Article published in:
Pragmatics & Cognition
Vol. 24:2 (2017) ► pp. 212262


Abbot-Smith, Kirsten & Heike Behrens
2006How known constructions influence the acquisition of other constructions: The German passive and future constructions. Cognitive Science 30(6). 995–1026.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bot, Kees de, Wander Lowie & Marjolijn Verspoor
2007A dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 10(1). 7–21.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cadierno, Teresa
2008Learning to talk about motion in a foreign language. In Peter Robinson & Nick C. Ellis (eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition, 239–275. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Caspi, Tal
2010A dynamic perspective on second language development. Groningen: Doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Cefling – Linguistic Basis of the Common European Framework for L2 English and L2 Finnish
CEFR – Common European Framework for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment
2006 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa & Elena Lieven
2005Towards a lexically specific grammar of children’s question constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 16(3). 437–474.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Östen
2008Kuinka eksoottinen kieli suomi on? Virittäjä 4/2008. 545–595.Google Scholar
DeKeyser, Robert
2007The future of practice. In Robert DeKeyser (ed.), Practice in a second language: Perspectives from applied linguistics and cognitive psychology, 287–304. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 243 ]
Dijk, Marijn van, Marjolijn Verspoor & Wander Lowie
2011Variability and DST. In Marjolijn Verspoor, Kees de Bot & Wander Lowie (eds.), A dynamic approach to second language development: Methods and techniques, 55–84. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Nick C.
2002Frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24(2). 143–188.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Nick C. & Teresa Cadierno
2009Constructing a second language: Introduction to the special section. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 7(1). 111–139.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eskildsen, Søren W.
2008Constructing another language – Usage-based linguistics in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 30(3). 335–357.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012L2 negation constructions at work. Language Learning 62(2). 335–372.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015What counts as a developmental sequence? Exemplar-based L2 learning of English questions. Language Learning 65(1). 33–62.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eskildsen, Søren W. & Teresa Cadierno
2007Are recurring multi-word expressions really syntactic freezes? Second language acquisition from the perspective of usage-based linguistics. In Marja Nenonen & Sinikka Niemi (eds.), Collocations and idioms 1: Papers from the first nordic conference on syntactic freezes, 86–99. Joensuu, Finland, May 19–29 2006.Google Scholar
Geert, Paul van
2008The dynamic systems approach in the study of L1 and L2 acquisition: An introduction. The Modern Language Journal 92(2). 179–199.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Geert, Paul van & Marijn van Dijk
2002Focus on variability: New tools to study intra-individual variability in developmental data. Infant Behavior and Development 25(4). 340–374.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E.
2006Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grzega, Joachim
2012Lexical-semantic variables. In Juan Manuel Hernández-Campoy & Juan Camilo Conde-Silvestre (eds.), The handbook of historical sociolinguistics, 271–292. Chichester: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ivaska, Ilmari
2015Edistyneen oppijansuomen konstruktiopiirteitä korpusvetoisesti: avainrakenneanalyysi. Turku: doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Kajander, Mikko
2013Suomen eksistentiaalilause toisen kielen oppimisen polulla. Jyväskylä: doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Karlsson, Fred
2015Finnish: An essential grammar, 3rd edn. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kielitoimiston sanakirja [The New Dictionary of Modern Finnish] 2017 Helsinki: Kotimaisten kielten keskus. URN:NBN:fi:kotus-201433. Verkkojulkaisu HTML. This publication is updated regularly. Last update 23 Feb 2017. [Date of reference 31 May 2017].Google Scholar
Kielitoimiston ohjepankki (Guideline Database of the Finnish Language Office): Rektioita: rakastaa uuden kokeilemista vai rakastaa kokeilla uutta? Lahde (reference): http://​www​.kielitoimistonohjepankki​.fi​/haku​/rakastaa​/ohje​/610 [Viittauspaiva (date of reference) 31 May 2017]
Langacker, Ronald W.
1987Foundations of cognitive grammar. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1999Grammar and conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009A dynamic view of usage and language acquisition. Cognitive Linguistics 20(3). 627–640.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 244 ]
Larsen-Freeman, Diane
2006The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied Linguistics 27(4). 590–619.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, Diane & Lynne Cameron
2013Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lieven, Elena, Dorothé Salomo & Michael Tomasello
2009Two-year-old children’s production of multiword utterances: A usage-based analysis. Cognitive Linguistics 20(3). 481–507.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian
2000The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk, 3rd edn.. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
2004A unified model of language acquisition. In Judith F. Kroll & Annette M. B. de Groot (eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches, 49–67. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Martin, James R. & Peter P. R. R. White
2005The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Maisa, Sanna Mustonen, Nina Reiman & Marja Seilonen
2010On becoming an independent user. In Inge Bartning, Maisa Martin & Ineke Vedder (eds.), Communicative proficiency and linguistic development, intersections between SLA and language testing research, 57–80. EUROSLA Monograph Series 1.Google Scholar
Mellow, J. Dean
2006The emergence of second language syntax: A case study of the acquisition of relative clauses. Applied Linguistics 27(4). 645–670.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mustonen, Sanna
2015Käytössä kehittyvä kieli. Paikat ja tilat suomi toisena kielenä -oppijoiden teksteissä. Jyväskylä: Doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Peltier, John
2009PTS LOESS Smoothing Utility [Computer Software]. Retrieved from http://​peltiertech​.com​/loess​-utility​-awesome​-update/ 26 April 2018
Penris, Wouter & Marjolijn Verspoor
2017Academic writing development: A complex, dynamic process. In Simone Pfenniger & Judit Navracsics (eds.), Future research directions for applied linguistics, 215–242. Bristol: Multilingual Matters Ltd. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Peters, Ann M.
1983The units of language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reiman, Nina
2011aTransitiivikonstruktio ikkunana syntaksin kehitykseen: infiniittiset rakenteet ja passiivi taidon indikaattoreina S2-oppijoiden teksteissä [The transitive construction as a window into syntax development: Infinite structures and passive as indicators of proficiency in F2 students’ texts]. In Esa Lehtinen, Sirkku Aaltonen, Merja Koskela, Elina Nevasaari & Mariann Skog-Södersved (eds.), AFinLa-E soveltavan kielitieteen tutkimuksia, 142–157.Google Scholar
2011bTwo faces of complexity: Structural measures and diversity of constructions. Nordand. Nordisk tidsskrift for andrespråkforskning 2. 9–33.Google Scholar
Robinson, Peter
2005Cognitive complexity and task sequencing: Studies in a componential framework for second language task design. IRAL – International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 43(1). 1–32.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roehr-Brackin, Karen
2014Explicit knowledge and processes from a usage-based perspective: The developmental trajectory of an instructed L2 learner. Language Learning 64(4). 771–808.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Saukkonen, Pauli, Marjatta Haipus, Antero Niemikorpi & Helena Sulkala
1979Suomen kielen taajuussanasto. [A Frequency Dictionary of Finnish]. Helsinki: WSOY.Google Scholar
[ p. 245 ]
Seilonen, Marja
2013Epäsuora henkilöön viittaaminen oppijansuomessa. Jyväskylä: Doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Siiroinen, Mari
2001Kuka pelkää, ketä pelottaa: Nykysuomen tunneverbien kielioppia ja semantiikkaa. Helsinki: Doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Skehan, Peter
2003Task-based instruction. Language Teaching 36(1). 1–14.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Smiskova-Gustafsson, Hana
2013Chunks in L2 development: A usage-based perspective. Groningen: Doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Spoelman, Marianne & Marjolijn Verspoor
2010Dynamic patterns in development of accuracy and complexity: A longitudinal case study in the acquisition of Finnish. Applied Linguistics 31(4). 532–553.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Steinkrauss, Rasmus
2017L1 acquisition beyond input frequency. In Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul & Elena Tribushinina (eds.), Usage-based approaches to language acquisition and language teaching, 117–142. Boston/Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tilma, Corinne
2014The dynamics of foreign versus second language development in Finnish writing. Jyväskylä: Doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael
2003Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Topling – Paths in Second Language Acquisition
Verspoor, Marjolijn & Heike Behrens
2011Dynamic systems theory and a usage-based approach to second language development. In Marjolijn Verspoor, Kees de Bot & Wander Lowie (eds.), A dynamic approach to second language development: Methods and techniques, 25–38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, Marjolijn & Marijn van Dijk
2011Visualizing interactions between variables. In Marjolijn Verspoor, Kees de Bot & Wander Lowie (eds.), A dynamic approach to second language development: Methods and techniques, 85–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, Marjolijn & Kim Sauter
2000English sentence analysis: An introductory course. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Verspoor, Marjolijn, Monika S. Schmid & Xiaoyan Xu
2012A dynamic usage based perspective on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 21(3). 239–263.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
VISK = Hakulinen, Auli, Maria Vilkuna, Riitta Korhonen, Vesa Koivisto, Tarja Riitta Heinonen & Irja Alho
2004Iso suomen kielioppi. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Electronic Database [29 Dec. 2017]. Retrieved from: http://​scripta​.kotus​.fi​/visk. URN:978-952-5446-35-7
Wray, Alison
2007‘Needs only’ analysis in linguistic ontogeny and phylogeny. In Caroline Lyon, Chrystopher L. Nehaniv & Angelo Cangelosi (eds.), Emergence of communication and language, 53–70. London: Springer London.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Lesonen, Sirkku, Rasmus Steinkrauss, Minna Suni & Marjolijn Verspoor
2020. Dynamic Usage-based Principles in the Development of L2 Finnish Evaluative Constructions. Applied Linguistics Crossref logo
2020. Lexically specific vs. productive constructions in L2 Finnish. Language and Cognition 12:3  pp. 526 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 01 september 2020. 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.