AmbridgeBLievenEV (2011) Child language acquisition: Contrasting theoretical approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2.
AndersenRShiraiY (1994) Discourse motivations for some cognitive acquisition principles. Studies in Second Language Acquisition16: 133–56.
3.
Bardovi-HarligKReynoldsDW (1995) The role of lexical aspect in the acquisition of tense and aspect. TESOL Quarterly29: 107–31.
4.
Bardovi-HarligKStringerD (2017) Unconventional Expressions: Productive syntax in the L2 acquisition of formulaic language. Second Language Research33: 61–90.
5.
BatesEMacWhinneyB (1982) Functionalist approaches to grammar. In: WannerEGleitmanLR (eds) Language acquisition: The state of the art. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 173–211.
6.
Bennet-KastorTL (1986) The two fields of child language research. First Language6: 161–74.
7.
BowermanM (1987) Commentary: Mechanisms of language acquisition. In: MacWhinneyB (ed.) Mechanisms of language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 443–66.
8.
ChomskyN (1981) Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
9.
ChomskyN (1995) The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
10.
ChomskyNHalleM (1968) The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper.
11.
CookV (1986) The basis for an experimental approach to second language learning. In: CookV (ed.) Experimental approaches to second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon, pp. 3–22.
12.
CrainSThorntonR (2006) Acquisition of syntax and semantics. In: TraxlerMGernsbacherMA (eds) Handbook of psycholinguistics. New York: Academic Press, pp. 1073–1110.
13.
De BotK (2015) Moving where? A reaction to Slabakova et al. (2014). Applied Linguistics36: 261–64.
14.
EckmanFR (1977) Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis. Language Learning27: 315–30.
15.
EllisNC (1998) Emergentism, connectionism and language learning. Language learning48: 631–64.
16.
EllisNC (2002) Frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition24: 143–88.
17.
EllisNC (2003) Constructions, chunking, and connectionism: The emergence of second language structure. In: DoughtyCJLongMH (eds) The handbook of second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 33–68.
18.
ElmanJL (1990) Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science14: 179–211.
19.
EvansNLevinsonS (2009) The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences32: 429–92.
20.
FeatherstonS (2001) Empty categories in sentence processing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
21.
FelserCCunningsIBatterhamCClahsenH (2012) The timing of island effects in nonnative sentence processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition34: 67–98.
22.
FillmoreCJKayPO’ConnorMC (1988) Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language64: 501–38.
23.
GassS (1979) Language transfer and universal grammatical relations. Language learning29: 327–44.
24.
GoldbergAE (1995) Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
25.
GoldbergAE (2003) Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences7: 219–24.
26.
GoldbergAE (2016) Partial productivity of linguistic constructions: Dynamic categorization and statistical preemption. Language and Cognition8: 369–90.
27.
GreggKR (1993) Taking explanation seriously; or, let a couple of flowers bloom. Applied Linguistics14: 276–94.
28.
GrüterTRohdeHSchaferAJ (2016) Coreference and discourse coherence in L2: The roles of grammatical aspect and referential form. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism. Electronic publication ahead of print version. Published online: 4February2016 (doi: 10.1075/lab.15011.gru).
29.
HillesS (1986) Interlanguage and the pro-drop parameter. Second language research2: 33–52.
30.
HyamsN (1986) Language acquisition and the theory of parameters. Dordrecht: Reidel.
31.
IngramD (1989) First language acquisition: Method, description, and explanation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32.
JackendoffRPinkerS (2005) The nature of the language faculty and its implications for evolution of language: Reply to Fitch, Hauser, and Chomsky. Cognition97: 211–25.
33.
JuffsARodríguezGA (2014) Second language sentence processing. New York: Routledge.
34.
LicerasJM (1986) Linguistic theory and second language acquisition: The Spanish nonnative grammar of English speakers. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
35.
MatthewsDLievenETheakstonATomaselloM (2009) Pronoun co-referencing errors: Challenges for generativist and usage-based accounts. Cognitive Linguistics20: 599–626.
36.
MazurkewichI (1984) The acquisition of the dative alternation by second language learners and linguistic theory. Language Learning34: 91–108.
37.
PaquotM (2017) L1 frequency in foreign language acquisition: Recurrent word combinations in French and Spanish EFL learner writing. Second Language Research33: 13–32.
38.
PinkerS (1989) Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
39.
PinkerS (1999) Words and rules: The ingredients of language. New York: Basic Books.
40.
PinkerS (2013) Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. 2nd edition.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
41.
PinkerSJackendoffR (2005) The faculty of language: What’s special about it?Cognition95: 201–36.
42.
PinkerSMehlerJ (1988) Connections and symbols. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
43.
RadfordA (1990) Syntactic theory and the acquisition of English syntax. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
44.
RobenaltCGoldbergAE (2016) Nonnative speakers do not take competing alternative expressions into account the way native speakers do. Language Learning66: 60–93.
45.
RumelhartDEMcClellandJL (1986) Learning the past tenses of English verbs. In: McClellandJLRumelhartDEthe PDP Research Group (eds) Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructures of cognition, Volume 2: Psychological and biological models. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 216–71.
46.
SasakiY (1991) English and Japanese interlanguage comprehension strategies: An analysis based on the competition model. Applied Psycholinguistics12: 47–73.
ShantzK (2017) Phrase frequency, proficiency and grammaticality interact in non-native processing: Implications for theories of SLA. Second Language Research33: 91–118.
49.
SlabakovaELealTLLiskin-GasparroJ (2014) We have moved on: Current concepts and positions in generative SLA. Applied Linguistics35: 601–06.
50.
SlobinDI (ed.) (1985) The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition, Volume 1: The data. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
51.
SugayaNShiraiY (2009) Can L2 learners productively use Japanese tense–aspect markers? A usage-based approach. In: CorriganRMoravcsikEOualiHWheatleyK (eds) Acquisition, loss, psychological reality, and functional applications. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 423–44.
52.
TaroneE (1979) Interlanguage as chameleon. Language Learning29: 181–91.
53.
TomaselloM (2000) Do young children have adult syntactic competence?Cognition74: 209–53.
54.
TomaselloM (2003) Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
55.
TomaselloM (2004) What kind of evidence could refute the UG hypothesis?Studies in Language28: 642–45.
56.
VendlerZ (1957) Verbs and times. The Philosophical Review66: 143–60.
57.
WhiteL (1985) The ‘Pro-drop’ parameter in adult second language acquisition. Language learning35: 47–61.
58.
WhiteL (2003) Second language acquisition and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
59.
YangCD (2004) Universal Grammar, statistics or both?Trends in cognitive sciences8: 451–56.
60.
YangCD (2008) Review article: The great number crunch. Review of: BodRensHayJenniferJannedyStefanie (eds.), Probabilistic linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003. Journal of Linguistics44: 205–28.
61.
YangC (2016) The price of linguistic productivity: How children learn to break the rules of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
62.
YangCMontrulS (2017) Learning datives: The Tolerance Principle in monolingual and bilingual acquisition. Second Language Research33: 119–144.
63.
ZyzikE (2017) Subject expression in L2 Spanish: Convergence of generative and usage-based perspectives?Second Language Research33: 33–59.