How subject animacy constrains motion event descriptions
Evidence from sequential and simultaneous bilinguals in French and English
Research has indicated that during sentence processing, French native speakers predominantly rely upon lexico-semantic cues (i.e.,
animacy) while native speakers of English rely upon syntactic cues (i.e., word order). The present study examined sentence
production in L1 French/L2 English and L1 English/L2 French sequential bilinguals. Participants used animate and inanimate
entities as sentence subjects while describing motion events represented by static pictures. To test a gradual change in animacy
cue weighting in second-language sequential bilinguals with different proficiency levels were included. Sentence production of
sequential bilinguals was compared against that of simultaneous bilinguals. The results indicated an overall preference for the
use of animate subjects for both languages at all proficiency levels. The effect of animacy was stronger for English L2 than
French L2 while it did not differ between languages in simultaneous bilinguals. Evidence for potential change in the animacy-cue
weighting was only observed for English L2.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Animacy, L2 and bilingualism
- 3.Motion events and animacy in bilinguals
- 4.Aim and design of the study
- 5.Method
- 5.1Participants
- 5.2Task
- 5.3Procedure
- 5.4Analysis
- 6.Results
- 6.1Quantitative analysis
- Sequential bilinguals
- Simultaneous bilinguals
- 6.2Qualitative analysis
- Sequential bilinguals
- Simultaneous bilinguals
- 7.Discussion
- 8.Conclusion
- Acknowledgements
-
References
References (93)
References
Abutalebi, J., Cappa, S., & Perani, D. (2009). What can functional neuroimaging tell us about the bilingual brain? In J. Kroll, & A. M. B. De Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism (pp. 479–515). Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Aissen, J. (2003). Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21(3), 435–483. Available from ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Alexiadou, A., & Schäfer, F. (2006). Instrument subjects are agents or causers. In D. Baumer, D. Montero, & M. Scanlon (Eds.), 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp 44–48). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Available from [URL]
Altmann, L. J. P., & Kemper, S. (2006). Age differences in sensitivity to animacy and order of activation in sentence production. Language and Cognitive Process, 21(1–3), 322–354. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Antonijević, S., & Berthaud, S. (2009). Verbs of motion and sentence production in second language. Proceedings of Fechner Day, 25(1), 487–492.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Baayen, H., Piepenbrock, R., & van Rijn, H. (1993). The CELEX Lexical Database (CD-ROM). Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia, Linguistic Data Consortium.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Barac, R., & Bialystok, E. (2012). Bilingual effects on cognitive and linguistic development: Role of language, cultural background, and education. Child Development, 83(2), 413–422. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1982). Functionalist approaches to grammar. In E. Wanner, & L. R. Gleitman (Eds.), Language Acquisition: The State of the Art (pp. 173–218). New York: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bates, E., et al. (1984). A cross-linguistic study of the development of sentence interpretation strategies. Child Development, 55(2), 341–354. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Beavers, J., Levin, B., & Tham, S. W. (2010). The typology of motion expressions revisited. Journal of linguistics, 46(02), 331–377. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bialystok, E. (1999). Cognitive complexity and attentional control in the bilingual. Child Development, 70(3), 636–644. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bialystok, E., & Feng, X. (2011). Language proficiency and its implications for monolingual and bilingual children. In A. Y. Durgunoğlu, & C. Goldenberg (Eds.), Language and Literacy Development in Bilingual Settings (pp. 121–138). New York: The Guildford Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bock, J., Loebell, H., & Morey, R. (1992). From conceptual roles to structural relations: Bridging the syntactic fcleft. Psychological Review, 99(1), 150–171. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bowerman, M. (1973). Early syntactic development: A cross-linguistic study with special reference to Finnish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Branigan, H., Pickering, M., & Tanaka, M. (2008). Contributions of animacy to grammatical function assignment and word order during production. Lingua, 118(2), 172–189. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brown, R. (1970). Psycholinguistics: Selected Papers by Roger Brown. New York: Free Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brown, R., Cazden, C., & Bellugi, U. (1973). The child’s grammar from I to III. In C. A. Ferguson, & D. I. Slobin (Eds.), Studies of Child Language Development (pp. 295–333). New York: Holt.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bylund, E., & Athanasopoulos, P. (2015). Introduction: Cognition, motion events, and SLA. The Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1–13. Available from ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Campbell, S. (2013). Translation into the second language (2nd ed.). New York:Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Chapman, R., & Miller, J. (1975). Word order in early two and three word utterances: Does production precede comprehension? Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 181, 346–354. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Clark, E. V. (1973). What’s in a word? On the child’s acquisition of semantics in his first language. In T. E. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp. 65–110). New York: Academic Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Clark, H., & Begun, J. (1971). Semantics of sentence subjects. Language and Speech, 14(1), 34–46. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Comrie, B. (1989). Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL quarterly, 33(2), 185–209. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Costa, A., & Caramazza, A. (1999). Is the lexical selection in bilingual speech production language-specific? Further evidence from Spanish-English and English-Spanish bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 2(3), 231–244. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Costa, A., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2014). How does the bilingual experience sculpt the brain? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 15(5), 336–345. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching and assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cruse, D. (1973). Some thoughts on agentivity. Journal of Linguistics, 9(1), 11–13. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
de Villiers, P., & de Villiers, J. (1974). On this, that and the other: Non-egocentrism in very young children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 18(3), 438–447. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Devescovi, A., D’Amico, S., & Gentille, P. (1999). The development of sentence comprehension in Italian: A reaction time study. First Language, 19(56), 129–163. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dong, Y., Gui, S., & Macwhinney, B. (2005). Shared and separate meanings in the bilingual mental lexicon. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 8(3), 221–238. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1998). Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ellis, N. C. (2006). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 164–194. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ferreira, F. (1994). Choice of passive voice is affected by verb type and animacy. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(6), 715–736. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Folli, R., & Harley, H. (2005). Flavours of v: Consuming results in Italian and English. In P. Kempchinsky, & R. Slabakova (Eds.), Aspectual Enquiries (pp. 95–120). Dordrecht: Springer. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Folli, R., & Harley, H. (2007). Causation, obligation and argument structure: On the nature of little v. Linguistic Inquiry, 38(2), 197–238. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Folli, R., & Harley, H. (2008). Teleology and animacy in external arguments. Lingua, 118(2), 190–202. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gass, S. (1987). The resolution of conflicts among competing systems: A bidirectional perspective. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8(4), 329–350. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gennari, S., Mirkovic, J., & MacDonald, M. (2012). Animacy and competition in relative clause production: A cross-linguistic investigation. Cognitive Psychology, 65(2), 141–176. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Green, D. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(2), 67–81. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Grimm, S. (2007). The bounds of subjecthood: Evidence from instruments. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 33(1), 178–189. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain and Language, 36(1), 3–15. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Grosjean, F., & Li, P. (2012). The Psycholinguistics of Bilingualism. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hatim, B. (2014). Teaching and Researching Translation (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hernandez, A., & Bates, E., & Avila, L. (1996). Processing across the language boundary: a cross-modal priming study of Spanish-English bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 22(4), 846–864.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hervey, S. G., & Higgins, I. (2002). Thinking French translation: a course in translation method: French to English (2nd ed). Psychology Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hickmann, M., & Hendriks, H. (2010). Typological constraints on the acquisition of spatial language in French and English. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(2), 189–215. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hurford, J. (1994). Grammar: A Student’s Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. (2003). What translation tells us about motion: A contrastive study of typologically different languages. IJES, International Journal of English Studies, 3(2), 151–175.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Itagaki, N., & Prideaux, G. (1985). Nominal properties as determinants of subject selection. Lingua, 66(23), 125–149.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kail, M., & Charvillat, A. (1986). Linguistic cues in sentence processing in French children and adults from a cross-linguistic perspective. Advances in Psychology, 391, 349–374. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kroll, J., & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interferences in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connection between bilingual memory representation. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(2), 149–174. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Liu, H., Bates, E., & Li, P. (1992). Sentence interpretation in bilingual speakers of English and Chinese. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13(4), 451–484. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
MacWhinney, B. (2005). A unified model of language acquisition. In J. F. Kroll, & A. M. B. de Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 49–67). Oxford: Oxford University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
MacWhinney, B., & Bates, E. (1989). The Crosslinguistic Study of Sentence Processing. New York: Cambridge University Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
McDonald, J., Bock, J., & Kelly, M. (1993). Word and world order: semantic, phonological and metrical determinants of serial position. Cognitive Psychology, 25(2), 188–230. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
McDonald, J., & Heilenman, L. (1991). Determinants of cue strength in adult first and second language speakers of French. Applied Psycholinguistics, 12(3), 313–348. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Morett, L., & MacWhinney, B. (2013). Syntactic transfer in English-speaking Spanish learners 132–151.. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(1), 132–151. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
New, B., Pallier, C., Brysbaert, M., & Ferrand, L. (2004). Lexique 2: A new French lexical database. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computer, 36(3), 516–524. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
New, B., Pallier, C., Ferrand, L., & Matos, R. (2001). Une base de données lexicales du français contemporain sur Internet: LEXIQUE. L’Année Psychologique, 1011, 447–462. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pavlenko, A. (2009). Conceptual representation in the bilingual lexicon and second language vocabulary learning. In A. Pavlenko (Ed.), The Bilingual Mental Lexicon: Interdisciplinary Approaches (pp. 125–160). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Papafragou, A., Massey, C., & Gleitman, L. (2005). When English proposes what Greek presupposes: The cross-linguistic encoding of motion events. Cognition, 98(3), 75–87. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pearson, J., Stevenson, R., & Poesio, M. (2001). The effects of animacy, thematic role, and surface position on the focusing of entities in discourse. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pham, G., & Ebert, K. D. (2016). A longitudinal analysis of sentence interpretation in bilingual children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37(2), 461–485. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pham, G., & Kohnert, K. (2010). Sentence interpretation by typically developing Vietnamese – English bilingual children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31(3), 507–529. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pourcel, S., & Kopecka, A. (2005). Motion expression in French: Typological diversity. Durham & Newcastle working papers in linguistics, 111, 139–153.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Prat Sala, M. (1997). The Production of Different Word Orders: A Psycholinguistic and Developmental Approach. PhD Dissertation. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh. Available from [URL]
Rakison, D. H., & Poulin-Dubois, D. (2001). Developmental origin of the animate – inanimate distinction. Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 209–228. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Robinson, P., & Ellis, N. (2008). Conclusion: Cognitive Linguistics, Second Language Acquisition and L2 Instruction – Issues for Research. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 489–545). London: Routledge. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Rosenbach, A. (2005). Animacy versus weight as determinants of grammatical variation in English. Language, 81(3), 613–644. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sasaki, Y. (1991). English and Japanese interlanguage comprehension strategies – An analysis based on the Competition Model. Applied Psycholinguistics, 12(1), 47–73. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Scholfield, P. (1995). Quantifying Language: A Researcher’s Guide to Gathering Language Data and Reducing it to Figures. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Slobin, D. (1968). Imitation and grammatical development in children. In N. Endler, S. Boulter, & H. Osser (Eds.), Contemporary Issues in Developmental Psychology (pp. 437–443). New York: Holt.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Slobin, D. (1996). Two ways to travel: Verbs of motion in English and Spanish. In M. Shibatani, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Grammatical Constructions. Their From and Meaning (pp. 195–219). Oxford: Clarendon Press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Slobin, Dan I. (2004). The many ways to search for a frog: Linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. In S. Strömqvist, & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Relating events in narrative: Typological and contextual perspectives (pp. 219–258). Mahwah: Erlbaum.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Slobin, D. I. (2005). Relating narrative events in translation. In D. Ravid & H. B. Shyldkrot (Eds.), Perspectives on language and language development (pp. 115–129). Dordrecht: Kluwer. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stosic, D., & Sarda, L. (2009). The many ways to be located: the expression of fictive motion in French and Serbian. In M. B. Vukanović, & L. G. Grmuša (Eds.), Space and Time in Language and Literature (pp. 39–60). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Su, I. -R. (2001). Transfer of sentence processing strategies: A comparison of L2 learners of Chinese and English. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22(1), 83–112. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics (Vol. 1 & 21). MIT press.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Tremoulet, P. D., & Feldman, J. (2000). Perception of animacy from the motion of a single object. Perception, 29(8), 943–951. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
van Nice, K. & Dietrich, R. (2003). Task sensitivity of animacy effects: from German picture descpritions. Linguistics, 41(5), 825–849.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wang, J., & Xu, C. (2015). Cue Competition between Animacy and Word Order: Acquisition of Chinese Notional Passives by L2 Learners. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 5(2), 213–224. Available from ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wolff, P., Geon, G., & Li, Y. (2009). Causers in English, Korean and Chinese and the individuation of events. Language and Cognition, 1(2), 165–194. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wolff, P., Jeon, G., Klettle, B., & Li, Y. (2010). Force creation and possible causers across languages. In B. Malt, P. Wolff (Eds.), Words and the Mind: How Words Capture Human Experience (pp. 93–110). Oxford: Oxford University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Woods, A., Fletcher, P., & Hughes, A. (1986). Statistics in Language Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wust, V. (2010). L2 French learners’ processing of object clitics: Data from the classroom. L2 Journal, 2(1), 45–72. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Batardière, Marie-Thérèse, Sarah Berthaud, Bronagh Ćatibušić & Colin J. Flynn
2023.
Language teaching and learning in Ireland: 2012–2021.
Language Teaching 56:1
► pp. 41 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.