FREQUENCY OF INPUT AND L2 COLLOCATIONAL PROCESSING

By Brent Wolter, Henrik Gyllstad. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2013

162 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Developmental and Educational Psychology, Language and Linguistics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d630a84974d22224da90916a4251e208156f24d7

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

1. Stuart Webb
2. N. Schmitt
3. E. Peters
4. Marijana Macis
5. Thi My Hang Nguyen

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

1. E. Peters
2. N. Schmitt
3. Stuart Webb
4. Thi My Hang Nguyen
5. Marijana Macis
6. A. Pellicer‐Sánchez
7. A. Chang
8. Lars Stenius Stæhr

In Language and Linguistics

1. E. Peters
2. N. Schmitt
3. Stuart Webb
4. Marijana Macis
5. Thi My Hang Nguyen
6. A. Pellicer‐Sánchez
7. Lars Stenius Stæhr
8. Yanxue Feng

Citations in the corpus

• The learning burden of collocations: The role of interlexical and intralexical factors (2016, background): “Finally, Wolter and Gyllstad (2011, 2013) also found that congruency played a role in L1 Swedish EFL learners’ processing collocations as measured by their reaction times in a primed lexical decision task.”
• Not just ‘small potatoes’: Knowledge of the idiomatic meanings of collocations (2017, background): “Similarly, Wolter and Gyllstad (2012) define the combination bottom line (= ‘the important conclusion’) as a collocation using the statistical approach, even though it has a figurative meaning.”
• Examining second language receptive knowledge of collocation and factors that affect learning (2017, background): “The limitation of the frequency-based approach is that some semantic factors that may affect learnability of collocational items such as congruency (see Wolter & Gyllstad 2011, 2013; Yamashita & Jiang, 2010) and transparency (see Moon, 1998; Nesselhauf, 2003) are not taken into account.”