Book contents
References
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 August 2021
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Introducing Linguistic Research , pp. 281 - 308Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Abbuhl, Rebekha; Gass, Susan; Mackey, Alison. 2013. ‘Experimental research design’. In Podesva, Robert & Sharma, Devyani (eds). Research Methods in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 116–134.Google Scholar
Abeillé, Anne. (ed.). 2003. Treebanks: Building and Using Parsed Corpora. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Adolphs, Svenja; Knight, Dawn. 2010. ‘Building a spoken corpus. What are the basics?’ In O’Keeffe, A. & McCarthy, M. (eds). The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics. London: Routledge. 38–52.Google Scholar
Agouri, Jo. 2010. ‘Quantitative, qualitative or both? Combining methods in linguistic research’. In Litosseliti, Lia (ed.). 2010. Research Methods in Linguistics. London: Continuum. 29–45.Google Scholar
Aguado, Karin. 2014. ‘Triangulation’. In Settinieri, Julia, Demirkaya, Sevilen, Feldmeier, Alexis, Gültekin-Karakoç, Nazan & Riemer, Claudia (eds). Empirische Forschungsmethoden für Deutsch als Fremd- und Zweitsprache. Eine Einführung. Paderborn: UTB. 47–56.Google Scholar
Ahearn, Laura. 2012. Living language: An introduction to Linguistic Anthropology. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin; Rühlemann, Christoph (eds). 2017. Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra. 2007. ‘Linguistic fieldwork. Setting the scene’. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung, 60(1). 3–11.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra; Dixon, R. M. W. (eds). 2001. Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance: Problems in Comparative Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra; Dixon, R. M. W. (eds). 2006. Grammars in Contact: A Cross-Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, Alexandra; Dixon, R. M. W. (eds). 2017. The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Akinlabi, Akinbiyi; Connell, Bruce. 2008. ‘The Interaction of linguistic theory, linguistic description and linguistic documentation’. In Ndimele, O.-M., Udoh, I., & Anyanwu, O. (eds). Critical Issues in the Study of Linguistics, Languages & Literatures in Nigeria: A Festschrift for Conrad Max Benedict Brann. Port Harcourt: Grand Orbit Communications Ltd. & Emhai Press. 571–589.Google Scholar
Albert, Ruth; Koster, Cor. 2002. Empirie in Linguistik und Sprachlehrforschung. Ein methodologisches Arbeitsbuch. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Albert, Ruth; Marx, Nicole. 2010. Empirisches Arbeiten in Linguistik und Sprachlehrforschung. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Alday, Phillip. 2019. ‘M/EEG analysis of naturalistic stories. A review from speech to language processing’. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 34 (4). 457–473.Google Scholar
Alday, Phillip; Kretzschmar, Franziska. 2019. ‘Speed-accuracy tradeoffs in brain and behavior. Testing the independence of P300 and N400 related processes in behavioral responses to sentence categorization’. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 13. 285.Google Scholar
von Alemann, Heine. 1984 2. Der Forschungsprozess: Eine Einführung in die Praxis der empirischen Sozialforschung. Stuttgart: Teubner.Google Scholar
Allwood, Jens. 2008. ‘Multimodal corpora’. In Lüdeling, Anke & Kytö, Merjy (eds). Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook. (HSK, 29.1). Berlin: de Gruyter. 207–225.Google Scholar
Altmann, Gerry. 2001. ‘The language machine. Psycholinguistics in review’. British Journal of Psychology, 92. 129–170.Google Scholar
Ameka, Felix; Dench, Alan; Evans, Nicholas (eds). 2006. Catching Language: The Standing Challenge of Grammar Writing. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ammon, Ulrich; Dittmar, Norbert; Mattheier, Klaus; Trudgill, Peter (eds). 2002/2005/2006. Sociolinguistics: An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society. (HSK, 3.1–3). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Andric, Michael; Small, Steven. 2015. ‘fMRI methods for studying the neurobiology of language under naturalistic conditions’. In Willems, Roel (ed.). Cognitive Neuroscience of Natural Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 8–28.Google Scholar
Arbib, Michael. 2015. ‘Neurolinguistics. A Cooperative computation perspective’. In Heine, Bernd & Narrog, Heiko (eds). The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis 2 ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 639–669.Google Scholar
Aronoff, Mark; Rees-Miller, Janie (eds). 2003. The Handbook of Linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Arppe, Antti; Järvikivi, Juhani. 2007. ‘Every method counts. Combining corpus-based and experimental evidence in the study of synonymy’. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 3(2), 131–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, Paul; Coffey, Amanda; Delamont, Sara; Lofland, John; Lofland, Lyn (eds). 2001. Handbook of Ethnography. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Austin, Peter. 2007. ‘Training for language documentation. Experiences at the School of Oriental and African Studies’. In Rau, Victoria & Florey, Margaret (eds). Documenting and Revitalizing Austronesian languages. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i Press. 25–41.Google Scholar
Austin, Peter. 2010. ‘Current issues in language documentation’. In Austin, Peter (ed.). Language Documentation and Description, vol. 7. London: SOAS. 12–33.Google Scholar
Austin, Peter; Simpson, Andrew (eds). 2007. Endangered Languages. Hamburg: Helmut Buske Verlag.Google Scholar
Austin, Peter; Sallabank, Julia (eds). 2011. The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baayen, Harald. 2008. Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bailey, Guy; Tillery, Jan. 1999. ‘The Rutledge Effect: The Impact of Interviewers on Survey Results in Linguistics’. American Speech, 74(4). 389–402.Google Scholar
Bailey, Guy; Tillery, Jan. 2004. ‘Some sources of divergent data in sociolinguistics’. In Macaulay, Ronald & Fought, Carmen (eds). Sociolinguistic Variation: Critical Reflections. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 11–30.Google Scholar
Bakeman, Roger; Quera, Vincenc. 2011. Sequential Analysis and Observational Methods for the Behavioral Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Paul. 2010a. ‘Corpus methods in linguistics’. In Litosseliti, Lia (ed.). 2010. Research Methods in Linguistics. London: Continuum. 93–113.Google Scholar
Baker, Paul. 2010b. Sociolinguistics and Corpus Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Paul; Egbert, Jesse (eds). 2016. Triangulating Methodical Approaches in Corpus-Linguistic Research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bakker, Dik; Siewierska, Anna. 1991. A Database System for Language Typology. (Working paper, 3). Amsterdam: Department of Linguistics, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Bakker, Dik; Dahl, Östen; Haspelmath, Martin; Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria; Lehmann, Christian & Siewierska, Anna. 1993. Eurotyp Guidelines. (Working paper, 3). Strasbourg: Program in Language Typology, European Science Foundation.Google Scholar
Ball, Martin (ed.). 2010. The Routledge Handbook of Sociolinguistics around the World. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bargh, John; Chen, Mark; Burrows, Lara. 1996. ‘Automaticity of social behavior. Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2). 230–244.Google Scholar
Bates, Elizabeth; Wilson, Stephen; Saygin, Ayse Pinar; Dick, Frederic; Sereno, Martin; Knight, Robert; Dronkers, Nina. 2003. ‘Voxel-based lesion–symptom mapping’. Nature Neuroscience, 6(5). 448–450.Google Scholar
Bayley, Robert; Cameron, Richard; Lucas, Ceil (eds). 2013. The Oxford Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Beer, Bettina. 2008. ‘Systematische Beobachtung’. In Beer, Bettina (ed.). Methoden ethnologischer Feldforschung. Berlin: Reimer Verlag. 167–189.Google Scholar
Beer, Bettina (ed.). 2008. Methoden ethnologischer Feldforschung. Berlin: Reimer Verlag.Google Scholar
Michael, Beißwenger; Storrer, Angelika. 2008. ‘Corpora of computer-mediated communication’. In Lüdeling, Anke & Kytö, Merja (eds). Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook. (HSK, 29.1). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 292–308.Google Scholar
Bell, Alan. 1978. ‘Language samples’. In Greenberg, Joseph (ed.). Universals of Human Language, vol. 1. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 123–156.Google Scholar
Bergh, Gunnar; Zanchetta, Eros. 2008. ‘Web linguistics’. In Lüdeling, Anke & Kytö, Merja (eds). Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook. (HSK, 29.1). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 309–327.Google Scholar
Bergqvist, Henrik. 2007. ‘The role of metadata for translation and pragmatics in language documentation’. In Austin, Peter (ed.). Language Documentation and Description, vol. 4. London: SOAS. 163–173.Google Scholar
Berko, Jean. 1958. ‘The child’s learning of English morphology’. Word, 14 (2–3). 150–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berlin, Brent; Kay, Paul. 1969. Basic Color Terms. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Berman, Ruth; Slobin, Dan 1994. Relating Events in Narrative. A Crosslinguistic Developmental Study. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Bernard, Russel (ed.). 2011 5. Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Lanham, MD: Alta Mira Press.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1986. ‘Spoken and written textual dimensions in English. Resolving the contra- dictory findings’. Language, 62(2). 384–414.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation Across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1990. ‘Methodological issues regarding corpus-based analyses of linguistic variation’. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 5 (4). 257–269.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1993. ‘Representativeness in corpus design’. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 8(4). 243–257.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1995. Dimensions of Register Variation: A Cross-Linguistic Comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas; Finegan, Edward. 1989. ‘Drift and the evolution of English style. A history of three genres’. Language 65(3). 487–517.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas; Jones, James K.. 2009. ‘Quantitative methods in corpus linguistics’. In Lüdeling, Anke & Kytö, Merja (eds). Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook. (HSK, 29.2). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 1268–1304.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas; Reppen, Randi (eds). 2015. The Cambridge Handbook of English Corpus Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas; Conrad, Susan; Reppen, Randi. 1998. Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas; Johansson, Stig; Leech, Geoffrey; Conrad, Susan; Finegan, Edward. 1999. The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2011. ‘Statistical modeling of language universals’. Linguistic Typology, 15. 401–414.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2014a. ‘Sprachliche Vielfalt im Wechselspiel von Natur und Kultur’. In Glaser, Elvira, Kolmer, Agnes, Meyer, Martin & Stark, Elisabeth (eds). Sprache(n) verstehgen: Eine interdisziplinäre Vorlesungsreihe. Zürich: vdf Hochschulverlag. 101–126.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2014b. ‘Linguistic diversity and universals’. In Enfield, Nick, Kockelmann, Paul & Sidnell, Jack (eds). The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 101–124.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar. 2015 2. ‘Distributional typology. Statistical inquiries into the dynamics of linguistic diversity’. In Heine, Bernd & Narrog, Heiko (eds). The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 901–923.Google Scholar
Biemer, Paul; Lyberg, Lars. 2003. Introduction to Survey Quality. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Bird, Sonya; Gick, Bryan. 2006. ‘Phonetics. Field methods’. In Brown, Keith (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, vol. 9. Oxford: Elsevier. 463–467.Google Scholar
Bisang, Walter. 2004. ‘Dialectology and typology – An integrative perspective’. In Kortmann, Bernd (ed.). Dialectology Meets Typology: Dialect Grammar from a Cross-linguistic Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 11–45.Google Scholar
Blanken, Gerhard; Dittmann, Jürgen; Grimm, Hannelore (eds). 1993. Linguistic Disorders and Pathologies (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft / Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Blom, Elma; Unsworth, Sharon (eds). 2010. Experimental Methods in Language Acquisition Research. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Blumenthal-Dramé, Alice. 2016. ‘What corpus-based Cognitive Linguistics can and cannot expect from neurolinguistics’. Cognitive Linguistics, 27(4). 493–505.Google Scholar
Blume, María; Lust, Barbara. 2016. Research Methods in Language Acquisition. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Blumstein, Sheila. 1995. ‘The neurobiology of language’. In Miller, Joanne & Eimas, Peter (eds). Speech, Language, and Communication. New York: Academic Press. 339–370.Google Scholar
Blumstein, Sheila; Myers, Emily. 2013. ‘Neural systems underlying speech perception’. In Ochsner, Kevin & Kosslyn, Stephen (eds). Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Neuroscience, vol. 1. New York: Oxford University Press. 507–523.Google Scholar
Bock, Kathryn. 1996. ‘Language production. Methods and methodologies’. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3(4). 395–421.Google Scholar
Bondi, Marina; Scott, Mike (eds). 2010. Keyness in Texts. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonvillain, Nancy (ed.). 2015. The Routledge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bornkessel, Ina; Schlesewsky, Matthias; Friederici, Angela D.. 2002. ‘Grammar overrides frequency. Evidence from the online processing of flexible word order’. Cognition, 85(2). B21–B30.Google Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlesewky, Ina; Malchukov, Andrej; Richards, Marc (eds). 2015. Scales and Hierarchies: A Cross-disciplinary Perspective. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina; Schlesewsky, Matthias. 2008. ‘An alternative perspective on “semantic P600” effects in language comprehension’. Brain Research Reviews, 59(1). 55–73.Google Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina; Schlesewsky, Matthias. 2009. Processing Syntax and Morphology: A Neurocognitive Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina; Schlesewsky, Matthias. 2016. ‘The importance of linguistic typology for the neurobiology of language’. Linguistic Typology, 20(3). 615–621.Google Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina; Schlesewsky, Matthias; Small, Steven; Rauschecker, Josef. 2015. ‘Neurobiological roots of language in primate audition. Common computational properties’. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(3). 142–150.Google Scholar
Bortz, Jürgen; Schuster, Christof. 2010. Statistik für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Bouquiaux, Luc; Thomas, Jacqueline. 1992. Studying and Describing Unwritten Languages. Dallas: SIL.Google Scholar
Bowern, Claire. 2008. Linguistic Fieldwork: A Practical Guide. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Brennan, Jonathan. 2016. ‘Naturalistic sentence comprehension in the brain’. Language and Linguistics Compass, 10(7). 299–313.Google Scholar
Brenzinger, Matthias (ed.). 2007. Language Diversity Endangered. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Brezina, Vaclav. 2018. Statistics in Corpus Linguistics: A Practical Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Colin; Hagoort, Peter (eds). 1999. The Neurocognition of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope; Levinson, Stephen. 1993. Linguistic and Nonlinguistic Coding of Spatial Arrays: Explorations in Mayan Cognition. (Working paper, 14). Nijmegen: Cognitive Anthropology Research Group, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.Google Scholar
Brysbaert, Marc; Buchmeier, Matthias; Conrad, Markus; Jacobs, Arthur M.; Bölte, Jens; Böhl, Andrea. 2011. ‘The word frequency effect. A review of recent developments and implications for the choice of frequency estimates in German’. Experimental Psychology, 58(5). 412–424.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 2011. ‘Markedness. Iconocity, economy and frequency’. In Song, Jae Jung (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 131–147.Google Scholar
Byrman, Alan. 2006. ‘Integrating quantitative and qualitative research. How is it done’. Qualitative Research, 6(1). 97–113.Google Scholar
Campbell, Donald; Stanley, Julian. 1963. ‘Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research’. In Campbell, Donald, Stanley, Julian, & Gage, Nathaniel (eds). Handbook of Research on Teaching. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. 171–246.Google Scholar
Campbell, George. 1995. Concise Compendium of the World’s Languages. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Caplan, David. 1987. Neurolinguistics and Linguistic Aphasiology. (Cambridge studies in speech science and communication). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Caramazza, Alfonso. 1984. ‘The logic of neuropsychological research and the problem of patient classifications in aphasia’. Brain and Language, 21(1). 9–20.Google Scholar
Caramazza, Alfonso. 1986. ‘On drawing inferences about the structure of normal cognitive systems from the analysis of impaired performance. The case for single patient studies’. Brain and Cognition, 5(1). 41–66.Google Scholar
Carlson, Laura; Hill, Patrick. 2007. ‘Experimental methods for studying language and space’. In Gonzalez-Marquez, Monica, Mittelberg, Irene, Coulson, Seana, & Spivey, Michael (eds). Methods in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 250–276.Google Scholar
Carreiras, Manuel; Clifton, Charles Jr. 2004. The On-Line Study of Sentence Comprehension: Eyetracking, Erps and Beyond. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Casasanto, Daniel. 2017. ‘Relationships between language and cognition’. In Dancygier, Barbara (ed.). Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 19–37.Google Scholar
Chelliah, Shobhana; Reuse, Willem de. 2011. Handbook of Descriptive Linguistic Fieldwork. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert. 1973. ‘The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy. A critique of language statistics in psychological research’. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12. 335–359.Google Scholar
Cohen, Henri; Lefebvre, Claire (eds). 2005. Handbook of Categorization in Cognitive Science. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Cohen, Laurent; Dehaene, Stanislas; Naccache, Lionel; Lehéricy, Stéphane; Dehaene-Lambertz, Ghislaine; Hénaff, Marie-Anne; Michel, François. 2000. ‘The visual word form area. spatial and temporal characterization of an initial stage of reading in normal subjects and posterior split-brain patients’. Brain, 123(2). 291–307.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1981. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard; Golluscio, Lucia (eds). 2015. Language Contact and Documentation. Contacto lingüístico y documentación. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard; Haspelmath, Martin; Bickel, Balthasar. 2015. Leipzig Glossing Rules: Conventions for Interlinear Morpheme-by-morpheme Glosses. [–www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/resources/glossing-rules.php].Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard; Smith, Norval. 1977. ‘Lingua descriptive studies’. Questionnaire: Lingua, 42(1). 11–71.Google Scholar
Cordaro, Lucian; Ison, James. 1963. ‘Psychology of the scientist: X. Observer bias in classical conditioning of the planarian’. Psychological Reports, 13. 787–789.Google Scholar
Coslett, Branch. 2016. ‘Noninvasive brain stimulation in aphasia therapy. Lessons from TMS and tDCS’. In Hickok, Gergory & Small, Steven (eds). 2016. Neurobiology of Language. London: Academic Press. 1035–1154.Google Scholar
Coupland, Nikolas; Jaworski, Adam (eds). 1997. Sociolinguistics: A Reader and Coursebook. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Cowart, Wayne. 1997. Experimental Syntax: Applying Objective Methods to Sentence Judgements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Creswell, John. 2009 3. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Creswell, John; Clark, Vicki Plano. 2017. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Croft, William; Cruse, Alan. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William; Poole, Keith. 2008. ‘Inferring universals from grammatical variation. Multidimensional scaling for typological analysis’. Theoretical Linguistics, 34(1). 1–37.Google Scholar
Crowley, Terry; Thieberger, Nick. 2007. Field Linguistics: A Beginner’s Guide. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cysouw, Michael. 2003. The Paradigmatic Structure of Person Marking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cysouw, Michael. 2005. ‘Quantitative methods in typology’. In Köhler, R., Altmann, G. & Piotrowski, R. (eds). Quantitative Linguistics. (HSK, 27). Berlin: de Gruyter. 554–578.Google Scholar
Cysouw, Michael; Wälchli, Bernhard. 2007. ‘Parallel texts. Using translational equivalents in linguistic typology’. STUF – Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung, 60(2). 95–99.Google Scholar
Cysouw, Michael; Wohlgemuth, Jan. 2010. ‘The other end of universals. Theory and typology of rara’. In Cysouw, Michael & Wohlgemuth, Jan (eds). Rethinking Universals. How Rarities Affect Linguistic Theory. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 1–9.Google Scholar
Daase, Andrea; Beatrix, Hinrichs; Julia, Settinieri. 2014. ‘Befragung’. In Settinieri, Julia, Demirkaya, Sevilen, Feldmeier, Alexis, Gültekin-Karakoç, Nazan, & Riemer, Claudia (eds). Empirische Forschungsmethoden für Deutsch als Fremd- und Zweitsprache. Eine Einführung. Paderborn: UTB. 103–122.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa. 2014. ‘Words that go together: Measuring individual differences in native speakers’ knowledge of collocations’. The Mental Lexicon, 9(3). 401–418.Google Scholar
Dabrowska, Ewa; Divjak, Dagmar (eds). 2015. Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. (HSK, 39) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dancygier, Barbara (ed.). 2017. The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark; Gardner, Dee. 2013. A Frequency Dictionary of Contemporary American English: Word Sketches, Collocates and Thematic Lists. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Davies, Martin. 2007. Doing A Successful Research Project: Using Qualitative or Quantitative Methods. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Dehaene, Stansilas; Cohen, Laurent; Sigman, Mariano; Vinckier, Fabien. 2005. ‘The neural code for written words. A proposal’. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(7). 335–341.Google Scholar
DeWalt, Kathleen; DeWalt, Billie. 2011 2. Participant observation: A Guide for Fieldworkers. Lanham, MD: Alta Mira Press.Google Scholar
Diemer, Stefan. 2011. ‘Corpus linguistics with Google?’. Proceedings of the ISLE 2 Boston 2008.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2009. ‘Corpus linguistics and first language acquisition’ In In Anke, Lüdeling & Merjy, Kytö (eds). Corpus Linguistics. An International Handbook (HSK, 29.2). Berlin: de Gruyter. 1197–1211.Google Scholar
Dietrich, Rainer; Gerwien, Johannes. 2017. Psycholinguistik: Eine Einführung. Stuttgart: Springer.Google Scholar
Dirven, René; Verspoor, Marjolijn (eds). 1998/2004 2. Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Divjak, Dagmar. 2008. ‘On (in)frequency and (un)acceptability’. In Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, Barbara (ed.). Corpus Linguistics, Computer Tools and Applications – State of the Art. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. 213–233.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert. 1980. The Languages of Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert. 2007. ‘Field linguistics. A minor manual’. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung, 60 (1). 12–31.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert. 2010 & 2012. Basic Linguistic Theory, vol. 1–3. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Donders, Franciscus. 1969. ‘On the speed of mental processes’. Acta Psychologica, 30. 412–431.Google Scholar
Doyle, Louise; Brady, Anne-Marie; Byrne, Gobnait. 2009. ‘An overview of mixed methods research’. Journal of Research in Nursing, 14. 175–185.Google Scholar
Drager, Katie. 2018. Experimental Research Methods in Sociolinguistics. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Dronkers, Nina F. 2000. ‘The pursuit of brain–language relationships’. Brain and Language, 71 (1). 59–61.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew. 1989. ‘Large linguistic areas and large sampling’. Studies in Language, 13. 257–292.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew. 1992. ‘The Greenbergian word order correlations’. Language, 68. 81–138.Google Scholar
Dryer, Matthew; Haspelmath, Martin (eds). 2013. The World Atlas of Language Structures Online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. [http://wals.info].Google Scholar
Duncan, Susan; Tune, Sarah; Small, Steven. 2016. ‘The neurobiology of language. Relevance to linguistics’. Yearbook of the Poznan Linguistic Meeting, 2 (1). 49–66.Google Scholar
Duranti, Alessandro. 1997. Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Duranti, Alessandro (ed.). 2001. Key Terms in Language and Culture. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Duranti, Alessandro (ed.). 2004. A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Duranti, Alessandro (ed.). 2009 2. Linguistic Anthropology. A Reader. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Durkheim, Émile. 2006 (1897). On Suicide. (translated by Buss, Robin). London: Penguin Books Ltd.Google Scholar
Dürr, Michael; Schlobinski, Peter. 2006 3. Deskriptive Linguistik. Grundlangen und Methoden. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2000. Linguistic Variation as Social Practice. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2014. ‘Sociolinguistics. Making quantification meaningful’. In Enfield, Nick, Kockelman, Paul & Sidnell, Jack (eds). The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 644–660.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope; McConnell-Ginet, Sally. 2003. Language and Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eddington, David. 2015. Statistics for Linguists: A Step-by-step Guide for Novices. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Eisenbeiss, Sonja. 2010. ‘Production methods in language acquisition research’. In Blom, Elma & Unsworth, Sharon (eds). Experimental Methods in Language Acquisition Research, vol. 27. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 11–34.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(2). 143–188.Google Scholar
Ellis, Nick C.; O’Donnell, Matthew Brook; Römer, Ute. 2014. ‘The processing of verb-argument constructions is sensitive to form, function, frequency, contingency and prototypicality’. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(1). 55–98.Google Scholar
Embick, David; Poeppel, David. 2015. ‘Towards a computational(ist) neurobiology of language. Correlational, integrated and explanatory neurolinguistics’. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(4). 357–366.Google Scholar
Ender, Andrea; Leemann, Adrian; Wälchli, Bernhard (eds). 2012. Methods in Contemporary Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Enfield, Nick; Kockelman, Paul; Sidnell, Jack (eds). 2014. The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Nicholas; Levinson, Stephen. 2009. ‘The myth of language universals. Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science’. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32. 429–448.Google Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan. 2007. A Glossary of Cognitive Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan; Bergen, Benjamin; Zinken, Jörg (eds). 2007. The Cognitive Linguistics Reader. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan; Green, Melanie. 2006. Cognitive Linguistics. An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan; Pourcel, Stéphanie (eds). 2009. New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Everett, Daniel. 2001. ‘Monolingual field research’. In Newman, Paul & Ratliff, Martha (eds). Linguistic Fieldwork. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 166–188.Google Scholar
Everett, Daniel. 2013. Monolingual Fieldwork Demonstration. [www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYpWp7g7XWU].Google Scholar
Evison, Jane. 2010. ‘What are the basics of analyzing a corpus?’ In O’Keeffe, A. & McCarthy, M. (eds). The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics. London: Routledge. 122–135.Google Scholar
Faust, Miriam. 2012. The Handbook of the Neuropsychology of Language. Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fedorenko, Evelina; Thompson-Schill, Sharon L.. 2014. ‘Reworking the language network’. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(3). 120–126.Google Scholar
Fernald, Anne; Zangl, Renate; Portillo, Ana; Marchman, Virginia. 2008. ‘Looking while listening. Using eye movements to monitor spoken language comprehension by infants and young children’. In Sekerina, Irina, Fernández, Eva & Clahsen, Harald (eds). Developmental Psycholinguistics. On-line Methods in Children’s Language Processing. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 97–135.Google Scholar
Fernández, Eva; Cairns, Helen Smith. 2010. Fundamentals of Psycholinguistics. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fernández, Eva; Cairns, Helen Smith (eds). 2018. The Handbook of Psycholinguistics. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Field, Andy. 2018 5. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Field, Andy; Miles, Jeremy; Field, Zoe. 2012. Discovering Statistics Using R. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Fischer, Hans (ed.). 2002 2. Feldforschungen: Erfahrungsberichte zur Einführung. Berlin: Reimer Verlag.Google Scholar
Fletcher, William. 2001. ‘Concordancing the web with KWIC finder’. Third North American Symposium on Corpus Linguistics and Language Teaching. Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Fletcher, William. 2004. ‘Making the web more useful as a source for linguistic corpora’. In Connor, Ulla & Upton, Thomas (eds). Applied Corpus Linguistics: A Multidimensional Perspective. Amsterdam: Brill Rodopi. 191–205.Google Scholar
Foley, William. 2002. ‘Field methods’. In Malmkjær, Kirsten (ed.). The Linguistics Encyclopedia. 131–137.Google Scholar
Friederici, Angela. 2011. ‘The brain basis of language processing. From structure to function’. Physiological Reviews, 91(4). 1357–1392.Google Scholar
Friederici, Angela. 2012. ‘The cortical language circuit. From auditory perception to sentence comprehension’. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(5). 262–268.Google Scholar
Friederici, Angela. 2017. Language in Our Brain: The Origins of a Uniquely Human Capacity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Friederici, Angela; Thierry, Guillaume (eds). 2008. Early Language Development. Bridging Brain and Behavior. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Friginal, Eric; Hardy, Jack. 2014. Corpus-Based Sociolinguistics: A Guide for Students. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
García, Ofelia; Flores, Nelson; Spotti, Massimiliano (eds). 2016. The Oxford Handbook of Language and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gaskell, Gareth (ed.). 2007. The Oxford Handbook of Psycholinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gass, Susan. 2010. ‘Experimental research’. In Paltridge, Brian & Phakiti, Aek (eds). Continuum Companion to Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. London: Continuum. 7–21.Google Scholar
Gazzaniga, Michael; Ivry, Richard; Mangun, George. 2014 4. Cognitive Neuroscience: The Biology of the Mind. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk (ed.). 2006. Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk; Cuyckens, Hubert (eds). 2007. The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gellerstam, Martin. 1992. ‘Modern Swedish text corpora’. In Svartvik, Jan (ed.). Directions in Corpus Linguistics: Proceedings of Nobel Symposium 82, Stockholm, 4–8 August 1991. Berlin: de Gruyter. 149–163.Google Scholar
Gennari, Silvia; MacDonald, Maryellen. 2009. ‘Linking production and comprehension processes. The case of relative clauses’. Cognition, 111(1). 1–23.Google Scholar
Gentner, Dedre; Goldin-Meadow, Susan (eds). 2003. Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, Morton Ann (ed.). 1994. Handbook of Psycholinguistics. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Geschwind, Norman. 1970. ‘The organization of language and the brain. Language disorders after brain damage help in elucidating the neural basis of verbal behavior’. Science, 170. 940–944.Google Scholar
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle; Gries, Stefan. 2009. ‘Corpora and experimental methods. A state-of-the-art review’. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 5(1). 1–26.Google Scholar
Gippert, Jost; Himmelmann, Nikolaus; Mosel, Ulrike (eds). 2006. Essentials of Language Documentation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gleason, Henry. 1961. An Introduction to Descriptive Linguistics. London: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions. A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldrick, Matthew; Ferreira, Victor; Moizzo, Michele (eds). 2015. The Oxford Handbook of Language Production. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gonzalez-Marquez, Monica; Mittelberg, Irene; Coulson, Seana; Spivey, Michael (eds). 2007. Methods in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Granger, Sylviane. 2008. ‘Learner corpora’. In Lüdeling, Anke & Kytö, Merja (eds). Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook. (HSK, 29.1). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 259–275.Google Scholar
Grant, Tim. 2017. Quantitative Research Methods for Linguists: A Questions and Answers Approach For Students. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph. 1963 (1966). ‘Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements’. In Greenberg, Joseph (ed.). Universals of Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 73–113.Google Scholar
Greene, Jennifer C.; Caracelli, Valerie J.; Graham, Wendy F.. 1989. ‘Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs’. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3). 255–274.Google Scholar
Grein, Marion. 2007. Kommunikative Grammatik im Sprachvergleich. Sprechaktsequenz Direktiv und Ablehnung im Deutschen und Japanischen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Grenoble, Lenore. 2007. ‘The importance and challenges of documenting pragmatics’. In Austin, Peter (ed.). Language Documentation and Description, vol. 4. London: SOAS. 145–162.Google Scholar
Grenoble, Lenore; Whaley, Lindsay. 2006. Saving Languages: An Introduction to Language Revitalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grenoble, Lenore; Furbee, Louanna (eds). 2010. Language Documentation. Practice and Values. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan. 2009. Quantitative Corpus Linguistics with R: A Practical Introduction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan. 2012. ’Corpus linguistics, theoretical linguistics, and cognitive/psycholinguistics. Towards more and more fruitful exchanges‘. In Mukherjee, Joybrato & Huber, Magnus (eds). Corpus Linguistics and Variation in English: Theory and Description. Amsterdam: Brill Rodopi. 41–63.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan. 2013 2a. Statistics for Linguists with R: A Practical Introduction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan. 2013b. ‘Corpus linguistics. Quantitative methods’. In Chapelle, Carol (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. 1380–1385.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan; Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2004a. ‘Extending collostructional analysis. A corpus-based perspective on “alternations”’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1), 97–129.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan; Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2004b. ‘Co-varying collexemes in the into-causative’. In Achard, Michale & Kemmer, Suzanne (eds). Language, Culture, and Mind. Stanford, CA: CSLI. 225–236.Google Scholar
Griffin, Zenzi. 2004. ‘Why look? Reasons for eye movements related to language production’. In Henderson, John & Ferreira, Fernanda (eds). The Integration of Language, Vision, and Action: Eye Movements and the Visual World. New York: Taylor and Francis. 213–247.Google Scholar
Griffin, Zenzi; Bock, Kathryn. 2000. ‘What the eyes say about speaking’. Psychological Science, 11. 274–279.Google Scholar
Grimes, Barbara (ed.). 1997. Ethnologue: Language Family Index. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics. (see Simons & Fennig 201720 for online reference)Google Scholar
de Groot, Annette; Hagoort, Peter (eds). 2018. Research Methods in Psycholinguistics and the Neurobiology of Language: A Practical Guide. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John; Jacquemet, Marco. 2006. New Ethnographies of Communication. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John; Levinson, Stephen (eds). 1996. Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hagoort, Peter. 2019a. ‘The neurobiology of language beyond single-word processing’. Science, 366(6461). 55–58.Google Scholar
Hagoort, Peter (eds). 2019b. Human Language: From Genes and Brain to Behavior. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hagoort, Peter, Brown, Colin; Groothusen, Jolanda. 1993. ‘The syntactic positive shift (SPS) as an ERP measure of syntactic processing’. Language and Cognitive Processes 8(4). 439–483.Google Scholar
Haig, Geoffrey; Nau, Nicole; Schnell, Stefan; Wegener, Claudia (eds). 2011. Documenting Endangered Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Haig, Geoffrey; Schnell, Stefan. 2011. Annotations Using GRAID. [www.isfas.uni-kiel.de/de/linguistik/forschung/uploads/graid-content/graid-manual-6.0].Google Scholar
Hamilton, Liberty; Huth, Alexander. 2018. ‘The revolution will not be controlled. Natural stimuli in speech neuroscience’. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience. 1–10.Google Scholar
Hanneman, Robert; Riddle, Mark. 2005. Introduction to Social Network Methods. Riverside, CA: University of California.Google Scholar
Hashemi, Mohammad; Babaii, Esmat. 2013. ‘Mixed methods research. Toward new research designs in applied linguistics’. The Modern Language Journal, 97 (4). 828–852.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2003. ‘The geometry of grammatical meaning. Semantic maps and crosslinguistic comparison’. In Tomacello, Michael (ed.). The New Psychology of Language, vol. 2. New York: Erlbaum. 211–243.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin; König, Ekkehard; Oesterreicher, Wulf; Raible, Wolfgang (eds). 2001. Language Typology and Language Universals. An International Handbook. (HSK, 20.1–2). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hasson, Uri; Egidi, Giovanna; Marelli, Marco; Willems, Roel M.. 2018. ‘Grounding the neurobiology of language in first principles. The necessity of non-language-centric explanations for language comprehension’. Cognition, 180. 135–157.Google Scholar
Haviland, John. 1979. ‘Guugu-Yimidhirr brother-in-law language’. Language in Dociety, 8. 365–393.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John. 1999. ‘Processing complexity and filler-gap dependencies across grammars’. Language, 75 (2). 244–285.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John. 2011. ‘Processing efficiency and complexity in typological patterns’. In Song, Jae Jung (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 206–226.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd; Narrog, Heiko (eds). 2010. The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heller, Monica; Pietikäinen, Sari; Pujolar, Joan. 2017. Critical Sociolinguistic Research Methods. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hellwig, Birgit. 2019. ‘Linguistic diversity, language documentation and psycholinguistics. The role of stimuli’. Language Documentation and Conservation, 16. 5–30.Google Scholar
Henderson, John; Ferreira, Fernanda (eds). 2004. The Interface of Language, Vision, and Action. Eye Movements and the Visual World. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Henrich, Joseph; Heine, Steven; Norenzayan, Ara. 2010. ‘The Weirdest People in the World?’. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33 (2–3). 61–83.Google Scholar
Hernández-Campoy, Juan. 2014. ‘Research methods in sociolinguistics’. AILA Review, 27. 5–29.Google Scholar
Hernández-Campoy, Juan; Conde-Silvestre, Camilo (eds). 2012. The Handbook of Historical Sociolinguistics. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hickey, Raymond (ed.). 2017. The Cambridge Handbook of Areal Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hickok, Gregory. 2009. ‘The functional neuroanatomy of language’. Physics of Life Reviews, 6(3). 121–143.Google Scholar
Hickok, Gregory; Poeppel, David. 2007. ‘The cortical organization of speech processing’. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8(5). 393–402.Google Scholar
Hickok, Gregory; Small, Steven (eds). 2016. Neurobiology of Language. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus. 1998. ‘Documentary and descriptive linguistics’. Linguistics, 36. 161–195.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus. 2006. ‘The challenges of segmenting spoken language’. In Gippert, Jost, Himmelmann, Nikolaus & Mosel, Ulrike (eds). Essentials of Language Documentation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 253–274.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus. 2012. ‘Linguistic data types and the interface between language documentation and description’. Language Documentation & Conservation, 6. 187–207.Google Scholar
Hoff, Erika (eds). 2012. Research Methods in Child Language: A Practical Guide. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Holmes, Janet; Hazen, Kirk (eds). 2014. Research Methods in Sociolinguistics: A Practical Guide. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul; Thompson, Sandra. 1993. ‘Language universals, discourse pragmatics, and semantics’. Language Sciences, 15 (4). 357–376.Google Scholar
Humboldt, Wilhelm. 1836. Über die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues und ihren Einfluss auf die geistige Entwickelung des Menschengeschlechts. Berlin: Dümmler.Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne; Nesselhauf, Nadja; Biewer, Carolin (eds). 2007. Corpus Linguistics and the Web. (Language and Computers, 59). Amsterdam: Brill Rodopi.Google Scholar
Hunston, Susan. 2002. Corpora in Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hunston, Susan. 2008. ‘Collection strategies and design decisions’. In Lüdeling, Anke & Kytö, Merja (eds). Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook. (HSK, 29.1). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 154–168.Google Scholar
Hussy, Walter; Schreier, Margit; Echterhoff, Gerald. 2013. Forschungsmethoden in Psychologie und Sozialwissenschaften für Bachelor. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Ingram, David. 1989. First Language Acquisition. Method, Description and eExplanation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ingram, John. 2007. Neurolinguistics. An Introduction to Spoken Language Processing and Its Disorders. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ivankova, Nataliya; Creswell, John. 2009. ‘Mixed methods’. In Heigham, Juanita & Croker, Robert (eds). Qualitative Research in Applied Linguistics: A Practical Introduction. Houndmill: Palgrave Macmillan. 135–163.Google Scholar
Jegerski, Jill. 2014. ‘Self-paced reading’. In Jegerski, Jill & VanPatten, Bill (eds). Research Methods in Second Language Psycholinguistics. London: Routledge. 20–49.Google Scholar
Jegerski, Jill; VanPatten, Bill (eds). 2014. Research Methods in Second Language Psycholinguistics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Johnson, Elizabeth; Zamuner, Tania. 2010. ‘Using infant and toddler testing methods in language acquisition research’. In Blom, Elma & Unsworth, Sharon (eds). Experimental Methods in Language Acquisition Research, vol. 27. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 73–94.Google Scholar
Johnson, Keith. 2008. Quantitative Methods in Linguistics. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Johnson, Mark; de Haan, Michelle. 2015 4. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience : An Introduction. London: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Johnstone, Barbara. 1999. Qualitative Methods in Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jones, Mari. 2019. Endangered Languages and New Technologies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jones, Mari; Ogilvie, Sarah (eds). 2013. Keeping Languages Alive: Documentation, Pedagogy and Revitalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kastenholz, Raimund. 2002. ‘Die monographische Feldforschung’. In Storch, Anne & Leger, Rudolf (eds). Die afrikanistische Feldforschung. Köln: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag. 57–75.Google Scholar
Kay, Paul; McDaniel, Chad. 1978. ‘The linguistic significance of the meanings of basic color terms’. Language, 54. 610–646.Google Scholar
Keating, Gregory; Jegerski, Jill. 2015. ‘Experimental designs in sentence processing research. A methodological review and user’s guide’. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37 (1). 1–32.Google Scholar
Keck, Verena. 2008. Interdisziplinäre Projekte und Teamarbeit’. In Beer, Bettina (ed.). Methoden ethnologischer Feldforschung. Berlin: Reimer Verlag. 255–275.Google Scholar
Kemmerer, David. 2015. Cognitive Neuroscience of Language. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Keppel, Geoffrey. 1991 3. Design and Analysis: A Researcher’s Handbook. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Kerlinger, Fred N. 1986 3. Foundations of Behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Kilgarriff, Adam. 2001a. ‘Comparing corpora’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 6 (1), 1–37.Google Scholar
Kilgarriff, Adam. 2001b. ‘Web as corpus’. Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics Conference (CL 2001), University Centre for Computer Research on Language Technical Paper, vol. 13. Lancaster University. 342–344.Google Scholar
Kilgarriff, Adam; Grefenstette, Gregory. 2003. ‘Introduction to the special issue on the web as corpus’. Computational Linguistics, 29 (3). 333–47.Google Scholar
Kirk, Roger E. 2003. ‘Experimental design’. In Schinka, John & Velicer, Waye (eds). Handbook of Psychology, vol. 2 (Research methods in psychology). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. 3–32.Google Scholar
Kittredge, Audrey; Dell, Gary. 2016. ‘Learning to speak by listening. Transfer of phonotactics from perception to production’. Journal of Memory and Language, 89. 8–22.Google Scholar
Klamer, Marian; Moro, Francesca. 2020. ‘What is “natural” speech? Comparing free narratives and Frog stories in Indonesia’. Language Documentation and Conservation, 14. 238–313.Google Scholar
Knecht, Stefan; Dräger, B.; Deppe, M.; Bobe, L.; Lohmann, H.; Flöel, A.; Ringelstein, B.; Henningsen, H.. 2000. ‘Handedness and hemispheric language dominance in healthy humans’. Brain, 123 (12). 2512–2518.Google Scholar
Köhler, Reinhard; Altmann, Gabriel; Piotrowski, Rajmund (eds). 2005. Quantitative Linguistik. (HSK, 27). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2006. Language, Mind, and Culture: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2010. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Krakauer, John; Ghazanfar, Asif; Gomez-Marin, Alex; MacIver, Malcolm; Poeppel, David. 2017. ‘Neuroscience needs behavior. Correcting a reductionist bias’. Neuron, 93 (3). 480–490.Google Scholar
Kretzschmar, Franziska; Schlesewsky, Matthias; Staub, Adrian. 2015. ‘Dissociating word frequency and predictability effects in reading. Evidence from coregistration of eye movements and EEG’. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(6). 1648–1662.Google Scholar
Kretzschmar, Franziska; Völkel, Svenja. 2021. Teaching Mamaterials for Introducing Linguistic Research. [https://doi.org/10.14618/ids-pub-10454].Google Scholar
Kretzschmar, Franziska; Submitted, Phillip Alday.. ‘Principles of statistical analyses. Old and new tools’. In Grimaldi, Mirko, Shtyrov, Yuri & Brattico, Elvira (eds). Language Electrified: Techniques, Methods, Applications and Future Perspectives in the Neurophysiological Investigation of Language. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, Gitte; Achard, Michel; Dirven, René; de Mendoza Ibáñez, Francisco Ruiz (eds). 2006. Cognitive Linguistics: Current Applications and Future Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, Gitte; Dirven, René (eds). 2007. Cognitive Sociolinguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Krug, Manfred; Schlüter, Julia (eds). 2013. Research Methods in Language Variation and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Krug, Manfred; Schlüter, Julia; Rosenbach, Annette. 2013. ‘Introduction. Investigating language variation and change’. In Krug, Manfred & Schlüter, Julia (eds). Research Methods in Language Variation and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1–13.Google Scholar
Kurath, Hans. 1949. Western Pennsylvania: A Word Geography of the Eastern United States. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Kutas, Marta; Federmeier, Kara D.. 2011. ‘Thirty years and counting: finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP)’. Annual Review of Psychology, 62. 621–647.Google Scholar
Kutas, Marta; Hillyard, Steven. ‘Reading senseless sentences. Brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity’. Science, 207(4427). 203–205.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William; Ash, Sharon; Boberg, Charles. 2006. The Atlas of North American English: Phonetics, Phonology and Sound Change. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lahaussois, Aimée; Vuillermet, Marine. 2019. Methodological Tools for Linguistic Description and Typology. (Language documentation and Conservation, 16). Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George; Johnson, Mark. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lang, Kurt; Lang, Gladys Engel. 1953. ‘The unique perspective of television and its effect’. American Sociological Review, 18(1). 3–12.Google Scholar
Lang, Kurt; Lang, Gladys Engel. 1973. ‘Mac Arthur Day in Chicago. Die Einseitigkeit des Fernsehens und ihre Wirkungen’. In Aufermann, Jörg, Bohrmann, Hans & Sülzer, Rolf (eds). Gesellschaftliche Kommunikation und Information. Frankfurt: Fischer. 498–525.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leckey, Michelle; Federmeier, Kara D.. 2020. ‘The P3b and P600 (s). Positive contributions to language comprehension,’ Psychophysiology, 57(7). e13351.Google Scholar
Lee, David. 2001. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, David. 2010. ‘What corpora are available?’ In O’Keeffe, Anne & McCarthy, Michael (eds). The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics. London: Routledge. 107–121.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 1992. ‘Corpora and theories of linguistic performance’. In Svartvik, Jan (ed.). Directions in Corpus Linguistics. Proceedings of Nobel Symposium 82, Stockholm, 4–8 August 1991. Berlin: de Gruyter. 105–122.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey. 2007. ‘New resources or just better old ones? The Holy Grail of representativeness’. In Hundt, Marianne, Nesselhauf, Nadja & Biewer, Carolin (eds). Corpus Linguistics and the Web (Language and Computers, 59). Amsterdam: Brill Rodopi. 133–149.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1980. ‘Aufbau einer Grammatik zwischen Sprachtypologie und Universalistik’. In Brettschneider, Gunter & Lehmann, Christian (eds). Wege zur Universalienforschung. Tübingen: Narr. 29–37.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1982. ‘Directions for interlinear morphemic translations’. Folia Linguistica, 16. 199–224.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1999. Documentation of Endangered Languages: A Priority Task for Linguistics. (Arbeitspapier, 1). Erfurt: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 2001. ‘Language documentation. A program’. In Bisang, Walter (ed.). Aspects of Typology and Universals. Berlin: Akademie Verlag. 83–97.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 2005. ‘Interlinear morphemic glossing’. In Booij, Geert, Lehmann, Christian, Mugdan, Joachim & Skopeteas, Stavros (eds). Morphology: An International Handbook on Inflection and Word Formation. (HSK, 17.2). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 1834–1857.Google Scholar
Lemnitzer, Lothar; Zinsmeister, Heike. 2015 3. Korpuslinguistik. Eine Einführung. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Levelt, Willem. 2014. A History of Psycholinguistics. The pre-Chomskyan Era. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen. 1996. ‘Frames of reference and Molyneux’s question. Cross-lingguistic evidence’. In Bloom, Paul, Garrett, Merrill, Nadel, Lynn & Peterson, Mary (eds). Language and Space. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 109–169.Google Scholar
Levshina, Natalia. 2015. How to do Linguistics with R. Data Exploration and Statistical Analysis. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lew, Robert. 2009. ‘The web as corpus versus traditional corpora’. In Baker, Paul (ed.). Contemporary Corpus Linguistics. London: Continuum. 289–300.Google Scholar
Lieb, Hans-Heinrich; Drude, Sebastian. 2000. Advanced Glossing: A Language Documentation Format. (DOBES working paper). [http://dobes.mpi.nl/documents/Advanced-Glossing1.pdf].Google Scholar
Lindlof, Thomas; Taylor, Bryan. 2011 3. Qualitative Communication Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Littlemore, Jeanette; Taylor, John (eds). 2014. The Bloomsbury Companion to Cognitive Linguistics. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Lloyd-Fox, Sarah; Blasi, Anna; Elwell, C. E.. ‘Illuminating the developing brain. The past, present and future of functional near infrared spectroscopy’. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 34 (3). 269–284.Google Scholar
Louw, Bill. 1993. ‘Irony in the text or insincerity in the writer? The diagnostic potential of semantic prosodies’. In Baker, Mona, Francis, Gill & Tognini-Bonelli, Elena (eds). Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 157–176.Google Scholar
Luck, Steven J. 2014 2. An Introduction to the Event-Related Potential Technique. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Luck, Steven J.; Kappenman, Emily S. (eds). 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Event-Related Potential Components. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lüdeling, Anke. 2007. ‘Das Zusammenspiel von qualitativen und quantitativen Methoden in der Korpuslinguistik’. In Zifonun, Gisela & Kallmeyer, Werner (eds). IDS-Jahrbuch 2006. Berlin: de Gruyter. 28–48.Google Scholar
Lüdeling, Anke. 2017. ‘Grammatische Variation. Empirische Zugänge und theoretische Modellierung’. In Konopka, Marek & Wöllstein, Angelika (eds). Jahrbuch des Instituts für Deutsche Sprache 2016. Berlin: de Gruyter. 129–144.Google Scholar
Lüdeling, Anke; Kytö, Merja (eds). 2008. Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook. (HSK, 29.1–2). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lüpke, Frederike. 2005. ‘Small is beautiful. Contributions of field-based corpora to different linguistic disciplines, illustrated by Jalonke’. In Austin, Peter (ed.). Language Documentation and Description, vol 3. London: SOAS. 75–105.Google Scholar
MacDonald, Maryellen C.; Pearlmutter, Neil J.; Seidenberg, Mark S.. 1994. ‘The lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution’. Psychological Review, 101(4). 676–703.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian; Malchukov, Andrej; Moravcsik, Edith (eds). 2014. Competing Motivations in Grammar, Acquisition, and Usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Maddieson, Ian. 2001. ‘Phonetic fieldwork’. In Newman, Paul & Ratliff, Martha (eds). Linguistic Fieldwork. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 211–229.Google Scholar
Mairal, Ricardo; Gil, Juana (eds). 2006. Linguistic Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Majid, Asifa. 2012. ‘A guide to stimulus-based elicitation for semantic categories’. In Thieberger, Nicholas (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Fieldwork. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 54–71.Google Scholar
Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1954. Magic, Science and Religion and Other Essays. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Mallinson, Graham; Blake, Barry (eds). 1981. Language Typology. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Manning, Christopher; Schütze, Hinrich. 1999. Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Martin, Andrea; McElree, Brian. 2008. ‘A content-addressable pointer mechanism underlies comprehension of verb-phrase ellipsis’. Journal of Memory and Language, 58. 879–906.Google Scholar
McConnell, Kyla; Blumenthal-Dramé, Alice. 2019. ‘Effects of task and corpus-derived association scores on the online processing of collocations’. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory (ahead of print). [https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2018–0030].Google Scholar
McEnery, Tony; Hardie, Andrew. 2012. Corpus Linguistics: Method, Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McEnery, Tony; Wilson, Andrew. 1996/2001 2. Corpus Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
McEnery, Tony; Xiao, Richard; Tono, Yukio. 2006. Corpus-Based Language Studies: An Advanced Resource Book. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Meindl, Claudia. 2011. Methodik für Linguisten: Eine Einführung in Statistik und Versuchsplanung. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Merrison, Andrew; Bloomer, Aileen; Griffiths, Patrick; Hall, Christopher. 2014 2. Introducing Language in Use: A Coursebook. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mesthrie, Rajend (ed.). 2011. The Cambridge Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Meyer, Charles. 2002. English Corpus Linguistics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Meyerhoff, Miriam; Schleef, Erik (eds). 2010. The Routledge Sociolinguistics Reader. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Miestamo, Matti; Bakker, Dik; Arpe, Antti. 2016. Sampling for variety’. Linguistic Typology, 20 (2). 233–296.Google Scholar
Milroy, James; Milroy, Lesley. 1985. ‘Linguistic change, social network and speaker innovation’. Journal of Linguistics, 21. 339–384.Google Scholar
Milroy, Lesley; Gordon, Matthew. 2003 2. Sociolinguistics: Method and Interpretation. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Miner, Horace. 1956. ‘Body ritual among the Nacirema’. American Anthropologist, 58. 503–507.Google Scholar
Monaghan, Padraic; Rowland, Caroline. 2016. ‘Combining language corpora with experimental and computational approaches for language acquisition research’. Language Learning, 67(S1). 14–39.Google Scholar
Moosbrugger, Helfried; Kelava, Augustin. 2012 2. Testtheorie und Fragebogenkonstruktion. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Edith. 2013. Introducing Language Typology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mosel, Ulrike. 1987. Inhalt und Aufbau deskriptiver Grammatiken (How to write a grammar). (Arbeitspapier, 4). Köln: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Mosel, Ulrike. 2006. ‘Grammaticography. The art and craft of writing grammars’. In Ameka, Felix, Dench, Alan & Evans, Nicholas (eds). Catching Language: The Standing Challenge of Grammar Writing. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 41–68.Google Scholar
Mosel, Ulrike. 2014. ‘Corpus linguistic and documentary approaches in writing a grammar of a previously undescribed language’. Language Documentation & Conservation, 8. 135–157.Google Scholar
Moseley, Christopher. 2010. UNESCO Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger. [www.unesco.org/culture/en/endangeredlanguages/atlas].Google Scholar
Müller, Nicole; Ball, Martin (eds). 2013. Research Methods in Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics: A Practical Guide. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Myers, Jerome; Well, Arnold; Lorch, Robert Jr. 2010. Research Design and Statistical Analysis. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nelson, Mike. 2010. ‘Building a Written Corpus. What Are the Basics?’ In O’Keeffe, A. & McCarthy, M. (eds). The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics. London: Routledge. 53–65.Google Scholar
Newman, Paul; Ratliff, Martha (eds). 2001. Linguistic Fieldwork. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick. 2005. Possible and Probable Languages: A Generative Perspective on Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Noonan, Michael. 2006. ‘Grammar writing for a grammar-reading audience’. Studies in Language, 30 (2). 351–365.Google Scholar
Nooteboom, Sieb; Quené, Hugo. 2007. ‘The SLIP technique as a window on the mental preparation of speech. Some methodological considerations’. In Solé, Maria-Josep, Beddor, Patrice & Ohala, Manjari (eds). Experimental Approaches to Phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 339–350.Google Scholar
Norcliffe, Elisabeth; Harris, Alice & Jaeger, Florian. 2015. ‘Cross-linguistic psycholinguistics and its critical role in theory development. Early Beginnings and Recent Advances: Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30 (9). 1009–1032.Google Scholar
Norcliffe, Elisabeth; Konopka, Agnieszka; Brown, Penelope; Levinson, Stephen. 2015. ‘Word order affects the time course of sentence formulation in Tzeltal’. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30 (9). 1187–1208.Google Scholar
Oakes, Lisa. 2012. ‘Advances in eye tracking in infancy research’. Infancy, 17 (1). 1–8.Google Scholar
O’Keeffe, Anne; McCarthy, Michael. 2010. The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
O’Keeffe, Anne; McCarthy, Michael; Carter, Ronald. 2007. From Corpus to Classroom. Language Use and Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Orfanidou, Eleni; Woll, Bencie; Morgan, Gary (eds). 2015. Research Methods in Sign Language Studies: A Practical Guide. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ostler, Nicholas. 2008. ‘Corpora of less studied languages’. In Lüdeling, Anke & Kytö, Merjy (eds). Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook. (HSK, 29.1). Berlin: de Gruyter. 457–483.Google Scholar
Östmann, Jan-Ola. 1989. ‘Testing iconicity’. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 4. 145–163.Google Scholar
Palmer, Gary. 1996. Towards a Theory of Cultural Linguistics. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Paltridge, Brian; Phakiti, Aek (eds). 2010. Continuum Ccampanion to Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Paulston, Christina; Tucker, Richard (eds). 2003. Sociolinguistics: The Essential Readings. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Payne, Thomas. 1997. Describing Morphosyntax. A Guide for Field Linguists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Payne, Thomas; Weber, David (eds). 2007. Perspectives on Grammar Writing. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pederson, Eric; Danziger, Eve; Wilkins, David; Levinson, Stephen; Kita, Sotaro; Senft, Gunter. 1998. ‘Semantic typology and spatial conceptualization’. Language, 74. 557–589.Google Scholar
Pereltsvaig, Aysa. 2012. Languages of the World. An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Perkins, Revere. 1989. ‘Statistical techniques for determining language sample size’. Studies in Language, 13 (2). 293–315.Google Scholar
Pickering, Martin; Ferreira, Victor. 2008. ‘Structural priming. A critical review’. Psychological Bulletin, 134 (3). 427–459.Google Scholar
Pickering, Martin; Garrod, Simon. 2013. ‘An integrated theory of language production and comprehension’. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36. 329–392.Google Scholar
Pike, Kenneth. 1967 2. Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of Structure of Human Behavior. Den Haag: Mouton.Google Scholar
Plank, Frans. 1995. ‘(Re-)Introducing Suffixaufnahme’. In Plank, Frans (ed.). Double Case: Agreement by Suffixaufnahme. New York: Oxford University Press. 3–110.Google Scholar
Podesva, Robert; Sharma, Devyani (eds). 2013. Research Methods in Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Poeppel, David. 2014. ‘The neuroanatomic and neurophysiological infrastructure for speech and language’. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 28. 142–149.Google Scholar
Poeppel, David; Mangun, George R.; Gazzaniga, Michael S.. 2020 6. The cognitive neurosciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl. 1963. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl. 1973. Objektive Erkenntnis: Ein evolutionärer Entwurf. Hamburg: Hoffmann und Campe.Google Scholar
von Poser, Alexis; von Poser, Anita (eds). 2017. Facets of Fieldwork: Essays in Honor of Jürg Wassmann. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Price, Cathy. 2012. ‘A review and synthesis of the first 20 years of PET and fMRI studies of heard speech, spoken language and reading’. NeuroImage, 62 (2). 816–847.Google Scholar
Price, Cathy; Devlin, Joseph. 2003. ‘The myth of the visual word form area’. NeuroImage, 19(3). 473–481.Google Scholar
Price, Cathy J.; Devlin, Joseph T.. 2011. ‘The interactive account of ventral occipitotemporal contributions to reading’. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(6). 246–253.Google Scholar
Puglielli, Annarita; Frascarelli, Mara. 2011. Linguistic Analysis. From Data to Theory. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pütz, Martin; Verspoor, Marjolijn (eds). 2000. Explorations in Linguistic Relativity. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Rad, Mostafa Salari; Martingano, Alison; Ginges, Jeremy. 2018. ‘Toward a psychology of Homo Sapiens. Making psychological science more representative of the human population’. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115 (45). 11401–11405.Google Scholar
Rasinger, Sebastian. 2013 2. Quantitative Research in Linguistics: An Introduction. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Rayner, Keith; Pollatsek, Alexander; Ashby, Jane; Clifton, Charles Jr. 2012 2. The Psychology of Reading. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Rayson, Paul. 2015. ‘Computational tools and methods for corpus compilation and analysis’. In Biber, Douglas & Reppen, Randi (eds). The Cambridge Handbook of English Corpus Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 32–49.Google Scholar
Rea, Louis; Parker, Richard. 2014 4. Designing and Conducting Survey Research. A Comprehensive Guide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Redford, Melissa (ed.). 2015. The Handbook of Speech Production. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Reppen, Randi. 2010. ‘Building a corpus. What are the key considerations?’ In O’Keeffe, A. & McCarthy, M. (eds). The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics. London: Routledge. 31–37.Google Scholar
Ricart Brede, Julia. 2014. ‘Beobachtung’. In Settinieri, Julia, Demirkaya, Sevilen, Feldmeier, Alexis, Gültekin-Karakoç, Nazan & Riemer, Claudia (eds). Empirische Forschungsmethoden für Deutsch als Fremd- und Zweitsprache: Eine Einführung. Paderborn: Schöningh. 59–76.Google Scholar
Rickheit, Gert; Herrmann, Theo; Deutsch, Werner. 2003. Psycholinguistik. (HSK, 24). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rijkhoff, Jan; Bakker, Dik. 1998. ‘Language sampling’. Linguistic Typology, 2. 263–314.Google Scholar
Rijkhoff, Jan; Bakker, Dik; Hengeveld, Kees; Kahrel, Peter. 1993. ‘A method of language sampling’. Studies in Language, 17 (1). 169–203.Google Scholar
Roberts, Leah; Alonso, Jorge González; Pliatsikas, Christos; Rothman, Jason. 2018. ‘Evidence from neurolinguistic methodologies. Can it actually inform linguistic/language acquisition theories and translate to evidence-based applications?’. Second Language Research, 34(1). 125–143.Google Scholar
Robinson, Cinton; Gadelii, Karl. 2003. Writing Unwritten Languages: A Guide to the Process. UNESCO Working Paper.Google Scholar
Robinson, Peter; Ellis, Nick (eds). 2008. Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne. 2000 2. Language in Society: An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rösler, Frank 2011. Psychophysiologie der Kognition. Eine Einführung in die Kognitive Neurowissenschaft. Heidelberg: Springer/ Spektrum Akademischer Verlag.Google Scholar
Rost, Detlef. 2007 2. Interpretation und Bewertung pädagogisch-psychologischer Studien. Weinheim: Beltz UTB.Google Scholar
Rugg, Michael. 1999. ‘Functional neuroimaging in cognitive neuroscience’. In Brown, Colin & Hagoort, Peter (eds). 1999. The Neurocognition of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 15–36.Google Scholar
Rugg, Michael; Coles, Michael GH (eds). 1995. Electrophysiology of Mind: Event-Related Brain Potentials and Cognition. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ruhlen, Merrit. 1987. A Guide to the World’s Languages, vol. 1. (Classification). London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, Francisco; Cervel, Sandra Peña (eds). 2005. Cognitive Linguistics. Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sakel, Jeanette; Everett, Daniel. 2012. Linguistic Fieldwork. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Saldaña, Johnny. 2013 2. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Salkind, Neil. (ed.) 2010. Encyclopedia of Research Design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Salzmann, Zdenek; Stanlaw, James; Adachi, Nobuko. 1993/2018 7. Language, Culture, and Society: An Introduction to Linguistic Anthropology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sandra, Dominiek; Östman, Jan-Ola; Verschueren, Jef (eds). 2009. Cognition and Pragmatics. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sanz, Monserrat; Laka, Itziar; Tanenhaus, Michael (eds). 2013. Language Down the Garden Path: The Cognitive and Biological Basis for Linguistic Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sassenhagen, Jona; Alday, Phillip. 2016. ‘A common misapplication of statistical inference. Nuisance control with null-hypothesis significance tests’. Brain and Language, 162. 42–45.Google Scholar
Scalise, Sergio; Magni, Elisabetta; Bisetto, Antonietta (eds). 2009. Universals of Language Today. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Schiller, Niels. 2012. ‘Experimental methods and designs to investigate phonological encoding of spoken language’. In Cohn, Abigail, Fougeron, Cécile & Huffman, Marie (eds). The Oxford Handbook of Laboratory Phonology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 562–572.Google Scholar
Schilling-Estes, Natalie. 2013. Sociolinguistic Fieldwork. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schlehe, Judith. 2008. ‘Qualitative ethnographische Interviewformen’. In Beer, Bettina (ed.). Methoden ethnologischer Feldforschung. Berlin: Reimer Verlag. 71–93.Google Scholar
Schlobinski, Peter. 1996. Empirische Sprachwissenschaft. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Jürgen; Herrgen, Joachim (eds). 2001–2009. Digitaler Wenker-Atlas (DiWA). Marburg: Forschungszentrum Deutscher Sprachatlas. [www.regionalsprache.de/].Google Scholar
Schmidtke-Bode, Karsten; Levshina, Natalia; Michaelis, Susanne Maria; Seržant, Ilja (eds). 2019. Explanation in Linguistic Typology: Diachronic Sources, Functional Motivations and the Nature of the Evidence. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Schmitt, Cristina; Miller, Karen. 2010. ‘Using comprehension methods in language acquisition research’. In Blom, Elma & Unsworth, Sharon (eds). Experimental Methods in Language Acquisition Research. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 35–56.Google Scholar
de Schryver, Gilles-Maurice. 2002. ‘Web for/as corpus. A perspective for the African languages’. Nordic Journal of African Studies, 11(2). 266–282.Google Scholar
Schultze-Berndt, Eva. 2006. ‘Linguistic annotation’. In Gippert, Jost, Himmelmann, Nikolaus & Mosel, Ulrike (eds). Essentials of Language Documentation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 213–251.Google Scholar
Schütze, Carson. 1996/2016 2. The Empirical Base of Linguistics: Grammaticality Judgments and Linguistic Methodology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press/Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Scott, John. 2000 2. Social Network Analysis. A Handbook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Scott, Mike; Tribble, Chris. 2006. Textual Patterns. Key Words and Corpus Analysis in Language Education. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sedivy, Julie. 2014. Language in Mind. An Introduction to Psycholinguistics. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
Seidenberg, Mark. S.; MacDonald, Maryellen C.. 2018. ‘The impact of language experience on language and reading’. Topics in Language Disorders, 38(1). 66–83.Google Scholar
Seifart, Frank. 2000. Grundfragen bei der Dokumentation bedrohter Sprachen. (Arbeitspapier, 36). Köln: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Sekerina, Irina; Fernández, Eva; Clahsen, Harald (eds). 2008. Developmental Psycholinguistics: On-line methods in Children’s Language Processing. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Senft, Gunter. 1994. ‘Ein Vorschlag, wie man standardisiert Daten zum Thema “Sprache, Kognition und Konzepte des Raumes” in verschiedenen Kulturen erheben kann’. Linguistische Berichte, 154. 413–429.Google Scholar
Senft, Gunter. 2010. The Trobriand Islanders’ Ways of Speaking. (Trends in Linguistics, Documentation, 27). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Settinieri, Julia; Sevilen, Demirkaya; Feldmeier, Alexis; Gültekin-Karakoç, Nazan; Riemer, Claudia (eds). 2014. Empirische Forschungsmethoden für Deutsch als Fremd- und Zweitsprache. Paderborn: Schöningh UTB.Google Scholar
Shadish, William; Cook, Thomas; Campbell, Donald. 2002. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
Sharifian, Farzad (ed.). 2015. The Routledge Handbook of Language and Culture. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sharifian, Farzad. 2017. Cultural Linguistics: Cultural Conceptualisations and Language. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sharoff, Serge. 2006a. ‘Open-source corpora. Using the net to fish for linguistic data’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 11(4). 435–462.Google Scholar
Sharoff, Serge. 2006b. ‘Creating general-purpose corpora using automated search engine queries’. In Baroni, Marco & Bernardini, Silvia (eds). WaCky! Working Papers on the Web as Corpus. Bologna: Gedit. 63–98.Google Scholar
Shibatani, Masayoshi; Bynon, Theodora (eds). 1995. Approaches to Language Typology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Shopen, Timothy (ed.). 1985. Language Typology and Syntactic Description, vol. 1–3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack; Stivers, Tanya (eds). 2012. The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Simons, Gary; Fennig, Charles (eds). 2017 20. Ethnologue. Languages of the World. Dallas, TE: SIL International. [http://ethnologue.com].Google Scholar
Sinclair, John. 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John. 1996. ‘Preliminary recommendations on corpus typology’. Technical Report, Expert Advisory Group on Language Engineering Standards (EAGLES).Google Scholar
Sinclair, John. 2004. Trust the Text. Language, Corpus and Discourse. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Slobin, Dan. 1996. ‘From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”’. In Gumperz, John & Levinson, Stephen (eds). Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. New York: Cambridge University Press. 70–96.Google Scholar
Small, Steven L.; Hickok, Gregory. 2016. ‘The neurobiology of language’. In Hickok, Gregory & Small, Steven L. (eds). Neurobiology of Language. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 3–9.Google Scholar
Song, Jae Jung (ed.). 2011. The Oxford Handbook of Language Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Speed, Laura; Wnuk, Ewelina; Majid, Asifa. 2018. ‘Studying psycholinguistics out of the lab’. In Groot, Annette de & Hagoort, Peter (eds). Research Methods in Psycholinguistics and the Neurobiology of Language: A Practical Guide. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. 190–207.Google Scholar
Spivey, Michael; McRae, Ken; Joanisse, Marc (eds). 2012. The Cambridge Handbook of Psycholinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2020. Corpus Linguistics.: A Guide to the Methodology. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol; Gries, Stefan. 2003. ‘Collostructions. Investigating the interaction between words and constructions’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2). 209–43.Google Scholar
Stemmer, Brigitte; Whitaker, Harry (eds). 1998. Handbook of Neurolinguistics. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Stoll, Sabine. 2015. ‘Cross-linguistic approaches to language acquisition’. In Bavin, Edith & Naigles, Letitia (eds). The Cambridge Handbook of Child Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 89–104.Google Scholar
Stubbs, Michael. 1995. ‘Collocations and semantic profiles. On the cause of the trouble with quantitative methods’. Function of Language 2 (1). 1–33.Google Scholar
Stubbs, Michael. 2001. Words and Phrases: Corpus Studies of Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2017. ‘Variationist sociolinguistics and corpus-based variationist linguistics. Overlap and cross-pollination potential’. The Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 62(4). 685–701.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali. 2006. Analysing Sociolinguistic Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah; Hamilton, Heidi; Schiffrin, Deborah (eds). 2015 2. The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tanner, Kerry. 2002 2. ‘Experimental research designs’. In Williamson, Kirsty (ed.). Research Methods for Students, Academics and Professionals: Informaton Management and Systems. Wagga Wagga: Centre for Information Studies.125–146.Google Scholar
Tashakkori, Abbas; Creswell, John. 2007. ‘The new era of mixed methods’. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(3). 3–7.Google Scholar
Tashakkori, Abbas; Teddlie, Charles. 1998. Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Taylor, John. 1989/2003 3. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Teubert, Wolfgang. 2005. ‘My version of corpus linguistics’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 10(1). 1–13.Google Scholar
Thieberger, Nicholas (ed.). 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Fieldwork. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah. 2015. Endangered Languages. An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tosco, Mauro. 1994. ‘The historical syntax of East Cushitic. A first sketch’. In Bearth, Thomas, Möhlig, Wilhelm, Sottas, Beat & Suter, Edgar (eds). Perspektiven afrikanischer Forschung. Köln: Köppe. 415–440.Google Scholar
Traxler, Matthew. 2012. Introduction to Psycholinguistics: Understanding Language Science. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Traxler, Matthew; Gernsbacher, Morton (eds). 2006 2. Handbook of Psycholinguistics. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Tremblay, Pascale; Dick, Anthony Steven. 2016. ‘Broca and Wernicke are dead, or moving past the classic model of language neurobiology’. Brain and Language, 162. 60–71.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 2000 4. Sociolinguistics: An Introduction to Language and Society. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Tusting, Karin (ed.). 2020. The Routledge Handbook of Linguistic Ethnography. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Underhill, James. 2012. Ethnolinguistics and Cultural Concepts: Truth, Love, Hate and War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ungerer, Friedrich; Schmid, Hans-Jörg. 1996/20062. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
Vaux, Bert; Cooper, Justin. 2003. Introduction to Linguistic Field Methods. München: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
Velupillai, Viveka. 2012. An Introduction to Linguistic Typology. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Verhaar, John. 1995. Towards a Reference Grammar of Tok Pisin: An Experiment in Corpus Linguistics. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai‘i Press.Google Scholar
Vigneau, Mathieu ; Beaucousin, V.; Hervé, P. Y.; Duffau, H.; Crivello, F.; Houdé, O.; Mazoyer, B.; Tzourio-Mazoyer, N.. 2006. ‘Meta-analyzing left hemisphere language areas. Phonology, semantics, and sentence processing’. NeuroImage, 30 (4). 1414–1432.Google Scholar
Visser, Penny; Krosnick, Jon; Lavrakas, Paul. 2000. ‘Survey Research’. In Judd, C. & Reis, H. (eds). Research Methods in Social Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press. 223–252.Google Scholar
Voegelin, Charles; Voegelin, Florence. 1977. Classification and Index of the World’s Languages. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Völkel, Svenja. 2010. Social Structure, Space and Possession in Tongan Culture and Language: An Ethnolinguistic Study. (Culture and language use, 2). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Völkel, Svenja. 2016. ‘Tongan-English language contact and kinship terminology’. World Englishes, 35 (2). 242–258.Google Scholar
Völkel, Svenja. 2017. ‘Challenges and profits of interdisciplinary fieldwork in linguistic and cognitive anthropology’. In Poser, Alexis von & Poser, Anita von (eds). Facets of Fieldwork. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Wagner, Elvis. 2010. ‘Survey research’. In Paltridge, Brian & Phakiti, Aek (eds). Continuum Companion to Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. London: Continuum. 22–38.Google Scholar
Wardhaugh, Ronald. 2006 5. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wei, Li; Moyer, Melissa (eds). 2008. The Blackwell Guide to Research Methods in Bilingualism and Multilingualism. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Whaley, Lindsay. 1997. Introduction to Typology. The Unity and Diversity Of Language. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 2003. Cross-Cultural Pragmatics. The Semantics of Human Interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Willems, Roel M. (ed.). 2005. Cognitive Neuroscience of Natural Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Willems, Roel M.; Cristia, Alejandrina. 2018. ‘Hemodynamic methods: fMRI and fNIRS’. In Groot, Annette de & Hagoort, Peter (eds). 2018. Research Methods in Psycholinguistics and the Neurobiology Of Language: A Practical Guide. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. 266–287.Google Scholar
Wolf, Hans-Georg; Dirven, René; Chen, Rong; Yu, Ning; Smieja, Birgit (eds). 2006. The Cognitive Linguistics Bibliography (CogBib). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Wolff, Phillip; Holmes, Kevin. 2011. ‘Linguistic relativity’. Cognitive Science, 2(3). 253–265.Google Scholar
Woodbury, Anthony. 2011. ‘Language documentation’. In Austin, Peter & Sallabank, Julia (eds). The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 159–186.Google Scholar
Woods, Anthony; Fletcher, Paul; Hughes, Arthur. 1986. Statistics in Language Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wray, Alison; Bloomer, Aileen. 2013 3. Projects in Linguistics and Language Studies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wynne, Martin (ed.). 2005. Developing Linguistic Corpora: A Guide to Good Practice. Oxford: Oxbow Books.Google Scholar
Xiao, Richard. 2008. ‘Well-known and influential corpora’. In Lüdeling, Anke & Kytö, Merja (eds). Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook. (HSK, 29.1). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 383–457.Google Scholar
Xiao, Richard. 2015. ‘Collocation’ In Biber, Douglas & Reppen, Randi (eds). The Cambridge Handbook of English Corpus Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 106–124.Google Scholar
de Zubicaray, Greig; Schiller, Niels (eds). 2019. The Oxford Handbook of Neurolinguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar