References

References

Artoni, D., & Magnani, M.
(2015) Acquiring case marking in Russian as a second language: An exploratory study on subject and object. In C. Bettoni & B. Di Biase (Eds.), Grammatical development in second languages: Exploring the boundaries of Processability Theory (pp. 177–193). Amsterdam: The European Second Language Association. Retrieved from http://​www​.eurosla​.org​/eurosla​-monograph​-series​-2​/eurosla​-monographs​-03/
Baten, K.
(2011) Processability Theory and German case acquisition. Language Learning, 61(2), 455–505. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) The acquisition of the German case system by foreign learners. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J.
(2001) Lexical-functional syntax. Malden MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Buyl, A., & Housen, A.
(2015) Developmental stages in receptive grammar acquisition: A Processability Theory account. Second Language Research, 31, 523–550. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Di Biase, B., Bettoni, C., & Medojević, L.
(2015) The development of case: A study of Serbian in contact with Australian English. In C. Bettoni & B. Di Biase (Eds.), Grammatical development in second languages: Exploring the boundaries of Processability Theory (pp. 195–212). Amsterdam: The European Second Language Association. Retrieved from http://​www​.eurosla​.org​/eurosla​-monograph​-series​-2​/eurosla​-monographs​-03/
Di Biase, B., & Kawaguchi, S.
(2002) Exploring the typological plausibility of Processability Theory: Language development in Italian second language and Japanese second language. Second Language Research, 18, 272–300. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dyson, B., & Håkansson, G.
(2017) Understanding second language processing. A focus on Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R.
(1994) The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2008) Investigating grammatical difficulty in second language learning: Implications for second language acquisition research and language testing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18(1), 4–22. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Glahn, E., Håkansson, G., Hammarberg, B., Holmen, A., & Hvenekilde, A.
(2001) Processability in Scandinavian second language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 389–416. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Håkansson, G., & Norrby, C.
(2007) Processability Theory applied to written and oral Swedish. In F. Mansouri (Ed.), Second language acquisition research: Theory-construction and testing (pp. 81–94). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
(2010) Environmental influence on language acquisition: Comparing second and foreign language acquisition of Swedish. Language Learning, 60(3), 628–650. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Håkansson, G., & Pienemann, M.
(1999) A unified approach towards the development of Swedish as L2. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 383–420.Google Scholar
[ p. 94 ]
Jónsson, J. G.
(2003) Not so quirky: On subject case in Icelandic. In E. Brandner & H. Zinmeister (Eds.), New perspectives on Case Theory (pp. 129–164). Stanford CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kawaguchi, S.
(2005) Argument structure and syntactic development in Japanese as a second Language. In M. Pienemann (Ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory (pp. 253–298). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keatinge, D., & Keßler, J.-U.
(2009) The acquisition of the passive voice in English as a foreign language: Production and perception. In Keßler and Keatinge (Eds.), Research in second language acquisition: Empirical evidence across languages (pp. 69–94). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Levelt, W.
(1989) Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Maling, J.
(2002) Það rignir þágufalli á Íslandi [It rains dative in Iceland]. Verbs with Dative Objects in Icelandic. Íslenskt mál, 24, 31–105.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M.
(1998) Language processing and second Language development: Processability Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) An Introduction to Processability Theory. In M. Pienemann (Ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory (pp. 1–60). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M., & Keßler, J-U.
(2011) Studying Processability Theory: An introductory textbook. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pienemann, M., & Lenzing, A.
(2015) Processability Theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition. An introduction (pp. 159–179). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M., Di Biase, B., & Kawaguchi, S.
(2005) Extending Processability Theory. In M. Pienemann (Ed.), Cross-linguistic aspects of Processability Theory (pp. 199–251). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rahkonen, M., & Håkansson, G.
(2008) Production of written L2-Swedish: Processability or input frequencies? In J.-U. Keßler (Ed.), Processability approaches to second language development and second language learning (pp. 135–164). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Svavarsdóttir, Á.
(1993) Beygingakerfi nafnorða í nútímaíslensku [Morphological system of nouns in modern Icelandic.] Reykjavík: Málvísindastofnun Háskóla Íslands.Google Scholar
Zaenen, A., Maling, J., & Thráinsson, H.
(1985) Case and grammatical functions: The Icelandic passive. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 3, 441–483. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 95 ]