Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-th4rj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T12:30:15.574Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pedagogical Linguistics: Connecting Formal Linguistics to Language Teaching

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Andreas Trotzke
Andreas Trotzke*
Affiliation:
University of Konstanz
*
[andreas.trotzke@uni-konstanz.de]
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article reports on the beginning of a new pan-European enterprise called pedagogical linguistics, which can be distinguished from related approaches on several grounds. Crucially, pedagogical linguistics centers on teaching structural properties of ‘language’, not just properties of specific languages. Although this crosslinguistic perspective on language is already part of language practitioners' training, student teachers are often not able to draw the connection between formal linguistic training and their teaching in a multilingual classroom. Pedagogical linguistics addresses this lack of awareness and therefore aims at raising ‘linguistic’ awareness (in addition to language awareness) by highlighting the relevance of formal structural concepts for language pedagogy.

Keywords

descriptive linguisticsEuropeformal linguisticslanguage pedagogymultilingualismpedagogical linguistics

Information

Type
Teaching Linguistics
Information
Language , Volume 99 , Issue 3 , September 2023, pp. e153 - e175
Copyright
Copyright © 2023 Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alderson, J. Charles, and Hudson, Richard. 2013. The metalinguistic knowledge of undergraduate students of English language or linguistics. Language Awareness 22(4). 320–37. DOI: 10.1080/09658416.2012.722644.10.1080/09658416.2012.722644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen. 2020. Pedagogical linguistics: A view from L2 pragmatics. Pedagogical Linguistics 1(1). 44–65. DOI: 10.1075/pl.19013.bar.10.1075/pl.19013.barCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayram, Fatih, and Wright, Clare. 2018. Turkish heritage language acquisition and maintenance in Germany. Handbook of research and practice in heritage language education, ed. by Trifonas, Peter Pericles and Aravossitas, Themistoklis, 481–502. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-38893-9_49-1.10.1007/978-3-319-44694-3_49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, Huw. 2016. Teacher knowledge and beliefs about grammar: A case study of an English primary school. English in Education 50(2). 148–63. DOI: 10.1111/eie.12100.10.1111/eie.12100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bialystok, Ellen, Craik, Fergus I. M.; and Luk, Gigi. 2012. Bilingualism: Consequences for mind and brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 16(4). 240–50. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2012.03.001.10.1016/j.tics.2012.03.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Block, David. 2003. The social turn in second language acquisition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. DOI: 10.1515/9781474464505.Google Scholar
Boers, Frank. 2013. Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching vocabulary: Assessment and integration. Language Teaching 46(2). 208–24. DOI: 10.1017/S0261444811000450.10.1017/S0261444811000450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borg, Simon. 2010. Language teacher research engagement. Language Teaching 43(4). 391–429. DOI: 10.1017/S0261444810000170.10.1017/S0261444810000170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bravo, Ana. 2021. Students' errors in L1 Spanish grammar from the perspective of formal linguistics. Pedagogical Linguistics 2(2). 153–74. DOI: 10.1075/pl.21004.bra.10.1075/pl.21004.braCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian syntax: A government-binding approach. Dordrecht: Reidel.10.1007/978-94-009-4522-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, Ronald. 2003. Language awareness. ELT Journal 57(1). 64–65. DOI: 10.1093/elt/57.1.64.10.1093/elt/57.1.64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Council of Europe. 2007. From linguistic diversity to plurilingual education: Guide for the development of language education policies in Europe. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Online: https://www.coe.int/en/web/language-policy/from-linguistic-diversity-to-plurilingual-education-guide-for-the-development-of-language-education-policies-in-europe.Google Scholar
De Houwer, Annick, and Ortega, Lourdes. 2019. Learning, using, and unlearning more than one language. The Cambridge handbook of bilingualism, ed. by De Houwer, Annick and Ortega, Lourdes, 1–12. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/9781316831922.001.Google Scholar
De Knop, Sabine, and Gilquin, Gaëtanelle (eds.) 2016. Applied construction grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI: 10.1515/9783110458268.10.1515/9783110458268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeKeyser, Robert M., and Prieto-Botana, Goretti. 2019. Current research on instructed second language learning: A bird's eye view. Doing SLA research with implications for the classroom: Reconciling methodological demands and pedagogical applicability, ed. by DeKeyser, Robert M. and Prieto-Botana, Goretti, 1–7. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/lllt.52.01dek.10.1075/lllt.52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
den Besten, Hans. 1983. On the interaction of root transformations and lexical deletive rules. On the formal syntax of the Westgermania, ed. by Abraham, Werner, 47–131. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/la.3.03bes.10.1075/la.3.03besCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denham, Kristin, and Lobeck, Anne (eds.) 2010. Linguistics at school: Language awareness in primary and secondary education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511770791.10.1017/CBO9780511770791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Döring, Sandra. 2020. Shaking students' beliefs about grammar: Some thoughts on the academic education of future language teachers. Formal linguistics and language education: New empirical perspectives, ed. by Trotzke, Andreas and Kupisch, Tanja, 91–110. Cham: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-39257-4_6.10.1007/978-3-030-39257-4_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, Rod. 2003. Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Elsner, Daniela. 2021. Knowledge about grammar and the role of epistemological beliefs. Pedagogical Linguistics 2(2). 107–28. DOI: 10.1075/pl.21003.els.10.1075/pl.21003.elsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eurobarometer. 2012. Public opinion in the European Union (First results from Eurobarometer 78). Brussels: European Commission. DOI: 10.4232/1.12061.Google Scholar
Fontich, Xavier, and Camps, Anna. 2014. Towards a rationale for research into grammar teaching in schools. Research Papers in Education 29(5). 598–625. DOI: 10.1080/02671522.2013.813579.10.1080/02671522.2013.813579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Funke, Reinold. 2018. Working on grammar at school: Empirical research from German-speaking regions. L1-Educational Studies in Language and Literature 18. 1–39. DOI: 10.17239/L1ESLL-2018.18.04.05.10.17239/L1ESLL-2018.18.04.05CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gil, Kook-Hee, and Rastelli, Stefano (eds.) 2018. Second language teaching and generative linguistics. (Special issue of Instructed Second Language Acquisition 2(2).) Online: https://journal.equinoxpub.com/ISLA/issue/view/21.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199268511.001.0001.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2010. Framework-free grammatical theory. The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, ed. by Heine, Bernd and Narrog, Heiko, 341–65. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199544004.013.0014.Google Scholar
Henrich, Joseph, Heine, Steven J.; and Norenzayan, Ara. 2010. Most people are not WEIRD. Nature 466. 29. DOI: 10.1038/466029a.10.1038/466029aCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirakawa, Makiko. 2013. Alternations and argument structure in second language English: Knowledge of two types of intransitive verbs. Universal grammar and the second language classroom, ed. by Whong, Melinda, Gil, Kook-Hee, and Marsden, Heather, 117–37. Cham: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-6362-3_7.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Ludger, Kameyama, Shinichi, Riedel, Monika, Sahiner, Pembe; and Wulff, Nadja (eds.) 2017. Deutsch als Zweitsprache: Ein Handbuch für die Lehrerausbildung. Berlin: Erich Schmidt.Google Scholar
Hudson, Richard. 2020. Towards a pedagogical linguistics. Pedagogical Linguistics 1(1). 8–33. DOI: 10.1075/pl.19011.hud.10.1075/pl.19011.hudCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hult, Francis M. 2008. The history and development of educational linguistics. In Spolsky & Hult, 10–24. DOI: 10.1002/9780470694138.ch2.10.1002/9780470694138.ch2.10.1002/9780470694138.ch2.10.1002/9780470694138.ch2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hult, Francis M. 2018. Language policy and planning and linguistic landscapes. The Oxford handbook of language policy and planning, ed. by Tollefson, James W. and Pérez-Milans, Miguel, 333–51. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190458898.013.35.Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred, Błaszczak, Joanna, Lessmöllmann, Annette, André, Meinunger, Stiebels, Barbara, Tracy, Rosemarie; and Truckenbrodt, Hubert (eds.) 2014. Das mehrsprachige Klassenzimmer: Über die Muttersprachen unserer Schüler. Berlin: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-34315-5.10.1007/978-3-642-34315-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumaravadivelu, Bala. 1994. The postmethod condition: (E)merging strategies for second/foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly 28(1). 27–48. DOI: 10.2307/3587197.10.2307/3587197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumaravadivelu, Bala. 2006a. Understanding language teaching: From method to post-method. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. DOI: 10.4324/9781410615725.10.4324/9781410615725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumaravadivelu, Bala. 2006b. TESOL methods: Changing tracks, challenging trends. TESOL Quarterly 40(1). 59–81. DOI: 10.2307/40264511.10.2307/40264511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, Diane. 2000. Techniques and principles in language teaching. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leiner, Dominik J. 2014. SoSci Survey. Version 2.6.00–i. Online: https://www.soscisurvey.de/en/index.Google Scholar
Leist-Villis, Anja. 2017. Einstellungen pädagogischer Fachkräfte zu Mehrsprachigkeit: Ein Erhebungsinstrument. Bonn: freisprachigkeit.net. Online: http://zweisprachigkeit.net/Leist-Villis%202017%20Einstellungen%20zu%20Mehrsprachigkeit%20Ein%20Erhebungsintrument.Google Scholar
Littlemore, Jeannette. 2009. Applying cognitive linguistics to second language learning and teaching. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: 10.1057/9780230245259.10.1057/9780230245259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewen, Shawn, and Sato, Masatoshi. 2017. Instructed second language acquisition (ISLA): An overview. The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition, ed. by Loewen, Shawn and Sato, Masatoshi, 1–12. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315676968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, Michael. 1991. Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective, ed. by de Bot, Kees, Ginsberg, Ralph, and Kramsch, Claire, 39–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/sibil.2.07lonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, Michael, and Robinson, Peter. 1998. Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition, ed. by Doughty, Catherine and Williams, Jessica, 15–41. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
MacSwan, Jeff. 2017. A multilingual perspective on translanguaging. American Educational Research Journal 54(1). 167–201. DOI: 10.3102/0002831216683935.10.3102/0002831216683935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mallinson, Christine, and Charity Hudley, Anne H.. 2018. Balancing the communication equation: An outreach and engagement model for using sociolinguistics to enhance culturally and linguistically sustaining K–12 STEM education. Language 94.e191–e215. DOI: 10.1353/lan.2018.0048.10.1353/lan.2018.0048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsden, Emma, and Kasprowicz, Rowena. 2017. Foreign language educators' exposure to research: Reported experiences, exposure via citations, and a proposal for action. Modern Language Journal 101. 613–42. DOI: 10.1111/modl.12426.10.1111/modl.12426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsden, Heather, and Slabakova, Roumyana. 2019. Grammatical meaning and the second language classroom: Introduction. Language Teaching Research 23. 147–57. DOI: 10.1177/1362168817752718.10.1177/1362168817752718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medgyes, Péter. 2017a. The (ir)relevance of academic research for the language teacher. ELT Journal 71(4). 491–98. DOI: 10.1093/elt/ccx034.10.1093/elt/ccx034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medgyes, Péter. 2017b. A response to Amos Paran. ELT Journal 71(4). 509–10. DOI: 10.1093/elt/ccx035.10.1093/elt/ccx035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naumovich, Olga. 2017. Russisch. In Hoffmann et al., 114–29.Google Scholar
Norris, John M., and Ortega, Lourdes. 2000. Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning 50(4). 417–528. DOI: 10.1111/0023-8333.00136.10.1111/0023-8333.00136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nygård, Mari, and Brøseth, Heidi. 2021. Norwegian teacher students' conceptions of grammar. Pedagogical Linguistics 2(2). 129–52. DOI: 10.1075/pl.21005.nyg.10.1075/pl.21005.nygCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oakhill, Jane. 2023. Children's text comprehension: From theory & research to support & intervention. Pedagogical Linguistics 4(1). 1–25. DOI: 10.1075/pl.21015.oak.10.1075/pl.21015.oakCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olfert, Helena, and Schmitz, Anke. 2018. Heritage language education in Germany: A focus on Turkish and Russian from primary to higher education. Handbook of research and practice in heritage language education, ed. by Trifonas, Peter Pericles and Aravossitas, Themistoklis, 397–415. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-38893-9_25-2.10.1007/978-3-319-44694-3_25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortega, Lourdes. 2005. Methodology, epistemology, and ethics in instructed SLA research: An introduction. The Modern Language Journal 89(3). 317–27. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2005.00307.x.10.1111/j.1540-4781.2005.00307.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piccardo, Enrica, Germain-Rutherford, Aline; and Lawrence, Geoff. 2022. An introduction to plurilingualism and this handbook. The Routledge handbook of plurilingual language education, ed. by Piccardo, Enrica, Germain-Rutherford, Aline, and Lawrence, Geoff, 1–15. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Prada, Josh, and Turnbull, Blake. 2018. The role of translanguaging in the multilingual turn: Driving philosophical and conceptual renewal in language education. EuroAmerican Journal of Applied Linguistics and Languages 5(2). 8–23. DOI: 10.21283/2376905X.9.151.10.21283/2376905X.9.151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rankin, Tom, and Whong, Melinda. 2020a. Grammatical concepts for pedagogical grammar. Formal linguistics and language education: New empirical perspectives, ed. by Trotzke, Andreas and Kupisch, Tanja, 21–41. Cham: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-39257-4_3.10.1007/978-3-030-39257-4_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rankin, Tom, and Whong, Melinda. 2020b. Grammar: A linguists' guide for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/9781108623360.10.1017/9781108623360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redder, Angelika, Naumann, Johannes; and Tracy, Rosemarie (eds.) 2015. Forschungsinitiative Sprachdiagnostik und Sprachförderung: Ergebnisse. Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
Richards, Jack C., and Rodgers, Theodore S.. 2001. Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511667305.10.1017/CBO9780511667305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothman, Jason, and Slabakova, Roumyana. 2018. The generative approach to SLA and its place in modern second language studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 40(2). 417–42. DOI: 10.1017/S0272263117000134.10.1017/S0272263117000134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, Björn (ed.) 2018. Sprachvergleich in der Schule. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider.Google Scholar
Sato, Masatoshi, and Loewen, Shawn. 2019. Do teachers care about research? The research-pedagogy dialogue. ELT Journal 73. 1–10. DOI: 10.1093/elt/ccy048.10.1093/elt/ccy048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schroeder, Christoph, and Şimşek, Yazgül. 2014. Das Türkische. Das mehrsprachige Klassenzimmer: Über die Muttersprachen unserer Schüler. In Krifka et al., 115–33.Google Scholar
Shlonsky, Ur. 2010. The cartographic enterprise in syntax. Language and Linguistics Compass 4(6). 417–29. DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2010.00202.x.10.1111/j.1749-818X.2010.00202.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slabakova, Roumyana, Leal, Tania, Dudley, Amber; and Stack, Micah. 2020. Generative second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/9781108762380.10.1017/9781108762380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spolsky, Bernard. 2005. Is language policy applied linguistics? Directions in applied linguistics, ed. by Bruthiaux, Paul, Atkinson, Dwight, Eggington, William, Grabe, William, and Ramanathan, Vaidehi, 26–36. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. DOI: 10.21832/9781853598500-004.Google Scholar
Spolsky, Bernard, and Hult, Francis M. (eds.) 2008. The handbook of educational linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI: 10.1002/9780470694138.10.1002/9780470694138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svalberg, Agneta M-L. 2016. Language awareness research: Where we are now. Language Awareness 25(1–2). 1–13. DOI: 10.1080/09658416.2015.1122027.10.1080/09658416.2015.1122027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thiersch, Craig L. 1978. Topics in German syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation. Online: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/16327.Google Scholar
Thornbury, Scott. 2013. Language teaching methodology. The Routledge handbook of applied linguistics, ed. by Simpson, James, 185–99. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Trotzke, Andreas, Bidese, Ermenegildo; and Moroni, Manuela C.. 2020. German discourse particles in the second language classroom: Teasing apart learning problems at the syntax-pragmatics interface. Pedagogical Linguistics 1(2). 184–210. DOI: 10.1075/pl.20008.tro.10.1075/pl.20008.troCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trotzke, Andreas, and Kupisch, Tanja (eds.) 2020. Formal linguistics and language education: New empirical perspectives. Cham: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-39257-4.10.1007/978-3-030-39257-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trotzke, Andreas, and Rankin, Tom. 2020. Introduction to Pedagogical Linguistics. Pedagogical Linguistics 1(1). 1–7. DOI: 10.1075/pl.19015.tro.10.1075/pl.19015.troCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, Andrea E. 2012. Cognitive linguistics and second language learning: Theoretical basics and experimental evidence. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203876039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, Andrea E., Ortega, Lourdes, Uno, Mariko; and Park, Hae In (eds.) 2018. Usage-inspired L2 instruction: Researched pedagogy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI: 10.1075/lllt.49.10.1075/lllt.49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
US Census Bureau. 2022. American community survey. DP02: Selected social characteristics in the United States—language spoken at home. Washington, DC: US Census Bureau. Online: https://data.census.gov/table?tid=ACSDP5Y2019.DP02&hidePreview=true.Google Scholar
van Rijt, Jimmy H. M., and Coppen, Peter-Arno J. M.. 2021. The conceptual importance of grammar: Knowledge-related rationales for grammar teaching. Pedagogical Linguistics 2(2). 175–99. DOI: 10.1075/pl.21008.van.10.1075/pl.21008.vanCrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Rijt, Jimmy H. M., Hulshof, Hans; and Coppen, Peter-Arno J. M.. 2021. 'X is the odd one out, because the other two are more about the farmland'—Dutch L1 student teachers' struggles to reason about grammar in odd one out tasks. Studies in Educational Evaluation 70:101007. DOI: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101007.10.1016/j.stueduc.2021.101007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Rijt, Jimmy H. M., Myhill, Debra, De Maeyer, Sven; and Coppen, Peter-Arno J. M.. 2022. Linguistic metaconcepts can improve grammatical understanding in L1 education: Evidence from a Dutch quasi-experimental study. PLOS ONE 17:e0263123. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0263123.10.1371/journal.pone.0263123CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
VanPatten, Bill. 1996. Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
VanPatten, Bill, and Rothman, Jason. 2015. What does current generative theory have to say about the explicit-implicit debate? Explicit and implicit learning of languages, ed. by Rebuschat, Patrick, 91–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/sibil.48.05vanCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wei, Li. 2018. Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics 39. 9–30. DOI: 10.1093/applin/amx039.10.1093/applin/amx039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wei, Li, and García, Ofelia. 2022. Not a first language but one repertoire: Translanguaging as a decolonizing project. RELC Journal 53(2). 313–24. DOI: 10.1177/00336882221092841.10.1177/00336882221092841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whong, Melinda. 2011. Language teaching: Linguistic theory in practice. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.10.1515/9780748636365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whong, Melinda, Gil, Kook-Hee; and Marsden, Heather (eds.) 2013. Universal grammar and the second language classroom. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-6362-3.10.1007/978-94-007-6362-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widdowson, Henry. 2020. Linguistics, language teaching objectives and the language learning process. Pedagogical Linguistics 1(1). 34–43. DOI: 10.1075/pl.19014.wid.10.1075/pl.19014.widCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiese, Heike. 2012. Kiezdeutsch: Ein neuer Dialekt entsteht. Munich: Beck.10.17104/9783406630354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wong, Wong Man Ho, Zhao, Helen; and MacWhinney, Brian. 2018. A cognitive linguistics application for second language pedagogy: The English preposition tutor. Language Learning 68(2). 438–68. DOI: 10.1111/lang.12278.10.1111/lang.12278CrossRefGoogle Scholar