Article published in:
Language, Interaction and Acquisition
Vol. 11:2 (2020) ► pp. 232267
References

References

Albano Leoni, F.
(2009) Dei suoni e dei sensi: Il volto fonico delle parole. Bologna: Il mulino.Google Scholar
Allan, L. G.
(1980) A note on measurement of contingency between two binary variables in judgment tasks. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 15(3), 147–149. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, H.
(2008) Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bardel, C., & Lindqvist, C.
(2007) The role of proficiency and psychotypology in lexical cross-linguistic influence. A study of a multilingual learner of Italian L3. In M. Chini, P. Desideri, M. E. Favilla, & G. Pallotti (eds.), Atti del VI Congresso Internazionale dell’ Associazione Italiana di Linguistica Applicata (pp. 123–145). Perugia: Guerra.Google Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S.
(2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bierwisch, M.
(1997) Universal Grammar and the Basic Variety. Second Language Research, 13(4), 348–366. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R.
(1983) The comparative fallacy in interlanguage studies: The case of systematicity. Language Learning, 33(1), 1–17. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Booij, G.
(2015) Word-formation in construction grammar. In P. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen, & F. Rainer (Eds.), Word formation. An international handbook of the languages of Europe. Vol. I (pp. 188–202). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2018) The construction of words: Introduction and overview. In G. Booij (Ed.), The construction of words, advances in construction morphology (pp. 3–18). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
[ p. 264 ]
Broeder, P., Extra, G., Van Hout, R., & Voionmaa, K.
(1993) Word formation processes in talking about entities. In C. Perdue (Ed.), Adult language acquisition: Cross-linguistic perspectives: Vol. 2: results (pp. 41–72). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brugman, H., & Russell, A.
(2004) Annotating multimedia/multi-modal resources with ELAN. In M. T. Lino, M. F. Xavier, F. Ferreira, R. Costa, & R. Silva (Eds.), Proceedings of LREC 2004, Fourth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (pp. 2065–2068). Paris: ELRA.Google Scholar
Cintrón-Valentín, M. C., & Ellis, N.
(2016) Salience in second language acquisition: Physical form, learner attention, and instructional focus. Frontiers in Psychology 7. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Crocco Galeas, G.
(1998) The parameters of natural morphology. Padova: Unipress.Google Scholar
Dabašinskienė, I.
(2009) Easy way to language acquisition: Diminutives in Lithuanian child Language. Ad Verba Liberorum, 1(1), 11–22. Crossref Open access PDFGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E.
(2006) Low-level schemas or general rules? The role of diminutives in the acquisition of Polish case inflections. Language Sciences, 28(1), 120–135. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dimroth, C.
(2018) Beyond statistical learning: Communication principles and language internal factors shape grammar in child and adult beginners learning Polish through controlled exposure. Language Learning, 68(4), 863–905. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dimroth, C., Rast, R., Starren, M., & Watorek, M.
(2013) Methods for studying the learning of a new language under controlled input conditions: The VILLA project. EUROSLA Yearbook, 13, 109–138. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, C. J. S., Williams, J.
(1998) Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. U.
(1987) Leitmotifs in Natural Morphology. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dulay, H. C., Burt, M. K., & Krashen, S. D.
(1982) Language two. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, N.
(2002) Frequency effects in language processing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 143–188. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Language acquisition as rational contingency learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 1–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N., & Ferreira–Junior, F.
(2009) Construction learning as a function of frequency, frequency distribution, and function. The Modern Language Journal, 93(3), 370–385. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fellows, I.
(2014) Wordcloud: Word Clouds. R package version 2.5. Retrieved from http://​CRAN​.R​-project​.org​/package​=wordcloud
Goldberg, A. E.
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldschneider, J., & DeKeyser, R.
(2002) Explaining the ‘natural order of L2 morpheme acquisition’ in English: A meta-analysis of multiple determinants. Language Learning, 51(1), 1–50. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grzegorczykowa, R.
(1979) Zarys słowotwórstwa polskiego: Słowotwórstwo opisowe. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.Google Scholar
[ p. 265 ]
Gullberg, M., Roberts, L., Dimroth, C., Veroude, K., & Indefrey, P.
(2010) Adult language learning after minimal exposure to an unknown natural language. Language Learning, 60, suppl. 2, 5–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gussman, E.
(2007) The phonology of Polish. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gvozdev, A.
(1961) Voprosy izučenija detskoj reči. Akademija pedagogičeskich nauk RSFSR.Google Scholar
Haman, E.
(2003) Early productivity in derivation: A case study of diminutives in the acquisition of Polish. Psychology of Language and Communication, 7(1), 37–56.Google Scholar
Hinz, J., Krause, C., Rast, R., Shoemaker, E. M., & Watorek, M.
(2013) Initial processing of morphological marking in nonnative language acquisition: Evidence from French and German learners of Polish. EUROSLA Yearbook, 13, 139–175. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T., & Trousdale, G.
(eds.) (2013) The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jadacka, H.
(2005) Kultura języka polskiego: Fleksja, słowotwórstwo, składnia (Wyd. 1). Warszawa: Wydawn. Naukowe PWN.Google Scholar
Kawaguchi, S.
(2015) The development of Japanese as a second language. In C. Bettoni, & B. Di Biase (Eds.), Grammatical development in second languages: Exploring the boundaries of processability theory (pp. 149–172). EuroSLA. Retrieved from http://​www​.eurosla​.org​/monographs​/EM03​/4Japanese​.pdfGoogle Scholar
Kempe, V., & Brooks, P. J.
(2005) The role of diminutives in the acquisition of Russian gender: Can elements of child-directed speech aid in learning morphology? Language Learning, 55(S1), 139–176. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kempe, V., Brooks, P. J., & Gillis, S.
(2005) Diminutives in child-directed speech supplement metric with distributional word segmentation cues. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(1), 145–151. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kempe, V., Brooks, P. J., Gillis, S., & Samson, G.
(2007) Diminutives facilitate word segmentation in natural speech: Cross-linguistic evidence. Memory & Cognition, 35(4), 762–773. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kempe, V., & MacWhinney, B.
(1998) The acquisition of case marking by adult learners of Russian and German. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20(3), 543–587. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kempe, V., Ševa, N., Brooks, P. J., Mironova, N., Pershukova, A., & Fedorova, O.
(2009) Elicited production of case-marking in Russian and Serbian children: Are diminutive nouns easier to inflect? First Language, 29(2), 147–165. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Klein, W., & Perdue, C.
(1992) Utterance structure: Developing grammars again. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1997) The Basic Variety (or: Couldn’t natural languages be much simpler?). Second Language Research, 13(4), 301–347. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lenth, R.
(2020) emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means. https://​CRAN​.R​-project​.org​/package​=emmeans
MacWhinney, B.
(2000) The CHILDES project: Tools for Analyzing Talk (III). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
[ p. 266 ]
Lindqvist, C., & Bardel, C.
(2014) Exploring the impact of the proficiency and typology factors: Two cases of multilingual learners’ L3 learning. In M. Pawlak, & L. Aronin (eds.), Essential topics in applied linguistics and multilingualism (pp. 253–266). Cham: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lüdecke, D.
(2018) sjPlot – Data visualization for statistics in social science. Zenodo. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M.
(2013) Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching 46(1). 1–40. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B., & Bates, E.
(1987) Competition, variation, and language learning. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 157–193). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(1989) The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nagórko, A.
(2015) Polish. In P. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen, & F. Rainer (Eds.), Word formation. An international handbook of the languages of Europe: Vol. IV (pp. 2831–2851). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Olmsted, H.
(1994) Diminutive morphology of Russian children: A simplified subset of nominal declension in language acquisition. In C. E. Gribble (Ed.), Alexander Lipson: In memoriam (pp. 165–209). Columbus, Ohio: Slavica Publishers.Google Scholar
Palmović, M.
(2007) The acquisition of diminutives in Croatian. In I. Savickienė, & W. U. Dressler (Eds.), The Acquisition of Diminutives (Vol. 43, pp. 73–88). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
R Core team
(2017) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Retrieved from http://​www​.R​-project​.org/
Rast, R.
(2010) The role of linguistic input in the first hours of adult language learning. Language Learning, 60, 64–84. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, R. A.
(2002) Polish. In B. Comrie, & G. G. Corbett (Eds.), The Slavonic languages (pp. 686–758). London-New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Saturno, J.
(2015) Copular structures in Polish L2. Linguistica e Filologia, 35, 69–98. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2019) Elicited imitation as a diagnostic tool of morphosyntactic processing. In R. Arntzen, G. Håkansson, A. Hjelde, & J.-U. Keßler (Eds.), Teachability and learnability across languages (pp. 119–136). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Saturno, J., & Watorek, M.
(2020) The emergence of functional case marking in initial varieties of Polish L2. Language, Interaction, and Acquisition, 11(1), 29–64. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Savickienė, I., & Dressler, W. U.
(2007) The acquisition of diminutives a: A cross-linguistic perspective. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Savickienė, I., Kempe, V., & Brooks, P. J.
(2009) Acquisition of gender agreement in Lithuanian: Exploring the effect of diminutive usage in an elicited production task. Journal of Child Language, 36(03), 477. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ševa, N., Kempe, V., Brooks, P. J., Mironova, N., Pershukova, A., & Fedorova, O.
(2007) Crosslinguistic evidence for the diminutive advantage: Gender agreement in Russian and Serbian children. Journal of Child Language, 34(01), 111–131. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 267 ]
Spada, N., & Lightbown, P.
(2008) Form-focused instruction: Isolated or integrated? TESOL Quarterly 42(2). 181–207. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sugisaki, K.
(2008) Early acquisition of basic word order in Japanese. Language Acquisition, 15(3), 183–191. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Valentini, A., & Grassi, R.
(2016) Oltre la frequenza. L’impatto della trasparenza e dell’accento sull’apprendimento del lessico in L2. In L. Corrà (Ed.), Sviluppo della competenza lessicale. Acquisizione, apprendimento, insegnamento (pp. 125–143). Roma: Aracne.Google Scholar
VanPatten, B., & Smith, M.
(2015) Aptitude as grammatical sensitivity and the initial stages of learning Japanese as a L2. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37(1), 135–165. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wickham, H.
(2017)  stringr: Simple, consistent wrappers for common string operations (Version 1.2.0). Retrieved from https://​CRAN​.R​-project​.org​/package​=stringr
Wulff, S., & Ellis, N.
(2018) Usage-based approaches to second language acquisition. In D. Miller, F. Bayram, J. Rothman, & L. Serratrice (Eds.), Bilingual cognition and language. The state of the science across its subfields. (pp. 37–56). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar