Review of Divjak (2019): Frequency in language: Memory, attention and learning

References

1. Divjak, D., & Arppe, A.
   (2013) Extracting prototypes from exemplars: What can corpus data tell us about concept representation?Cognitive Linguistics24(2), 221–274. doi:  10.1515/cog‑2013‑0008
   https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2013-0008 [Google Scholar]
2. Evans, V.
   (2019) Cognitive Linguistics A complete guide (2nd ed.). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Halliday, M. A. K.
   (1993) Quantitative studies and probabilities in grammar. InM. Hoey (Ed.), Data, description, discourse: Papers on the English language in honour of John McH. Sinclair (pp.1–25). London: HarperCollins.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Isac, D., & Reiss, C.
   (2013) I-Language: An introduction to linguistics as cognitive science (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Janda, L. A.
   (2013) Quantitative methods in Cognitive Linguistics: An introduction. InL. A. Janda (ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: The quantitative turn (pp.1–32). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110335255.1
   https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110335255.1 [Google Scholar]
6. Köhler, R.
   (2012) Quantitative syntax analysis. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110272925
   https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110272925 [Google Scholar]
7. Liu, H.
   (2008) Dependency distance as a metric of language comprehension difficulty. Journal of Cognitive Science9(2), 159–191. doi:  10.17791/jcs.2008.9.2.159
   https://doi.org/10.17791/jcs.2008.9.2.159 [Google Scholar]
8. Liu, H.
   (2017) An introduction to quantitative linguistics. Beijing: The Commercial Press.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Liu, H., Xu, C., & Liang, J.
   (2017) Dependency distance: A new perspective on syntactic patterns innatural languages. Physics of Life Reviews, 21, 171–193. doi:  10.1016/j.plrev.2017.03.002
   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2017.03.002 [Google Scholar]
10. Müller, S.
    (2018) Grammatical theory: From transformational grammar to constraint-based approaches (2nd ed.). Berlin: Language Science Press.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Pothos, E. M., & Wills, A. J.
    (Eds.) (2011) Formal approaches in categorization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511921322
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921322 [Google Scholar]
12. Schmid, H.-J.
    (2000) English abstract nouns as conceptual shells: From corpus to cognition. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110808704
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110808704 [Google Scholar]
13. Schmid, H.-J.
    (2020) The dynamics of the linguistic system: Usage, conventionalization, and entrenchment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198814771.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198814771.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
14. Smith, J. D.
    (2014) Prototypes, exemplars, and the natural history of categorization. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21(2), 312–331. doi:  10.3758/s13423‑013‑0506‑0
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-013-0506-0 [Google Scholar]
15. Stefanowitsch, A., & Flach, S.
    (2017) The corpus-based perspective on entrenchment. InH.-J. Schmid (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge (pp.101–127). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1037/15969‑006
    https://doi.org/10.1037/15969-006 [Google Scholar]
16. Vanpaemel, W., & Storms, G.
    (2008) In search of abstraction: The varying abstraction model of categorization. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(4), 732–749. doi:  10.3758/PBR.15.4.732
    https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.4.732 [Google Scholar]