Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T22:58:00.342Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2015

Edited by
Douglas Biber  and
Randi Reppen
Douglas Biber
Affiliation:
Northern Arizona University
Randi Reppen
Affiliation:
Northern Arizona University
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of English Corpus Linguistics , pp. 537 - 617
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2015

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.)

References

Aarts, B. 2007. Syntactic gradience: The nature of grammatical indeterminacy. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aarts, B., Close, J., Leech, G., and Wallis, S. (eds.). 2013. The verb phrase in English: Investigating recent language change with corpora. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aarts, B., Close, J., and Wallis, S. 2013. Choices over time: Methodological issues in investigating current change. In Aarts, , Close, , Leech, , and Wallis, (eds.), 14–45.Google Scholar
Aarts, F. G. A. M. 1971. On the distribution of noun-phrase types in English clause-structure. Lingua 26(3): 281–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aarts, J. 1999. The description of language use. In Hasselgård, H. and Oksefjell, S. (eds.), Out of corpora: Studies in honour of Stig Johansson, 3–20. Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ädel, A. 2008a. Involvement features in writing: Do time and interaction trump register awareness? In Gilquin, G., Papp, S., and Díez-Bedmar, M. B. (eds.), Linking up contrastive and learner corpus research, 35–53. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ädel, A. 2008b. Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ädel, A. and Erman, B. 2012. Recurrent word combinations in academic writing by native and non-native speakers of English: A lexical bundles approach. English for Specific Purposes 31: 81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adger, D. and Smith, J. 2010. Variation in agreement: A lexical feature-based approach. Lingua 120: 1109–1134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adolphs, S. 2008. Corpus and context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adolphs, S. and Knight, D. 2010. Building a spoken corpus: what are the basics? In O’Keeffe, A. and McCarthy, M. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics, 38–52. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Adolphs, S., Atkins, S., and Harvey, K. 2007. Caught between professional requirements and interpersonal needs: Vague language in healthcare contexts. In Cutting, J. (ed.), Vague language explored, 62–78. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Afida, M. A. 2007. Semantic fields of problem in business English: Malaysian and British journalistic business texts. Corpora 2(2): 211–239.Google Scholar
Aguado-Jiménez, P., Pérez-Paredes, P., and Sanchez, P. 2012. Exploring the use of multidimensional analysis of learner language to promote register awareness. System 40: 90–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahmad, K., Corbett, G., and Rogers, M. 1985. Using computers with advanced language learners: An example. Language Teacher (Tokyo) 9(3): 4–7.Google Scholar
Aijmer, K. 2002a. English discourse particles: Evidence from corpora. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, K. 2002b. Modality in advanced Swedish learners’ written interlanguage. In Granger, S., Hung, J., and Petch-Tyson, S. (eds.), Computer learner corpora, second language acquisition and foreign language teaching, 55–76. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Aijmer, K. 2011. Well I’m not sure I think …: The use of well by non-native speakers. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 16(2): 231–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, K. 2013. Understanding pragmatic markers: A variational pragmatic approach. Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, K. and Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M. (eds.). 2006. Pragmatic markers in contrast. Oxford: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allan, R. 2006. Data-driven learning and vocabulary: Investigating the use of concordances with advanced learners of English. Centre for Language and Communication Studies, Occasional Paper, 66. Dublin: Trinity College Dublin.Google Scholar
Alonso-Almeida, F., Ortega-Barrera, I., and Quintana-Toledo, E. 2012. Corpus of Early English Recipes: Design and implementation. In Vázquez, (ed.), 37–50.Google Scholar
Al-Surmi, M. 2012. Authenticity and TV shows: A multidimensional analysis perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 46(4): 671–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altenberg, B. 1998. On the phraseology of spoken English: The evidence of recurrent word combinations. In Cowie, A. (ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis and applications, 101–122. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altenberg, B. and Granger, S. 2001. The grammatical and lexical patterning of make in native and non-native student writing. Applied Linguistics 22(2), 173–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alves, F., Pagano, A., Neumann, S., Steiner, E., and Hansen-Schirra, S. 2010. Translation units and grammatical shifts: Towards an integration of product- and process-based translation research. In Shreve, G. and Angelone, E. (eds.), Translation and cognition, 109–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amador-Moreno, C. 2012. A corpus-based approach to contemporary Irish writing: Ross O’Carroll-Kelly’s use of like as a discourse marker. International Journal of English Studies 12(2): 19–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, G. 1997. They like wanna see like how we talk and all that: The use of like as a discourse marker in London teenage speech. In Ljung, M. (ed.), Corpus-based studies in English, 37–48. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Andersen, G. 2001. Pragmatic markers and sociolinguistic variation: A relevance-theoretic approach to the language of adolescents. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, G. and Bech, K. (eds.). 2013. English corpus linguistics: Variation in time, space and genre. Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderwald, L. 2002. Negation in non-standard British English: Gaps, regularizations and asymmetrics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Anderwald, L. 2005. Negative concord in British English dialects. In Iyeiri, Y. (ed.), Aspects of English negation, 113–137. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderwald, L. 2009. The morphology of English dialects: Verb formation in non-standard English. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderwald, L. and Wagner, S. 2007. FRED – The Freiburg English Dialect Corpus: Applying corpus-linguistic research tools to the analysis of dialect data. Creating and digitizing language corpora. Synchronic Databases 1: 35–53.Google Scholar
Anshen, F. and Aronoff, M. 1999. Using dictionaries to study the mental lexicon. Brain and Language 68(1–2): 16–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
AntConc. 2007–2013. Anthony, L. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. See www.antlab.sci.waseda.ac.jp/index.html (accessed 28 February 2013).Google Scholar
Anthony, L. 2004. AntConc: A learner and classroom friendly, multi-platform corpus analysis toolkit. Proceedings of IWLeL 2004: An Interactive Workshop on Language e-Learning 7–13.Google Scholar
Archer, D. 2005. Questions and answers in the English courtroom (1640–1760): A sociopragmatic analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archer, D. (ed.). 2009. What’s in a word-list? Investigating word frequency and keyword extraction. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Archer, D. 2014. Exploring verbal aggression in English historical texts using USAS: The possibilities, the problems and potential solutions. In Taavitsainen, , Jucker, , and Tuominen, (eds.), 277–302.Google Scholar
Archer, D., Aijmer, K., and Wichmann, A. 2012. Pragmatics: An advanced resource book for students. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Archer, D. and Bousfield, D. 2010. See better, Lear? See Lear better! A corpus-based pragma-stylistic investigation of Shakespeare’s King Lear. In McIntyre, and Busse, (eds.), 183–203.Google Scholar
Archer, D., Culpeper, J., and Rayson, P. 2009. Love – a familiar or a devil? An exploration of key domains in Shakespeare’s comedies and tragedies. In Archer, (ed.), 137–157.Google Scholar
Argamon, S., Koppel, M., Fine, J., and Shimoni, A. R. 2003. Gender, genre, and writing style in formal written texts. Text, 23: 321–346.Google Scholar
Arnold, M. 1861. On translating Homer. London: Longman, Green, Longman, and Roberts.Google Scholar
Arnovick, L. K. 1999. Diachronic pragmatics: Seven case studies in English illocutionary development. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Asención-Delaney, Y. and Collentine, J. 2011. A multidimensional analysis of written L2 Spanish. Applied Linguistics 32: 299–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asmussen, J. 2013. Combined products: Dictionary and corpus. In Gouws, R. H., Heid, U., Schweickard, W., and Wiegand, H. E. (eds.), Dictionaries: An international encyclopedia of lexicography, vol. 5.4 (suppl.): Recent developments with focus on electronic and computational lexicography, 1081–1090. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Aston, G. and Burnard, L. 1998. The BNC handbook. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Azar, B. S. and Hagen, S. A. 2009. Understanding and using English grammar, 4th edn. White Plains, NY: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H. 1993. On frequency, transparency, and productivity. In Booij, G. E. and van Marle, J. (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1992, 181–208. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H. 1994. Productivity in language production. Language and Cognitive Processes 9(3), 447–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H. 2008. Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H. 2010. A real experiment is a factorial experiment. The Mental Lexicon 5(1): 149–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H. 2011. Corpus linguistics and naïve discriminative learning. Brazilian Journal of Applied Linguistics 11(2): 295–328.Google Scholar
Baayen, H., van Halteren, H., and Tweedie, F. 1996. Outside the cave of shadows: Using syntactic annotation to enhance authorship attribution. Literary and Linguistic Computing 11(3): 121–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachmann, I. 2011. Civil partnership – “Gay marriage in all but name”: A corpus-driven analysis of discourses of same-sex relationships in the UK Parliament. Corpora 6(1): 77–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bahumaid, S. 2006. Collocation in English-Arabic translation. Babel 52(2): 133–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. 1993. Corpus linguistics and translation studies: Implications and applications. In Baker, M., Francis, G., and Bonelli, E. Tognini (eds.), Text and technology, 223–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. 1995. Corpora in translation studies: An overview and some suggestions for future research. Target 7(2): 223–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. 2000. Towards a methodology for investigating the style of a literary translator. Target 12(2): 241–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, P. 2004. Querying keywords: Questions of difference, frequency and sense in keywords analysis. Journal of English Linguistics 32(4): 346–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, P. 2005. The public discourses of gay men. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Baker, P. 2006. Using corpora in discourse analysis. London: Continuum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, P. 2008. “Eligible” bachelors and “frustrated” spinsters: Corpus linguistics, gender and language. In Sunderland, J., Harrington, K., and Stantson, H. (eds.), 73–84. Gender and language research methodologies. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Baker, P. 2009a. The BE06 Corpus of British English and recent language change. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14(3): 312–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, P. 2009b. The question is, how cruel is it? Keywords, fox hunting and the House of Commons. In Archer, (ed.), 125–136.Google Scholar
Baker, P. 2010. Sociolinguistics and corpus linguistics. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, P. 2011. Times may change, but we will always have money: Diachronic variation in recent British English, Journal of English Linguistics 39(1): 65–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, P., Gabrielatos, C., Khosravinik, M., Krzyzanowski, M., McEnery, T., and Wodak, R. 2008. A useful methodological synergy? Combining critical discourse analysis and corpus linguistics to examine discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK press. Discourse and Society 19(3): 273–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, P., Gabrielatos, C., and McEnery, T. 2013. Sketching Muslims: A corpus driven analysis of representations around the word “Muslim” in the British press 1998–2009. Applied Linguistics 34(3): 255–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, P. and McEnery, T. 2005. A corpus-based approach to discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in UN and newspaper texts. Journal of Language and Politics 4(2): 197–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balasubramanian, C. 2009a. Register variation in Indian English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balasubramanian, C. 2009b. Circumstance adverbials in registers of Indian English. World Englishes 28: 485–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ballier, N. and Martin, P. 2013. Developing corpus interoperability for phonetic investigation of learner corpora. In Diaz-Negrillo, Ana, Ballier, N., and Thompson, P. (eds.), Automatic treatment and analysis of learner corpus data, 33–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbieri, F. 2005. Quotative use in American English: A corpus-based, cross-register comparison. Journal of English Linguistics 33: 222–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbieri, F. 2007. Older men and younger women: A corpus-based study of quotative use in American English. English World-Wide 28: 23–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbieri, F. 2008a. Patterns of age-based linguistic variation in American English. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12: 58–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbieri, F. 2008b. Involvement in university classroom discourse. Unpublished dissertation, Northern Arizona University.Google Scholar
Barbieri, F. 2009. Quotative be like in American English: Ephemeral or here to stay? English World-Wide 30: 68–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbieri, F. and Eckhardt, S. 2007. Applying corpus-based findings to form-focused instruction: The case of reported speech. Language Teaching Research 11(3): 319–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnbrook, G. 2002. Defining language: A local grammar of definition sentences. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron, A. and Rayson, P. 2008. VARD 2: A tool for dealing with spelling variation in historical corpora. Proceedings of the Postgraduate Conference in Corpus Linguistics, Aston University, Birmingham, 22 May 2008. Available at http://acorn.aston.ac.uk/conf_proceedings.htmlGoogle Scholar
Baron, N. S. 2004. See you online: Gender issues in college student use of instant messaging. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 23: 397–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baroni, M. and Bernardini, S. 2004. BootCaT: Bootstrapping corpora and terms from the web. Proceedings of LREC 2004.Google Scholar
Baroni, M. and Bernardini, S. 2006. A new approach to the study of translationese: Machine-learning the difference between original and translated text. Literary and Linguistic Computing 21(3): 259–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baroni, M., Bernardini, S., Ferraresi, A., and Zanchetta, E. 2009. The WaCky Wide Web: A collection of very large linguistically processed web-crawled corpora. Language Resources and Evaluation 43(3) 209–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baroni, M., Kilgarriff, A., Pomikálek, J., and Rychlý, P. 2006. WebBootCaT: A web tool for instant corpora. In Proceedings of Euralex 2006. Turin.Google Scholar
Bartsch, S. 2004. Structural and functional properties of collocations in English: A corpus study of lexical and pragmatic constraints on lexical co-occurrence. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Baten, L., Cornu, A-M., and Engels, L. 1989. The use of concordances in vocabulary acquisition. In Laurent, C. and Nordman, M. (eds.), Special language: From humans thinking to thinking machines, 452–467. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. 1993. Manual of information to accompany the Wellington Corpus of Written New Zealand English. Wellington: Victoria University, Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. 2001. Morphological productivity. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L. 2002. Inferring variation and change from public corpora. In Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, P., and Schilling-Estes, N. (eds.), The handbook of language variation and change, 97–114. Malden, MA, and Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. and Nation, P. 1993. Word families. International Journal of Lexicography, 6(4): 253–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayley, P. and Williams, G. 2012. European identity: What the media say. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beaufort, A. 2007. College writing and beyond. Logan: Utah State University Press.Google Scholar
Becher, V. 2011. When and why do translators add connectives? A corpus-based study. Target 23(1): 26–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckman, M. E., Hirschberg, J., and Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. 2005. The original ToBI system and the evolution of the ToBI framework. In Jun, S.-A. (ed.), 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS15), Barcelona, Spain, 2–9 August 2003, 9–14.Google Scholar
Bednarek, M. 2006a. Evaluation in media discourse: Analysis of a newspaper corpus. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Bednarek, M. 2006b. Evaluating Europe: Parameters of evaluation in the British press. In Leung, C. and Jenkins, J. (eds.), Reconfiguring Europe: The contribution of applied linguistics, 137–156. London: BAAL/Equinox.Google Scholar
Bednarek, M. 2008. Emotion talk across corpora. London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bednarek, M. 2010. The language of fictional television: Drama and identity. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Bednarek, M and Caple, H. 2012. News discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Behre, F. 1955. Meditative-polemic should in Modern English that-clauses. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Behre, F. 1967. Studies in Agatha Christie’s writings: The behaviour of a good (great) deal, a lot, lots, much, plenty, many, a good (great) many. Stockholm, Gothenburg, and Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Behre, F. 1969. Variation and change in the distribution of lot(s), deal, much, many, etc. English Studies 50: 435–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, A. 1984. Language style as audience design. Language in Society 13: 145–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belz, J. and Vyatkina, N. 2005. Learner corpus research and the development of L2 pragmatic competence in networked intercultural language study: The case of German modal particles. Canadian Modern Language Review 62(1): 17–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belz, J. and Vyatkina, N. 2008. The pedagogical mediation of a developmental learner corpus for classroom-based language instruction. Language Learning & Technology, 12(3): 33–52.Google Scholar
Bennett, G. 2010. Using corpora in the language learning classroom: Corpus linguistics for teachers. University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benson, M. 1990. Collocation and general-purpose dictionaries. International Journal of Lexicography 3(1): 23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benson, M., Benson, E., and Ilson, R. 1986/2010. The BBI combinatory dictionary of English (3rd edn.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benwell, B. and Stokoe, E. 2006. Discourse and identity. Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berber Sardinha, T. 2011. Metaphor and corpus linguistics. RBLA, Belo Horizonte 11: 329–360.Google Scholar
Berglund, Y. 2000. Gonna and going to in the spoken component of the British National Corpus. Language and Computers 33: 35–50.Google Scholar
Berman, A. 1985. La traduction comme épreuve de l’étranger. Texte 4: 67–81.Google Scholar
Bernaisch, T., Gries, S. Th., and Mukherjee, J. 2014. The dative alternation in South Asian English(es): Modelling predictors and predicting prototypes. English World-Wide 35(1): 7–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernardini, S. and Zanettin, F. 2004. When is a universal not a universal? Some limits of current corpus-based methodologies for the investigation of translation universals. In Mauranen, A. and Kujamäki, P. (eds.), Translation universals: Do they exist?, 51–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertuccelli Papi, M. 2000. Is a diachronic speech act theory possible? Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1(1): 57–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bestgen, Y. 2013. Inadequacy of the chi-squared test to examine vocabulary differences between corpora. Literary and Linguistic Computing 29(2): 164–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhana, N. 2009. The chairman’s statements and annual reports: Are they reporting the same company performance to investors? Investment Analysts Journal 70: 32–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhuian, S. N., Menguc, B., and Bell, S. J. 2005. Just entrepreneurial enough: the moderating effect of entrepreneurship on the relationship between market orientation and performance. Journal of Business Research 58: 9–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. 1986. Spoken and written textual dimensions in English: Resolving the contradictory findings. Language 62: 384–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. 1987. A textual comparison of British and American writing. American Speech 62: 99–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. 1988. Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. 1993a. Co-occurrence patterns among collocations: A tool for corpus-based lexical knowledge acquisition. Computational Linguistics 19(3): 531–538.Google Scholar
Biber, D. 1993b. Representativeness in corpus design. Literary and Linguistic Computing 8(4), 243–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. 1995. Dimensions of register variation. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. 2003. Compressed noun-phrase structures in newspaper discourse: The competing demands of popularization vs. economy. In Aitchison, J. and Lewis, D. M. (eds.), New media language, 169–181. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Biber, D. 2004. Historical patterns for the grammatical marking of stance: A cross-register comparison. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 5(1): 107–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. 2006a. University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. 2006b. Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5: 97–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. 2009. A corpus-driven approach to formulaic language in English: Multi-word patterns in speech and writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14(3): 275–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. 2011. Corpus linguistics and the scientific study of literature: Back to the future? Scientific Study of Literature 1(1): 15–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. 2012. Register as a predictor of linguistic variation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 8: 9–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. and Barbieri, F. 2007. Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers. English for Specific Purposes 26: 263–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. and Burges, J. 2000. Historical change in the language use of women and men: Gender differences in dramatic dialogue. Journal of English Linguistics 28: 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Connor, U., and Upton, T. 2007. Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. and Conrad, S. 1999. Lexical bundles in conversation and academic prose. In Hasselgård, H. and Oksefjell, S. (eds.), Out of corpora: Studies in honour of Stig Johansson, 181–190. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. and Conrad, S. 2009. Register, genre, and style. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., and Cortes, V. 2004. “If you look at … ”: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics 25: 371–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., and Leech, G. 2002. The Longman student grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., and Reppen, R. 1998. Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., Reppen, R., Byrd, P., and Helt, M. 2002. Speaking and writing in the university: A multi-dimensional comparison. TESOL Quarterly 36: 9–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., Reppen, R., Byrd, P., Helt, M., Clark, V., Cortez, V., Csomay, E., and Urzua, A. 2004. Representing language use in the university: Analysis of the TOEFL 2000 spoken and written academic language corpus. Princeton: ETS/TOEFL.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Davies, M., Jones, J., and Tracy-Ventura, N. 2006. Spoken and written register variation in Spanish: A multi-dimensional analysis. Corpora 1: 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Egbert, J. A., Gray, B., Oppliger, R., and Szmrecsanyi, B. Forthcoming. Variationist versus text-linguistic approaches to grammatical change in English: Nominal modifiers of head nouns. Handbook of English historical linguistics.Google Scholar
Biber, D. and Finegan, E. 1989. Drift and the evolution of English style: A history of three genres. Language 65: 487–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. and Finegan, E. 1997. Diachronic relations among speech-based and written registers in English. In Nevalainen, T. and Kahlas-Tarkka, L. (eds.), To explain the present: Studies in the changing English language in honour of Matti Rissanen, 253–275. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Biber, D. and Gray, B. 2011. Grammatical change in the noun phrase: The influence of written language use. English Language and Linguistics 15(2): 223–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. and Gray, B. 2012. The competing demands of popularization vs. economy: Written language in the age of mass literacy. In Nevalainen, T. and Traugott, E. C. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of English, 314–328. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. and Gray, B. 2013. Discourse characteristics of writing and speaking task types on the TOEFL iBT test: A lexico-grammatical analysis (TOEFL iBT Research Report No. 19). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Gray, B., and Poonpon, K. 2011. Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? TESOL Quarterly 45: 5–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Grieve, J., and Iberri-Shea, G. 2010. Noun phrase modification. In Rohdenburg, G. and Schlüter, J. (eds.), One language, two grammars? Differences between British and American English, 182–193. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, D. and Hared, M. 1992. Dimensions of register variation in Somali. Language Variation and Change 4: 41–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., and Finegan, E. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Biber, D. and Jones, J. 2005. Merging corpus linguistic and discourse analytic research goals: Discourse units in biology research articles. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1: 151–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Kim, Y-J., and Tracy-Ventura, N. 2010. A corpus-driven approach to comparative phraseology: Lexical bundles in English, Spanish, and Korean. In Iwasaki, S., Hoji, H., Clancy, P. M., and Sohn, S-O. (eds.), Japanese/Korean linguistics, vol. 17: 75–94. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI).Google Scholar
Biewer, C. 2015. A Sociolinguistic and morphosyntactic profile of Fiji English, Samoan English and Cook Island English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Biewer, C., Hundt, M., and Zipp, L. 2010. How a Fiji corpus? Challenges in the compilation of an ESL ICE component. ICAME Journal 34: 5–23.Google Scholar
Bigi, S. and Greco Morasso, S. 2006. Focus on cultural keywords. Studies in Communication Sciences 6(1): 157–174.Google Scholar
Bigi, S. and Greco Morasso, S. 2012. Keywords, frames and the reconstruction of material starting points in argumentation. Journal of Pragmatics 44(10),1135–1149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bizzell, P. 1989. Cultural criticism: a social approach to studying writing. Rhetoric Review 7: 224–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackwell, S. 1987. Syntax versus orthography: Problems in the automatic parsing of idioms. In Garside, R., Leech, G., and Sampson, G. (eds.), The computational analysis of English, 110–119. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Blankenship, J. 1962. A linguistic analysis of oral and written style. Quarterly Journal of Speech 48: 419–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blass, L., Iannuzzi, S., Savage, A., and Reppen, R. 2012. Grammar and beyond: Level 3. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, L. 1933. Language. New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S. 1997. Dinner talk: Cultural patterns of sociability and socialization in family discourse. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. 1961. Generality, gradience, and the all-or-none. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Bondi, M. 2008. Emphatics in academic discourse: Integrating corpus and discourse tools in the study of cross-disciplinary variation. In Ädel, A. and Reppen, R. (eds.), Exploring discourse through corpora, 31–55. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bondi, M. 2012. Voice in textbooks: Between exposition and argument. In Hyland, K. and Guinda, C. Sancho (eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres, 101–117. London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bondi, M. and Scott, M. (eds.). 2010. Keyness in texts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bondi, M. and Silver, M. 2004. Textual voices: A cross disciplinary study of attribution in academic discourse. In Anderson, L. and Bamford, J. (eds.), Evaluation in oral and written discourse, 117–136. Rome: Officina Edizioni.Google Scholar
Borin, L. and Prütz, K. 2004. New wine in old skins? A corpus investigation of L1 syntactic transfer in learner language. In Aston, G., Bernardini, S., and Stewart, D. (eds.), Corpora and language learners, 45.66. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bothma, T. J. D. 2011. Filtering and adapting data and information in an online environment in response to user needs. In Fuertes-Olivera, and Bergenholtz, (eds.), 71–102.Google Scholar
Boulton, A. 2009. Corpora for all? Learning styles and data-driven learning. In Mahlberg, M., González-Díaz, V., and Smith, C. (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th Corpus Linguistics Conference. Downloaded from http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/publications/cl2009Google Scholar
Boulton, A. 2010a. Learning outcomes from corpus consultation. In Jaén, M. Moreno, Valverde, F. Serrano, and Pérez, M. Calzada (eds.), Exploring new paths in language pedagogy: Lexis and corpus-based language teaching, 129–144. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Boulton, A. 2010b. Data-driven learning: Taking the computer out of the equation. Language Learning 60(3): 534–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boulton, A. 2010c. Consultation de corpus et styles d’apprentissage. Cahiers de l’APLIUT 29(1): 98–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boulton, A. 2011. Language awareness and medium-term benefits of corpus consultation. In Sanz, A. Gimeno (ed.), New trends in computer-assisted language learning: Working together, 39–46. Madrid: Macmillan ELT.Google Scholar
Boulton, A. 2012a. Computer corpora in language learning: DST approaches to research. Mélanges Crapel 33: 79–91.Google Scholar
Boulton, A. 2012b. Hands-on/hands-off: Alternative approaches to data-driven learning. In Thomas, J. and Boulton, A. (eds.), Input, process and product: Developments in teaching and language corpora, 153–169. Brno: Masaryk University Press.Google Scholar
Boulton, A. In press. Applying data-driven learning to the web. In Leńko-Szymańska, A. and Boulton, A. (eds.), Multiple affordances of language corpora for data-driven learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Boulton, A. and Tyne, H. 2014. Méthodologie de la découverte en didactique des langues: Des documents authentiques aux corpus. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar
Bowie, J., Wallis, S., and Aarts, B. 2013. The perfect in spoken British English. In Aarts, et al. (eds.), 318–352.Google Scholar
Brazil, D. 1994. Pronunciation for advanced learners of English. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brazil, D. 1994. Pronunciation for advanced learners of English. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brazil, D. 1995. A grammar of speech. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brazil, D. 1997. The communicative value of intonation in English. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Breen, M. 1987. Learner contributions to task design. In Candlin, C. and Murphy, D. (eds.), Language learning tasks, 23–46. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Breiteneder, A. 2005. The naturalness of English as a European lingua franca: The case of the ‘third person -s’. VIEWS 14(2): 3–26. Downloaded from http://anglistik.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/dep_anglist/weitere_Uploads/Views/Views0502ALL_new.pdf (accessed 9 July 2013).Google Scholar
Breiteneder, A., Pitzl, M. L., Majewski, S., and Klimpfinger, T. 2006. VOICE recording: Methodological challenges in the compilation of a corpus of spoken ELF. Nordic Journal of English Studies 5(2): 161–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brems, L. 2011. Measure noun constructions: An instance of semantically-driven grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. 2007. Is syntactic knowledge probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation. In Featherston, S. and Sternefeld, W. (eds.), Roots: Linguistics in search of its evidential base, 77–96. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T., and Baayen, H. R. 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. In Boume, G., Kraemer, I., and Zwarts, J. (eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation, 69–94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. and Ford, M. 2010. Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language 86/1: 186–213.Google Scholar
Bretz, F., Hothorn, T., and Pestfall, P. 2010. Multiple comparisons using R. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC.Google Scholar
Brezina, V. and Gablasova, D. 2013. Is there a core general vocabulary? Introducing the New General Service List. Applied Linguistics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinton, L. J. 2007. The development of I mean: Implications for the study of historical pragmatics. In Fitzmaurice, and Taavitsainen, (eds.), 37–79.Google Scholar
Brinton, L. J. 2010. Discourse markers. In Jucker, and Taavitsainen, (eds.), 285–314.Google Scholar
Brinton, L. J. 2015. Interjection-based delocutive verbs in the history of English. In Taavitsainen, I. et al. (eds.), Developments in English: Expanding electronic evidence, 140–161. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Briscoe, T., Medlock, B., and Andersen, Ø. 2010. Automated assessment of ESOL free text examinations. Cambridge ESOL. University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory. www.cl.cam.ac.uk/techreports/UCAM-CL-TR-790.pdfGoogle Scholar
Brown, A. and Deterding, D. 2005. A checklist of Singapore English pronunciation features. In Deterding, D., Brown, A., and Ling, L. Ee (eds.), English in Singapore: Phonetic research on a corpus, 7–13. Singapore: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Fraser, C. 1979. Speech as a marker of situation. In Scherer, K. and Giles, H. (eds.), Social markers in speech, 33–62. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R. and Gilman, A. 1960. The pronouns of power and solidarity. In Sebeok, T. (ed.), Style in language, 253–276. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bruce, I. 2009. Results sections in sociology and organic chemistry articles: A genre analysis English for Specific Purposes 28(2): 105–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryson, B. 1991. Neither here nor there: Travels in Europe. London: Secker & Warburg.Google Scholar
Buchstaller, I. 2011. Quotations across the generations: A multivariate analysis of speech and thought introducers across 5 decades of Tyneside speech. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 7(1): 59–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bündgens-Kosten, J. 2013. Authenticity in CALL: Three domains of “realness” ReCALL, 25/2, 272–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunton, D. 1999. The use of higher level metatext in PhD theses. English for Specific Purposes 18: S41–S56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnard, L. (ed.). 1995. British National Corpus: Users reference guide British National Corpus Version 1.0. Oxford University Computing Service.Google Scholar
Burnard, L. 2002. Where did we go wrong? A retrospective look at the British National Corpus. Language and Computers 42: 51–70.Google Scholar
Burrows, J. F. 1987. Computation into criticism: A study of Jane Austen’s novels and an experiment in method. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Busse, B. 2006. Vocative constructions in the language of Shakespeare (Pragmatics & Beyond new series 150). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busse, B. 2010. Speech, writing and thought presentation in a corpus of nineteenth-century English narrative fiction. University of Bern.Google Scholar
Busse, U. and Hübler, A. (eds.). 2012. The meta-communicative lexicon of English now and then: A historical pragmatics approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Butler, C. 1974. German for chemists: Teaching languages to adults for special purposes. CILT Reports and Papers 11: 50–53.Google Scholar
Butler, C. 1998. Collocational frameworks in Spanish. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 3(1): 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. 2007. Frequency of use and the organization of language. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldas-Coulthard, C. and Coulthard, M. (eds.). 1996. Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Calhoun, S. 2010. How does informativeness affect prosodic prominence? Language and Cognitive Processes 25(7–9): 1099–1140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callies, M. 2009. “What is even more alarming is … ” A contrastive learner-corpus study of what-clefts in advanced German and Polish L2 writing. In Wysocka, M. (ed.), On Language structure, acquisition and teaching. Studies in honour of Janusz Arabski on the occasion of his 70th birthday, 283–292. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersyetu Slaskiego.Google Scholar
Campion, M. and Elley, W. 1971. An academic vocabulary list. Wellington, New Zealand: Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
Carter, R. 2004. Language and creativity: The art of common talk. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Carter, R., Hughes, R., and McCarthy, M. 1998. Telling tails: Grammar, the spoken language and materials development. In Tomlinson, B. (ed.), Materials development in language teaching, 67–89. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carter, R. and McCarthy, M. 1995. Grammar and the spoken language. Applied Linguistics 16.2: 141–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. 1997. Exploring spoken English. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carter, Ronald and McCarthy, M. 1999. The English get-passive in spoken discourse: Description and implications for an interpersonal grammar. English Language and Linguistics 3: 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, Ronald and McCarthy, M. 2004. Talking, creating: Interactional language, creativity, and context. Applied Linguistics 25: 62–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, Ronald and McCarthy, M. 2006. Cambridge grammar of English: A comprehensive guide. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carter, R., McCarthy, M., Mark, G., and O’Keeffe, A. 2011. English grammar today. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Catford, J. C. 1965. A linguistic theory of translation: An essay in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cauldwell, R. T. 2003a. Streaming speech: Listening and pronunciation for advanced learners of English (Windows CD-ROM). Birmingham: Speechinaction.Google Scholar
Cauldwell, R. T. 2003b. Streaming speech: Listening and pronunciation for advanced learners of English (Student’s book). Birmingham: Speechinaction.Google Scholar
Cauldwell, R. T. 2007. SpeechinAction Research Centre (SPARC). (www.speechinaction.com/, accessed 18 March 2013.)Google Scholar
Cauldwell, R. T. 2013. Phonology for listeners: Teaching the stream of speech. Birmingham: Speechinaction.Google Scholar
Cauldwell, R. T. and Hewings, M. 1996. Intonation rules in ELP textbooks. ELT Journal 50:4, 327–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, A. 2007. Popularising corpus consultation by language learners and teachers. In Hidalgo, E., Quereda, L., and Santana, J. (eds.), Corpora in the foreign language classroom, 3–16. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Chambers, A., Conacher, J., and Littlemore, J. (eds.). 2004. ICT and language learning: Integrating pedagogy and practice. University of Birmingham Press.Google Scholar
Chambers, J. K. 2004. Dynamic typology and vernacular roots. In Kortmann, B. (ed.), Dialectology meets typology: Dialect grammar from a cross-linguistic perspective, 127–145. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chan, T-P. and Liou, H-C. 2005. Effects of web-based concordancing instruction on EFL students’ learning of verb-noun collocations. Computer Assisted Language Learning 18(3): 231–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, P. 2012. Using a stance corpus to learn about effective authorial stance-taking: A textlinguistic approach. ReCALL 24(2): 209–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, W-L. and Sun, Y-C. 2009. Scaffolding and web concordancers as support for language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning 22(4): 283–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charles, M. 2006a. Phraseological patterns in reporting clauses used in citation: a corpus-based study of theses in two disciplines. English for Specific Purposes 25: 310–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charles, M. 2006b. The construction of stance in reporting clauses: a cross-disciplinary study of theses. Applied Linguistics 27: 492–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charles, M. 2007. Argument or evidence? Disciplinary variation in the use of the noun that pattern. English for Specific Purposes 26: 203–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Y.-H. and Baker, P. 2010. Lexical bundles in L1 and L2 academic writing. Language Learning and Technology 14(2): 30–49.Google Scholar
Cheng, W. 2007. The use of vague language across genres in an International Hong Kong Corpus. In Cutting, J. (ed.), Vague language explored, 161–181. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, W. 2012. Exploring corpus linguistics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cheng, W., Greaves, C., Sinclair, J., and Warren, M. 2008. Uncovering the extent of the phraseological tendency: Towards a systematic analysis of concgrams. Applied Linguistics 30(2): 236–52.Google Scholar
Cheng, W., Greaves, C., and Warren, M. 2006. From n-gram to skipgram to concgram. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 11(4): 411–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, W., Greaves, C. and Warren, M. 2008. A corpus-driven study of discourse intonation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chesterman, A. 2004. Hypotheses about translation universals. In Hansen, G., Malmkjær, K., and Gile, D. (eds.), Claims, changes and challenges in translation studies, 1–13. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cho, H. and Yoon, H. 2013. A corpus-assisted comparative genre analysis of corporate earnings calls between Korean and native-English speakers. English for Specific Purposes 32: 170–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1962/1964. A transformational approach to syntax. In Hill, A. A. (ed.), Proceedings of the Third Texas Conference on Problems of Linguistics Analysis, 124–58. Austin: University of Texas, 1962. Reprinted in Fodor, J. A. and Katz, J. J., The Structure of language, 211–241. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1964.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. and Halle, M. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Chun, D. M. 2002. Discourse intonation in L2: From theory and research to practice. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Church, K. and Hanks, P. 1990. Word association norms, mutual information and lexicography. Computational Linguistics 16(1): 22–29.Google Scholar
Clancy, B. 2005. “You’re fat. You’ll eat them all.” Politeness strategies in family discourse. In Schneider, K. P. and Barron, A. (eds.), The pragmatics of Irish English, 177–197. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clancy, B. 2010. Building a corpus to represent a variety of language. In O’Keeffe, A. and McCarthy, M. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics, 80–92. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Clancy, B. Forthcoming. Hurry up baby son all the boys is finished their breakfast: Examining the use of vocatives as pragmatic markers in Irish Traveller and settled family discourse. In Moreno, C. Amador, McCafferty, K., and Vaughan, E. (eds.), Pragmatic markers in Irish English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Clancy, B. and McCarthy, M. 2015. Co-constructed turn-taking. In Aijmer, K. and Rühlemann, C. (eds.), Corpus pragmatics, 430–453. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clancy, B. and Vaughan, E. 2012. It’s lunacy now: A corpus-based pragmatic analysis of the use of now in contemporary Irish English. In Migge, B. and Chiosáin, M. Ní (eds.), New perspectives on Irish English, 225–246. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claridge, C. 2008. Historical corpora. In Lüdeling, A. and Kytö, M. (eds.), Corpus linguistics. Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, 242–259. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Claridge, C. 2012. Chapter 16. Linguistic levels: Styles, registers, genres, text types. In Bergs, A. and Brinton, L. J. (eds.), English historical linguistics: An international handbook, vol. 1: 237–253. Berlin and Boston: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Claridge, C. and Arnovick, L. 2010. Pragmaticalisation and discursisation. In Jucker, and Taavitsainen, (eds.), 165–192.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. 1973. The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: a critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 12(4). 335–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobb, T. 1997a. From concord to lexicon: Development and test of a corpus-based lexical tutor. Unpublished PhD thesis, Concordia University.Google Scholar
Cobb, T. 1997b. Is there any measurable learning from hands-on concordancing? System 25(3): 301–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobb, T. 1999a. Applying constructivism: A test for the learner-as-scientist. Educational Technology Research & Development 47(3): 15–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobb, T. 1999b. Breadth and depth of lexical acquisition with hands-on concordancing. Computer Assisted Language Learning 12(4): 345–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobb, T. 2003. Analyzing late interlanguage with learner corpora: Québec replications of three European studies. The Canadian Modern Language Review 59(3) 393–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobb, T. 2007. Computing the vocabulary demands of L2 reading. Language Learning & Technology 11(3): 38–63.Google Scholar
Cobb, T., Greaves, C., and Horst, M. 2001. Can the rate of lexical acquisition from reading be increased? An experiment in reading French with a suite of on-line resources. In Raymond, P. and Cornaire, C. (eds.), Regards sur la didactique des langues secondes, 133–153. Montreal: Editions Logique.Google Scholar
Cochran, W. G. 1954. Some methods for strengthening the common χ2 tests. Biometrics 10: 417–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coffey, S. 2006. “Delexical verb + noun” phrases in monolingual English learners’ dictionaries. Proceedings of the XII EURALEX Congress. Downloaded from www.euralex.org/elx_proceedings/Euralex2006/Google Scholar
Cogo, A. and Dewey, M. 2006. Efficiency in ELF communication: From pragmatic motives to lexico-grammatical innovation. Nordic Journal of English Studies 5(2): 59–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cogo, A. and Dewey, M. 2012. Analysing English as a lingua franca: A corpus-driven investigation. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cole, J., Mo, Y., and Baek, S. 2010. The role of syntactic structure in guiding prosody perception with ordinary listeners and everyday speech. Language and Cognitives Processes 25(7–9), 1141–1177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, J., Mo, Y., and Hasegawa-Johnson, M. 2010. Signal-based and expectation-based factors in the perception of prosodic prominence. Laboratory Phonology 1, 425–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, P. 2009. The progressive in English. In Peters, et al. (eds.), 115–123.Google Scholar
Collins, P. and Peters, P. 1988. The Australian corpus project. In Kytö, M., Ihalainen, O., and Rissanen, M. (eds.), Corpus linguistics, hard and soft, 103–121. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Collins, P. and Yao, X. 2012. Modals and quasi-modals in New Englishes. In Hundt, and Gut, (eds.), 35–53.Google Scholar
Connor, U. and Upton, T. 2003. Linguistic dimensions of direct mail letters. In Meyer, C. and Leistyna, P. (eds.), Corpus analysis: Language structure and language use, 71–86. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connor, U. and Upton, T. 2004. The genre of grant proposals: A corpus linguistic analysis. In Connor, U. and Upton, T. (eds.), Discourse in the professions: Perspectives from corpus linguistics, 235–256. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conrad, S. 1996. Investigating academic texts with corpus-based techniques: An example from biology. Linguistics and Education 8: 299–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conrad, S. 1999. The importance of corpus-based research for language teachers. System 27: 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conrad, S. 2000. Will corpus linguistics revolutionize grammar teaching in the 21st century? TESOL Quarterly 34: 548–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conrad, S. 2001. Variation among disciplinary texts: A comparison of textbooks and journal articles in biology and history. In Conrad, S. and Biber, D. (eds.), Multi-dimensional studies of register variation in English, 94–107. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Conrad, S. 2014. Expanding multi-dimensional analysis with qualitative research techniques. In Sardinha, T. Berber and Pinto, M. Veirano (eds.), Multi-dimensional analysis 25 years on: A tribute to Douglas Biber, 273–295. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conrad, S. and Biber, D. 2000. Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. In Hunston, S. and Thompson, G. (eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse, 56–73. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conrad, S. and Biber, D. 2009. Real grammar: A corpus-based approach to English grammar. New York: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Conrad, S. and Pfeiffer, T. 2011. A preliminary analysis of student and workplace writing in civil engineering. Proceedings of the 2012 American Society for Engineering Education Conference. Downloaded from www.asee.org/search/proceedingsGoogle Scholar
Conrad, S., Pfeiffer, T., and Szymoniak, T. 2012. Preparing students for writing in civil engineering practice. Proceedings of the 2012 American Society for Engineering Education Conference. Downloaded from www.asee.org/search/proceedingsGoogle Scholar
Conzett, J. 1997. Integrating collocation into a reading and writing course. In Coady, J. and Huckin, T. (eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition, 70–87. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cortes, V. 2004. Lexical bundles in published and student disciplinary writing: Examples from history and biology. English for Specific Purposes 23: 397–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cortes, V. 2008. A comparative analysis of lexical bundles in academic history writing in English and Spanish. Corpora 3: 43–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cortes, V. 2013. The purpose of this study is to: Connecting lexical bundles and moves in research article introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 12: 33–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cotter, C. 2010. News talk: Investigating the language of journalism. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe 2001. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cowden-Clarke, M. V. 1881. The complete concordance to Shakespeare: Being a verbal index to all the passages in the dramatic works of the poet, new and rev. edn. Bickers & Son, London.Google Scholar
Cowie, A. P. 1999. English dictionaries for foreign learners: A history. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowie, C. 2010. Researching and understanding accent shifts in Indian call centre agents. In Forey, G. and Lockwood, J. (eds.), Globalization, communication and the workplace: Talking across the world, 125–144. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Coxhead, A. 2000. A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly 34: 213–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, H. 2004. Stylistic analysis and authorship studies. In Schreibman, S., Siemens, R., and Unsworth, J. (eds.), A companion to digital humanities, 273–288. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Craig, H. 2008. “Speak, that I may see thee”: Shakespeare characters and common words. Shakespeare Survey 61: 281–288.Google Scholar
Craig, W. J. 1914. William Shakespeare (1564–1616). The Oxford Shakespeare. Oxford University Press. www.bartleby.com/70/ (accessed 5 March 2013).Google Scholar
Cresti, E. and Moneglia, M. 2005. C-Oral-Rom Integrated Reference Corpora for Spoken Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crombie, A. C. 1995. Commitments and styles of European scientific thinking. History of science 33: 225–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crossley, S. and Louwerse, M. 2007. Multi-dimensional register classification using bigrams. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 12: 453–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruttenden, A. 1997. Intonation, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crystal, D. 1975. The English tone of voice. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. 1995. The Cambridge encyclopedia of the English language. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. 2012. Searchlinguistics. In Chapelle, C. (ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Csomay, E. 2005. Linguistic variation within university classroom talk: A corpus-based perspective. Linguistics and Education 15: 243–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Csomay, E. 2013. Lexical bundles in discourse structure: A corpus-based study of classroom discourse. Applied Linguistics 34(3): 369–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, J. 2001. Language and characterization: People in plays and other texts. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. 2002. Computers, language and characterisation: An analysis of six characters in Romeo and Juliet. In Melander-Marttala, U., Ostman, C., and Kytö, M. (eds.), Conversation in life and in literature: Papers from the ASLA Symposium (Association Suédoise de Linguistique Appliquée (ASLA), 15), 11–30. Uppsala: Universitetstryckeriet. See www.lexically.net/wordsmith/corpus_linguistics_links/Keywords-Culpeper.pdf (accessed 5 March 2013).Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. 2009a. Historical sociopragmatics: An introduction. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 10(2): 179–186; rpt Historical Sociopragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, J. 2009b. Keyness: Words, parts-of-speech and semantic categories in the character-talk of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14(1): 29–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, J. 2011. Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, J. and Kytö, M. 2010. Early Modern English dialogues: Spoken interaction as writing. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Curado Fuentes, A. 2001. Lexical behaviour in academic and technical corpora: Implications for ESP development. Language Learning and Technology 5(3):106–129.Google Scholar
Curzan, A. 2012. Interdisciplinarity and historiography: periodization in the history of the English language. In Bergs, A. and Brinton, L. (eds.), Historical linguistics of English, vol. 2:1233–1256. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cutler, A., Dahan, D., and van Donselaar, W. 1997. Prosody in the comprehension of spoken language: A literature review. Language and Speech 40: 141–201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dagneaux, E., Denness, S., and Granger, S. 1998. Computer-aided error analysis. System 26: 163–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. 1996. The French influence on Middle English morphology: A corpus-based study of derivation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damerau, F. J. 1993. Generating and evaluating domain-oriented multi-word terms from texts. Information Processing and Management 29: 433–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danielsson, P. 2001. The automatic identification of meaningful units in language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Göteborg University.Google Scholar
D’Arcy, A. 2011. Corpora: Capturing language in use. In Maguire, W. and McMahon, A. (eds.), Analysing variation in English, 49–72. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Arcy, A. 2012. The diachrony of quotation: Evidence from New Zealand English. Language Variation and Change 24(3): 343–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
da Silva, A. S. 2010. Measuring and parameterizing lexical convergence and divergence between European and Brazilian Portuguese. In Geeraerts, D., Kristiansen, G., and Peirsman, Y. (eds.), Advances in cognitive sociolinguistics, 41–84. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
da Silva, J. F., Dias, G., Guilloré, S., and Pereira Lopes, J. G. 1999. Using LocalMaxs Algorithm for the extraction of contiguous and non-contiguous multiword lexical units. Proceedings of the 9th Portuguese Conference on Artificial Intelligence: Progress in Artificial Intelligence, 113–132. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Daudaravičius, V. and Marcinkevičienė, R. 2004. Gravity counts for the boundaries of collocations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9 (2): 321–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, M. 2007. The TIME Magazine Corpus (100 million words, 1920s–2000s). Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/timeGoogle Scholar
Davies, M. 2008. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 400+ million words, 1990-present. Available online at www.americancorpus.orgGoogle Scholar
Davies, M. 2009. The 385+ million word Corpus of Contemporary American English (1990–2008+): Design, architecture, and linguistic insights. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14: 159–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, M. 2010. The Corpus of Historical American English (COHA): 400+ million words, 1810–2009. http://corpus.byu.edu/cohaGoogle Scholar
Davies, M. 2011. The Corpus of Contemporary American English as the first reliable monitor corpus of English. Literary and Linguistic Computing 25: 447–65.Google Scholar
Davies, M. 2012a. Expanding horizons in historical linguistics with the 400 million word Corpus of Historical American English. Corpora 7: 121–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, M. 2012b. Examining recent changes in English: Some methodological issues. In Nevalainen, T. and Traugott, E. C. (eds.), Handbook on the history of English: Rethinking approaches to the history of English, 263–87. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davies, M. 2013. Recent shifts with three nonfinite verbal complements in English: data from the 100-million-word Time corpus (1920s-2000s). In Aarts, et al. (eds.), 46–67.Google Scholar
Davies, M. Forthcoming. A corpus-based study of lexical developments in Early and Late Modern English. In Kytö, Merja and Pahta, Päivi (eds.), Handbook of English historical linguistics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Davydova, J. 2011. The present perfect in non-native Englishes: A corpus-based study of variation. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dayrell, C. 2007. A quantitative approach to compare collocational patterns in translated and non-translated texts. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 12(3): 375–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Cock, S. 2002. Pragmatic prefabs in learners’ dictionaries. Proceedings of the X EURALEX Congress. Downloaded from www.euralex.org/elx_proceedings/Euralex2002/Google Scholar
De Cock, S. 2004. Preferred sequences of words in NS and NNS speech. Belgian Journal of English Language and Literatures (BELL), New Series 2: 225–246.Google Scholar
De Cock, S. and Granger, S. 2004. High frequency words: The bête noire of lexicographers and learners alike. A close look at the verb “make” in five monolingual learners’ dictionaries of English. Proceedings of the XI EURALEX Congress. Downloaded from www.euralex.org/elx_proceedings/Euralex2004/Google Scholar
De Cock, S. and Granger, S. 2005. Computer learner corpora and monolingual learners’ dictionaries: The perfect match. Lexicographica 20: 72–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Haan, P. 1989. Postmodifying clauses in the English noun phrase: A corpus-based study. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dehé, N. 2009. Clausal parentheticals, intonational phrasing, and prosodic theory. Journal of Linguistics 45(3):569–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dehé, N. and Wichmann, A. 2010. The multifunctionality of epistemic parentheticals in Discourse: Prosodic cues to the semantic–pragmatic boundary. Functions of Language 17(1): 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deignan, A. and Semino, E. 2010. Corpus techniques for metaphor analysis. In Cameron, L. and Maslen, R. (eds.), Metaphor analysis: Research practice in applied linguistics, social sciences and the humanities, 161–179. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Delaere, I., De Sutter, G., and Plevoets, K. 2012. Is translated language more standardized than non-translated language? Target 24(2): 203–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demol, A. and Hadermann, P. 2008. An exploratory study of discourse organisation in French L1, Dutch L1, French L2 and Dutch L2 written narratives. In Gilquin, G., Papp, S., and Díez-Bedmar, M. B. (eds.), Linking up contrastive and learner corpus research, 255–282. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Schryver, G.-M. 2003. Lexicographer’s dreams in the electronic-dictionary age. International Journal of Lexicography 16(2): 143–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deshors, S. C. 2014. A case for a unified treatment of EFL and ESL: A multifactorial approach. English World-Wide 35(3): 277–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deshors, S. C. and Gries, S. Th. Forthcoming. A case for the multifactorial assessment of learner language: The uses of may and can in French–English interlanguage. In Glynn, D. and Robinson, J. (eds.), Polysemy and synonymy: Corpus methods and applications in cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
de Smet, Hendrik. 2012a. The course of actualization. Language 88(3): 601–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Smet, Hendrik. 2012b. Spreading patterns: Diffusional change in the English system of complementation. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Smet, H. and Cuyckens, H. 2005. Pragmatic strengthening and the meaning of complement constructions: The case of like and love with the to-infinitive. Journal of English Linguistics 33: 3–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deuber, D., Biewer, C., Hackert, S., and Hilbert, M. 2012. Will and would in selected New Englishes: General and variety-specific tendencies. In Hundt, and Gut, (eds.), 77–102.Google Scholar
Devitt, A. J. 1989. Standardizing written English: Diffusion in the case of Scotland 1520–1659. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dewey, M. 2007a. English as a lingua franca: An empirical study of innovation in lexis and grammar. PhD thesis, King’s College London.Google Scholar
Dewey, M. 2007b. English as a lingua franca and globalization: An interconnected perspective. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 17(3): 332–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewey, M. 2009. English as a lingua franca: Heightened variability and theoretical implications. In Mauranen, A. and Ranta, E. (eds.), English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings, 60–83. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Press.Google Scholar
Díaz-Negrillo, A. and Fernández-Domínguez, J. 2006. Error tagging systems for learner corpora. RESLA 19: 83–102.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. and Tomasello, M. 2005. Particle placement in early child language: A multifactorial analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1(1): 89–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Díez-Bedmar, M. B. and Papp, S. 2008. The use of the English article system by Chinese and Spanish learners. In Gilquin, G., Papp, S., and Díez-Bedmar, M. B. (eds.), Linking up contrastive and learner corpus research, 147–175. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ding, Huiling. 2007. Genre analysis of personal statements: Analysis of moves in application essays to medical and dental schools. English for Specific Purposes 26: 368–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Divjak, Dagmar S. and Gries, Stefan Th. 2006. Ways of trying in Russian: Clustering behavioral profiles. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 2(1): 23–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Divjak, Dagmar S. and Gries, Stefan Th. 2008. Clusters in the mind? Converging evidence from near synonymy in Russian. The Mental Lexicon 3(2): 188–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dodd, B. 2000. Introduction: The relevance of corpora in German studies. In Dodd, B. (ed.), Working with German corpora, 1–39. University of Birmingham Press.Google Scholar
Doherty, M. 2002. Language processing in discourse. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dor, D. 2005. Toward a semantic account of that-deletion in English. Linguistics 43: 345–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorgeloh, H. and Wanner, A. (eds.). 2010. Syntactic variation and genre. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drew, P. and Heritage, J. 1992. Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dueñas, P. M. 2007. “I/we focus on …”: A cross-cultural analysis of self-mentions in business management research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 6(2): 143–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duguid, A. 2007. Men at work: How those at Number 10 construct their working identity. In Garzone, G. and Sarangi, S. (eds.), Discourse, ideology and specialized communication, 453–484 Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Duguid, A. 2009. Insistent voices: Government messages. In Morley, and Bayley, (eds.), 234–260.Google Scholar
Duguid, A. 2010a. Investigating anti and some reflections on Modern Diachronic Corpus-Assisted Discourse Studies (MD-CADS). Corpora 5(2): 191–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duguid, A. 2010b. Newspapers discourse informalisation: A diachronic comparison from keywords. Corpora 5(2): 109–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunning, T. 1993. Accurate methods for the statistics of surprise and coincidence. Computational Linguistics 19(1): 61–74.Google Scholar
Durrant, P. and Schmitt, N. 2009. To what extent do native and non-native writers make use of collocations? International Review of Applied Linguistics 47(2): 157–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ebeling, J., Ebeling, S., and Hasselgård, H. 2013. Using recurrent word-combinations to explore cross-linguistic differences. In Aijmer, K. and Altenberg, B. (eds.), Advances in corpus-based contrastive linguistics: Studies in honour of Stig Johansson, 177–200. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eeg-Olofsson, M. and Altenberg, B. 1994. Discontinuous recurrent word combinations in the London–Lund Corpus. In Fries, U., Tottie, G., and Schneider, P. (eds.), Creating and using English language corpora: Papers from the fourteenth international conference on English language research on computerized corpora, 63–77. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egan, T. 2012. Through seen through the looking glass of translation equivalence: a proposed method for determining closeness of word senses. In Hoffmann, Sebastian, Rayson, Paul, and Leech, Geoffrey N. (eds.), English corpus linguistics: Looking back, moving forward, 41–56. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elbaum, S. N. 2009. Grammar in context, 5th edn. Boston, MA: HeinleCengage.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. 2006. Meta-analysis, human cognition, and language learning. In Norris, J. and Ortega, L. (eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching, 301–322. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. 2007. Language acquisition as rational cue-contingency learning. Applied Linguistics 27(1): 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. and Ferreira-Junior, F. 2009. Constructions and their acquisition: Islands and the distinctiveness of their occupancy. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 7: 187–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N., Simpson-Vlach, R., and Maynard, C. 2008. Formulaic language in native and second language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL. TESOL Quarterly 42: 375–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. 1994. The study of second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Elsness, J. 1997. The perfect and the preterite in contemporary and earlier English. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elsness, J. 2009. The perfect and the preterite in Australian and New Zealand English. In Peters, et al. (eds.), 89–114.Google Scholar
Elspaß, S., Langer, N., Scharloth, J., and Vandenbussche, . 2007. Germanic language histories “from below” (1700–2000). Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engel, D. M. and Ritz, M. E. 2000. The use of the present perfect in Australian English. Australian Journal of Linguistics 20(2): 119–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enkvist, N. E. 1964. On defining style. In Enkvist, N. E., Spencer, J., and Gregory, M. (eds.), Linguistics and style, 1–56. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Erman, B. 1987. Pragmatic expressions in English: A study of you know, you see and I mean in face-to-face conversation. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S. 1971. Sociolinguistics. In Fishman, J. (ed.), Advances in the sociology of language, 15–91. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Everitt, B. and Hothorn, T. 2011. An introduction to applied multivariate analysis with R. Berlin and New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evert, S. 2004. The statistics of word cooccurrences: Word pairs and collocations. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Evert, S. 2008. Corpora and collocations. In Lüdeling, A. and Kytö, M. (eds.), Corpus linguistics: An international handbook, 1212–1248. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Evert, S. and Lüdeling, A. 2001. Measuring morphological productivity: Is automatic preprocessing sufficient? In Rayson, P., Wilson, A., McEnery, T., Hardie, A., and Khoja, S. (eds.), Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics Conference 2001, 167–175.Google Scholar
Evison, J. 2013. Turn openings in academic talk: Where goals and roles intersect. Classroom Discourse 4(1): 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evison, J., McCarthy, M., and O’Keeffe, A. 2007. “Looking out for love and all the rest of it”: Vague category markers as shared social space. In Cutting, J. (ed.), Vague language explored, 138–160. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, N. 1989. Language and power. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. 1996. Technologisation of discourse. In Caldas-Coulthard, and Coulthard, (eds.), 71–83.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. 2000. New Labour, new language? London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fallon, H. 2004. Comparing World Englishes: A research guide. World Englishes 23(2): 309–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farr, F. and O’Keeffe, A. 2002. Would as a hedging device in an Irish context: An intra-varietal comparison of institutionalised spoken interaction. In Reppen, R., Fitzmaurice, S., and Biber, D. (eds.), Using corpora to explore linguistic variation, 25–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, G. 2001. If you pop over there: A corpus-based study of conditionals in medical discourse. English for Specific Purposes 20: 61–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández, J. 2013. A corpus-based study of vague language use by learners of Spanish in a study abroad context. In Kinginger, C. (ed.), Social and cultural aspects of language learning in study abroad, 299–332. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrangne, E. 2013. Automatic suprasegmental parameter extraction in learner corpora. In Diaz-Negrillo, Ana, Ballier, N., and Thompson, P. (eds.), Automatic treatment and analysis of learner corpus data, 151–168. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferraresi, A., Bernardini, S., Picci, G., and Baroni, M. 2010. Web corpora for bilingual lexicography: A pilot study of English/French collocation extraction and translation. In Xiao, R. (ed.), Using corpora in contrastive and translation studies, 337–359. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. 1985. Syntactic intrusions and the notion of grammatical construction. In Niepokuj, M., VanClay, M., Nikiforidou, V., and Feder, D. (eds.), Proceedings of the eleventh annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 73–86. University of California, Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Johnson, C. R., and Petruck, M. R. L. 2003. Background to Framenet. International Journal of Lexicography 16: 235–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finegan, E. and Biber, D. 1994. Register and social dialect variation: An integrated approach. In Biber, D. and Finegan, E.. (eds.), Sociolinguistic perspectives on register, 315–347. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finegan, E. and Biber, D. 2001. Register variation and social dialect variation. In Eckert, P. and Rickford, J. R. (eds.), Style and sociolinguistic variation, 235–267. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Firth, A. 1996. The discursive accomplishment of normality: On “lingua franca” English and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics 26(2): 237–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firth, A. 1957. Papers in Linguistics 1934–1951. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Firth, A. 1968. A synopsis of linguistic theory 1930–1955. In Palmer, F. R. (ed.), Selected papers of J. R. Firth 1952–59, 1–32. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer-Starcke, B. 2009. Keywords and frequent phrases of Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice: A corpus-stylistic analysis. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14(4): 492–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer-Starcke, B. 2010. Corpus linguistics in literary analysis: Jane Austen and her contemporaries. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Fitzmaurice, S. M. and Taavitsainen, I. (eds.). 2007. Methods in historical pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flamson, T., Bryant, G. A., and Barrett, H. C. 2011. Prosody in spontaneous humor: Evidence for encryption. Pragmatics & Cognition 19(2), 248–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, W. 2013. Corpus analysis of the World Wide Web. In Chapelle, C. A (ed.), Encyclopedia of applied linguistics, 339–347. Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Flowerdew, L. 1998. Integrating “expert” and “interlanguage” computer corpora findings on causality: Discoveries for teachers and students. English for Specific Purposes 17(4): 329–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flowerdew, L. 2012. Corpora and language education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fonseca-Greber, B. and Waugh, L. 2003. On the radical difference between the subject personal pronouns in written and spoken European French. In Leistyna, P. and Meyer, C. (eds.), Corpus analysis: Language structure and language use, 225–240. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forchini, P. 2012. Movie language revisited: Evidence from multi-dimensional analysis and corpora. Bern: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortanet, I. 2004. The use of “we” in university lectures: Reference and function. English for Specific Purposes 23: 45–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, B. 1987. Discourse structure and anaphora. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, B. and Thompson, S. 1990. A discourse explanation of the grammar of relative clauses in English conversation. Language 66: 297–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francis, G., Hunston, S., and Manning, E. 1996. Collins COBUILD grammar patterns 1: Verbs. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Francis, G., Hunston, S., and Manning, E. 1998. Collins COBUILD grammar patterns 2: Nouns and Adjectives. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Francis, W. N. and Kučera, H. 1964. Manual of information to accompany “A Standard Sample of Present-Day Edited American English, for use with Digital Computers.” Providence, RI: Brown University.Google Scholar
Francis, W. N. and Kučera, H. 1982. Frequency analysis of English usage: Lexicon and grammar. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Franconi, M. 2011. L’ingegneria linguistica dei briefings: Come viene gestito il dibattito tra la Casa Bianca e La Stampa sulle sommosse arabe. Dissertation, Faculty of Political Science, Bologna University.Google Scholar
Frawley, W. 1984. Prolegomenon to a theory of translation. In Frawley, W. (ed.), Translation: literary, linguistic, and philosophical perspectives, 159–175. Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Presses.Google Scholar
Fraysse-Kim, Soon Hee. 2010. Keywords in Korean national consciousness: A corpus-based analysis of school textbooks. In Bondi, and Scott, (eds.), 219–33.Google Scholar
Frazier, Stefan. 2003. A corpus analysis of would-clauses without adjacent if-clauses. TESOL Quarterly 37: 443–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, G. L. 2009. Learner-created lexical databases using web-based source material. ELT Journal 63(2): 126–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fries, C. C. 1940. American English grammar: The grammatical structure of present-day American English with especial reference to social differences or class dialects (National Council of Teachers of English: English monograph). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Fries, C. C. 1952. The structure of English: An introduction to the construction of English sentences. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Friginal, E. 2009. The language of outsourced call centers: A corpus-based study of cross-cultural interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friginal, E. 2010. Call centre training and language in the Philippines. In Forey, G. and Lockwood, J. (eds.), Globalization, communication and the workplace: Talking across the world, 190–203. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Fritz, C. W. A. 2007. From English in Australia to Australian English: 1788–1900. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fu, X. 2012. The use of interactional metadiscourse in job postings. Discourse Studies 14: 399–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuchs, M. and Bonner, M. 2011. Focus on grammar, 4th edn. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Fuertes-Olivera, P. A. and Bergenholtz, H. (eds.). 2011. e-Lexicography: The internet, digital initiatives and lexicography. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Fung, L. and Carter, R. 2007. Discourse markers and spoken English: Native and learner use in pedagogic settings. Applied Linguistics 28: 410–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabrielatos, C. 2005. Corpora and language teaching: Just a fling or wedding bells? Teaching English as a Second Language – Electronic Journal 8(4): 1–35. Downloaded from http://tesl-ej.org/ej32/a1.htmlGoogle Scholar
Gabrielatos, C. and Baker, P. 2008. Fleeing, sneaking, flooding: A corpus analysis of discursive constructions of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK press, 1996–2005. Journal of English Linguistics 36(1): 5–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gan, S-L., Low, F., and Yaakub, N. 1996. Modeling teaching with a computer-based concordancer in a TESL preservice teacher education program. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education 12(4): 28–32.Google Scholar
Gardner, D. and Davies, M. 2007. Pointing out frequent phrasal verbs: A corpus-based analysis. TESOL Quarterly 41: 339–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, D. and Davies, M. 2013. A new academic vocabulary list. Applied Linguistics 34(5): 1–24.Google Scholar
Garside, R. 1987. The CLAWS word-tagging system. In Garside, R., Leech, G., and Sampson, G. (eds.), The computational analysis of English: A corpus-based approach, 30–41. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Garside, R. 1993. The marking of cohesive relationships: Tools for the construction of a large bank of anaphoric data. ICAME Journal 17: 5–27.Google Scholar
Garside, R., Leech, G., and McEnery, T. (eds.) 1997. Corpus annotation: Linguistic information from computer text corpora. Harlow: Longman.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaskell, D. and Cobb, T. 2004. Can learners use concordance feedback for writing errors? System 32(3): 301–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gavioli, L. 2005. Exploring corpora for ESP learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geisler, C. 2002. Investigating register variation in nineteenth-century English: A multi-dimensional comparison. In Reppen, R., Fitzmaurice, S. M., and Biber, D. (eds.), Using corpora to explore linguistic variation, 249–271. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gellerstam, M. 1996. Translations as a source for cross-linguistic studies. In Aijmer, K., Altenberg, B., and Johansson, M. (eds.), Languages in contrast, 53–61. Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Gelman, A., Hill, J., and Yajima, M. 2012. Why we (usually) don’t have to worry about multiple comparisons. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness 5: 189–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerbig, A. 2010. Key words and key phrases in a corpus of travel writing: From early modern English to contemporary “blooks.” In Bondi, and Scott, (eds.), 147–168.Google Scholar
Giannoni, D. 2008. Popularizing features in English journal editorials. English for Specific Purposes 27: 212–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillard, P. and Gadsby, A. 1998. Using a learners’ corpus in compiling ELT dictionaries. In Granger, S. (ed.), Learner English on computer, 159–171. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Gilmore, A. 2007. Authentic materials and authenticity in foreign language learning. Language Teaching 40, 97–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilmore, A. 2011, “I prefer not text”: Developing Japanese learners’ communicative competence with authentic materials. Language Learning 61: 786–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, G. 2000/2001. The integrated contrastive model: Spicing up your data. Languages in Contrast 3(1): 95–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, G. 2002. Automatic retrieval of syntactic structures: The quest for the Holy Grail. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 7(2): 183–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, G. 2007. To err is not all: What corpus and elicitation can reveal about the use of collocations by learners. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 55(3): 273–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, G. 2008. Hesitation markers among EFL learners: Pragmatic deficiency or difference? In Romero-Trillo, J. (ed.), Pragmatics and corpus linguistics: A mutualistic entente, 119–149. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, G. 2012. Lexical infelicity in English causative constructions: Comparing native and learner collostructions. In Leino, J. and von Waldenfels, R. (eds.), Analytical causatives: From ‘give’ and ‘come’ to ‘let’ and ‘make’, 41–63. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Gilquin, G., De Cock, S., and Granger, S. 2010. Louvain International Database of Spoken English Interlanguage. Handbook and CD-ROM. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Gilquin, G., Granger, S., and Paquot, M. 2007. Learner corpora: The missing link in EAP pedagogy. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 6(4): 319–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, G., Papp, S., and Díez-Bedmar, M. B. (eds.). 2008. Linking up contrastive and learner corpus research. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gledhill, C. 2000. Collocations in science writing. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Glynn, D. 2010. Testing the hypothesis: objectivity and verification in usage-based Cognitive Semantics. In Glynn, D. and Fischer, K. (eds.), Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches, 239–629. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goatly, A. 2004. Corpus linguistics, systemic-functional grammar and literary meaning: A critical analysis of Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone. Revista Ilha do Desterro: A Journal of English Language, Literatures in English and Cultural Studies 46: 115–154.Google Scholar
Godfrey, J., Holliman, E., and McDaniel, J. 1992. SWITCHBOARD: Telephone speech corpus for research and development. In Proceedings of ICASSP, 517–520. San Francisco, CA: IEEE Signal Processing Society.Google Scholar
Goh, C. 1998. The level tone in Singapore English. English Today 14(1): 50–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goh, C. 2000. A discourse approach to the description of intonation in Singapore English. In Brown, A., Deterding, D., and Ling, L. E. (eds.), The English language in Singapore: Research on pronunciation, 35–45. Singapore Association for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. 1999. The emergence of the semantics of argument structure constructions. In MacWhinney, B. (ed.), The emergence of language, 197–212. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (ed.). 1995. Conceptual structure, discourse and language. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gordani, Y. 2012. The effect of the integration of corpora in reading comprehension classrooms on English as a foreign language learners’ vocabulary development. Computer Assisted Language Learning, i-First article. DOI:10.1080/09588221.2012.685078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Görlach, M. 2004. Text types and the history of English. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Götz, S. 2013. Fluency in native and nonnative English speech. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Götz-Votteler, K. and Herbst, T. 2009. Innovation in advanced learners’ dictionaries of English. Lexicographica 25: 47–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gougenheim, G. 1958. Dictionnaire fondamental de la langue française. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar
Goulden, R., Nation, P., and Read, J. 1990. How large can a receptive vocabulary be? Applied Linguistics 11: 358–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grabe, E. and Post, B. 2002. The transcribed IViE corpus. University of Oxford, Phonetics Laboratory.Google Scholar
Grafmiller, J. 2014. Variation in English genitives across modality and genre. English Language and Linguistics 18(3), 471–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granger, S. 1983. The be + past participle construction in spoken English with special emphasis on the passive. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.Google Scholar
Granger, S. 1996. From CA to CIA and back: An integrated approach to computerized bilingual and learner corpora. In Aijmer, K., Altenberg, B., and Johansson, M. (eds.), Languages in contrast, 37–51. Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Granger, S. 1998 Prefabricated patterns in advanced EFL writing: Collocations and formulae. In Cowie, A. P. (ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis, and applications, 145–160. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granger, S. (ed.). 1998b. Learner English on computer. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Granger, S. 2003a. The International Corpus of Learner English: A new resource for foreign language learning and teaching and second language acquisition research. TESOL Quarterly, 37: 538–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granger, S. 2003b. Error-tagged learner corpora and CALL: A promising synergy. CALICO 20(3): 465–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granger, S. 2009. The contribution of learner corpora to second language acquisition and foreign language teaching: A critical evaluation. In Aijmer, K. (ed.), Corpora and language teaching, 13–32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granger, S. 2012. Introduction: Electronic lexicography – from challenge to opportunity. In Granger, and Paquot, (eds.), 1–11.Google Scholar
Granger, S. 2013. The passive in learner English: Corpus insights and implications for pedagogical grammar. In Ishikawa, S. (ed.), Learner corpus studies in Asia and the world, vol. 1: Papers from LCSAW2013, 5–15. Kobe: School of Languages and Communication, Kobe University.Google Scholar
Granger, S., Dagneaux, E., and Meunier, F. 2002. The International Corpus of Learner English: Handbook and CD-ROM. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Granger, S., Dagneaux, E., Meunier, F., and Paquot, M. 2009. The International Corpus of Learner English. Version 2: Handbook and CD-Rom, Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Granger, S., Hung, J., and Petch-Tyson, S. (eds.). 2002. Computer learner corpora, second language acquisition and foreign language teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granger, S. and Lefer, M.-A. 2012. Towards more and better phrasal entries in bilingual dictionaries. Proceedings of the XV EURALEX Congress. Downloaded from www.euralex.org/proceedings-toc/euralex_2012/Google Scholar
Granger, S. and Meunier, F. 1994. Towards a grammar checker for learners of English. In Fries, U. and Tottie, G. (eds.), Creating and using English language corpora, 79–91. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granger, S. and Meunier, F. (eds.). 2008. Phraseology: An interdisciplinary perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granger, S. and Paquot, M. 2008. Disentangling the phraseological web. In Granger, and Meunier, (eds.), 27–49.Google Scholar
Granger, S. & Paquot, M. 2009. In search of General Academic English: A corpus driven study. In Katsampoxaki-Hodgetts, K. (ed.), Options and practices of LSP practitioners conference proceedings, 94–108. University of Crete.Google Scholar
Granger, S. and Paquot, M. 2010. Customising a general EAP dictionary to meet learner needs. In Granger, S. and Paquot, M. (eds.), eLexicography in the 21st century: New challenges, new applications, 87–96. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Granger, S. and Paquot, M. (eds.). 2012. Electronic lexicography. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granger, S. and Rayson, P. 1998. Automatic profiling of learner texts. In Granger, S. (ed.), Learner English on computer, 119–131. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Gray, B. and Biber, D. 2013. Lexical frames in academic prose and conversation. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18: 109–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, B., Biber, D., and Hiltunen, T. 2011. The expression of stance in early (1665–1712) publications of the Philosophical Transactions and other contemporary medical prose: Innovations in a pioneering discourse. In Taavitsainen, I. and Pahta, P. (eds.), Medical writing in Early Modern English, 221–257. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, B. and Cortes, V. 2011. Perception vs. evidence: An analysis of this and these in academic prose. English for Specific Purposes 30, 1: 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greaves, C. 2009. ConcGram 1.0: A phraseological search engine. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenacre, M. 2007. Correspondence analysis in practice. 2nd edn. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenbaum, S. 1969. Studies in English adverbial usage. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Greenbaum, S. 1974. Some verb-intensifier collocations in American and British English. American Speech 49: 79–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenbaum, S. 1990. Standard English and the international corpus of English. World Englishes 9: 79–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenbaum, S. 1991. ICE: The International Corpus of English. English Today 28: 3–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenbaum, S. (ed.). 1996. Comparing English Worldwide: The International Corpus of English. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenbaum, S. and Nelson, G. 1996. The International Corpus of English (ICE) Project. World Englishes 15: 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, B. B. and Rubin, G. M. 1971. Automatic grammatical tagging of English. Providence, RI: Department of Linguistics, Brown University.Google Scholar
Greule, A., Meier, J., and Ziegler, A. (eds.). 2012. Kanzleisprachenforschung: Ein internationales Handbuch. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grgurović, M., Chapelle, C. A., and Shelley, M. C. 2013. A meta-analysis of effectiveness studies on computer technology supported language learning. ReCALL 25(2): 165–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. 2000. Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: The case of particle placement. PhD dissertation, University of Hamburg.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. 2003a. Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: A study of particle placement. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. 2003b. Towards a corpus-based identification of prototypical instances of constructions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 1: 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. 2004. HCFA 3.2. A program for R. Downloaded from: www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/faculty/stgries/Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. 2005a. Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 34: 365–399.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gries, S. Th. 2005b. Null-hypothesis significance testing of word frequencies: A follow-up on Kilgarriff. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1(2): 277–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. 2006. Exploring variability within and between corpora: Some methodological considerations. Corpora 1(2): 109–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. 2008. Dispersions and adjusted frequencies in corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 13: 403–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. 2009. Quantitative corpus linguistics with R: A practical introduction. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. 2010a. Corpus linguistics and theoretical linguistics: A love–hate relationship? Not necessarily … International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 15(3): 327–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. 2010b. Useful statistics for corpus linguistics. In Sánchez, A. and Almela, M. (eds.), A mosaic of corpus linguistics: selected approaches, 269–291. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. 2010c. Dispersions and adjusted frequencies in corpora: Further explorations. In Gries, S. Th., Wulff, S., and Davies, M. (eds.), Corpus linguistic applications: Current studies, new directions, 197–212. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. 2012a. Frequencies, probabilities, association measures in usage-/exemplar-based linguistics: Some necessary clarifications. Studies in Language 36(3): 477–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. 2012b. Corpus linguistics, theoretical linguistics and cognitive/psycholinguistics: Towards more and more fruitful exchanges. In Mukherjee, J. and Huber, M. (eds.), Corpus linguistics and variation in English: Theory and description, 41–63. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. 2013a. Statistics for linguistics using R, 2nd rev. and ext. edn. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. 2013b. 50-something years of work on collocations: what is or should be next … International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18(1): 137–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. 2014b. Quantitative corpus approaches to linguistic analysis: Seven or eight levels of resolution and the lessons they teach us. In Taavitsainen, I., Kytö, M., Claridge, C., and Smith, J. (eds.), Developments in English: Expanding electronic evidence, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. Forthcoming. Statistics for learner corpus research. Gilquin, G., Granger, S., and Meunier, F. (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of learner corpus research. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. and Deshors, S. C. 2014. Using regressions to explore deviations between corpus data and a standard/target: two suggestions. Corpora 9(1): 109–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. and Hilpert, M. 2008. The identification of stages in diachronic data: variability-based neighbor clustering. Corpora 3(1): 59–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. and Hilpert, M. 2010. Modeling diachronic change in the third person singular: a multifactorial, verb- and author-specific exploratory approach. English Language and Linguistics 14(3): 293–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. and Hilpert, M. 2012. Variability-based neighbor clustering: a bottom-up approach to periodization in historical linguistics. In Nevalainen, T. and Traugott, E. C. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of English, 134–144. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. and Mukherjee, J. 2010. Lexical gravity across varieties of English: An ICE-based study of n-grams in Asian Englishes. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 15(4): 520–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. and Stefanowitsch, A. 2004. Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on “alternations.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(1): 97–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grieve, J. 2007. Quantitative authorship attribution: An evaluation of techniques. Literary and Linguistic Computing 22: 251–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grieve, J. 2011. A regional analysis of contraction rate in written Standard American English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 16: 514–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grieve, J. 2012. A statistical analysis of regional variation in adverb position in a corpus of written Standard American English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 8: 39–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grieve, J. 2013. A statistical comparison of regional phonetic and lexical variation in American English. Literary and Linguistic Computing 28(1): 39–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grieve, J., Biber, D., Friginal, E., and Nekrasova, T. 2011. Variation among blogs: A multi-dimensional analysis. In Mehler, A., Sharoff, S., and Santini, M. (eds.), Genres on the web, 303–322. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Grieve, J., Speelman, D., and Geeraerts, D. 2011. A statistical method for the identification and aggregation of regional linguistic variation. Language Variation and Change 23: 193–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grondelaers, S., and Speelman, D. 2007. A variationist account of constituent ordering in presentative sentences in Belgian Dutch. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 3: 161–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groom, N. 2010. Closed-class keywords and corpus-driven discourse analysis. In Bondi, and Scott, (eds.), pp. 59–78.Google Scholar
Grundmann, R. and Krishnamurthy, R. 2010. The discourse of climate change: A corpus-based approach. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines 4(2): 125–146.Google Scholar
Gu, Y. G. 2002. Towards an understanding of workplace discourse. In Candlin, C. (ed.), Research and practice in professional discourse, 137–186. City University of Hong Kong Press.Google Scholar
Guiraud, P. 1954. Les caractères statistiques du vocabulaire, pages 64–7 reprinted 1975 in Guiraud, P. and Kuentz, P. (eds.), La stylistique: Lectures. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Gut, U. 2009. Non-native speech: A corpus-based analysis of phonological and phonetic properties of L2 English and German. Oxford: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hakuta, K. 1974. Prefabricated patterns and the emergence of structure in second language acquisition. Language Learning 24: 287–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1961. Categories of the theory of grammar. Word 17(2): 241–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1963. The tones of English. Archivum Linguisticum 15: 1–28.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1966. Lexis as a linguistic level. In Bazell, C., Catford, J., Halliday, M. A. K., and Robins, R. (eds.), In memory of J. R. Firth, 148–162. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1967. Intonation and grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1968. Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 3. Journal of Linguistics 4: 179–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1976. System and function in language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1985. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1994. An introduction to functional grammar, 2nd edn. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. and Hasan, R. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Han, W., Arppe, A., and Newman, J. Forthcoming. Topic marking in a Shanghainese corpus: From observation to prediction. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory.Google Scholar
Handford, M. 2010. The language of business meetings. Cambridge University press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Handford, M. and Matous, P. 2011. Lexicogrammar in the international construction industry: A corpus-based case study of Japanese–Hong-Kongese on-site interactions in English. English for Specific Purposes 30: 87–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanks, P. 1987. Definitions and explanations. In Sinclair, J. (ed.), Looking up: An account of the COBUILD project in lexical computing, 116–36. London and Glasgow: Collins.Google Scholar
Hanks, P. 2009. The impact of corpora on dictionaries. In Baker, P. (ed.), Contemporary corpus linguistics, 214–36. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Hanks, P. 2012a. The corpus revolution in lexicography. International Journal of Lexicography 25(4): 398–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanks, P. 2012b. Corpus evidence and electronic lexicography. In Granger, and Paquot, (eds.), 57–82.Google Scholar
Hanks, P. 2013. Lexical analysis: norms and exploitations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen-Schirra, S., Neumann, S., and Steiner, E. 2007. Cohesive explicitness and explicitation in an English–German translation corpus. Languages in Contrast 7(2): 241–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hassall, P. 2006. Developing an International Corpus of Creative English. World Englishes 25(1): 131–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasselgård, H. 2009. Thematic choice and expressions of stance in English argumentative texts by Norwegian learners. In Aijmer, K. (ed.), Corpora and language teaching, 120–39. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hasselgård, H. 2010. Adjunct adverbials in English. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasselgård, H. and Johansson, S. 2012. Learner corpora and contrastive interlanguage analysis. In Meunier, F., De Cock, S., Gilquin, G., and Paquot, M. (eds.), A taste for corpora: In honour of Sylviane Granger, 33–61. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hasselgren, A. 2002. Learner corpora and language testing. Small words as markers of learner fluency. In Granger, S., Hung, J., and Petch-Tyson, S. (eds.), Computer learner corpora, second language acquisition and foreign language teaching, 143–173. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., and Friedman, J. 2009. The elements of statistical learning: Data mining, inference, and prediction. Berlin and New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatim, B. and Mason, I. 1997. The translator as communicator. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hattie, J. 2009. Visible learning: A synthesis of meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hawkey, R. and Barker, F. 2004. Developing a common scale for the assessment of writing. Assessing Writing 9: 122–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. 2003. Why are zero-marked phrases closer to their heads? In Rohdenburg, G. and Mondorf, B. (eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English, 175–204. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, J. and Baayen, H. 2005. Shifting paradigms: gradient structure in morphology. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9: 342–348.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
He, A. and Kennedy, G. 1999. Successful turn-bidding in English conversation. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 4: 1–27.Google Scholar
Heid, U. 2011. Electronic dictionaries as tools: Towards an assessment of usability. In Fuertes-Olivera, and Bergenholtz, (eds.), 287–304.Google Scholar
Heid, U. and Gouws, R. 2006. A model for a multifunctional electronic dictionary of collocations. Proceedings of the XII EURALEX Congress. Downloaded from www.euralex.org/elx_proceedings/Euralex2006/Google Scholar
Helt, M. 2001. A comparison of British and American spoken English. In Conrad, S. and Biber, D. (eds.), Multi-dimensional studies of register variation in English, 171–184. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Henry, A. and Roseberry, R. 2001. A narrow-angled corpus analysis of moves and strategies of the genre: “Letter of Application.” English for Specific Purposes 20: 153–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herbst, T. 2009. Valency – item-specificity and idiom principle. In Römer, U. and Schulze, R. (eds.), Exploring the lexis–grammar interface, 49–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herbst, T., Heath, D., and Roe, I. 2004. A valency dictionary of English. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herbst, T. and Mittmann, B. 2008. Collocation in English dictionaries at the beginning of the twenty-first century. Lexicographica: International Annual for Lexicography, 103–19.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. and Maynard, D. 2006. Communication in medical care: Interaction between primary care physicians and patients. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hernández, N., Kolbe, D., and Schulz, M. E. (eds.). 2011. A comparative grammar of British English dialects, vol. 2: Modals, pronouns and complement clauses. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hernándes-Campoy, J. M. and Condre-Silvestre, J. C. (eds.). 2012. The handbook of historical sociolinguistics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hernández, N. 2006. User’s guide to FRED. Downloaded from www.freidok.uni-freiburg.de/volltexte/2489/pdf/Userguide_neu.pdfGoogle Scholar
Herring, S. C. and Paolillo, J. C. 2006. Gender and genre variation in weblogs. Journal of Sociolinguistics 10: 439–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hewings, M. 1986. Problems of intonation in classroom interaction. Guidelines 2(1): 45–51.Google Scholar
Hewings, M. (ed.). 1990. Papers in discourse intonation. Birmingham: English Language Research.Google Scholar
Hewings, M. and Cauldwell, R. 1997. Foreword. In Brazil, D. (ed.), The communicative value of intonation in English, v–vii. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M. 2008. Germanic future constructions: A usage-based approach to language change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. 2011. Dynamic visualizations of language change: Motion charts on the basis of bivariate and multivariate data from diachronic corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 16(4): 435–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. 2013. Constructional change in English: Developments in allomorphy, word formation, and syntax. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. and Gries, S. Th. 2009. Assessing frequency changes in multistage diachronic corpora: Applications for historical corpus linguistics and the study of language acquisition. Literary and Linguistic Computing 24(4): 385–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiltunen, T. 2010. Grammar and disciplinary culture: A corpus-based study. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Hindmarsh, R. 1980. Cambridge English lexicon. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, L. and Szmrecsanyi, B. 2007. Recent changes in the function and frequency of Standard English genitive constructions: A multivariate analysis of tagged corpora. English Language and Linguistics 11(3): 437–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinkel, E. 2002. Second language writers’ text. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinkel, E. 2003. Simplicity without elegance: Features of sentences in L1 and L2 academic texts. TESOL Quarterly. 37(2): 275–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Höhn, N. 2012. “And they were all like ‘What’s going on?’”: New quotatives in Jamaican and Irish English. In Hundt, and Gut, (eds.), 263–289.Google Scholar
Hochberg, Y. 1988. A sharper Bonferroni procedure for multiple tests of significance. Biometrika 75(4): 800–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoey, M. 1991. Pattern of lexis in text. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hoey, M. 2004a. Lexical priming and the properties of text. In Partington, A., Morley, J., and Haarman, L. (eds.), Corpora and discourse, 385–412. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Hoey, M. 2004b. Language as choice: what is chosen? In Thompson, G. and Hunston, S. (eds.), System and corpus: Exploring connections, 37–54. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Hoey, M. 2005. Lexical priming: A new theory of words and language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, S. 2005. Grammaticalization and English complex prepositions: A corpus-based study. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, S. 2007. Processing Internet-derived text – creating a corpus of Usenet messages. Literary and Linguistic Computing 22(2): 151–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, S., Evert, S., Smith, N., Lee, D., and Berglund Prytz, Y. 2008. Corpus linguistics with BNCweb – a practical guide. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, S., Hundt, M., and Mukherjee, J. 2012. Indian English – an emerging epicentre? A pilot study on light verbs in web-derived corpora of South Asian Englishes. Anglia 129(3–4): 258–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, S. and Mukherjee, J. 2007. Ditransitive verbs in Indian English and British English: A corpus-linguistic study. Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik 32: 5–24.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. and Siebers, L. (eds.). World Englishes: Problems, properties and prospects. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hofland, K. and Johansson, S. 1982. Word frequencies in British and American English. Bergen: Norwegian Computing Centre for the Humanities.Google Scholar
Holm, S. 1979. A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics 6(2): 65–70.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. 1988. Paying compliments: A sex preferential politeness strategy. Journal of Pragmatics 12(4): 445–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, J. 1993. Chairpersons and goddesses: Non-sexist usages in New Zealand English. Te Reo 36: 99–113.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. 2001. A corpus-based view of gender in New Zealand English. In Hellinger, M. and Buβmann, H. (eds.), Gender across languages: The linguistic representation of women and men, vol. 1: 115–136. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, J. and Stubbe, M. 2003. Power and politeness in the workplace. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. S. 1978. Describing literary translations: Models and methods. In Holmes, J. S., Lambert, J., and van den Broek, R. (eds.), Literature and translation, 69–83. Leuven: ACCO.Google Scholar
Holtz, M. 2007. Corpus-based analysis of verb/noun collocations in interdisciplinary registers. Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics Conference 2007. http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/publications/CL2007/paper/14_Paper.pdf (accessed 2 August 2011).Google Scholar
Hommel, G. 1988. A stagewise rejective multiple test procedure based on a modified Bonferroni test. Biometrika 75(2): 383–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hood, S. 2011. Writing discipline: Comparing inscriptions of knowledge and knowers in academic writing. In Christie, F. and Maton, K. (eds.), Disciplinarity: Functional linguistic and sociological perspectives, 106–128. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Hoover, D. L. 1999. Language and style in “The Inheritors.” Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Hoover, D. L. 2003. Frequent collocations and authorial style. Literary and Linguistic Computing 18(3): 261–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoover, D. L. 2007. Corpus stylistics, stylometry, and the styles of Henry James. Style 41(2): 174–255.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J. and Traugott, E. C. 2003. Grammaticalization, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hori, M. 2004. Investigating Dickens’ style: A collocational analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, L. R. and Ward, G. (eds.). 2004. The handbook of pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
House, J. 2002. Developing pragmatic competence in English as a lingua franca. In Knapp, K. and Meierkord, C. (eds.), Lingua franca communication, 245–267. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Housen, A. 2002. A corpus-based study of the L2-acquisition of the English verb system. In Granger, S., Hung, J., and Petch-Tyson, S. (eds.), Computer learner corpora, second language acquisition and foreign language teaching, 77–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Howarth, P. 1996. Phraseology in English academic writing: Some implications for language learning and dictionary making. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howarth, P. 1998a. Phraseology and second language proficiency. Applied Linguistics 19(1): 24–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howarth, P. 1998b. The phraseology of learners’ academic writing. In Cowie, A. P. (ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis, and applications, 161–86. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hülmbauer, C. 2009. “We don’t take the right way. We just take the way we think you will understand”: The shifting relationship between correctness and effectiveness in ELF. In Mauranen, A. and Ranta, E. (eds.), English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings, 323–47. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Huang, H-T. and Liou, H-C. 2007. Vocabulary learning in an automated graded reading program. Language Learning & Technology 11(3): 64–82.Google Scholar
Huang, Y. 2007. Pragmatics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Huber, M. 2007. The Old Bailey Proceedings, 1674–1834: Evaluating and annotating a corpus of 18th- and 19th-century spoken English. In Meurman-Solin, A. and Nurmi, A. (eds.), Annotating variation and change (Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 1). University of Helsinki. Downloaded from www.helsinki.fi/varieng/journal/volumes/01/Google Scholar
Huckin, T. and Coady, J. 1999. Incidental vocabulary acquisition in a second language: A review. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21: 121–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huckvale, M. and Fang, A. C. 1996. PROSICE: A spoken English database for prosody research. In Greenbaum, (ed.), 262–279.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. and Pullum, G. K. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, R. 1994. About 37% of word-tokens are nouns. Language 70: 331–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, A., Trudgill, P., and Watt, D. 2005. English accents and dialects: An introduction to social and regional varieties of English in the British Isles, 4th edn. London: Hodder Arnold.Google Scholar
Hultgren, A. K. 2011. “Building rapport” with customers across the world: The global diffusion of a call centre speech style. Journal of Sociolinguistics 15(19): 36–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hundt, M. 1997. Has BrE been catching up with AmE over the past 30 years? In Ljung, (ed.), Corpus-based Studies in English, 135–151. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Hundt, M. 1998. New Zealand English grammar. Fact or fiction? Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hundt, M. 2004. Animacy, agentivity, and the spread of the progressive in Modern English. English Language and Linguistics 8: 47–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hundt, M. 2006. “The committee has/have decided …”: On concord patterns with collective nouns in inner and outer circle varieties of English. Journal of English Linguistics 34(3): 206–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hundt, M. 2013. The diversification of English: old, new and emerging epicentres. In Schreier, D. and Hundt, M. (eds.), English as a contact language, 182–203. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hundt, M. Forthcoming. Error, feature, (ongoing) grammatical change or something else altogether? In Posse, E. Seoane and Gómez, C. Suárez (eds.), Englishes today: Theoretical and methodological issues. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hundt, M. and Gut, U. (eds.). 2012. Mapping unity and diversity worldwide: Corpus-based Studies of New Englishes. Amsterdam: JohnBenjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hundt, M. and Leech, G. 2012. Small is Beautiful – on the value of standard reference corpora for observing recent grammatical change. In Nevalainen, T. and Traugott, E. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of English, 175–188. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hundt, M. and Mair, C. 1999. “Agile” and “uptight” genres: The corpus-based approach to language change in progress. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 4(2): 221–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hundt, M., Nesselhauf, N., and Biewer, C. (eds.). 2007. Corpus linguistics and the web. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hundt, M., Sand, A., and Siemund, R. 1998. Manual of Information to Accompany the Freiburg–LOB Corpus of British English (“FLOB”). Freiburg University.Google Scholar
Hundt, M., Sand, A., and Skandera, P. 1999. Manual of information to accompany the Freiburg–Brown Corpus of American English. University of Freiburg.Google Scholar
Hundt, M. and Smith, N. 2009. The present perfect in British and American English: Has there been any change, recently? ICAME Journal 33: 45–63.Google Scholar
Hundt, M. and Vogel, K. 2011. Overuse of the progressive in ESL and learner Englishes – fact or fiction? In Mukherjee, and Hundt, (eds.), 145–166.Google Scholar
Hunston, S. 2002. Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunston, S. 2003. Lexis, wordform and complementation pattern: A corpus study. Functions of Language 10: 31–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunston, S. 2011. Corpus approaches to evaluation: Phraseology and evaluative language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hunston, S. and Francis, G. 1998. Verbs observed: A corpus-driven pedagogic grammar. Applied Linguistics 19(1): 45–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunston, S. and Francis, G. 2000. Pattern grammar: A corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunston, S., Francis, G., and Manning, E. 1997. Grammar and vocabulary: Showing the connections. ELT Journal 51: 208–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunston, S. and Sinclair, J. 2000. A local grammar of evaluation. In Hunston, S. and Thompson, G. (eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse, 75–100. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. 1998. Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. 2001. Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes 20: 207–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. 2002a. Options of identity in academic writing. ELT Journal 56: 351–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. 2002b. Authority and invisibility: authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics 34(8): 1091–1112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. 2003. Dissertation acknowledgments: The anatomy of a Cinderella genre. Written Communication 20(3): 242–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. 2004. Disciplinary discourses: social interactions in academic writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. 2004. Genre and second language writers. Ann Arbor, MI: Michigan University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. 2005. Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies 7: 173–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. 2006. Representing readers in writing: Student and expert practices. Linguistics and Education 16: 363–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. 2007. Applying a gloss: Exemplifying and reformulating in academic discourse. Applied Linguistics. 28: 266–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. 2008a. Genre and academic writing in the disciplines. Language Teaching 41(4): 543–562.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. 2008b. As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes 27(1): 4–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. 2012. Disciplinary identities. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. and Diani, G. (eds). 2009. Academic evaluation: Review genres in university settings. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. and Tse, P. 2005. Evaluative that constructions: Signalling stance in research abstracts. Functions of Language 12: 39–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. and Tse, P. 2007. Is there an “academic vocabulary”? TESOL Quarterly 41(2): 235–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. and Tse, P. 2012. “She has received many honours”: Identity construction in article bio statements. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11: 155–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hymes, D. 1974. Foundations in sociolinguistics. University of Philadelphia Press.Google Scholar
Hynninen, N. 2013. Language regulation in English as a lingua franca: Exploring language-regulatory practices in academic spoken discourse. PhD dissertation, University of Helsinki. Downloaded from http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-10-8639-7 (30 July 2013).Google Scholar
Iberri-Shea, G. 2011. Speaking in front of the class: A multi-dimensional comparison of university students’ public speech and university language. Classroom Discourse 2: 251–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ihalainen, O. 1976. Periphrastic do in affirmative sentences in the dialect of east Somerset. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 77: 608–622.Google Scholar
Ihalainen, O. 1980. Relative clauses in the dialect of Somerset. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 81: 187–196.Google Scholar
Ihalainen, O. 1988. Creating linguistic databases from machine-readable dialect texts. In Thomas, A. R. (ed.), Methods in dialectology, 569–584. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Ihalainen, O. 1990. A source of data for the study of English dialect syntax: The Helsinki Corpus. In Aarts, J. and Meijs, W. (eds.), Theory and practice in corpus linguistics, 83–103. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Ikehara, S., Shirai, S., and Uchino, H. 1996. A statistical method for extracting uninterrupted and interrupted collocations from very large corpora. Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Computational Linguistics, vol. 1: 574–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Illes, E. 2009. What makes a coursebook series stand the test of time? ELT Journal 63(2): 145–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingham, R. 2006. On two negative concord dialects in early English. Language Variation and Change 18: 241–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingvarsdóttir, H. and Arnbjörnsdóttir, B. 2013. ELF and academic writing: A perspective from the Expanding Circle. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 2(1): 123–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ishikawa, S. 2011. A new horizon in learner corpus studies: The aim of the ICNALE project. In Weir, G., Ishikawa, S., and Poonpon, K. (eds.), Corpora and language technologies in teaching, learning and research, 3–11. Glasgow: University of Strathclyde Publishing.Google Scholar
Israel, M. 1996. The way constructions grow. In Goldberg, A. E. (ed.), Conceptual structure, discourse and language, 217–230. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Jacobs, A. and Jucker, A. H. 1995. The historical perspective in pragmatics. In Jucker, (ed.), 3–33.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. F. 2006. Redundancy and syntactic reduction in spontaneous speech. PhD thesis, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. F. and Snider, N. 2008. Implicit learning and syntactic persistence: Surprisal and cumulativity. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Jarvis, S. and Paquot, M. In press. Native language identification. In Granger, S., Gilquin, G., and Meunier, F. (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of learner corpus research. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jaworski, A., Coupland, N., and Galanski, D. 2004. Metalanguage: Social and ideological perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeffries, L. and Walker, B. 2012. Key words in the press. English Text Construction 5(2): 208–29.Google Scholar
Jenkins, J. 2000. The phonology of English as an international language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jenkins, J. 2007. English as a lingua franca: Attitude and identity. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jenkins, J., Cogo, A., and Dewey, M. 2011. Review of developments in research into English as a lingua franca. Language Teaching 44(3): 281–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeon, E. H. and Kaya, T. 2006. Effects of L2 instruction on interlanguage pragmatic development. In Norris, J. M. and Ortega, L. (eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching, 165–211. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jespersen, O. 1909–49. A modern English grammar on historical principles. 7 vols. Copenhagen: E. Munksgaard; London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Ji, M. 2010. Phraseology in corpus-based translation studies. Bern: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johannessen, J. B., Priestley, J., Hagen, K., Åfarli, T. A., and Vangsnes, Ø. A. 2009. The Nordic Dialect Corpus – an advanced research tool. In Proceedings of the 17th Nordic Conference of Computational Linguistics NODALIDA 2009, 73–80.Google Scholar
Johansson, S. 1985. Grammatical tagging and total accountability. In Bäckman, S. and Kjellmer, G. (eds.), Papers on language and literature presented to Alvar Ellegdrd and Erik Frykman, 208–220. Gothenburg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
Johansson, S. 2007. Seeing through multilingual corpora. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johansson, S. and Hofland, K. 1989. Frequency analysis of English vocabulary and grammar, vols. 1–2 Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Johansson, S., Leech, G., and Goodluck, H. 1978. Manual of information to accompany the Lancaster–Olso/Bergen Corpus of British English, for use with digital computers. Department of English, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
John, J. 2001. Dickens’s villains: Melodrama, character, popular culture. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johns, T. 1988. Whence and whither classroom concordancing? In Bongaerts, T., de Haan, P., Lobbe, S., and Wekker, H. (eds.), Computer applications in language learning, 9–27. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johns, T. 1990. From printout to handout: Grammar and vocabulary teaching in the context of data-driven learning. CALL Austria 10: 14–34.Google Scholar
Johns, T. and King, P. (eds.). 1991. Classroom concordancing. English Language Research Journal 4.Google Scholar
Johns, T., Lee, H., and Wang, L. 2008. Integrating corpus-based CALL programs and teaching English through children’s literature. Computer Assisted Language Learning 21(5): 483–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, D. E. 2008. Getting off the GoldVarb Standard: Introducing Rbrul for mixed-effects variable rule analysis. Language and linguistics compass 3: 359–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, J. 2012. What are these corpus linguists talking about? An MD-CADS content analysis of the IJCL. Talk given at CADS Conf 2011, Bologna University, 13–14 September 2012.Google Scholar
Johnson, S., Culpeper, J., and Suhr, S. 2003. From politically correct councillors to Blairite nonsense: Discourses of political correctness in three British newspapers. Discourse and Society 14(1): 28–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, M., Rayson, P., and Leech, G. 2004. Key category analysis of a spoken corpus for EAP presented at the 2nd Inter-Varietal Applied Corpus Studies (IVACS) International Conference on “Analyzing Discourse in Context.” The Graduate School of Education, Queen’s University, Belfast, Northern Ireland, 25–26 June 2004.Google Scholar
Joy, J. 2011. The duality of authenticity in ELT. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 7(2):7–23.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. (ed.). 1995. Historical pragmatics: Pragmatic developments in the history of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jucker, A. H. (ed.). 2002. Discourse markers in Early Modern English. In Watts, R. and Trudgill, P. (eds.), Alternative histories of English, 210–230. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. (ed.). 2006. Historical pragmatics. In Brown, K. (ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics, 2nd edn., 329–332. Oxford: Elsevier. Rpt. 2009. In Mey, J. L. (ed.), Concise encyclopedia of pragmatics, 2nd edn. Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jucker, A. H. (ed.). 2008. Historical pragmatics. Language and Linguistics Compass 2(5): 894–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jucker, A. H. (ed.). 2013. Corpus pragmatics. In Östman, J-O. and Verschueren, J. in collaboration with Versluys, E. (eds.), Handbook of pragmatics, 1–17. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H., Schneider, G., Taavitsainen, I., and Breustedt, B. 2008. Fishing for compliments: Precision and recall in corpus-linguistic compliment research. In Jucker, and Taavitsainen, , 273–294.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H., Schreier, D., and Hundt, M. (eds.). 2009. Corpora: Pragmatics and discourse. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jucker, A. H. and Taavitsainen, I. 2000. Diachronic speech act analysis: Insults from flyting to flaming. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1(1): 67–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jucker, A. H. and Taavitsainen, I. (eds.). 2008a. Speech acts in the history of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jucker, A. H. and Taavitsainen, I. 2008b. Apologies in the history of English. Routinized and lexicalized expressions of responsibility and regret. In Jucker, and Taavitsainen, , 229–244.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. and Taavitsainen, I. (eds.). 2010. Historical pragmatics (Handbooks of Pragmatics 8). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jucker, A. H. and Taavitsainen, I. 2012. Pragmatic variables. In Hernández-Campoy, and Condre-Silvestre, (eds.), 303–317.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. and Taavitsainen, I. 2013. English historical pragmatics. Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jucker, A. H. and Taavitsainen, I. 2014a. Diachronic corpus pragmatics: Intersections and interactions. In Taavitsainen, , Jucker, , and Tuominen, (eds.), 3–26.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. and Taavitsainen, I. 2014b. Complimenting in the history of American English: A metacommunicative expression analysis. In Taavitsainen, , Jucker, , and Tuominen, (eds.), 2057–2276.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H., Taavitsainen, I., and Schneider, G. 2012. Semantic corpus trawling: Expressions of “courtesy” and “politeness” in the Helsinki Corpus. In Suhr, C. and Taavitsainen, I. (eds.), Developing corpus methodology for historical pragmatics. www.helsinki.fi/varieng/journal/volumes/11/jucker_taavitsainen_schneider/Google Scholar
Kallen, J. and Kirk, J. 2008. ICE-Ireland: A user’s guide. Belfast: Cló Ollscoil na Banríona.Google Scholar
Kallen, J. and Kirk, J. 2012. SPICE-Ireland: A user’s guide. Belfast: Cló Ollscoil na Banríona.Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, G. 2008. Prosody and function of English comment clauses. Folia Linguistica 42(1): 83–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamimoto, T., Shimura, A., and Kellerman, E. 1992. A second language classic reconsidered: The case of Schachter’s avoidance. Second Language Research 8(3): 251–277.Google Scholar
Kanoksilapatham, B. 2007. Rhetorical moves in biochemistry research articles. In Biber, D., Connor, U., and Upton, T. (eds.), Discourse on the move, 73–103. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanter, I., Kfir, H., Malkiel, B., and Shlesinger, M. 2006. Identifying universals of text translation. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 13(1): 35–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaur, J. and Hegelheimer, V. 2005. ESL students’ use of concordance in the transfer of academic word knowledge: An exploratory study. Computer Assisted Language Learning 18(4): 287–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemmer, S. and Barlow, M. 2000. Introduction: A usage-based conception of language. In Barlow, M. and Kemmer, S. (eds.), Usage-based models of language, vii–xxvii. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kendall, T., Bresnan, J., and van Herk, G. 2011. The dative alternation in African American English researching syntactic variation and change across sociolinguistic datasets. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 7(2): 229–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, G. 1998. An introduction to corpus linguistics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Kenny, D. 2001. Lexis and creativity in translation. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Kerekes, J. 2007. The co-construction of a gate-keeping encounter: An inventory of verbal actions. Journal of Pragmatics 39: 1942–1973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kilgarriff, A. 1996. Why chi-square doesn’t work, and an improved LOB-Brown comparison. In Proceedings of the ALLC-ACH Conference, 169–172. Bergen, Norway.Google Scholar
Kilgarriff, A. 2005. Language is never ever ever random. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1(2): 263–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kilgarriff, A. 2007. Googleology is bad science. Computational Linguistics 33: 147–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kilgarriff, A. and Kosem, I. 2012. Corpus tools for lexicographers. In Granger, and Paquot, (eds), 31–56.Google Scholar
Kilgarriff, A. and Tugwell, D. 2002. Sketching words. In Corréard, M.-H. (ed.), Lexicography and natural language processing: A Festschrift in honour of B.T.S. Atkins, 125–137. EURALEX.Google Scholar
Kim, Y. and Biber, D. 2009. Korean lexical bundles in conversation and academic texts. Corpora 4: 135–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y.-J. and Biber, D. 1994. A corpus-based analysis of register variation in Korean. In Biber, D. and Finegan, E. (eds.), Sociolinguistic perspectives on register variation, 157–81. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kita, K., Kato, Y., Omoto, T., and Yano, Y. 1994. Automatically extracting collocations from corpora for language learning. Journal of Natural Language Processing 1(1): 21–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, D. and Adolphs, S. 2008. Multi-modal corpus pragmatics: The case of listenership. In Romero-Trillo, J. (ed.), Pragmatics and corpus linguistics: A mutualistic entente, 175–190. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, D., Evans, D., Carter, R., and Svenja, A. 2009. HeadTalk, HandTalk and the corpus: Towards a framework for multi-modal, multi-media corpus development. Corpora 4(1): 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knowles, G., Wichmann, A., and Alderson, P. (eds.). 1996. Working with speech. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Koch, P. 1999. Court records and cartoons: Reflections of spontaneous dialogue in early Romance texts. In Jucker, A. H., Fritz, G., and Lebsanft, F. (eds.), Historical dialogue analysis, 399–429. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koch, P. and Oesterreicher, W. 1985–1986. Sprache der Nähe – Sprache der Distanz. Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgeschichte. Romanistisches Jahrbuch 36: 15–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koch, P. and Oesterreicher, W. 1990. Gesprochene Sprache in der Romania: Französisch, Italienisch, Spanisch (Romanistische Arbeitshefte 31). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koester, A. 2006. Investigating workplace discourse. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koester, A. 2010. Building small specialised corpora. In O’Keeffe, A. and McCarthy, M. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics, 66–79. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kohnen, T. 2001. Text types as catalysts for language change: The example of the adverbial first participle construction. In Diller, H.-J., and Görlach, M. (eds.), Towards a history of English as a history of genres, 111–124. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Kohnen, T. 2007a. From Helsinki through the centuries: The design and development of English diachronic corpora. In Pahta, P., Taavitsainen, I., Nevalainen, T., and Tyrkkö, J. (eds.), Towards multimedia in corpus studies. Helsinki: Research Unit for Variation, Contacts and Change in English (VARIENG), University of Helsinki. Available at www.helsinki.fi/varieng/journal/volumes/02/kohnen/ (accessed 13 February 2013).Google Scholar
Kohnen, T. 2007b. Text types and the methodology of diachronic speech act analysis. In Fitzmaurice, and Taavitsainen, , 139–166.Google Scholar
Kohnen, T. 2008. Tracing directives through text and time. Towards a methodology of a corpus-based diachronic speech act analysis. In Jucker, A. and Taavitsainen, I. (eds.), Speech acts in the history of English, 295–310. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohnen, T. 2009. Historical corpus pragmatics: Focus on speech acts and texts. In Jucker, , Schreier, , and Hundt, (eds.), 13–36.Google Scholar
Kolbe, D. 2008. Complement clauses in British Englishes. PhD thesis, University of Trier.Google Scholar
Koller, V., Hardie, A., Rayson, P., and Semino, E. 2008. Using a semantic annotation tool for the analysis of metaphor in discourse. www.metaphorik.de/15/koller.pdf (accessed 5 March 2013).Google Scholar
Koppel, M., Argamon, S., and Shimoni, A. R. 2002. Automatically categorizing written texts by author gender. Literary and Linguistic Computing 17: 401–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kortmann, B., Herrmann, T., Pietsch, L., and Wagner, S. 2005. A comparative grammar of British English dialects: Agreement, gender, relative clauses. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kosem, I. 2010. Designing a model for a corpus-driven dictionary of academic English. PhD thesis. Aston University, Birmingham, UK. Downloaded from http://eprints.aston.ac.uk/14664/Google Scholar
Krenn, B. 2000. The usual suspects: Data-oriented models for the identification and representation of lexical collocations. Saarbrücken: DFKI and Universität des Saarlandes.Google Scholar
Kretzschmar, W. A. Jr., Anderson, J., Beal, J. C., Corrigan, K. P., Opas-Hänninen, L. L., and Plichta, B. 2006. Collaboration on corpora for regional and social analysis. Journal of English Linguistics, 34: 172–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krishnamurthy, R. 1996. Ethnic, racial and tribal: the language of racism? In Caldas-Coulthard, and Coulthard, (eds.), 129–49.Google Scholar
Krishnamurthy, R. 2000. Collocation: From silly ass to lexical sets. In Heffer, C., Sauntson, H., and Fox, G. (eds.), Words in context: A tribute to John Sinclair on his retirement. University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
Krishnamurthy, R. 2002. Corpus, collocation, and lexical sets. In Hollosy, B. and Kiss-Gulyas, J. (eds.), Studies in linguistics, vol. VI, part I: 7–42. University of Debrecen.Google Scholar
Krug, M. 2000. Emerging English modals: A corpus-based study of grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruisinga, E. 1909–11/1931–2. A handbook of present-day English. Groningen: Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Kučera, H. and Francis, W. M. 1967. Computational analysis of Present-Day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.Google Scholar
Kučera, H. and Francis, W. M. 1979. A standard corpus of present-day edited American English, for use with digital computers (Revised and amplified from 1967 version). Providence, RI: Brown University Press.Google Scholar
Kytö, M. 1991. Variation and diachrony, with Early American English in focus: Studies on can/may and shall/will. Frankfurt am Main.: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Kytö, M. 1993. Third-person singular verb inflection in early British and American English. Language Variation and Change 5(2): 113–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kytö, M. 1996. Manual to the diachronic part of the Helsinki Corpus of English Texts. Coding conventions and lists of source texts. Department of English, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Kytö, M., Grund, P. J., and Walker, T. 2011. Testifying to language and life in Early Modern England. Including CD-ROM: An Electronic Text Edition of Depositions 1560–1760 (ETED). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kytö, M. and Rissanen, M. 1983. The syntactic study of Early American English: The variationist at the mercy of his corpus? Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 84(4): 470–490.Google Scholar
Kytö, M. and Rissanen, M. 1993. General introduction. In Rissanen, M., Kytö, M., and Palander-Collin, M. (eds.), Early English in the computer age: Explorations through the Helsinki Corpus, 1–17. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kytö, M. and Smitterberg, E. 2006. 19th-century English: An age of stability or a period of change? In Facchinetti, R. and Rissanen, M. (eds.), Corpus-based studies of diachronic English, 199–230. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Kytö, M. and Walker, T. 2003. The linguistic study of Early Modern English speech-related texts: How “bad” can “bad” data be? Journal of English Linguistics 31(3): 221–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. 1972. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Lacheret, A., Simon, A. C., Goldman, J.-P., and Avanzi, M. 2013. Prominence perception and accent detection in French: From phonetic processing to grammatical analysis. Language Sciences 39: 95–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laing, M. and Lass, R. 2007. A linguistic atlas of Early Middle English, 1150–1325. Available at www.lel.ed.ac.uk/ihd/laeme2/laeme2.html.Google Scholar
Lam, P. W. Y. 2009. The effect of text type on the use of so as a discourse particle. Discourse Studies 11(3): 353–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lange, C. 2012. Text types, language change, and historical corpus linguistics. In Lange, C., Weber, B., and Wolf, G. (eds.), Communicative spaces: Variation, contact, and change. Papers in honour of Ursula Schaefer, 401–416. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Laufer, B. and Ravenhorst-Kalovski, G. C. 2010. Lexical threshold revisited: Lexical text coverage, learners’ vocabulary size and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language 22(1): 15–30.Google Scholar
Laufer, B. and Waldman, T. 2011. Verb-noun collocations in second language writing: A corpus analysis of learners’ English. Language Learning 61(2): 647–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavandera, B. 1978. Where does the linguistic variable stop? Language in Society 7: 171–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laviosa, S. 1998. Core patterns of lexical use in a comparable corpus of English narrative prose. Meta 43(4): 557–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laviosa, S. 2002. Corpus-based translation studies: Theory, findings, applications. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leacock, C., Chodorow, M., and Tetreault, J. In press. Automatic spell- and grammar-checking. In Granger, S., Gilquin, G., and Meunier, F. (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of learner corpus research. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, D. 2002. Notes to accompany the BNC Word edition (bibliographical) index. Available at www.uow.edu.au/~dlee/home/BNCWIndexNotes.pdfGoogle Scholar
Lee, D. and McGarrell, H. 2011. Corpus-based/corpus-informed English language learner grammar textbooks: An example of how research informs pedagogy. CONTACT, TESOL Ontario 37(2): 78–100.Google Scholar
Leech, G. 1992. Corpora and theories of linguistic performance. In Svartvik, J. (ed.), Directions in corpus linguistics: Proceedings of Nobel Symposium, 4–8 August 1991, 105–122. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Leech, G. 1996. Foreword: The spoken English corpus in its context. In Knowles, G., Wichmann, A., and Alderson, P. (eds.), Working with speech: Perspectives on research into the Lancaster/IBM Spoken English Corpus, ix–xii. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Leech, G. 1999. The distribution and function of vocatives in American and British English conversation. In Hasselgård, H. and Oksefjell, S. (eds.), Out of corpora: Studies in honour of Stig Johansson, 107–120. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leech, G. 2000. Same grammar or different grammar? Contrasting approaches to the grammar of spoken discourse. In Sarangi, S. and Coulthard, M. (eds.), Discourse and social life, 48–65. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Leech, G. 2003. Modality on the move: the English modal auxiliaries 1961–1992. In Facchinetti, R., Krug, M., and Palmer, F. (eds.), Modality in contemporary English, 223–240. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leech, G. 2007. New resources, or just better old ones? The holy grail of representativeness. In Hundt, M., Nesselhauf, N., and Biewer, C. (eds.), Corpus linguistics and the Web, 133–151. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Leech, G. 2008. Language in literature: Style and foregrounding. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Leech, G. 2011a. The modals ARE declining: Reply to Neil Millar’s “Modal verbs in TIME: Frequency changes 1923–2006,” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14:2 (2009), 191–220. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 16/4: 547–564.Google Scholar
Leech, G. 2011b. Frequency, corpora and language learning. In Meunier, F., De Cock, S., Gilquin, G., and Paquot, M. (eds.), A taste for corpora: In honour of Sylviane Granger, 7–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leech, G., Francis, B., and Xu, X. 1994. The use of computer corpora in the textual demonstrability of gradience in linguistic categories. In Fuchs, C. and Victorri, B. (eds.), Continuity in linguistic semantics, 57–76. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leech, G., Garside, R., and Bryant, M. 1994. CLAWS 4: The tagging of the British National Corpus. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING 94), 622–628. Kyoto, Japan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leech, G., Hundt, M., Mair, C., and Smith, N. 2009. Change in contemporary English: A grammatical study. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leech, G., Rayson, P., and Wilson, A. 2001. Word frequencies in written and spoken English: Based on the British National Corpus. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Leech, G. and Short, M. [1981] 2007. Style in fiction: A linguistic introduction to English fictional prose. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Leech, G. and Smith, N. 2005. Extending the possibilities of corpus-based research on English in the twentieth century: A prequel to LOB and FLOB. ICAME Journal 29: 83–98.Google Scholar
Lehto, A., Baron, A., Ratia, M., and Rayson, P. 2010. Improving the precision of corpus methods: The standardized version of Early Modern English Medical Texts. In Taavitsainen, and Pahta, (eds.), 279–289.Google Scholar
Lei, L. 2012. Linking adverbials in academic writing on applied linguistics by Chinese doctoral students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 11: 267–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leńko-Szymańska, A. 2008. Non-native or non-expert? The use of connectors in native and foreign language learners’ texts. Acquisition et interaction en langue étrangère 27: 91–108. http://aile.revues.org/4213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lessard-Clouston, M. 2010. Theology lectures as lexical environments: A case study of technical vocabulary use. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9: 308–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. 2004. Deixis. In Horn, L. and Ward, G. (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 97–121. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lew, R. 2012. The role of syntactic class, frequency, and word order in looking up English multi-word expressions. Lexikos 22: 243–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liberman, M. and Prince, A. 1977. On stress and linguistic rhythm. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 249–336.Google Scholar
Lin, M-C. 2008. Building a lexical syllabus on Moodle with web concordancers for EFL productive academic vocabulary. Proceedings of WorldCALL 2008. Fukuoka University. Downloaded from www.ntnu.edu.tw/acad/rep/r97/a4/a405-1.pdfGoogle Scholar
Lin, P. 2013. The prosody of formulaic expression in the IBM/Lancaster Spoken English Corpus. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18(4): 561–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindemann, S. and Mauranen, A. 2001. “It’s just real messy”: The occurrence and function of just in a corpus of academic speech. English for Specific Purposes 20: 459–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindquist, H. 2009. Corpus linguistics and the description of English. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Liou, H-C., Chang, J. S., Chen, H-J., Lin, C-C., Liaw, M-L., Gao, Z-M., Jang, J-Y. R., Yeh, Y., Chuang, T. C., and You, G-N. 2006. Corpora processing and computational scaffolding for an innovative web-based English learning environment: The CANDLE project. CALICO Journal 24(1): 77–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, D. 2008. Linking adverbials: An across-register corpus study and its implications. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 13: 491–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, D. 2011. The most frequently used English phrasal verbs in American and British English: A multicorpus examination. TESOL Quarterly 45: 661–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lohmann, A. 2011. Help vs help to: A multifactorial, mixed-effects account of infinitive marker omission. English Language and Linguistics 15(3): 499–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loi, C. K. 2010. Research article introductions in Chinese and English: A comparative genre-based study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9(4): 267–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. 1987. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
López-Couso, M. J. 2010. Subjectification and intersubjectification. In Jucker, and Taavitsainen, (eds.), 127–163.Google Scholar
Lorentzen, H. and Theilgaard, L. 2012. Online dictionaries – how do users find them and what do they do once they have? Proceedings of the XV EURALEX Congress. Downloaded from www.euralex.org/proceedings-toc/euralex_2012/Google Scholar
Lorenz, D. 2012. Semi-modal constructions in English: Emancipation through frequency. PhD thesis, University of Freiburg.Google Scholar
Lorge, I. and Thorndike, E. L. 1938. A semantic count of English words. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.Google Scholar
Louw, B. 1993. Irony in the text or insincerity in the writer? The diagnostic potential of semantic prosodies. In Baker, M., Francis, G., and Tognini-Bonelli, E. (eds.), Text and technology, 157–176. Philadelphia and Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Louw, B. 2000. Contextual prosodic theory: Bringing semantic prosodies to life. In Heffer, C., Sauntson, H., and Fox, G. (eds.), Words in context: A tribute to John Sinclair on his retirement. University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
Louwerse, M., Crossley, S., and Jeuniaux, P. 2008. What if? Conditionals in educational registers. Linguistics and Education 19: 56–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lüdeling, A., Walter, M., Kroymann, E., and Adolphs, P. 2005. Multi-level error annotation in learner corpora. In Proceedings from the Corpus Linguistics Series 1(1). www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/activity/corpus/publications/conference-archives/2005-conf-e-journal.aspxGoogle Scholar
Lutzky, U. 2012. Discourse markers in Early Modern English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luzón, M. 2009. The use of we in a learner corpus of reports written by EFL Engineering students. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 8: 192–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luzón Marco, M. J. 2000. Collocational frameworks in medical research papers: a genre-based study. English for Specific Purposes 19(1): 63–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macalister, J. 2011. Flower-girl and bugler-boy no more: Changing gender representation in writing for children. Corpora 6: 25–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macdonald, L. M. 2007. Nurse talk: Features of effective verbal communication used by expert district nurses. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, NZ.Google Scholar
MacIntosh, A., Samuels, M. L., and Benskin, M. 1986. A linguistic atlas of late mediaeval English. Aberdeen University Press.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, L. 2013. Variation in English auxiliary realization: A new take on contraction. Language Variation and Change 25: 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackey, A. and Gass, S. (eds.) 2012. Research methods in second language acquisition: A practical guide. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mackin, R. 1978. On collocations: “Words shall be known by the company they keep.” In Strevens, P. (ed.), In honour of A. S. Hornby, 149–165. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mahlberg, M. 2007. Clusters, key clusters and local textual functions in Dickens. Corpora 2(1): 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahlberg, M. 2013. Corpus stylistics and Dickens’s Fiction. New York and London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahlberg, M. Conklin, K., and Bisson, M. 2014. Reading Dickens’s characters: Employing psycholinguistic methods to investigate the cognitive reality of patterns in texts. Language and Literature 23(4): 369–388.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mahlberg, M., Smith, C., and Preston, S. 2013. Phrases in literary contexts: Patterns and distributions of suspensions in Dickens’s novels. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18(1): 35–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mair, C. 2002. Three changing patterns of verb complementation in Late Modern English: A real-time study based on matching text corpora. English Language and Linguistics 6(1): 105–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mair, C. 2006. Twentieth-century English: History, variation, and standardization. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mair, C. 2009a. Corpora and the study of recent change in language. In Lüdeling, A. and Kytö, M. (eds.), Corpus linguistics: An international handbook, vol. 2: 1109–1125. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mair, C. 2009b. Corpus linguistics meets sociolinguistics: Studying educated spoken usage in Jamaica on the basis of the International Corpus of English. In Hoffmann, and Siebers, (eds.), 39–60.Google Scholar
Mair, C. 2011. Grammaticalization and corpus linguistics. In Narrog, H. and Heine, B. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization, 239–250. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mair, C. and Winkle, C. 2012. Change from to-infinitive to bare infinitive in specificational cleft sentences: Apparent-time data from World Englishes. In Hundt, and Gut, (eds.), 243–262.Google Scholar
Malmkjær, K. 2004. Translational stylistics: Dulcken’s translations of Hans Christian Andersen. Language and Literature 13(1): 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manes, J. and Wolfson, N. 1981. The compliment formula. In Coulmas, F. (ed.), Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech, 115–132. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Manhire, T. 2012. The Arab Spring. London: Guardian Books.Google Scholar
Manning, C. and Schütze, H. 1999. Foundations of statistical natural language processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Marchi, A. 2010. “The moral in the story”: A diachronic investigation of lexicalised morality in the UK press. Corpora 5(2): 161–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchi, A. and Taylor, C. 2009. “If on a winter’s night two researchers”: A challenge to assumptions of soundness of interpretation. CADAAD Journal 3(1): 1–20.Google Scholar
Marco, J. 2004. Translating style and styles of translating: Henry James and Edgar Allan Poe in Catalan. Language and Literature 13(1): 73–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marco, M. 2000. Collocational frameworks in medical research papers: A genre-based study. English for Specific Purposes 19: 63–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcus, M. P., Santorini, B., and Marcinowicz, M. A. 1993. Building a large annotated corpus of English: The Penn Treebank. Computational Linguistics 19(2): 313–30.Google Scholar
Marshall, I. 1983. Tagging words in the LOB Corpus. Computers and the Humanities 17: 139–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinez, R. and Murphy, V. 2010. Effect of frequency and idiomaticity on second language reading comprehension. TESOL Quarterly 45(2): 267–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinez, R. and Schmitt, N. 2012. A phrasal expressions list. Applied Linguistics 33(3): 299–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marttila, V. 2014. Creating digital editions for corpus linguistics: The case of Potage Dyvers, a family of six Middle English recipe collections. Dissertation, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Mason, O. 1997. The weight of words: an investigation of lexical gravity. Proceedings of PALC’97, 361–375.Google Scholar
Mason, O. 1999. Parameters of collocation: the word in the centre of gravity. In Kirk, John M. (ed.), Corpora galore: Analyses and techniques in describing English, 267–280. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Mason, O. 2000. Programming for corpus linguistics: How to do text analysis with Java. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Matoré, G. 1953. La méthode en lexicologie: Domaine français. Paris: Marcel Didier.Google Scholar
Matsuda, P. and Jeffery, J. 2012. Voice in student essays. In Hyland, K. and Guinda, C. Sancho (eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres, 151–165. London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mauranen, A. 2002. Where’s cultural adaptation? InTRAlinea. Downloaded from www.intralinea.it/ (accessed 26 March 2013).Google Scholar
Mauranen, A. 2003a. “But here’s a flawed argument”: Socialisation into and through metadiscourse. In Leistyna, P. and Meyer, C. (eds.), Corpus analysis: Language structure and language use, 19–34. New York: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mauranen, A. 2003b. “A good question.” Expressing evaluation in academic speech. In Cortese, G. and Riley, P. (eds.), Domain specific English: Textual practices across communities and classrooms, 115–140. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Mauranen, A. 2004. “They’re a little bit different”: Observations on hedges in academic talk. In Aijmer, K. and Stenström, A. B., Discourse patterns in spoken and written corpora, 173–198. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mauranen, A. 2006. A rich domain of ELF – the ELFA Corpus of Academic Discourse. Nordic Journal of English Studies 5(2): 145–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mauranen, A. 2011. Learners and users – Who do we want corpus data from? In Meunier, F., De Cock, S., Gilquin, G., and Paquot, M. (eds.), A taste for corpora: In honour of Sylviane Granger, 155–171. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mauranen, A. 2012. Exploring ELF: Academic English shaped by non-native speakers. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCafferty, K. 2003. The Northern subject rule in Ulster: How Scots, how English? Language Variation and Change 15: 105–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCafferty, K. 2014. “[W]ell are you not got over thinking about going to Ireland yet”: The be-perfect in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Irish English. In Hundt, M. (ed.), Late modern English syntax, 333–351. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, M. 1998. Spoken language and applied linguistics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, M. 2000. Captive audiences: The discourse of close contact service encounters. In Coupland, J. (ed.), Small talk, 84–109. London: Longman.Google Scholar
McCarthy, M. 2003. Talking back: Interactional response tokens in everyday conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 36(1): 33–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, M. 2004. Lessons from the analysis of chunks. The Language Teacher 28(7): 9–12.Google Scholar
McCarthy, M. and Carter, R. 2002. “This that and other”: Multi-word clusters in spoken English as visible patterns of interaction. Teanga 21: 30–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, M. and Carter, R. 2004. There’s millions of them: Hyperbole in everyday conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 36: 149–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, M., McCarten, J., and Sandiford, H. 2006. Touchstone 4 (Teacher’s Edition). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, M. and O’Dell, F. 2004. English phrasal verbs in use. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, M. and O’Dell, F. 2005. English collocations in use. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, M. and O’Keeffe, A. 2003. “What’s in a name?” Vocatives in casual conversation and radio phone-in calls. In Leistyna, P. and Meyer, C. (eds.), Corpus analysis: Language structure and language use, 153–185. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McEnery, T. 2006a. Swearing in English: Bad language, purity and power from 1586 to the present. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
McEnery, T. 2006b. The moral panic about bad language in England, 1691–1745. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 7(1): 89–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McEnery, T. 2009. Keywords and moral panics: Mary Whitehouse and media censorship. In Archer, D. (ed.), pp. 93–124.Google Scholar
McEnery, T. and Hardie, A. 2012. Corpus linguistics: Method, theory and practice. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McEnery, T. and Wilson, A. 1997. Teaching and language corpora. ReCALL 9(1): 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McEnery, T. and Xiao, R. 2004. Swearing in modern British English: The case of fuck in the BNC. Language and Literature 13: 235–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McEnery, T. and Xiao, R. 2005. help or help to: What do corpora have to say? English Studies 86: 161–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McEnery, A., Xiao, R., and Mo, L. 2003. Aspect marking in English and Chinese: Using the Lancaster Corpus of Mandarin Chinese for contrastive language study. Literary and Linguistic Computing 18(4): 361–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McEnery, T., Xiao, R., and Tono, Y. 2006. Corpus-based language studies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
McIntyre, D. 2010. Dialogue and characterization in Quentin Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs: A corpus stylistic analysis. In McIntyre, and Busse, (eds.), pp. 162–183.Google Scholar
McIntyre, D. and Archer, D. 2010. A corpus-based approach to mind style. Journal of Literary Semantics 39(2): 167–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntyre, D. and Busse, B. (eds.). 2010. Language and style. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKay, S. 1980. Teaching the syntactic, semantic and pragmatic dimensions of verbs. TESOL Quarterly 14(1): 17–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKeown, K. and Radev, D. 2000. Collocations. In Dale, R., Moisl, H., and Somers, H. (eds.), A handbook of natural language processing. New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Mehler, A., Sharoff, S., and Santini, M. (eds.). 2011. Genres on the web. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mesthrie, R. and Bhatt, R. M. 2008. World Englishes: The study of new linguistic varieties. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metsä-Ketelä, M. 2012. Frequencies of vague expressions in English as an academic lingua franca. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 1(2): 263–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meunier, F. and Gouverneur, C. 2008. New types of corpora for new educational challenges: Collecting, annotating and exploiting a corpus of textbook material. In Aijmer, K. (ed.), Corpora and language teaching, 179–201. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Meunier, F. and Granger, S. (eds.). 2008. Phraseology in foreign language learning and teaching. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meurman-Solin, A. 2013. Visual prosody in manuscript letters in the study of syntax and discourse. www.helsinki.fi/varieng/journal/volumes/14/meurman-solin_a/Google Scholar
Meurman-Solin, A. and Tyrkkö, J. 2013. Introduction. In Meurman-Solin, A. and Tyrkkö, J. (eds.), Principles and practices for the digital editing and annotation of diachronic data. www.helsinki.fi/varieng/journal/volumes/14/introduction.htmlGoogle Scholar
Mey, J. 2001. Pragmatics: An introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Meyer, C. 2002. English corpus linguistics: An introduction. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, C. 2004. ADS Annual Lecture: Can you really study language variation in linguistic corpora? American Speech 79: 339–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, P. G. 1997. Coming to know: Studies in the lexical semantics and pragmatics of academic English. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Michel, J.-B., Shen, Y. K., Presser Aiden, A., Veres, A., Gray, M. K., The Google Books Team, Pickett, J. P., Hoiberg, D., Clancy, D., Norvig, P., Orwant, J., Pinker, S., Nowak, M. A., and Lieberman Aiden, E. 2011. Quantitative analysis of culture using millions of digitized books. Science 331: 176–182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Michelbacher, L., Evert, S., and Schütze, H. 2011. Asymmetry in corpus-derived and human word associations. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 5(1): 79–103.Google Scholar
Millar, N. 2009. Modal verbs in TIME: Frequency changes 1923–2006. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14(2): 191–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, D. 2006. From concordance to text: Appraising “giving” in Alma Mater donation requests. In Thompson, G. and Hunston, S. (eds.), System and corpus: Exploring connections, 248–268. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Miller, J. 2004. Perfect and resultative constructions in spoken and non-spoken English. In Fischer, O., Norde, M., and Perridon, H. (eds.), Up and down the cline – the nature of grammaticalization, 229–246. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milroy, J. 1992. A social model for the interpretation of language change. In Rissanen, M., Ihalainen, O., Nevalainen, T., and Taavitsainen, I. (eds.), History of Englishes: New methods and interpretations in historical linguistics, 72–91. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milton, J. 2009. Measuring second language vocabulary acquisition. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miranda-García, A. and Calle-Martín, J. 2012. Compiling the Málaga Corpus of Late Middle English Scientific Prose. In Vázquez, (ed.), 51–66.Google Scholar
Mishan, F. 2004. Authenticating corpora for language learning: A problem and its resolution. ELT Journal 58(3): 219–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitkov, R. (ed.). 2003. Oxford handbook of computational linguistics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Moessner, L. 2001. Genre, text type, style, register: A terminological maze? European Journal of English Studies 5(2): 131–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohamed, S. and Acklam, R. 1995. Intermediate choice (Students’ Book). Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Moisl, H. 2009. Exploratory multivariate analysis. In Lüdeling, A. and Kytö, M. (eds.), Corpus linguistics: An international handbook, vol. 2: 874–899. Berlin and New York: Mouton De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morino, A. 2010. Personal and impersonal authorial references: A contrastive study of English and Italian linguistics research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9(2): 86–101.Google Scholar
Mollin, S. 2006. English as a lingua franca: A new variety in the new Expanding Circle? In Mauranen, A. and Metsä-Ketelä, M. (eds.), English as a lingua franca. Special Issue of The Nordic Journal of English Studies 5(2): 41–58.Google Scholar
Moon, R. 1998. Frequencies and forms of phrasal lexemes in English. In Cowie, A. P. (ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis, and applications, 79–100. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moon, R. 2007. Sinclair, lexicography, and the Cobuild Project: The application of theory. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 12(2): 159–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moon, R. 2008a. Sinclair, phraseology, and lexicography. International Journal of Lexicography 21(3): 243–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moon, R. 2008b. Dictionaries and collocation. In Granger, and Meunier, (eds.), 313–336.Google Scholar
Moreno, A. and Suárez, L. 2008. A study of critical attitude across English and Spanish academic book reviews. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7(1): 15–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreno Jaén, M. 2010. Developing university learners’ collocational competence: An empirical corpus-based investigation. In Jaén, M. Moreno, Valverde, F. Serrano, and Pérez, M. Calzada (eds.), Exploring new paths in language pedagogy: Lexis and corpus-based language teaching, 229–243. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Morley, J. and Bayley, P. (eds.). 2009. Corpus-assisted discourse studies on the Iraq conflict: Wording the war. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Moskowich, I. and Crespo, B. (eds.). 2012. Astronomy “playne and simple”: The writing of science between 1700 and 1900. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, S. 2005. Discourse markers in native and non-native English discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mudraya, O. 2006. Engineering English: A lexical frequency instructional model. English for Specific Purposes 25: 235–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mukherjee, J. 2005. The native speaker is alive and kicking: Linguistic and language-pedagogical perspectives. Anglistik 16(2): 7–23.Google Scholar
Mukherjee, J. 2009. The lexicogrammar of present-day Indian English: Corpus-based perspectives on structural nativisation. In Römer, U. and Schulze, R. (eds.), Exploring the lexis–grammar interface, 117–136. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mukherjee, J. and Gries, S. 2009. Collostructional nativisation in New Englishes: Verb-construction associations in the International Corpus of English. English World-Wide 30: 27–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mukherjee, J. and Hoffmann, S. 2006. Describing verb-complementation profiles of New Englishes: A pilot study of Indian English. English World-Wide 27: 147–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mukherjee, J. and Hundt, M. (eds.). 2011. Exploring second-language varieties of English and learner Englishes: Bridging a paradigm gap. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mukherjee, J. and Rohrbach, J.-M. 2006. Rethinking applied corpus linguistics from a language–pedagogical perspective: New departures in learner corpus research. In Kettemann, B. and Marko, G. (eds.), Planning, gluing and painting corpora: Inside the applied corpus linguist’s workshop, 205–232. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Mukherjee, J. and Schilk, M. 2012. Exploring variation and change in New Englishes: Looking into the International Corpus of English (ICE) and beyond. In Nevalainen, and Traugott, (eds.), 189–199.Google Scholar
Mulderrig, J. 2011. The grammar of governance. Critical Discourse Studies 8: 45–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munday, J. 1998. A computer-assisted approach to the analysis of translation shifts. Meta 43(4): 542–56.Google Scholar
Murphy, B. 2010. Corpus and sociolinguistics: Investigating age and gender in female talk. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, N. 2010. Pragmatics, awareness raising, and the cooperative principle. ELT Journal 64(3): 293–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myles, F. 2005. Interlanguage corpora and second language acquisition research. Second Language Research 21(4): 373–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagao, M. and Mori, S. 1994. A new method of n-gram statistics for large number of n and automatic extraction of words and phrases from large text data of Japanese. Proceedings of the 15th Conference on Computational Linguistics, 611–615.Google Scholar
Nagata, R., Whittaker, E., and Sheinman, V. 2011. Creating a manually error-tagged and shallow-parsed learner corpus. Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Portland, Oregon, June 19–24 2011, 1210–1219.Google Scholar
Nation, P. 2001. Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nation, P. 2006. How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? The Canadian Modern Language Review 63(1): 59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nation, P. and Beglar, D. 2007. A vocabulary size test. The Language Teacher 31(7): 9–13.Google Scholar
Nation, P. and Waring, R. 1997. Vocabulary size, text coverage and word lists. In Schmitt, N. and McCarthy, M. (eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy, 6–19. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nattinger, J. and DeCarrico, J. 1992. Lexical phrases and language teaching. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nekrasova, T. M. 2009. English L1 and L2 speakers’ knowledge of lexical bundles. Language Learning 59(3): 647–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, G. 1996. The design of the corpus. In Greenbaum, (ed.), 27–35.Google Scholar
Nelson, G. 2006. World Englishes and corpora studies. In Kachru, B. B., Kachru, Y., and Nelson, C. L. (eds.), The handbook of World Englishes. Oxford: Blackwell, 733–50.Google Scholar
Nelson, G., Wallis, S., and Aarts, B. 2002. Exploring natural language. Working with the British component of the International Corpus of English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, M. 2010. Building a written corpus: what are the basics? In O’Keeffe, A. and McCarthy, M. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics, 53–65. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nesi, H. and Basturkmen, H. 2006. Lexical bundles and discourse signaling in academic lectures. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 11(3): 283–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nesi, H. and Gardner, S. 2012. Genres across the disciplines: Student writing in higher education. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nesselhauf, N. 2003. The use of collocations by advanced learners of English and some implications for teaching. Applied Linguistics 24(2): 223–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nesselhauf, N. 2004. Learner corpora and their potential for language teaching. In Sinclair, J. McH. (ed.), How to use corpora in language teaching, 125–152. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nesselhauf, N. 2005. Collocations in a learner corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nesselhauf, N. 2010. The development of future time expressions in Late Modern English: Redistribution of forms or change in discourse? English Language and Linguistics 14: 163–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nesselhauf, N. and Römer, U. 2007. Lexical-grammatical patterns in spoken English: The case of the progressive with future time reference. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 12: 297–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, T. 1996. Gender difference. In Nevalainen, T. and Raumolin-Brunberg, H. (eds.), Sociolinguistics and language history: Studies based on the Corpus of Early English Correspondence, 77–91. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, T. 2006. Corpora, historical sociolinguistics and the transmission of language change. In Hornero, A. M., Luzón, M. J., and Murillo, S. (eds.), Corpus linguistics: Applications for the study of English, 23–37. Bern and Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, T. and Raumolin-Brunberg, H. (eds.). 1996. Sociolinguistics and language history: Studies based on the Corpus of Early English Correspondence. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, T. and Raumolin-Brunberg, H. 2003. Historical sociolinguistics: Language change in Tudor and Stuart England. London: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, T. and Traugott, E. (eds.). The Oxford handbook of the history of English. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nevanlinna, S., Pahta, P., Peitsara, K., and Taavitsainen, I. 1993. Middle English. In Rissanen, M., Kytö, M., and Palander-Collin, M. (eds.), Early English in the computer age: Explorations through the Helsinki Corpus, 33–51. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Newman, J. and Columbus, G. 2009. Education as an over-represented topic in the ICE corpora? Paper presented at the 15th Conference of the International Association for World Englishes, Cebu City, Philippines, 22 to 24 October 2009.Google Scholar
Nilsson, P-O. 2006. A multidimensional perspective on collocational patterning in Swedish fiction texts translated from English. Literary and Linguistic Computing 21: 113–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noël, D. and Colleman, T. 2010. Believe-type raising-to-object and raising-to-subject verbs in English and Dutch: A contrastive investigation in diachronic construction grammar. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 15: 157–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. and Ortega, L. 2000. Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning 50(3): 417–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, J. and Ortega, L. (eds.). 2006. Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oakes, M. P. 2009. Corpus linguistics and language variation. In Baker, P. (ed.), Contemporary corpus linguistics, 159–183. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Oakes, M. and Ji, M. (eds.). 2012. Quantitative research methods in corpus-based translation studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Connor, J. D. O. and Arnold, G. F. 1973. Intonation of colloquial English: A practical handbook, 2nd edn. London: Longman.Google Scholar
O’Donnell, M. B. 2011. The adjusted frequency list: A method to produce cluster-sensitive frequency lists. ICAME Journal 35: 135–169.Google Scholar
O’Donnell, M. B., Scott, M., Mahlberg, M., and Hoey, M. 2012. Exploring text-initial words, clusters and concgrams in a newspaper corpus. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic theory 8(1): 73–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Halloran, K. 2006. The literary mind. In Goodman, S. and O’Halloran, K. (eds.), The art of English: Literary creativity, 364–389. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
O’Halloran, K. 2007a. Critical discourse analysis and the corpus-informed interpretation of metaphor at the register level. Applied Linguistics 28: 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Halloran, K. 2007b. The subconscious in James Joyce’s “Eveline”: A corpus stylistic analysis that chews on the “Fish hook.” Language and Literature 16(3): 227–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Keeffe, A. 2006. Investigating media discourse. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Keeffe, A., Clancy, B., and Adolphs, S. 2011. Introducing pragmatics in use. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Keeffe, A., McCarthy, M., and Carter, R. 2007. From corpus to classroom: Language use and language teaching. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oldham, P., Hall, S., and Burton, G. 2012. Synthetic biology: Mapping the scientific landscape. PLoS ONE 7(4): e34368.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olohan, M. 2004. Introducing corpora in translation studies. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olohan, M. and Baker, M. 2000. Reporting that in translated English. Across Languages and Cultures 1(2): 141–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onnis, L. and Thiessen, E. 2012. Language-induced biases on human sequential learning. Paper presented at the 34th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, Sapporo, Japan.Google Scholar
Ooi, V. 2008. The lexis of electronic gaming on the web: A Sinclairian approach. International Journal of Lexicography 21: 311–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortega, L. and Byrnes, H. (eds.). 2008. The longitudinal study of advanced L2 capacities. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ortega y Gasset, J. 1937. The misery and splendor of translation. In Schulte, R. and Biguenet, J. (eds.), Theories of translation: An anthology of essays from Dryden to Derrida, 1992, 93–112. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Osborne, J. 2008. Adverb placement in post-intermediate learner English: A contrastive study of learner corpora. In Gilquin, G., Papp, S., and Díez-Bedmar, M. B. (eds.), Linking up contrastive and learner corpus research, 127–146. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Sullivan, I. 2007. Enhancing a process-oriented approach to literacy and language learning: The role of corpus consultation literacy. ReCALL 19(3): 269–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Sullivan, I. and Chambers, A. 2006. Learners’ writing skills in French: Corpus consultation and learner evaluation. Journal of Second Language Writing 15(1): 49–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oswald, F. and Plonsky, L. 2010. Meta-analysis in second language research: Choices and challenges. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 30: 85–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Øverås, L. 1998. In search of the third code. An investigation of norms in literary translation. Meta 43(4): 571–588.Google Scholar
Oxford University Computing Services. 1995. The British National Corpus. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ozturk, I. 2007. The textual organization of research article introductions in applied linguistics: Variability within a single discipline. English for Specific Purposes 26 (1): 25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pagel, M., Atkinson, D. Q., and Meade, A. 2007. Frequency of word-use predicts rates of lexical evolution throughout Indo-European history. Nature 449(11): 717–720.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Palander-Collin, M. 1999. Male and female styles in seventeenth-century correspondence: I think. Language Variation and Change 11: 123–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, A. 2011. Social minds in fiction and criticism. Style 45(2): 196–240.Google Scholar
Paquot, M. 2008. Exemplification in learner writing: A cross-linguistic perspective. In Meunier, F. and Granger, S. (eds.), Phraseology in foreign language learning and teaching, 101–119. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paquot, M. 2010. Academic vocabulary in learner writing: From extraction to analysis. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Paquot, M. 2012. The LEAD dictionary-cum-writing aid: An integrated dictionary and corpus tool. In Granger, and Paquot, (eds.), 163–185.Google Scholar
Paquot, M. and Bestgen, Y. 2009. Distinctive words in academic writing: A comparison of three statistical tests for keyword extraction. In Jucker, A., Schreier, D., and Hundt, M. (eds.), Corpora: Pragmatics and discourse, 247–269. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Paquot, M. and Granger, S. 2012. Formulaic language in learner corpora. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 32: 130–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parkinson, J. 2011. The Discussion section as argument: The language used to prove knowledge claims. English for Specific Purposes 30: 164–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partington, A. 1998. Patterns and meanings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partington, A. 2003. The linguistics of political argument. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partington, A. 2004. “Utterly content in each other’s company”: Semantic prosody and semantic preference. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(1): 131–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partington, A. 2009. Evaluating evaluation and some concluding thoughts on CADS. In Morley, and Bayley, (eds.), 261–303.Google Scholar
Partington, A. (ed.). 2010a. Modern diachronic corpus-assisted studies, special edition, Corpora 5(2). Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Partington, A. 2010b. Modern diachronic corpus-assisted discourse studies (MD-CADS) on UK newspapers: An overview of the project. Corpora 5(2): 83–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partington, A. 2012. The changing discourses on antisemitism in the UK press from 1993 to 2009: A modern-diachronic corpus-assisted discourse study. Journal of Language and Politics 11(1): 51–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partington, A., Duguid, A., and Taylor, C. 2013. Patterns and meanings in discourse: Theory and practice in corpus-assisted discourse studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Passonneau, R., and Litman, D. 1997. Discourse segmentation by human and automated means. Computational Linguistics 23(1): 103–140.Google Scholar
Pawley, A. and Syder, F. H. 1983. Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In Richards, J. C. and Schmidt, R. W. (eds.), Language and communication, 191–225. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Pearce, M. 2008. Investigating the collocational behaviour of man and woman in the BNC using Sketch Engine1. Corpora 3(1): 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pecina, P. 2010. Lexical association measures and collocation extraction. Language Resources and Evaluation 44(1–2): 137–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pecman, M. 2008. Compilation, formalisation and presentation of bilingual phraseology: Problems and possible solutions. In Meunier, and Granger, (eds), 203–222.Google Scholar
Peters, P., Collins, P., and Smith, A. (eds.). 2009. Comparative studies in Australian and New Zealand English: Grammar and beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petch-Tyson, S. 2000. Demonstrative expressions in argumentative discourse: A computer-based comparison of non-native and native English. In Botley, S. and McEnery, A. M. (eds.), Corpus-based and computational approaches to discourse anaphora, 43–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfaff, M., Bergs, A., and Hoffmann, T. 2013. “I was just reading this article”: On the expression of recentness and the English past progressive. In Aarts, et al. (eds.), 217–238.Google Scholar
Philip, G. 2010. Metaphorical keyness in specialised corpora. In Bondi, and Scott, (eds.), pp. 185–203.Google Scholar
Pickering, L. 2001. The role of tone choice in improving ITA communication in the classroom. TESOL Quarterly 35: 233–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, L. 2012. Suprasegmentals: Discourse intonation. In Chapelle, C. A. (ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics, 5437–5443. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. 1980. The phonology and phonetics of English intonation. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J. and Hirschberg, J. 1990. The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse. In Cohen, P. R., Morgan, J., and Pollack, M. E. (eds.), Intentions in communication, 271–311. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pike, K. L. 1945. The intonation of American English. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Ponte, J. M. and Croft, W. B. 1998. A language modeling approach to information retrieval. Computer and Information Science 98(3): 275–281.Google Scholar
Poos, D. and Simpson, R. 2002. Cross-disciplinary comparisons of hedging: Some findings from the Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English. In Reppen, R., Fitzmaurice, S., and Biber, D. (eds.), Using corpora to explore linguistic variation, 3–21. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poplack, S. and Dion, N. 2009. Prescription vs. praxis: The evolution of future temporal reference in French. Language 85: 557–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poplack, S. and Tagliamonte, S. 1996. Nothing in context: Variation, grammaticization and past time marking in Nigerian Pidgin English. In Baker, P. and Syea, A. (eds.), Changing meanings, changing functions: Papers relating to grammaticalization in contact languages, 71–94. Westminster: University Press.Google Scholar
Poutsma, H. 1929. A grammar of late Modern English. 4 vols. Groningen: Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Praninskas, J. 1972. American university word list. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Prentice, S. and Hardie, A. 2009. Empowerment and disempowerment in the Glencairn Uprising: A corpus-based critical analysis of Early Modern English news discourse. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 10(1): 23–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preston, D. 1991. Sorting out the variables in sociolinguistic theory. American Speech 66: 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preston, D. 2001. Style and the psycholinguistics of sociolinguistics: The logical problem of language variation. In Eckert, P. and Rickford, J. R. (eds.), Style and sociolinguistic variation, 279–304. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Prince, E. 1978. A comparison of wh-clefts and it-clefts in discourse. Language 54: 883–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prodromou, L. 2008. English as a lingua franca: A corpus-based analysis. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Pym, A. 2008. On Toury’s laws of how translators translate. In Pym, A., Shlesinger, M. and Simeoni, D. (eds.), Descriptive translation studies and beyond, 311–28. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quaglio, P. 2009. Television dialogue: The sitcom Friends vs. natural conversation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R. 1965. Descriptive statement and serial relationship. Language 41: 205–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R. 1968. Essays on the English language medieval and modern. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., and Svartvik, J. 1972. A grammar of contemporary English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., and Svartvik, J. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team. 2013. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
Ranta, E. 2013. Universals in a universal language? Exploring verb-syntactic features in English as a lingua franca. PhD thesis, University of Tampere. Acta Electronica Universitatis Tamperensis. Available from: //urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-44-9299-0.Google Scholar
Rapti, N. 2010. A study of classroom concordancing in the Greek context: Data-driven grammar teaching and adolescent EFL learners. PhD thesis, University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
Raumolin-Brunberg, H. 2005. The diffusion of subject you: A case study in historical sociolinguistics. Language Variation and Change 17: 55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rayson, P. 2003. Matrix: A statistical method and software tool for linguistic analysis through corpus comparison. PhD thesis, Lancaster University.Google Scholar
Rayson, P. 2008. From key words to key semantic domains. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 13(4): 519–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rayson, P. 2009. WMatrix: A Web-based Corpus Processing Environment. Computing Department: Lancaster University. //ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/wmatrix/ (accessed 28 February 2013).Google Scholar
Rayson, P. and Archer, D. 2008. Key domain analysis: Mining text in the humanities and social sciences. Paper presented at the workshop on “Text mining and the social sciences,” 4th International Conference on e-Social Science, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Rayson, P., Archer, D., Piao, S. L., and McEnery, T. 2004a. The UCREL semantic analysis system. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Beyond Named Entity Recognition Semantic Labelling for NLP Tasks in Association with 4th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2004), 25 May 2004, Lisbon, Portugal, 7–12. Paris: European Language Resources Association.Google Scholar
Rayson, P., Berridge, D., and Francis, B. 2004b. Extending the Cochran rule for the comparison of word frequencies between corpora. In Purnelle, G., Fairon, C., and Dister, A. (eds.), Le poids des mots: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Statistical Analysis of Textual Data (JADT 2004), 10–12 March 2004, vol. 2: 926–936. Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Rayson, P., Leech, G., and Hodges, M. 1997. Social differentiation in the use of English vocabulary. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 2: 133–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, B. S. 2006. Prosodic orientation in English conversation. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Reitter, D., Moore, J. D., and Keller, F. 2010. Priming of syntactic rules in task-oriented dialogue and spontaneous conversation. Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 685–690.Google Scholar
Renouf, A. and Sinclair, J. 1991. Collocational frameworks in English. In Aijmer, K. and Altenberg, B. (eds.), English corpus linguistics, 128–144. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Reppen, R. 2001. Register variation in student and adult speech and writing. In Conrad, S. and Biber, D. (eds.), Multi-dimensional studies of register variation in English, 187–199. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Reppen, R. 2010a. Building a corpus: What are the key considerations? In O’Keeffe, A. and McCarthy, M. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics, 31–37. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Reppen, R. 2010b. Using corpora in the classroom. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reppen, R. 2012. Grammar and beyond – level 2. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riccio, G. 2009. White House press briefings as a message to the world. In Morley, and Bayley, (eds.), 108–140.Google Scholar
Rice, S. and Newman, J. 2008. Beyond the lemma: Inflection-specific constructions in English. Paper given at the AACL conference, Brigham Young University, Utah.Google Scholar
Rietveld, T., van Hout, R. and Ernestus, M. 2004. Pitfalls in corpus research. Computers and the Humanities 38(4): 343–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rissanen, M. 1999. Syntax. In Lass, R. (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language, vol. III: 1476–1776, 187–331. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ritz, E-M. In press. Relationship between event, reference time and time of utterance and the representation of present perfect sentences in Australian English narratives (Cahiers Chronos). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Römer, U. 2005. Progressives, patterns, pedagogy: A corpus-driven approach to English progressive forms, functions, contexts and didactics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Römer, U. 2006. Pedagogical applications of corpora: Some reflections on the current scope and a wish list for future developments. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 54(2): 121–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Römer, U. 2010. Establishing the phraseological profile of a text type: The construction of meaning in academic book reviews. English Text Construction 3: 95–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohdenburg, G. 1996. Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English. Cognitive Linguistics 7: 149–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohdenburg, G. 1999. Clausal complementation and cognitive complexity in English. In Neumann, F.-W. and Schülting, S. (eds.), Anglistentag 1998 Erfurt, 101–112. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.Google Scholar
Roland, D., Elman, J. L., and Ferreira, V. S. 2006. Why is that? Structural prediction and ambiguity resolution in a very large corpus of English sentences. Cognition 98: 245–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romaine, S. 1980. Stylistic variation and evaluative reactions to speech: problems in the investigation of linguistic attitudes in Scotland. Language and Speech 23: 213–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romaine, S. 1982. Socio-historical linguistics: Its status and methodology. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romaine, S. 2001. A corpus-based view of Gender in British and American English. In Hellinger, M. and Bussmann, H. (eds.), Gender across language, vol. 1: 153–175. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romaine, S. 2008. Corpus linguistics and sociolinguistics. In Lüdeling, A. and Kytö, M. (eds)., Corpus linguistics. An international handbook, 96–111. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Romero-Trillo, J. (ed.). 2008. Pragmatics and corpus linguistics: A mutualistic entente. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rommel, T. 2004. Literary studies. In Schreibman, S., Siemens, R., and Unsworth, J. (eds.), A companion to digital humanities, 88–96. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E. 1975. Cognitive representation of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 104: 192–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E. 1976. Principles of categorization. In Rosch, E. and Lloyd, B. B. (eds.), Cognition and categorization, 27–48. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rosdahl, C. B. and Kowalski, M. T. 2008. Textbook of basic nursing. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, B. 1996. Little Dorrit’s shadows: Character and contradiction in Dickens. Columbia and London: University of Missouri Press.Google Scholar
Rosenfelder, I. 2009. Rhoticity in educated Jamaican English. In Hoffmann, and Siebers, (eds.), 61–82.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. 1973. A fake NP squish. In Bailey, C.-J. and Shuy, R. W. (eds.), New ways of analyzing variation in English, 96–140. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Roter, D. 2010. The Roter method of interaction process analysis. Unpublished manual.Google Scholar
Rühlemann, C. 2007. Conversation in context: A corpus-driven approach. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Rühlemann, C. 2010. What can a corpus tell us about pragmatics? In O’Keeffe, A. and McCarthy, M. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics, 288–301. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudanko, J. 2006. Watching English grammar change: A case study on complement selection in British and American English. English Language and Linguistics 10(1): 31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rundell, M. 1999. Dictionary use in production. International Journal of Lexicography 12(1): 35–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rydén, M. and Brorström, S. 1987. The be/have variation with intransitives in English: With special reference to the Late Modern Period. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.Google Scholar
Sagi, E., Kaufmann, S., and Clark, B. 2011. Tracing semantic change with Latent Semantic Analysis. In Robynson, J. and Allan, K. (eds.), Current methods in historical semantics, 161–183. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salem, A. 1987. Pratique des segments répétés. Paris: Institut National de la Langue Française.Google Scholar
Salton, G. 1989. Automatic text processing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Salsbury, T. and Crummer, C. 2008. Using teacher-developed corpora in the CBI classroom. English Teaching Forum 2: 28–37.Google Scholar
Sampson, G. 1987. The grammatical database and parsing scheme. In Garside, R., Leech, G., and Sampson, G. (eds.), The computational analysis of English: A corpus-based approach, 82–96. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Sampson, G. 2002. Regional variation in the English verb qualifier system. English Language and Linguistics 6: 17–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samraj, B. 2005. An exploration of a genre set: Research article abstracts and introductions in two disciplines. English for Specific Purposes 24: 141–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sardinha, T. 2000. Semantic prosodies in English and Portuguese: A contrastive study. Cuadernos de Filología Inglesa 9(1): 93–110.Google Scholar
Schachter, J. 1974. An error in error analysis. Language Learning 24(2): 205–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schauer, G. and Adolphs, S. 2006. Expressions of gratitude in corpus and DCT data: Vocabulary, formulaic sequences and pedagogy. System 34: 119–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scherre, M. and Naro, A. 1991. Marking in discourse: “Birds of a feather.” Language Variation and Change 3: 23–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, D. 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schler, J., Koppel, M., Argamon, S., and Pennebaker, J. 2006. Effects of age and gender on blogging. In Nicolov, N., Salvetti, F., Liberman, M., and Martin, J. H. (eds.), Proceedings of 2006 AAAI Spring Symposium on Computational Approaches for Analyzing Weblogs, 199–205.Google Scholar
Schmid, H. 1994. Probabilistic part-of-speech tagging using decision trees. In Proceedings of International Conference on New Methods in Language Processing, Manchester, 44–49.Google Scholar
Schmitt, N. (ed.). 2004. Formulaic sequences: Acquisition, processing and use. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, N. and Carter, R. 2004. Formulaic sequences in action: An introduction. In Schmitt, N. (ed.), Formulaic sequences,1–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, N. and Redwood, S. 2011. Learner knowledge of phrasal verbs: A corpus-informed study. In Meunier, F., De Cock, S., Gilquin, G., and Paquot, M. (eds.), A taste for corpora: In honor of Sylviane Granger, 173–207. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, N. and Schmitt, D. 2014. A reassessment of frequency and vocabulary size in L2 vocabulary teaching. Language Teaching 47(4): 484–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, E. W. 2005. The subjunctive in Philippine English. In Dayag, D. T. and Quakenbusch, J. S. (eds.), Linguistics and language education in the Philippines and beyond: A Festschrift in honor of Ma. Lourdes S. Bautista. Manila: Linguistic Society of the Philippines, 27–40.Google Scholar
Schneider, E. W. 2007. Postcolonial English. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, G. 2008. Hybrid long-distance functional dependency parsing. PhD dissertation, University of Zurich.Google Scholar
Schneider, K. 2012. Appropriate behaviour across varieties of English. Journal of Pragmatics 44: 1022–1037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulze, R. and Römer, U. 2009. Introduction: Zooming in. In Römer, U. and Schulze, R. (eds.), Exploring the lexis-grammar interface, 1–14. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schuurman, I., Schouppe, M., Hoekstra, H., and van der Wouden, T. 2003. CGN, an annotated corpus of spoken Dutch. In Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Linguistically Interpreted Corpora, 340–347.Google Scholar
Scott, M. 1996–2013. WordSmith Tools. Oxford University Press/Lexical Analysis Software Ltd. See www.lexically.net/wordsmith/index.html (accessed 4 March 2013).Google Scholar
Scott, M. 1997. PC analysis of key words – and key key words. System 25(2): 233–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, M. 2000. Focusing on the text and its key words. In Burnard, L. and McEnery, T. (eds.), Rethinking language pedagogy from a corpus perspective, vol. 2: 103–122. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Scott, M. 2004. Oxford WordSmith Tools. Version 4.0. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Scott, M. 2009. In search of a bad reference corpus. In Archer, (ed.), 79–91.Google Scholar
Scott, M. 2010. Problems in investigating keyness. In Bondi, and Scott, (eds.), 43–57.Google Scholar
Scott, M. 2013. WordSmith Tools Manual. Version 6.0. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software Ltd. See www.lexically.net/downloads/version6/wordsmith6.pdf (accessed 4 March 2013).Google Scholar
Scott, M. and Tribble, C. 2006. Key words and corpus analysis in language education. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sedlatschek, A. 2009. Contemporary Indian English: Variation and change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seidlhofer, B. 2001. Closing a conceptual gap: The case for a description of English as a lingua franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 11(2): 133–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seidlhofer, B. 2004. Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 24: 209–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seidlhofer, B. 2011. Understanding English as a lingua franca. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Semino, E. and Short, M. 2004. Corpus stylistics: Speech, writing and thought presentation in a corpus of English writing. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seoane, E. and Suárez-Gómez, C. 2013. The expression of the perfect in East and South-East Asian Englishes. English World-Wide 34(1): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seretan, V. 2011. Syntax-based collocation extraction. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shackleton, R. G. 2007. Phonetic variation in the traditional English dialects: A computational analysis. Journal of English Linguistics 35(1): 30–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shafi, S. M. and Rather, R. A. 2005. Precision and recall of five search engines for retrieval of scholarly information in the field of biotechnology. Webology 2(2). Downloaded from www.webology.org/2005/v2n2/a12.htmlGoogle Scholar
Shastri, S. V. 1988. The Kolhapur Corpus of Indian English and work done on its basis so far. ICAME Journal 12: 15–26.Google Scholar
Shih, C-L. 2012. A corpus-aided study of shifts in English-to-Chinese translation of prepositions. International Journal of English Linguistics 2(6): 50–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shiina, M. 2005. How playwrights construct their dramatic worlds: A corpus-based study of vocatives in early modern English comedies. In Caldas-Coulthard, C. R. and Toolan, M. (eds.), The writer’s craft, the culture’s technology, 209–224. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shimohata, S., Sugio, T., and Nagata, J. 1997. Retrieving collocations by co-occurrences and word order constraints. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 476–481.Google Scholar
Shin, D. and Nation, P. 2008. Beyond single words: The most frequent collocations in spoken English. ELT Journal 62(4): 339–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shirato, J. and Stapleton, P. 2007. Comparing English vocabulary in a spoken learner corpus with a native speaker corpus: Pedagogical implications arising from an empirical study in Japan, Language Teaching Research 11(4): 393–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siepmann, D. 2008. Phraseology in learners’ dictionaries: what, where and how? In Meunier, and Granger, (eds.), 185–202.Google Scholar
Sigley, R. J. 1997. Text categories and where you can stick them: A crude formality index. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 2(2): 199–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigley, R. J. 2012. Assessing corpus comparability using a formality index: The case of the Brown and LOB clones. In Yamazaki, S. and Sigley, R. J. (eds.), Approaching language variation through corpora: A Festschrift in honour of Toshio Saito, 65–114. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Simpson, R., Briggs, S. L., Ovens, J., and Swales, J. M. 2002. The Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English. Ann Arbor: The Regents of the University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Simpson, R. and Mendis, D. 2003. A corpus based study of idioms in academic speech. TESOL Quarterly 3: 419–41.Google Scholar
Simpson-Vlach, R. and Ellis, N. C. 2010. An academic formulas list: New methods in phraseology research. Applied Linguistics 31(4): 487–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson-Vlach, R. and Leicher, S. 2006. The MICASE handbook: A resource for users of the Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J. 1966. Beginning the study of lexis. In Bazell, C., Catford, J., Halliday, M. A. K., and Robins, R. (eds.), In memory of J. R. Firth, 148–162. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. (ed.). 1987. Looking up: An account of the COBUILD project in lexical computing. London: Collins.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. 1988. Mirror for a text. Journal of English and Foreign Languages 1: 15–44.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. 1996. Preliminary recommendations on corpus typology, technical report, EAGLES (Expert Advisory Group on Language Engineering Standards). www.ilc.cnr.it/EAGLES96/corpustyp/corpustyp.htmlGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J. 2004a. Trust the text: Language, corpus, and discourse. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J. 2004b. Interview with John Sinclair conducted by Wolfgang Teubert. In Krishnamurthy, R. (ed.), English collocation studies: The OSTI report, xvii–xxix. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. 2006. Aboutness 2. Manuscript, Tuscan Word Centre, Italy.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. et al. (eds.). 1987. Collins COBUILD English language dictionary. London: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. et al. (eds.). 1990. Collins COBUILD English Grammar. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. et al. (eds.). 1995. Collins COBUILD English Dictionary. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Skandera, P. 2003. Drawing a map of Africa: Idiom in Kenyan English. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Smith, A. 2013. Complex prepositions and variation within the PNP construction. In Hasselgård, H., Ebeling, J., and Ebeling, S. Oksefjell (eds.), Corpus perspectives: On patterns of lexis, 153–174. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, N., Hoffmann, S., and Rayson, P. 2008. Corpus tools and methods, today and tomorrow: Incorporating linguists’ manual annotations. Literary and Linguistic Computing 23(2): 163–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, N. and Leech, G. 2013. Verb structures in twentieth-century British English. In Aarts, , Close, , Leech, , and Wallis, (eds.), 68–98.Google Scholar
Smitterberg, E. 2009. Multal adverbs in nineteenth-century English. Studia Neophilologica 81(2): 121–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soloman, B. and Felder, R. 1996. Index of learning styles questionnaire. Raleigh: North Carolina State University. Downloaded from www.engr.ncsu.edu/learningstyles/ilsweb.htmlGoogle Scholar
Spada, N. and Tomita, Y. 2010. Interactions between type of instruction and type of language feature: A meta-analysis. Language Learning 60(2): 263–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Speelman, D., Grondelaers, S., and Geeraerts, D. 2003. Profile-based linguistic uniformity as a generic method for comparing language varieties. Computers and the Humanities 37: 317–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sripicharn, P. 2003. Evaluating classroom concordancing: The use of corpus-based materials by a group of Thai students. Thammasat Review 8(1): 203–236.Google Scholar
Stæhr, L. S. 2009. Vocabulary size and the skills of listening, reading and writing. Language Learning Journal 36(2): 139–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staples, S. 2014. Linguistic characteristics of international and US nurse discourse. Unpublished dissertation, Northern Arizona University.Google Scholar
Staples, S. and Biber, D. 2014. The expression of stance in nurse–patient interactions: An ESP perspective. In Gotti, M. and Giannoni, D.S. (eds.), Corpus analysis for descriptive and pedagogical purposes: ESP perspectives, 123–142. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Staples, S., Egbert, J., Biber, D., and McClair, A. 2013. Formulaic sequences and EAP writing development: Lexical bundles in the TOEFL iBT writing section. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 12: 214–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Starcke, B. 2006. The phraseology of Jane Austen’s Persuasion: Phraseological units as carriers of meaning. ICAME Journal 30: 87–104.Google Scholar
Staum, L. 2005. When stylistic and social effects fail to converge: A variation study of complementizer choice. MS, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. and Gries, S. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2): 209–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steger, M. and Schneider, E. W. 2012. Complexity as a function of iconicity: The case of complement clause constructions in New Englishes. In Kortmann, B. and Szmrecsanyi, B. (eds.), Linguistic complexity, 156–191. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stenström, A. B., Andersen, G., and Hasund, I. K. 2002. Trends in teenage talk: Corpus compilation, analysis and findings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, V. 1991. Concordance-based vocabulary exercises: A viable alternative to gap-filling. In Johns, T. and King, P. (eds.), Classroom concordancing, special issue of ELR Journal 4: 47–61.Google Scholar
Stewart, D. 2009. Semantic prosody: A critical evaluation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stockwell, P. 2002. Cognitive poetics: An introduction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stockwell, P. 2009. Texture: A cognitive aesthetics of reading. Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stockwell, R. P., Schachter, P., and Partee, B. H. 1973. The major syntactic structures of English.Google Scholar
Stubbs, M. 1983. Discourse analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stubbs, M. 1993. British traditions in text analysis: From Firth to Sinclair. In Baker, M., Francis, F., and Tognini-Bonelli, E. (eds.), Text and technology: In honour of John Sinclair, 1–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Stubbs, M. 1995. Collocations and semantic profiles: On the cause of the trouble with quantitative methods. Function of Language 2(1): 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stubbs, M. 1996. Text and corpus linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stubbs, M. 2000. Using very large text collections to study semantic schemas: A research note. In Heffer, C. and Hunston, S. (eds.), Words in context, 1–9. University of Birmingham ELR Monograph 18.Google Scholar
Stubbs, M. 2001a. On inference theories and code theories: Corpus evidence for semantic schemas Text 21(3): 437–465.Google Scholar
Stubbs, M. 2001b. Words and phrases. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stubbs, M. 2002. Two quantitative methods of studying phraseology in English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 7(2): 215–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stubbs, M. 2005. Conrad in the computer: Examples of quantitative stylistic methods. Language and Literature 14(1): 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stubbs, M. 2006. Corpus analysis: The state of the art and three types of unanswered questions. In Thompson, G. and Hunston, S. (eds.), Style and corpus: Exploring connections, 15–36. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Stubbs, M. 2009. The search for units of meaning: Sinclair on empirical semantics. Applied Linguistics 30(1): 115–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stubbs, M. 2010. Three concepts of keywords. In Bondi, and Scott, (eds.), 21–42.Google Scholar
Stubbs, M. and Gerbig, A. 1993. Human and inhuman geography: On the computer-assisted analysis of long texts. In Hoey, M. (ed.), Data, description, discourse: Papers on the English Language in honour of John McH. Sinclair on his sixtieth birthday, 64–85. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Suárez-Gómez, C. and Seoane, E, 2013. They have published a new cultural policy that just come out: Competing forms in spoken and written New Englishes. In Andersen, and Bech, (eds.), 163–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sun, Y-C. and Wang, L-Y. 2003. Concordancers in the EFL classroom: Cognitive approaches and collocation difficulty. Computer Assisted Language Learning 16(1): 83–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supatranont, P. 2005. A comparison of the effects of the concordance-based and the conventional teaching methods on engineering students’ English vocabulary learning. PhD thesis, Chulalongkorn University.Google Scholar
Svartvik, J. 1966. On voice in the English verb. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Svartvik, J. (ed.). 1990. The London–Lund Corpus of Spoken English: Description and research (Lund Studies in English 82). University of Lund.Google Scholar
Swales, J. M. 1990. Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Swales, J. M. 1996. Occluded genres in the academy: The case of the submission letter. In Ventola, E. and Mauranen, A. (eds.), Academic writing: Intercultural and textual issues. 45–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swales, J. M. 1998. Floors, Other, Other voices: A textography of a small university building. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Swales, J. M. 2002. Integrated and fragmented worlds: EAP materials and corpus linguistics. In Flowerdew, J. (ed.), Academic discourse, 150–164. London: Longman, Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Swales, J. M. and Burke, A. (2003). It’s really fascinating work: Differences in evaluative adjectives across academic registers. In Leistyna, P. and Meyer, C. F. (eds.), Corpus analysis: Language structure and language use, 1–18. New York: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Swales, J. and Malczewski, B. 2001. Discourse management and new-episode flags in MICASE. In Simpson, R. C. and Swales, J. M. (eds.), Corpus linguistics in North America: Selections from the 1999 symposium, 145–164. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Swan, M. and Smith, B. 1987. Learner English: A teacher’s guide to interference and other problems. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sweetser, E. 1990. From etymology to pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B. 2005. Language users as creatures of habit: A corpus-based analysis of persistence in spoken English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1(1): 113–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B. 2006. Morphosyntactic persistence in spoken English: A study at the intersection of variationist sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and discourse analysis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B. 2008. Corpus-based dialectometry: aggregate morphosyntactic variability in British English dialects. International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing, 2: 279–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B. 2013. Grammatical variation in British English dialects: A study in corpus-based dialectometry. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B. and Hernández, N. 2007. Manual of information to accompany the Freiburg Corpus of English Dialects sampler (“FRED-S”). Downloaded from: urn:nbn:de:bsz:25-opus-28598, www.freidok.uni-freiburg.de/volltexte/2859/Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B. and Kortmann, B. 2011. Typological profiling: Learner Englishes versus indigenized L2 varieties of English. In Mukherjee, and Hundt, (eds.), 167–187.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B. and Wolk, C. 2011. Holistic corpus-based dialectology. Revista Brasileira de Linguística Aplicada 11(2): 561–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taavitsainen, I. 2009. The pragmatics of knowledge and meaning: Corpus linguistic approaches to changing thought-styles in early modern medical discourse. In Jucker, , Schreier, , and Hundt, (eds.), 37–62.Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, I. 2012. Historical pragmatics. In Bergs, A. and Brinton, L. (eds.), Handbook of historical linguistics, 1457–1474. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, I. and Fitzmaurice, S. 2007. Historical pragmatics: What it is and how to do it. In Fitzmaurice, and Taavitsainen, (eds.), 11–36.Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, I. and Jucker, A. H. 2007. Speech act verbs and speech acts in the history of English. In Fitzmaurice, and Taavitsainen, (eds.), 107–138.Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, I. and Jucker, A. H. 2008. “Methinks you seem more beautiful than ever”: Compliments and gender in the history of English. In Jucker, and Taavitsainen, (eds.), 195–228.Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, I. and Jucker, A. H. 2010. Expressive speech acts and politeness in eighteenth-century English. In Hickey, R. (ed.), Eighteenth-century English: Ideology and change, 159–181. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taavitsainen, I., Jucker, A. H., and Tuominen, J. (eds.). 2014. Diachronic corpus pragmatics (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 243). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taavitsainen, I. and Pahta, P. 1998. Vernacularisation of medical writing in English: A corpus-based study of scholasticism. Early Science and Medicine. 3(2): 157–185.Google ScholarPubMed
Taavitsainen, I. and Pahta, P. (eds.). 2010. Early Modern English medical texts: Corpus description and studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taavitsainen, I., Pahta, P., and Mäkinen, M. 2005. A Collection of Middle English Medical Text. Amsterdam: John Benjamins (CD Rom).Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, I. and Suhr, C. 2012. Developing historical corpus pragmatics towards multimodality. www.helsinki.fi/varieng/journal/volumes/11/taavitsainen_suhr.htmlGoogle Scholar
Tabata, T. 1995. Narrative style and the frequencies of very common words: A corpus-based approach to Dickens’s first person and third person narratives. English Corpus Studies 2: 91–109.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. A. 2006. Analysing sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. A. 2007. Representing real language: Consistency, trade-offs and thinking ahead! In Beal, J., Corrigan, K., and Moisl, H. (eds)., Using unconventional digital language corpora, vol. 1: Synchronic corpora, 205–240. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. A. and Denis, D. 2008. Linguistic ruin? LOL! Instant messaging and teen language. American Speech 83: 3–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. A. and Lawrence, H. 2000. I used to dance, but I don’t dance now: The habitual past in English. Journal of English Linguistics 28: 324–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. A. and Smith, J. 2002. Either it isn’t or it’s not: neg/aux contraction in British dialects. English World Wide 23: 251–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. A. and Temple, R. 2005. New perspectives on an ol’ variable: (t,d) in British English. Language Variation and Change 17: 281–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tannen, D. 1985. Relative focus on involvement in oral and written discourse. In Olsen, D., Torrence, N., and Hildyard, A. (eds.), Literacy, language, and learning: The nature and consequences of reading and writing, 124–147. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tao, H. 2003. Turn initiators in spoken English: A corpus-based approach to interaction and grammar. Language and Computers 46: 187–207.Google Scholar
Tarp, S. 2009. Beyond lexicography: new visions and challenges in the information age. In Bergenholtz, H., Nielsen, S., and Tarp, S. (eds.), Lexicography at a crossroads: Dictionaries and encyclopedias today, lexicographical tools tomorrow, 17–32. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Taylor, A. 2008. Contact effects of translation: Distinguishing two kinds of influence in Old English. Language Variation and Change 20: 341–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, C. 2009. Interacting with conflicting goals: Facework and impoliteness in hostile cross-examination. In Morley, J. and Bayley, P. (eds.), Corpus-assisted discourse studies on the Iraq conflict: Wording the war, 208–233. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. 2010. Science in the news: A diachronic perspective. Corpora 5(2): 221–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, C. 2012. And there isn’t: (How) can we access the absent using CADS? Talk given at CADS Conf 2011, Bologna University, 13–14 September 2012.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. 2013. Searching for similarity using corpus-assisted discourse studies. Corpora 8: 81–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J. 2012. The mental corpus: How language is represented in the mind. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, L. 1996. The compilation of the Spoken English Corpus. In Knowles, G. R., Wichmann, A. L., and Alderson, P. E. (eds.), Working with speech: Perspectives on research into the Lancaster/IBM spoken English corpus, 20–37. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Teich, E. 2003. Cross-linguistic variation in system and text. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teich, E. and Holtz, M. 2009. Scientific registers in contact: An exploration of the lexico-grammatical properties of interdisciplinary discourses. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14: 524–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teubert, W. 2001. Corpus linguistics and lexicography. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 6: 125–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teubert, W. 2004. Corpus linguistics and lexicography: The beginning of a beautiful friendship. Lexicographica: International Annual for Lexicography, 1–19.Google Scholar
Teubert, W. 2005. My version of corpus linguistics. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 10: 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thelwall, M. 2008. Fk yea I swear: Cursing and gender in a corpus of MySpace pages. Corpora 3: 83–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thewissen, J. 2013. Capturing L2 accuracy developmental patterns: Insights from an error-tagged EFL learner corpus. Modern Language Journal 97(S1): 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, S., Tucker, R., and Kelly, W. 1998. Critical communication variables. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 124, 58–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, G. 1996a. Introducing functional grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Thompson, G. 1996b. Voices in the text: discourse perspectives on language reports. Applied Linguistics 17(4): 501–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, S. A. and Mulac, A. 1991. Discourse uses of that in English. Journal of Pragmatics 15: 237–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornbury, S. 2004. Natural grammar: The keywords of English and how they work. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thorndike, E. L. 1921. Word knowledge in elementary school. Teachers College Record, 22(4): 334–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorndike, E. L. 1932. A teacher’s word book of the 20,000 words found most frequently and widely in general reading for children and young people. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.Google Scholar
Thorndike, E. and Lorge, I. 1944. The teacher’s word book of 30,000 words. New York: Columbia University.Google Scholar
Thurstun, J. and Candlin, C. 1997. Exploring academic English: A workbook for student essay writing. Sydney: CELTR.Google Scholar
Tian, S. 2005. The impact of learning tasks and learner proficiency on the effectiveness of data-driven learning. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics 9(2): 263–275.Google Scholar
ToBI (n. d.). The Ohio State University, Department of Linguistics. www.ling.ohio-state.edu/~tobi/ (accessed 18 April 2013).Google Scholar
Tognini-Bonelli, E. 2001. Corpus linguistics at work. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tono, Y. 2000. A computer learner corpus-based analysis of the acquisition order of English grammatical morphemes. In Burnard, L. and McEnery, T. (eds.), Rethinking language pedagogy from a corpus perspective. Papers from the Third International Conference on Teaching and Language Corpora, 123–132. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Tono, Y. 2004. Multiple comparisons of IL, L1 and TL corpora: The case of L2 acquisition of verb subcategorization patterns by Japanese learners of English. In Aston, G., Bernardini, S., and Stewart, D. (eds.), Corpora and language learners, 45–66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toolan, M. 2009. Narrative progression in the short story: A corpus stylistic approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torgo, L. 2011. Data mining with R: Learning with case studies. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, R. and Walker, J. A. 2009a. The present of the English future: Grammatical variation and collocations in discourse. Language 85: 321–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, R. and Walker, J. A. 2009b. On the persistence of grammar in discourse formulas: A variationist study of that. Linguistics 47: 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tottie, G. 1991. Negation in English speech and writing: A study in variation. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Tottie, G. and Hoffmann, S. 2006. The tag questions in American and British English. Journal of English Linguistics 34(4): 283–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toury, G. 1995. Descriptive translation studies and beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tracy-Ventura, N., Cortes, V., and Biber, D. 2007. Lexical bundles in speech and writing. In Parodi, G. (ed.), Working with Spanish corpora, 217–231. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. 1982. From propositional to textual and expressive meanings: Some semantic-pragmatic aspects of grammaticalization. In Lehmann, W. P. and Yakov, M. (eds.), Perspectives on historical linguistics, 245–271. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. 2003. Constructions in grammaticalization. In Joseph, B. D. and Janda, R. D. (eds.), The handbook of historical linguistics, 624–647. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. 2004. Historical pragmatics. In Horn, and Ward, (eds.), 538–561.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. 2008. Testing the hypothesis that priming is a motivation for change. Theoretical Linguistics 34: 135–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. 2010. Grammaticalization. In Jucker, and Taavitsainen, (eds.), 97–126.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. and Dasher, R. B. 2005. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Travis, C. E. 2007. Genre effects on subject expression in Spanish: Priming in narrative and conversation. Language Variation and Change 19: 101–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tribble, C. 2000. Genres, keywords, teaching: Towards a pedagogic account of the language of project proposals. In Burnard, L. and McEnery, T. (eds.), Rethinking language pedagogy from a corpus perspective, 75–90. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Tse, P. and Hyland, K. 2008. “Robot Kung fu”: Gender and the performance of a professional identity. Journal of Pragmatics. 40(7): 1232–1248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullmann, S. 1973. Meaning and style: Collected papers. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Upton, T. and Connor, U. 2001. Using computerized corpus analysis to investigate the text linguistic discourse moves of a genre. English for Specific Purposes 20: 313–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valkonen, P. 2008. Showing a little promise: Identifying and retrieving explicit illocutionary acts from a corpus of written prose. In Jucker, and Taavitsainen, (eds.), 247–272.Google Scholar
Van Bogaert, J. 2010. A constructional taxonomy of I think and related expressions: accounting for the variability of complement-taking mental predicates. English Language and Linguistics 14: 399–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Auwera, J., Noël, D., and De Wit, A. 2012. The diverging need(to)’s of Asian Englishes. In Hundt, and Gut, (eds.), 55–75.Google Scholar
Vanderauwera, Ria 1985. Dutch novels translated into English. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanderbauwhede, G., Desmet, P., and Lauwers, P. 2011. The shifting of the demonstrative determiner in French and Dutch in parallel corpora. Meta 56(2): 443–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Ek, J. A. 1966. Four complementary structures of predication in contemporary British English. Groningen: J. B. Wolters.Google Scholar
Van Herk, G. and Walker, J. 2005. S marks the spot? Regional variation and early African American correspondence. Language Variation and Change 17: 113–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Rooy, B., Terblanche, L., Haase, C., and Schmied, J. 2010. Register differentiation in East African English: A multidimensional study. English World-Wide 31(3): 311–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaughan, E. 2007. “I think we should just accept … our horrible lowly status”: Analysing teacher-teacher talk within the context of community of practice. Language Awareness 16(3): 173–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaughan, E. and Clancy, B. 2011. The pragmatics of Irish English. English Today 27(2): 47–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaughan, E. and Clancy, B. 2013. Small corpora and pragmatics. In Romero-Trillo, J. (ed.), Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2013: New domains and methodologies, 53–73. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vázquez, N. (ed.). 2012. Creation and use of historical English corpora in Spain. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Venuti, L. (ed.). 2000. The translation studies reader. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verschueren, J. 1999. Understanding pragmatics. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Verschueren, J. 2003. The pragmatic perspective. In Verschueren, J., Östman, J.-O., Blommaert, J., and Bulcaen, C. (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics online. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Viana, V., Fausto, F., and Zyngier, S., 2007. Corpus linguistics and literature: A contrastive analysis of Dan Brown and Machado de Assis. In Zyngier, S., Viana, V., and Jandre, J. (eds.), Textos e leituras: Estudos empíricos de língua e literatura, 233–256. Rio de Janeiro: Publit.Google Scholar
Vine, B. 1999. Guide to The New Zealand component of the International Corpus of English. Wellington: School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, Victoria University of Wellington.Google Scholar
VOICE Project. 2013. VOICE Part-of-Speech Tagging and Lemmatization Manual. Downloaded from www.univie.ac.at/voice/documents/VOICE_tagging_manual.pdf (accessed 25 February 2013).Google Scholar
von Eye, A. 1990. Introduction to Configural Frequency Analysis: The search for types and antitypes in cross-classifications. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vosberg, U. 2006. Die große Komplementverschiebung: Außersemantische Einflüsse auf die Entwicklung satzwertiger Ergänzungen im Neuenglischen. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Vosters, R. and Vandenbussche, W. 2012. Bipartite negation in 18th and early 19th century Southern Dutch: Sociolinguistic aspects of norms and variation. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 3: 343–64.Google Scholar
Wales, K. 2001. A dictionary of stylistics. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Walker, B. 2010. Wmatrix, key concepts and the narrator in Julian Barnes’s Talking it over. In Busse, B. and McIntyre, D. (eds.), Language and style, 364–387. Basingstoke: Palgrave Education.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, B. 2012. Character and characterisation in Julian Barnes’ Talking It Over: A corpus stylistic analysis. PhD thesis, Lancaster University.Google Scholar
Walker, C. 2009. The treatment of collocation by learners’ dictionaries, collocational dictionaries and dictionaries of business English. International Journal of Lexicography 22:(3), 281–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, J. 2008. The footballer’s perfect – are footballers leading the way? In Lavric, E., Pisek, G., Skinner, A., and Stadler, W. (eds.), The linguistics of football, 295–303. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Walker, T. 2007. Thou and you in Early Modern English dialogues: Trials, depositions, and drama comedy. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, T. and Kytö, M. 2013. Features of layout and other visual effects in the source manuscripts of An Electronic Text Edition of Depositions 1560–1760 (ETED). www.helsinki.fi/varieng/journal/volumes/14/walker_kyto/Google Scholar
Wallis, S., Aarts, B., Ozon, G., and Kavalova, Y. 2006. DCPSE: The Diachronic Corpus of Present-Day Spoken English. London: Survey of English Usage, UCL.Google Scholar
Walsh, S. 2013. Corpus linguistics and conversation analysis at the interface: Theoretical perspectives, practical outcomes. In Romero-Trillo, J. (ed.), Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics 2013: New domains and methodologies, 37–52. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Y. 2012. Chinese speakers’ perceptions of their English in intercultural communication. PhD thesis, University of Southampton.Google Scholar
Warren, M. 2010. Identifying aboutgrams in engineering texts. In Bondi, and Scott, (eds.), 113–126.Google Scholar
Wei, N. and Li, X. 2014. Exploring semantic preference and semantic prosody across English and Chinese: Their roles for cross-linguistic equivalence. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistics Theory, special Issue on Corpus-Based Translation and Contrastive Linguistic Studies 10(1): 103–138.Google Scholar
Weiner, J. and Labov, W. 1983. Constraints on the agentless passive. Journal of Linguistics 19: 29–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinert, R. 1995. The role of formulaic language in second language acquisition: A review. Applied Linguistics 16(2): 180–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weissbort, D. and Eysteinsson, A. (eds.). 2006. Translation – theory and practice: A historical reader. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wekker, H. Chr. 1976. The expression of future time in contemporary British English. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Werlich, E. 1983. A text grammar of English. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer.Google Scholar
West, M. 1937. The present position in vocabulary selection for foreign language teaching. Modern Language Journal 21(6): 433–437.Google Scholar
West, M. 1953. A general service list of English words. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Wible, D., Kuo, C. H., Chien, F.-Y., Liu, A., and Tsao, N.-L. 2001. A web-based EFL writing environment: Integrating information for learners, teachers, and researchers. Computers and Education 37(3–4): 297–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wible, D. and Tsao, N-L. 2011. Towards a new-generation of corpus-derived lexical resources for language learning. In Meunier, F., De Cock, S., Gilquin, G., and Paquot, M. (eds.), A taste for corpora: In honor of Sylviane Granger, 237–255. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wichmann, A. 2000. Intonation in text and discourse: Beginnings, middles, and ends. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Wichmann, A. 2004. The intonation of Please-requests: a corpus-based study. Journal of Pragmatics 36: 1521–1549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wichmann, A. and Culpeper, J. 2003. Sociopragmatic annotation: New directions and possibilities in historical corpus linguistics. In Wilson, A., Rayson, P., and McEnery, T. (eds.), Corpus linguistics by the Lune: A festschrift for Geoffrey Leech, 37–58. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H. 2003. Defining issues in English language teaching. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wiechmann, D. 2008. On the computation of collostruction strength: testing measures of association as expressions of lexical bias. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 4(2): 253–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkinson, L. and the Task Force on Statistical Inference. 1999. Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and expectations. American Psychologist 54(8): 594–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, G. 2001. Mediating between lexis and texts: Collocational networks in specialised corpora. ASp 31–33: 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, G. 2006. Advanced ESP and the learner’s dictionary: Tools for the non-language specialist. Proceedings of the XII EURALEX Congress. Available from www.euralex.org/elx_proceedings/Euralex2006/Google Scholar
Williams, R. [1976] 1983. Keywords. London: Fontana.Google Scholar
Williamson, K. 1992. A computer-aided method for making a linguistic atlas of Older Scots. Scottish Language 11/12: 138–73.Google Scholar
Wilson, A. 2013. Embracing Bayes factors for key item analysis in corpus linguistics. In Koll-Stobbe, A. and Bieswanger, M. (eds.), New approaches to the study of linguistic variability, 3–11. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Wilson, A. and Zeitlyn, D. 1995. The distribution of person-referring expressions in natural conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 28(1): 61–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winford, D. 2003. An introduction to contact linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wisniewska, I. 2009. Grammar dimensions, 4th edn. Boston, MA: Heinle Cengage.Google Scholar
Wodak, R. 2007. Pragmatics and critical discourse analysis: A cross-disciplinary inquiry. Journal of Pragmatics and Cognition 15(1): 203–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolk, C. 2014. Integrating aggregational and probabilistic approaches to dialectometry and language variation. PhD dissertation, University of Freiburg.Google Scholar
Wolk, C., Bresnan, J., Rosenbach, A., and Szmrecsanyi, B. 2013. Dative and genitive variability in Late Modern English: Exploring cross-constructional variation and change. Diachronica 30(3): 382–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wray, A. 2002. Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wray, A. 2008. Formulaic language: Pushing the boundaries. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wray, A. 2009. Identifying formulaic language: Persistent challenges and new opportunities. In Corrigan, R., Moravcsik, E. A., Ouali, H., and Wheatley, K. M. (eds.), Formulaic language, vol. 1: Distribution and historical change, 27–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wray, A. and Perkins, M. 2000. The functions of formulaic language: An integrated model. Language and Communication 20: 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wulff, S., Ellis, N. C., Römer, U., Bardovi-Harlig, K., and LeBlanc, C. 2009. The acquisition of tense-aspect: Converging evidence from corpora and telicity ratings. Modern Language Journal 93(3). 354–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wulff, S., Römer, U., and Swales, J. 2012. Attended/unattended this in academic student writing: Quantitative and qualitative perspectives. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 8: 129–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wunder, E-M., Voormann, H., and Gut, U. 2010. The ICE Nigeria corpus project: Creating an open, rich and accurate corpus. ICAME Journal 34: 78–88.Google Scholar
Wynne, M. (ed.). 2005. Developing linguistic corpora: A guide to good practice. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Downloaded from www.ahds.ac.uk/creating/guides/linguistic-corpora/index.htmGoogle Scholar
Xekalakis, E. 1999. Newspapers through the times: Foreign reports from the 18th to the 20th centuries. Zurich (no publisher).Google Scholar
Xiao, R. 2009. Multidimensional analysis and the study of world Englishes. World Englishes 28: 421–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xiao, R. 2010. How different is translated Chinese from native Chinese? International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 15, 1: 5–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xiao, R. and McEnery, T. 2005. Two approaches to genre analysis: Three genres in modern American English. Journal of English Linguistics 33: 62–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xiao, R. and McEnery, T. 2006. Collocation, semantic prosody and near synonymy: A cross-linguistic perspective. Applied Linguistics, 27(1): 103–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xiao, R., McEnery, T., and Qian, Y. 2006. Passive constructions in English and Chinese: A corpus-based contrastive study. Languages in Contrast, 6(1): 109–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xiao, R. and Tao, H. 2007. A corpus-based sociolinguistic study of amplifiers in British English. Sociolinguistic Studies 1: 241–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xue, G. and Nation, I. S. P. 1984. A university word list. Language Learning and Communication 3: 215–229.Google Scholar
Yao, X. and Collins, P. 2013. Functional variation in the English present perfect: A cross-varietal study. In Andersen, and Bech, (eds.), 91–111.Google Scholar
Yorio, C. 1980. Conventionalized language forms and the development of communicative competence. TESOL Quarterly 14(4): 433–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zadeh, L. 1965. Fuzzy sets. Information and Control 8: 338–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zanettin, F. 2012. Translation-driven corpora. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Zechmeister, E. B., Chronis, A. M., Cull, W. L., D’Anna, C. A., and Healy, N. A. 1995. Growth of a functionally important lexicon. Journal of Literacy Research 27(2): 201–212.Google Scholar
Zeldes, A. 2012. Productivity in argument selection: From morphology to syntax. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, W., Yoshida, T., Tang, X., and Ho, T-B. 2009. Improving effectiveness of mutual information for substantival multiword expression extraction. Expert Systems with Applications 36: 10919–10930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, Z-S. 2012. A corpus study of variation in written Chinese. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 8: 209–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhiming, B. and Huaqing, H. 2006. Diglossia and register variation in Singapore English. World Englishes 25(1): 105–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zipp, L. 2014. Educated Fiji English: Lexico-grammar and variety status. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuur, A. F., Ieno, E. N., Walker, N., and Saveliev, A. A. 2009. Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. Berlin and New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • References
  • Edited by Douglas Biber, Northern Arizona University, Randi Reppen, Northern Arizona University
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of English Corpus Linguistics
  • Online publication: 05 July 2015
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139764377.030
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • References
  • Edited by Douglas Biber, Northern Arizona University, Randi Reppen, Northern Arizona University
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of English Corpus Linguistics
  • Online publication: 05 July 2015
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139764377.030
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • References
  • Edited by Douglas Biber, Northern Arizona University, Randi Reppen, Northern Arizona University
  • Book: The Cambridge Handbook of English Corpus Linguistics
  • Online publication: 05 July 2015
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139764377.030
Available formats
×