Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T18:57:45.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 August 2019

Holger Diessel
Holger Diessel
Affiliation:
Friedrich-Schiller-Universität, Jena, Germany
Get access
Type
Chapter
Information
The Grammar Network
How Linguistic Structure Is Shaped by Language Use
 , pp. 253 - 280
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

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

References

Abbot-Smith, Kirsten and Behrens, Heike. 2006. How known constructions influence the acquisition of other constructions: The German passive and future constructions. Cognitive Science 30: 995–1026.Google Scholar
Abbot-Smith, Kirsten and Tomasello, Michael. 2006. Exemplar-learning and schematization in a usage-based account of syntactic acquisition. The Linguistic Review 23: 275–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aissen, Judith. 2003. Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 21: 435–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akthar, Nameera and Tomasello, Michael. 1996. Two-year-olds learn words for absent objects and actions. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 14: 79–93.Google Scholar
Albright, Adam and Hayes, Bruce. 2003. Rules vs. analogy in English past tenses: A computational/experimental study. Cognition 90: 119–161.Google Scholar
Alegre, Maria and Gordon, Peter. 1999. Frequency effects and the representational status of regular inflections. Journal of Memory and Language 40: 41–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altmann, Gerry T. M. and Kamide, Yuki. 1999. Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition 73: 247–264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Altmann, Gerry T. M. and Mirković, Jelena. 2009. Incrementality and prediction in human sentence processing. Cognitive Science 33: 583–609.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ambridge, Ben, Pine, Julian M., Rowland, Caroline F. and Young, Chris R.. 2008. The effect of verb semantic class and verb frequency (entrenchment) on children’s and adults’ graded judgments of argument-structure overgeneralization errors. Cognition 106: 87–129.Google Scholar
Ambridge, Ben, Pine, Julian M., Rowland, Caroline F. and Chang, Franklin. 2012. The roles of verb semantics, entrenchment, and morphophonology in the retreat from dative argument-structure overgeneralization errors. Language 88: 45–81.Google Scholar
Andersen, Paul Kent. 1979. Word order typology and prepositions in Old Indic. In Brogyani, Bela (ed.), Festschrift for Oswald Szemerényi on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday, 23–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Anderson, John R. 1983. Retrieval of information from long-term memory. Science 220: 25–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderson, John R. 2005. Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications. New York: Worth Publisher. [Sixth edition]Google Scholar
Andrade, Manuel José. 1933. Quileute. In Boas, Franz (ed.), Handbook of American Indian Languages, 149–292. New York: Augustin.Google Scholar
Andrews, Sally. 1997. The effect of orthographic similarity on lexical retrieval: Resolving neighborhood conflicts. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 4: 439–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arbib, Michael A. 2012. How the Brain Got Language: The Mirror System Hypothesis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedents. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Arnold, Jennifer E. 2008. Reference production: Production-internal and addressee-oriented processes. Language and Cognitive Processes 23: 495–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, Jennifer E., Wasow, Thomas, Losongco, Anthony and Ginstrom, Ryan. 2000. Heaviness vs. newness: The effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering. Language 76: 28–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnon, Inbal and Priva, Uriel Cohen. 2013. More than words: The effect of multi-word frequency and constituency on phonetic duration. Language and Speech 56: 349–371.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arnon, Inbal and Snider, Neal. 2010. More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language 62: 67–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arunachalam, Sudha. 2017. Preschoolers’ acquisition of novel verbs in the double-object dative. Cognitive Science 41: 831–854.Google Scholar
Aslin, Richard N. and Newport, Elissa L.. 2012. Statistical learning: From acquiring specific items to forming general rules. Current Directions in Psychological Science 21: 170–177.Google Scholar
Auer, Peter. 2005. Projection in interaction and projection in grammar. Text 25: 7–36.Google Scholar
Austin, John. 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Aylett, Matthew and Turk, Alice. 2004. The smooth signal redundancy hypothesis: A functional explanation for relationships between redundancy, prosodic prominence, and duration in spontaneous speech. Language and Speech 47: 31–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baddeley, Alan D. 1986. Working Memory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Bannard, Colin and Matthews, Danielle. 2008. Stored word sequences in language learning. The effect of familiarity on children’s repetition of four-word combinations. Psychological Science 19: 241–248.Google Scholar
Barcelona, Antonio. 2015. Metonymy. In Dąbrowska, Ewa and Divjak, Dagmar (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 143–167. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bard, Ellen Gurman, Anderson, Anne H., Sotillo, Catherine, Aylett, Matthew, Doherty-Sneddon, Gwyneth and Newlands, Alison. 2000. Controlling the intelligibility of referring expressions in dialogue. Journal of Memory and Language 42: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, Johanna. 2006. Construction-specific properties of syntactic subjects in Icelandic and German. Cognitive Linguistics 17: 39–106.Google Scholar
Barðdal, Johanna. 2008. Productivity: Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baronchelli, Andrea, Ferrer-i-Cancho, Ramon, Paster-Satorras, Romualdo, Chater, Nick and Christiansen, Morten H.. 2013. Networks in cognitive science. Trends in Cognitive Science 17: 348–360.Google Scholar
Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1999. Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22: 577–660.Google Scholar
Barth, Danielle and Kapatsinski, Vsevolod. 2017. A multimodel inference approach to categorical variant choice: Construction, priming and frequency effects on the choice between full and contracted forms of am, are and is. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 13: 1–58.Google Scholar
Bates, Elizabeth and Brian, MacWhinney. 1989. Functionalism and the competition model. In MacWhinney, Brian and Bates, Elizabeth (eds.), The Crosslinguistic Study of Sentence Processing, 3–73. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bech, Kristin. 2001. Word order patterns in Old and Middle English: A syntactic and pragmatic study. PhD dissertation. University of Bergen.Google Scholar
Beckner, Clay, Blythe, Richard, Bybee, Joan, Christiansen, Morton H., Croft, William, Ellis, Nick C., Holland, John, Ke, Jinyun, Larsen-Freeman, Diane and Schoenemann, Tom. 2009. Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning 59: 1–26.Google Scholar
Behaghel, Otto. 1932. Deutsche Syntax. Eine geschichtliche Darstellung. Vol. 4. Wortstellung, Periodenbau. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Behrens, Heike. 2005. Wortartenerwerb durch Induktion. In Knobloch, Clemens and Schaeder, Burkhard (eds.), Wortarten und Grammatikalisierung: Perspektiven in System und Erwerb, 177–198. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behrens, Heike. 2009. Usage-based and emergentist approaches to language acquisition. Linguistics 47: 383–411.Google Scholar
Behrens, Heike. 2017. The role of analogy in language processing and acquisition. In Hundt, Marianne, Mollin, Sandra and Pfenniger, Simone E. (eds.), The Changing English Language, 215–239. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Behrens, Heike and Pfänder, Stefan (eds.). 2016. Experience Counts: Frequency Effects in Language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bell, Alan, Jurafsky, Daniel, Fosler-Lussier, Eric, Girand, Cynthia, Gregory, Michelle and Gildea, Daniel. 2003. Effects of disfluencies, predictability, and utterance position on word form variation in English conversation. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America 113: 1001–1024.Google Scholar
Bell, Alan, Brenier, Jason, Gregory, Michelle, Girand, Cynthia and Jurafsky, Daniel. 2009. Predictability effects on durations of content and function words in conversational English. Journal of Memory and Language 60: 92–111.Google Scholar
Bencini, Guilia M. L. and Goldberg, Adele E.. 2000. The contribution of argument structure constructions to sentence meaning. Journal of Memory and Language 43: 640–651.Google Scholar
Bergen, Benjamin K. 2012. Louder than Words: The New Science of How the Mind Makes Meaning. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Bergs, Alexander and Diewald, Gabriele (eds.). 2008. Constructions and Language Change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bever, Thomas G. 1970. The cognitive basis for linguistic structure. In Hayes, John R. (ed.), Cognition and Development of Language, 279–352. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2011. Grammatical relations typology. In Song, Jae Jung (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology, 399–444. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena and Zakharko, Taras. 2015. Typological evidence against universal effects of referential scales on case alignment. In Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina, Malchukov, Andrej L. and Richards, Marc (eds.), Scales and Hierarchies: A Cross-Disciplinary Perspective, 7–43. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C. 2003. A Constructional Approach to Resultatives. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C. 2008. Determining the structure of lexical entries and grammatical constructions in Construction Grammar. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 6: 113–144.Google Scholar
Boas, Hans C. 2010. The syntax-lexicon continuum in Construction Grammar: A case study of English communication verbs. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 24: 54–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, Kathryn. 1986. Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology 18: 355–387.Google Scholar
Bock, Kathryn and Griffin, Zenzi. 2000. The persistence of structural priming: Transient activation or implicit learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 129: 177–192.Google Scholar
Bock, Kathryn and Loebell, Helga. 1990. Framing sentences. Cognition 35: 1–39.Google Scholar
Bock, J. Kathryn, Dell, Gary S., Chang, Franklin and Onishi, Kristine H.. 2007. Persistent structural priming from language comprehension to language production. Cognition 104: 437–458.Google Scholar
Bod, Rens. 2009. From exemplar to grammar: A probabilistic analogy-based model of language learning. Cognitive Science 33: 752–793.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1967. Adjectives in English: Attribution and predication. Lingua 18: 1–34.Google Scholar
Bossong, Georg. 1985. Differentielle Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprachen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Bossong, Georg. 1991. Differential object marking in Romance and beyond. In Wanner, Dieter und Kibbee, Douglas A. (eds.), New Analyses in Romance Linguistics. Selected Papers from the XVIII Linguistics Symposium on Romance Languages, 143–170. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bowdle, Brian F. and Gentner, Dedre. 2005. The career of metaphor. Psychological Review 112: 193–216.Google Scholar
Bower, Gordon H. 2000. A brief history of memory research. In Tulving, Endel and Fergus, I. M. Craik (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Memory, 3–32. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bowerman, Melisa. 1988. The “no negative evidence” problem: How children avoid constructing an overgeneral grammar. In Hawkins, John A. (ed.), Explaining Language Universals, 73–101. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Boye, Kasper and Harder, Peter. 2012. A usage-based theory of grammatical status and grammaticalization. Language 88: 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braine, Martin D. S. 1976. Children’s first word combinations. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 41.Google Scholar
Brandt, Silke, Diessel, Holger and Tomasello, Michael. 2008. The acquisition of German relative clauses: A case study. Journal of Child Language 35: 325–348.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Breban, Tine and Davidse, Kristin. 2003. Adjectives of comparison: The grammaticalization of their attribute uses into postdeterminer and classifier uses. Folia Linguistica 37: 269–318.Google Scholar
Breban, Tine, Davidse, Kristin and Ghesquière, Lobke. 2011. A typology of anaphoric and cataphoric relations expressed by English complex determiners. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 2689–2703.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan and Ford, Marilyn. 2010. Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language 86: 186–213.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan and Hay, Jennifer. 2008. Gradient grammar: An effect of animacy on the syntax of give in New Zealand and American English. Lingua 118: 245–259.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan and Spencer, Jessica. 2013. Frequency and variation in English subject-verb contraction. Manuscript. Stanford University.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Cueni, Anna, Nikitina, Tatiana and Baayen, Harald R.. 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. In Boume, Gerlof, Kraemer, Irene and Zwarts, Joost (eds.), Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation, 69–94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar
Brooks, Patricia and Tomasello, Michael. 1999. Young children learn to produce passives with nonce verbs. Developmental Psychology 35: 29–44.Google Scholar
Brooks, Patricia, Tomasello, Michael, Dodson, Kelly and Lewis, Lawrence B.. 1999. Young children’s overgeneralizations with fixed transitivity verbs. Child Development 70: 1325–1337.Google Scholar
Broschart, Jürgen. 1997. Why Tongan does it differently: Categorial distinctions in a language without nouns and verbs. Linguistic Typology 1: 123–165.Google Scholar
Brown, Dunstan and Hippisley, Andrew. 2012. Network Morphology. A Default-Based Theory of Word Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Buchanan, Mark. 2002. Nexus. Small Worlds and the Groundbreaking Science of Networks. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Bühler, Karl. 1934. Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Jena: Fischer.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology: A Study on the Relation between Meaning and Form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1988. Morphological and lexical organization. In Hammond, Michael and Noonan, Michael (eds.), Theoretical Morphology, 191–141. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1995. Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 10: 425–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2001. Phonology and Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2002. Sequentiality as the basis of constituent structure. In Givón, Talmy and Malle, Bertram F. (eds.), The Evolution of Language out of Pre-Language, 109–132. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82: 711–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2007. Frequency of Use and the Organization of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, Cognition, and Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2011. Markedness: Iconicity, economy, and frequency. In Song, Jae Jung (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology, 131–147. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan and Hopper, Paul (eds.). 2001. Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan and Moder, Carol Lynn. 1983. Morphological classes as natural categories. Language 59: 251–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan and Scheibman, Joanne. 1999. The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: The reduction of don’t in English. Linguistics 37: 575–596.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan and Slobin, Dan I.. 1982. Rules and schemas in the development of the English past tense. Language 58: 265–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan and Thompson, Sandra A.. 2000. Three frequency effects in syntax. Berkeley Linguistics Society 23: 65–85.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Perkins, William and Pagliuca, Revere. 1990. On the asymmetries in the affixation of grammatical material. In Croft, William, Kemmer, Susanne and Denning, Keith (eds.), Studies in Typology and Diachrony: Papers Presented to Joseph H. Greenberg on his 75th Birthday, 1–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Perkins, William and Pagliuca, Revere. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar. Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Cappelle, Bert. 2006. Particle placement and the case for “allostructions.” Constructions 1: 1–28.Google Scholar
Carey, Susan and Bartlett, Elsa. 1978. Acquiring a single new word. Proceedings of the Stanford Child Language Conference 15: 17–29.Google Scholar
Carpenter, Malinda, Nagell, Katherine and Tomasello, Michael. 1998. Social cognition, joint attention, and communicative competence from 9 to 15 months of age. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 63.Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1994. Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chang, Franklin, Bock, Kathryn and Goldberg, Adele E.. 2003. Can thematic roles leave traces of their places? Cognition 90: 29–49.Google Scholar
Chang, Franklin, Dell, Gary S. and Bock, Kathryn. 2006. Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review 113: 234–272.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of a Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1972. Studies on Semantics in Generative Grammar. The Hague: Mouton Publishers.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1980. Rules and Representations. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and Use. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
Christiansen, Morten H. 2000. Using artificial language learning to study language evolution: Exploring the emergence of word order universals. In Ghadakpour, Laleh and Dessalles, Jean-Louis (eds.), The Evolution of Language: Third International Conference, 45–48. Paris: Ecole Nationale Supérieure des Télécommunications.Google Scholar
Christiansen, Morten H. and Chater, Nick. 2008. Language as shaped by the brain. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31: 489–509.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Christiansen, Morten H. and Chater, Nick. 2016. The now-or-never bottleneck: A fundamental constraint on language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 62: 1–72.Google Scholar
Christiansen, Morten H. and MacDonald, Maryellen C.. 2009. A usage-based approach to recursion in sentence processing. Language Learning 59: 126–161.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra. 2012. Are lexical categories universal? The view from Chamorro. Theoretical Linguistics 2012: 1–56.Google Scholar
Cienki, Alan. 2007. Frames, idealized cognitive models, and domains. In Geeraerts, Dirk and Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 170–187. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Eve V. 2003. First Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Eve V. and Clark, Herbert H.. 1979. When nouns surface as verbs. Language 55: 767–811.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. and Brennan, Susan E.. 1991. Grounding in communication. In Resnick, Lauren B., Levine, John M. and Teasley, Stephanie D. (eds.), Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, 127–149. Washington, DC: American Psychology Association.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. and Marshall, Catherine R.. 1981. Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In Joshe, Aravind K., Webber, Bruce H. and Sag, Ivan A. (eds.), Elements of Discourse Understanding, 10–63. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clay, Zanna and Zuberbühler, Klaus. 2011. Bonobos extract meaning from call sequences. PLoS ONE 6(4). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0018786Google Scholar
Colleman, Timothy and de Clerck, Bernard. 2011. Constructional semantics on the move: On semantic specialization in the English double-object construction. Cognitive Linguistics 22: 183–209.Google Scholar
Collins, Alan M. and Loftus, Elizabeth F.. 1975. A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review 82: 407–428.Google Scholar
Collins, Jeremy. 2012. The evolution of the Greenbergian word order correlations. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference (EVOLANG9), 72–79. Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Chicago: Chicago University Press. [Second edition]Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1998. Attributive clauses in Asian languages: Towards an areal typology. In Boeder, Winfried, Schroeder, Christopher, Wagner, Karl Heinz and Wildgen, Wolfgang (eds.), Sprache, Raum und Zeit. In Memorium Johannes Bechert. Band 2: Beiträge zur empirischen Sprachwissenschaft, 51–60. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Conwell, Erin and Demuth, Katherine. 2007. Early syntactic productivity: Evidence from dative shift. Cognition 103: 163–179.Google Scholar
Coventry, Kenny R. and Garrod, Simon C.. 2004. Saying, Seeing and Acting: The Psychological Semantics of Spatial Prepositions. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Cowan, Nelson. 2005. Working Memory Capacity. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Cristofaro, Sonia. 2003. Subordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cristofaro, Sonia. 2009. Grammatical categories and relations: Universality vs. language-specificity and construction-specificity. Language and Linguistics Compass 3: 441–479.Google Scholar
Cristofaro, Sonia. 2013. The referential hierarchy: Reviewing the evidence in diachronic perspective. In Bakker, Dik and Haspelmath, Martin (eds.), Languages across the Boundaries, 69–94. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Crockford, Catherine, Wittig, Roman M., Mundry, Roger and Zuberbühler, Klaus. 2012. Wild chimpanzees inform ignorant group members of danger. Current Biology 22: 142–146.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 1991. Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations: The Cognitive Organization of Information. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2000. Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2003. Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Second edition]Google Scholar
Croft, William and Cruse, Alan. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Culbertson, Jennifer. 2010. Convergent evidence for categorical change in French: From subject clitic to agreement marker. Language 86: 85–132.Google Scholar
Culbertson, Jennifer and Newport, Elissa L.. 2015. Harmonic biases in child learners: In support of language universals. Cognition 139: 71–82.Google Scholar
Culbertson, Jennifer, Smolensky, Paul and Legendre, Géraldine. 2012. Learning biases predict a word order universal. Cognition 122: 306–329.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. 1999. Syntactic Nuts: Hard Cases, Syntactic Theory, and Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa. 1997. The LAD goes to school: A cautionary tale for nativists. Linguistics 35: 735–766.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa. 2000. From formula to schema: The acquisition of English questions. Cognitive Linguistics 11: 83–102.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa. 2008. The effects of frequency and neighbourhood density on adult speakers’ productivity with Polish case inflections: An empirical test of usage-based approaches to morphology. Journal of Memory and Language 58: 931–951.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa. 2012. Different speakers, different grammars: Individual differences in native language attainment. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 2: 219–253Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa. 2018. Experience, aptitude and individual differences in native language ultimate attainment. Cognition 178: 222–235.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa and Lieven, Elena V. M.. 2005. Towards a lexically specific grammar of children’s question constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 16: 437–474.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary and Nikoleava, Irina 2011. Objects and Information Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Deacon, Terrance W. 1997. The Symbolic Species: The Co-Evolution of Language and the Brain. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Dell, Gary S. 1986. A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review 93: 283–321.Google Scholar
Deppermann, Arnulf. 2006. Von der Kognition zur verbalen Interaktion: Bedeutungskonstitution im Kontext aus Sicht der Kognitionswissenschaften und der Gesprächsforschung. In Deppermann, Arnulf and Spranz-Fogasy, Thomas (eds.), Wie Bedeutung im Gespräch entsteht, 11–33. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. [Second edition]Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik, D’hoedt, Frauke, Fonteyn, Lauren and Van Goethem, Kristel. 2018. The changing functions of competing forms: Attraction and differentiation. Cognitive Linguistics 29: 197–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deutscher, Guy. 2000. Syntactic Change in Akkadian: The Evolution of Sentential Complementation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 1997. Verb-first constructions in German. In Verspoor, Marjolijn, Dong, Lee Kee and Sweetser, Eve (eds.), Lexical and Syntactical Constructions and the Construction of Meaning, 51–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 1999. Demonstratives: Form, Function, and Grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2004. The Acquisition of Complex Sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2005. Competing motivations for the ordering of main and adverbial clauses. Linguistics 43: 449–470.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2006. Demonstratives, joint attention, and the emergence of grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 17: 463–489.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2007. Frequency effects in language acquisition, language use, and diachronic change. New Ideas in Psychology 25: 108–127.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2009. On the role of frequency and similarity in the acquisition of subject and non-subject relative clauses. In Givón, Talmy and Shibatani, Masayoshi (eds.), Syntactic Complexity, 251–276. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2011a. Review article of “Language, Usage and Cognition” by Joan Bybee. Language 87: 830–844.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2011b. Grammaticalization and language acquisition. In Heine, Bernd and Norrog, Heiko (eds.), Handbook of Grammaticalization, 130–141. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2012a. Buehler’s two-field theory of pointing and naming and the deictic origins of grammatical morphemes. In Breban, Tine, Brems, Lieselotte, Davidse, Kristin and Mortelmans, Tanja (eds.), New Perspectives on Grammaticalization: Theoretical Understanding and Empirical Description, 35–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2012b. Language change and language acquisition. In Bergs, Alexander and Brinton, Laural (eds.), Historical Linguistics of English: An International Handbook, Vol. 2, 1599–1613. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2013. Construction grammar and first language acquisition. In Hoffmann, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, 347–364. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2014. Demonstratives, frames of reference, and semantic universals of space. Language and Linguistics Compass 8: 116–132.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2015. Usage-based construction grammar. In Dąbrowska, Ewa and Divjak, Dagmar (eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 295–321. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2016. Frequency and lexical specificity: A critical review. In Behrens, Heike and Pfänder, Stefan (eds.), Experience Counts: Frequency Effects in Language, 209–237. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2017. Usage-based linguistics. In Aronoff, Mark (ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.363Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2019. Preposed adverbial clauses: Functional adaptation and diachronic inheritance. In Schmidtke-Bode, Karsten, Levshina, Natalia, Michaelis, Susanne Maria and Seržant, Ilja A. (eds.), Explanation in Linguistic Typology: Diachronic Sources, Functional Motivations and the Nature of the Evidence, 191–126. Leipzig: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger and Hilpert, Martin. 2016. Frequency effects in grammar. In Aronoff, Mark (ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.120Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger and Tomasello, Michael. 2000. The development of relative clauses in spontaneous child speech. Cognitive Linguistics 11: 131–151.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger and Tomasello, Michael. 2005. A new look at the acquisition of relative clauses. Language 81: 1–25.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 1977. Where have all the adjectives gone. Studies in Language 1: 19–80.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 2004. Adjective classes in typological perspective. In Dixon, Robert M. W. and Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (eds.), Adjective Classes: A Cross-Linguistic Typology, 1–49. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. and Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.. 2002. Word: A typological framework. In Dixon, Robert M. W. and Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (eds.), Word: A Cross-Linguistic Typology, 1–41. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 1988. Object-article order and adjective-noun order: Dispelling a myth. Lingua 74: 185–217.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 1991. SVO languages and the OV: VO typology. Journal of Linguistics 27: 443–482.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 1992. The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language 68: 81–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 1997. Are grammatical relations universal? In Bybee, Joan, Haiman, John and Thompson, Sandra A. (eds.), Essays on Language Function and Language Type. Dedicated to Talmy Givón, 115–143. Amsterdam: John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2003. Word order in Sino-Tibetan languages: From a typological and geographical perspective. In Thurgood, Graham and LaPolla, Randy J. (eds.), The Sino-Tibetan Languages, 43–55. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2005. Prefixing vs. suffixing in inflectional morphology. In Haspelmath, Martin, Dryer, Matthew, Gil, David and Comrie, Bernard (eds.), World Atlas of Language Structures, 110–113. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2009. The branching direction theory of word order correlations revisited. In Scalise, Sergio, Magni, Elisabetta and Bisetto, Antonietta (eds.), Universals of Language Today, 185–207. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2013 . Relationship between the order of object and verb and the order of relative clause and noun. In Dryer, Matthew S. and Haspelmath, Martin (eds.), The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available online at http://wals.info/Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S. 2019. Grammaticalization accounts of word order correlations. In Schmidtke-Bode, Karsten, Levshina, Natalia, Michaelis, Susanne Maria and Seržant, Ilja A. (eds.), Explanation in Linguistic Typology: Diachronic Sources, Functional Motivations and the Nature of the Evidence, 67–100. Leipzig: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
DuBois, John W. 1985. Competing motivations. In Haiman, John (ed.), Iconicity in Syntax, 343–366. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
DuBois, John W. 1987. The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63: 805–855.Google Scholar
Ellegård, Alvar. 1953. The Auxiliary do: The Establishment and Regulation of Its Use in English. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Ellis, Nick C. 1996. Sequencing in SLA: Phonological memory, chunking, and points of order. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18: 91–126.Google Scholar
Ellis, Nick C. 2002. Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24: 143–188.Google Scholar
Ellis, Nick C., Römer, Ute and Brook O’Donnel, Matthew. 2016. Usage-Based Approaches to Language Acquisition and Processing: Cognitive and Corpus Investigations of Construction Grammar. Chichester, UK: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Elman, Jeffrey L. 1990. Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science 14: 179–211.Google Scholar
Elman, Jeffrey L. 2009. On the meaning of words and dinosaur bones: Lexical knowledge without a lexicon. Cognitive Science 33: 1–36.Google Scholar
Elman, Jeffrey L., Bates, Elizabeth A., Johnson, Mark H., Karmiloff-Smith, Annette, Parisi, Domencio and Plunckett, Kim. 1996. Rethinking Innateness: A Connectionist Perspective on Development. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books/MIT Press.Google Scholar
Erman, Britt and Warren, Beatrice. 2000. The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text 20: 29–62.Google Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan and Green, Melanie. 2006. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas and Osada, Toshiki. 2005. Mundari: The myth of a language without word classes. Linguistic Typology 9: 351–390.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles and Turner, Mark. 2002. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Faulhaber, Susen. 2011. Verb Valency Patterns: A Challenge for Semantic-Based Accounts. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fedzechkina, Maryia, Jaeger, T. Florian and Newport, Elissa L.. 2013. Language learners restructure their input to facilitate efficient communication. In Proceedings of the 23th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 430–435.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1968. The case for case. In Bach, Emmon and Harms, Robert T. (eds.), Universals in Linguistic Theory, 1–81. New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1970. The grammar of hitting and breaking. In Jacobs, Roderick and Rosenbaum, Peter (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, 120–133. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1975. Checklist theories of meaning. Berkeley Linguistics Society 1: 123–131.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. Frame semantics. In Geeraerts, Dirk (ed), Cognitive Linguistics. Basic Readings, 373–400. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. [Reprinted from Linguistics in the Morning Calm, Linguistic Society of Korea, 111–137. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company.]Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica 6: 222–254.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. and Kay, Paul. 1999. Construction Grammar. Manuscript. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Kay, Paul and O’Connor, Catherine. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64: 501–538.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J., Johnson, Christopher R. and Petruck, Miriam R. L.. 2003. Background to framenet. International Journal of Lexicography 16: 235–250.Google Scholar
Fine, Alex B., Jaeger, T. Florian, Farmer, Thomas A. and Qian, Ting. 2013. Rapid expectation adaptation during syntactic comprehension. Plos One 8: e77661.Google Scholar
Fitz, Hartmut, Chang, Franklin and Christiansen, Morton H.. 2011. A connectionist account of the acquisition and processing of relative clauses. In Kidd, Evan (ed.), The Acquisition of Relative Clauses: Processing, Typology and Function, 39–60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fonteyn, Lauren and van de Pol, Nikki. 2016. Divide and conquer: The formation and functional dynamics of the Modern English ing-clause network. English Language and Linguistics 35: 1–35.Google Scholar
Ford, Marylin, Bresnan, Joan and Kaplan, Ronald M.. 1982. A competence-based theory of syntactic change. In Bresnan, Joan (ed.), Mental Representations and Grammatical Relations, 727–796. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Forster, Kenneth I. and Chambers, Susan M.. 1973. Lexical access and naming time. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 12: 627–635.Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara A. and Thompson, Sandra A.. 2007. Relative clauses in English conversations. Studies in Language 31: 293–326.Google Scholar
Fowler, Carol A. and Housum, Jonathan. 1987. Talkers’ signaling of “new” and “old” words in speech and listeners’ perception and use of the distinction. Journal of Memory and Language 26: 489–504.Google Scholar
Frank, Stefan L. and Christiansen, Morten H.. 2018. Hierarchical and sequential processing of language: A response to: Ding, Melloni, Tian, and Poeppel (2017). Rule-based and word-level statistics-based processing of language: insights from neuroscience. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 33: 1213–1218.Google Scholar
Frank, Stefan L., Bod, Rens and Christiansen, Morten H.. 2012. How hierarchical is language use? Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 22: 4522–4531.Google Scholar
Frauenfelder, Uli H. and Schreuder, Robert. 1992. Constraining psycholinguistic models of morphological processing and representation: The role of productivity. Yearbook of Morphology 1991: 165–183.Google Scholar
Frazier, Lyn. 1985. Syntactic complexity. In Dowty, David R., Karttunen, Lauri and Zwicky, Arnold (eds.), Natural Language Parsing: Psychological, Computational and Theoretical Perspectives, 129–189. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fried, Mirjam. 2015. Construction Grammar. In Alexiadou, Artemis and Kiss, Tibor (eds.), Syntax – Theory and Analysis: An International Handbook, 974–1003. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fried, Mirjam and Östman, Jan-Ola. 2005. Construction Grammar: A thumbnail sketch. In Fried, Mirjam and Östman, Jan-Ola (eds.), Construction Grammar in Cross-Language Perspective, 11–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fry, John. 2003. Ellipsis and wa-Marking in Japanese Conversation. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gahl, Susan and Garnsey, Susan M.. 2004. Knowledge of grammar, knowledge of usage: Syntactic probabilities affect pronunciation variation. Language 80: 748–775.Google Scholar
Gahl, Susan, Yao, Yao and Johnson, Keith. 2012. Why reduce? Phonological neighborhood density and phonetic reduction in spontaneous speech. Journal of Memory and Language 66: 789–806.Google Scholar
Gärdenfors, Peter. 2014. The Geometry of Meaning: Semantics Based on Conceptual Spaces. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Garnsey, Susan M., Pearlmutter, Neal J., Myers, Elizabeth E. and Lotocky, Melanie A.. 1997. The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language 7: 58–93.Google Scholar
Gast, Volker. 2007. I gave it him – on the motivation of the “alternative double-object construction” in varieties of British English. Functions of Language 14: 31–56.Google Scholar
Gast, Volker and Wiechmann, Daniel. 2012. W(h)-Clefts im Deutschen und Englischen: eine quantitative Untersuchung auf der Grundlage des Europarl Korpus. In Gunkel, Lutz and Zifonun, Gisela (eds.), Deutsch im Sprachvergleich: Grammatische Kontraste und Konvergenzen, 333–362. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gentner, Dedre. 1983. Structure-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science 7: 155–170.Google Scholar
Georgakopoulos, Thanasis and Polis, Stéphane. 2018. The semantic map model: State of the art and future avenues for linguistic research. Language and Linguistic Compass 12: e12270.Google Scholar
Gerken, LouAnn. 2006. Decisions, decisions: Infant language learning when multiple generalizations are possible. Cognition 98: 67–74.Google Scholar
Gil, David. 2013. Riau Indonesian: A language without nouns and verbs. In Rijkhoff, Jan and von Lier, Eva (eds.), Flexible Word Classes: Typological Studies of Underspecified Parts of Speech, 89–130. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gildea, Spike and Zúñiga, Fernando. 2016. Referential hierarchies: A new look at some historical and typological patterns. Linguistics 54: 483–529.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1971. Historical syntax and synchronic morphology: An archaeologist’s field trip. Chicago Linguistic Society 7: 394–415.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1975. Serial verbs and syntactic change: Niger Congo. In Li, Charles N. (ed.), Word Order and Word Order Change, 47–112. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1979. On Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy.(ed.). 1983. Topic Continuity in Discourse: A Quantitative Cross-Language Study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1984. Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction. Vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1990. Syntax: A Functional-Typological Introduction. Vol. 2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gobet, Fernand. 2017. Entrenchment, gestalt formation and chunking. In Schmid, Hans-Jörg (ed.), Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning, 245–268. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gobet, Fernand, Lane, Peter C. R., Croker, Steve, Cheng, Peter C.-H., Jones, Gary, Oliver, Iain and Pine, Julian M.. 2001. Chunking mechanisms in human learning. Trends in Cognitive Science 5: 236–243.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2002. Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics 13: 327–356.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E., Cashenhiser, Devin M. and Sethuraman, Nitya. 2004. Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics 15: 289–316.Google Scholar
Goldwater, Micah B., Tomlinson, Marc T., Echols, Catharine H. and Love, Bradley C.. 2011. Structural priming as structure mapping: Children use analogies from previous utterances to guide sentence production. Cognitive Science 35: 156–170.Google Scholar
Gómez, Rebecca L. and Gerken, LouAnn. 1999. Artificial grammar learning by 1-year-olds leads to specific and abstract knowledge. Cognition 70: 109–135.Google Scholar
Gómez, Rebecca L. and Gerken, LouAnn. 2000. Infant artificial language learning and language acquisition. Trends in Cognitive Science 4: 178–186.Google Scholar
Gordon, Peter C. and Lowder, Matthew W.. 2012. Complex sentence processing: A review of theoretical perspectives on the comprehension of relative clauses. Language and Linguistics Compass 6: 403–415.Google Scholar
Green, Clarence. 2017. Usage-based linguistics and the magic number four. Cognitive Linguistics 28: 209–237.Google Scholar
Green, Georgia M. 1985. The description of inversion in generalized phrase structure grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society 11: 117–145.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1966. Language Universals, with Special Reference to Feature Hierarchies. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1978. How does a language acquire gender markers. In Greenberg, Joseph H., Ferguson, Charles A. and Moravcsik, Edith A. (eds.), Universals of Human Language, Vol. 3, 47–82. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan T. 2003. Multifactorial Analysis in Corpus Linguistics: A Study of Particle Placement. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan T. 2005. Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 34: 365–399.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan T. and Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2004. Extending collexeme analysis. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9: 97–129.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan T., Hampe, Beate and Schönefeld, Doris. 2005. Converging evidence: Bringing together experimental and corpus data on the association of verbs and constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 16: 635–676.Google Scholar
Gropen, Jess, Pinker, Steven, Hollande, Michael, Goldberg, Richard and Wilson, Ronald. 1989. The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English. Language 65: 203–257.Google Scholar
Güldemann, Tom. 2008. Quotative Indexes in African Languages: A Synchronic and Diachronic Survey. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hagège, Claude. 2010. Adpositions: Function-Marking in Human Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haig, Geoffrey. 1998. Relative Constructions in Turkish. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Haig, Geoffrey and Schnell, Stefan. 2016. The discourse basis of ergativity revisited. Language 92: 591–618.Google Scholar
Haiman, John. 1985. Iconicity in Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haiman, John. 1994. Ritualization and the development of language. In Pagliuca, William (ed.), Perspectives on Grammaticalization, 3–28. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hale, John. 2001. A probabilistic earley parser as a psycholinguistic model. In Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics on Language Technologies, 1–8. Stroudsburg, PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Hampe, Beate. 2011. Discovering constructions by means of collostructional analysis: The English denominative construction. Cognitive Linguistics 22: 211–245.Google Scholar
Hanna, Joy E., Tanenhaus, Michael K. and Trueswell, John C.. 2003. The effects of common ground and perspective on domains of referential interpretation. Journal of Memory and Language 49: 43–61.Google Scholar
Hare, Mary and Elman, Jeffrey L.. 1995. Learning and morphological change. Cognition 56: 61–98.Google Scholar
Hare, Mary L. and Goldberg, Adele E.. 2000. Structural priming: Purely syntactic? In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 208–211.Google Scholar
Hare, Mary L., Ford, Michael and Marslen-Wilson, William D.. 2001. Ambiguity and frequency in regular verb inflection. In Bybee, Joan and Hopper, Paul (eds.), Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure, 181–200. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Harley, Trevor A. 2001. The Psychology of Language: From Data to Theory. Hove: Psychology Press. [Second edition].Google Scholar
Harris, Alice C. and Campbell, Lyle. 1995. Historical Syntax in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1997. Indefinite Pronouns. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2003. The geometry of grammatical meaning: Semantic maps and cross-linguistic comparison. In Tomasello, Michael (ed.), The New Psychology of Language, Vol. 2, 211–242. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2006. Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics 41: 1–46.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2008a. Frequency vs. iconicity in explaining grammatical asymmetries. Cognitive Linguistics 19: 1–33.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2008b. Creating economical morphosyntactic patterns in language change. In Good, Jeff (ed.), Language Universals and Language Change, 185–214. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies. Language 86: 663–687.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2011. The indeterminacy of word segmentation and the nature of morphology and syntax. Folia Linguistica 45: 31–80.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2014. On system pressure competing with economic motivation. In MacWhinney, Brian, Malchukov, Andrej and Moravcsik, Edith (eds.), Competing Motivations in Grammar and Usage, 197–208. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin and Karjus, Andres. 2017. Explaining asymmetries in number marking: Singulatives, pluratives, and usage frequency. Linguistics 55: 1213–1235.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin, Calude, Andreea, Spagnol, Michael, Narrog, Heiko and Bamyaci, Elif. 2014. Coding causal-noncausal verb alternations: A form-frequency correspondence explanation. Journal of Linguistics 50: 587–625.Google Scholar
Haude, Katherina and Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena. 2016. Referential hierarchies and alignment: An overview. Linguistics 54: 433–441.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1983. Word Order Universals. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1986. A Comparative Typology of English and German: Unifying the Contrast. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1994. A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 2000. The relative order of prepositional phrases in English: Going beyond manner-place-time. Language Variation and Change 11: 231–266.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. and Cutler, Anne. 1988. Psycholinguistic factors in morphological asymmetry. In Hawkins, John A. (ed.), Explaining Language Universals, 281–317. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer. 2001. Lexical frequency in morphology: Is everything relative? Linguistics 39: 1041–1070.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer. 2003. Causes and Consequences of Word Structure. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hay, Jennifer and Baayen, Harald R.. 2005. Shifting paradigms: Gradient structure in morphology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9: 342–348.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2008. Grammaticalization of cases. In Malchukov, Andrej and Spencer, Andrew (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Case, 458–479. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd and Kuteva, Tania. 2002. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Claudi, Ulrike and Hünnemeyer, Friederike. 1991. Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees. 1992. Parts of speech. In Fortescue, Michael, Harder, Peter and Kristoffersen, Lars (eds.), Layered Structure and Reference in a Functional Perspective, 29–55. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees. 2013. Parts-of-speech as a basic typological determinant. In Rijkhoff, Jan and van Lier, Eva (eds.), Flexible Word Classes: Typological Studies of Underspecified Parts-of-Speech, 31–55. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, Kees, Rijkhoff, Jan and Siewierska, Anna. 2004. Parts-of-speech systems and word order. Journal of Linguistics 40: 527–570.Google Scholar
Herbst, Thomas. 2014. The valency approach to argument structure constructions. In Herbst, Thomas, Schmid, Hans-Jörg and Faulhaber, Susen (eds.), Constructions – Collocations – Patterns, 167–216. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hill, Eugen. 2010. A case study in grammaticalized inflectional morphology: Origin and development of Germanic weak preterite. Diachronica 27: 411–458.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2007. Germanic Future Constructions: A Usage-Based Approach to Language Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2013. Constructional Change in English: Developments in Allomorphy, Word-Formation and Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2014. Construction Grammar and Its Application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus. 2008. Lexical categories and voice in Tagalog. In Austin, Peter and Musgrave, Simon (eds.), Voice and Grammatical Relations in Austronesian Languages, 247–293. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus. 2014. Asymmetries in the prosodic phrasing of function words: Another look at the suffixing preference. Language 90: 927–960.Google Scholar
Hoey, Michael. 2005. Lexical Priming: A New Theory of Words and Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme (eds.). 2013. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hollich, George, Jusczyk, Peter and Luce, Paul A.. 2002. Lexical neighbourhood effects in 17-month˗old word learning. Proceedings of the 26th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 314–323. Boston: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Holyoak, Keith J. and Thagard, Paul R.. 1995. Mental Leaps: Analogy in Creative Thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul. 1987. Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society 10: 139–157.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul and Thompson, Sandra A.. 1984. The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar. Language 60: 703–752.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. and Closs Traugott, Elizabeth. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Second edition]Google Scholar
Horton, William S. and Gerrig, Richard J.. 2005. The impact of memory demands on audience design during language production. Cognition 96: 127–142.Google Scholar
Horton, William S. and Keysar, Boaz. 1996. When do speakers take into account common ground? Cognition 59: 91–117.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 2007. Language Networks: The New Word Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Iemmolo, Giorgio. 2010. Topicality and differential object marking: Evidence from Romance and beyond. Studies in Language 34: 239–272.Google Scholar
Iemmolo, Giorgio. 2011. Towards a typological study of differential object marking and differential object indexation. PhD dissertation. University of Pavia.Google Scholar
Israel, Michael. 1996. The way constructions grow. In Goldberg, Adele E. (ed.), Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language, 217–230. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Jach, Daniel. 2018. A usage-based approach to preposition placement in English as a second language. Language Learning 68: 271–305.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 2002. Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jäger, Gerhard and Rosenbach, Anette. 2008. Priming and unidirectional change. Theoretical Linguistics 34: 85–113.Google Scholar
Jakobsen, William H. 1979. Noun and verb in Nootkan. In Efrat, B. S. (ed.), The Victoria Conference on Northwestern Languages 1976, 83–153. British Columbia Provincial Museum, Heritage Record No. 4, Victoria.Google Scholar
Jany, Carmen. 2008. Relativization versus nominalization strategies in Chimariko. Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistics 19: 40–50.Google Scholar
Johnson, Keith. 1997. Speech perception without speaker normalization: An exemplar model. In Johnson, Keith and Mullennix, John W. (eds.), Talker Variability in Speech Processing, 145–165. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Jonides, John, Lewis, Richard L., Nee, Derek Evan, Lustig, Cindy A., Berman, Marc G. and Moore, Katherine Sledge. 2008. The mind and brain of short-term memory. The Annual Review of Psychology 59: 193–224.Google Scholar
Juliano, Cornell and Tanenhaus, Michael K.. 1993. Contingent frequency effects in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 593–598.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, Daniel. 1996. A probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and disambiguation. Cognitive Science 20: 137–194.Google Scholar
Jurafsky, Daniel, Bell, Alan, Gregory, Michelle L. and Raymond, William D.. 2001. Probabilistic relations between words: Evidence from reduction in lexical production. In Bybee, Joan and Hopper, Paul (eds.), Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure, 229–254. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jusczyk, Peter W. 1997. The Discovery of Spoken Language. Cambridge, MA: Bradford/MIT Press.Google Scholar
Justeson, John S. and Stephens, Laurence D.. 1990. Explanations for word order universals: A log-linear analysis. Proceedings of the XIV International Congress of Linguistics, 2372–2376. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kamide, Yuki, Altmann, Gerry T. M. and Haywood, Sarah 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
Kapatsinski, Vsevolod. 2018. Learning morphological constructions. In Booij, Geert (ed.), The Construction of Words: Advances in Construction Morphology, 547–582. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
Kazenin, Konstantin I. 1994. Split syntactic ergativity: Toward an implicational hierarchy. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 47: 78–98.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. 1976. Towards a universal definition of “subject.” In Charles, Li (ed.), Subject and Topic, 303–334. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kemmer, Suzanne. 1993. The Middle Voice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kemmer, Suzanne and Barlow, Michael (eds.). 2000. Usage-Based Models of Language. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Keysar, Boaz, Barr, Dale J., Balin, Jennifer A. and Brauner, Jason S.. 2000. Taking perspective in conversation: The role of mutual knowledge in comprehension. Psychological Science 11: 32–38.Google Scholar
Kidd, Evan, Donnelly, Seamus and Christiansen, Morten H.. 2018. Individual differences in language acquisition and processing. Trends in Cognitive Science 22: 154–169.Google Scholar
Kirby, Simon. 1999. Function, Selection, and Innateness: The Emergence of Language Universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kirby, Simon. 2012. Language is an adaptive system: The role of cultural evolution in the origins of structure. In Tallerman, Maggie and Gibson, Kathleen R. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Language Evolution, 589–604. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Koffka, Kurt. 1935. Principles of Gestalt Psychology. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar
Konieczny, Lars. 2000. Locality and parsing complexity. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 29: 627–645.Google Scholar
Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria. 1993. Nominalizations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, Jaklin. 1997. Turkish. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd. 1996. Adverbial Subordination: A Typology and History of Adverbial Subordination Based on European Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 1985. Harmony or consistency? Review of John A. Hawkins, Word Order Universals. Theoretical Linguistics 12: 73–94.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony S. 1989. Reflexes of the grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change 1: 199–244.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony, Pintzuk, Susan and Myhill, John. 1982. Understanding “do.” Chicago Linguistics Society 18: 282–294.Google Scholar
Krug, Manfred. 1998. String frequency. A cognitive motivating factor in coalescence, language processing, and linguistic change. Journal of English Linguistics 26: 286–320.Google Scholar
Krug, Manfred. 2000. Emerging English Modals. A Corpus-Based Study of Grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Krug, Manfred. 2003. Frequency as a determinant of grammatical variation and change. In Rohdenburg, Günter and Mondorf, Britta (eds.), Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English, 7–67. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kuperberg, Gina R. and Jaeger, T. Florian. 2016. What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension? Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 31: 32–59.Google Scholar
Kuperman, Victor and Bresnan, Joan. 2012. The effects of construction probability on word durations during spontaneous incremental sentence production. Journal of Memory and Language 66: 588–611.Google Scholar
Kurumada, Chigusa and Jaeger, T. Florian. 2015. Communicative efficiency in language production: Optional case-marking in Japanese. Journal of Memory and Language 83: 152–178.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1969. Contraction, deletion, and inherent variability of the English copula. Language 45: 715–762.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George and Johnson, Mark. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1, Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1988. A usage-based model. In Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida (ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics, 127–161. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1991. Concept, Image, and Symbol: The Cognitive Basis of Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gryuter.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1997. Constituency, dependency, and conceptual grouping. Cognitive Linguistics 8: 1–32.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2000. A dynamic usage-based model. In Kemmer, Susanne and Barlow, Michael (eds.), Usage-Based Models of Language, 1–64. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, Hanjung. 2006. Parallel optimization in case systems: Evidence from ellipsis in Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 15: 69–96.Google Scholar
Lee, Hanjung. 2010. Explaining variation in Korean case ellipsis: Economy versus iconicity. Journal of East Asian Languages 19: 191–318.Google Scholar
Lee, Hanjung. 2011. Gradients in Korean case ellipsis: An experimental investigation. Lingua 121: 20–34.Google Scholar
Lee, Hanjung and Kim, Nayoun. 2012. Non-canonical word order and subject-object asymmetry in Korean case ellipsis. In Müller, Stefan (ed.), Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, 427–442. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Leech, Robert, Mareschal, Denis and Cooper, Richard P.. 2008. Analogy as relational priming: A developmental and computational perspective on the origin of a complex cognitive skill. Behavior and Brain Sciences 31: 357–378.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. (1995) 2015. Thoughts on Grammaticalization. Leipzig: Language Science Press. [Third edition]Google Scholar
Levin, Beth and Hovav, Malka Rappaport. 2005. Argument Realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levy, Roger. 2008. Expectation-based syntactic comprehension. Cognition 106: 1126–1177.Google Scholar
Li, Charles N. and Thompson, Sandra A.. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Lieven, Elena V. M., Pine, Julian M. and Baldwin, Gillian. 1997. Lexically-based learning and early grammatical development. Journal of Child Language 24: 187–219.Google Scholar
Lieven, Elena V. M., Behrens, Heike, Spears, Jennifer and Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Early syntactic creativity: A usage-based approach. Journal of Child Language 30: 333–370.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David. 1999. The Development of Language: Acquisition, Change, and Evolution. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Logan, Gordon D. 1988. Towards an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review 95: 492–527.Google Scholar
Lorenz, David. 2013. From reduction to emancipation: Is gonna a word? In Hasselgård, Hilde, Ebeling, Jarle and Ebeling, Signe Oksefjell (eds.), Corpus Perspectives on Patterns of Lexis, 133–152. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lorenz, David and Tizón-Couto, David. 2017. Coalescence and contraction of V-to-Vinf sequences in American English – Evidence from spoken language. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2015-0067Google Scholar
Luce, Paul A. and Pisoni, David P.. 1998. Recognizing spoken words: The neighborhood activation model. Ear and Hearing 19: 1–36.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1968. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
MacDonald, Maryellen C. 2013. How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology 4: 1–16.Google Scholar
MacDonald, Maryellen C. and Chistiansen, Morton H.. 2002. Reassessing working memory: Comments on Just and Carpenter (1992) and Waters and Caplan (1996). Psychological Review 109: 35–54.Google Scholar
MacDonald, Maryellen C. and Seidenberg, Mark S.. 2006. Constraint satisfaction accounts of lexical and sentence comprehension. In Traxlor, Matthew J. and Gernsbacher, Morton Ann (eds.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics, 581–611. London: Elsevier. [Second edition]Google Scholar
MacDonald, Maryellen C., Pearlmutter, Neal J. and Seidenberg, Mark S.. 1994. Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review 101: 676–703.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian (ed.). 1999. The Emergence of Language. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Madlener, Karin. 2016. Input optimization: Effects of type and token frequency manipulations in instructed second language acquisition. In Behrens, Heike and Stefan, Pfänder (eds.), Experience Counts: Frequency Effects in Language, 133–173. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mahootian, Shahrzad. 1997. Persian Descriptive Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian. 1990. Infinitival Complement Clauses in English: A Study of Syntax in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mak, Willem M., Vonk, Wietske and Schriefers, Herbert. 2002. The influence of animacy on relative clause processing. Journal of Memory and Language 47: 50–68.Google Scholar
Mak, Willem M., Vonk, Wietske and Schriefers, Herbert 2006. Animacy in processing relative clauses. Journal of Memory and Language 54: 466–490.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej L. 2008. Animacy and asymmetries in differential case marking. Lingua 118: 203–221.Google Scholar
Manning, Christopher D. and Schütze, Hinrich. 1999. Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Marcus, Gary F. 1999. The Algebraic Mind: Integrating Connectionism and Cognitive Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Marcus, Gary F., Vijayan, S., Bandi Rao, S. and Vishton, P. M.. 1999. Rule learning by seven-month-old infants. Science 283: 77–80.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Yoshiko. 1997. Noun-Modifying Constructions in Japanese: A Frame-Semantic Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
McCauley, Stewart M. and Christiansen, Morton H.. 2014. Acquiring formulaic language: A computational approach. The Mental Lexicon 9: 419–436.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura. 2004. Type shifting in construction grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics 15: 1–67.Google Scholar
Miller, George A. 1956. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review 63: 81–97.Google Scholar
Mintz, Toben H. 2003. Frequent frames as a cue for grammatical categories in child-directed speech. Cognition 90: 91–117.Google Scholar
Mintz, Toben H., Newport, Elissa L. and Bever, Thomas G.. 2002. The distributional structure of grammatical categories in speech to young children. Cognitive Science 26: 393–424.Google Scholar
Minashima, Hiroshi. 2001. On the deletion of accusative case markers in Japanese. Studia Linguistica 55: 175–190.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Bruce and Robinson, Fred C.. (1964) 2001. A Guide to Old English. Oxford: Blackwell. [Sixth edition]Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1984. The evolution of noun incorporation. Language 60: 847–894.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 1991. Active/agentive case marking and its motivations. Language 67: 510–546.Google Scholar
Monaghan, Padraic, Chater, Nick and Christiansen, Morton H.. 2005. The differential role of phonological and distributional cues in grammatical categorization. Cognition 96: 143–182.Google Scholar
Mondorf, Britta. 2010. Variation and change in English resultative constructions. Language Variation and Change 22: 397–421.Google Scholar
Mosel, Ulrike and Hovdhaugen, Even. 1992. Samoan Reference Grammar. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.Google Scholar
Mulder, Kimberley, Dijkstra, Ton, Schreuder, Robert and Baayen, Harald R.. 2014. Effects of primary and secondary morphological family size in monolingual and bilingual word processing. Journal of Memory and Language 72: 59–84.Google Scholar
Murphy, Gregory L. 2002. The Big Book of Concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko. 2010. A diachronic dimension in maps of case functions. Linguistic Discovery 8: 233–254.Google Scholar
Narrog, Heiko and Heine, Bernd (eds.). 2011. The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Newell, Allen. 1990. Unified Theories of Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick. 2003. Grammar is grammar and usage is usage. Language 79: 682–707.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1992. Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ninio, Anat. 1999. Pathbreaking verbs in syntactic development and the acquisition of isolated forms at the onset of speech. First Language 13: 291–314.Google Scholar
Nosofsky, Robert M. 1988. Similarity, frequency and category representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 14: 54–65.Google Scholar
Nunberg, Geoffrey, Sag, Ivan A. and Wasow, Thomas. 1994. Idioms. Language 70: 491–538.Google Scholar
Oberauer, Klaus. 2002. Access to information in working memory: Exploring the focus of attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 28: 411–421.Google Scholar
Ogura, Mieko. 1993. The development of periphrastic do in English: A case of lexical diffusion in syntax. Diachronica 10: 51–85.Google Scholar
Ohara, Kyoko Hirose. 1992. On Japanese internally headed relative clauses. Berkeley Linguistics Society 8: 100–108.Google Scholar
Pagel, Mark and Meade, Andrew. 2018. The deep history of number words. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Series B 373: 20160517.Google Scholar
Paul, Hermann. (1880) 1920. Prinzipien der Sprachgeschichte. Tübingen: Niemeyer. [Fifth edition]Google Scholar
Perek, Florent. 2015. Argument Structure in Usage-Based Construction Grammar: Experimental and Corpus-Based Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Perek, Florent and Goldberg, Adele E.. 2015. Generalizing beyond the input: The functions of the constructions matter. Journal of Memory and Language 24: 108–127.Google Scholar
Pickering, Martin J. and Branigan, Holly P.. 1998. The representation of verbs: Evidence from syntactic priming in language production. Journal of Memory and Language 39: 633–651.Google Scholar
Pickering, Martin J. and Ferreira, Victor S.. 2008. Structural priming: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin 134: 427–459.Google Scholar
Pickering, Martin J. and Garrod, Simon. 2004. Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27: 169–226.Google Scholar
Pickering, Martin J. and Garrod, Simon. 2017. Priming and language change. In Hundt, Marianne, Mollin, Sandra and Pfenniger, Simone E. (eds.), The Changing English Language, 173–190. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet B. 2001. Exemplar dynamics: Word frequency, lenition and contrast. In Bybee, Joan and Hopper, Paul (eds.), Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure, 137–158. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1991. Rules of language. Science 253: 530–535.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1994. The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1999. Words and Rules: The Ingredients of Language. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven and Jackendoff, Ray. 2005. The faculty of language: What’s special about it? Cognition 95: 201–236.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven and Prince, Alan. 1988. On language and connectionism: Analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition. Cognition 28: 73–193.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven, Lebeaux, David S. and Frost, Loren Ann. 1987. Productivity and constraints in the acquisition of the passive. Cognition 26: 195–267.Google Scholar
Pluymaekers, Mark, Ernestus, Mirjam and Baayen, Harald R.. 2005. Lexical frequency and acoustic reduction in spoken Dutch. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America 118: 2561–2569.Google Scholar
Pollack, Irwin and Pickett, J. M.. 1964. Intelligibility of excerpts from fluent speech: Auditory vs. structural context. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 3: 79–84.Google Scholar
Quine, Willard van Orman 1960. Word and Object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey and Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew. 1997. Syntax: A Minimalist Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reali, Florencia and Christiansen, Morton H.. 2007. Processing of relative clauses is made easier by frequency of occurrence. Journal of Memory and Language 57: 1–23.Google Scholar
Redington, Martin, Chater, Nick and Finch, Steven. 1998. Distributional information: A powerful cue for acquiring syntactic categories. Cognitive Science 22: 425–469.Google Scholar
Robenalt, Clarice and Goldberg, Adele. 2015. Judgment evidence for statistical preemption: It is relatively better to vanish than to disappear a rabbit, but a lifeguard can equally well backstroke or swim children to shore. Cognitive Linguistics 26: 467–503.Google Scholar
Roland, Douglas, Dick, Fredric and Elman, Jeffrey L.. 2007. Frequency of basic English grammatical structures: A corpus analysis. Journal of Memory and Language 57: 348–379.Google Scholar
Roland, Douglas, Mauner, Gail, O’Meara, Carolyn and Yun, Hongoak. 2012. Discourse expectations and relative clause processing. Journal of Memory and Language 66: 479–508.Google Scholar
Rosenbach, Annette. 2002. Genitive Variation in English: Conceptual Factors in Synchronic and Diachronic Studies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rosenbach, Annette. 2005. Animacy versus weight as determinants of grammatical variation in English. Language 81: 613–644.Google Scholar
Rosenbach, Annette. 2007. Emerging variation: Determiner genitive and noun modifiers in English. English Language and Linguistics 11: 143–189.Google Scholar
Rowland, Caroline F. 2007. Explaining errors in children’s questions: Auxiliary DO and modal auxiliaries. Cognition 104: 106–134.Google Scholar
Rowland, Caroline F. and Pine, Julian M. 2000. Subject–auxiliary inversion errors and wh-question acquisition: “What children do know?” Journal of Child Language 27: 157–181.Google Scholar
Rowland, Caroline F., Chang, Franklin, Ambridge, Ben, Pine, Julian and Lieven, Elena V. M.. 2012. The development of abstract syntax: Evidence from priming and the lexical boost. Cognition 125: 49–63.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, David E. and McClelland, James L. (eds.). 1986a. Parallel Distributed Processing: Exploration in the Microstructures of Cognition. 2 Vols. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, David E. and McClelland, James L. 1986b. On learning the past tenses of English verbs. In Rumelhart, David E., McClelland, James L. and PDP Research Group (eds.), Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in the Microstructure of Cognition, Vol. 2, 216–271. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Saffran, Jenny R., Aslin, Richard N. and Newport, Elissa L.. 1996. Statistical learning in 8-month-old infants. Science 274: 1926–1928.Google Scholar
Sandra, Dominiek and Rice, Sally. 1995. Network analyses of prepositional meaning: Mirroring whose mind – the linguist’s or the language user’s? Cognitive Linguistics 6: 89–130.Google Scholar
Sankoff, Gillian and Blondeau, Hélène. 2007. Language change across the lifespan: /r/ in Montreal French. Language 83: 560–588.Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Saussure, Ferdinand de. (1916) 1994. Course in General Linguistics. La Salle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
Savage, Ceri, Lieven, Elena V. M., Theakston, Anna and Tomasello, Michael. 2006. Structural priming as implicit learning in language acquisition: The persistence of lexical and structural priming in 4-year-olds. Language Learning and Language Development 2: 27–49.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul and Shopen, Timothy. 2007. Parts-of-speech systems. In Shopen, Timothy (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description, Vol. 1, Clause Structure, 1–60. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schiering, René, Bickel, Balthasar and Hildebrandt, Kristine A.. 2011. The prosodic word is not universal, but emergent. Journal of Linguistics 46: 657–709.Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2015. A blueprint of the entrenchment-and-conventionalization model. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 3: 3–26.Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 2016. A framework for understanding linguistic entrenchment and its psychological foundations in memory and automatization. In Schmid, Hans-Jörg (ed.), Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning: How We Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge, 11–35. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg and Küchenhoff, Helmut. 2013. Collostructional analysis and other ways of measuring lexicogrammatical attraction: Theoretical premises, practical problems and cognitive underpinnings. Cognitive Linguistics 24: 531–577.Google Scholar
Schmidtke-Bode, Karsten. 2009. A Typology of Purpose Clauses. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schmidtke-Bode, Karsten and Diessel, Holger. 2017. Cross-linguistic patterns in the structure, function and position of (object) complement clauses. Linguistics 55: 1–38.Google Scholar
Schmidtke-Bode, Karsten and Levshina, Natalia. 2018. Reassessing scale effects on differential object marking: Methodological, conceptual and theoretical issues in quest of a universal. In Ilja A. Seržant and Alena Witzlack-Makarevich (eds.), Diachrony of Differential Argument Marking, 509–537. Leipzig: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Schneider, Walter and Chein, Jason M. 2003. Controlled and automatic processing: Behavior, theory, and biological mechanisms. Cognitive Science 27: 525–559.Google Scholar
Scholz, Barbara C. and Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2002. Searching for arguments to support linguistic nativism. The Linguistic Review 18: 185–223.Google Scholar
Schreuder, Robert and Baayen, Harald R.. 1997. How complex simplex words can be. Journal of Memory and Language 37: 118–139.Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1969. Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Seidenberg, Mark S. and MacDonald, Maryellen C.. 1999. A probabilistic constraints approach to language acquisition and processing. Cognitive Science 23: 569–588.Google Scholar
Seidenberg, Mark S. and Plaut, David C.. 2014. Quasiregularity and its discontents: The legacy of the past tense debate. Cognitive Science 38: 1190–1128.Google Scholar
Sereno, Joan A. and Jongman, Allard. 1999. Processing of English inflectional morphology. Memory and Cognition 25: 425–437.Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 1993. Syntactic weight vs. information structure and word order variation in Polish. Journal of Linguistics 29: 233–265.Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna and Bakker, Dik. 1996. The distribution of subject and object agreement and word order type. Studies in Language 20: 115–161.Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna and Hollmann, Willem. 2007. Ditransitive clauses with special reference to Lancashire dialect. In Hannay, Mike and Steen, Gerald D. (eds.), Structural-Functional Studies in English Grammar in Honor of Lacklan Mackenzie, 83–102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1976. Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Robert, M. W. Dixon (ed.), Grammatical Categories in Australian Languages, 112–171. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John. 1991. Corpus, Concordance and Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sinnemäki, Kaius. 2014. A typological perspective on differential object marking. Linguistics 52: 281–313.Google Scholar
Soe, Myint. 1999. A Grammar of Burmese. PhD dissertation. University of Oregon.Google Scholar
Sommerer, Lotte. 2015. The influence of constructions in grammaticalization: Revisiting category emergence and the development of the definite article in English. In Barðdal, Joanna, Smirnova, Elena, Sommerer, Lotte and Gildea, Spike (eds.), Diachronic Construction Grammar, 107–136. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Song, Jae Jung. 2012. Word Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Spencer, Andrew and Luis, Ana R.. 2012. Clitics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Spivey-Knowlton, Michael J. and Sedivy, Julie. 1995. Resolving attachment ambiguities with multiple constraints. Cognition 55: 227–267.Google Scholar
Stassen, Leon. 2005. Predicative adjectives. In Haspelmath, Martin, Dryer, Matthew, Gil, David and Comrie, Bernard (eds.), World Atlas of Language Structures, 478–481. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Steels, Luc. 2000. Language as a complex adaptive system. In Parallel Problem Solving from Nature (PPSN VI), 17–26. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Steels, Luc.(ed.). 2011. Design Patterns in Fluid Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Steels, Luc. 2013. Fluid construction grammar. In Hoffmann, Thomas and Trousdale, Graeme (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, 153–167. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Steels, Luc. 2015. The Talking Heads Experiment: Origins of Words and Meanings. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2008. Negative entrenchment: A usage-based approach to negative evidence. Cognitive Linguistics 19: 513–531.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol and Gries, Stefan. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8: 209–243.Google Scholar
Storkel, Holly L. 2004. Do children acquire dense neighborhoods? An investigation of similarity neighborhoods in lexical acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics 25: 201–221.Google Scholar
Stukenbrock, Anja. 2015. Deixis in der face-to-face-Interaktion. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Suttle, Laura and Goldberg, Adele E.. 2011. The partial productivity of constructions as induction. Linguistics 49: 1237–1269.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2006. Morphosyntactic Persistence in Spoken English: A Corpus Study. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt and Hinrichs, Lars. 2008. Probabilistic determinants of genitive variation in spoken and written English: A multivariate comparison across time, space, and genres. In Nevalainen, Terttu, Taavitsainen, Irma, Pahta, Paivi and Korhonen, Minna (eds.), The Dynamics of Linguistic Variation: Corpus Evidence on English Past and Present, 291–309. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1988. Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science 12: 49–100.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Towards a Cognitive Semantics, Vol. 1, Concept Structuring Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tanenhaus, Michael K., Spivey-Knowlton, Michael J., Eberhard, Kathleen M. and Sedivy, Julie C.. 1995. Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science 268: 1632–1634.Google Scholar
Taylor, John R. 2012. The Mental Lexicon: How Language Is Represented in the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah Grey and Kaufman, Terrence. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Tiersma, Peter Meijes. 1982. Local and general markedness. Language 59: 832–849.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 1992. First Verbs: A Case Study of Early Grammatical Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 1999. The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2000. Do young children have adult syntactic competence? Cognition 74: 209–253.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Approach. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael and Brooks, Patricia. 1998. Young children’s earliest transitive and intransitive constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 9: 379–395.Google Scholar
Trask, R. Larry. 1996. Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1992. Syntax. In Hogg, R. M. (ed.), The Cambridge History of the English Language, Vol. 1, The Beginnings to 1066, 168–289. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs and Trousdale, Graeme. 2013. Constructionalization and Constructional Changes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Traxler, Matthew J., Morris, Robin K. and Seely, Rachel E.. 2002. Processing subject and object relative clauses: Evidence from eye movements. Cognition 47: 69–90.Google Scholar
Traxler, Matthew J., Williams, Rihana S., Blozis, Shelley A. and Morris, Robin K.. 2005. Working memory, animacy, and verb class in the processing of relative clauses. Cognition 53: 204–224.Google Scholar
Tremblay, Antoine, Derwing, Bruce, Libben, Gary and Westbury, Chris. 2011. Processing advantages of lexical bundles: Evidence from self-paced reading and sentence recall tasks. Language Learning 61: 569–613.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 1974. The Social Differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Trueswell, John C. 1996. The role of lexical frequency in syntactic ambiguity resolution. Journal of Memory and Language 35: 566–585.Google Scholar
Trueswell, John C. and Tanenhaus, Michael K.. 1994. Towards a lexicalist framework for constraint-based syntactic ambiguity resolution. In Cliften, Charles Jr., Frazier, Lyn and Rayner, Keith (eds.), Perspectives on Sentence Processing, 155–179. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Trueswell, John C., Medina, Tamara Nicol, Hafri, Alon and Gleitman, Lila R.. 2013. Propose but verify: Fast mapping meets cross-situational word learning. Cognitive Psychology 66: 126–156.Google Scholar
Tyler, Andrea and Evans, Vyvyan. 2001. Reconsidering prepositional polysemy networks: The case of over. Language 77: 724–765.Google Scholar
Tyler, Andrea and Evans, Vyvyan. 2014. Degeneracy: The maintenance of constructional networks. In Boogaart, Ronny, Colleman, Timothy and Rutten, Gijsbert (eds.), Extending the Scope of Construction Grammar, 141–179. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
van der Auwera, Johan and Plungian, Vladimir A.. 1998. Modality’s semantic map. Linguistic Typology 2: 79–124.Google Scholar
Van de Velde, Freek. 2010. The emergence of the determiner in Dutch NP. Linguistics 48: 263–299.Google Scholar
Van Gelderen, Elly. 2011. The grammaticalization of agreement. In Heine, Bernd and Norrog, Heiko (eds.), Handbook of Grammaticalization, 491–501. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Van Lier, Eva and Rijkhoff, Jan. 2013. Flexible word classes in linguistic typology and grammatical theory. In Rijkhoff, Jan and van Lier, Eva (eds.), Flexible Word Classes: Typological Studies of Underspecified Parts-of-Speech, 1–30. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
van Trijp, Remi. 2010. Grammaticalization and semantic maps: Evidence from artificial language evolution. Linguistic Discovery 8: 310–326.Google Scholar
van Trijp, Remi. 2016. The Evolution of Case Grammar. Leipzig: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. and LaPolla, Randy J.. 1997. Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Verhagen, Arie. 2005. Constructions of Intersubjectivity: Discourse, Syntax, and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Verhagen, Arie. 2007. Construal and perspectivization. In Geeraerts, Dirk and Cuyckens, Hubert (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, 48–81. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vitevitch, Michael S. 2002. The influence of phonological neighbourhoods on speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 28: 735–747.Google Scholar
Vlach, Haley and Sandhofer, Catherine. 2012. Fast mapping across time: Memory processes support children’s retention of learned words. Frontiers in Psychology. 3: 1–8.Google Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus and Kaiser, Georg A.. 2005. The evolution of differential object marking in Spanish. In von Heusinger, Klaus, Kaiser, Georg A. and Stark, Elisabeth (eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop “Specificity and the Evolution/Emergence of Nominal Determination in Romance,” 33–69. Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft (Arbeitspapier 119). Konstanz, Germany: Universität Konstanz.Google Scholar
von Heusinger, Klaus and Kornfilt, Jaklin. 2005. The case of direct object in Turkish: Semantics, syntax and morphology. Turkic Languages 9: 3–44.Google Scholar
Warner, Anthony. 1993. English Auxiliaries: Structure and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas. 2002. Postverbal Behavior. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Weiner, E. Judith and Labov, William. 1983. Constraints on agentless passive. Journal of Linguistics 19: 29–58.Google Scholar
Weinrich, Uriel, Labov, William and Herzog, Marvin I.. 1968. Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In Lehmann, Winfrid P. and Malkiel, Yakov (eds.), Directions for Historical Linguistics, 95–115. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Wells, Justine B., Christiansen, Morton H., Race, David S., Acheson, Daniel J. and MacDonald, Maryellen C.. 2009. Experience and sentence processing: Statistical learning and relative clause comprehension. Cognitive Psychology 58: 250–271.Google Scholar
Wiechmann, Daniel. 2015. Understanding Relative Clauses: A Usage-Based View on the Processing of Complex Constructions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wiechmann, Daniel and Kerz, Elma. 2013. The positioning of concessive adverbial clauses in English: Assessing the importance of discourse-pragmatic and processing-based constraints. English Language and Linguistics 17: 1–23.Google Scholar
Wiechmann, Daniel and Lohmann, Arne. 2013. Domain minimization and beyond: Modeling prepositional phrase ordering. Language Variation and Change 25: 65–88.Google Scholar
Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena and Seržant, Ilja A.. 2018. Differential argument marking: Patterns of variation. In Seržant, Ilja A. and Witzlack-Makarevich, Alena (eds.), Diachrony of Differential Argument Marking, 1–48. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Wolk, Christoph, Bresnan, Joan, Rosenbach, Anette and Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2013. Dative and genitive variability in Late Modern English: Exploring cross-constructional variation and change. Diachronica 30: 382–419.Google Scholar
Wonnacott, Elizabeth, Newport, Elissa L. and Tanenhaus, Michael K.. 2008. Acquiring and processing verb argument structure: Distributional learning in a miniature language. Cognitive Psychology 56: 165–209.Google Scholar
Wray, Alison. 2002. Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wulff, Stefanie. 2008. Rethinking Idiomaticity: A Usage-Based Approach. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Xiao, Richard, McEnery, Tomy and Qian, Yufang. 2006. Passive constructions in English and Chinese. Languages in Contrast 6: 109–149.Google Scholar
Yamashita, Hiroko and Chang, Franklin. 2001. “Long before short” preference in the production of a head-final language. Cognition 81: B45–B55.Google Scholar
Zehentner, Eva. 2018. Ditransitives in Middle English: On semantic specialization and the rise of the dative alternation. English Language and Linguistics 22: 149–175.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • References
  • Holger Diessel, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität, Jena, Germany
  • Book: The Grammar Network
  • Online publication: 12 August 2019
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108671040.013
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • References
  • Holger Diessel, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität, Jena, Germany
  • Book: The Grammar Network
  • Online publication: 12 August 2019
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108671040.013
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • References
  • Holger Diessel, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität, Jena, Germany
  • Book: The Grammar Network
  • Online publication: 12 August 2019
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108671040.013
Available formats
×