Cover not available
Commentary published In:
Epistemological issue with keynote article “Different speakers, different grammars: Individual differences in native language attainment” by Ewa Dabrowska
[Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 2:3] 2012
► pp. 287–292
Commentary

How linguistic performance may differ across speakers

 | Utrecht institute of Linguistics OTS
Published online: 7 September 2012
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.2.3.09reu
References (20)
References
Avrutin, S. (2001). Linguistics and agrammatism. GLOT International, 5(3), 1䂿11.Google Scholar
(2006). Weak Syntax. In K. Amundt & Y. Grodzinsky (Eds.), Broca’s region. Oxford: Oxford Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caha, P. (2009). Classical Armenian declension. In P. Svenonius, G. Ramchand, M. Starke, & T. Taraldsen (Eds.), Nordlyd (Vol. 361, special issue on Nanosyntax, pp. 77–112). CASTL, Tromsø. Available from [URL]
Chipere, N. (2001). Native speaker variations in syntactic competence: Implications for first language teaching. Language Awareness, 101, 107–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. (1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gold, E. M. (1967). Language identification in the limit. Information and Control, 161, 447–474. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grodzinsky, Y., & Reinhart, T. (1993). The innateness of binding and coreference. Linguistic Inquiry, 241, 69–102.Google Scholar
Halle, M. (1997). Impoverishment and fission. In B. Bruening, Y. Kang, & M. McGinnis (Eds.), Papers at the Interface: MITWPL (Vol. 301, pp. 425–449). Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1962). Beitrag zur allgemeinen Kasuslehre: Gesamtbedeutungen der russischen Kasus. In Selected writings (Vol. 21, pp. 23–71). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Kolk, H. (2004). Agrammatism. In Raymond Kent (Ed.), The MIT encyclopedia of communication disorders (pp. 231–233). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Koornneef, A. (2008). Eye-catching anaphora. LOT International Dissertation Series, Utrecht University.
Koornneef, A., Avrutin, S., Wijnen, F., & Reuland, E. (2011). Tracking the preference for boundvariable dependencies in ambiguous ellipses and only-structures. In J. Runner (Ed.), Experiments at the interfaces (Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 371). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
Quine, W. (1960). Word and object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (2006). Interface strategies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reuland, E. (2011). Anaphora and language design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Townsend, D., & Bever,T. (2001). Sentence comprehension: The integration of habits and rules. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vasić, N. (2006). Pronoun comprehension in agrammatic aphasia: The structure and use of linguistic knowledge. Doctoral dissertation, LOT, Utrecht University.
Vasić, N., Avrutin, S., & Ruigendijk, E. (2006). Interpretation of pronouns in VP-ellipsis constructions in Dutch Broca’s and Wernicke’s aphasia. Brain and Language, 96(2), 191–206. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wexler, K., & Culicover, P. (1980). Formal Principles of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Koornneef, Arnout & Eric Reuland
2016. On the Shallow Processing (Dis)Advantage: Grammar and Economy. Frontiers in Psychology 7 DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2015. Language Proficiency in Native and Non-native Speakers [Language Learning & Language Teaching, 41], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 21 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.