Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T22:39:30.769Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Formulaic Language and Second Language Acquisition: Zipf and the Phrasal Teddy Bear

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2012

Nick C. Ellis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article revisits earlier proposals that language learning is, in essence, the learning of formulaic sequences and their interpretations; that this occurs at all levels of granularity from large to small; and that the language system emerges from the statistical abstraction of patterns latent within and across form and function in language usage. It considers recent research in individual differences, the psycholinguistics of language processing, and longitudinal studies of first (L1) and second (L2) language acquisition. The first section reviews studies of individual differences in phonological short-term memory (PSTM) and working memory (WM) and their correlations with vocabulary and grammar acquisition in L2. The second section summarizes evidence that language processing is sensitive to the statistical properties of formulaic language in terms of frequency and transitional probability. The third section examines the definition of formulas and formulaicity using different statistical metrics. The fourth section evaluates longitudinal research in L1 and L2 into the putative developmental sequence commonly proposed in usage-based approaches, from formula to low-scope pattern to creative construction. The final section weighs the implications of the statistical distributions of formulaicity in usage for developmental sequences of language acquisition. Zipf's law and the “phrasal teddy bear” explain the paradox whereby formulas seed language acquisition and yet learner language is formula-light in comparison to native norms.

Type
SECTION A: COGNITIVE PERSPECTIVES ON FORMULAIC LANGUAGE
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 32 , March 2012 , pp. 17 - 44
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Collins, L., & Ellis, N. C. (Eds.). (2009). Input and second language construction learning: frequency, form, and function. The Modern Language Journal, 93, whole issue.

A special issue of The Modern Language Journal exploring how the acquisition of linguistic constructions is driven by the frequency and frequency distribution of exemplars within construction, the matching of their meaning to the construction prototype, and the reliability of their mappings.

Ellis, N. C., & Cadierno, T. (2009). Constructing a second language. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7(Special section), 111–290.

A special section of Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics exploring cognitive linguistic theories of SLA.

Gries, S. T., & Divjak, D. S. (Eds.). (in press). Frequency effects in language: learning and processing. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.

A state-of-the-art collection on frequency effects in language learning and processing.

Robinson, P., & Ellis, N. C. (Eds.). (2008). A handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition. London, UK: Routledge.

Reviews of usage-based approaches to L1 and L2 acquisition.

Rebuschat, J., & Williams, J. N. (Eds.). (in press). Statistical learning and language acquisition. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.

A state-of-the-art collection on statistical language learning.

REFERENCES

Acheson, D. J., & MacDonald, M. C. (2009). Verbal working memory and language production: Common approaches to the serial ordering of verbal information. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 50–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambridge, B., & Lieven, E. (2011). Child language acquisition: Contrasting theoretical approaches. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrade, J., & Baddeley, A. D. (2011). The contribution of phonological short-term memory to artificial grammar learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64, 960–974.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arnon, I., & Snider, N. (2010). More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 67–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baddeley, A. D., Gathercole, S., & Papagno, C. (1998). The phonological loop as a language learning device. Psychological Review, 105, 158–173.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bannard, C., & Matthews, D. (2008). Stored word sequences in language learning: The effect of familiarity on children's repetition of four-word combinations. Psychological Science, 19, 241–248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bardovi-Harlig, K. (2002). A new starting point? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 189–198. doi: 10.1017/S0272263102002036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behrens, H. (2009). Usage-based and emergentist approaches to language acquisition. Linguistics, 47, 383–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behrens, H. (Ed.). (2008). Corpora in language acquisition research: Finding structure in data. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. (2003). Variation among university spoken and written registers: A new multi-dimensional analysis. In Leistyna, P. & Meyer, C. F. (Eds.), Corpus analysis: Language structure and language use (pp. 47–67). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V. (2004). “If you look at . . .”: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25, 371–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, J. K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 355–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bod, R. (2001). Sentence memory: Storage vs. computation of frequent sentences. Paper presented at the CUNY-2001, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
Bod, R., Hay, J., & Jannedy, S. (Eds.). (2003). Probabilistic linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2005). From usage to grammar: The mind's response to repetition. Paper presented at the Linguistic Society of America, Oakland, CA.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2010). Language, usage, and cognition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J., & Hopper, P. (Eds.). (2001). Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corrigan, R., Moravcsik, E. A., Ouali, H., & Wheatley, K. M. (Eds.). (2009). Formulaic language: Vol. 2. Acquisition, loss, psychological reality, and functional explanations. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2004). Language, mind and brain: Some psychological and neurological constraints on theories of grammar. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dabrowska, E., & Lieven, E. (2005). Towards a lexically specific grammar of children's question constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 16, 437–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, Mark. (2008). The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 425 million words, 1990–present. Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/.Google Scholar
Demberg, V., & Keller, F. (2008). Data from eye-tracking corpora as evidence for theories of syntactic processing complexity. Cognition, 109, 193–210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diessel, H. (2007). Frequency effects in language acquisition, language use, and diachronic change. New Ideas in Psychology, 25, 108–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2012). Construction grammar and first language acquisition. In Trousdale, G. & Hoffmann, T. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Divjak, D. S., & Gries, S. T. (Eds.). (in press). Frequency effects in language: Linguistic representation. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Durrant, P., & Doherty, A. (2010). Are high-frequency collocations psychologically real? Investigating the thesis of collocational priming. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 6, 125–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (1996). Sequencing in SLA: Phonological memory, chunking, and points of order. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 91–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2001). Memory for language. In Robinson, P. (Ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 33–68). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2002a). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 143–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2002b). Reflections on frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 297–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2003). Constructions, chunking, and connectionism: The emergence of second language structure. In Doughty, C. & Long, M. H. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 33–68). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2005). At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 305–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2006a). Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2006b). Selective attention and transfer phenomena in SLA: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2008a). Optimizing the input: Frequency and sampling in usage-based and form-focussed learning. In Long, M. H. & Doughty, C. (Eds.), Handbook of second and foreign language teaching. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (2008b). Phraseology: The periphery and the heart of language. In Meunier, F. & Grainger, S. (Eds.), Phraseology in language learning and teaching (pp. 1–13). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. (in press). What can we count in language, and what counts in language acquisition, cognition, and use? In Gries, S. T. & Divjak, D. S. (Eds.), Frequency effects in cognitive linguistics: Vol. 1. Statistical effects in learnability, processing and change. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Ferreira-Junior, F. (2009a). Construction Learning as a function of frequency, frequency distribution, and function. The Modern Language Journal, 93, 370–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Ferreira-Junior, F. (2009b). Constructions and their acquisition: Islands and the distinctiveness of their occupancy. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 7, 111–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., Frey, E., & Jalkanen, I. (2008). The psycholinguistic reality of collocation and semantic prosody (1): Lexical access. In Römer, U. & Schulze, R. (Eds.), Exploring the lexis-grammar interface. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2009). Constructing a second language: Analyses and computational simulations of the emergence of linguistic constructions from usage. Language Learning, 59, 93–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & O'Donnell, M. B. (in press). Statistical construction learning: Does a Zipfian problem space ensure robust language learning? In Rebuschat, J. & Williams, J. (Eds.), Statistical learning and language acquisition. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Simpson-Vlach, R. (2009). Formulaic language in native speakers: Triangulating psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and education. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 5, 61–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., Simpson-Vlach, R., & Maynard, C. (2008). Formulaic language in native and second-language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus Linguistics, and TESOL. TESOL Quarterly, 42, 375–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., & Sinclair, S. G. (1996). Working memory in the acquisition of vocabulary and syntax: Putting language in good order. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A, 49A, 234–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elman, J. L. (1990). Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science, 14, 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elman, J. L., Bates, E. A., Johnson, M. H., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D., & Plunkett, K. (1996). Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Eskildsen, S. W. (2009). Constructing another language—Usage-based linguistics in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30, 335–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eskildsen, S. W. (in press). L2 negation constructions at work. Language Learning.Google Scholar
Eskildsen, S. W., & Cadierno, T. (2007). Are recurring multi-word expressions really syntactic freezes? Second language acquisition from the perspective of usage-based linguistics. In Nenonen, M. & Niemi, S. (Eds.), Collocations and idioms 1: Papers from the First Nordic Conference on Syntactic Freezes. Joensuu, Finland: Joensuu University Press.Google Scholar
Evert, S. (2005). The statistics of word cooccurrences: Word pairs and collocations. Stuttgart, Germany: University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
French, L., & O'Brien, I. (2008). Phonological memory and children's second language grammar learning. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29, 463–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerken, L. (2007). Acquiring linguistic structure. In Hoff, E. & Shatz, M. (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of language development (pp. 173–190). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Granger, S. (2001). Prefabricated patterns in advanced EFL writing: Collocations and formulae. In Cowie, A. P. (Ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis, and applications. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gries, S. T. (2008). Phraseology and linguistic theory: A brief survey. In Granger, S. & Meunier, F. (Eds.), Phraseology: an interdisciplinary perspective. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gries, S. T. (2009). Quantitative corpus linguistics with R: A practical introduction. London, UK: Routledge/Taylor Francis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. T. (2012). Data in construction grammar. In Trousdale, G. & Hoffmann, T. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of construction grammar. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gries, S. T. (in press). Frequencies, probabilities, association measures in usage-/exemplar-based linguistics: Some necessary clarifications. Studies in Language.Google Scholar
Gries, S. T., & Wulff, S. (2005). Do foreign language learners also have constructions? Evidence from priming, sorting, and corpora. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 3, 182–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. T., & Wulff, S. (2009). Psycholinguistic and corpus linguistic evidence for L2 constructions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 164–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gurevich, O., Johnson, M. A., & Goldberg, A. E. (2010). Incidental verbatim memory for language. Language and Cognition, 2, 45–78. doi: 10.1515/langcog.2010.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, T. (2010). L2 Learner-made formulaic expressions and constructions. Teachers College, Columbia University Working Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 10, 1–18.Google Scholar
Hasselgren, A. (1994). Lexical teddy bears and advanced learners: A study into the ways Norwegian students cope with English vocabulary. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4, 237–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hattori, M., & Oaksford, M. (2007). Adaptive non-interventional heuristics for covariation detection in causal induction: Model comparison and rational analysis. Cognitive Science, 31, 765–814. doi: 10.1080/03640210701530755CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hebb, D. O. (1949). The organization of behaviour. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. (2008). New evidence against the modularity of grammar: Constructions, collocations, and speech perception. Cognitive Linguistics, 19, 491–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoey, M. (2004). The textual priming of lexis. In Aston, G., Bernardini, S., & Stewart, D. (Eds.), Corpora and language learners. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hoey, M. (2005). Lexical priming: A new theory of words and language. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J. (1987). Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 13, 139–157.Google Scholar
Hummel, K. M. (2009). Aptitude, phonological memory, and second language proficiency in nonnovice adult learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30, 225–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, N. A. N., & Nekrasova, T. M. (2007). The processing of formulaic sequences by second language speakers. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 433–445. doi: 10.1111/j.1540–4781.2007.00589.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jurafsky, D., & Martin, J. H. (2009). Speech and language processing: An introduction to natural language processing, computational linguistics, and speech recognition (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Kapatsinski, V., & Radicke, J. (2008). Frequency and the emergence of prefabs: Evidence from monitoring. In Corrigan, R., Moravcsik, E. A., Ouali, H., & Wheatley, K. M. (Eds.), Formulaic language: Vol. 2. Acquisition, loss, psychological reality, functional explanation (pp. 499–522). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kiss, G. R. (1973). Grammatical word classes: A learning process and its simulation. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 7, 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, W., & Perdue, C. (1992). Utterance structure: Developing grammars again. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kormos, J., & Sáfár, A. (2008). Phonological short-term memory, working memory and foreign language performance in intensive language learning. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11, 261–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S., & Scarcella, R. (1978). On routines and patterns in language acquisition and performance. Language Learning, 28, 283–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieven, E. V. M., Behrens, H., Speares, J., & Tomasello, M. (2003). Early syntactic creativity: A usage based approach. Journal of Child Language, 30, 333–370.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacDonald, M. C., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2006). Constraint satisfaction accounts of lexical and sentence comprehension. In Traxler, M. J. & Gernsbacher, M. A. (Eds.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (2nd ed., pp. 581–611). London, UK: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manning, C. D., & Schütze, H. (1999). Foundations of statistical natural language processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Martin, K. I., & Ellis, N. C. (2012). The roles of phonological STM and working memory in L2 grammar and vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maslen, R., Theakston, A. L., Lieven, E. V. M., & Tomasello, M. (2004). A dense corpus study of past tense and plural overgeneralizations in English. Journal of Speech, Language, & Hearing Research, 47, 1319–1333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, S. A., & Shillcock, R. C. (2003). Low-level predictive inference in reading: The influence of transitional probabilities on eye movements. Vision Research, 43, 1735–1751.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDonald, S. A., & Shillcock, R. C. (2004). Eye-movements reveal the on-line computation of lexical probabilities during reading. Psychological Science, 14, 648–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K., & De Vleeschauwer, J. (in press). Prompt type frequency, auditory pattern discrimination, and EFL learners’ production of wh-questions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34.Google Scholar
McDonough, K., & Kim, Y. (2009). Syntactic priming, type frequency, and EFL learners’ production of wh-questions. Modern Language Journal, 93, 386–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (2008). Syntactic priming and ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 30, 31–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonough, K., & Trofimovich, P. (2008). Using priming methods in second language research. London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mellow, J. D. (2008). The emergence of complex syntax: A longitudinal case study of the ESL development of dependency resolution. Lingua, 118, 499–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mintz, T. (2003). Frequent frames as a cue for grammatical categories in child directed speech. Cognition, 90, 91–117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Misyak, J. B., & Christiansen, M. H. (2012). Statistical learning and language: An individual differences study. Language Learning, 62, 302–331. doi: 10.1111/j.1467–9922.2010.00626.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myles, F. (2004). From data to theory: The over-representation of linguistic knowledge in SLA. Transactions of the Philological Society, 102, 139–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myles, F., Mitchell, R., & Hooper, J. (1999). Interrogative chunks in French L2: A basis for creative construction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 49–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naigles, L. R., Hoff, E., & Vear, D. (2009). Flexibility in early verb use: Evidence from a multiple-n diary study. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 74.Google ScholarPubMed
Ninio, A. (2011). Syntactic development, its input and output. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Brien, I., Segalowitz, N., Collentine, J., & Freed, B. (2006). Phonological memory and lexical, narrative, and grammatical skills in second-language oral production by adult learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 377–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Brien, I., Segalowitz, N., Collentine, J., & Freed, B. (2007). Phonological memory predicts second language oral fluency gains in adults. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 557–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Donnell, M. B., Römer, U., & Ellis, N. C. (2012). The development of formulaic language in first and second language writing: Investigating effects of frequency, association, and native norm. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, Special issue on Phraseology.Google Scholar
Oakes, M. (1998). Statistics for corpus linguistics. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (1999). Rational models of cognition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In Richards, J. C. & Schmidt, R. W. (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 191–225). London, UK: Longman.Google Scholar
Perdue, C. (Ed.). (1993). Adult language acquisition: Crosslinguistic perspectives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Peters, A. M. (1983). The units of language acquisition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J. (2006). The dance of dialogue. Psychologist, 19, 734–737.Google Scholar
Pickering, M. J., & Ferreira, V. S. (2008). Structural priming: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 427–459.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. C. (2006). Alignment as the basis for successful communication. Research on Language and Computation, 4, 203–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reali, F., & Christiansen, M. H. (2009). Sequential learning and the interaction between biological and linguistic adaptation in language evolution. Interaction Studies, 10, 5–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rebuschat, J., & Williams, J. N. (Eds.). (forthcoming). Statistical learning and language acquisition. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redington, M., & Chater, N. (1998). Connectionist and statistical approaches to language acquisition: A distributional perspective. Language and Cognitive Processes, 13, 129–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P., & Ellis, N. C. (Eds.). (2008). A handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition. London, UK: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saffran, J. R., & Thiessen, E. D. (2007). Domain-general learning capacities. In Hoff, E. & Shatz, M. (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of language development (pp. 173–190). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 206–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Service, E. (1992). Phonology, working memory, and foreign-language learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 45A, 21–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Service, E., & Kohonen, V. (1995). Is the relation between phonological memory and foreign language learning accounted for by vocabulary acquisition? Applied Psycholinguistics, 16, 155–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shanks, D. R. (1995). The psychology of associative learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson-Vlach, R., & Ellis, N. C. (2010). An academic formulas list (AFL). Applied Linguistics, 31, 487–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solé, R. V., Murtra, B., Valverde, S., & Steels, L. (2005). Language networks: Their structure, function and evolution. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12.Google Scholar
Sugaya, N., & Shirai, Y. (2009). Can L2 learners productively use Japanese tense-aspect markers? A usage-based approach. In Corrigan, R., Moravcsik, E., Ouali, H., & Wheatley, K. (Eds.), Formulaic language: Vol. 2. Acquisition, loss, psychological reality, functional applications. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N. (2007). Chunk learning and the development of spoken discourse in a Japanese as a foreign language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 11, 433–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (1992). First verbs: A case study of early grammatical development. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2000). The item based nature of children's early syntactic development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 156–163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M., & Stahl, D. (2004). Sampling children's spontaneous speech: How much is enough? Journal of Child Language, 31, 101–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tremblay, A., Derwing, B., Libben, G., & Westbury, C. (2011). Processing advantages of lexical bundles: Evidence from self-paced reading and sentence recall tasks. Language Learning, 61, 569–613. doi: 10.1111/j.1467–9922.2010.00622.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, G., & Hoffmann, T. (Eds.). (2012). Oxford handbook of construction grammar. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wen, Z. (2011). Working memory and second language learning. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Wiechmann, D. (2008). On the computation of collostruction strength. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 4, 253–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. N. (2011). Working memory and SLA. In Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 427–441). Oxford, UK: Routledge/Taylor Francis.Google Scholar
Williams, J. N., & Lovatt, P. (2003). Phonological memory and rule learning. Language Learning, 53, 67–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wray, A. (2000). Formulaic sequences in second language teaching: Principle and practice. Applied Linguistics, 463–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zipf, G. K. (1935). The psycho-biology of language: An introduction to dynamic philology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar