in Spanish Infinitival Clauses. Revista Virtual de Estudos da Linguagem, 8, 134–154.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez-Bravo, R., Arellanes Arellanes, F., and Chávez Peón, M. (eds.). (2015). Nuevos estudios de teoría de la optimidad. Mexico City: El Colegio de México.Google Scholar
Gutiérrez-Bravo, R. and Herrera, E. (eds.). (2008). Teoría de optimidad: estudios de sintaxis y fonología. Mexico City: El Colegio de MéxicoGoogle Scholar
Gutiérrez-Bravo, R. and Monforte, J. (2008). La alternancia sujeto inicial/verbo inicial y la Teoría de Optimidad. In Gutiérrez Bravo, R. and Herrera, E. (eds.), Teoría de optimidad: estudios de sintaxis y fonología. Mexico City: El Colegio de México, pp. 61–90.Google Scholar
Hancin-Bhatt, B. and Bhatt, R. (1997). Optimal L2 Syllables: Interactions of Transfer and Developmental Effects. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19 (3), 331–378.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce (2000). Gradient Well-Formedness in Optimality Theory. In Dekkers, J., van der Leeuw, F., and van de Weijer, J. (eds.), Optimality Theory: Phonology, Syntax and Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 88–120.Google Scholar
Holt, D. E. (2000). Comparative Optimality-Theoretic Dialectology: Singular/Plural Nasal Alternations in Galician, Mirandese (Leonese) and Spanish. In Campos, H., Herburger, E., Morales-Front, A., and Walsh, T. J. (eds.), Hispanic Linguistics at the Turn of the Millennium: Papers from the Third Hispanic Linguistics Symposium. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla, pp. 125–143.Google Scholar
Holt, D. E. (2003). The Emergence of Palatal Sonorants and Alternating Diphthongs in Hispano-Romance. In Holt, D. E. (ed.), Optimality Theory and Language Change. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 285–305.Google Scholar
Holt, D. E. (2004). Optimization of Syllable Contact in Old Spanish via the Sporadic Sound Change Metathesis. Probus, 16 (1), 43–61.Google Scholar
Holt, D. E. (2006). Optimality Theory and Language Change in Spanish. In Martínez-Gil, F. and Colina, S. (eds.), Optimality-Theoretic Advances in Spanish Phonology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 378–396.Google Scholar
Holt, D. E. (2015). Historical Sound Change in Optimality Theory: Achievements and Challenges. In Honeybone, P. and Salmons, J. (eds.), Handbook of Historical Phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 545–562.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (2012). Grammaticalization as Optimization. In Jonas, D., Whitman, J., and Garrett, A. (eds.), Grammatical Change: Origins, Nature, Outcomes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 15–51.Google Scholar
Kochetov, A. and Colantoni, L. (2011). Place vs. Stricture in Spanish Nasal Assimilation. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 28. Available from sites.google.com/site/wccfl28pro/kochetov-colantoni (last access October 9, 2017).Google Scholar
Koontz-Garboden, A. (2004). Language Contact and Spanish Aspectual Expression: A Formal Analysis. Lingua, 114 (9–10), 1291–1330.Google Scholar
LaFond, L. L. (2001). The Pro-Drop Parameter in Second Language Acquisition Revisited: A Developmental Account (Doctoral dissertation). University of South Carolina.Google Scholar
LaFond, L. L. (2003). Putting the Pieces Together: Second Language Learning of Null Subjects, Inversion, and That-Trace. In Liceras, J., Zobl, H., and Goodluck, H. (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla, pp. 168–175.Google Scholar
LaFond, L., Hayes, R., and Bhatt, R. (2001). Constraint Demotion and Null-Subjects in Spanish L2 Acquisition. In Camps, J. and Wiltshire, C. (eds.), Romance Syntax, Semantics and L2 Acquisition: Selected Papers from the 30th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 121–135.Google Scholar
Legendre, G. (2016). Optimality-Theoretic Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics. From Uni- to Bidirectional Optimization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Legendre, G., Grimshaw, J., and Vikner, S. (eds.) (2001). Optimality-Theoretic Syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lestrade, S. (2010). The Space of Case (Doctoral dissertation). Radboud University, Nijmegen.Google Scholar
Lleó, C. (2001). The Interface of Phonology and Syntax: The Emergence of the Article in the Early Acquisition of Spanish and German. In Weissenborn, J. and Höhle, B. (eds.), Approaches to Bootstrapping: Phonological, Lexical, Syntactic and Neurophysiological Aspects of Early Language Acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 23–44.Google Scholar
Lleó, C. (2002). The Role of Markedness in the Acquisition of Complex Prosodic Structures by German–Spanish Bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingualism, 6 (3), 291–313.Google Scholar
Lleó, C. (2006). The Acquisition of Prosodic Word Structures in Spanish by Monolingual and Spanish–German Bilingual Children. Language and Speech, 49, 205–229.Google Scholar
Lleó, C. and Arias, J. (2006). Foot, Word and Phrase Constraints in First Language Acquisition of Spanish Stress. In Martínez-Gil, F. and Colina, S. (ed.), Optimality-Theoretic Studies in Spanish Phonology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 472–496.Google Scholar
Lleó, C. and Arias, J. (2009). The Role of Weight-by-Position in the Prosodic Development of Spanish and German. In Grijzenhout, J. and Kabak, B. (eds.), Phonological Domains: Universals and Deviations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 221–248.Google Scholar
Lloret, M.-R. and Mascaró, J. (2006). Depalatalization in Spanish Revised. In Martínez-Gil, F. and Colina, S. (eds.), Optimality-Theoretic Studies in Spanish Phonology. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 74–98.Google Scholar
Martínez-Gil, F. and Colina, S. (eds.) (2006). Optimality-Theoretic Advances in Spanish Phonology. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. J. (2004). Optimal Paradigms. In Downing, L. J., Hall, T. A., and Raffelsiefen, R. (eds.), Paradigms in Phonological Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 170–210.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. J. (2007). Hidden Generalizations: Phonological Opacity in Optimality Theory. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. J. and Pater, J. (eds.) (2016). Harmonic Grammar and Harmonic Serialism. Sheffield: Equinox Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. and Prince, A. (1994). The Emergence of the Unmarked: Optimality in Prosodic Morphology. In González, M. (ed.), NELS 24: Proceedings of the North-East Linguistic Society. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association, pp. 333–379.Google Scholar
Morales-Front, A. (2006). Acquisition of Syllable Structure in Spanish. In Martínez-Gil, F. and Colina, S. (eds.), Optimality-Theoretic Studies in Spanish Phonology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 497–524.Google Scholar
Morris, R. (2005). Attraction to the Unmarked in Old Spanish Leveling. In Eddington, D. (ed.), Selected Proceedings of the 7th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla, pp. 180–191.Google Scholar
Patin, C., Feldhausen, I., and Delais-Roussarie, E. (2017). Structure prosodique et dislocation à gauche dans les langues romanes et bantu: vers une approche typologique unifiée en OT. In Lemaréchal, A., Koch, P., and Swiggers, P. (eds.), Actes du XXVIIe Congrès international de linguistique et de philologie romanes (Nancy, 15–20 juillet 2013), Section 1 : Linguistique générale/linguistique romane. Nancy ATILF, pp. 107–119. Available from www.atilf.fr/cilpr2013/actes/section-1.html (last access October 13, 2017).Google Scholar
Piñeros, C. E. (2000a). Prosodic and Segmental Unmarkedness in Spanish Truncation. Linguistics, 38 (1), 63–98.Google Scholar
Piñeros, C. E. (2000b). Foot-Sensitive Word Minimization in Spanish. Probus, 12 (2), 291–324.Google Scholar
Piñeros, C.E. (2006). The Phonology of Nasal Consonants in Five Spanish Dialects. In Martínez-Gil, F. and Colina, S. (eds.), Optimality Theoretic Studies in Spanish Phonology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 146–171.Google Scholar
Prince, A. and Smolensky, P. (1993/2004). Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Rutgers University and University of Colorado at Boulder. Revised version published Malden, MA/Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Roca, I. and Felíu, E. (2003). Morphology in Truncation: The Role of the Spanish Desinence. In Booij, G. and van Maarle, J. (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 2002. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, pp. 187–243.Google Scholar
Saltarelli, , (2006). A Paradigm Account of Spanish Number. In Martínez-Gil, F. and Colina, S. (eds.), Optimality-Theoretic Studies in Spanish Phonology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 339–357.Google Scholar
Sanz, J. (2015). The Phonology and Morphology of Spanish Hypocoristics (Master’s thesis). The Arctic University of Norway.Google Scholar
Smith, J. A. (2011). Subcategorization and Optimality Theory: The Case of Spanish Diminutives (Doctoral dissertation). University of California, Davis.Google Scholar
Smolensky, P., Goldrick, M., and Mathis, D. (2014). Optimization and Quantization in Gradient Symbol Systems: A Framework for Integrating the Continuous and the Discrete in Cognition. Cognitive Science, 38 (6), 1102–1138.Google Scholar
Tesar, B. and Smolensky, P. (2000). Learnability in Optimality Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Trommer, J. (2001). Distributed Optimality (Doctoral dissertation). University of Potsdam.Google Scholar
Wiltshire, C. (2006). Prefix Boundaries in Spanish Varieties: A Non-Derivational OT Account. In Martínez-Gil, F. and Colina, S. (eds.), Optimality Theoretic Studies in Spanish Phonology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 358–377.Google Scholar
Wolf, M. (2008). Optimal Interleaving: Serial Phonology–Morphology Interaction in a Constraint-Based Model (Doctoral dissertation). University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
Xu, Z. (2016). The Role of Morphology in Optimality Theory. In Hippisley, A. and Stump, G. T. (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Morphology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 550–587.Google Scholar
Xu, Z. and Aronoff, M. (2011a). A Realization Optimality Theory Approach to Blocking and Extended Morphological Exponence. Journal of Linguistics, 47 (3), 673–707.Google Scholar
Xu, Z. and Aronoff, M. (2011b). A Realization Optimality Theory Approach to Full and Partial Identity of Forms. In Maiden, M., Charles Smith, J., Goldbach, M., and Hinzelin, M. O. (eds.), Morphological Autonomy: Perspectives from Romance Inflectional Morphology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 257–286.Google Scholar
References
Aaron, J. E. (2016). The Road Already Traveled: Constructional Analogy in Lexico-Syntactic Change. Studies in Language, 40 (1), 26–62.Google Scholar
Aaron, J. E. and Hernández, J. E. (2007). Quantitative Evidence for Contact-Induced Accommodation. In Potowski, K. and Cameron, R. (eds.), Spanish in Contact: Policy, Social and Linguistic Inquiries. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 327–341.Google Scholar
Amengual, M. (2012). Interlingual Influence in Bilingual Speech: Cognate Status Effect in a Continuum of Bilingualism. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15 (3), 517–530.Google Scholar
Barnes, S. (2012). ¿Qué dijistes?: A Variationist Reanalysis of Non-Standard-s on Second Person Singular Preterit Verb Forms in Spanish. In Geeslin, K. and Díaz-Campos, M. (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 14th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla, pp. 38–47.Google Scholar
Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J., 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 (s1), 1–26.Google Scholar
Browman, C. P. and Goldstein, L. (1992). Articulatory Phonology: An Overview. Phonetica, 49 (3–4), 155–180.Google Scholar
Brown, E. K. (2009a). The Relative Importance of Lexical Frequency in Syllable- and Word-Final /s/ Reduction in Cali, Colombia. In Collentine, J. et al. (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 11th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla, pp. 165–178.Google Scholar
Brown, E. K. (2009b). A Usage-Based Account of Syllable- and Word-Final /s/ Reduction in Four Dialects of Spanish. LINCOM Studies in Romance Linguistics, 62. Munich: Lincom.Google Scholar
Brown, E. K. (2016). Corpus of Mexican Spanish in Salinas, California. Available from itcdland.csumb.edu/~eabrownGoogle Scholar
Brown, E. K., Gradoville, M. S., and File-Muriel, R. J. (2014). The Variable Effect of Form and Lemma Frequencies on Phonetic Variation: Evidence from /s/ Realization in two Varieties of Colombian Spanish. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 10 (2), 213–241.Google Scholar
Brown, E. L. (2005). Syllable-Initial /s/ in Traditional New Mexican Spanish: Linguistic Factors Favoring Reduction Ahina. Southwest Journal of Linguistics, 24 (1–2), 13–31.Google Scholar
Brown, E. L. (2006). Velarization of Labial, Coda Stops in Spanish: A Frequency Account. Revista de lingüística teórica y aplicada, 44 (2), 47–58.Google Scholar
Brown, E. L. and Harper, D. (2009). Phonological Evidence of Interlingual Exemplar Connections. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 2 (2), 257–274.Google Scholar
Brown, E. L. and Raymond, W. D. (2012). How Discourse Context Shapes the Lexicon: Explaining the Distribution of Spanish f-/h- Words. Diachronica, 29 (2), 139–161.Google Scholar
Brown, E. L. and Raymond, W. D. (2014). Contextual Frequency Effects in Spanish Phonology. Paper presented at the Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics, Washington, DC, March.Google Scholar
Brown, E. L. and Raymond, W. D. (in preparation). Cumulative Discourse Effects Evidenced in Spanish Subject Pronoun Expression.Google Scholar
Brown, E. L. and Rivas, J. (2012). Grammatical Relation Probability: How Usage Patterns Shape Analogy. Language Variation and Change, 24 (3), 317–341.Google Scholar
Brown, E. L. and Torres Cacoullos, R. (2002). ¿Qué le vamoh aher? Taking the Syllable out of Spanish /s/ Reduction. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, 8 (3), 17–31.Google Scholar
Brown, E. L. and Torres Cacoullos, R. (2003). Spanish /s/: A different story from beginning (initial) to end (final). In Núñez-Cedeño, R., López, L., and Cameron, R. (eds.), A Romance Perspective on Language Knowledge and Use: Selected Papers from the 31st Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LRSL), Chicago, 19–22 April 2001. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 21–38.Google Scholar
Bullock, B. E. and Toribio, A. J. (2013). The Spanish in Texas Corpus Project. Center for Open Educational Resources and Language Learning (COERLL), The University of Texas at Austin. Available from spanishintexas.orgGoogle Scholar
Bullock, B. E., Toribio, A. J., and Amengual, M. (2014). The Status of s in Dominican Spanish. Lingua, 143, 20–35.Google Scholar
Bush, N. (2001). Frequency Effects and Word-Boundary Palatalization in English. In Bybee, J. and Hopper, P. (eds.), Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 255–280.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (1985). Morphology: A Study of the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (1999). Usage-Based Phonology. In Darnell, Michael, Moravcsik, Edith, Newmeyer, Frederick, Noonan, Michael, and Wheatley, Kathleen (eds.), Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 211–242.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2000). The Phonology of the Lexicon: Evidence from Lexical Diffusion. In Barlow, Michael and Kemmer, Suzanne (eds.), Usage Based Models of Language. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 65–85.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2002). Word Frequency and Context of Use in the Lexical Diffusion of Phonetically Conditioned Sound Change. Language Variation and Change, 14 (3), 261–290.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. (2006). From Usage to Grammar: The Mind’s Response to Repetition. Language, 82 (4), 711–733.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. and Pardo, E. (1981). On Lexical and Morphological Conditioning of Alternations: A Nonce-Probe Experiment with Spanish Verbs. Linguistics, 19 (9–10), 937–968.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. and Scheibman, J. (1999). The Effect of Usage on Degrees of Constituency: The Reduction of Don’t in English. Linguistics, 37 (4), 575–596.Google Scholar
Cameron, R. (1993). Ambiguous Agreement, Functional Compensation, and Nonspecific tú in the Spanish of San Juan, Puerto Rico, and Madrid, Spain. Language Variation and Change, 5 (3), 305–334.Google Scholar
Carvalho, A. M. (2006a). Spanish (s) Aspiration as a Prestige Marker on the Uruguayan–Brazilian Border. Spanish in Context, 3 (1), 85–114.Google Scholar
Carvalho, A. M. (2006b). Nominal Number Marking in a Variety of Spanish in Contact with Portuguese. In Face, Timothy L. and Klee, Carol A. (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 8th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla, pp. 154–166.Google Scholar
Carvalho, A. M. (2012– ). Corpus del Español en el Sur de Arizona (CESA). University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Clark, L. (2012). Dialect Data, Lexical Frequency and the Usage-Based Approach. The Dialect Laboratory: Dialects as a Testing Ground for Theories of Language Change, Studies in Language Companion Series, 128, 53–72.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2010). Naive v. Expert Intuitions: An Empirical Study of Acceptability Judgments. The Linguistic Review, 27 (1), 1–23.Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2002– ). Corpus del español; 100 million words, 1200s–1900s. Available from www.corpusdelespanol.org.Google Scholar
Díaz-Campos, M. (2005). The Emergence of Adult-Like Command of Sociolinguistic Variables: A Study of Consonant Weakening in Spanish-Speaking Children. In Eddington, D. (ed.), Selected Proceedings of the 6th Conference on the Acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese as First and Second Languages. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla, pp. 56–65.Google Scholar
Díaz-Campos, M. and Gradoville, M. (2011). An Analysis of Frequency as a Factor Contributing to the Diffusion of Variable Phenomena: Evidence from Spanish Data. In Ortiz-López, Luis A. (ed.), Selected Proceedings of the 13th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla, pp. 224–238.Google Scholar
Díaz-Campos, M. and Ruiz-Sánchez, C. (2008). The Value of Frequency as a Linguistic Factor: The Case of Two Dialectal Regions in the Spanish Speaking World. In Westmoreland, Maurice and Thomas, Juan Antonio (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Spanish Sociolinguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla pp. 43–53.Google Scholar
Docherty, G. J. and Foulkes, P. (2014). An Evaluation of Usage-Based Approaches to the Modelling of Sociophonetic Variability. Lingua, 142, 42–56.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. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 7–34.Google Scholar
Erker, D. (2012). Of Categories and Continua: Relating Discrete and Gradient Properties of Sociophonetic Variation. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, 18 (2), 11–20.Google Scholar
Ernestus, M. and Baayen, R. H. (2011). Corpora and Exemplars in Phonology. In Goldsmith, John A., Riggle, Jason, and Yu, Alan C. L. (eds.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory (2nd edn). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 374–400.Google Scholar
File-Muriel, R. J. (2009). The Role of Lexical Frequency in the Weakening of Syllable-Final Lexical /s/ in the Spanish of Barranquilla, Colombia. Hispania, 348–360.Google Scholar
File-Muriel, R. J. (2010). Lexical Frequency as a Scalar Variable in Explaining Variation. The Canadian Journal of Linguistics/La revue canadienne de linguistique, 55 (1), 1–25.Google Scholar
File-Muriel, R. J. and Brown, E. K. (2011). The Gradient Nature of s-Lenition in Caleño Spanish. Language Variation and Change, 23 (2), 223–243.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hinskens, F., Hermans, B., and van Oostendorp, M. (2014). Grammar or Lexicon. Or: Grammar and Lexicon? Rule-Based and Usage-Based Approaches to Phonological Variation. Lingua, 142, 1–26.Google Scholar
Hochberg, J. G. (1986). Functional Compensation for /s/ Deletion in Puerto Rican Spanish. Language, 62 (3), 609–621.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, D., Bell, A., Gregory, M., and Raymond, W. D. (2001). Probabilistic Relations between Words: Evidence from Reduction in Lexical Production. Typological Studies in Language, 45, 229–254.Google Scholar
Krishnamurti, B. (1998). Regularity of Sound Change through Lexical Diffusion: A Study of s> h> in Gondi Dialects. Language Variation and Change, 10 (2), 193–220.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1994). Principles of Linguistic Change: Internal Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lamy, D. S. (2015). A Sociophonetic Analysis of Trill Production in Panamanian Spanish. In Klassen, Rachel, Liceras, Juana M., and Valenzuela, Elena (eds.), Hispanic Linguistics at the Crossroads: Theoretical Linguistics, Language Acquisition and Language Contact. Proceedings of the Hispanic Linguistics Symposium 2013. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 313–336.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1, Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, G. and Boomershine, A. (2015). The Realization of Word-Final, Preconsonantal /s/ in the Spanish of Mexico City. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 8 (1), 157–182.Google Scholar
Linford, B. and Shin, N. L. (2013). Lexical Frequency Effects on L2 Spanish Subject Pronoun Expression. In Cabrelli Amaro, J., Lord, G., de Prada Pérez, A., and Aaron, J. E. (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 16th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla, pp. 175–189.Google Scholar
Lipski, J. (2011). Socio-Phonological Variation in Latin American Spanish. In Díaz-Campos, Manuel (ed.), The Handbook of Hispanic Sociolinguistics. Chichester: John Wiley, pp. 72–97.Google Scholar
Lynch, A. (2009). A Sociolinguistic Analysis of Final /s/ in Miami Cuban Spanish. Language Sciences, 31 (6), 766–790.Google Scholar
O’Rourke, E. and Potowski, K. (2016). Phonetic Accommodation in a Situation of Spanish Dialect Contact: Coda /s/ and /r̄/ in Chicago. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 9 (2), 355–399.Google Scholar
Phillips, B. S. (2006). Word Frequency and Lexical Diffusion. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. (2001). Exemplar dynamics: Word Frequency, Lenition and Contrast. In Bybee, J. and Hopper, P. (eds.), Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 137–157.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. (2006). Syllable Structure and Word Structure: A Study of Triconsonantal Clusters in English. In Keating, Patricia A. (ed.), Phonological Structure and Phonetic Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 168–188.Google Scholar
Poplack, S. (1980). Deletion and Disambiguation in Puerto Rican Spanish. Language, 371–385.Google Scholar
Poplack, S. and Tagliamonte, S. (2001). African American English in the Diaspora. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Poplack, S. and Torres Cacoullos, R. (2015). Linguistic Emergence on the Ground: A Variationist Paradigm. In MacWhinney, Brian and O’Grady, William (eds.), The Handbook of Language Emergence. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 267–291.Google Scholar
PRESEEA (2014– ). Corpus del Proyecto para el estudio sociolingüístico del español de España y de América. Universidad de Alcalá. preseea.linguas.net.Google Scholar
Ranson, D. L. (1991). Person Marking in the Wake of /s/ Deletion in Andalusian Spanish. Language Variation and Change, 3 (2), 133–152.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 Learning and Processing, Vol. 1. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 35–52.Google Scholar
Raymond, W. D., Brown, E. L., and Healy, A. F. (2016). Cumulative Context Effects and Variant Lexical Representations: Word Use and English Final t/d Deletion. Language Variation and Change, 28 (2), 175–202.Google Scholar
Rivas, J. (2013). Variable Subject Position in Main and Subordinate Clauses in Spanish: A Usage-Based Approach. Moenia. Revista Lucense de Lingüística y Literatura, 19, 97–113.Google Scholar
Rivas, J. and Brown, E. L. (2010). Variable Development of Intersubjectivity in Spanish. In Sánchez, Aquilino and Almela, Moisés (eds.), A Mosaic of Corpus Linguistics. Selected Approaches. Frankfurt and Berlin: Peter Lang, pp. 61–78.Google Scholar
Schuchardt, H. (1885). Über die Lautgesetze: Gegen die Junggrammatiker. Berlin: R. Oppenheim.Google Scholar
Shin, Naomi. (2016). Acquiring Constraints on Morphosyntactic Variation: Children’s Spanish Subject Pronoun Expression. Journal of Child Language, 43 (4), 914–947.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Torreira, F. and Ernestus, M. (2012). Weakening of Intervocalic /s/ in the Nijmegen Corpus of Casual Spanish. Phonetica, 69 (3), 124–148.Google Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, R. (2001). From Lexical to Grammatical to Social Meaning. Language in Society, 30 (3), 443–478.Google Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, R. (2015). Gradual Loss of Analyzability: Diachronic Priming Effects. In Adli, Aria, García, Marco García, and Kaufmann, Göz (eds.),Variation in Language: System- and Usage-Based Approaches. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 265–288.Google Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, R. and Travis, C. E. (in preparation). New Mexico Spanish / English Bilingual (NMSEB) corpus. Available from nmcode-switching.la.psu.edu/Google Scholar
Travis, C. E. and Torres Cacoullos, R. (2012). What do Subject Pronouns do in Discourse? Cognitive, Mechanical and Constructional Factors in Variation. Cognitive Linguistics, 23 (4), 711–748.Google Scholar
Waltermire, M. (2011). Frequency Effects on the Morphological Conditioning of Syllable-final /s/ Reduction in Border Uruguayan Spanish. Journal of Language Contact, 4 (1), 26–55.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. V. (2009). From “Remaining” to “Becoming” in Spanish. The Role of Prefabs in the Development of the Construction Quedar(se) + adjective. In Corrigan, Roberta, Moravcsik, Edith A., Ouali, Hamid, and Wheatley, Kathleen (eds.), Formulaic Language, Vol. 1: Distribution and Historical Change. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 273–296.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. V. and Dumont, J. (2015). The Emergent Grammar of Bilinguals: The Spanish Verb hacer “do” with a Bare English Infinitive. International Journal of Bilingualism, 19 (4), 444–458.Google Scholar
Zipf, G. K. (1929). Relative Frequency as a Determinant of Phonetic Change. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, 40, 1–95.Google Scholar
References
Aissen, Judith. (2003). Differential Object Marking: Iconicity vs. Economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21, 435–448.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. (2007). Typology in the 21st Century: Major Current Developments. Linguistic Typology, 11, 239–251.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. (2015). Distributional Typology: Statistical Inquiries into the Dynamics of Linguistic Diversity. In Heine, Bernd and Narrog, Heiko (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis (2nd edn). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 901–923.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. (1960). Linguistic Science and Linguistic Engineering. Word, 16, 374–391.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. (1961). Syntactic Blends and Other Matters. Language, 37: 3, 366–381.Google Scholar
Brown, Esther and Cortés-Torres, Mayra. (2012). Syntactic and Pragmatic Usage of the [estar + Adjective] Construction in Puerto Rican Spanish: ¡Está brutal! In Geeslin, Kimberly and Díaz-Campos, Manuel (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 14th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla, pp. 61–74.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. (2006). From Usage to Grammar: The Mind’s Response to Repetition. Language, 82 (4), 711–733.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan and Eddington, David. (2006). A Usage-Based Approach to Spanish Verbs of “Becoming.” Language, 82 (2), 323–355.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. (1970). Meaning and the Structure of Language. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Clements, J. C. (2006a). Primary and Secondary Object Marking in Spanish. In Clements, J. C. and Yoon, J. (eds.), Functional Approaches to Spanish Syntax: Lexical Semantics, Discourse and Transitivity. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 115–133.Google Scholar
Clements, J. C. (2006b). Ser–estar in the Predicate Adjective Construction. In Clements, J. C. and Yoon, J. (eds.), Functional Approaches to Spanish Syntax: Lexical Semantics, Discourse and Transitivity. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 161–202.Google Scholar
Clements, J. C. (2006c). Transitivity and Spanish Non-Anaphoric se. In Clements, J. C. and Yoon, J. (eds.), Functional Approaches to Spanish Syntax: Lexical Semantics, Discourse and Transitivity. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 236–264.Google Scholar
Company Company, C. (2012). Historical Morphosyntax and Grammaticalization. In Hualde, J. I., Olarrea, A., and O’Rourke, E. (eds.), The Handbook of Hispanic Linguistics. Malden, MA: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 673–692.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. (1981). Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. (1993). Argument Structure. In Jacobs, Joachim, von Stechow, Arnim, Sternefeld, Wolfgang, and Vennemann, Theo (eds.), Syntax: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research, Vol. 1. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 903–914.Google Scholar
Croft, William. (1993). Case Marking and the Semantics of Mental Verbs. In Pustejovsky, James (ed.), Semantics and the Lexicon. Boston, MA and London: Kluwer, pp. 55–72.Google Scholar
Croft, William. (2003). Typology and Universals (2nd edn). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William. (2016). Comparative Concepts and Language-Specific Categories: Theory and Practice. Linguistic Typology, 20 (2), 377–393. doi:10.1515/lingty-2016–0012.Google Scholar
Croft, William and Poole, K. T. (2008). Inferring Universals from Grammatical Variation: Multidimensional Scaling for Typological Analysis. Theoretical Linguistics, 34, 1–37.Google Scholar
Curnow, Timothy and Travis, Catherine. (2008). Locational Adverbs in Non-Spatial Settings: The Case of ahí in Colombian Spanish Conversations. In Curnow, Timothy Jowan (ed.), Selected Papers from the 2007 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society, pp. 1–15. www.als.asn.au.Google Scholar
Dahl, Eystein and Fedriani, Chiara. (2012). The Argument Structure of Experience: Experiential Constructions in Early Vedic, Homeric Greek, and Early Latin. Transactions of the Philological Society, 110 (3), 342–362.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. 2011. Grammaticalization and Syntax: A Functional View. In Heine, Bernd and Narrog, Heiko (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. London: Oxford University Press, pp. 365–377.Google Scholar
Delbecque, Nicole and Maldonado, Ricardo. (2009). Ya. Ancla conceptual de una visión programática. In Puig, Luisa (ed.), El discurso y sus espejos. Mexico City: Siglo XXI, pp. 189–235.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C. (1972). Coordination: Its Implications for the Theory of General Linguistics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C. (1997). The Theory of Functional Grammar: Part 1. The Structure of the Clause, ed. Hengeveld, Kees. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Donohue, Mark, Wichmann, Søren, and Albu, Mihai. (2008). Typology, Areality, and Diffusion. Oceanic Linguistics, 47 (1), 223–232.Google Scholar
Dowty, David R. (1991). Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection. Language 67, (3), 547–619. doi: 10.2307/415037.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew. (2006). Functionalism and the Metalanguage–Theory Confusion. In Wiebe, Grace, Libben, Gary, Priestly, Tom, Smyth, Ron, and Wang, Sam (eds.), Phonology, Morphology, and the Empirical Imperative: Papers in Honour of Bruce Derwing. Taipei: Crane, pp. 27–59.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew. (2007). Clause Types. In Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. 1: Clause Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 224–275.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. (2016). Crosslinguistic Categories, Comparative Concepts, and the Walman Diminutive. Linguistic Typology, 20 (2), 305–331. doi: 10.1515/lingty-2016–0009.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. and Haspelmath, Martin (eds.) (2013). The World Atlas of Language Structures (WALS). Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://wals.info/.Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W. (1980). Beyond Definiteness: The Trace of Identity in Discourse. In Chafe, Wallace L. (ed.), The Pear Stories: Cognitive, Cultural, and Linguistic Aspects of Narrative Production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 203–274.Google Scholar
Dumitrescu, Domnita. (1997). El parámetro discursivo en la expresión del objeto directo lexical: español madrileño vs. español porteño. Signo y Seña, 7, 305–354.Google Scholar
Dumont, Jenny. (2013). Another Look at the Present Perfect in an Andean Variety of Spanish: Grammaticalization and Evidentiality in Quiteño Spanish. In Amaro, Jennifer Cabrelli et al. (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 16th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla, pp. 279–291.Google Scholar
Dunn, Michael J., Terrill, Angela, Reesink, Ger P., Foley, Robert A., and Levinson, Stephen C. (2005). Structural Phylogenetics and the Reconstruction of Ancient Language History. Science, 309, 2072–2075.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. (ed.) (2002). Ethnosyntax: Explorations in Grammar and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Escobar, Anna María. (2012). Spanish in Contact with Amerindian Languages. In Hualde, José Ignacio, Olarrea, Antxon, and O’Rourke, Erin (eds.), The Handbook of Hispanic Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 65–88.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. (2003). Context, Culture, and Structuration in the Languages of Australia. Annual Review of Anthropology, 32, 13–40.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. (2007). Insubordination and its Uses. In Nikolaeva, Irina (ed.), Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 366–431.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas and Levinson, Stephen C. (2009). The Myth of Language Universals: Language Diversity and its Importance for Cognitive Science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, (5), 429–448.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas and Watanabe, Honoré. (2016). Insubordination. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins .Google Scholar
Geeslin, Kimberly and Guijarro-Fuentes, Pedro. (2008). Variation in Contemporary Spanish: Linguistic Predictors of estar in Four Cases of Language Contact. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11, (3), 365–380.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1981). Typology and Functional Domains. Studies in Language, 5 (1), 163–193.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1985). Iconicity, Isomorphism and Non-Arbitrary Coding in Language in Syntax. In Haiman, J. (ed.), Iconicity in Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 187–219.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (2008). The Genesis of Syntactic Complexity: Diachrony, Ontogeny, Neuro-Cognition, Evolution. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. (1995). Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
González Fernández, María and Maldonado, Ricardo. (2006). Syntactic Determinants of Pragmatic Markers of Closure. In Cornillie, Bert and Delbecque, Nicole (eds.), Pragmaticalization and Modalization in Language and Discourse. Special Issue of the Belgian Journal of Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 19–44.Google Scholar
Gras, Pedro. (2016). Revisiting the Functional Typology of Insubordination: Insubordinate que-Constructions in Spanish. In Evans, Nicholas and Watanabe, Honoré (eds.), Insubordination. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 113–144.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. (ed.) (1966). Universals of Language (2nd edn). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael. (1961). Categories of the Theory of Grammar. Word, 17 (3), 241–292.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. (2010). Comparative Concepts and Descriptive Categories in Cross-Linguistic Studies. Language, 86, 663–687.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. (2016). The Challenge of Making Language Description and Comparison Mutually Beneficial. Linguistic Typology, 20 (2), 299–303. doi:10.1515/lingty-2016–0008.Google Scholar
Hennemann, Anja. (2015). A Constructionist Approach to the Development of the Spanish Topic Marker en cuanto a “in terms of.” Constructions, 2015 (1), 1–13. www.constructions-journal.com.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. (2016). What about Typology Is Useful for Language Documentation? Linguistic Typology, 20 (3) 473–478. doi: 10.1515/lingty-2016–0020.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul (1979). Aspect and Foregrounding in Discourse. In Givón, Talmy (ed.), Discourse and Syntax, Syntax and Semantics. New York: Academic Press, pp. 213–241.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul (1987). Emergent Grammar. In Aske, Jon, Beery, Natasha, Michaelis, Laura, and Filip, Hana (eds.), Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: University of California at Berkeley, pp. 139–157.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul and Thompson, Sandra. (1980). Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse. Language, 56 (2), 251–299.Google Scholar
Iggesen, Oliver A. (2013). Asymmetrical Case-Marking. In Dryer, Matthew S. and Haspelmath, Martin (eds.), WALS Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available from wals.info/chapter/50 (last access May 19, 2017).Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. and Comrie, Bernard. (1977). Noun Phrase Accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 63–99.Google Scholar
Laca, Brenda. (2002). Gramaticalización y variabilidad – propiedades inherentes y factores contextuales en la evolución del acusativo preposicional en español. In Wesch, Andreas, Weidenbusch, Waltraud, Kailuweit, Rolf, and Laca, Brenda (eds.), Sprachgeschichte als Varietätengeschichte/Historia de las variedades lingüísticas. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, pp. 195–203.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1985). Observations and Speculations on Subjectivity. In Haiman, J. (ed.), Iconicity in Syntax. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 109–150.Google Scholar
LaPolla, Randy J. (2016). On Categorization: Stick to the Facts of the Languages. Linguistic Typology, 20 (2), 365–375. doi:10.1515/lingty-2016–0011.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. (2003). Space in Language and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
López Meirama, B. (2006). Semantic and Discourse-Pragmatic Factors in Spanish Word Order. In Clements, J. C. and Yoon, J. (eds.), Functional Approaches to Spanish Syntax: Lexical Semantics, Discourse and Transitivity. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 7–52.Google Scholar
Michael, Lev, Chang, Will, and Stark, Tammy. (2014). Exploring Phonological Areality in the Circum-Andean Region Using a Naive Bayes Classifier. Language Dynamics and Change, 4 (1), 27–86. doi:10.1163/22105832–00401004.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Susanne Maria, Maurer, Philippe, Haspelmath, Martin, and Huber, Magnus (eds.). (2013). The Atlas of Pidgin and Creole Language Structures (APiCS). Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. http://apics-online.info/.Google Scholar
Miglio, Viola, Gries, Stefan Th., Harris, Michael J., Wheeler, Eva M., and Santana-Paixão, Raquel. (2013). Spanish lo(s)–le(s) Clitic Alternations in Psych Verbs: A Multifactorial Corpus-Based Analysis. In Amaro, Jennifer Cabrelli, Lord, Gillian, de Prada Pérez, Ana, and Aaron, Jessi Elana (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 16th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla, pp. 268–278.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. (1997). Modeling Ancient Population Structures and Population Movement in Linguistics and Archeology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 26, 359–384.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. (2007). What, if Anything, is Typology? Linguistic Typology, 11, 231–238.Google Scholar
Ocampo, F. (2009). Mirá: From Verb to Discourse Particle in Rioplatense Spanish. In Collentine, J. et al. (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 11th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla, pp. 254–267.Google Scholar
Olarrea, A. (2012). Word Order and Information Structure. In Hualde, J. I., Olarrea, A., and O’Rourke, E. (eds.), The Handbook of Hispanic Linguistics. Malden, MA: John Wiley and Son, pp. 603–628.Google Scholar
Otheguy, Ricardo. (2011). Functional Adaptation and Conceptual Convergence in the Analysis of Language Contact in the Spanish of Bilingual Communities in New York. In Díaz-Campos, Manuel Antonio (ed.), Handbook of Hispanic Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 504–529.Google Scholar
Otheguy, Ricardo. (2014). Remarks on Pronominal Perseveration and Functional Explanation. In Enrique-Arias, Andrés, Gutiérrez, Manuel, Landa, Alazne, and Ocampo, Francisco (eds.), Perspectives in the Study of Spanish Language Variation, pp. 373–397. http://dx.doi.org/10.15304/va.2014.701Google Scholar
Otheguy, Ricardo and Lapidus, Naomi. (2003). An Adaptive Approach to Noun Gender in New York Contact Spanish. In Cameron, Richard, López, Luis and Núñez-Cedeño, Rafael (eds.), A Romance Perspective on Language Knowledge and Use. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 209–229Google Scholar
Payne, Doris L. (1999). What Counts as Explanation? A Functionalist Approach to Word Order. In Darnell, Michael, Moravcsik, Edith, Newmeyer, Frederick, Noonan, Michael, and Wheatley, Kathleen (eds.), Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 137–165.Google Scholar
Schwenter, Scott. (2006). Null Objects across South America. In Face, T. and Klee, C. A. (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 8th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium Somerville, MA: Cascadilla, pp. 23–36.Google Scholar
Schwenter, Scott. (2016). Independent si-Clauses in Spanish: Functions and Consequences for Insubordination. In Evans, Nicholas and Watanabe, Honore (eds.), Insubordination. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 89–112.Google Scholar
Shin, Naomi L. (2014). Grammatical Complexification in Spanish in New York: 3sg Pronoun Expression and Verbal Ambiguity. Language Variation and Change, 26 (3), 303–330.Google Scholar
Smolensky, P. (2006). Harmony in Linguistic Cognition. Cognitive Science, 30, 779–801.Google Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, Rena. (2001). From Lexical to Grammatical to Social Meaning. Language in Society, 30 (3), 443–478.Google Scholar
Travis, Catherine. (2005). Discourse Markers in Colombian Spanish: A Study in Polysemy. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Travis, Catherine and Torres Cacoullos, Rena. (2012). Discourse Syntax. In Hualde, J. I., Olarrea, A., and O’Rourke, E. (eds.), The Handbook of Hispanic Linguistics. Malden, MA: John Wiley and Son, pp. 653–672.Google Scholar
Vallejos, Rosa. (2014). Peruvian Amazonian Spanish: Uncovering Variation and Deconstructing Stereotypes. Spanish in Context, 11 (3), 425–453.Google Scholar
Vázquez Rozas, Victoria. (2012). Construyendo emociones: sintaxis, frecuencia y función comunicativa. In Jiménez, T., López Meirama, B., Vázquez Rozas, V., and Veiga, A. (eds.), Cum corde et in nova grammatica. Estudios ofrecidos a Guillermo Rojo. Santiago de Compostela: USC Editor, pp. 841–854.Google Scholar
Wilson, Damián V. (2013). One Construction, Two Source Languages: hacer with an English Infinitive in Bilingual Discourse. In Carvalho, A. M. and Beaudrie, S. (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Spanish Sociolinguistics. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla, pp. 123–134.Google Scholar
References
Altmann, G. T. and Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental Interpretation at Verbs: Restricting the Domain of Subsequent Reference. Cognition, 73 (3), 247–264.Google Scholar
Altmann, G. and Steedman, M. (1988). Interaction with Context during Human Sentence Processing. Cognition, 30 (3), 191–238.Google Scholar
Arai, M. and Keller, F. (2013). The Use of Verb-Specific Information for Prediction in Sentence Processing. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28 (4), 525–560.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I., and Luk, G. (2012). Bilingualism: Consequences for Mind and Brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16 (4), 240–250.Google Scholar
Carreiras, M. and Duñabeitia, J. A. (2012). Reading Words and Sentences in Spanish. In Hualde, José Ignacio, Olarrea, Antxon, and O’Rourke, Erin (eds.), The Handbook of Hispanic Linguistics. New York: Blackwell, pp. 803–818.Google Scholar
Carreiras, M., Perea, M., and Grainger, J. (1997). Effects of the Orthographic Neighborhood in Visual Word Recognition: Cross-Task Comparisons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23 (4), 857–871.Google Scholar
Casaponsa, A., Carreiras, M., and Duñabeitia, J. A. (2014). Discriminating Languages in Bilingual Contexts: The Impact of Orthographic Markedness. Frontiers in Psychology, 5 (May), 424. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00424Google Scholar
Clark, A. (2013). Whatever Next? Predictive Brains, Situated Agents, and the Future of Cognitive Science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36 (03), 181–204.Google Scholar
Colzato, L. S., Bajo, M. T., van den Wildenberg, W., Paolieri, D., Nieuwenhuis, S., La Heij, W., and Hommel, B. (2008). How Does Bilingualism Improve Executive Control? A Comparison of Active and Reactive Inhibition Mechanisms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 302–312.Google Scholar
Costa, A., La Heij, W., and Navarrete, E. (2006). The Dynamics of Bilingual Lexical Access. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9 (2), 137–151.Google Scholar
Cuetos, F. and Mitchell, D. C. (1988). Cross-Linguistic Differences in Parsing: Restrictions on the Use of the Late Closure Strategy in Spanish. Cognition, 30, 73–105.Google Scholar
Cutler, A., Weber, A., and Otake, T. (2006). Asymmetric Mapping from Phonetic to Lexical Representations in Second-Language Listening. Journal of Phonetics, 34 (2), 269–284.Google Scholar
Dallas, A. C., DeDe, G., and Nicol, J. (2013). An Event-Related-Potential (ERP) Investigation of Filler-Gap Processing in Native and Second Language Learners. Language Learning, 63, 766–799.Google Scholar
Davies, R., Barbón, A., and Cuetos, F. (2013). Lexical and Semantic Age-of-Acquisition Effects on Word Naming in Spanish. Journal of Memory and Language, 41 (2), 297–311.Google Scholar
Davies, S. K., Izura, C., Socas, R., and Domínguez, A. (2016). Age of Acquisition and Imageability Norms for Base and Morphologically Complex Words in English and in Spanish. Behavior Research Methods, 48 (1), 349–365.Google Scholar
Dekydtspotter, L. and Renaud, C. (2014). On Second Language Processing and Grammatical Development: The Parser in Second Language Acquisition. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 4 (2), 131–165.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 (8), 1117–1121.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, T., Miwa, K., Brummelhuis, B., Sappelli, M., and Baayen, H. (2010). How Cross-Language Similarity and Task Demands Affect Cognate Recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 62 (3), 284–301.Google Scholar
Dijkstra, T. and van Heuven, W. J. (2002). Modeling Bilingual Word Recognition: Past, Present and Future. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 5 (3), 219–224.Google Scholar
Dikker, S., Rabagliati, H., Farmer, T. A., and Pylkkänen, L. (2010). Early Occipital Sensitivity to Syntactic Category is Based on Form Typicality. Psychological Science, 21 (5), 629–634.Google Scholar
Duñabeitia, J. A., Cholin, J., Corral, J., Perea, M., and Carreiras, M. (2010). SYLLABARIUM: An Online Application for Deriving Complete Statistics for Basque and Spanish Orthographic Syllables. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 118–125.Google Scholar
Duñabeitia, J. A., Perea, M., and Carreiras, M. (2007). Do Transposed-Letter Similarity Effects Occur at a Morpheme Level? Evidence for Morpho-Orthographic Decomposition. Cognition, 105 (3), 691–703.Google Scholar
Duñabeitia, J. A. and Vidal-Abarca, E. (2008). Children like Dense Neighborhoods: Orthographic Neighborhood Density Effects In Novel Readers. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 11 (1), 26–35.Google Scholar
Dussias, P. E. (2004). Parsing a First Language like a Second: The Erosion of L1 Parsing Strategies in Spanish–English Bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingualism, 8 (3), 355–371.Google Scholar
Dussias, P. E. and Sagarra, N. (2007). The Effect of Exposure on Syntactic Parsing in Spanish–English Bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 101–116.Google Scholar
Dussias, P., Valdés Kroff, J. R., Guzzardo Tamargo, R. E., and Gerfen, C. (2013). When Gender and Looking Go Hand in Hand. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 35, 353–387.Google Scholar
Dussias, P. E. and Piñar, P. (2010). Effects of Reading Span and Plausibility in the Reanalysis of wh-Gaps by Chinese–English Second Language Speakers. Second Language Research, 26 (4), 443–472.Google Scholar
Eberhard, K. M., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Sedivy, J. C., and Tanenhaus, M. K. (1995). Eye Movements as a Window into Real-Time Spoken Language Comprehension in Natural Contexts. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 24 (6), 409–436.Google Scholar
Elman, J. L. (1993). Learning and Development in Neural Networks: The Importance of Starting Small. Cognition, 48 (1), 71–99.Google Scholar
Farmer, T. A., Christiansen, M. H., and Monaghan, P. (2006). Phonological Typicality Influences On-Line Sentence Comprehension. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103 (32), 12203–12208.Google Scholar
Farmer, T. A., Misyak, J. B., Christiansen, M. H., Spivey, M., Joannisse, M., and McRae, K. (2012). Individual Differences in Sentence Processing. In Sprivey, M., Joanisse, M., and McRae, K. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Psycholinguistics. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 353–364.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F. (2003). The Misinterpretation of Noncanonical Sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 164–203.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F. and Patson, N. D. (2007). The “Good Enough” Approach to Language Comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass, 1, 71–83.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. (1983). The Modularity of Mind: An Essay on Faculty Psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Foucart, A., Martin, C. D., Moreno, E. M., and Costa, A. (2014). Can Bilinguals See it Coming? Word Anticipation in L2 Sentence Reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, pp. 1461–1469.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. (1978). On Comprehending Sentences: Syntactic Parsing Strategies. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. (1987). Sentence Processing: A Tutorial Review. In Coltheart, M. (ed.), The Psychology of Reading. Attention and Performance, Vol. 12. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 559–586.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. (2013). Syntax in Sentence Processing. In van Gompel, R. P. G. (ed.), Sentence Processing. London: Psychology Press, pp. 21–50.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. and Clifton, C. (1989). Successive Cyclicity in the Grammar and the Parser. Language and Cognitive Processes, 4 (2), 93–126.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. and Rayner, K. (1982). Making and Correcting Errors during Sentence Comprehension: Eye Movements in the Analysis of Structurally Ambiguous Sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 14 (2), 178–210.Google Scholar
Freeman, M. R., Blumenfeld, H. K., and Marian, V. (2016). Phonotactic Constraints Are Activated across Languages in Bilinguals. Frontiers in Psychology 7, 702.Google Scholar
Gollan, T. H., Forster, K. I., and Frost, R. (1997). Translation Priming with Different Scripts: Masked Priming with Cognates and Non-Cognates in Hebrew–English Bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 1122–1139.Google Scholar
González-Nosti, M., Barbón, A., Rodríguez-Ferreiro, J., and Cuetos, F. (2014). Effects of the Psycholinguistic Variables on the Lexical Decision Task in Spanish: A Study with 2,765 Words. Behavior Research Methods, 46 (2), 517–525.Google Scholar
Green, D. W. and Abutalebi, J. (2013). Language Control in Bilinguals: The Adaptive Control Hypothesis. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25, 515–530.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F. (2001). The Bilingual’s Language Modes. In Nicol, J. (ed.), One Mind, Two Languages: Bilingual Language Processing. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 1–22. Also in Wei, Li (ed.), The Bilingual Reader (2nd edn). London: Routledge, 2007, pp. 428–449.Google Scholar
Grüter, T., Lew-Williams, C., and Fernald, A. (2012). Grammatical Gender in L2: A Production or a Real-Time Processing Problem? Second Language Research, 28, 191–215.Google Scholar
Grüter, T., Rohde, H., and Shafer, A. (2017). Coreference and Discourse Coherence in L2: The Roles of Grammatical Aspect and Referential Form. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 7 (2), 199–229.Google Scholar
Guasch, M., Boada, R., Ferré, P., and Sánchez-Casas, R. (2013). NIM: A Web-Based Swiss Army Knife to Select Stimuli for Psycholinguistic Studies. Behavior Research Methods, 45 (3), 765–771.Google Scholar
Gullifer, J. W., Kroll, J. F., and Dussias, P. E. (2013). When Language Switching has no Apparent Cost: Lexical Access in Sentence Context. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 278.Google Scholar
Heredia, R. R. and Altarriba, J. (eds.). (2013). Foundations of Bilingual Memory. New York: Springer Science and Business Media.Google Scholar
Hernández, M., Costa, A., Fuentes, L. J., Vivas, A. B., and Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2010). The Impact of Bilingualism on the Executive Control and Orienting Networks of Attention. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13 (3), 315–325.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. (2006). Syntactic Features and Reanalysis in Near-Native Processing. Second Language Research, 22 (3), 369–397.Google Scholar
Hoover, M. L. and Dwivedi, V. D. (1998). Syntactic Processing by Skilled Bilinguals. Language Learning, 48 (1), 1–29.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. (2013). Grammatical Gender in Adult L2 Acquisition: Relations between Lexical and Syntactic Variability. Second Language Research, 29, 33–56.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. (2014). Working Memory Effects on the L2 Processing of Ambiguous Relative Clauses. Language Acquisition, 21, 250–278.Google Scholar
Hopp, H. (2016). The Timing of Lexical and Syntactic Processes in Second Language Sentence Comprehension. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37 (5), 1253–1280.Google Scholar
Jackson, C. (2008). Proficiency Level and the Interaction of Lexical and Morphosyntactic Information during L2 Sentence Processing. Language Learning, 58, 875–909.Google Scholar
Jegerski, J. (2012). The Processing of Subject–Object Ambiguities in Native and Near-Native Mexican Spanish. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15 (4), 721–735.Google Scholar
Jegerski, J. and VanPatten, B. (2013). Research Methods in Second Language Psycholinguistics. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ju, M. and Luce, P. A. (2004). Falling on Sensitive Ears. Psychological Science, 15, 314–318.Google Scholar
Juffs, A. (2004). Representation, Processing and Working Memory in a Second Language. Transactions of the Philological Society, 102, 199–225.Google Scholar
Juffs, A. (2005). The Influence of First Language on the Processing of wh-Movement in English as a Second Language. Second Language Research, 21, 121–151.Google Scholar
Just, M. A. and Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A Capacity Theory of Comprehension: Individual Differences in Working Memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122–149.Google Scholar
Kaan, E. (2014). Predictive Sentence Processing in L2 and L1: What is Different? Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 4 (2), 257–282.Google Scholar
Kamide, Y., Altmann, G. T., and Haywood, S. L. (2003). The Time-Course of Prediction in Incremental Sentence Processing: Evidence from Anticipatory Eye Movements. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 133–156.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F., and Dussias, P. E. (2004). The Comprehension of Words and Sentences in Two Languages. In Bhatia, T. K. and Ritchie, W. C. (eds.), The Handbook of Bilingualism. Malden, MA: Wiley, pp. 169–200.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F., Dussias, P. E., Bogulski, C. A., and Valdés Kroff, J. (2012). Juggling Two Languages in One Mind: What Bilinguals Tell us about Language Processing and its Consequences for Cognition. In Ross, B. (ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Vol. 56. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 229–262.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F. and Stewart, E. (1994). Category Interference in Translation and Picture Naming: Evidence for Asymmetric Connections between Bilingual Memory Representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 149–174.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F. and Tokowicz, N. (2005). Models of Bilingual Representation and Processing: Looking Back and to the Future. In Kroll, J. F. and de Groot, A. M. B. (eds.), Handbook of Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Approaches. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 531–553.Google Scholar
Kroll, J., van Hell, J. G., Tokowicz, N., and Green, D. W. (2010). The Revised Hierarchical Model: A Critical Review and Assessment. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13 (3), 373–381.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, M. (ed.). Predictions in the Brain: Using Our Past to Generate a Future. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 190–207.Google Scholar
Leal, T., Slabakova, R., and Farmer, T. A. (2017). The Fine-Tuning of Linguistic Expectations over the Course of L2 Learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39 (3), 493–525.Google Scholar
Levy, R. (2008). Expectation-Based Syntactic Comprehension. Cognition, 106 (3), 1126–1177.Google Scholar
Lew-Williams, C. and Fernald, A. (2010). Real-Time Processing of Gender-Marked Articles by Native and Non-Native Spanish Speakers. Journal of Memory and Language, 63 (4), 447–464.Google Scholar
Li, P. and Zhao, X. (2014). Connectionist Bilingual Representation. In Heredia, R. R. and Altarriba, J. (eds.), Foundations of Bilingual Memory. New York: Springer, pp. 63–84.Google Scholar
Lim, J. H. and Christianson, K. (2013). Second Language Sentence Processing in Reading for Comprehension and Translation. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 518–537.Google Scholar
Lim, J. H. and Christianson, K. (2015). Second Language Sensitivity to Agreement Errors: Evidence from Eye Movements during Comprehension and Translation. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36 (6), 1283–1315.Google Scholar
MacDonald, M. C. (1994). Probabilistic Constraints and Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution. Language and Cognitive Processes, 9, 157–201.Google Scholar
MacDonald, M. C. and Christiansen, M. H. (2002). Reassessing Working Memory: A Comment on Just and Carpenter (1992) and Waters and Caplan (1996). Psychological Review, 109, 35–54.Google Scholar
MacDonald, M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., and Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). The Lexical Nature of Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution. Psychological Review, 101, 676–703.Google Scholar
Macizo, P., Bajo, T., and Cruz Martín, M. (2010). Inhibitory Processes in Bilingual Language Comprehension: Evidence from Spanish–English Interlexical Homographs. Journal of Memory and Language, 63 (2), 232–244.Google Scholar
Marian, V. and Spivey, M. J. (2003). Competing Activation in Bilingual Language Processing: Within- and Between-Language Competition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6, 97–115.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1975). Sentence Perception as an Interactive Parallel Process. Science, 189 (4198), 226–228.Google Scholar
Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (1990). Activation, Competition and Frequency in Lexical Access. In Altman, G. (ed.), Cognitive Models of Speech Processing: Psycholinguistic and Computational Perspectives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 148–172.Google Scholar
Martin, C. D., Thierry, G., Kuipers, J. R., Boutonnet, B., Foucart, A., and Costa, A. (2013). Bilinguals Reading in their Second Language do not Predict Upcoming Words as Native Readers do. Journal of Memory and Language, 69 (4), 574–588.Google Scholar
McClelland, J. L. and Elman, J. L. (1986). The TRACE Model of Speech Perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 1–86.Google Scholar
McRae, K. and Matsuki, K. (2013). Constraint-Based Models of Sentence Processing. In van Gompel, R. P. G. (ed.), Sentence Processing. London: Psychology Press, pp. 51–77.Google Scholar
McRae, K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., and Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Modeling the Influence of Thematic Fit (and Other Constraints) in On-Line Sentence Comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language, 38 (3), 283–312.Google Scholar
Morton, J. (1979). Facilitation in Word Recognition: Experiments Causing Change in the Logogen Model. In Kolers, P., Wrolstad, M. E., and Bouma, H. (eds.), Processing of Visible Language. New York: Springer, pp. 259–268.Google Scholar
Miyake, A., Carpenter, P., and Just, M. (1994). A Capacity Approach to Syntactic Comprehension Disorders: Making Normal Adults Perform like Aphasic Patients. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 11, 671–717.Google Scholar
Morales, J., Gómez-Ariza, C. J., and Bajo, M. T. (2013). Dual Mechanisms of Cognitive Control in Bilinguals and Monolinguals. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25 (5), 531–546.Google Scholar
Müller, O., Duñabeitia, J. A., and Carreiras, M. (2010). Orthographic and Associative Neighborhood Density Effects: What is Shared, what is Different? Psychophysiology, 47 (3), 455–466.Google Scholar
Norris, D. and McQueen, J. M. (2008). Shortlist B: A Bayesian Model of Continuous Speech Recognition. Psychological Review, 115, 357–395.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J. (1994). Processing Local and Unbounded Dependencies: A Unified Account. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 23 (4), 323–352.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J. and Traxler, M. J. (2003). Evidence against the Use of Subcategorisation Frequency in the Processing of Unbounded Dependencies. Language and Cognitive Processes, 18 (4), 469–503.Google Scholar
Prior, A. and Gollan, T. (2011). Good Language Switchers Are Good Task Switchers: Evidence from Spanish–English and Mandarin–English Bilinguals. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 17, 682–691.Google Scholar
Roberts, L. (2013). Sentence Processing in Bilinguals. In van Gompel, R. P. G. (ed.), Sentence Processing. London: Psychology Press, pp. 221–246.Google Scholar
Rodríguez, G. A. (2008). Second Language Sentence Processing: Is it Fundamentally Different? (Doctoral dissertation). University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
Schwartz, A. I. and Arêas da Luz Fontes, A. B. (2008). Cross-Language Mediated Priming: Effects of Context and Lexical Relationship. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11, 1–16.Google Scholar
Schwartz, A. I. and Kroll, J. F. (2006). Bilingual Lexical Activation in Sentence Context. Journal of Memory and Language, 55 (2), 197–212.Google Scholar
Sebastián Gallés, N., Carreiras, M. F., Cuetos, F., and Martí, M. A. (2000). LEXESP. Léxico informatizado del español. Barcelona: Edicions de la Universitat de Barcelona. [CD-ROM]Google Scholar
Shook, A. and Marian, V. (2012). The Bilingual Language Interaction Network for Comprehension of Speech. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16 (2), 304–324. doi: 10.1017/S1366728912000466.Google Scholar
Spivey, M. J. and Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution in Discourse: Modeling the Effects of Referential Context and Lexical Frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24 (6), 1521.Google Scholar
Staub, A. and Clifton, C. Jr (2006). Syntactic Prediction in Language Comprehension: Evidence from “either … or.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32 (2), 425.Google Scholar
Steedman, M. J. (1989). Grammar, Interpretation, and Processing from the Lexicon. In Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (ed.), Lexical Representation and Process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 463–504.Google Scholar
Sunderman, G. L. and Fancher, E. (2013). Lexical Access in Bilinguals and Second Language Learners. In Schwieter, J. (ed.), Innovative Research and Practices in Second Language Acquisition and Bilingualism. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 267–286.Google Scholar
Tabor, W. and Tanenhaus, M. K. (1999). Dynamical Models of Sentence Processing. Cognitive Science, 23 (4), 491–515.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 (5217), 1632.Google Scholar
Tanenhaus, M. K. and Trueswell, J. C. (1995). Sentence Comprehension. In Miller, J. L. and Eimas, P. D. (eds.), Speech, Language, and Communication. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 217–262.Google Scholar
Townsend, D. J., and Bever, T. G. (2001). Sentence Comprehension: The Integration of Habits and Rules. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
van Gompel, R. P. G. (2013). Sentence Processing: An Introduction. In van Gompel, R. P. G. (ed.), Sentence Processing. London: Psychology Press, pp. 1–20.Google Scholar
van Gompel, R. P. G., Pickering, M. J., and Traxler, M. J. (2000). Unrestricted Race: A New Model of Syntactic Ambiguity Resolution. In Kennedy, A., Radach, R., Heller, D., and Pynte, J. (eds.), Reading as a Perceptual Process. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 621–648.Google Scholar
van Gompel, R. P. G., Pickering, M. J., and Traxler, M. J. (2001). Reanalysis in Sentence Processing: Evidence against Current Constraint-Based and Two-Stage Models. Journal of Memory and Language, 45 (2), 225–258.Google Scholar
van Hell, J. G. and Dijkstra, T. (2002). Foreign Language Knowledge can Influence Native Language Performance in Exclusively Native Contexts. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9 (4), 780–789.Google Scholar
van Kesteren, R., Dijkstra, T., and de Smedt, K. (2012). Markedness Effects in Norwegian–English Bilinguals: Task-Dependent Use of Language-Specific Letters and Bigrams. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (Hove), 65 (11), 2129–2154. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2012.679946Google Scholar
Vitevitch, M. S. and Rodríguez, E. (2005). Neighbourhood Density Effects in Spoken Word Recognition in Spanish. Journal of Multilingual Communication Disorders, 3, 64–73.Google Scholar
Vitevitch, M. S., Stamer, M. K., and Kieweg, D. (2012). The Beginning Spanish Lexicon: A Web-Based Interface to Calculate Phonological Similarity among Spanish Words in Adults Learning Spanish as a Foreign Language. Second Language Research, 28 (1), 103–112. doi:10.1177/0267658311432199Google Scholar
Weber, A. and Scharenborg, O. (2012). Models of Spoken-Word Recognition. WIREs Cognitive Science, 3, 387–401. doi: 10.1002/wcs.1178.Google Scholar
Wicha, N. 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 (7), 1272–1288.Google Scholar
References
Aaron, J. E. (2006). Variation and Change in Spanish Future Temporal Expression (Doctoral dissertation). University of New Mexico.Google Scholar
Aaron, J. E. (2010). Pushing the Envelope: Looking beyond the Variable Context. Language Variation and Change, 22 (1), 1–36.Google Scholar
Alameda, J. R. and Cuetos, F. (1995). Diccionario de frecuencias de las unidades lingüísticas del español. Oviedo: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Oviedo.Google Scholar
Anthony, L. (2013). A Critical Look at Software Tools in Corpus Linguistics. Linguistic Research, 30 (2), 141–161.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), 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 (2), 131–59.Google Scholar
Blas Arroyo, J. L. (2008). The Variable Expression of Future Tense in Peninsular Spanish: The Present (and Future) of Inflectional Forms in the Spanish Spoken in a Bilingual Region. Language Variation and Change, 20 (1), 85–126.Google Scholar
Boas, F. (ed.). (2013). Handbook of American Indian Languages. Cambridge University Press. [First published 1911–1922.]Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2003). Cognitive Processes in Grammaticalization. The New Psychology of Language: Cognitive and Functional Approaches to Language Structure, 2, 145–167.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2006). Frequency of Use and the Organization of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. and Eddington, D. (2006). A Usage-Based Approach to Spanish Verbs of “Becoming.” Language, 82 (2), 323–355.Google Scholar
Claes, J. and Ortiz-López, L. A. (2011). Restricciones pragmáticas y sociales en la expresión de futuridad en el español de Puerto Rico. Spanish in Context, 8 (1), 50–72.Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2006). A Frequency Dictionary of Spanish: Core Vocabulary for Learners. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Davies, M. (2008). New Directions in Spanish and Portuguese Corpus Linguistics. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics, 1 (1), 149–186.Google Scholar
Díaz-Campos, Manuel. (2004). Acquisition of Sociolinguistic Variables in Spanish: Do Children Acquire Individual Lexical Forms or Variable Rules? In Face, Timothy (ed.), Laboratory Approaches to Spanish Phonology. Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 221–236.Google Scholar
Díaz-Campos, Manuel. (2011). Introduction. In Díaz-Campos, Manuel (ed.), The Handbook of Hispanic Sociolinguistics. Chichester: John Wiley, pp. 1–7.Google Scholar
Díaz-Campos, M. and Geeslin, K. L. (2011). Copula Use in the Spanish of Venezuela: Is the Pattern Indicative of Stable Variation or an Ongoing Change? Spanish in Context, 8 (1), 73–94.Google Scholar
Giraldo, J. J. M. (1962). Sobre la categoría de futuro en el español de Colombia. Thesaurus, 1 (3), 527–555.Google Scholar
Harris, A. C. and Campbell, L. (1995). Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J. and Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Julliand, A. J. and Chang-Rodríguez, E. (1964). The Spanish Frequency Word Book. New York: Mouton.Google Scholar
Kanwit, M. (2017). What We Gain by Combining Variationist and Concept-Oriented Approaches: The Case of Acquiring Spanish Future-Time Expression. Language Learning. doi: 10.1111/lang.12234Google Scholar
Kilgarriff, A. (2015). Corpus Linguistics in Trademark Cases. Dictionaries: Journal of the Dictionary Society of North America, 36 (1), 100–114.Google Scholar
Lastra, Y. and Butragueño, P. (2010). Futuro perifrástico y futuro morfológico en el Corpus Sociolingüístico de la Ciudad de México. Oralia, 13, 145–171.Google Scholar
Lope Blanch, J. M. (1986). El estudio del español hablado culto: historia de un proyecto. Mexico City: UNAM, Instituto de Investigaciones Filológicas, Centro de Lingüística Hispánica.Google Scholar
Mukherjee, A. and Liu, B. (2012). Aspect Extraction through Semi-Supervised Modeling. In Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Long Papers, Vol. 1, pp. 339–348. Available from https://aclweb.org/anthology/P/P12/P12-1.pdf (last access October 24, 2017).Google Scholar
Orozco, R. (2005). Distribution of Future Time Forms in Northern Colombian Spanish. In Eddington, D. (ed.), Selected Proceedings of the 7th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla, pp. 56–65.Google Scholar
PRESEEA (2014– ). Corpus del proyecto para el estudio sociolingüístico del español de España y de América. Universidad de Alcalá. preseea.linguas.netGoogle Scholar
Samper Padilla, J. A., Hernández Cabrera, C. E., and Troya Déniz, M. (1998). Macrocorpus de la norma lingüística culta de las principales ciudades de España y América. Las Palmas de Gran Canaria: Universidad de Las Palmas y ALFAL [CD-ROM].Google Scholar
Sanz, I. (2009). The Diachrony of New Mexican Spanish, 1683–1926: Philology, Corpus Linguistics and Dialect Change (Doctoral dissertation). University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward (1916). Time Perspective in Aboriginal American Culture, A Study in Method. Ottawa: Government Printing Bureau.Google Scholar
Sedano, M. (1994). El futuro morfológico y la expresión ir a + infinitivo en el español hablado de Venezuela. Verba, 21, 225–240.Google Scholar
Silva-Corvalán, C. and Terrell, T. (1989). Notas sobre la expresión de futuridad en el español del Caribe. Hispanic Linguistics, 2, 191–208.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. (2011). Variationist Sociolinguistics: Change, Observation, Interpretation. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tarallo, F. (1989). Inside and Outside Relative Clauses. In Fasold, R. and Schiffrin, D. (eds.), Language Change and Variation. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 255–274.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (1988). Pragmatic Strengthening and Grammaticalization. Proceedings of the 14th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 406–416.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. and Dasher, R. B. (2002). Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zahler, S. and Daidone, D. (2014). A Variationist Account of Trill /r/ Usage in the Spanish of Málaga. Indiana University Linguistics Club Working Papers, 14 (2), 17–42.Google Scholar