Article published in:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics
Vol. 17:2 (2019) ► pp. 382410


Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M. H., Croft, W., Ellis, N. C., Holland, J., Ke, J., Larsen-Freeman, D., & Schoenemann, T.
(2009) Language is a complex adaptive system. Position paper, Language Learning, 59 1, Supplement 1 1, 1–26. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J.
(2008) Usage-based Grammar and Second Language Acquisition. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 216–236). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2010) Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W.
(2015) Functional approaches to grammar. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., Vol. 9 1 (pp. 470–475). Oxford: Elsevier. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dabrowska, E.
(2012, March). Reduce, reuse, recycle: The ecology of language use. Keynote Address, 5th Conference of the Formulaic Language Research Network, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
(2014) Recycling utterances: A speaker’s guide to sentence processing. Cognitive Linguistics, 25 (4), 167–653. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Language in the mind and in the community. In J. Daems, E. Zenner, K. Heylen, D. Speelmand, & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Change of Paradigms – New Paradoxes: Recontextualizing Language and Linguistics (pp. 221–235). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dabrowska, E., & Lieven, E.
(2005) Towards a lexically specific grammar of children’s question constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 16 (3), 437–474. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Bot, K., & Larsen-Freeman, D.
(2011) Researching second language development from a dynamic systems theory perspective. In M. H. Verspoor, K. de Bot & W. Lowie (Eds.), A dynamic approach to second language development: Methods and techniques (pp. 5–23). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M.
(2007) A Dynamic Systems Theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 10 (1), 7–21. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C.
(2014) Construction learning as category learning: A cognitive analysis. In T. Herbst, S. Schueller & H.-J. Schmid (Eds.), Constructions – Collocations – Patterns (pp. 63–89). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Cadierno, T.
(2009) Constructing a Second Language: Introduction to the Special Section. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7 1, 111–139. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Ferreira-Junior, F.
(2009a) Construction Learning as a function of Frequency, Frequency Distribution, and Function. Modern Language Journal, 93 (3), 370–385. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009b) Constructions and their acquisition: islands and the distinctiveness of their occupancy. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7 1, 187–220. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eskildsen, S. W.
(2009) Constructing another language – Usage-based linguistics in Second Language Acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30 (3), 335–357. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) L2 negation constructions at work. Language Learning, 62 (2), 335–372. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) What’s new? A usage-based classroom study of linguistic routines and creativity in L2 learning. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 52 1, 1–30. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) What Counts as a Developmental Sequence? Exemplar-Based L2 Learning of English Questions. Language Learning, 65 (1), 33–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A.
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Granger, S., & Paquot, M.
(2012) Formulaic Language in Learner Corpora. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32 1, 130–149. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gustafsson, H., & Verspoor, M. H.
(2017) The Development of Chunks in Dutch L2 Learners of English. In J. Evers-Vermeul & E. Tribushinina (Eds.), Usage-Based Approaches to Language Acquisition and Language Teaching (pp. 235–262). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoey, M.
(2005) Lexical priming. A new theory of words and language. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J.
(1998) Emergent Grammar. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The New Psychology of Language (pp. 155–175). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Jolsvai, H., McCauley, S. M., & Christiansen, M. H.
(2013) Meaning overrides frequency in idiomatic and compositional multiword chunks. In M. Knauff, M. Pauen, N. Sebanz & I. Wachsmuth (Eds.), Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 692–697). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(2000) A dynamic usage-based model. In M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Usage-Based Models of Language (pp. 1–63). Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
(2008a) Cognitive grammar as a basis for language instruction. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 66–88). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2008b) Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford University Press: New York. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D.
(2006) The emergence of complexity, fluency, and accuracy in the oral and written production of five Chinese learners of English. Applied linguistics, 27 (4), 590–619.Google Scholar
(2012) Complexity Theory / Dynamic Systems Theory. In P. Robinson (Ed.), The Routledge Encyclopedia Of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 103–105). Routledge: London and New York.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L.
(2008) Complex Systems and Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levin, B.
(2008) Dative Verbs: A Crosslinguistic Perspective. Lingvisticæ Investigationes, 31 1, 285–312. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Li, P., Eskildsen, S. W., & Cadierno, T.
(2014) Tracing an L2 learner’s motion constructions over time – A usage-based classroom investigation. Modern Language Journal, 98 1, 612–628. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lowie, W. M., & Verspoor, M. H.
(2004) Input versus transfer? The role of frequency and similarity in the acquisition of L2 propositions. In S. Niemeier & M. Achard (Eds.), Cognitive Linguistics, Second Language Acquisition, and Foreign Language Acquisition (pp. 77–94). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nesselhauf, N.
(2005) Collocations in a learner corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Odlin, T.
(2008) Conceptual transfer and meaning extensions. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 306–340). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Paquot, M., & Granger, S.
(2012) Formulaic Language in Learner Corpora. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. 32 1, 130–149. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H.
(1983) Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Native-like selection and native-like fluency. In J. C. Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and Communication (pp. 163–199). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Renouf, A., Kehoe, A., & Banerjee, J.
(2007) WebCorp: an integrated system for web text search. In C. Nesselhauf, M. Hundt & C. Biewer (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics and the Web (pp. 47–68). Amsterdam: Rodopi. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D.
(1996) From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. In J. Gumperz & S. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 97–114). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smiskova, H., Verspoor, M. H., & Lowie, W. M.
(2012) Conventionalized ways of saying things (CWOSTs) and L2 development. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1 (1), 125–142. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Smiskova-Gustafsson, H.
(2013) Chunks in L2 development: A usage-based perspective. Doctoral dissertation. Grodil: University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M.
(2000) Do young children have adult syntactic competence? Cognition, 74 1, 209–253. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, A.
(2012) Cognitive Linguistics and SLA. In P. Robinson (Ed.), The Routledge Encyclopedia Of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 88–90). Routledge: London and New York.Google Scholar
Verspoor, M. H., Schuitemaker-King, J., van Rein, E., de Bot, C. J., & Edelenbos, P.
(2010) Tweetalig onderwijs: vormgeving en prestaties. Onderzoeksrapportage. Available online at https://​www​.nuffic​.nl​/publicaties​/tweetalig​-onderwijs​-vormgeving​-en​-prestaties/
Verspoor, M., Schmid, M. S., & Xu, X.
(2012) A dynamic usage based perspective on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21 (3), 239–263. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wray, A.
(2002) Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) What Do We (Think We) Know About Formulaic Language? An Evaluation of the Current State of Play. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32 1, 231–254. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yuldashev, A., Fernandez, J., & Thorne, S. L.
(2013) Second language learners’ contiguous and discontiguous MWU use over time. Modern Language Journal, 97 1, 31–45. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

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 17 april 2022. 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.