Rank Key 5-grams

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50

P 0 01 AND THE
IN A LEXICAL DECISION TASK
THE PRIME AND THE TARGET
REACTION TIME AND ERROR RATE
P 05 F2 1 60
GROUP OUTPERFORMED THE HILE 1
AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
THE HERITAGE AND L2 GROUPS
HILE 1 GROUP MEAN DIFFERENCE
OUTPERFORMED THE HILE 1 GROUP
THE HILE 1 GROUP MEAN
P 05 F2 1 120
REAL AND NONCE VERB GENERATION
P 05 F 2 1
TWO TYPES OF WORD PAIRS
DE GROOT AND NAS 1991
REACTION TIMES AND ERROR RATES
AT THE SAME PROFICIENCY LEVELS
THE L1 LEMMA MEDIATION HYPOTHESIS
BETWEEN THE PRIME AND THE
L2 LEARNERS AND HERITAGE SPEAKERS
P 0 01 POST HOC
THE USE OF L2 WORDS
0 01 AND THE LIHE
THE TWO TYPES OF WORD
PRIMING FROM L2 TO L1
01 AND THE LIHE GROUP
AT THE TIME OF TESTING
P 05 F2 1 30
PARTICIPANT ANALYSIS P 0 05
BOTH PARTICIPANT AND ITEM ANALYSES
01 POST HOC TUKEY COMPARISONS
INTEGRATED INTO THE LEXICAL ENTRY
THOSE DIRECTIONS FOR WHICH INTERACTION
THE LIHE GROUP MEAN DIFFERENCE
VANPATTEN AND CADIERNO 1993A 1993B
L1 AND L2 PROCESSING OF
WAS THE SAME AS IN
0 01 POST HOC TUKEY
AND THE LIHE GROUP MEAN
THE SAME AS IN EXPERIMENT
ITEM ANALYSIS P 0 05
MARKING ON THE NOUN AND
IN BOTH PARTICIPANT AND ITEM
NATIVE SPEAKERS AND L2 LEARNERS
OF THE STEM AND THE
THE DIFFERENCE IN ERROR RATE
THE DEGREE OF SEMANTIC RELATEDNESS
THE L2 AND HERITAGE GROUPS
THE RULES AND PROBABILITIES MODEL

Keyn. Freq.
109
109
90
90
86
76
71
71
67
67
67
67
62
62
62
62
62
62
57
52
52
52
48
48
48
48
48
45
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
43
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38

23
23
19
19
18
16
15
15
14
14
14
14
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
11
11
11
10
10
10
10
10
16
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
11
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8

51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102

THE ORDER OF ACQUISITION OF

REGULARITY SYNTACTIC CATEGORY AND FREQUENCY
PARTICIPANT AND ITEM ANALYSES F
SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE AMONG THE FOUR
THE CRITICAL AND CONTROL CONDITIONS
THE ACQUISITION OF L2 COLLOCATIONS
DIFFERENCE IN ERROR RATE BETWEEN
DE DIEGO BALAGUER ET AL
ANALYSIS P 0 05 AND
BETWEEN L2 WORDS AND CONCEPTS
BETWEEN THE PRIME AND TARGET
PRESENTATION LISTS WERE CONSTRUCTED EACH
PROCEDURE WAS THE SAME AS
PRIMING FROM L1 TO L2
COMPREHENSION CHECKS AND CLARIFICATION REQUESTS
ORIENTATION TO THE SOCIAL MAINSTREAM
ORDER OF ACQUISITION OF GRAMMATICAL
NS GROUP OUTPERFORMED THE HILE
P 05 F2 1 78
CONDUCTED TO ASSESS THE DIFFERENCES
COUNTERBALANCED PRESENTATION LISTS WERE CONSTRUCTED
2X2X2
THE PROCEDURE WAS THE SAME
THE NS GROUP OUTPERFORMED THE
TO ASSESS THE DIFFERENCES IN
WAS NOT SIGNIFICANT BOTH FS
WAS ALSO A SIGNIFICANT INTERACTION
TWO SETS OF WORD PAIRS
AND NONCE VERB GENERATION BY
THAT THE HILE 2 GROUP
THAN TO THE DIFFERENT-TRANSLATION PAIRS
AND HERITAGE SPEAKERS OF RUSSIAN
THE MODERN LANGUAGE APTITUDE TEST
A LEXICAL DECISION TASK WITH
A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE AMONG THE
FOUR VERB CLASSES F 3
IN THE L2 L1 DIRECTION
GRADUATE STUDENTS FROM MAINLAND CHINA
MAIN EFFECT OF THE CONDITION
FORSTER AT THE UNIVERSITY OF
LEARNERS AND HERITAGE SPEAKERS OF
NOT SIGNIFICANT BOTH FS 1
IN THE L1 L2 DIRECTION
THERE WAS ALSO A SIGNIFICANT
A LEXICAL DECISION TASK LDT
3 3 ITEMS IN TOP
FROM MAINLAND CHINA STUDYING AT
IN REACTION TIME AND ERROR
THE ORDER OF FUNCTOR ACQUISITION
A2X2X
THE FOUR VERB CLASSES F
AND COMPREHENSION CHECKS AND CLARIFICATION

38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
30
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29

8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
12
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150

AND ITEM ANALYSIS P 0

INTERACTION BETWEEN ERROR CORRECTION AND
THE HILE 2 GROUP OUTPERFORMED
INCORRECT VERB SUB-CATEGORIZATION ELICITED A
IN THE CRITICAL AND CONTROL
THE INPUT PRACTICE GROUP RECEIVED
A SIGNIFICANT INTERACTION OF THE
0 05 AND ITEM ANALYSIS
VANPATTEN AND CADIERNO'S 1993A 1993B
05 AND ITEM ANALYSIS P
UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA AT THE
HOC TUKEY COMPARISONS REVEALED THAT
WITH THE AID OF FORMAL
WITH THE SAME AMOUNT OF
HILE 2 GROUP OUTPERFORMED THE
0 001 F2 2 69
TWO COUNTERBALANCED PRESENTATION LISTS WERE
2 GROUP OUTPERFORMED THE HILE
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA AT
THE SAME TOTAL AMOUNT OF
THE SEMANTIC AND SYNTACTIC INFORMATION
1995 VANPATTEN CADIERNO 1993A 1993B
IN A SELF-PACED READING TASK
TUKEY COMPARISONS REVEALED THAT THE
THEORY OF SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
05 F 2 1 42
FASTER THAN TO THE DIFFERENT-TRANSLATION
CONFIRMATION AND COMPREHENSION CHECKS AND
P 0 05 AND ITEM
MODIFIED INPUT AND MODIFIED INTERACTION
P 05 F2 1 58
COMPLEXITY MORPHOPHONOLOGICAL REGULARITY SYNTACTIC
CATEGORY
PERCEPTUAL SALIENCE SEMANTIC COMPLEXITY
MORPHOPHONOLOGICAL
MAIN EFFECT OF TARGET LANGUAGE
MAIN EFFECT OF PRIME TARGET
DIFFERENCE AMONG THE FOUR GROUPS
ON THE NOUN AND GENDER
ON THOSE DIRECTIONS FOR WHICH
OF ARIZONA AT THE TIME
EFFECT OF THE CONDITION WAS
EXPERIMENT INVOLVED A 2 X
P 0 001 F2 2
MORPHOPHONOLOGICAL REGULARITY SYNTACTIC CATEGORY
AND
MY EARLIER STUDY JIANG 2002
EFFECT OF PRIME TARGET RELATION
POST HOC TUKEY COMPARISONS CONDUCTED
FORMAL INSTRUCTION IN VERB CONJUGATION
STIMULUS TYPE F 1 54

29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29

6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

29

29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29

6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

29
29
29
29
29
29

6
6
6
6
6
6

151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167

SALIENCE SEMANTIC COMPLEXITY MORPHOPHONOLOGICAL

REGULARITY
SEMANTIC COMPLEXITY MORPHOPHONOLOGICAL REGULARITY
SYNTACTIC
STUDYING AT THE UNIVERSITY OF
THE AID OF FORMAL INSTRUCTION
INVOLVED A 2 X 2
L1 AND L2 MORPHOLOGICAL PROCESSING
ARIZONA AT THE TIME OF
LATE L2 LEARNERS AND HERITAGE
CADIERNO 1995 VANPATTEN CADIERNO 1993A
CASE MARKING ON THE NOUN
POST HOC TUKEY COMPARISONS REVEALED
LATE L2 LEARNERS OF RUSSIAN
FOR BOTH PRODUCTION AND COMPREHENSION
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION THE RESULTS
BOTH SUBJECT AND ITEM ANALYSES
BOTH REACTION TIME AND ERROR
SAME AS IN EXPERIMENT 1

29

29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
26

6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
8