1887
Volume 4, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2542-9477
  • E-ISSN: 2542-9485
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The aim of the present study is twofold: (1) to assess the degree of register flexibility in advanced second language (L2) learners of English and (2) to determine whether and to what extent this flexibility is impacted by inter-individual variability in experiential factors and personality traits. Register flexibility is quantitatively measured as the degree of differentiation in the use of linguistic complexity – gauged by a range of lexical, syntactic, and information-theoretic complexity measures – across three writing tasks. At the methodological level, we aim to demonstrate how a corpus-based approach combined with natural language processing (NLP) techniques and a within-subjects design can be a valuable complement to experimental approaches to language adaptation.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rs.20014.ker
2022-06-14
2024-07-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Acheson, D. J., Wells, J. B., & Macdonald, M. C.
    (2008) New and updated tests of print exposure and reading abilities in college students. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 278–289. 10.3758/BRM.40.1.278
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.1.278 [Google Scholar]
  2. Alexopoulou, T., Michel, M., Murakami, A., & Meurers, D.
    (2017) Task effects on linguistic complexity and accuracy: A large-scale learner corpus analysis employing natural language processing techniques. Language Learning, 67(S1), 180–208. 10.1111/lang.12232
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12232 [Google Scholar]
  3. Allport, G. W.
    (1961) Pattern and Growth in Personality. Fort Worth TX: Harcourt College Publisher.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Biber, D.
    (1988) Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511621024
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621024 [Google Scholar]
  5. (1995) Dimensions of register variation: A cross-linguistic comparison. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511519871
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519871 [Google Scholar]
  6. (2006) University language (Vol.10). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.23
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.23 [Google Scholar]
  7. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., Finegan, E., & Quirk, R.
    (1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English (Vol. 2). MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Biber, D., & Conrad, S.
    (2009) Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511814358
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511814358 [Google Scholar]
  9. Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poonpon, K.
    (2011) Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development?. Tesol Quarterly, 45(1), 5–35. 10.5054/tq.2011.244483
    https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.244483 [Google Scholar]
  10. Biber, D., Gray, B., & Staples, S.
    (2016) Predicting patterns of grammatical complexity across language exam task types and proficiency levels. Applied Linguistics, 37(5), 639–668. 10.1093/applin/amu059
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu059 [Google Scholar]
  11. Biber, D., & Egbert, J.
    (2018) Register variation online. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316388228
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316388228 [Google Scholar]
  12. Biber, D., Reppen, R., Staples, S., & Egbert, J.
    (2020) Exploring the longitudinal development of grammatical complexity in the disciplinary writing of L2-English university students. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 6(1), 38–71. 10.1075/ijlcr.18007.bib
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.18007.bib [Google Scholar]
  13. Bosker, H., Pinget, A., Quené, H., Sanders, T. & de Jong, N.
    (2013) What makes speech sound fluent? The contributions of pauses, speed and repairs. Language Testing, 30, 159–75. 10.1177/0265532212455394
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532212455394 [Google Scholar]
  14. Bouwer, R., Béguin, A., Sanders, T., & van den Bergh, H.
    (2015) Effect of genre on the generalizability of writing scores. Language Testing, 32(1), 83–100. 10.1177/0265532214542994
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532214542994 [Google Scholar]
  15. Browne, C.
    (2013) The new general service list: Celebrating 60 years of vocabulary learning. The Language Teacher, 37(4), 13–16.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Brown, R.
    (1973) Development of the first language in the human species. American Psychologist, 28(2), 97. 10.1037/h0034209
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034209 [Google Scholar]
  17. Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Feng Kao, C.
    (1984) The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(3), 306–307. 10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_13
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_13 [Google Scholar]
  18. Callies, M., & Zaytseva, E.
    (2013) The Corpus of Academic Learner English (CALE): A new resource for the assessment of writing proficiency in the academic register. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2(1), 126–132. 10.1075/dujal.2.1.11cal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dujal.2.1.11cal [Google Scholar]
  19. Carrell, P. L., Prince, M. S., & Astika, G. G.
    (1996) Personality types and language learning in an EFL context. Language Learning, 46(1), 75–99. 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1996.tb00641.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb00641.x [Google Scholar]
  20. Cervone, D., & Pervin, L. A.
    (2010) Personality psychology. Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Coxhead, A.
    (2000) A new academic word list. TESOL quarterly, 34(2), 213–238. 10.2307/3587951
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3587951 [Google Scholar]
  22. Crossley, S.
    (2020) Linguistic features in writing quality and development: An overview. Journal of Writing Research, 11(3). 10.17239/jowr‑2020.11.03.01
    https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2020.11.03.01 [Google Scholar]
  23. Dąbrowska, E.
    (2018) Experience, aptitude and individual differences in native language ultimate attainment. Cognition, 178, 222–235. 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.05.018
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.05.018 [Google Scholar]
  24. (2019) Experience, aptitude, and individual differences in linguistic attainment: a comparison of native and nonnative speakers. Language Learning, 69, 72–100. 10.1111/lang.12323
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12323 [Google Scholar]
  25. Deutsch, P.
    (1996) RFC1951: DEFLATE compressed data format specification version 1.3. 10.17487/rfc1951
    https://doi.org/10.17487/rfc1951 [Google Scholar]
  26. Dewaele, J. M.
    (2009) Individual differences in second language acquisition. InW. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition (pp.623–646). Bingley, UK: Emerald Insight.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. (2012) Personality: Personality traits as independent and dependent variables. InPsychology for language learning (pp.42–57). Palgrave Macmillan, London. 10.1057/9781137032829_4
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137032829_4 [Google Scholar]
  28. Dewaele, J. M., & Furnham, A.
    (1999) Extraversion: The unloved variable in applied linguistic research. Language Learning, 49(3), 509–544. 10.1111/0023‑8333.00098
    https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00098 [Google Scholar]
  29. Dörnyei, Z., & Skehan, P.
    (2008) Individual differences in second language learning. InC. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp.589–630). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Dörnyei, Z., & Ryan, S.
    (2015) The psychology of the language learner revisited. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315779553
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315779553 [Google Scholar]
  31. Ehret, K., & Szmrecsanyi, B.
    (2016) An information-theoretic approach to assess linguistic complexity. InR. Baechler & G. Seiler (Eds.), Complexity, isolation, and variation (pp.71–94). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110348965‑004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110348965-004 [Google Scholar]
  32. Ellis, R.
    (2004) Individual differences in second language learning. InA. Davies & C. Elder (Eds.), The handbook of applied linguistics (pp.525–551). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. 10.1002/9780470757000.ch21
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470757000.ch21 [Google Scholar]
  33. Ellis, N. C.
    (2019) Essentials of a theory of language cognition. The Modern Language Journal, 103, 39–60. 10.1111/modl.12532
    https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12532 [Google Scholar]
  34. Farmer, T. A., Fine, A. B., Misyak, J. B., & Christiansen, M. H.
    (2017) Reading span task performance, linguistic experience, and the processing of unexpected syntactic events. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(3), 413–433. 10.1080/17470218.2015.1131310
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1131310 [Google Scholar]
  35. Ferrer-i-Cancho, R., Bentz, C., & Seguin, C.
    (2020) Optimal coding and the origins of Zipfian laws. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 1–30. 10.1080/09296174.2020.1778387
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09296174.2020.1778387 [Google Scholar]
  36. Garner, J., Crossley, S., & Kyle, K.
    (2019) N-gram measures and L2 writing proficiency. System, 80, 176–187. 10.1016/j.system.2018.12.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.12.001 [Google Scholar]
  37. Gray, B., & Egbert, J.
    (2019) Register and register variation. Register Studies, 1(1), 1–9. 10.1075/rs.00001.edi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.00001.edi [Google Scholar]
  38. Halliday, M. A. K.
    (2009) Methods – techniques – problems. InM. A. K. Halliday and J. J. Webster (Eds.), Continuum companion to systemic functional linguistics (pp.59–86). London and New York: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R.
    (1989) Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Housen, A., & Kuiken, F.
    (2009) Complexity, accuracy and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 461–473. 10.1093/applin/amp048
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp048 [Google Scholar]
  41. Housen, A., Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I.
    (Eds.) (2012) Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency. Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in SLA. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/lllt.32
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.32 [Google Scholar]
  42. Jagaiah, T., Olinghouse, N. G., & Kearns, D. M.
    (2020) Syntactic complexity measures: variation by genre, grade-level, students’ writing abilities, and writing quality. Reading and Writing, 33, 2577–2638. 10.1007/s11145‑020‑10057‑x
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-020-10057-x [Google Scholar]
  43. John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J.
    (2008) Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. InO. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (p.114–158). The Guilford Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Kaan, E., Futch, C., Fuertes, R. F., Mujcinovic, S., & de la Fuente, E. Á.
    (2019) Adaptation to syntactic structures in native and nonnative sentence comprehension. Applied Psycholinguistics, 40(1), 3–27. 10.1017/S0142716418000437
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716418000437 [Google Scholar]
  45. Kaushanskaya, M., Blumenfeld, H. K., & Marian, V.
    (2019) The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Ten years later. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1–6.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Kerz, E., & Wiechmann, D.
    (2017) Individual differences in L2 processing of multi-word phrases: Effects of working memory and personality. InInternational Conference on Computational and Corpus-Based Phraseology (pp.306–321). Springer, Cham. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑69805‑2_22
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69805-2_22 [Google Scholar]
  47. Kerz, E. & Wiechmann, D.
    (2020) Individual Differences. InN. Tracy-Ventura & M. Paquot (Eds.) Handbook of second language acquisition and corpora (pp.396–408). London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781351137904‑35
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351137904-35 [Google Scholar]
  48. Kerz, E., Qiao, Y., Wiechmann, D., & Ströbel, M.
    (2020) Becoming linguistically mature: Modeling English and German children’s writing development across school grades. InProceedings of the Fifteenth Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications (pp.65–74). 10.18653/v1/2020.bea‑1.6
    https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.bea-1.6 [Google Scholar]
  49. Kidd, E., Bidgood, A., Donnelly, S., Durrant, S., Peter, M. S., & Rowland, C. F.
    (2020) Individual differences in first language acquisition and their theoretical implications. Trends in Language Acquisition Research (TiLAR), (27), 189–219. 10.1075/tilar.27.09kid
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.27.09kid [Google Scholar]
  50. Kidd, E., Donnelly, S., & Christiansen, M. H.
    (2018) Individual differences in language acquisition and processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(2), 154–169. 10.1016/j.tics.2017.11.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.11.006 [Google Scholar]
  51. KMK
    KMK (2014) Bildungsstandards für die fortgeführte Fremdsprache (Englisch/Französisch) für die Allgemeine Hochschulehre. Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (KMK), Wolters Kluwer Deutschland.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Kuhl, P. K.
    (2007) Cracking the speech code: How infants learn language. Acoustical Science and echnology, 28(2), 71–83. 10.1250/ast.28.71
    https://doi.org/10.1250/ast.28.71 [Google Scholar]
  53. Kyle, K., Crossley, S., & Berger, C.
    (2018) The tool for the automatic analysis of lexical sophistication (TAALES): version 2.0. Behavior research methods, 50(3), 1030–1046. 10.3758/s13428‑017‑0924‑4
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0924-4 [Google Scholar]
  54. Kyle, K., & Crossley, S. A.
    (2015) Automatically assessing lexical sophistication: Indices, tools, findings, and application TESOL. Quarterly, 49(4), 757–786. 10.1002/tesq.194
    https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.194 [Google Scholar]
  55. Lambert, C., & Kormos, J.
    (2014) Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in task-based L2 research: Toward more developmentally based measures of second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 35(5), 607–614. 10.1093/applin/amu047
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu047 [Google Scholar]
  56. Larsen-Freeman, D.
    (1978) An ESL index of development. TESOL Quarterly, 12(4), 439–448. 10.2307/3586142
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3586142 [Google Scholar]
  57. Laufer, B., & Nation, P.
    (1995) Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied linguistics, 16(3), 307–322. 10.1093/applin/16.3.307
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/16.3.307 [Google Scholar]
  58. Leech, G., Rayson, P., & Wilson, A.
    (2001) Word frequencies in written and spoken English: Based on the British National Corpus. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Lemhöfer, K., & Broersma, M.
    (2012) Introducing LexTALE: A quick and valid lexical test for advanced learners of English. Behavior research methods, 44(2), 325–343. 10.3758/s13428‑011‑0146‑0
    https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0146-0 [Google Scholar]
  60. Lu, X.
    (2010) Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(4), 474–496. 10.1075/ijcl.15.4.02lu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.15.4.02lu [Google Scholar]
  61. (2011) A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writers’ language development. TESOL quarterly, 45(1), 36–62. 10.5054/tq.2011.240859
    https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.240859 [Google Scholar]
  62. (2012) The relationship of lexical richness to the quality of ESL learners’ oral narratives. The Modern Language Journal, 96, 190–208. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2011.01232_1.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2011.01232_1.x [Google Scholar]
  63. Malvern, D., Richards, B., Chipere, N., & Durán, P.
    (2004) Lexical diversity and language development. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230511804
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511804 [Google Scholar]
  64. McNamara, D. S., Graesser, A. C., McCarthy, P. M., & Cai, Z.
    (2014) Automated evaluation of text and discourse with Coh-Metrix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511894664
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511894664 [Google Scholar]
  65. Michel, M.
    (2017) Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in L2 production. InS. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition, (pp.50–68). London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315676968‑4
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315676968-4 [Google Scholar]
  66. Michel, M., Murakami, A., Alexopoulou, T., & Meurers, D.
    (2019) Effects of task type on morphosyntactic complexity across proficiency: evidence from a large learner corpus of A1 to C2 writings. Instructed Second Language Acquisition, 3(2), 124–152. 10.1558/isla.38248
    https://doi.org/10.1558/isla.38248 [Google Scholar]
  67. Misyak, J. B., & Christiansen, M. H.
    (2012) Statistical learning and language: An individual differences study. Language Learning, 62(1), 302–331. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2010.00626.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00626.x [Google Scholar]
  68. Naiman, N., Fröhlich, M., Stern, H. H. and Todesco, A.
    (1978) The Good Language Learner (Vol.4). Toronta: Ontario Institute for Language and Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Neumann, S.
    (2014) Contrastive register variation: A quantitative approach to the comparison of English and German. Berlin/Boston: de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Neumann, S. & Evert, S.
    (submitted). A register variation perspective on varieties of English.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L.
    (2009) Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 555–578. 10.1093/applin/amp044
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp044 [Google Scholar]
  72. Ortega, L.
    (2003) Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 24, 492–518. 10.1093/applin/24.4.492
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/24.4.492 [Google Scholar]
  73. Ożańska-Ponikwia, K., & Dewaele, J. M.
    (2012) Personality and L2 use: The advantage of being openminded and self-confident in an immigration context. EuroSLA Yearbook, 12(1), 112–134. 10.1075/eurosla.12.07oza
    https://doi.org/10.1075/eurosla.12.07oza [Google Scholar]
  74. Polio, C. G., & Shea, M. C.
    (2014) An investigation into current measures of linguistic accuracy in second language writing research. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 10–27. 10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.003 [Google Scholar]
  75. Qin, W., & Uccelli, P.
    (2016) Same language, different functions: A cross-genre analysis of Chinese EFL learners’ writing performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 33, 3–17. 10.1016/j.jslw.2016.06.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.06.001 [Google Scholar]
  76. (2020) Beyond linguistic complexity: Assessing register flexibility in EFL writing across contexts. Assessing Writing, 45, 100465. 10.1016/j.asw.2020.100465
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.100465 [Google Scholar]
  77. Ströbel, M., Kerz, E., & Wiechmann, D.
    (2020) The relationship between first and second language writing: Investigating the effects of first language complexity on second language complexity in advanced stages of learning. Language Learning, 70(3), 732–767. 10.1111/lang.12394
    https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12394 [Google Scholar]
  78. Roberts, L., & Meyer, A.
    (2012) Individual differences in second language learning: Introduction. Language Learning, 62, 1–4. 10.1111/j.1467‑9922.2012.00703.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2012.00703.x [Google Scholar]
  79. Robinson, D., Gabriel, N., & Katchan, O.
    (1994) Personality and second language learning. Personality and Individual Differences, 16(1), 143–157. 10.1016/0191‑8869(94)90118‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(94)90118-X [Google Scholar]
  80. Simpson-Vlach, R., & Ellis, N. C.
    (2010) An academic formulas list: New methods in phraseology research. Applied Linguistics, 31(4), 487–512. 10.1093/applin/amp058
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp058 [Google Scholar]
  81. Stanovich, K. E., & Cunningham, A. E.
    (1992) Studying the consequences of literacy within a literate society: The cognitive correlates of print exposure. Memory & Cognition, 20, 51–68. 10.3758/BF03208254
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208254 [Google Scholar]
  82. Staples, S., Egbert, J., Biber, D., & Gray, B.
    (2016) Academic writing development at the university level: Phrasal and clausal complexity across level of study, discipline, and genre. Written Communication, 33(2), 149–183. 10.1177/0741088316631527
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088316631527 [Google Scholar]
  83. Ströbel, M.
    (2014) Tracking complexity of L2 academic texts: A sliding-window approach. Unpublished master’s thesis). RWTH Aachen University, Germany.
    [Google Scholar]
  84. The Council of Europe
    The Council of Europe (2020) CEFR Companion Volume with new descriptors. Council of Europe, Strasbourg. https://book.coe.int/en/
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Tracy-Ventura, N., & Myles, F.
    (2015) The importance of task variability in the design of learner corpora for SLA research. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 1, 58–95. 10.1075/ijlcr.1.1.03tra
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.1.1.03tra [Google Scholar]
  86. Ure, J.
    (1971) Lexical density: A computational technique and some findings. Talking about text, 27–48.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Verhoeven, L., & Vermeer, A.
    (2002) Communicative competence and personality dimensions in first and second language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 23(3), 361–374. 4. 10.1017/S014271640200303X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S014271640200303X [Google Scholar]
  88. Williams, M., Mercer, S., & Ryan, S.
    (2016) Exploring psychology in language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Yoon, H.-J., & Polio, C.
    (2016) The linguistic development of students of English as a second language in two written genres. TESOL Quarterly, 51(2), 275–301. 10.1002/tesq.296
    https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.296 [Google Scholar]
  90. Zipf, G. K.
    (1949) Human behaviour and the principle of least effort. Cambridge (MA), USA: Addison-Wesley.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/rs.20014.ker
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/rs.20014.ker
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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