Termout.org logo/LING


Update: February 24, 2023 The new version of Termout.org is now online, so this web site is now obsolete and will soon be dismantled.

Lista de candidatos sometidos a examen:
1) grammatical (*)
(*) Términos presentes en el nuestro glosario de lingüística

1) Candidate: grammatical


Is in goldstandard

1
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines158 - : "A register is a semantic concept. It can be defined as a configuration of meanings that are typically associated with a particular situational configuration of field, mode, and tenor. But since it is a configuration of meanings, a register must also, of course, include the expressions, the lexico–grammatical and phonological features, that typically accompany or realize these meanings. And sometimes we find that a particular register also has indexical features, indices in the form of particular words, particular grammatical signals, or even sometimes phonological signals that have the function of indicating to the participants that this is the register in question (…)" (Halliday, 1989: 38 ).

2
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines183 - : Arús, J. (2003b). Ambiguity in grammatical metaphor: One more reason why the distinction transitive/ergative pays off . En A. Vandenbergen, M. Taverniers & L. Ravelli (Eds.), Grammatical metaphor: Views from systemic functional linguistics (pp. 101-126). Amsterdam: Benjamins. [ [70]Links ]

3
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines186 - : In this paper we study grammatical features relevant in Spanish from a functional point of view, to the extent that they can be associated with semantic and pragmatic functions of discourse (Halliday, 1994; Biber, Conrad & Reppen, 1998). Specifically, we analyse the occurrence of grammatical features associated with two textual characteristics, subjectivity and argumentation, in three discourse genres: didactic genres (school book, professional school manual, etc .), popularized genres (popularized article, popularized book, review, etc.), and behaviour-regulating genres (contract, agreement, law, etc.). In this research we study texts included in the corpus of the Royal Academy of Spanish Language (RAE), available in Internet, in order to obtain and to quantify automatically the features observed. The results show differences in grammatical characteristics of each discourse genres, both from a quantitative perspective and a qualitative one, in other words, the grammatical units observed are

4
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines269 - : In this paper I will explore the relationship between grammatical patterns and lexical collocations. By grammatical patterns I mean both grammatical types (paradigmatic patterns) and grammatical structures (syntagmatic patterns): I am interested both in what grammatical types engender collocational patterns and in what grammatical structural functions the lexical collocates serve . I will interpret collocation as a lexicogrammatical phenomenon - one that is at the same time both lexical and grammatical. I will also suggest that there is a cline between (i) collocations involving particular lexical items and (ii) more general constraints on the co-occurrence of lexicogrammatical types. In the course of the investigation I will suggest how collocational patterns might be explained by reference to semantic motifs.

5
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines336 - : About 70 lexical functions have been identified in (Mel’čuk, 1996); each is associated with a particular meaning according to which it receives its name. The name of a lexical function is an abbreviated Latin word whose semantic content is closest to the meanings of this lexical function. Using the above notation, the collocation dar un paseo, lit. give a walk, is represented as Oper1(paseo) = dar where ‘Oper’ is from Latin operari (do, carry out); the argument, or the keyword of this lexical function is paseo; its value is dar; the subscript 1 stores information concerning the syntactical structure of utterances where the keyword of Oper1 (paseo) is used together with its value (dar) and where the first argument of paseo (Agent) is lexicalized in speech as the grammatical subject: Mi abuela (Agent ) da un paseo por este parque cada sábado, My grandma takes a walk in this park every Saturday. Other collocations that are isomorphic to dar un paseo can be represented likewise, and, in fact,

6
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines336 - : they are the collocations we put in [30]Table 1: hacer uso is represented as Oper1(uso) = hacer, dar un abrazo, as Oper1(abrazo) = dar, prestar atención, as Oper1(atención) = prestar, etc. Another example of a lexical function is Func0, from Lat. functionare, function. The keyword of Func0 can be an action, activity, state, property, relation, the value of Func0 has the meaning ‘happen, take place, realize itself’, and the subscript 0 implies that the keyword functions as the grammatical subject in utterances: Func1(viento ) = soplar (el viento sopla, the wind blows), Func1(silencio) = reinar (el silencio reina, lit. the silence reigns), Func1(accidente) = ocurrir ( el accidente ocurre, the accident happens). The lexical function ‘Realn’ (n = 0, 1, 2...), from Lat. realis, real, means ‘to fulfill the requirement of the keyword’, ‘to do with the keyword what you are supposed to with it’, or ‘the keyword fulfils its requirement’. In particular, Real1 has the meaning ‘use the keyword acco

7
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines347 - : "In the model, there is a distinction between syntax and the lexicon. The syntactic part of the model consist of a set of rules that create a structural frame. The terminal nodes of these frames are grammatical categorized slots. The lexicon consists of a network of nodes for linguistic such as concepts, words, morphemes, and phonemes. The conceptual nodes are connected to the words nodes, the word nodes to the morphemes, and so on. The cross talk between the syntactic frames and the lexicon occurs within each level. For example, at the lexical level, insertion rules select activated lexical items from the lexicon to fill the slots in the syntactic frame. The lexical item assigned to a slot must be of the grammatical type that a slot specifies" (Cutting & Bock, 1997: 67-68 ).

8
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines353 - : Arús, J. (2003b). Ambiguity in grammatical metaphor: One more reason why the distinction transitive/ergative pays off . In A. Vandenbergen, M. Taverniers & L. Ravelli (Eds.), Grammatical metaphor: Views from systemic functional linguistics (pp. 101-126). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [ [45]Links ]

9
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines360 - : Leow, R. P. (2009a). Input enhancement and L2 grammatical development: What the research reveals . In S. L. Katz & J. Watzinger-Tharp (Eds.), Conceptions of L2 grammar: Theoretical approaches and their application in the L2 classroom (pp. 16-34). Boston, MA: Heinle Publishers. [ [57]Links ]

10
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines387 - : Abstract: Objective of present paper is to classify the comma uses focused in grammatical aspects and from a computational linguistic perspective is proposed. From this objective, some theoretical aspects based on grammatical criteria are showed, and the following classification of the comma functions are established: (i) indicator comma: it points enumerations and ellipsis, (ii) bounding comma: it delimits incidental clauses (appositions, vocatives, etcetera), and (iii) comma for disambiguation: it avoids confusion in expressions that could present more than a interpretation . Afterwards, a formalization and a computational implementation are made with the objective of getting a method of automatic detection for comma functions. In relation to the computational work, the software Smorph and Post Smorph Module (MPS) were used. Smorph analyzes the characters chain morphologically, giving an output with the morphological and categorical assignation for each occurrence according to the features

11
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines416 - : Figure 2. Distribution of types of errors by issues for each dataset. R stands for the RawWeb dataset, F for FactSpaCIC. The issues are indicated with numbers: 1: underspecified noun phrase, 2: overspecified verb phrase, 3: non-contiguous verb phrase, 4: N-ary relation, 5: conditional clause, 6: relative clause, 7: coordinate structure, 8: inverse word order, 9: incorrect POS-tagging, 10: grammatical errors, 11: others .

12
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines416 - : A similar situation is observed for grammatical errors (10): although they are expected to affect all components of the extractions, detection of arguments is affected more frequently than that of relation phrases . To verify this, further experiments with a larger dataset are needed. Grammatical errors are inherent to informal communication. A preprocessing stage of intelligent automatic grammar correction could solve this problem. However, this lies far beyond the area of information extraction.

13
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines426 - : The realization of deixis in speech / writing deixis is done through the use of special ‘linguistic pointers’ (Werth, 1999) called ‘deictic expressions’, also classified as ‘indexical expressions’ (Adetunji, 2006), ‘shifters’ (Jakobson, 1957), or ‘textual references’ (Halliday & Hasan, 1976). One of the main points here is the fact that their referents cannot be identified without an understanding of their actual context (Zupnik, 1994). In the case of person deixis, its indexical symbols belong to the grammatical category of personal pronouns, while the most obvious local deictic terms are the adverbs of place here / there and the demonstratives this / these and that / those, which are “the purest indicators of directionality and location” (Simpson, 1993: 13 ). In this regard, the first words in each pair indicate proximal perspective as they express physical proximity to the speaker, while the second words take a distal perspective as they denote a certain distance from the location o

14
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines469 - : Grammatical PSM have not been as thoroughly examined as the lexical CSs. In fact, devices such as grammatical substitution have not been included in most of the taxonomies proposed so far with the exception of ^[120]Dӧrnyei and Kormos’ (1998). This subcategory is related to “the insufficient knowledge of the grammatical form and the argument structure of the lemma, as well as the word-ordering rules of the L2” and thus entails “changing certain grammatical specifications of the lemma through transfer or overgeneralisation” (^[121]Dӧrnyei & Kormos’, 1998: 357-361 ). This CS, within C1, was more often employed by the learners in the open task where they tended to transfer some structures from their L1 or overgeneralise an L2 grammatical construction.

15
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines488 - : Gender is a grammatical category that divides nouns into two distinct classes: ‘masculine’ for male nouns, and ‘feminine’ for female nouns, with ‘neuter’ a third possible group for nouns that are neither . Gender is often referred to using the more specific term ‘grammatical gender,’ to distinguish it from the ‘natural gender’ typically determined by biological sex. Thus, although girls are biologically female, the German word for girl, Mädchen, is grammatically neuter (^[52]Matthews, 2014).

16
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines489 - : Ideational grammatical metaphor: A key resource for advanced and academic literacy

17
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines496 - : “if one accepts a 'weak' interpretation of communicative language teaching, then s/he must accept the value of grammatical explanation, error correction, and drill” (^[46]Nunan, 1987: 141 ).

18
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines500 - : ^[64]Periñán-Pascual (2013) points out that Goldberg’s broad conception of construction in Construction Grammar (CxG) makes it difficult to provide an accurate definition of the term since from her point of view any single lexical item (or even a suffix such as -ed) could be conceived as a construction: “all levels of grammatical analysis involve constructions” (Goldberg, 2006: 5 ). This implies that, within this broad definition, constructions are conceived as the building blocks in linguistic realization. Periñán-Pascual’s conception of construction differs from CxG and is closer to the LCM in the sense that constructions are viewed from a holistic perspective in which the meaning of the construction is always larger than the meaning of the building blocks conforming it. What is more, Periñán-Pascual (2013) shares ^[65]Ruiz de Mendoza-Ibáñez’s (2013) claim that for any linguistic pattern to be regarded as a construction some essential properties have to be met. Thus, the following criteria

19
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines529 - : The following research questions were examined in order to identify heritage language learners’ perspectives on the role of service-learning programs on their development of these key areas, evaluate learners’ professional and linguistic goals in language courses, and examine overall learner grammatical and lexical performance and development in service-learning courses:

20
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines549 - : Según este autor, al aprender una lengua, asociamos estas escenas con ‘marcos’, de carácter lingüístico, que comprenden: “any system of linguistic choice -the easiest being collections of words, but also including choices of grammatical rules o grammatical categories - that can get associated with prototypical instances of scenes” (^[52]Fillmore, 1977: 63 ). Y lo ilustra con la escena ‘escribir correspondencia’, que se lexicaliza en inglés con el verbo to write y una serie de participantes (el remitente, un utensilio de escritura, un papel, un destinatario, etc.) y relaciones conceptuales entre estos elementos.

21
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines558 - : Studies in children with Developmental Language Impairment (DLI known before as Specific Language Impairment) have isolated anomalies affecting varying elements in the grammar of different languages. The importance of these descriptions is that allows a better understanding of the DLI and the linguistic phenomenon. In this framework, the aim of this study was to describe the grammatical deviations in Spanish speaking children with DLI. To achieve this, texts were analyzed from the NIR2004 corpus of 38 children with DLI and 38 children with Typical Development Language (TDL), aged between 5 and 5 years and 11 months, attending preschool. Texts analyses were focused on detecting and classifying grammatical deviations: disagreement, elision, substitution, word disorder, overregularization and addition . Results show that both DLI and TDL children present these grammatical deviations, but the amount of deviations performed by the DLI children is significantly higher for the first five types.

22
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines562 - : Voghera, M. (2013). A case study on the relationship between grammatical change and synchronic variation: The emergence of tipo[-N] in Italian . En A. Giacalone Ramat, C. Mauri & P. Molinelli (Eds.), Synchrony and Diachrony: A dynamic interface (pp. 283-312). Ámsterdam/Filadelfia: John Benjamins. [ [313]Links ]

23
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines598 - : In this study, a tripartite categorisation of modality following the taxonomy described here is used, and it includes epistemic, deontic and dynamic modality. These types of modality can be adverbs (‘probably’, ‘perhaps’), verbs (‘can’, ‘could’, ‘must’, ‘shall’, ‘would’) and matrices (‘It is probable that P’, where P is the proposition hedged) (see ^[77]Hyland, 1998, 2004). Our focus here will be on modal verbs, specifically on the so-called central modals. In English, there are nine central modal verbs, as noted by ^[78]Biber et al. (1999): ‘can’, ‘could’, ‘may’, ‘might’, ‘shall’, ‘should’, ‘will’, ‘would’ and ‘must’ (see ^[79]Denison, 1993; ^[80]Biber et al., 1999). ^[81]Biber et al. (1999) establish a relationship between pairs of modals according to a grammatical value based on the expression of time: can and could, may and might, shall and should, will and would . However, despite this usage, the past tense forms of these verbs have diff

Evaluando al candidato grammatical:


1) lexical: 16 (*)
2) keyword: 8
3) linguistic: 7 (*)
4) paseo: 7
10) comma: 6 (*)
11) patterns: 6 (*)
16) metaphor: 5 (*)
19) genres: 5 (*)

grammatical
Lengua: eng
Frec: 289
Docs: 117
Nombre propio: 3 / 289 = 1%
Coocurrencias con glosario: 6
Puntaje: 6.755 = (6 + (1+5.93073733756289) / (1+8.17990909001493)));
Candidato aceptado

Referencias bibliográficas encontradas sobre cada término

(Que existan referencias dedicadas a un término es también indicio de terminologicidad.)
grammatical
: Aarts, B. (2007). Syntactic gradience. The nature of grammatical indeterminacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
: Athanasopoulos, P. & Bylund, E. (2013). Does grammatical aspect affect motion event cognition? A cross-linguistic comparison of English and Swedish speakers. Cognitive Science, 37, 286-309.
: Athanasopoulos, P. (2006). Effects of the grammatical representation of number on cognition in bilinguals. Bilingualism, Language and Cognition, 9, 89-96.
: Athanasopoulos, P. (2007). Interaction between grammatical categories and cognition in bilinguals: The role of proficiency, cultural immersion, and language of instruction. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 689- 699.
: Batllori, M. & Roca, F. (forthcoming). Grammaticalization of SER and ESTAR in Romance. In D. Jonas, J. Whitman & A. Garrett (Eds.), Grammatical Change: Origins, nature, outcomes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
: Bedore, L. & Leonard, L. (2001). Grammatical morphology deficits in Spanish speaking-children with Specific Language Impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 44, 905-924.
: Biber, D. & Finegan, E. (1989). Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text, 9(1), 93-124.
: Bishop, D., Bright, P., James, C., Bishop, S. & van der Lely, H. (2000). Grammatical SLI: A distinct subtype of developmental language impairment? Applied Psycholinguistics, 21(2), 159-181.
: Bourigault, D. (1992). Surface grammatical analysis for the extraction of terminological noun phrases. Ponencia presentada en el 14th International Conference on Computational Linguistics. Nantes, Francia.
: Bowey, J. A. (1994). Grammatical awareness and learning to read: A critique. En E. M. H. Assink (Ed.), Literacy acquisition and social context (pp. 122-149). Londres: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
: Branigan, H., Pickering, M. & Tanaka, M. (2008). Contributions of animacy to grammatical function assignment and word order during production. Lingua, 118, 172–189.
: Bresnan, J. (1982). The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge: MIT Press.
: Bylund, E., Athanasopoulos, P. & Oostendorp, M. (2013). Motion event cognition and grammatical aspect: Evidence from Afrikaans. Linguistics, 51, 929-955.
: Cegarra, J. (2011). Metáfora grammatical temática: Pricipio de definición. Texturas, 1(11), 15-31.
: Celce-Murcia, M. (2002). On the use of selected grammatical features in academic writing. En M. Schleppegrell & M. Colombi (Eds.), Developing advanced literacy in first and second languages: Meaning with power (pp. 38-54). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
: Chodorow, M. & Leacock, C. (2000). An unsupervised method for detecting grammatical errors. Proceedings of the 1st North American chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics conference. Association for Computational Linguistics, 140-147 [en línea]. Disponible en:
: Colombi, C. (2006). Grammatical metaphor: Academic language development in Latino students in Spanish. En H. Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced Language Learning: The Contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 147-164). Londres: Continuum.
: Croft, W. (1991). Syntactic categories and grammatical relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
: Derewianka, B. (2003). Grammatical metaphor in the transition to adolescence. En A. M. Simon-Vandenberger, M. Taverniers & L. J. Ravelli. (Eds.), Grammatical metaphors. Views from systemic functional linguistics (pp. 185-220). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
: Dionne, G., Dale, P., Boivin, M. & Plomin, R. (2003). Genetic evidence for bidirectional effect of early lexical and grammatical development. Child Development, 74, 394-412.
: Ebrahimi, S. F. & Chan, S. H. (2014). Discourse functions of grammatical subject in result and discussion sections of research article across four disciplines. Journal of Written Research, 6(2), 125-140.
: Farrar, M. (1990). Discourse and the acquisition of grammatical morphemes. Journal of Child Language, 17(3), 607-624.
: Fernández-Ordóñez, I. (2010). New methods for the study of grammatical variation and the Audible Corpus of Spoken Rural Spanish. En G. Aurrekoetxea & J. L. Ormaetxea (Eds.), Tools for Linguistic Variation (pp. 119-30). Bilbao: Universidad del País Vasco.
: Forbes, J. N., Poulin-Dubois, D., Rivero, M. & Sera, M. (2008). Grammatical gender affects bilinguals’ conceptual gender: Implications for linguistic relativity and decision making. The Open Applied Linguistics Journal, 1, 68-76.
: Givón, T. (1976). Topic. Pronoun and grammatical agreement. En Ch. Li (Ed.), Subjet and topic. (pp. 149-185). New York: Academic Press.
: Gutiérrez-Clellen, V. & Simon-Cereijido, G. (2006). The discriminant accuracy of a grammatical measure with latino english-speaking children. Journal of speech, language and hearing research, 50(4), 968-981.
: Halliday, M. A. K. (1989). Some grammatical problems in scientific English. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics. Supplement, 6, 13-37.
: Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). Some grammatical problems in Scientific English. En M.A.K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (Eds.) Writing science: Literacy and discursive power (pp. 69-85). Londres: The Falmer Press.
: Halliday, M.A.K. (1956). Grammatical categories in modern Chinese. Transactions of the Philological Society, 178-224.
: Haspelmath, M. (2003). The geometry of grammatical meaning: Semantic maps and cross-linguistic comparison. En M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language Vol. 2 (pp. 211-242). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
: Howard, P. (1994). A computer-assisted study of collocations in academic prose, with special reference to grammatical structure and stylistic value. Tesis doctoral, Universidad de Leeds, Leeds, West Yorkshire, Inglaterra.
: Hsu, H. & Bishop, D. (2011). Grammatical difficulties in children with specific language impairment: Is learning deficient? Human Development, 53(5), 264-277.
: Hunt, K. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels. Research Report. Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.
: Ibrahim, M. H. (1973). Grammatical gender: Its origin and development. The Hague: Mouton.
: Irmen, L. & Roßberg, N. (2004). Gender markedness of language: The impact of grammatical and nonlinguistic information on the mental representation of person information. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23(3), 272-307.
: Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1981). The grammatical marking of thematic structure in the development of language production. En W. Deutsch (Ed.), The Child’s Construction of Language (pp. 121-147). Nueva York: Academic Press.
: Kaschak, M. & Glenberg, A. (2000). Constructing meaning: The role of affordances and grammatical constructions in sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory & Language, 43, 508–529.
: Kurinski, E. & Sera, M. D. (2011). Does learning Spanish grammatical gender change English-speaking adults’ categorization of inanimate objects? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14, 203-220.
: Lassen, Inger (2003). Accessibility and acceptability in technical manuals. A survey of style and grammatical metaphor. 183 pp. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ISBN 1568-1963
: Leech, G., Hundt, M., Mair, C. & Smith, N. (2009). Change in contemporary English: A grammatical study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
: Leonard, L. & Dispaldro, M. (2013). The effects of production demands on grammatical weaknesses in specific language impairment: The case of clitic pronouns in italian. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 56(4), 1272-1286.
: Lew-Williams, C. & Fernald, A. (2007). Young children learning Spanish make rapid use of grammatical gender in spoken word recognition. Psychological Science, 18(3), 193-198.
: Li, P. & Bowerman, M. (1998). The acquisition of lexical and grammatical aspect in Chinese. First Language, 18(54), 311-350 [en línea]. Disponible en: [110]https://doi.org/10.1177/014272379801805404
: Li, P. & Shirai, Y. (2000). The acquisition of lexical and grammatical aspect. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter .
: Linell, P. (2009). Grammatical constructions in dialogue. En A. Bergs & G. Diewald (Eds.), Contexts and Constructions (pp. 97-110). Amterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
: Lucy, J. (1992). Grammatical categories and cognition: A case study of the linguistic relativity hypothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
: Martin, J. R. , Quiroz, B., Wang, P. & Zhu, Y. (en prensa). Systemic Functional Grammar: Another step into the theory - grammatical description. Beijing: Higher Education Press.
: Matthiessen, C. (2006). Frequency profiles of some basic grammatical systems: An interim report. En G. Thompson & S. Hunston (Eds.), System and Corpus. Exploring Connections (pp. 103-142) Londres: Equinox.
: Montemayor-Borsinger, A. (2005a). Authorial development in research writing: Coding changes in grammatical subject. The ESPecialist, 26(2), 82-104.
: Montrul, S. (2012). The grammatical competence of Spanish heritage speakers. In S. M. Beaudrie & M. Fairclough (Eds.), Spanish as a Heritage Language in the United States: The State of the Field (pp. 101-120). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press .
: Muter, V., Hulme, Ch., Snowling, M. J. & Stevenson, J. (2004). Phonemes, rimes, vocabulary, and grammatical skills as foundations of early reading development: evidence from a longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 40(5), 665-681.
: Nolan, B. (2011). Meaning construction and grammatical inflection in the layered structure of the Irish word: An RRG account of morphological constructions. In W. Nakamura (Ed.), New perspectives in Role and Reference Grammar (pp. 64-101). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
: París, L. (2003). The grammatical encoding of event relations: Gerund phrases in Spanish. Tesis doctoral, State University of New York at Buffalo, U.S.A.
: Pietrandea, P. (2007). The grammatical nature of some epistemic-evidential adverbs in spoken italian. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 19(1), 39-63.
: Plungian, V. (2001). The place of evidentiality within the universal grammatical space. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(3), 349-357.
: Ravelli, L. J. (1988). Grammatical metaphor. An initial analysis. En E. Steiner & R. Veltman (Eds.), Pragmatics, discourse and text. Some systemically-inspired approaches (pp. 133-147). Londres: Pinter Publishers.
: Rose, D. (2006). Metaphors, grammatical. En K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics. 2^nd ed. (pp. 66-73). Oxford: Elsevier.
: Sheen, Y., Wright, D. & Moldawa, A. (2009). Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System, 37(4), 556-569.
: Shook, D. J. (1994). EL/L2 reading, grammatical information, and the input-to-intake phenomenon. Applied Language Learning, 5(2), 57-93.
: Silva, 2014). As will be shown, in the FrametNet English Constructicon, which appears to still be work in progress, the treatment of grammatical constructions is inconsistent in some cases.
: Slabakova, R. & Montrul, S. (2008). Aspectual shifts: Grammatical and pragmatic knowledge in L2 acquisition. En J. M. Liceras, H. Zobl & H. Goodluck (Eds.), The Role of Formal Features in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 452-483). Nueva York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
: Slobin, D. (1996). Two ways to travel: Verbs of motion in English and Spanish. En M. Shibatani & S. Thompson (Eds.), Grammatical constructions: Their form and meaning (pp. 195-217). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
: Taler, V., Baum, S. R., Chertkow, H. & Saumier, D. (2008). Comprehension of grammatical and emotional prosody is impaired in Alzheimer’s disease. Neuropsychology, 22(2), 188.
: Tenny, C. & Pustejovsky, J. (2000). A history of events in linguistic theory. En C. Tenny & J. Pustejovsky (Eds.), Events as grammatical objects (pp. 1-37). Standford: CSLI Publications.
: These results allowed to initially verify the description of the grammatical features of the DLI as a higher rate of errors, consistent with Leonard’s (2014) proposal.
: Thompson, C. K. & Mack, J. E. (2014). Grammatical impairments in PPA. Aphasiology, 28(8-9), 1018-1037.
: Tomasello, M. (1992). First verbs: A case study of early grammatical development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
: Turell, M. T. (2010). The use of textual, grammatical and sociolinguistic evidence in forensic text comparison. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 17(2), 211-250.
: Unsworth, L. (1999). Developing critical understanding of the specialised language of school science and history texts: A functional grammatical perspective. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 42, 508-521.
: Van der Lely, H. & Battell, J. (2003). WH-movement in children with grammatical SLI: A test of the RDDR hypothesis. Language, 79(1), 153-181.
: Van der Lely, H. & Stolwerck, L. (1997). Binding theory and grammatical specific language impairment in children. Cognition, 62, 245-290. Doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(96)00783-4.
: Van der Lely, H., Rosen, S. & Adlard, A. (2004). Grammatical language impairment and the specificity of cognitive domains: Relations between auditory and language abilities. Cognition, 94(2), 167-183.
: Whorf, B. L. (1945). Grammatical categories. Language, 21(1), 1-11.