The discontinuity model: Statistical and grammatical learning in adult second-language acquisition

References

• Ambridge, B., J.M. Pine & E.V.M. Lieven. 2014. Child language acquisition: Why universal grammar doesn’t help. Language 90(3). 53–90. doi:10.1353/lan.2014.0051
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amso, D., M. C. Davidson, S. P. Johnson, G. Glover & B. J. Casey. 2005. Contributions of the hippocampus and the striatum to simple association and frequency-based learning. NeuroImage 27(2). 291–298. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.02.035
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnon, I. 2015. What can frequency effects tell us about the building blocks and mechanisms of language learning? Journal of Child Language 42(2). 274–277. doi:10.1017/S0305000914000610
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnon, I., S.M. McCauley & M.H. Christiansen. 2017. Digging up the building blocks of language: Age-of-acquisition effects for multiword phrases. Journal of Memory and Language 92. 265–280. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2016.07.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baayen, R.H. 2010. Demythologizing the word frequency effect: A discriminative learning perspective. Mental Lexicon 5(3). 436–458. doi:10.1075/ml.5.3.10baa
   Google Scholar
• Baayen, R.H., T. Dijkstra & R. Schreuder. 1997. Singulars and plurals in Dutch: Evidence for a dual parallel route model. Journal of Memory and Language 37(1). 94–119. doi:10.1006/jmla.1997.2509
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bahns, J. & M. Eldaw. 1993. Should we teach EFL students collocations? System 21(1). 101–114. doi:10.1016/0346-251X(93)90010-E
   Google Scholar
• Bardovi-Harlig, K., & D. Stringer (2017), Unconventional expressions: Productive Syntax in L2 Acquisition Of Formulaic Language, Second Language Research, 33-1, 61-90
   Google Scholar
• Batterink, L.J., P.J. Reber, H.J. Neville & K.A. Paller. 2015. Implicit and explicit contributions to statistical learning. Journal of Memory and Language 83. 62–78. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2015.04.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bauke, L. & A. Blümel (eds.). 2017. Labels and roots. Boston-Berlin: De Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Bavelier, D., Green C. Shawn & M.W.G. Dye. 2009. Exercising your brain: Training-related brain plasticity. In Gazzaniga M. C. (ed.), The cognitive neurosciences, 4th edn, 153–164. Cambridge-London: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bley Wroman, R. 2002. Frequency in production, comprehension and acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24(2). 209–213.
   Google Scholar
• Bley-Vroman, R. 2009. The evolving context of the fundamental difference hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 31(2). 175–198. doi:10.1017/S0272263109090275
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boye, K. & P. Harder. 2012. A usage-based theory of grammatical status and grammaticalization. Language 88(1). 1–44. doi:10.1353/lan.2012.0020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brauer, J., A. Anwandler & A.D. Friederici. 2011. Neuroanatomical prerequisites for language functions in the maturing brain. Cerebral Cortex 21(2). 459–466. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhq108
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bybee, J. 2002. Sequentiality as the basis of constituent structure. In Givón T., Malle B.F. (eds.), The evolution of language out of pre-language, 109–134. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Bybee, J. 2008. Usage-based grammar and second language acquisition. In Robinson P., Ellis N. (eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition, 217–236. New York, NY, and London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bybee, J. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chater, N. & M.H. Christiansen. 2010. Language acquisition meets language evolution. Cognitive Science 34(7). 1131–1157. doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01049.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chomsky, N. 2005. Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36(1). 1–22. doi:10.1162/0024389052993655
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chomsky, N. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130. 33–49. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2012.12.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chomsky, N. 2014. Some core contested concepts. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 44(1). 91–104. doi:10.1007/s10936-014-9331-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christiansen, M.H. & N. Chater. 2016. The Now-or-Never bottleneck: A functional constraint on language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 39. doi:10.1017/S0140525X1500031X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cinque, G. 2010. The syntax of adjectives: A comparative study. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Clahsen, H. & C. Felser. 2017. Some notes on the shallow structure hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. doi:10.1017/S0272263117000250
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clear, J. 1993. From Firth principles: Computational tools for the study of collocations. In Baker M., Francis G., Tognini-Bonelli E. (eds.), Text and technology: In honour of John Sinclair, 271–292. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Culicover, P.W., R. Jackendoff & J. Audring. 2017. Multiword constructions in the grammar. Topics in Cognitive Science 9(3). 552–568. doi:10.1111/tops.12255
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cunnings, I. 2017. Parsing and working memory in bilingual sentence processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 20/4. 659–678. doi:10.1017/S1366728916000675
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dabrowska, E. 2014. Words that go together: Measuring individual differences in native speakers’ knowledge of collocations. The Mental Lexicon 9(3). 401–418.
   Google Scholar
• de Bot, K., W. Lowie & M. Verspoor. 2007. A dynamic systems theory approach to second lan- guage acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 10(1). 7–21. doi:10.1017/S1366728906002732
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dekydspotter, L. 2009. Second language epistemology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 31(2). 291–321. doi:10.1017/S0272263109090317
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Durrant, P. 2014. Corpus frequency and second language learners’ knowledge of collocations. A meta-analysis. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 19/4. 443–477. doi:10.1075/ijcl.19.4.01dur
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Durrant, P. & A. Doherty. 2010. Are high-frequency collocations psychologically real? Investigating the thesis of collocational priming. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 6(2). 125–155. doi:10.1515/cllt.2010.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Durrant, P. & N. Schmitt. 2009. To what extent do native and non-native writers make use of collocations? International Review of Applied Linguistics 47. 157–177. doi:10.1515/iral.2009.007
   Google Scholar
• Durrant, P. & N. Schmitt. 2010. Adult learners’ retention of collocations from exposure. Second Language Research 26(2). 163–188. doi:10.1177/0267658309349431
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eichenbaum, H. 2012. The cognitive neuroscience of memory: An introduction, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Eichenbaum, H. & N. J. Cohen. 2001. From conditioning to conscious recollection: Memory systems of the brain. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, N. 2005. At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27(2). 305–352. doi:10.1017/S027226310505014X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellis, N. 2012. Formulaic language and second language acquisition: Zipf and the phrasal teddy bear. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 32. 17–44. doi:10.1017/S0267190512000025
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellis, N. & L. Collins. 2009. Input and second language acquisition: The roles of frequency, form and function. Modern Language Journal 93(3). 329–335. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00893.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellis, N. & T. Cadierno. 2009. Constructing a second language: Introduction to the special section. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 7. 111–139. doi:10.1075/arcl.7.05ell
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, N.C. 2002. Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24(2). 143–188. doi:10.1017/S0272263102002024
   Google Scholar
• Ellis, N.C. & D.C. Odgen. 2017. Thinking about multiword constructions: Usage-based approaches to acquisition and processing. Topics in Cognitive Science 9(3). 604–620. doi:10.1111/tops.12256
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellis, N.C. & F. Ferreira-Junior. 2009. Constructions and their acquisition: Islands and the distinctiveness of their occupancy. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 7. 187–220. doi:10.1075/arcl.7.08ell
   Google Scholar
• Embick, D. & A. Marantz. 2005. Cognitive neuroscience and the English past tense: Comments on the paper by Ullman et al. Brain and Language 93(2). 243–247. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2004.10.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Epstein, S.D., H. Kitahara & T.D. Seely. 2017. Merge, labeling and their interactions. In Bauke L., Blümel A. (eds.), Labels and Roots, 17–45. Boston-Berlin: De Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Erickson, L.C., M.P. Kaschak, E.D. Thiessen & C.A.S. Berry. 2016. Individual differences in statistical learning: Conceptual and measurement issues. Collabra 2/1. 1–17.
   Google Scholar
• Ermann, B. & B. Warren. 2000. The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text 20(1). 29–62.
   Google Scholar
• Eubank, L. & K. Gregg. 2002. News flash—Hume still dead. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24(2). 237–247. doi:10.1017/S0272263102002085
   Google Scholar
• Evert, S. 2005. The statistics of word cooccurrences: Word pairs and collocations. Dissertation, IMS, University of Stuttgart.
   Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F. 2003. The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology 47(2). 164–203. doi:10.1016/S0010-0285(03)00005-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira, F. & N.D. Patson. 2007. The good enough approach to language comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass 1(1–2). 71–83. doi:10.1111/j.1749-818X.2007.00007.x
   Google Scholar
• Ferreira, V., K. Bock, M.P. Wilson & N.J. Choen. 2008. Memory for syntax despite Amnesia. Psychological Science 19/9. 940–946. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02180.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher, C., Y. Gertner, R.M Scott & S. Yuan. 2010. Syntactic bootstrapping. Wires Cognitive Science. doi:10.1002/wcs.17
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forkstam, C. & K.M. Petersson. 2005. Towards an explicit account of implicit learning. Current Opinion in Neurology 18. 435–444. doi:10.1097/01.wco.0000171951.82995.c4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franck, M.C. & J.B. Tenenbaum. 2011. Three ideal observer models for rule learning in simple languages. Cognition 120(3). 360–371. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2010.10.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• French, R.M., C. Addyman & D. Mareschal. 2011. TRACX: A recognition-based connectionist framework for sequence segmentation and chunk extraction. Psychological Review 118(4). 614–636. doi:10.1037/a0025255
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friederici, A., R. Oberecker & J. Brauer. 2012. Neurophysiological preconditions of syntax acquisition. Psychological Research 76(2). 204–211. doi:10.1007/s00426-011-0357-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friederici, A.D., J. Brauer & G. Lohmann. 2011. Maturation of the language network: From inter- to intrahemispheric connectivities. PLoS One 6(6). 1–7. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0020726
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frost, R., B.C. Armstrong, N. Siegelman & M.H. Christiansen. 2015. Domain generality vs. modality specificity: The paradox of statistical learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 19(3). 117–125. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2014.12.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giacalone Ramat, A. (ed.). 2003. Verso l’italiano. Percorsi e strategie di acquisizione. Roma: Carocci.
   Google Scholar
• Godfroid, A., J. Ahn, I. Choi, L. Ballard, Y. Cui, S. Johnston, S. Lee, A. Sarkar & H. Yoon. 2018. Incidental vocabulary learning in a natural reading context: An eye-tracking study. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 21(3). 563–584. doi:10.1017/S1366728917000219
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldberg, A. 2008. Universal grammar? Or prerequisites for natural languages. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31(5). 522–523. doi:10.1017/S0140525X0800513X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldstein, M.H., H.R. Waterfall, A. Lotem, J.Y. Halperm, J.A. Schwade, L. Onnis & S. Edelman. 2010. General cognitive principles for learning structures in time and space. Trends in Cognitive Science 14(6). 249–258. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.02.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Granena, G. & M. Long. 2013. Age of onset, length of residence, language aptitude, and ultimate attainment in three linguistic domains. Second Language Research 29(3). 311–343. doi:10.1177/0267658312461497
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gries, S.T. 2008. Dispersion and adjusted frequencies in corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 13(4). 403–437. doi:10.1075/ijcl.13.4.02gri
   Google Scholar
• Gries, S.T & N.C. Ellis. 2015. Statistical measures for usage-based linguistics. Language Learning 65(S1). 228–255. doi:10.1111/lang.12119
   Google Scholar
• Grimshaw, J. & A. Mester. 1988. Light verbs and Θ-marking. Linguistic Inquiry 19(2). 205–232.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grüter, T., L.W. Casey & A. Fernald. 2012. Grammatical gender in L2: A production or a real-time processing problem? Second Language Research 28/2. 191–215. doi:10.1177/0267658312437990
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hallin, A.E. & D. Van Lancker Sidtis. 2017. A closer look at formulaic language: Prosodic characteristics of Swedish proverbs. Applied Linguistics 38(1). 68–89. doi:10.1093/applin/amu078
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamrick, P. 2014. A role for chunk formation in statistical learning of second language syntax. Language Learning 64(2). 247–278. doi:10.1111/lang.2014.64.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hastie, T., R. Tibshirani & J. Friedman. 2009. The elements of statistical learning. New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Hauptmann, B. & A. Karni. 2002. From primed to learn: The saturation of repetition priming and the induction of long-term memory. Brain Research 13(3). 313–322.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoey, M. 2005. Lexical priming: A new theory of words and language. London, UK: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hopp, H. 2010. Ultimate attainment in L2 inflectional morphology: Performance similarities between non-native and native speakers. Lingua 120. 901–931. doi:10.1016/j.lingua.2009.06.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hornstein, N. 2009. A theory of syntax: Minimal operations and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hunston, S. 2001. Colligation, lexis, pattern, and text. In Scott M., Thompson G. (eds.), Pat terns of text, 13–33. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Hunston, S. 2002. Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jackendoff, R. & J. Audring. 2016. Morphology in the parallel architecture. In Audring J., Masini F. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of morphological theory, 413–451. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jaén, M.M. 2007. A corpus-driven design of a test for assessing the ESL collocational competence of university students. International Journal of English Studies 7(2). 127–147.
   Google Scholar
• Jiang, N. 2000. Lexical representation and development in a second language. Applied Linguistics 21(1). 47–77. doi:10.1093/applin/21.1.47
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kimppa, L., T. Kujala, A. Leminen, M. Vainio & Y. Shtyrov. 2015. Rapid and automatic speech-specific learning mechanism in human neocortex. Neuroimage 118. 282–291. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.05.098
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolk, H. H., D. J. Chwilla, M. Van Herten & P. J. Oor. 2003. Structure and limited capacity in verbal working memory: A study with event-related potentials. Brain and Language 85. 1–36. doi:10.1016/S0093-934X(02)00548-5
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kraš, T. 2009. Native-like attainment of the lexicon-syntax interface in the L2: Converging evidence from different methodologies. In Chandlee J., Franchini M., Lord S., Rheiner G.-M. (eds.), Proceedings of the 33th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 278–289. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kuperberg, G. R. 2007. Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax. Brain Research 1146. 23–49. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2006.12.063
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kutas, M. & K.D. Federmeier. 2011. Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the n400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology 62. 621–647. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.131123
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehecka, T. 2015. Collocations and colligations. In Östman J.-O., Verschueren J. (eds.), Handbook of pragmatics, 1–20. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi:10.1075/hop.19.col2
   Google Scholar
• Levshina, N. 2015. How to do linguistics with R: Data exploration and statistical analysis. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Li, N., F. Niefind, S. Wang, W Sommer & O. Dimigen. 2015. Parafoveal processing in reading Chinese sentences: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Psychophysiology 52. 1361–1374. doi:10.1111/psyp.12502
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lidz, J. & A. Gagliardi. 2015. How nature meets nurture: Universal grammar and statistical learning. Annual Review of Linguistics 1. 333–353. doi:10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-125236
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luke, S.G & K. Christianson. 2016. Limits on lexical prediction during reading. Cognitive Psychology 88. 22–60. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2016.06.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lum, J. A. G., G. Conti-Ramsden, D. Page & M. T. Ullman. 2011. Working, declarative and procedural memory in specific language impairment. Cortex 48(9). 1138–1154. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2011.06.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lum, J.A., M.T Ullman & G. Conti-Ramsden. 2015. Verbal declarative memory impairments in specific language impairment are related to working memory deficits. Brain and Language 142. 76–85. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2015.01.008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacWhinney, B. 2005. A unified model of language acquisition. In Kroll J. F., De Groot A. M. B. (eds.), Handbook of bilingualism, 49–67. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Malec, W. 2010. On the asymmetry of verb-noun collocations. In Arabsky J., Wojtaszek A. (eds.), Neurolinguistic and psycholinguistic perspectives on SLA, 126–143. Bristol-New York: Multilingual Matters.
   Google Scholar
• Manning, C.D. 2003. Probabilistic syntax. In Bod R., Hay J., Jannedy S. (eds.), Probabilistic linguistics, 289–341. Cambridge, MA, and London, UK: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Marcus, G.F., S. Vijayan, S. Bandi Rao, & P.M Vishton (1999), Rule learning by seven-month-old infants, Science 283, 77-80 doi:10.1126/science.283.5398.77
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marcus, G.F., S. Pinker, M. Ullman, M. Hollander, T.J. Rosen & F. Xu. 1992. Overregularization in language acquisition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 57(4). 1–182.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matsuno, K. 2017. Processing collocations: Do native speakers and second language learners simultaneously access prefabricated patterns and each single word? Journal of the European Second Language Association 1(1). 61–72. doi:10.22599/jesla.17
   Google Scholar
• McCauley, S.M. & M.H. Christiansen. 2017. Computational investigations of multiword chunks in language learning. Topics in Cognitive Science 9(3). 637–652. doi:10.1111/tops.12258
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLaughlin, J., D. Tanner, I. Pitkänen, C. Frenck-Mestre, K. Inoue, G. Valentine & L. Osterhout. 2010. Brain potentials reveal discrete stages of L2 grammatical learning. Language Learning 60(2). 123–150. doi:10.1111/lang.2010.60.issue-s2
   Google Scholar
• Mehler, J., M. Peña, M. Nespor & L. Bonatti. 2006. The soul of the language does not use statistics: Reflections on vowels and consonants. Cortex 42(6). 846–854. doi:10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70427-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morgan-Short, K. & M.T. Ullman. 2011. The neurocognition of second language. In Mackey A., Gass S. (eds.), The routledge handbook of second language acquisition, 282–299. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Murre, J.M.J. & A.G. Chessa. 2011. Power laws from individual differences in learning and forgetting: Mathematical analyses. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 18(3). 592–597. doi:10.3758/s13423-011-0076-y
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myles, F., J. Hooper & R. Mitchell. 1998. Rote or rule? Exploring the role of formulaic language in classroom second language learning. Language Learning 48(3). 323–363. doi:10.1111/0023-8333.00045
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myles, F. & Cordier. 2016. Formulaic Sequences (FS) cannot be an umbrella term in SLA: Focusing on psycholinguistic FSs and their identification. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 39(1). 3–28. doi:10.1017/S027226311600036X
   Google Scholar
• Newmeyer, F. 2003. Grammar is grammar and usage is usage. Language 79(4). 682–707. doi:10.1353/lan.2003.0260
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newport, E.L. 2011. The modularity issue in language acquisition: A rapprochement? Comments on Gallistel and Chomsky. Language Learning and Development 7(4). 279–286. doi:10.1080/15475441.2011.605309
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nooteboom, C., F. Weerman & F. Wijnen (eds.). 2002. Storage and computation in the language faculty. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Onnis, L., H. Waterfall, & S Edelman. (2008). Variation Sets Facilitate Artificial Language Learning. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 30. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/321985fw
   Google Scholar
• Osterhout, L., J. McLaughlin, I. Pitkänen, C. Frenck-Mestre & N. Molinaro. 2006. Novice learners, longitudinal designs and event-related potentials: A means for exploring the neurocognition of second language processing. In Indefrey P., Gullberg M. (eds.), The cognitive neuroscience of second language acquisition, 199–230. Malden, MA, and Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Paradis, M. 2004. Neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Paradis, M. 2009. Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages. Amsterdam- Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Paradis, M. 2013. Late-L2 increased reliance on L1 neurocognitive substrates: A comment on Babcock, Stowe, Maloof, Brovetto & Ullman (2012). Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 16(3). 704–707. doi:10.1017/S1366728913000011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearce, D. 2002. A comparative evaluation of collocation extraction techniques. In Author A. (ed.), Proceedings of the third international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC-2002). Las Palmas, Canary Islands, Spain: European Language Resources Association (ELRA). http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2002/pdf/169.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Perruchet, P. & A. Vinter. 1998. PARSER: A model for word segmentation. Journal of Memory and Language 39. 246–263. doi:10.1006/jmla.1998.2576
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perruchet, P. & A. Vinter. 2002. The self-organizing consciousness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25. 297–388.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pienemann, M. 1998. Language processing and second language development: Processability theory. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Pienemann, M. 2015. An outline of Processability Theory and its relationship to other approaches to SLA. Language Learning 65(1). 123–151. doi:10.1111/lang.12095
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinker, S. 1998. Words and rules. Lingua 106(1–4). 219–242. doi:10.1016/S0024-3841(98)00035-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pinker, S. & M.T. Ullman. 2002. The past and future of the past tense. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6(11). 456–463. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01990-3
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramscar, M., P. Hendrix, C. Shaoul, P. Milin & H. Baayen. 2014. The myth of cognitive decline: Non-linear dynamics of lifelong learning. Topics in Cognitive Science 6(1). 25–42. doi:10.1111/tops.12078
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rastelli, S. 2014. Discontinuity in second language acquisition. The shift between statistical and grammatical learning. Bristol-Buffalo: Multilingual Matters.
   Google Scholar
• Romberg, A.R. & J.R. Saffran. 2010. Statistical learning and language acquisition. Review of Cognitive Science 1(6). 906–914. doi:10.1002/wcs.78
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sassenhagen, J., M. Schlesewsky & I. Bornkessel-Schlesewsky. 2014. The P600-as-P3 hypothesis revisited: Single-trial analyses reveal that the late EEG positivity following linguistically deviant material is reaction time aligned. Brain and Language 137. 29–39. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2014.07.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schacht, A., W. Sommer, O. Shmuilovich, P. C. Martíenz & M. Martín-Loeches. 2014. Differential task effects on N400 and P600 elicited by semantic and syntactic violations. PLoS ONE 9. e91226. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0091226
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmitt, N. & G. Underwood. 2004. Exploring the processing of formulaic sequences through a self-paced reading task. In Schmitt N. (ed.), Formulaic sequences, 173–189. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Schuler, K.D., P.A. Reeder, E.L. Newport & R.N. Aslin. 2017. The effect of Zipfian frequency variations on category formation in adult artificial language learning. Language Learning and Development 13(4). 357–374. doi:10.1080/15475441.2016.1263571
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seidenberg, M.S., M.C. MacDonald & J.R. Saffran. 2002. Does grammar starts where statistics stop? Science 298. 553–554. doi:10.1126/science.1078094
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shantz, K. (2017), Phrase frequency, proficiency and grammaticality interact in non-native processing: Implications for Theory Of Sla, Second Language Research, 33-1, 91-118 doi:10.1177/0267658316673403
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharwood Smith, M. & J. Truscott. 2014. The multilingual mind: A modular processing perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shtyrov, Y. 2012. Neural bases of rapid word learning. Neuroscientist 18(4). 312–319. doi:10.1177/1073858411420299
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siegelman, N. & I. Arnon. 2015. The advantage of starting big: Learning from unsegmented input facilitates mastery of grammatical gender in an artificial language. Journal of Memory and Language 80. 60–75. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2015.07.003
   Google Scholar
• Siegelman, N. & R. Frost. 2015. Statistical learning as an individual ability: Theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence. Journal of Memory and Language 81. 105–120. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2015.02.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sinclair, J. 1998. The lexical item. In Weigand E. (ed.), Contrastive lexical semantics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1-25. doi:10.1075/cilt.171.02sin
   Google Scholar
• Siyanova-Chanturia, A., C. Conklin & W.J.B. van Heuven. 2011. Seeing a Phrase “Time and again” matters: The role of phrasal frequency in the processing of multiword sequences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition. doi:10.1037/a0022531
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siyanova-Chanturia, A. & S. Spina. 2015. Investigation of native speakers and second language learner intuition of collocation frequency. Language Learning 65/3. 533–562. doi:10.1111/lang.12125
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slabakova, R. 2016. Second language acquisition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sorace, A. 2000. Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs. Language 76(4). 859–890. doi:10.2307/417202
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spina, S. 2010. The dictionary of Italian collocations: Design and integration in an online learning environment. In Calzolari N., Choukri K., Maegaard B., Mariani J., Odjik J., Piperidis S., Rosner M., Tapias D. (eds.), Proceedings of the seventh conference on international language resources and evaluation (LREC’10), 3202–3208. Malta: European Language Resources Association.
   Google Scholar
• Squire, L. R. & B. J. Knowlton. 2000. The medial temporal lobe, the hippocampus, and the memory systems of the brain. In Gazzaniga M. S. (ed.), The new cognitive neurosciences, 765–780. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Squire, L.R. & J.T. Wixted. 2011. The cognitive neuroscience of human memory since H.M. Annual Review of Neuroscience 34. 259–288. doi:10.1146/annurev-neuro-061010-113720
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stefanowitsch, A. & S.T. Gries. 2005. Covarying collexems. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1(1). 1–43. doi:10.1515/cllt.2005.1.1.1
   Google Scholar
• Tanner, D., K. Inoue & L. Osterhout. 2014. Brain-based individual differences in online L2 grammatical comprehension. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 17(2). 277–293. doi:10.1017/S1366728913000370
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson, S. & E. L. Newport. 2007. Statistical learning of syntax: The role of transitional probability. Language Learning and Development 3(1). 1–42. doi:10.1080/15475440709336999
   Google Scholar
• Tognini-Bonelli, E. 2001. Corpus linguistics at work. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/scl.6
   Google Scholar
• Tomasello, M. 2003. Constructing a language. A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA, & London, UK: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Townsend, D.J. & T.G. Bever. 2001. Sentence comprehension: The integration of habits and rules. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ullman, M., S. Corkin, M. Coppola, G. Hickok, J.H. Growdon, W.J. Koroshetz & S. Pinker. 1997. A neural dissociation within language: Evidence that the mental dictionary is part of declarative memory, and that grammatical rules are processed by the procedural system. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 9(2). 289–299. doi:10.1162/jocn.1997.9.2.171
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ullman, M.T. 2004. Contributions to memory circuits to language: The declarative/procedural knowledge. Cognition 92(1–2). 231–270. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2003.10.008
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ullman, M.T. 2005. A cognitive neuroscience perspective on second language acquisition: The declarative/procedural model. In Sanz C. (ed.), Mind and context in adult second language acquisition, 141–178. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ullman, M.T. 2013. The role of declarative and procedural memory in disorders of language. Linguistic Variation 13/2. 133–154.
   Google Scholar
• Ullman, M.T. (2016). The declarative/procedural model: A neurobiological model of language learning, knowledge and use. In G. Hickok & S.L. Small (Eds.), The Neurobiology of Language (pp. 953–968). Elsevier
   Google Scholar
• Underwood, G., N. Schmitt & A. Galpin. 2004. The eyes have it: An eye-movement study into the processing of formulaic sequences. In Schmitt N. (ed.), Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing and use, 153–172. Philadelphia, PA, & Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/lllt.9.09und
   Google Scholar
• Van Lancker Sidtis, D. 2012. Two-track mind: Formulaic and novel language support a dual-process model. In Faust M. (ed.), The handbook of the neuropsychology of language, 342–367. London, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Verneau, M., J. van der Kamp, G.J. Savelsbergh & M. de Loozem. 2014. Age and time effects on implicit and explicit learning. Experimental Aging Research 40(4). 477–511. doi:10.1080/0361073X.2014.926778
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagner-Gough, J. & E. Hatch. 1975. The importance of input data in second language studies. Language Learning 25. 297–308. doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1975.tb00248.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waterfall, H.R., B. Sandbank, L. Onnis & S. Edelman. 2010. An empirical generative framework for computational modeling of language acquisition. Journal of Child Language 37(3). 671–703. doi:10.1017/S0305000910000024
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webb, S., J. Newton & A. Chang. 2013. Incidental learning of collocations. Language Learning 63(1). 91–120. doi:10.1111/lang.2013.63.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wei, Y., L. Shiyi & M. GuoJie. 2017. Frequency, contingency and online processing of multiword sequences: An eye-tracking study. Second Language Research 33(4). 519–549. doi:10.1177/0267658317708009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wlotko, E.W. & K.D. Federmeier. 2013. Two sides of meaning: The scalp-recorded N400 reflects distinct contributions from the cerebral hemispheres. Frontiers in Psychology 4/181. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00181
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolter, B. & J. Yamashita. 2017. Word frequency, collocational frequency, L1 congruency, and proficiency in L2 collocational processing: What accounts for L2 performance? Studies in Second Language Acquisition. doi:10.1017/S0272263117000237
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wong Fillmore, L. 1976. The second time around: Cognitive and social strategies in second language acquisition. Stanford University, Department of Linguistics.
   Google Scholar
• Wray, A. 2013. Formulaic language. Language Teaching 46(3). 316–334. doi:10.1017/S0261444813000013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wray, A. 2017. Formulaic sequences as a regulatory mechanism for cognitive perturbations during the achievement of social goals. Topics in Cognitive Science 9(3). 569–587. doi:10.1111/tops.12257
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang, C. 2002. Knowledge and learning in a natural language. Oxford, UK, & New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Yang, C. 2016. The price of productivity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Yang, C., S. Crain, R.C. Berwick, N. Chomsky & J.J. Bolhuis. 2017. The growth of language: Universal Grammar, experience and principles of computation. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 81(B). 103–119. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.12.023
   PubMedGoogle Scholar