Gradual development of constructional complexity in German spatial language

References

Augst, G., A. Bauer & A. Stein. 1977. Grundwortschatz und Ideolekt: Empirische Untersuchungen zur semantischen und lexikalischen Struktur des kindlichen Wortschatzes. Tübingen: Niemeyer.10.1515/9783111630809Suche in Google Scholar

Bamberg, M. 1994. Development of linguistic forms: German. In R. Berman & D. I. Slobin (eds.), Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental study, 189–238. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Suche in Google Scholar

Becker, T. 2011. Kinder lernen erzählen. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren.Suche in Google Scholar

Behrens, H. 2006. The input-output relationship in first language acquisition. Language and Cognitive Processes 21. 2–24.10.1080/01690960400001721Suche in Google Scholar

Behrens, H. 2009. Usage-based and emergentist approaches to language acquisition. Linguistics 47(2). 383–411.10.1515/LING.2009.014Suche in Google Scholar

Berman, R. 2016. Language development and use beyond the sentence. In E. L. Bavin & L. Naigles (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of child language, 2nd edn, 458–480. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781316095829.021Suche in Google Scholar

Berman, R. & D. I. Slobin 1994a. Becoming a native speaker. In R. Berman & D. I. Slobin (eds.), Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental study, 611–641. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Suche in Google Scholar

Berman, R. & D. I. Slobin. 1994b. Narrative structure. In R. Berman & D. I. Slobin (eds.), Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental study, 39–84. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Suche in Google Scholar

Berman, R. & D. I. Slobin. 1994c. Overview of linguistic forms in the frog stories. In R. Berman & D. I. Slobin (eds.), Relating events in narrative: A crosslinguistic developmental study, 109–126. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Suche in Google Scholar

Bhat, S. & S.-Y. Yoon 2015. Automatic assessment of syntactic complexity for spontaneous speech scoring. Speech Communication 67. 42–57.10.1016/j.specom.2014.09.005Suche in Google Scholar

Bowerman, M. 1982. Reorganizational processes in lexical and syntactic development. In E. Wanner & L. R. Gleitman (eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art, 319–346. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Bowerman, M. & S. Choi. 2001. Shaping meanings for language: Universal and language-specific in the acquisition of spatial semantic categories. In M. Bowerman & S. C. Levinson (eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development, 475–511. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620669.018Suche in Google Scholar

Brennan, R. L. & D. J. Prediger. 1981. Coefficient κ: Some uses, misuses, and alternatives. Educational and Psychological Measurement 41. 687–699.10.1177/001316448104100307Suche in Google Scholar

Bryant, D. 2012. Lokalisierungsausdrücke im Erst- und Zweitspracherwerb. Typologische, ontogenetische und kognitionspsychologische Überlegungen zur Sprachförderung in DaZ. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren.Suche in Google Scholar

Bybee, J. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82. 711–733.10.1353/lan.2006.0186Suche in Google Scholar

Cadierno, T. 2008. Learning to talk about motion in a foreign language. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition, 239–275. New York & London: Routledge.Suche in Google Scholar

Childers, J. B. & M. Tomasello. 2001. The role of pronouns in young children’s acquisition of the English transitive construction. Developmental Psychology 37(6). 739–748.10.1037/0012-1649.37.6.739Suche in Google Scholar

Core Team, R 2015. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Version 3.2.2. (2015-08-14). R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/.Suche in Google Scholar

Culicover, P. W. 2014. Constructions, complexity, and word order variation. In F. J. Newmeyer & L. B. Preston (eds.), Measuring linguistic complexity, 148–178. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199685301.003.0008Suche in Google Scholar

Dąbrowska, E. 2012. Different speakers, different grammars: Individual differences in native language attainment. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 2(3). 219–253.10.1075/lab.2.3.01dabSuche in Google Scholar

Fenk-Oczlon, G. & A. Fenk. 2008. Complexity trade-offs between the subsystems of language. In M. Miestamo, K. Sinnemäki & F. Karlsson (eds.), Language complexity: Typology, contact, change, 43–65. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.94.05fenSuche in Google Scholar

Fernández, C. 2011. Mindful storytellers: Emerging pragmatics and theory of mind development. First Language 33. 20–46.10.1177/0142723711422633Suche in Google Scholar

Fleischman, S. 1991. Discourse as space/discourse as time: Reflections on the metalanguage of spoken and written discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 16(4). 291–306.10.1016/0378-2166(91)90083-ASuche in Google Scholar

Gentner, D. 1979. On relational meaning. The acquisition of verb meaning. Journal of Child Development 49. 988–998.10.2307/1128738Suche in Google Scholar

Gentner, D. & M. Bowerman. 2009. Why some spatial semantic categories are harder to learn than others: The typological prevalence hypothesis. In J. Guo, E. V. M. Lieven, N. Budwig, S. E.-T. K. Nakamura & S. Özcaliskan (eds.), Crosslinguistic approaches to the psychology of language: Research in the tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin, 465–480. New York: Taylor & Francis.Suche in Google Scholar

Graesser, A., D. S. McNamara, M. Louwerse & Z. Cai. 2004. Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 36(2). 193–202.10.3758/BF03195564Suche in Google Scholar

Haggblade, E. 1994. Die Lexikalisierung von semantischen Komponenten in den Bewegungsverben: Vergleichende Untersuchungen zur Semantik von Partikelverben im Englischen und Deutschen. Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin unpublished dissertation.Suche in Google Scholar

Hofmeister, P. 2011. Representational complexity and memory retrieval in language comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes 26(3). 376–405.10.1080/01690965.2010.492642Suche in Google Scholar

Hsu, H. C. 2017. The effect of task planning on L2 performance and L2 development in text-based synchronous computer-mediated communication. Applied Linguistics 38(3). 359–385.10.1093/applin/amv032Suche in Google Scholar

Ji, Y., H. Hendriks & M. Hickmann. 2011. How children express caused motion events in Chinese and English: Universal and language-specific influences. Lingua 121. 1796–1819.10.1016/j.lingua.2011.07.001Suche in Google Scholar

Juola, P. 2008. Assessing linguistic complexity. In M. Miestamo, K. Sinnemäki & F. Karlsson (eds.), Language complexity: Typology, contact, change, 89–108. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.94.07juoSuche in Google Scholar

Kim, S. 2015. ppcor: Partial and Semi-Partial (Part) Correlation. R package version 1.1. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ppcor (last accessed October 5, 2017).Suche in Google Scholar

Lange, B. 2007. Machen, haben, gehen, kommen: Einige "Passepartout"-Verben im Primärspracherwerb des Deutschen. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.Suche in Google Scholar

MacWhinney, B. 2000. The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. Volume 2: The database. 3rd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Suche in Google Scholar

Mayer, M. 2003 [1969]. Frog, where are you? (A boy, a dog, and a frog). New York: Dial Books.Suche in Google Scholar

Nachtigäller, K., K. J. Rohlfing & K. McGregor. 2013. A story about a word: Does narrative presentation promote learning of a spatial preposition in German two-year-olds? Journal of Child Language 40. 900–917.10.1017/S0305000912000311Suche in Google Scholar

Ninio, A. 1999. Pathbreaking verbs in syntactic development and the question of prototypical transitivity. Journal of Child Language 26(3). 619–653.10.1017/S0305000999003931Suche in Google Scholar

Ochsenbauer, A.-K. & H. Engemann. 2011. The impact of typological factors in monolingual and bilingual first language acquisition. Caused motion expressions in English and French. Language, Interaction and Acquisition 2(1). 101–128.10.1075/lia.2.1.05ochSuche in Google Scholar

Ochsenbauer, A.-K. & M. Hickmann. 2010. Children’s verbalization of motion events in German. Cognitive Linguistics 21(2). 217–238.10.1515/COGL.2010.008Suche in Google Scholar

Ochsenbauer, A.-K. & M. Hickmann. 2016. Static and dynamic location in French and German child language. In P. Guijarro-Fuentes, K. Schmitz & N. Müller (eds.), The acquisition of French in multilingual contexts, 118–144. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781783094530-008Suche in Google Scholar

Olsen, S. 1996. Pleonastische Direktionale. In G. Harras & M. Bierwisch (eds.), Wenn die Semantik arbeitet: Klaus Baumgärtner zum 65. Geburtstag, 303–329. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Suche in Google Scholar

Pallotti, G. 2015. A simple view of linguistic complexity. Second Language Research 31(1). 117–134.10.1177/0267658314536435Suche in Google Scholar

Rescher, N. 1998. Complexity. A philosophical overview. New Brunswick & London: Transaction Publishers.Suche in Google Scholar

Sinnemäki, K. 2008. Complexity trade-offs in core argument marking. In M. Miestamo, K. Sinnemäki & F. Karlsson (eds.), Language complexity: Typology, contact, change, 67–88. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.94.06sinSuche in Google Scholar

Slobin, D. I. 1996. From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. In J. J. Gumperz & S. Levinson (eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity, 70–96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Slobin, D. I. 2001. Form – function relations: How do children find out what they are? In M. Bowerman & S. Levinson (eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development, 406–449. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620669.016Suche in Google Scholar

Slobin, D. I. 2003. Language and thought online: Cognitive consequences of linguistic relativity. In D. Gentler & S. Goldin-Meadow (eds.), Language in mind. Advances in the study of language and thought, 157–191. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Slobin, D. I. 2004. The many ways to search for a frog. Linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. In S. Strömqvist & L. Verhoeven (eds.), Relating events in narrative. Volume 2: Typological and contextual perspectives, 219–257. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Suche in Google Scholar

Slobin, D. I. 2006. What makes manner of motion salient? Explorations in linguistic typology, discourse, and cognition. In Maya Hickman & Stephane Robert (eds.), Space in languages: Linguistic systems and cognitive categories, 83–101. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.66.05sloSuche in Google Scholar

Strömqvist, S. & L. Verhoeven. 2004. Typological and contextual perspectives on narrative development. In S. Strömqvist & L. Verhoeven (eds.), Relating events in narrative. Volume 2: Typological and contextual perspectives, 3–14. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.10.4324/9781410609694Suche in Google Scholar

Talmy, L. 1985. Lexicalization patterns. Semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description: Grammatical categories and the lexicon. Vol. 3, 57–149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Tomasello, M. 1992. First verbs: A case study of early grammatical development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511527678Suche in Google Scholar

Tomasello, M. 2003. Constructing a language. Boston: Harvard University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Verspoor, M., W. Lowie & M. Van Dijk. 2008. Variability in second language development from a dynamic systems perspective. Modern Language Journal 92(2). 214–231.10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00715.xSuche in Google Scholar