How subject animacy constrains motion event descriptions

References

1. Abutalebi, J., Cappa, S., & Perani, D.
   (2009) What can functional neuroimaging tell us about the bilingual brain?InJ. Kroll, & A. M. B. De Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism (pp.479–515). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Achard, M.
   (2002) Causation, constructions, and language ecology: An example from French. InM. Shibatani (Ed.), The Grammar of Causation and Causative Manipulation (pp.127–156). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/tsl.48.08ach
   https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.48.08ach [Google Scholar]
3. Aissen, J.
   (2003) Differential object marking: Iconicity vs. economy. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 21(3), 435–483. Available from doi:  10.1023/A:1024109008573
   https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024109008573 [Google Scholar]
4. Alexiadou, A., & Schäfer, F.
   (2006) Instrument subjects are agents or causers. InD. Baumer, D. Montero, & M. Scanlon (Eds.), 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp44–48). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. Available fromwww.lingref.com/cpp/wccfl/25/paper1431.pdf
   [Google Scholar]
5. Altmann, L. J. P., & Kemper, S.
   (2006) Age differences in sensitivity to animacy and order of activation in sentence production. Language and Cognitive Process, 21(1–3), 322–354. doi:  10.1080/0169096054400006
   https://doi.org/10.1080/0169096054400006 [Google Scholar]
6. Antonijević, S., & Berthaud, S.
   (2009) Verbs of motion and sentence production in second language. Proceedings of Fechner Day, 25(1), 487–492.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Baayen, H., Piepenbrock, R., & van Rijn, H.
   (1993) The CELEX Lexical Database(CD-ROM). Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia, Linguistic Data Consortium.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Barac, R., & Bialystok, E.
   (2012) Bilingual effects on cognitive and linguistic development: Role of language, cultural background, and education. Child Development, 83(2), 413–422. 10.1111/j.1467‑8624.2011.01707.x
   https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01707.x [Google Scholar]
9. Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B.
   (1982) Functionalist approaches to grammar. InE. Wanner, & L. R. Gleitman (Eds.), Language Acquisition: The State of the Art (pp.173–218). New York: Cambridge University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Bates, E., et al.
    (1984) A cross-linguistic study of the development of sentence interpretation strategies. Child Development, 55(2), 341–354. doi:  10.2307/1129947
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1129947 [Google Scholar]
11. Beavers, J., Levin, B., & Tham, S. W.
    (2010) The typology of motion expressions revisited. Journal of linguistics, 46(02), 331–377. doi:  10.1017/S0022226709990272
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226709990272 [Google Scholar]
12. Berthaud, S. and Antonijević, S.
    (2012) L2 acquisition of verbal constructions: expressing motion in L2 French and English. InM. Bouveret and D. Legallois (Eds.), French constructions in discourse and development (pp.155–174). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/cal.13.09ber
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.13.09ber [Google Scholar]
13. Bialystok, E.
    (1999) Cognitive complexity and attentional control in the bilingual. Child Development, 70(3), 636–644. doi:  10.1111/1467‑8624.00046
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00046 [Google Scholar]
14. Bialystok, E.
    (2001) Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511605963
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511605963 [Google Scholar]
15. Bialystok, E., & Feng, X.
    (2011) Language proficiency and its implications for monolingual and bilingual children. InA. Y. Durgunoğlu, & C. Goldenberg (Eds.), Language and Literacy Development in Bilingual Settings (pp.121–138). New York: The Guildford Press.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Bock, J., Loebell, H., & Morey, R.
    (1992) From conceptual roles to structural relations: Bridging the syntactic fcleft. Psychological Review, 99(1), 150–171. doi:  10.1037/0033‑295X.99.1.150
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.1.150 [Google Scholar]
17. Bowerman, M.
    (1973) Early syntactic development: A cross-linguistic study with special reference to Finnish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Branigan, H., Pickering, M., & Tanaka, M.
    (2008) Contributions of animacy to grammatical function assignment and word order during production. Lingua, 118(2), 172–189. doi:  10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.003 [Google Scholar]
19. Brown, R.
    (1970) Psycholinguistics: Selected Papers by Roger Brown. New York: Free Press.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Brown, R., Cazden, C., & Bellugi, U.
    (1973) The child’s grammar from I to III. InC. A. Ferguson, & D. I. Slobin (Eds.), Studies of Child Language Development (pp.295–333). New York: Holt.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Bylund, E., & Athanasopoulos, P.
    (2015) Introduction: Cognition, motion events, and SLA. The Modern Language Journal, 99(1), 1–13. Available from doi:  10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2015.12175.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2015.12175.x [Google Scholar]
22. Campbell, S.
    (2013) Translation into the second language (2nd ed.). New York:Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Chapman, R., & Miller, J.
    (1975) Word order in early two and three word utterances: Does production precede comprehension?Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 18, 346–354. 10.1044/jshr.1802.355
    https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.1802.355 [Google Scholar]
24. Clark, E. V.
    (1973) What’s in a word? On the child’s acquisition of semantics in his first language. InT. E. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp.65–110). New York: Academic Press. doi:  10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑505850‑6.50009‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-505850-6.50009-8 [Google Scholar]
25. Clark, H., & Begun, J.
    (1971) Semantics of sentence subjects. Language and Speech, 14(1), 34–46. doi:  10.1177/002383097101400105
    https://doi.org/10.1177/002383097101400105 [Google Scholar]
26. Comrie, B.
    (1989) Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Cook, V.
    (1999) Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL quarterly, 33(2), 185–209. doi:  10.2307/3587717
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3587717 [Google Scholar]
28. Costa, A., & Caramazza, A.
    (1999) Is the lexical selection in bilingual speech production language-specific? Further evidence from Spanish-English and English-Spanish bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 2(3), 231–244. doi:  10.1017/S1366728999000334
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728999000334 [Google Scholar]
29. Costa, A., & Sebastián-Gallés, N.
    (2014) How does the bilingual experience sculpt the brain?Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 15(5), 336–345. doi:  10.1038/nrn3709
    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3709 [Google Scholar]
30. Council of Europe
    Council of Europe (2001) Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching and assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
31. Cruse, D.
    (1973) Some thoughts on agentivity. Journal of Linguistics, 9(1), 11–13. doi:  10.1017/S0022226700003509
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700003509 [Google Scholar]
32. de Villiers, P., & de Villiers, J.
    (1974) On this, that and the other: Non-egocentrism in very young children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 18(3), 438–447. doi:  10.1016/0022‑0965(74)90122‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(74)90122-2 [Google Scholar]
33. Devescovi, A., D’Amico, S., & Gentille, P.
    (1999) The development of sentence comprehension in Italian: A reaction time study. First Language, 19(56), 129–163. doi:  10.1177/014272379901905601
    https://doi.org/10.1177/014272379901905601 [Google Scholar]
34. Dong, Y., Gui, S., & Macwhinney, B.
    (2005) Shared and separate meanings in the bilingual mental lexicon. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 8(3), 221–238. doi:  10.1017/S1366728905002270
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728905002270 [Google Scholar]
35. Doughty, C., & Williams, J.
    (1998) Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Ellis, N. C.
    (2006) Selective attention and transfer phenomena in L2 acquisition: Contingency, cue competition, salience, interference, overshadowing, blocking, and perceptual learning. Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 164–194. doi:  10.1093/applin/aml015
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml015 [Google Scholar]
37. Ferreira, F.
    (1994) Choice of passive voice is affected by verb type and animacy. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(6), 715–736. doi:  10.1006/jmla.1994.1034
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1034 [Google Scholar]
38. Folli, R., & Harley, H.
    (2005) Flavours of v: Consuming results in Italian and English. InP. Kempchinsky, & R. Slabakova (Eds.), Aspectual Enquiries (pp.95–120). Dordrecht: Springer. doi:  10.1007/1‑4020‑3033‑9_5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3033-9_5 [Google Scholar]
39. Folli, R., & Harley, H.
    (2007) Causation, obligation and argument structure: On the nature of little v.Linguistic Inquiry, 38(2), 197–238. doi:  10.1162/ling.2007.38.2.197
    https://doi.org/10.1162/ling.2007.38.2.197 [Google Scholar]
40. Folli, R., & Harley, H.
    (2008) Teleology and animacy in external arguments. Lingua, 118(2), 190–202. doi:  10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.004 [Google Scholar]
41. Gass, S.
    (1987) The resolution of conflicts among competing systems: A bidirectional perspective. Applied Psycholinguistics, 8(4), 329–350. doi:  10.1017/S0142716400000369
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400000369 [Google Scholar]
42. Gennari, S., Mirkovic, J., & MacDonald, M.
    (2012) Animacy and competition in relative clause production: A cross-linguistic investigation. Cognitive Psychology, 65(2), 141–176. doi:  10.1016/j.cogpsych.2012.03.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2012.03.002 [Google Scholar]
43. Green, D.
    (1998) Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1(2), 67–81. doi:  10.1017/S1366728998000133
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728998000133 [Google Scholar]
44. Grimm, S.
    (2007) The bounds of subjecthood: Evidence from instruments. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 33(1), 178–189. doi:  10.3765/bls.v33i1.3526
    https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v33i1.3526 [Google Scholar]
45. Grosjean, F.
    (1989) Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain and Language, 36(1), 3–15. doi:  10.1016/0093‑934X(89)90048‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0093-934X(89)90048-5 [Google Scholar]
46. Grosjean, F., & Li, P.
    (2012) The Psycholinguistics of Bilingualism. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
47. Hatim, B.
    (2014) Teaching and Researching Translation (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315832906
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315832906 [Google Scholar]
48. Hernandez, A., & Bates, E., & Avila, L.
    (1996) Processing across the language boundary: a cross-modal priming study of Spanish-English bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 22(4), 846–864.
    [Google Scholar]
49. Hervey, S. G., & Higgins, I.
    (2002) Thinking French translation: a course in translation method: French to English (2nd ed). Psychology Press. 10.4324/9780203417973
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203417973 [Google Scholar]
50. Hickmann, M.
    (2007) Static and dynamic location in French: Developmental and cross-linguistic perspectives. InM. Aurnague, M. Hickmann, & L. Vieu (Eds.), The Categorization of Spatial Entities in Language and Cognition (pp.205–231). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/hcp.20.12hic
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.20.12hic [Google Scholar]
51. Hickmann, M., & Hendriks, H.
    (2010) Typological constraints on the acquisition of spatial language in French and English. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(2), 189–215. doi:  10.1515/COGL.2010.007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/COGL.2010.007 [Google Scholar]
52. Hurford, J.
    (1994) Grammar: A Student’s Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
53. Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I.
    (2003) What translation tells us about motion: A contrastive study of typologically different languages. IJES, International Journal of English Studies, 3(2), 151–175.
    [Google Scholar]
54. Itagaki, N., & Prideaux, G.
    (1985) Nominal properties as determinants of subject selection. Lingua, 66(23), 125–149.
    [Google Scholar]
55. Kail, M.
    (1999) Linguistic variations and cognitive constraints in the processing and the acquisition of language. InC. Fuchs, & S. Robert (Eds.), Language Diversity and Cognitive Representations (pp.179–195). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/hcp.3.15kai
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.3.15kai [Google Scholar]
56. Kail, M., & Charvillat, A.
    (1986) Linguistic cues in sentence processing in French children and adults from a cross-linguistic perspective. Advances in Psychology, 39, 349–374. doi:  10.1016/S0166‑4115(09)60145‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(09)60145-X [Google Scholar]
57. Kroll, J., & Stewart, E.
    (1994) Category interferences in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connection between bilingual memory representation. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(2), 149–174. doi:  10.1006/jmla.1994.1008
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1994.1008 [Google Scholar]
58. Liu, H., Bates, E., & Li, P.
    (1992) Sentence interpretation in bilingual speakers of English and Chinese. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13(4), 451–484. doi:  10.1017/S0142716400005762
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400005762 [Google Scholar]
59. MacWhinney, B.
    (2005) A unified model of language acquisition. InJ. F. Kroll, & A. M. B. de Groot (Eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: psycholinguistic approaches (pp.49–67). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
60. MacWhinney, B., & Bates, E.
    (1989) The Crosslinguistic Study of Sentence Processing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
61. McDonald, J., Bock, J., & Kelly, M.
    (1993) Word and world order: semantic, phonological and metrical determinants of serial position. Cognitive Psychology, 25(2), 188–230. doi:  10.1006/cogp.1993.1005
    https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1993.1005 [Google Scholar]
62. McDonald, J., & Heilenman, L.
    (1991) Determinants of cue strength in adult first and second language speakers of French. Applied Psycholinguistics, 12(3), 313–348. doi:  10.1017/S0142716400009255
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400009255 [Google Scholar]
63. Morett, L., & MacWhinney, B.
    (2013) Syntactic transfer in English-speaking Spanish learners 132–151.. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16(1), 132–151. doi:  10.1017/S1366728912000107
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728912000107 [Google Scholar]
64. New, B., Pallier, C., Brysbaert, M., & Ferrand, L.
    (2004) Lexique 2: A new French lexical database. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computer, 36(3), 516–524. doi:  10.3758/BF03195598
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195598 [Google Scholar]
65. New, B., Pallier, C., Ferrand, L., & Matos, R.
    (2001) Une base de données lexicales du français contemporain sur Internet: LEXIQUE. L’Année Psychologique, 101, 447–462. doi:  10.3406/psy.2001.1341
    https://doi.org/10.3406/psy.2001.1341 [Google Scholar]
66. Ochsenbauer, A., & Engemann, H.
    (2011) The impact of typological factors in monolingual and bilingual first language acquisition: Caused motion expressions in English and French. Language, Interaction and Acquisition/Langage, Interaction et Acquisition, 2(1), 101–128. doi:  10.1075/lia.2.1.05och
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lia.2.1.05och [Google Scholar]
67. Pavlenko, A.
    (2009) Conceptual representation in the bilingual lexicon and second language vocabulary learning. InA. Pavlenko (Ed.), The Bilingual Mental Lexicon: Interdisciplinary Approaches (pp.125–160). Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781847691262‑008
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847691262-008 [Google Scholar]
68. Papafragou, A., Massey, C., & Gleitman, L.
    (2005) When English proposes what Greek presupposes: The cross-linguistic encoding of motion events. Cognition, 98(3), 75–87. doi:  10.1016/j.cognition.2005.05.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2005.05.005 [Google Scholar]
69. Pearson, J., Stevenson, R., & Poesio, M.
    (2001) The effects of animacy, thematic role, and surface position on the focusing of entities in discourse. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.
    [Google Scholar]
70. Pham, G., & Ebert, K. D.
    (2016) A longitudinal analysis of sentence interpretation in bilingual children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 37(2), 461–485. doi:  10.1017/S0142716415000077
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716415000077 [Google Scholar]
71. Pham, G., & Kohnert, K.
    (2010) Sentence interpretation by typically developing Vietnamese – English bilingual children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31(3), 507–529. doi:  10.1017/S0142716410000093
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716410000093 [Google Scholar]
72. Pourcel, S., & Kopecka, A.
    (2005) Motion expression in French: Typological diversity. Durham & Newcastle working papers in linguistics, 11, 139–153.
    [Google Scholar]
73. Prat Sala, M.
    (1997) The Production of Different Word Orders: A Psycholinguistic and Developmental Approach. PhD Dissertation. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh. Available fromftp://ftp.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/pub/CCS/PHD/1997/EUCCS-PHD-1997-6.ps.gz
    [Google Scholar]
74. Rakison, D. H., & Poulin-Dubois, D.
    (2001) Developmental origin of the animate – inanimate distinction. Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 209–228. doi:  10.1037/0033‑2909.127.2.209
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.209 [Google Scholar]
75. Robinson, P., & Ellis, N.
    (2008) Conclusion: Cognitive Linguistics, Second Language Acquisition and L2 Instruction – Issues for Research. InP. Robinson (Ed.), Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition (pp.489–545). London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203938560
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203938560 [Google Scholar]
76. Rosenbach, A.
    (2005) Animacy versus weight as determinants of grammatical variation in English. Language, 81(3), 613–644. doi:  10.1353/lan.2005.0149
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2005.0149 [Google Scholar]
77. Sasaki, Y.
    (1991) English and Japanese interlanguage comprehension strategies – An analysis based on the Competition Model. Applied Psycholinguistics, 12(1), 47–73. doi:  10.1017/S0142716400009371
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400009371 [Google Scholar]
78. Scholfield, P.
    (1995) Quantifying Language: A Researcher’s Guide to Gathering Language Data and Reducing it to Figures. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
    [Google Scholar]
79. Slobin, D.
    (1968) Imitation and grammatical development in children. InN. Endler, S. Boulter, & H. Osser (Eds.), Contemporary Issues in Developmental Psychology (pp.437–443). New York: Holt.
    [Google Scholar]
80. Slobin, D.
    (1996) Two ways to travel: Verbs of motion in English and Spanish. InM. Shibatani, & S. A. Thompson (Eds.), Grammatical Constructions. Their From and Meaning (pp.195–219). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
81. Slobin, Dan I.
    (2004) The many ways to search for a frog: Linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. InS. Strömqvist, & L. Verhoeven (Eds.), Relating events in narrative: Typological and contextual perspectives (pp.219–258). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
82. Slobin, D. I.
    (2005) Relating narrative events in translation. InD. Ravid & H. B. Shyldkrot (Eds.), Perspectives on language and language development (pp.115–129). Dordrecht: Kluwer. doi:  10.1007/1‑4020‑7911‑7_10
    https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-7911-7_10 [Google Scholar]
83. Stosic, D., & Sarda, L.
    (2009) The many ways to be located: the expression of fictive motion in French and Serbian. InM. B. Vukanović, & L. G. Grmuša (Eds.), Space and Time in Language and Literature (pp.39–60). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
84. Su, I. -R.
    (2001) Transfer of sentence processing strategies: A comparison of L2 learners of Chinese and English. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22(1), 83–112. doi:  10.1017/S0142716401001059
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716401001059 [Google Scholar]
85. Talmy, L.
    (2000) Toward a cognitive semantics (Vol.1 & 2). MIT press.
86. Tremoulet, P. D., & Feldman, J.
    (2000) Perception of animacy from the motion of a single object. Perception, 29(8), 943–951. doi:  10.1068/p3101
    https://doi.org/10.1068/p3101 [Google Scholar]
87. van Nice, K. & Dietrich, R.
    (2003) Task sensitivity of animacy effects: from German picture descpritions. Linguistics, 41(5), 825–849.
    [Google Scholar]
88. Vinay, J. P., & Darbelnet, J.
    (1995) Comparative stylistics of French and English: a methodology for translation (Vol.11). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/btl.11
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.11 [Google Scholar]
89. Wang, J., & Xu, C.
    (2015) Cue Competition between Animacy and Word Order: Acquisition of Chinese Notional Passives by L2 Learners. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 5(2), 213–224. Available from doi:  10.4236/ojml.2015.52017
    https://doi.org/10.4236/ojml.2015.52017 [Google Scholar]
90. Wolff, P., Geon, G., & Li, Y.
    (2009) Causers in English, Korean and Chinese and the individuation of events. Language and Cognition, 1(2), 165–194. doi:  10.1515/LANGCOG.2009.009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/LANGCOG.2009.009 [Google Scholar]
91. Wolff, P., Jeon, G., Klettle, B., & Li, Y.
    (2010) Force creation and possible causers across languages. InB. Malt, P. Wolff (Eds.), Words and the Mind: How Words Capture Human Experience (pp.93–110). Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:  10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195311129.003.0006
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195311129.003.0006 [Google Scholar]
92. Woods, A., Fletcher, P., & Hughes, A.
    (1986) Statistics in Language Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9781139165891
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165891 [Google Scholar]
93. Wust, V.
    (2010) L2 French learners’ processing of object clitics: Data from the classroom. L2 Journal, 2(1), 45–72. 10.5070/L2219061
    https://doi.org/10.5070/L2219061 [Google Scholar]