Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T12:32:12.952Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Second language construction learning: investigating domain-specific adaptation in advanced L2 production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2015

ELMA KERZ  and
DANIEL WIECHMANN
ELMA KERZ*
Affiliation:
Department of English Linguistics, RWTH Aachen University
DANIEL WIECHMANN
Affiliation:
Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of Amsterdam
*
†Address for correspondence: Elma Kerz, Department of English Linguistics, RWTH Aachen University, Kármánstraße 17–19, 52062 Aachen. e-mail: kerz@anglistik.rwth-aachen.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Usage-based (UB) accounts conceive of language learning as continuous, locally contingent construction learning, i.e., a lifelong process of developing and honing the repertoire of constructional patterns geared to the optimization of a language user’s communicative ability across a wide range of language domains. The continuous nature of the process entails that a full UB model needs to account for not only the dynamics of language learning at early stages of acquisition, but also the functionally motivated adaptations of the language system at more advanced levels of proficiency. We present a design based on naturalistic second language (L2) written productions that sets out to reconstruct the states of constructional knowledge of advanced L2 learners through the statistical analysis of their productions. Irrespective of theoretical framing, the study provides foundational data relevant for any property theory of language learning, i.e., any theory that is concerned with the nature of the language system to be acquired, which logically precedes a transition theory of the developmental processes of L2 acquisition.

Keywords

usage-based modelsconstructionist approachadaptationadvanced L2 learningwritten productionprobabilistic differencessupervised machine learning
Type
Research Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 8 , Issue 4 , December 2016 , pp. 533 - 565
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2015 

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

references

Abbot-Smith, K., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Exemplar-learning and schematization in a usage-based account of syntactic acquisition. Linguistic Review, 23(3), 275–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alishahi, A., & Stevenson, S. (2008). A computational model of early argument structure acquisition. Cognitive Science, 32(5), 789–834.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ambridge, B., & Lieven, E. V. M. (2011). Child language acquisition: contrasting theoretical approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aniya, S. (1992). The semantics and the syntax of the existential there-construction. Linguistic Analysis, 22(3/4), 154–184.Google Scholar
Arnold, J., Wasow, T., Losongco, A., & Ginstrom, R. (2000). Heaviness vs. newness: the effects of complexity and information structure on constituent ordering. Language, 76, 28–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnon, I. (2011). Relative clause acquisition in Hebrew and the learning of constructions. In Kidd, E. (Ed.), The acquisition of relative clauses: processing, typology and function (pp. 81–106). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bannard, C., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2009). Modeling children’s early grammatical knowledge. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(41), 17284–17289.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1989). Functionalism and the competition model. In MacWhinney, B. & Bates, E. (Eds.), The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing (pp. 3–76). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bates, E., McNew, S., MacWhinney, B., Devescovi, A., & Smith, S. (1982). Functional constraints on sentence processing: a cross-linguistic study. Cognition, 11(3), 245–299.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beckner, C., Ellis, N. C., Blythe, R., Holland, J., Bybee, J., & Ke, J. (2009). Language is a complex adaptive system: position paper. Language Learning, 59(Suppl. 1), 1–26.Google Scholar
Beekhuizen, B., Bod, R., Fazly, A., Stevenson, S. & Verhagen, A. (2014). A usage-based model of early grammatical development. In Demberg, V. & O’Donnell, T. (Eds.), Proceedings of the fifth workshop on cognitive modeling and computational linguistics, Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 46–54). Baltimore, MD: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Bergen, B. K., & Plauché, M. C. (2005). The convergent evolution of radial constructions: French and English deictics and existential there . Language, 57(1), 1–25.Google Scholar
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. (2006). University language: a corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2001). Register variation: a corpus approach. In Schiffrin, D. (Ed.), Discourse analysis (pp. 175–196). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2011). Is conversation more grammatically complex than academic writing? In Konopka, M., Kubczak, J., Mair, C., Štícha, F., & Waßner, U. H. (Eds.), Grammar and corpora 2009 (pp. 47–62). Tübingen: Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poonpon, K. (2011). Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 5–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poonpon, K. (2013). Pay attention to the phrasal structures: going beyond T-units. TESOL Quarterly, 47, 192–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Biber, D., & Vásquez, C. (2008). Writing and speaking. In Bazerman, C. (Ed.), Handbook of research on writing (pp. 535–548). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bolton, K., Nelson, G., & Hung, J. (2002). A corpus-based study of connectors in student writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 7(2), 165–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandt, S., Diessel, H., & Tomasello, M. (2008). The acquisition of German relative clauses: a case study. Journal of Child Language, 35, 325–348.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Breivik, L. E. (1983). Existential there: a synchronic and diachronic study (Studia Anglistica Norvegica). Bergen: Bergen University, Department of English.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T., & Baayen, H. (2007). Predicting the dative alternation. In Boume, G., Kraemer, I., & Zwarts, J. (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation (pp. 69–94). Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar
Burnard, L., & Aston, G. (1998). The BNC handbook: exploring the British National Corpus. Edinburgh: Edinburg University Press.Google Scholar
Chang, N. (2008). Constructing grammar: a computational model of the emergence of early constructions. Unpublished dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Clark, E. (2009). First language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. (1998). Rethinking the typology of relative clauses. Language Design: Journal of Theoretical and Experimental Linguistics, 59–85. La Rioja: Universidad de La Rioja.Google Scholar
Conway, C. M., & Christiansen, M. H. (2001). Sequential learning in non-human primates. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 529–546.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooper, T. C. (1976). Measuring written syntactic patterns of second language learners of German. Journal of Educational Research, 69, 176–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creel, S., Newport, E., & Aslin, R. (2004). Distant melodies: statistical learning of nonadjacent dependencies in tone sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 1119–1130.Google ScholarPubMed
Cummins, R. (1983). The nature of psychological explanation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dabrowska, E., & Lieven, E. (2005). Towards a lexically specific grammar of children’s question constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 16, 437–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, Mark (2008). The corpus of Contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990–present. Online: <http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/>..>Google Scholar
de Bot, K., Lowie, W., Thorne, S. L., & Verspoor, M. (2013). Dynamic system theory as a theory of second language development. In Mayo, M., Gutierrez-Mangado, M., & Adrián, M. (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 199–220). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewaele, J.-M., & Furnham, A. (1999). Extraversion: the unloved variable in applied linguistic research. Language Learning, 43(3), 509–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2004). The acquisition of complex sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Duff, P. (2012). Identity, agency and second language acquisition. In Gass, S. M. & Mackey, A. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 410–426). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Duffield, C. J., & Michaelis, L. A. (2011). Why subject relatives prevail: constraints vs. constructional licensing. Language and Cognition, 3, 171–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. (1996). Sequencing in SLA: phonological memory, chunking and points of order. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(1), 143–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. (1999). Cognitive approaches to SLA. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 22–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. (2003). Constructions, chunking, and connectionism: the emergence of second language structure. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 33–68). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. (2008). Implicit and explicit knowledge about language. In Cenoz, J. & Hornberger, N. H. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: knowledge about language (pp. 119–132). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2013). Construction grammar and second language acquisition. In Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar (pp. 365–379). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Cadierno, T. (2009). Constructing a second language. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 111–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Ferreira-Junior, F. (2009). Construction learning as a function of frequency, frequency distribution, and function. Modern Language Journal, 93, 370–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2009). Constructing a second language: analyses and computational simulations of the emergence of linguistic constructions from usage. Language Learning, 59, 90–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., O’Donnell, M. B., & Römer, U. (2013). Usage-based language: investigating the latent structures that underpin acquisition. Language Learning, 63, 25–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2002). Does form-focused instruction affect the acquisition of implicit knowledge? A review of the research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 223–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. (2004). The definition and measurement of explicit knowledge. Language Learning, 54, 227–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., Elder, C., Erlam, R., Philp, J., & Reinders, H. (2009). Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language learning, testing and teaching. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Elman, J. L. (1995). Language as a dynamical system. In Port, R. & van Gelder, T. (Eds.), Mind as motion: dynamical perspectives on behavior and cognition (pp. 195–225). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Endress, A. D., Nespor, M., & Mehler, J. (2009). Perceptual and memory constraints on language acquisition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 348–353.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eskildsen, S. (2012). L2 Negation constructions at work. Language Learning, 62(2), 335–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferris, D. (1994). Lexical and syntactic features of ESL writing by students at different levels of L2 proficiency. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 414–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firbas, J. (1992). Functional sentence perspective in written and spoken communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, S. L., Bod, R., & Christiansen, M. H. (2012). How hierarchical is language use? Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 279, 4522–4531.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52, 45–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: a construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (2003). Constructions: a new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 219–224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldberg, A. (2006). Constructions at work: the nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A., & Suttle, L. (2010). Construction grammar. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1(4), 468–477.Google ScholarPubMed
Granger, S., Gilquin, G., & Meunier, F. (Eds.) (2013). Twenty years of learner corpus research: looking back, moving ahead. Louvain-de-Neuve: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Granger, S., & Meunier, F. (Eds.) (2008). Phraseology: an interdisciplinary perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregg, K. (1993). Taking explanations seriously: or, let a couple of flowers bloom. Applied Linguistics, 14(3), 276–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S., & Deshors, Sandra C. (2014). Using regressions to explore deviations between corpus data and a standard/target: two suggestions. Corpora, 9(1), 109–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S., & Wulff, S. (2005). Do foreign language learners also have constructions? Evidence from priming, sorting, and corpora. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 3, 182–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S., & Wulff, S. (2013). The genitive alternation in Chinese and German ESL learners: towards a multifactorial notion of context in learner corpus research. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(3), 327–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). Some grammatical problems in scientific English. In Halliday, M. A. K. & Martin, J. R. (Eds.), Writing science (pp. 69–85). London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
Hannay, M. (1985). English existentials in functional grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (2004). Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiltunen, T., & Tyrkkö, J. (2011). Existential there constructions in early medical texts. In Paul, R., Hoffmann, S., & Leech, G. (Eds.), Methodological and historical dimensions of corpus linguistics (Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 6). Helsinki: Varieng. Online: <http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/series/volumes/06/hiltunen_tyrkko/#_ftn1> (last accessed 8 February 2015).Google Scholar
Hinkel, E. (2003). Simplicity without elegance: features of sentences in L1 and L2 academic texts. TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 275–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopp, H. (2010). Ultimate attainment in L2 inflectional morphology: performance similarities between non-native and native speakers. Lingua, 120, 901–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ishikawa, S. (1995). Objective measurement of low-proficiency EFL narrative writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(1), 51–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kidd, E., Lieven, E. V. M., & Tomasello, M. (2010). Lexical frequency and exemplar-based learning effects in language acquisition: evidence from sentential complements. Language Sciences, 32, 132–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jäger, G., & Rosenbach, A. (2006). The winner takes it all – almost: cumulativity in grammatical variation. Linguistics, 44(5), 937–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, J. (2006). Points of view and blind spots: ELF and SLA. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16, 137–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenset, G. B. (2010). A corpus-based study on the evolution of there: statistical analysis and cognitive interpretation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Bergen.Google Scholar
Johansson, S. (1997). A corpus study of English existential clauses: register variation and discourse function. In Nevalainen, T. & Kahlas-Tarkka, L. (Eds.), To explain the present: studies in the changing English language in honour of Matti Rissanen (pp. 303–318). Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Johnson, C. (2001) Constructional grounding: on the relation between deictic and existential there-constructions in acquisition. In Cienki, A., Luka, B., & Smith, M. B. (Eds.), Conceptual and discourse factors in linguistic structure (pp. 123–136). Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form: topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 18, 141–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2007). Reflecting on the cognitive–social debate in second language acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 91, 773–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lumsden, Michael. (1988). Existential sentences: their structure and meaning. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (Ed.) (1999). The emergence of language. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2008). A unified model. In Robinson, P. & Ellis, N. (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 341–372). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2011). The logic of the unified model. In Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 211–227). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B., Pleh, C., & Bates, E. (1985). The development of sentence interpretation in Hungarian. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 178–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martínez-Insua, A. (2004). Existential there-constructions in contemporary British English. Muenchen: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
McNally, L. (1998). Existential sentences without existential quantification. Linguistics and Philosophy, 21, 353–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellow, J. D. (2006). The emergence of second language syntax: a case study of the acquisition of relative clauses. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 645–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, D., Zeileis, A., & Hornik, K. (2006). The strucplot framework: visualizing multi-way contingency tables with vcd. Journal of Statistical Software, 17(3), 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, L. A. (2009) Sign-based Construction Grammar. In Heine, B. & Narrog, H. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (pp. 155–176). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Milsark, G. (1979). Existential sentences in English. Unpublished dissertation, Cambridge, MA, MIT.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R., Myles, F., & Marsden, E. (2012). Second language learning theories. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Miyake, H., & Tsushima, T. (2012). On the features of there constructions used by Japanese speakers of English. Journal of Humanities & Natural Sciences, 132, 55–79.Google Scholar
O’Donnell, M. B., Römer, U., & Ellis, N. (2013). The development of formulaic sequences in first and second language writing: investigating effects of frequency, association and native norm. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(1), 83–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onnis, L. (2012). The potential contribution of statistical learning to second language acquisition. In Williams, J. & Trebuchat, P. (Eds.). Statistical learning and language acquisition (pp. 203–235). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Onnis, L., & Thiessen, E. (2013). Language experience changes subsequent learning. Cognition, 126, 168–284.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ortega, L. (2003). Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: a research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 24(4), 492–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palacios-Martínez, I., & Martínez-Insua, A. (2006). Connecting linguistic description and language teaching: native and learner use of existential there . International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(2), 213–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parkinson, J., & Musgrave, J. (2014). Development of noun phrase complexity in the writing of English for Academic Purposes students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 14, 48–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In Richards, J. C. & Schmidt, R. W. (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 191–225). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: Norton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
R Core Team (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R foundation for statistical computing. Online: <http://www.R-project.org/>..>Google Scholar
Rakinson, D. H., & Oakes, L. M. (Eds.) (2003). Early category and concept development: making sense of the blooming buzzing confusion. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rattermann, M. J., & Gentner, D. (1998). More evidence for a relational shift in the development of analogy: children’s performance on a causal-mapping task. Cognitive Development, 13, 453–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rebuschat, P. (2013). Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge in second language research. Language Learning, 63(3), 595–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rebuschat, P., & Williams, J. N. (2012a). Introduction: statistical learning and language acquisition. In Rebuschat, P. & Williams, J. N. (Eds.), Statistical learning and language acquisition (pp. 1–13). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rebuschat, P., & Williams, J. N. (Eds.) (2012b). Statistical learning and language acquisition. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Robinson, P., & Ellis, N. (Eds.) (2008). A handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohdenburg, G. (1996). Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English. Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 149–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romberg, A., & Saffran, J. (2010). Statistical learning and language acquisition. Cognitive Science, 1(6), 906–914.Google ScholarPubMed
Römer, U. (2009). English in academia: Does nativeness matter? Anglistik: International Journal of English Studies, 20(2), 89–100.Google Scholar
Rothman, J. (2008). Review Lardiere: ultimate attainment in second language acquisition: a case study. Modern Language Journal, 92(2): 324–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowland, C. F., Pine, J. M., Lieven, E. V. M., & Theakston, A. L. (2003). Determinants of the order of acquisition of wh-questions: re-evaluating the role of caregiver speech. Journal of Child Language, 30, 609–635.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. (2004). Trust the text: language, corpus and discourse. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solé, R. V., Corominas-Murtra, B., Valverde, S., & Steels, L. (2010). Language networks: their structure, function and evolution. Complexity, 15(6), 20–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strobl, C., Boulesteix, A.-L., Kneib, T., Augustin, T., & Zeileis, A. (2008). Conditional variable importance for random forests. BMC Bioinformatics, 9, 307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strobl, C., Boulesteix, A.-L., Zeileis, A., & Hothorn, T. (2007). Bias in random forest variable importance measures: illustrations, sources and a solution. BMC Bioinformatics, 8, 25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: exploration and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B. (2004). On operationalizing syntactic complexity. In Purnelle, G., Fairon, C., & Dister, A. (Eds.), Le poids des mots: proceedings of the 7th international conference on textual data statistical analysis, Vol. 2 (pp. 1032–1039). Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, S., & Baayen, H. (2012). Models, forests and trees of York English: was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. Language Variation and Change, 24(2), 135–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thelen, E., & Bates, E. (2003). Connectionism and dynamic systems: Are they really different? Developmental Science, 6, 378–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tsushima, T., & Miyake, H. (2013). On the preferential use of there constructions by Japanese Speakers of English: a preliminary study using a two-alternative forced-choice task in linguistic and discourse contexts. Journal of Humanities and Natural Sciences, 134, 65–86.Google Scholar
Unsworth, S. (2009). First and second language development from a UG perspective. In de Bot, K. & Schrauf, R. W. (Eds.), Language development over the lifespan (pp. 19–40). New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Venables, W. N., & Ripley, B. D. (2002). Modern applied statistics with S. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, M., Schmid, M. S., & Xu, X. (2012). A dynamic usage-based perspective on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21, 239–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiechmann, D., & Kerz, E. (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), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiechmann, D., & Kerz, E. (2014a). Cue reliance in L2 written production. Language Learning, 64(2), 343–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiechmann, D. & Kerz, E. (2014b). Missing generalizations: a supervised machine learning approach to L2 written production. In Proceedings of 5th workshop on cognitive aspects of computational language learning (CogACLL) (pp. 55–63). Gothenburg, Sweden.Google Scholar
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H.-Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity. Honolulu, HI: Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center, University of Hawaii.Google Scholar
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wray, A. (2008). Formulaic language: pushing the boundaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wulff, S., & Gries, S. (2011). Corpus-driven methods for assessing accuracy in learner production. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Second language task complexity: researching the cognition hypothesis of language learning and performance (pp. 61–87). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Supplementary Material

Supplementary information supplied by authors.

Download Supplementary Material(File)
File 65.7 KB