<!--{{{-->
<link rel='alternate' type='application/rss+xml' title='RSS' href='index.xml' />
<!--}}}-->
Background: #fff
Foreground: #000
PrimaryPale: #8cf
PrimaryLight: #18f
PrimaryMid: #04b
PrimaryDark: #014
SecondaryPale: #ffc
SecondaryLight: #fe8
SecondaryMid: #db4
SecondaryDark: #841
TertiaryPale: #eee
TertiaryLight: #ccc
TertiaryMid: #999
TertiaryDark: #666
Error: #f88
/*{{{*/
body {background:[[ColorPalette::Background]]; color:[[ColorPalette::Foreground]];}

a {color:[[ColorPalette::PrimaryMid]];}
a:hover {background-color:[[ColorPalette::PrimaryMid]]; color:[[ColorPalette::Background]];}
a img {border:0;}

h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6 {color:[[ColorPalette::SecondaryDark]]; background:transparent;}
h1 {border-bottom:2px solid [[ColorPalette::TertiaryLight]];}
h2,h3 {border-bottom:1px solid [[ColorPalette::TertiaryLight]];}

.button {color:[[ColorPalette::PrimaryDark]]; border:1px solid [[ColorPalette::Background]];}
.button:hover {color:[[ColorPalette::PrimaryDark]]; background:[[ColorPalette::SecondaryLight]]; border-color:[[ColorPalette::SecondaryMid]];}
.button:active {color:[[ColorPalette::Background]]; background:[[ColorPalette::SecondaryMid]]; border:1px solid [[ColorPalette::SecondaryDark]];}

.header {background:[[ColorPalette::PrimaryMid]];}
.headerShadow {color:[[ColorPalette::Foreground]];}
.headerShadow a {font-weight:normal; color:[[ColorPalette::Foreground]];}
.headerForeground {color:[[ColorPalette::Background]];}
.headerForeground a {font-weight:normal; color:[[ColorPalette::PrimaryPale]];}

.tabSelected{color:[[ColorPalette::PrimaryDark]];
	background:[[ColorPalette::TertiaryPale]];
	border-left:1px solid [[ColorPalette::TertiaryLight]];
	border-top:1px solid [[ColorPalette::TertiaryLight]];
	border-right:1px solid [[ColorPalette::TertiaryLight]];
}
.tabUnselected {color:[[ColorPalette::Background]]; background:[[ColorPalette::TertiaryMid]];}
.tabContents {color:[[ColorPalette::PrimaryDark]]; background:[[ColorPalette::TertiaryPale]]; border:1px solid [[ColorPalette::TertiaryLight]];}
.tabContents .button {border:0;}

#sidebar {}
#sidebarOptions input {border:1px solid [[ColorPalette::PrimaryMid]];}
#sidebarOptions .sliderPanel {background:[[ColorPalette::PrimaryPale]];}
#sidebarOptions .sliderPanel a {border:none;color:[[ColorPalette::PrimaryMid]];}
#sidebarOptions .sliderPanel a:hover {color:[[ColorPalette::Background]]; background:[[ColorPalette::PrimaryMid]];}
#sidebarOptions .sliderPanel a:active {color:[[ColorPalette::PrimaryMid]]; background:[[ColorPalette::Background]];}

.wizard {background:[[ColorPalette::PrimaryPale]]; border:1px solid [[ColorPalette::PrimaryMid]];}
.wizard h1 {color:[[ColorPalette::PrimaryDark]]; border:none;}
.wizard h2 {color:[[ColorPalette::Foreground]]; border:none;}
.wizardStep {background:[[ColorPalette::Background]]; color:[[ColorPalette::Foreground]];
	border:1px solid [[ColorPalette::PrimaryMid]];}
.wizardStep.wizardStepDone {background:[[ColorPalette::TertiaryLight]];}
.wizardFooter {background:[[ColorPalette::PrimaryPale]];}
.wizardFooter .status {background:[[ColorPalette::PrimaryDark]]; color:[[ColorPalette::Background]];}
.wizard .button {color:[[ColorPalette::Foreground]]; background:[[ColorPalette::SecondaryLight]]; border: 1px solid;
	border-color:[[ColorPalette::SecondaryPale]] [[ColorPalette::SecondaryDark]] [[ColorPalette::SecondaryDark]] [[ColorPalette::SecondaryPale]];}
.wizard .button:hover {color:[[ColorPalette::Foreground]]; background:[[ColorPalette::Background]];}
.wizard .button:active {color:[[ColorPalette::Background]]; background:[[ColorPalette::Foreground]]; border: 1px solid;
	border-color:[[ColorPalette::PrimaryDark]] [[ColorPalette::PrimaryPale]] [[ColorPalette::PrimaryPale]] [[ColorPalette::PrimaryDark]];}

.wizard .notChanged {background:transparent;}
.wizard .changedLocally {background:#80ff80;}
.wizard .changedServer {background:#8080ff;}
.wizard .changedBoth {background:#ff8080;}
.wizard .notFound {background:#ffff80;}
.wizard .putToServer {background:#ff80ff;}
.wizard .gotFromServer {background:#80ffff;}

#messageArea {border:1px solid [[ColorPalette::SecondaryMid]]; background:[[ColorPalette::SecondaryLight]]; color:[[ColorPalette::Foreground]];}
#messageArea .button {color:[[ColorPalette::PrimaryMid]]; background:[[ColorPalette::SecondaryPale]]; border:none;}

.popupTiddler {background:[[ColorPalette::TertiaryPale]]; border:2px solid [[ColorPalette::TertiaryMid]];}

.popup {background:[[ColorPalette::TertiaryPale]]; color:[[ColorPalette::TertiaryDark]]; border-left:1px solid [[ColorPalette::TertiaryMid]]; border-top:1px solid [[ColorPalette::TertiaryMid]]; border-right:2px solid [[ColorPalette::TertiaryDark]]; border-bottom:2px solid [[ColorPalette::TertiaryDark]];}
.popup hr {color:[[ColorPalette::PrimaryDark]]; background:[[ColorPalette::PrimaryDark]]; border-bottom:1px;}
.popup li.disabled {color:[[ColorPalette::TertiaryMid]];}
.popup li a, .popup li a:visited {color:[[ColorPalette::Foreground]]; border: none;}
.popup li a:hover {background:[[ColorPalette::SecondaryLight]]; color:[[ColorPalette::Foreground]]; border: none;}
.popup li a:active {background:[[ColorPalette::SecondaryPale]]; color:[[ColorPalette::Foreground]]; border: none;}
.popupHighlight {background:[[ColorPalette::Background]]; color:[[ColorPalette::Foreground]];}
.listBreak div {border-bottom:1px solid [[ColorPalette::TertiaryDark]];}

.tiddler .defaultCommand {font-weight:bold;}

.shadow .title {color:[[ColorPalette::TertiaryDark]];}

.title {color:[[ColorPalette::SecondaryDark]];}
.subtitle {color:[[ColorPalette::TertiaryDark]];}

.toolbar {color:[[ColorPalette::PrimaryMid]];}
.toolbar a {color:[[ColorPalette::TertiaryLight]];}
.selected .toolbar a {color:[[ColorPalette::TertiaryMid]];}
.selected .toolbar a:hover {color:[[ColorPalette::Foreground]];}

.tagging, .tagged {border:1px solid [[ColorPalette::TertiaryPale]]; background-color:[[ColorPalette::TertiaryPale]];}
.selected .tagging, .selected .tagged {background-color:[[ColorPalette::TertiaryLight]]; border:1px solid [[ColorPalette::TertiaryMid]];}
.tagging .listTitle, .tagged .listTitle {color:[[ColorPalette::PrimaryDark]];}
.tagging .button, .tagged .button {border:none;}

.footer {color:[[ColorPalette::TertiaryLight]];}
.selected .footer {color:[[ColorPalette::TertiaryMid]];}

.sparkline {background:[[ColorPalette::PrimaryPale]]; border:0;}
.sparktick {background:[[ColorPalette::PrimaryDark]];}

.error, .errorButton {color:[[ColorPalette::Foreground]]; background:[[ColorPalette::Error]];}
.warning {color:[[ColorPalette::Foreground]]; background:[[ColorPalette::SecondaryPale]];}
.lowlight {background:[[ColorPalette::TertiaryLight]];}

.zoomer {background:none; color:[[ColorPalette::TertiaryMid]]; border:3px solid [[ColorPalette::TertiaryMid]];}

.imageLink, #displayArea .imageLink {background:transparent;}

.annotation {background:[[ColorPalette::SecondaryLight]]; color:[[ColorPalette::Foreground]]; border:2px solid [[ColorPalette::SecondaryMid]];}

.viewer .listTitle {list-style-type:none; margin-left:-2em;}
.viewer .button {border:1px solid [[ColorPalette::SecondaryMid]];}
.viewer blockquote {border-left:3px solid [[ColorPalette::TertiaryDark]];}

.viewer table, table.twtable {border:2px solid [[ColorPalette::TertiaryDark]];}
.viewer th, .viewer thead td, .twtable th, .twtable thead td {background:[[ColorPalette::SecondaryMid]]; border:1px solid [[ColorPalette::TertiaryDark]]; color:[[ColorPalette::Background]];}
.viewer td, .viewer tr, .twtable td, .twtable tr {border:1px solid [[ColorPalette::TertiaryDark]];}

.viewer pre {border:1px solid [[ColorPalette::SecondaryLight]]; background:[[ColorPalette::SecondaryPale]];}
.viewer code {color:[[ColorPalette::SecondaryDark]];}
.viewer hr {border:0; border-top:dashed 1px [[ColorPalette::TertiaryDark]]; color:[[ColorPalette::TertiaryDark]];}

.highlight, .marked {background:[[ColorPalette::SecondaryLight]];}

.editor input {border:1px solid [[ColorPalette::PrimaryMid]];}
.editor textarea {border:1px solid [[ColorPalette::PrimaryMid]]; width:100%;}
.editorFooter {color:[[ColorPalette::TertiaryMid]];}

#backstageArea {background:[[ColorPalette::Foreground]]; color:[[ColorPalette::TertiaryMid]];}
#backstageArea a {background:[[ColorPalette::Foreground]]; color:[[ColorPalette::Background]]; border:none;}
#backstageArea a:hover {background:[[ColorPalette::SecondaryLight]]; color:[[ColorPalette::Foreground]]; }
#backstageArea a.backstageSelTab {background:[[ColorPalette::Background]]; color:[[ColorPalette::Foreground]];}
#backstageButton a {background:none; color:[[ColorPalette::Background]]; border:none;}
#backstageButton a:hover {background:[[ColorPalette::Foreground]]; color:[[ColorPalette::Background]]; border:none;}
#backstagePanel {background:[[ColorPalette::Background]]; border-color: [[ColorPalette::Background]] [[ColorPalette::TertiaryDark]] [[ColorPalette::TertiaryDark]] [[ColorPalette::TertiaryDark]];}
.backstagePanelFooter .button {border:none; color:[[ColorPalette::Background]];}
.backstagePanelFooter .button:hover {color:[[ColorPalette::Foreground]];}
#backstageCloak {background:[[ColorPalette::Foreground]]; opacity:0.6; filter:'alpha(opacity:60)';}
/*}}}*/
/*{{{*/
* html .tiddler {height:1%;}

body {font-size:.75em; font-family:arial,helvetica; margin:0; padding:0;}

h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6 {font-weight:bold; text-decoration:none;}
h1,h2,h3 {padding-bottom:1px; margin-top:1.2em;margin-bottom:0.3em;}
h4,h5,h6 {margin-top:1em;}
h1 {font-size:1.35em;}
h2 {font-size:1.25em;}
h3 {font-size:1.1em;}
h4 {font-size:1em;}
h5 {font-size:.9em;}

hr {height:1px;}

a {text-decoration:none;}

dt {font-weight:bold;}

ol {list-style-type:decimal;}
ol ol {list-style-type:lower-alpha;}
ol ol ol {list-style-type:lower-roman;}
ol ol ol ol {list-style-type:decimal;}
ol ol ol ol ol {list-style-type:lower-alpha;}
ol ol ol ol ol ol {list-style-type:lower-roman;}
ol ol ol ol ol ol ol {list-style-type:decimal;}

.txtOptionInput {width:11em;}

#contentWrapper .chkOptionInput {border:0;}

.externalLink {text-decoration:underline;}

.indent {margin-left:3em;}
.outdent {margin-left:3em; text-indent:-3em;}
code.escaped {white-space:nowrap;}

.tiddlyLinkExisting {font-weight:bold;}
.tiddlyLinkNonExisting {font-style:italic;}

/* the 'a' is required for IE, otherwise it renders the whole tiddler in bold */
a.tiddlyLinkNonExisting.shadow {font-weight:bold;}

#mainMenu .tiddlyLinkExisting,
	#mainMenu .tiddlyLinkNonExisting,
	#sidebarTabs .tiddlyLinkNonExisting {font-weight:normal; font-style:normal;}
#sidebarTabs .tiddlyLinkExisting {font-weight:bold; font-style:normal;}

.header {position:relative;}
.header a:hover {background:transparent;}
.headerShadow {position:relative; padding:4.5em 0em 1em 1em; left:-1px; top:-1px;}
.headerForeground {position:absolute; padding:4.5em 0em 1em 1em; left:0px; top:0px;}

.siteTitle {font-size:3em;}
.siteSubtitle {font-size:1.2em;}

#mainMenu {position:absolute; left:0; width:10em; text-align:right; line-height:1.6em; padding:1.5em 0.5em 0.5em 0.5em; font-size:1.1em;}

#sidebar {position:absolute; right:3px; width:16em; font-size:.9em;}
#sidebarOptions {padding-top:0.3em;}
#sidebarOptions a {margin:0em 0.2em; padding:0.2em 0.3em; display:block;}
#sidebarOptions input {margin:0.4em 0.5em;}
#sidebarOptions .sliderPanel {margin-left:1em; padding:0.5em; font-size:.85em;}
#sidebarOptions .sliderPanel a {font-weight:bold; display:inline; padding:0;}
#sidebarOptions .sliderPanel input {margin:0 0 .3em 0;}
#sidebarTabs .tabContents {width:15em; overflow:hidden;}

.wizard {padding:0.1em 1em 0em 2em;}
.wizard h1 {font-size:2em; font-weight:bold; background:none; padding:0em 0em 0em 0em; margin:0.4em 0em 0.2em 0em;}
.wizard h2 {font-size:1.2em; font-weight:bold; background:none; padding:0em 0em 0em 0em; margin:0.4em 0em 0.2em 0em;}
.wizardStep {padding:1em 1em 1em 1em;}
.wizard .button {margin:0.5em 0em 0em 0em; font-size:1.2em;}
.wizardFooter {padding:0.8em 0.4em 0.8em 0em;}
.wizardFooter .status {padding:0em 0.4em 0em 0.4em; margin-left:1em;}
.wizard .button {padding:0.1em 0.2em 0.1em 0.2em;}

#messageArea {position:fixed; top:2em; right:0em; margin:0.5em; padding:0.5em; z-index:2000; _position:absolute;}
.messageToolbar {display:block; text-align:right; padding:0.2em 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;}
#messageArea a {text-decoration:underline;}

.tiddlerPopupButton {padding:0.2em 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em;}
.popupTiddler {position: absolute; z-index:300; padding:1em 1em 1em 1em; margin:0;}

.popup {position:absolute; z-index:300; font-size:.9em; padding:0; list-style:none; margin:0;}
.popup .popupMessage {padding:0.4em;}
.popup hr {display:block; height:1px; width:auto; padding:0; margin:0.2em 0em;}
.popup li.disabled {padding:0.4em;}
.popup li a {display:block; padding:0.4em; font-weight:normal; cursor:pointer;}
.listBreak {font-size:1px; line-height:1px;}
.listBreak div {margin:2px 0;}

.tabset {padding:1em 0em 0em 0.5em;}
.tab {margin:0em 0em 0em 0.25em; padding:2px;}
.tabContents {padding:0.5em;}
.tabContents ul, .tabContents ol {margin:0; padding:0;}
.txtMainTab .tabContents li {list-style:none;}
.tabContents li.listLink { margin-left:.75em;}

#contentWrapper {display:block;}
#splashScreen {display:none;}

#displayArea {margin:1em 17em 0em 14em;}

.toolbar {text-align:right; font-size:.9em;}

.tiddler {padding:1em 1em 0em 1em;}

.missing .viewer,.missing .title {font-style:italic;}

.title {font-size:1.6em; font-weight:bold;}

.missing .subtitle {display:none;}
.subtitle {font-size:1.1em;}

.tiddler .button {padding:0.2em 0.4em;}

.tagging {margin:0.5em 0.5em 0.5em 0; float:left; display:none;}
.isTag .tagging {display:block;}
.tagged {margin:0.5em; float:right;}
.tagging, .tagged {font-size:0.9em; padding:0.25em;}
.tagging ul, .tagged ul {list-style:none; margin:0.25em; padding:0;}
.tagClear {clear:both;}

.footer {font-size:.9em;}
.footer li {display:inline;}

.annotation {padding:0.5em; margin:0.5em;}

* html .viewer pre {width:99%; padding:0 0 1em 0;}
.viewer {line-height:1.4em; padding-top:0.5em;}
.viewer .button {margin:0em 0.25em; padding:0em 0.25em;}
.viewer blockquote {line-height:1.5em; padding-left:0.8em;margin-left:2.5em;}
.viewer ul, .viewer ol {margin-left:0.5em; padding-left:1.5em;}

.viewer table, table.twtable {border-collapse:collapse; margin:0.8em 1.0em;}
.viewer th, .viewer td, .viewer tr,.viewer caption,.twtable th, .twtable td, .twtable tr,.twtable caption {padding:3px;}
table.listView {font-size:0.85em; margin:0.8em 1.0em;}
table.listView th, table.listView td, table.listView tr {padding:0px 3px 0px 3px;}

.viewer pre {padding:0.5em; margin-left:0.5em; font-size:1.2em; line-height:1.4em; overflow:auto;}
.viewer code {font-size:1.2em; line-height:1.4em;}

.editor {font-size:1.1em;}
.editor input, .editor textarea {display:block; width:100%; font:inherit;}
.editorFooter {padding:0.25em 0em; font-size:.9em;}
.editorFooter .button {padding-top:0px; padding-bottom:0px;}

.fieldsetFix {border:0; padding:0; margin:1px 0px 1px 0px;}

.sparkline {line-height:1em;}
.sparktick {outline:0;}

.zoomer {font-size:1.1em; position:absolute; overflow:hidden;}
.zoomer div {padding:1em;}

* html #backstage {width:99%;}
* html #backstageArea {width:99%;}
#backstageArea {display:none; position:relative; overflow: hidden; z-index:150; padding:0.3em 0.5em 0.3em 0.5em;}
#backstageToolbar {position:relative;}
#backstageArea a {font-weight:bold; margin-left:0.5em; padding:0.3em 0.5em 0.3em 0.5em;}
#backstageButton {display:none; position:absolute; z-index:175; top:0em; right:0em;}
#backstageButton a {padding:0.1em 0.4em 0.1em 0.4em; margin:0.1em 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em;}
#backstage {position:relative; width:100%; z-index:50;}
#backstagePanel {display:none; z-index:100; position:absolute; width:90%; margin:0em 3em 0em 3em; padding:1em 1em 1em 1em;}
.backstagePanelFooter {padding-top:0.2em; float:right;}
.backstagePanelFooter a {padding:0.2em 0.4em 0.2em 0.4em;}
#backstageCloak {display:none; z-index:20; position:absolute; width:100%; height:100px;}

.whenBackstage {display:none;}
.backstageVisible .whenBackstage {display:block;}
/*}}}*/
/***
StyleSheet for use when a translation requires any css style changes.
This StyleSheet can be used directly by languages such as Chinese, Japanese and Korean which need larger font sizes.
***/
/*{{{*/
body {font-size:0.8em;}
#sidebarOptions {font-size:1.05em;}
#sidebarOptions a {font-style:normal;}
#sidebarOptions .sliderPanel {font-size:0.95em;}
.subtitle {font-size:0.8em;}
.viewer table.listView {font-size:0.95em;}
/*}}}*/
/*{{{*/
@media print {
#mainMenu, #sidebar, #messageArea, .toolbar, #backstageButton, #backstageArea {display: none ! important;}
#displayArea {margin: 1em 1em 0em 1em;}
/* Fixes a feature in Firefox 1.5.0.2 where print preview displays the noscript content */
noscript {display:none;}
}
/*}}}*/
<!--{{{-->
<div class='header' macro='gradient vert [[ColorPalette::PrimaryLight]] [[ColorPalette::PrimaryMid]]'>
<div class='headerShadow'>
<span class='siteTitle' refresh='content' tiddler='SiteTitle'></span>&nbsp;
<span class='siteSubtitle' refresh='content' tiddler='SiteSubtitle'></span>
</div>
<div class='headerForeground'>
<span class='siteTitle' refresh='content' tiddler='SiteTitle'></span>&nbsp;
<span class='siteSubtitle' refresh='content' tiddler='SiteSubtitle'></span>
</div>
</div>
<div id='mainMenu' refresh='content' tiddler='MainMenu'></div>
<div id='sidebar'>
<div id='sidebarOptions' refresh='content' tiddler='SideBarOptions'></div>
<div id='sidebarTabs' refresh='content' force='true' tiddler='SideBarTabs'></div>
</div>
<div id='displayArea'>
<div id='messageArea'></div>
<div id='tiddlerDisplay'></div>
</div>
<!--}}}-->
<!--{{{-->
<div class='toolbar' macro='toolbar [[ToolbarCommands::ViewToolbar]]'></div>
<div class='title' macro='view title'></div>
<div class='subtitle'><span macro='view modifier link'></span>, <span macro='view modified date'></span> (<span macro='message views.wikified.createdPrompt'></span> <span macro='view created date'></span>)</div>
<div class='tagging' macro='tagging'></div>
<div class='tagged' macro='tags'></div>
<div class='viewer' macro='view text wikified'></div>
<div class='tagClear'></div>
<!--}}}-->
<!--{{{-->
<div class='toolbar' macro='toolbar [[ToolbarCommands::EditToolbar]]'></div>
<div class='title' macro='view title'></div>
<div class='editor' macro='edit title'></div>
<div macro='annotations'></div>
<div class='editor' macro='edit text'></div>
<div class='editor' macro='edit tags'></div><div class='editorFooter'><span macro='message views.editor.tagPrompt'></span><span macro='tagChooser excludeLists'></span></div>
<!--}}}-->
To get started with this blank TiddlyWiki, you'll need to modify the following tiddlers:
* SiteTitle & SiteSubtitle: The title and subtitle of the site, as shown above (after saving, they will also appear in the browser title bar)
* MainMenu: The menu (usually on the left)
* DefaultTiddlers: Contains the names of the tiddlers that you want to appear when the TiddlyWiki is opened
You'll also need to enter your username for signing your edits: <<option txtUserName>>
These InterfaceOptions for customising TiddlyWiki are saved in your browser

Your username for signing your edits. Write it as a WikiWord (eg JoeBloggs)

<<option txtUserName>>
<<option chkSaveBackups>> SaveBackups
<<option chkAutoSave>> AutoSave
<<option chkRegExpSearch>> RegExpSearch
<<option chkCaseSensitiveSearch>> CaseSensitiveSearch
<<option chkAnimate>> EnableAnimations

----
Also see [[AdvancedOptions]]
<<importTiddlers>>
<<options>>
One of the central questions in bilingual first language acquisition research is whether bilinguals lag behind monolinguals in certain aspects of language, i.e. is their language development delayed due to the task of learning two languages. While, there has been a general consensus that the processes of BFLA are similar to those of monolingual language acquisition concerning the course of development (see, for instance De Houwer 1995; Meisel 1993), prior findings on the rate of development in monolinguals and bilinguals have been somewhat mixed: Some studies have found similar rates of development (cf. Pearson & Fern�ndez, 1994; Paradis, Crago & Genesee, 2005/2006; Paradis 2010), whereas other studies have found that bilingual children lag behind monolingual children (Gathercole 2002a, 2002b, 2007; Nicoladis, Palmer & Marentette 2007; Pérez-Leroux, Pirvulescu & Roberge 2009). Based on the analysis of complex sentences with adverbial clauses (ACs), the current study contributes to this discussion of (dis)similar rates of development by investigating bilingual children's acquisition of complex sentence constructions with adverbial clauses (ACs) in German. To this end, we relied on four indicators of the acquisition rate (1) the amount of target constructions produced (normalized frequencies of produced complex adverbial constructions), (2) the mean length of utterance (MLU), (3) lexical richness within the domain of interest and (4) adverbial conjunction usage. Fifty children aged from 4 to 6 years old (25 bilingual children (German in combination with another language)) and 25 monolinguals (German only) participated in the study. Relevant data were elicited by having all children watch an episode of a popular stop-motion animated children's television series. The children were then given a visual cue to a particular scene and asked to describe what happened in that scene. All interviews were recorded and transcribed, resulting in two corpora representing spontaneous speech produced by bilinguals (21,023 word tokens) and monolinguals (27,301 word tokens). By searching for adverbial subordinators, all instances of the target constructions were extracted from both corpora, yielding a set of 1,021 data points. Our findings are consistent with usage-based approaches to language acquisition, which predict that bilingual acquisition should proceed slower due to learners having less exposure, on average, to each language (cf. Paradis et al. 2011). Specifically, we find (1) that bilinguals produce statistically significantly fewer ACs than monolinguals after controlling for age (2) that bilinguals ACs exhibit shorter MLUs but significantly more so at an earlier age, (3) that their lexical repertoire overall is significantly more restricted in the domain of complex sentences with adverbial clauses and (4) that bilingual's productions of ACs are more strongly item-specific, i.e. organized around a relatively limited set of words and phrases.
In a recent study, Wulff & Gries (2011) put forward the constructionist definition of accuracy in L2 production as the selection of a construction in its preferred context within a particular target variety and genre. By focusing on the use of concessive adverbial clauses in L2 academic writing, the current study takes up this definition of accuracy in L2 production and sets out to explore whether, and to what extent, the ‘genre-specific construction’ (i.e. genre-specific repository of symbolic form-function alignments) of advanced German learners of academic English is similar/different to that of native expert academic writers of English. To this end, all instances of concessive adverbial clauses were extracted from a 216,418 word-token learner corpus and coded for the various factors proposed in the literature. For comparison purposes, a data set of all relevant data points was distilled from a native expert corpus of the same size and annotated in terms of the same factors. The two annotated data sets were then submitted to a Hierarchical Configural Frequency Analysis (Gries 2009). A comparison of the findings revealed a slightly different set of ‘entrenched’ adverbial concessive clauses in the learner corpus, suggesting that the learners’ genre-specific panoply of certain constructional types is still not fully established. In accordance with Wulff & Gries (2011), the findings presented here give support to a usage-based constructionist approach as a promising and viable way of measuring accuracy in L2 production. 
Keywords: accuracy in L2 production, usage-based constructionist approach, advanced learners, academic writing, hierarchical configural frequency analysis.
In a recent study, Wulff & Gries (2011) put forward the constructionist definition of accuracy in L2 production as the selection of a construction in its preferred context within a particular target variety and genre. By focusing on the use of concessive adverbial clauses in L2 academic writing, the current study takes up this definition of accuracy in L2 production and sets out to explore whether, and to what extent, the ‘genre-specific construction’ (i.e. genre-specific repository of symbolic form-function alignments) of advanced German learners of academic English is similar/different to that of native expert academic writers of English. To this end, all instances of concessive adverbial clauses were extracted from a 216,418 word-token learner corpus and coded for the various factors proposed in the literature. For comparison purposes, a data set of all relevant data points was distilled from a native expert corpus of the same size and annotated in terms of the same factors. The two annotated data sets were then submitted to a Hierarchical Configural Frequency Analysis (Gries 2009). A comparison of the findings revealed a slightly different set of ‘entrenched’ adverbial concessive clauses in the learner corpus, suggesting that the learners’ genre-specific panoply of certain constructional types is still not fully established. In accordance with Wulff & Gries (2011), the findings presented here give support to a usage-based constructionist approach as a promising and viable way of measuring accuracy in L2 production.

''Keywords'': ''accuracy in L2 production'', ''usage-based constructionist approach'', ''advanced learners'', ''academic writing'', ''hierarchical configural frequency analysis''.
[>img[kerz.jpeg]]
Privatdozentin Dr. Elma Kerz
RWTH Aachen University
Department of English Linguistics
Kármánstr. 17-19
52062 Aachen
Germany

tel: +49/241/80-95431
fax: +49/241/80-92350
email: kerz(at)anglistik.rwth-aachen.de
L2 learners reach expert levels in relative cue weighting only gradually (Ellis, 2006; MacWhinney, 2011). On the basis of ensemble machine learning models fit to naturalistic productions of native speakers and German advanced learners of English, we set out to reverse-engineer differences in the weighting of multiple cues in a clause linearization problem. We find that, while German advanced learners succeeded in identifying important cues, their assignment of cue importance differs from that of the native speaker control group: the advanced learners rely on a smaller set of perceptually salient cues and focus on cues that exhibit relatively high cue availability and relatively low cue reliability.

Keywords L2 learning, advanced learners, experience-based approaches, cue reliance, machine learning, ensemble methods, adaptive boosting, random forest, conditional inference framework, clause linearization, complex sentences
config.options.txtUserName            = "Elma Kerz";
config.options.chkAutoSave            = true;
config.options.chkGenerateAnRssFeed   = true;
config.options.chkHttpReadOnly = true;
[[Contact]]
''Abstract'': Usage-based theory conceives of linguistic knowledge as a structured repository of form-function alignments, i.e. constructions, displaying various degrees of complexity and schematicity. The present study sets out to identify complex schematic constructions that serve specific discourse-pragmatic functions. We propose a multi-step analytical procedure aimed at the recognition of constructional patterns and apply it to usage data of concessive and causal constructions in corpora representing two registers of formal written English. The analysis reveals varying numbers and types of patterns in the two investigated language domains, suggesting divergent discourse-functional needs of the two registers. Based on these results, we argue that a more adequate model of linguistic knowledge comprises a set of register-specific sub-repositories, in which constructions have register-specific strengths of mental representation (entrenchment values).
''Abstract'': Recent corpus-based research has demonstrated the effects of numerous semantic, discourse-functional and processing-related factors on the relative ordering of main and subordinate clauses in complex sentences in English (Diessel 2008, AUTHORS 2013). Focussing on complex sentences involving two semantic types of adverbial clauses (ACs), the present study investigates to what extent clause serialization choices made by German advanced learners of English are governed by the same factors as those made by expert writers. Equivalently, we ask which distributional cues advanced learners rely on when planning complex utterances involving multiple clausal constituents.  We compiled an advanced learner corpus comprising 50 term papers produced by German students of English linguistics in their second and third year of study (N ~ 216,000) and a same-sized control expert corpus of peer-reviewed articles appearing in various journals on language studies published by Elsevier. The target-constructions were identified by matching a set of subordinators in the two corpora, yielding a total amount of 1,471 data points. The target structures were subsequently annotated with information pertaining to 6 variables which target semantic, discourse functional and processing-related quantities that have been shown to influence clause order in previous studies (Diessel 2008, AUTHORS 2013) listed below. (1) Structural complexity of AC (2) Proportional size of AC (3) Presence of a cross-sentential anaphoric item (4) Balancedness/deranking of verb forms in ~ACs (5) Semantic subtype (6) Subordinator choice.  Due to some variables being highly correlated (e.g. complexity and proportional size of AC, semantic subtype and subordinator choice), we employed a random forest technique to assess the importance of each variable in predicting the relative position of the AC (ModelSpecs: Random forest of 500 conditional inference trees with bootstrap aggregating, variable importance assessed via conditional permutation variable importance; cf. Strobl et al. 2008). The analysis reveals that expert clause ordering is most strongly governed by the choice of subordinator, which reflects the effect of subtle semantic differences on clause positioning (Quirk et al 1985: 1098ff.). The second most important variable is the presence of an anaphoric item, indicating a bridging function of the AC (Verstrate 2004) followed by the relative size of the AC. In learner language, it is the presence of a cross-sentential anaphor that is the strongest determinant of clause position, relegating subordinator choice to a secondary role. Learners also rely less than experts on proportional AC-size and, also in contrast to experts, their choices are more strongly co-determined by the semantic type and the complexity of the AC, which play only marginal roles in expert language. In summary, our results suggest that German advanced learners of English tend to underestimate the role of subtle semantic differences associated with subordinator choices and overestimate the role of structural factors and organization levels that are not very relevant to the expert. More generally, our results corroborate prior experimental research, which found that L2 learners only gradually reach expert levels in cue strength and reliability (cf. Ellis and Robinson 2008: 8).
[[Contact]]
[[Research]]
[[Talks]]
[[Teaching]]

''Abstract'': Although Bilingual First Language Acquisition research has increased considerably over the past few decades, there is still much controversy regarding the rate of development, i.e. the question whether bilinguals lag behind their monolingual peers in various aspects of language. Some studies have found similar rates of development, whereas others have found that bilingual children lag behind their monolingual peers. The current study contributes to this discussion of (dis)similar rates of development by investigating bilingual children’s acquisition of German complex sentence constructions involving adverbial clauses (~ACs). Our findings are consistent with usage-based approaches to language acquisition, which predict that bilingual acquisition should proceed slower due to learners having less exposure, on average, to each language.

''Keywords: bilingual first language acquisition; language production; rate of development; complex constructions''
<div class='header' macro='gradient vert [[ColorPalette::PrimaryLight]] [[ColorPalette::PrimaryMid]]'>
<div class='headerShadow'>
<span class='siteTitle' refresh='content' tiddler='SiteTitle'></span>&nbsp;
<span class='siteSubtitle' refresh='content' tiddler='SiteSubtitle'></span>
</div>
<div class='headerForeground'>
<span class='siteTitle' refresh='content' tiddler='SiteTitle'></span>&nbsp;
<span class='siteSubtitle' refresh='content' tiddler='SiteSubtitle'></span>
</div>
</div>
<div id='mainMenu' refresh='content' tiddler='MainMenu'></div>
<div id='sidebar'>
<div id='sidebarOptions' refresh='content' tiddler='SideBarOptions'></div>
<div id='sidebarTabs' refresh='macro' force='true' macro='slider chkSideBarTabs SideBarTabs "index »" "display lists of tiddlers"'></div>
</div>
<div id='displayArea'>
<div id='messageArea'></div>
<div id='tiddlerDisplay'></div>
</div>
''Abstract'': Recent years have seen a growing interest in usage-based (UB) theories of language, which assume that language use plays a causal role in the development of linguistic systems over historical time. A central assumption of the ~UB-framework is the idea that shapes of grammars are closely connected to principles of human cognitive processing (Bybee 2006, Givon 1991, Hawkins 2004). ~UB-accounts strongly gravitate towards sign- or construction-based theories of language, viz. theories that are committed to the belief that linguistic knowledge is best conceived of as an assembly of symbolic structures (e.g. Goldberg 2006, Langacker 2008, Sag et al. 2003). These constructionist accounts share (1) the postulation of a single representational format of all linguistic knowledge and (2) claim a strong commitment to psychological plausibility of mechanisms for the learning, storage, and retrieval of linguistic units. They do, however, exhibit a considerable degree of variation with respect to their architectural and mechanistic details (cf. Croft & Cruse 2004). A key issue is the balancing of storage parsimony and processing parsimony: Maximizing storage parsimony is taken to imply greater computational demand and vice versa. The space of logical possibilities ranges from a complete inheritance model (minimal storage redundancy) to a full-entry model (maximal storage redundancy). Currently, the empirical validation of the theoretical situation is not yet conclusive: the representations involved in language processing involve extremely fine-grained lexical-structural co-occurrences, for example frequent four-word phrases are processed faster than infrequent ones (Bannard and Matthews 2008, Arnon and Snider 2010). On the other hand, syntactic exemplar models (Bod 2006) have been argued to overfit and undergeneralize compared to models that do not store all structures in the training data (cf. Post and Gildea 2009, although they found that Tree Substitution Grammar representations induced in a Bayesian framework still split the parsimony continuum towards greater redundancy). Also, experimental work has argued that models of categorization that directly map phonetic dimensions to phonological categories (and therefore more directly reflect the statistics of the training data) do not predict human behavior as well as models that assume independent, intermediate representations (Toscano and ~McMurray 2010). Additionally, recent work has provided evidence that early evidence for full-entry models from item-based learning in acquisition (e.g. Pine & Lieven 1997) is confounded, reopening this line of research as well (Yang, unpublished manuscript).
Abstract
One of the main assumptions of usage-based constructionist approaches is that linguistic knowledge is best conceived of as a repository of constructions, which emerge from experience with language and whose strength of mental representation (entrenchment) is a function of their usage-frequency. On the basis of a multi-step statistical procedure geared to identify patterns of adverbial clause constructions in two distinct registers, we argue that a model of language that generalizes over situational contexts is implausible and that a more adequate model of linguistic knowledge comprises a set of sub-repositories that are adapted to the discourse-functional needs of situational contexts, in which constructions have register-specific entrenchment values.
 
Keywords: 
usage-based constructionist approaches, adverbial clauses, entrenchment, register, random forest, configural frequency analysis
* Kerz, Elma & Daniel Wiechmann (2015). "[[Second Language Construction Learning: Investigating Domain-Specific Adaptation in Advanced L2 Production]]". . //Language and Cognition//. 7(1): 1-33.

* Kerz, Elma & Daniel Wiechmann (2015). "[[Register-Contingent Entrenchment of Constructional Patterns: Causal and Concessive Adverbial Clauses in Academic and Newspaper Writing]]". //Journal of English Linguistics//. 43(1): 61-85.

*Wiechmann, Daniel & Elma Kerz (2014). "[[Cue Reliance in L2 Written Production]]". //Language Learning//. 64(2): 343-364. 

* Wiechmann, Daniel, Neal Snider, Elma Kerz, and T. Florian Jaeger (2013). "[[Parsimony and Redundancy in Models of Language]]". Special Issue of //Language and Speech// (SAGE), 15(3).

* Kerz, Elma (2013). "[[Concessive Adverbial Clauses in L2 Academic Writing]]". In S. Granger, G. Gilquin & F. Meunier (Eds.) //Twenty Years of Learner Corpus Research: Looking back, Moving ahead. Corpora and Language in Use – Proceedings 1//, ~Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain, pp. 263-276.

* Wiechmann, Daniel & Elma Kerz (2013). "[[The Positioning of Concessive Adverbial Clauses in English: Assessing the Importance of Discourse-Pragmatic and Processing-Based Constraints]]". //English Language and Linguistics//. 17(1): 1-23.

* Wiechmann, Daniel, Judith Steinfeld & Elma Kerz (2013). "[[Modeling Bilingual Children’s Acquisition of Complex Sentences in German]]". Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (~CogSci 13), Berlin, Germany: Cognitive Science Society.

* Kerz, Elma (2012). "[[The Role of Genre in Information Structuring in English]]". In: Defrancq, Bart, Gudrun Rawoens and Els Tobback (Eds). Information Structure, Discourse Structure and Grammatical Structure //Special Issue of Belgian Journal of Linguistics//, pp. 143-159.

* Kerz, Elma (2011). The role of low-level schemas in English academic writing: A usage-based constructionist approach. //Grammatik und Korpora 2009//, M. Konopka, J. Kubczak, C. Mair, F. Sticha & U. H. Waßner (eds.), pp. 229-253. Tübingen: Narr.

* Kerz, Elma & Florian Haas (2009). The aim is to analyse NP: the function of prefabricated chunks in academic texts. //Formulaic Language: Volume 1. Distribution and historical change.// Roberta Corrigan, Edith Moravcsik, Hamid Ouali & Kathleen Wheatley (Eds.), pp. 97-116. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

* Kerz, Elma (2008). The cognitive and pragmatic motivations for the use of nominalizations in academic texts. //English as an Additional Language in Research Publication and Communication// (Linguistic Insights Series), Sally Burges & Pedro Martin (Eds.). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

* Kerz, Elma (2007). //Modeling the Research Process in Academic Texts: A ~Corpus-Based Study.// (~PhD thesis, RWTH Aachen).

* Kerz, Elma (2006). 'A constructionist corpus-based approach to the analysis of research verbs in academic texts. //New voices in linguistics,// E. T. Vold; G. I. Lyse & A. Müller Gjesdal (eds.), pp. 3-17. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

* Meyer, Paul Georg and Elma Kerz (2004). Towards a conception of lexical pragmatics. //Anglistentag 2003 München:// proceedings, pp. 97-101. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.

<<search>><<closeAll>><<permaview>><<newTiddler>><<newJournal "DD MMM YYYY" "journal">><<saveChanges>>
<<tabs txtMainTab "All" "All tiddlers" TabAll "Tags" "All tags" TabTags "More" "More lists" TabMore>>
[>img[RWTH Aachen University|rwth.png][http://www.rwth-aachen.de/]]
Elma Kerz
[>img[RWTH Aachen University|rwth.png][http://www.rwth-aachen.de/]]
/*{{{*/

body {
 font-size: 0.9em;
 font-family:geneva, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;
}

.siteTitle {
 font-size: 2em;
 font-weight: bold;
 position: absolute;
 right: 258px;
 top: 1.4em;
 color: #fff;
 float: left;
}

.siteSubtitle {
 font-size: 1.4em;
 color: #fff;
 display: block;
 position: absolute;
 top: 2em;
 right: 60px;
 text-align: right;
}

.siteSubtitle  a:link, a:visited, a:active{color:white; text-decoration:none;}
.siteSubtitle  a:hover{color:blue; background: white}

#sidebarTabs .button {
 margin:0em 0.2em;
 padding:0.2em 0.3em;
 display:block;
}


/*}}}*/
* 2013a. "Formulaicity as a determinant of processing efficiency: Investigating clause ordering in complex constructions." ICAME 34 Workshop: Processing in corpora: ‘Support strategies’ in language variation and change. Santiago de Compostela, ES, 22-26.5. 2013. (mit Daniel Wiechmann) 

* 2013b. "Modeling Bilingual Children's Acquisition of Complex Sentences in German." 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society Berlin, 31.7.-3.8.2013. (mit Daniel Wiechmann & Judith Steinfeld)

* 2013c. "Learning cues for accurate L2 production: Determinants of clause order in complex sentences." SLE 2013, 46th Annual Meeting of the Societas Linguistica Europaea, Split University, Croatia, 18.9.-21.9.2013. (mit Daniel Wiechmann)

* 2012a. ''Genre-specific properties of adverbial clauses in English academic writing and newspaper texts.'' 5th ~FLaRN Conference, Formulaic Language Research Network, Tilburg University, 28-30.3.2012. (with Daniel Wiechmann)

* 2012b. ''The acquisition of complex sentence constructions by bilingual pre-school children.'' 35th International LAUD Symposium: Cognitive Psycholinguistics: Bilingualism, Cognition and Communication, Landau/Pfalz, 26-29.3.2012. (with Judith Steinfeld)

* 2012c. ''Positioning of concessive adverbial clauses in English: Assessing the importance of discourse-pragmatic and processing-based constraints.'' 5th German Cognitive Linguistics Conference. University of Freiburg, Germany, October 2012 (with Daniel Wiechmann)

* 2012d. ''The acquisition of complex sentence constructions by bilingual pre-school children.'' 5th German Cognitive Linguistics Conference. University of Freiburg, Germany, October 2012 (with Judith Steinfeld)

* 2012d. ''Concessive clauses in L2 academic writing.'' 5th German Cognitive Linguistics Conference. University of Freiburg, Germany, October 2012.

* 2011a. ''Concessive and reason adverbial clauses in English academic writing: A multifactorial approach.'' 4th International Conference on the Linguistics of Contemporary English, Osnabrück, 19-23.7.2011 

* 2011c. ''Concessive adverbial clauses in L2 academic writing'', Learner Corpus Research 2011, “20 years of learner corpus research: looking back, moving forward, ~Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 15-17.9.2011

* 2010a. ''How formulaic is the language of English print ads?'' Interdisciplinary Conference on Formulaic Language, 4th International ~FLaRN conference, University of Paderborn, 23-26.3.2010

* 2010b. ''Multifactorial approach to questions in English print advertising.'' Pattern Finding and Finding Evidence for Patterns, Workshop organized by Ad Backus, Tilburg, Netherlands, May 2010.

* 2010c. ''Genre considerations in information packaging: A corpus-based study.'' ICAME 31: Corpus Linguistics and Variation in English, Justus Liebig Universität Giessen, 26-30.5.2010

* 2010d. ''Questions in English print ads: A multifactorial analysis.'' 6th international conference on Construction Grammar, Prague, October 3-5 2010.

* 2010e. ''A usage-based constructionist approach to polar questions in English print ads.'' 4th International Conference of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, Bremen, 7-9.10.2010

* 2010f. ''Competing factors in grammaticalization.'' 4th International Conference of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association, Bremen, 7-9.10.2010

* 2010g. ''Grammaticalization and low-level schemas: Moving along the syntax-lexicon continuum.'' International Conference on Grammaticalization and (Inter)Subjectification, 11-13.11.2010, Brussels

* 2009a. ''Grammaticalization of evidential constructions in English academic writing: A usage-based approach.'' Grammars in Construction(s), Third International ~AFLiCo Conference, University Paris Ouest, Nanterre, La Défense, 27-29.05.2009

* 2009b. ''Adjectival resultative constructions in English print advertisements: A corpus-based constructionist approach.'' Grammars in Construction(s), Third International ~AFLiCo Conference, University Paris Ouest, Nanterre, La Défense, 27-29.05.2009

* 2009c. ''Conceptualization of events in English academic texts: A Cognitive Grammar approach.'' Second Conference of the Swedish Association for Language and Cognition (SALC), Stockholm University, June 10-12.2009

* 2009d. ''High-frequency verbs in English print advertisements: A corpus-based constructionist approach.'' The Third International Conference on the Linguistics of Contemporary English (~ICLCE3), University of London, 14-17.07.2009

* 2009e. ''Give your eyes the comfort they deserve: Imperative constructions in English print ads.'' Corpus Linguistics Conference, University of Liverpool, 20-23.07.2009

* 2009f. ''Flexible formulaic sequences in English academic writing.'' Third International Conference ‘Grammar & Corpora’, University of Mannheim, 22-24.09.2009

* 2008a. ''Condensation strategies and information packaging in English academic texts.'' DG 2008 International Conference on Discourse and Grammar: Illocutionary force, information structure and subordination between discourse and grammar, Ghent University and University College Ghent, 23-24 May 2008.

* 2008b. '''NP be found/shown/seen/observed to Vinf': Grammaticalization of evidentiality in the register of academic writing?'' New Reflections on Grammaticalization 4, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 16-19 July 2008. (with Paul Georg Meyer)

* 2008c. ''Register-specific partially lexically-filled constructions: A case study of the use of research verbs in academic texts.'' Third International Conference of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association (~GCLA-08), Universität Leipzig, 25-27 September 2008.

* 2007a. ''The cognitive and pragmatic motivations for the use of nominalizations in academic texts.'' La Laguna, Tenerife, 11-13 January 2007.

* 2007b: ''The aim is to analyze NP: the function of prefabricated chunks in academic texts.'' UWM Linguistics Symposium on Formulaic Language, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. 18-21 April 2007. (with Florian Haas)

* 2007c. ''Register and constructions: A case study of the use of resultative constructions in the language of advertising.'' 10th International Pragmatics Conference. Göteborg, 8-13 July 2007.

* 2007d. ''Formelhafte Wendungen in englischen Wissenschaftstexten: Kompetenzen für das fachinternen Wissenstransfer.'' Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Angewandte Linguistik, Hildesheim, 26-28 September 2007. (with Paul Georg Meyer)

* 2006a. ''English verbs and constructions: two case studies and some implications for a constructionist approach to grammatical structure.'' Directions in English Language Studies (DELS), University of Manchester, 06.-08.04.2006. (with Florian Haas)

* 2006b. ''The interaction between register and constructional meaning: A case study of the use of constructions in the language of advertising.'' Second International Conference of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association. Munich, 5-7 October 2006.

* 2005a. ''A constructionist corpus-based approach to the analysis of research verbs in academic texts.'' The First Ph.D. Conference in Linguistics and Philology in Bergen, 13-15.06. 2005.

* 2005b. ''A construction grammar approach to the analysis of lexico-grammatical patterns in academic texts.'' Phraseology 2005: The many faces of phraseology, Université Catholique de Louvain, 13-15.10. 2005.

* 2005c. ''Is the concept of 'entrenchment' domain-specific?'' First UK Cognitive Linguistics Conference, Brighton, UK, 23-25.10.2005

* 2004. ''A schematic model for describing the use of verbs in academic texts.'' 35. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Angewandte Linguistik (GAL): Mehrsprachige Individuen – vielsprachige Gesellschaften, Wuppertal, 23-25.09. 2004.

* ''Analyzing Variation in English'' (summer term 2013)
* ''Linguistic Methods'' (winter term 2012-2013)
* ''Discourse Analysis'' (summer term 2012)
* ''Second Language Acquisition & Quantitative Corpus Linguistics'' (winter term 2011-2012)
* ''Second Language Acquisition'' (winter term 2010-2011)
* ''Introduction to English Linguistics'' (winter term 2009-2010, winter term 2012-2013)
* ''The English Lexicon'' (winter term 2009-2010)
* ''Formulaic Language'' (winter term 2009-2010)
* ''Formal and Functional Approaches to Grammar'' (summer term 2009)
* ''Psycholinguistics'' (winter term 2008-2009, summer term 2010)
* ''Introduction to ~Computer-Based Linguistics'' (each semester from winter term 2003-2004)
* ''The Language of Advertising'' (winter term 2004-2005, summer term 2006, summer term 2007, summer 2008)
* ''Information Structure'' (summer term 2007, summer term 2007-2008)
* ''Construction Grammar'' (summer term 2004, winter term 2004-2005, winter term 2006-2007)
* ''Introduction to English Linguistics'' (winter term 2006-2007)
* ''Language Acquisition'' (winter term 2005-2006)
* ''Cognitive Linguistics'' (summer term 2005)
* ''Cognitive Grammar'' (summer term 2004)
* ''Semantics'' (winter term 2003-2004)
English permits adverbial subordinate clauses to be placed either before or after their associated main clause. Previous research has shown that the positioning is conditioned by various factors from the domains of semantics, discourse pragmatics and language processing. With the exception of Diessel (2008), these factors have never been investigated in concert, which makes it difficult to understand their relative importance. Diessel's study, however, discusses only temporal constructions and identifies iconicity of sequence as the strongest predictor of clause position. Since this explanation is, in principle, unavailable for other types of subordinate clauses, the generalizability of Diessel's findings is somewhat limited. The present study offers a multifactorial analysis of 2,000 concessive constructions from the written part of the BNC and assesses the variable importance of six factors for the ordering choice, showing that semantic and discourse-pragmatic factors are much stronger predictors of clause position than processing-based, weight-related ones. On a methodological note, the study proposes that random forests using conditional inference trees constitute the preferred tool for the general type of problem investigated here.
n a recent paper, Biber and Gray (2010) provide empirical evidence for the dramatic increase of compressed structures in English academic writing over the last 100 years. According to their corpus findings, the grammatical complexity of academic writing displays a phrasal rather than clausal character, the corollary of which is a compressed rather than elaborated discourse style (the latter one being typical of spoken registers). Given this finding, the question arises as to how far the traditional view that information structure should be viewed as a single partition of information within a given utterance adequately accounts for genre-specific information packaging strategies. To provide an answer to this question, the current study sets out to explore and compare information structuring within what will be referred to here as ‘compression strategies’, namely the use of adverbial subordinate clauses, -ING constructions, and complex NP constructions across two different genres: the highly compressed genre of research article abstracts, and fiction. The findings reported here suggest that in more compressed discourse styles such as academic writing, there is a higher probability of encountering information structure partition not only at the clausal but also at the phrasal level. The present paper highlights the importance of genre variation as one predictor of variation in information structuring within constructions.
Keywords: information packaging, genre-specificity, compression strategies, English academic writing, complex sentence constructions
''Abstract'': English permits adverbial subordinate  clauses to be placed either before or after their  associated main clause. Previous research has shown that the positioning is conditioned  by various factors from the domains of semantics, discourse pragmatics and language  processing. With the exception Diessel (2008), these factors have never been  investigated in concert, which makes it difficult to understand their relative importance. Diessel's study, however, discusses only temporal constructions and identifies iconicity  of sequence as the strongest predictor of clause position. Since this explanation is, in  principle, unavailable for other types of subordinate clauses, the  generalizability of  Diessel's findings is somewhat limited. The present study offers a multifactorial  analysis of  2,000  concessive constructions from the written part of the BNC and  assesses the variable importance of six factors for the ordering choice, showing that  semantic and  discourse-pragmatic  factors  are  much stronger predictors  of clause  position than processing-based, weight-related ones. On a methodological note, the  study proposes that random forests using conditional inference trees constitute the  preferred tool for the general type of problem investigated here.
In a recent paper, Biber and Gray (2010) provide empirical evidence for the dramatic increase of compressed structures in English academic writing over the last 100 years. According to their corpus findings, the grammatical complexity of academic writing displays a phrasal rather than clausal character, the corollary of which is a compressed rather than elaborated discourse style (the latter one being typical of spoken registers). Given this finding, the question arises as to how far the traditional view that information structure should be viewed as a single partition of information within a given utterance adequately accounts for genre-specific information packaging strategies. To provide an answer to this question, the current study sets out to explore and compare information structuring within what will be referred to here as ‘compression strategies’, namely the use of adverbial subordinate clauses, -ING constructions, and complex NP constructions across two different genres: the highly compressed genre of research article abstracts, and fiction. The findings reported here suggest that in more compressed discourse styles such as academic writing, there is a higher probability of encountering information structure partition not only at the clausal but also at the phrasal level. The present paper highlights the importance of genre variation as one predictor of variation in information structuring within constructions.

''Keywords: information packaging, genre-specificity, compression strategies, English academic writing, complex sentence constructions.''
<!--{{{-->
<div class='toolbar' macro='toolbar [[ToolbarCommands::ViewToolbar]]'></div>
<div class='title' macro='view title'></div>
<div class='viewer' macro='view text wikified'></div>
<div class='tagClear'></div>
<!--}}}-->