Article published in:
Theoretical and Methodological Developments in Processability Theory
Edited by Kristof Baten, Aafke Buyl, Katja Lochtman and Mieke Van Herreweghe
[Processability Approaches to Language Acquisition Research & Teaching 4] 2015
► pp. 113138
References

References

Bresnan, J.
(2001) Lexical-functional syntax. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Felix, S.W.
(1980) Interference, interlanguage, and related issues. In S.W. Felix (Ed.), Second language development. Trends and issues (pp. 93-107). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Gerngross, G., & Puchta, H.
(2003a) Playway 3 Rainbow edition. Teacher’s book. Innsbruck: Helbling/ Leipzig: Klett.Google Scholar
(2003b) Playway 4 Rainbow edition. Teacher’s book. Innsbruck: Helbling/ Leipzig: Klett.Google Scholar
Haberzettl, S.
(2005) Der Erwerb der Verbstellung in der Zweitsprache Deutsch durch Kinder mit typologisch verschiedenen Muttersprachen. Eine Auseinandersetzung mit Theorien zum Syntaxerwerb anhand von vier Fallstudien. Tübingen: Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Håkansson, G., Pienemann, M., & Sayehli, S.
(2002) Transfer and typological proximity in the context of second language processing. Second Language Research, 18(3), 250-273. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johnstone, R.
(2000) Context-sensitive assessment of modern languages in primary (elementary) and early secondary education: Scotland and the European experience. Language Testing, 17(2), 123-143.Google Scholar
Kawaguchi, S.
(2002) Grammatical development in learners of Japanese as a second language. In B. Di Biase (Ed.), Developing a second language: Acquisition, processing and pedagogy of Arabic, Chinese, English, Italian, Japanese, Swedish (pp.17-28). Melbourne: Language Australia.Google Scholar
(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
Lefebvre, C.
(1998) Creole genesis and the acquisition of grammar: The case of Haitian creole. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Lefebvre, C., & Lumsden, J.S.
(1994) Le rôle central de la relexification dans la genèse des langues créoles. Plurilinguismes, 8, 47-93.Google Scholar
Lenzing, A., & Roos, J.
(2012) Die sprachliche Entwicklung und die Ausdrucksmöglichkeiten von Grundschülerinnen und Grundschülern im Englischunterricht. In M. Bär, A. Bonnet, H. Decke-Cornill, A. Grünewald & A. Hu (Eds.) Globalisierung – Migration – Fremdsprachenunterricht. Dokumentation zum 24. Kongress für Fremdsprachendidaktik der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Fremdsprachenforschung (DGFF) Hamburg (pp. 207-220). Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren.Google Scholar
Lenzing, A.
(2013) The development of the grammatical system in early second language acquisition. The multiple constraints hypothesis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lumsden, J.S.
(1999) Language acquisition and creolization. In M. DeGraff (Ed.). Language creation and language change: Creolization, diachrony, and development (pp.129-157). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Meisel, J.M.
(2011) First and second language acquisition. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Muysken, P.
(1981) Half-way between Quechua and Spanish: The case for relexification. In A.R. Highfield & A. Valdman (Eds.). Historicity and variation on creole studies (pp. 52-79). Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M.
(1998) Language processing and second language development: Processability Theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2002) Unanalysierte Einheiten und Sprachverarbeitung im Zweitsprachenerwerb. Zeitschrift für angewandte Linguistik, 37, 3-26.Google Scholar
(2011) L1 transfer. In M. Pienemann & J.-U. Keßler (Eds.) Studying Processability Theory (pp. 75-83). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle 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
Pienemann, M., Di Biase, B., Kawaguchi, S., & Håkansson, G.
(2005a) Processability, typological distance and L1 transfer. In M. Pienemann (Ed.). Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory (pp.85-116). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005b) Processing constraints on L1 transfer. In J.F. Kroll & A.M.B. De Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches (pp.128-153). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M., Keßler, J.-U., & Lenzing, A.
(2013) Developmentally moderated transfer and the role of the L2 in L3 acquisition. In A. Mattsson & C. Norrby (Eds.) Language acquisition and use in multilingual contexts: Theory and practice (pp. 142-159). Travaux de l’Institut de linguistique de Lund 52.Google Scholar
Roos, J.
(2007) Spracherwerb und Sprachproduktion: Lernziele und Lernergebnisse im Englischunterricht der Grundschule. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Schumann, J.H.
(1978) The pidginization process: A model for second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B., & Sprouse, R.
(1994) Word order and nominative case in nonnative language acquisition: A longitudinal study of (L1 Turkish) German interlanguage. In T. Hoekstra & B.D. Schwartz (Eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar: Papers in honor of Kenneth Wexler from the 1991 GLOW workshops (pp. 317-368). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B. & Sprouse, R.
(1996) L2 cognitive states and the Full Transfer/Full Access Model. Second Language Research, 12(1), 40-72. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
White, L.
(2003) Second language acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar