Volume 3, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2665-9581
  • E-ISSN: 2665-959X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes
Preview this article:


This is a commentary article in response to the following content:
Cognitive corpus linguistics and pedagogy

Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. DeKeyser, R. M.
    (1995) Learning second language grammar rules: An experiment with a miniature linguistic system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17(3), 379–410. 10.1017/S027226310001425X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310001425X [Google Scholar]
  2. Ellis, N. C.
    (2005) At the interface: Dynamic interactions of explicit and implicit language knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(2), 305–352. 10.1017/S027226310505014X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S027226310505014X [Google Scholar]
  3. Ellis, R.
    (2005) Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language. A psychometric study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27 (2), 141–172. 10.1017/S0272263105050096
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263105050096 [Google Scholar]
  4. Gass, S.
    (1997) Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Gilquin, G.
    (2021) Using corpora to foster L2 construction learning: A data-driven learning experiment. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 31(2), 229–247. 10.1111/ijal.12317
    https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12317 [Google Scholar]
  6. Gries, S. T., & Stefanowitsch, A.
    (2004) Extending collostructional analysis. A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1), 97–129. 10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri [Google Scholar]
  7. Hirata, Y., & Thompson, P.
    (2021) Communicative data-driven learning: a two-year pilot study. ELT Journal. 10.1093/elt/ccab066, in press.
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccab066 [Google Scholar]
  8. Jäschke, K., & Plag, I.
    (2016) The dative alternation in German-English interlanguage. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 38(3), 485–521. 10.1017/S0272263115000261
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263115000261 [Google Scholar]
  9. Jenset, G. B., McGillivray, B., & Rundell, M.
    (2018) The dative alternation revisited. Fresh insights from contemporary British spoken data. InV. Brezina, R. Love, & K. Aijmer (Eds.), Corpus approaches to contemporary British speech. Sociolinguistic studies of the spoken BNC2014 (pp.185–208). Oxon and New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315268323‑10
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315268323-10 [Google Scholar]
  10. Langacker, R. W.
    (1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Larsen-Freeman, D.
    (2003) Teaching language: From grammar to grammaring. Boston, MA: Heinle.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Lin, M. H.
    (2021) Effects of data-driven learning on college students of different grammar proficiencies: A preliminary empirical assessment in EFL classes. SAGE Open Journal, online, 1–15. 10.1177/21582440211029936
    https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211029936 [Google Scholar]
  13. Lo, M. L., & Marton, F.
    (2012) Towards a science of the art of teaching: Using variation theory as a guiding principle of pedagogical design. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 1(1), 7–22. 10.1108/20468251211179678
    https://doi.org/10.1108/20468251211179678 [Google Scholar]
  14. Llopis-García, R.
    (2010) Why cognitive grammar works in the classroom. A case study of mood selection in Spanish. AILA Review, 23(1), 72–94. 10.1075/aila.23.05llo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.23.05llo [Google Scholar]
  15. Madlener, K.
    (2015) Frequency effects in instructed second language acquisition. Applications of Cognitive Linguistics, Volume29. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110405538
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110405538 [Google Scholar]
  16. Nassaji, H.
    (2017) Grammar acquisition. InS. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed language acquisition (pp.205–223). New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315676968‑12
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315676968-12 [Google Scholar]
  17. Ott, G.
    (2017) Exploring Variation Theory in form-focused language teaching. Teaching the present perfect in upper secondary EFL. CELT Matters (Centre for English Language Teaching), 1, 9–29. https://celt.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/proj_fdz_englisch/Ott_2017_upload_version.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Pinker, S., & Ullman, M. T.
    (2002) The past and future of the past tense. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(11), 456–474. 10.1016/S1364‑6613(02)01990‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01990-3 [Google Scholar]
  19. Rebuschat, P., & Williams, J. N.
    (2012) Implicit and explicit knowledge in second language acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 33(4), 829–856. 10.1017/S0142716411000580
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716411000580 [Google Scholar]
  20. VanPatten, B.
    (1993) Grammar teaching for the acquisition-rich classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 26 (4), 435–450. 10.1111/j.1944‑9720.1993.tb01179.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1993.tb01179.x [Google Scholar]
  21. Wu, M. J., & Ionin, T.
    (2021) Does explicit instruction affect L2 linguistic competence? An examination with L2 acquisition of English inverse scope. Second Language Research, 1(31), online. 10.1177/0267658321992830
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658321992830 [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Article Commentary
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error