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-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T13:21:55.161Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 November 2019

Axel Bohmann
Axel Bohmann
Affiliation:
Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Germany
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
Variation in English Worldwide
Registers and Global Varieties
 , pp. 227 - 248
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

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

Aaron, Jessi Elana. 2010. Pushing the envelope: Looking beyond the variable context. Language Variation and Change 22(01). 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agha, Asif. 2005. Voice, footing, enregisterment. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 15(1). 38–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, Karin. 2009. The pragmatics of adverbs. In Rohdenburg, Günter & Schlüter, Julia (eds.), One Language, Two Grammars? Differences between British and American English (Studies in English Language), 324–340. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Alim, H. Samy. 2015. Hip Hop Nation Language: Localization and globalization. In Bloomquist, Jennifer, Green, Lisa J., & Lanehart, Sonja L. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of African American Language, 850–862. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Anderwald, Lieselotte. 2003. Non-standard English and typological principles: The case of negation. In Rohdenburg, Günter & Mondorf, Britta (eds.), Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English, 507–530. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Anderwald, Lieselotte. 2007. “He rung the bell” and “she drunk an ale” – Non-standard past tense forms in traditional British dialects and on the internet. In Hundt, Marianne, Nesselhauf, Nadja, & Biewer, Carolin (eds.), Corpus Linguistics and the Web (Language and Computers), 271–286. Amsterdam: Brill Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Androutsopoulos, Jannis K. 2010. Localizing the global on the participatory web. In Coupland, Nikolas (ed.), The Handbook of Language and Globalization, 201–231. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Androutsopoulos, Jannis K. 2011. From variation to heteroglossia in the study of computer-mediated discourse. In Thurlow, Crispin & Mroczek, Kristine R. (eds.), Digital Discourse: Language in the New Media (Oxford Studies in Sociolinguistics), 277–298. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 1994. Derivational productivity and text typology. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 1(1). 16–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 2008. Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Paul. 2010. Sociolinguistics and Corpus Linguistics (Edinburgh Sociolinguistics). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Bamgbose, Ayo. 1996. Post-imperial English in Nigeria 1940–1990. In Fishman, Joshua A., Conrad, Andrew W., & Rubal-Lopez, Alma (eds.), Post-Imperial English: Status Change in Former British and American Colonies, 1940–1990 (Contributions to the Sociology of Language), 357–372. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bamman, David, Eisenstein, Jacob, & Schnoebelen, Tyler. 2014. Gender identity and lexical variation in social media. Journal of Sociolinguistics 18(2). 135–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bandalos, Deborah L. & Finney, Sara J.. 2010. Factor analysis: Exploratory and confirmatory. In Hancock, Gregory R. & Mueller, Ralph O. (eds.), The Reviewer’s Guide to Quantitative Methods in the Social Sciences, 93–122. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bauer, Roland. 2009. Dialektometrische Einsichten: Sprachklassifikatorische Oberflächenmuster und Tiefenstrukturen im lombardo-venedischen Dialektraum und in der Räto-Romania. San Martin de Tor: Istitut Ladin Micurà de Rü.Google Scholar
Bauman, Richard & Briggs, Charles L.. 1990. Poetics and performance as critical perspectives on language and social life. Annual Review of Anthropology 19. 59–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauman, Richard & Briggs, Charles L.. 2003. Voices of Modernity: Language Ideologies and the Politics of Inequality (Studies in the Social and Cultural Foundations of Language 21). Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beal, Kalynda. 2012. Is it truly unique that Irish clefts are? Quantifying the syntactic variation of it-clefts in Irish English and other post-colonial English varieties. In Migge, Bettina & Ní Chiosáin, Máire (eds.), New Perspectives on Irish English, 153–178. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bell, Allan. 1984. Language style as audience design. Language in Society 13(2). 145–204.Google Scholar
Berber Sardinha, Tony, Kauffman, Carlos, & Mayer Acunzo, Cristina. 2014. A multi-dimensional analysis of register variation in Brazilian Portuguese. Corpora 9(2). 239–271.Google Scholar
Besnier, Niko. 1988. The linguistic relationships of spoken and written Nukulaelae registers. Language 64(4). 707–736.Google Scholar
Beurskens, Michael. 2014. Legal questions of Twitter research. In Weller, Katrin, Bruns, Axel, Burgess, Jean, Mahrt, Merja, & Puschmann, Cornelius (eds.), Twitter and Society (Digital Formations vol. 89), 123–133. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1987. A textual comparison of British and American writing. American Speech 62(2). 99–119.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1995. Dimensions of Register Variation: A Cross-Linguistic Comparison. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 2006. Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5(2). 97–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 2012. Register as a predictor of linguistic variation. Corpus Linguistics & Linguistic Theory 8(1). 9–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 2014. Using multi-dimensional analysis to explore cross-linguistic universals of register variation. Languages in Contrast 14(1). 7–34.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Conrad, Susan. 2009. Register, Genre, and Style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Davies, Mark, Jones, James K., & Tracy-Ventura, Nicole. 2006. Spoken and written register variation in Spanish: A multi-dimensional analysis. Corpora 1(1). 1–37.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Egbert, Jesse. 2018. Register Variation Online. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Finegan, Edward. 1989. Drift and the evolution of English style: A history of three genres. Language 65(3). 487–517.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Finegan, Edward. 1994a. Introduction: Situating register in sociolinguistics. In Biber, Douglas & Finegan, Edward (eds.), Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register, 3–12. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Finegan, Edward (eds.). 1994b. Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Gray, Bethany. 2010. Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9(1). 2–20.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Gray, Bethany. 2011. Grammatical change in the noun phrase: The influence of written language use. English Language & Linguistics 15(2). 223–250.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Hared, Mohamed. 1992. Dimensions of register variation in Somali. Language Variation and Change 4(1). 41–75.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan, & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Biermeier, Thomas. 2008. Word-Formation in New Englishes: A Corpus-Based Analysis. Berlin: LIT.Google Scholar
Biermeier, Thomas. 2009. Word-formation in New Englishes: Properties and trends. In Hoffmann, Thomas & Siebers, Lucia (eds.), World Englishes – Problems, Properties and Prospects: Selected Papers from the 13th IAWE Conference (Varieties of English around the World 40), 331–349. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bird, Steven, Klein, Ewan, & Loper, Edward. 2009. Natural Language Processing with Python: Analyzing Text with the Natural Language Toolkit. Beijing, Cambridge, MA: O’Reilly Media.Google Scholar
Blake, Renée. 1997. Defining the envelope of linguistic variation: The case of “don’t count” forms in the copula analysis of African American Vernacular English. Language Variation and Change 9(1). 57–79.Google Scholar
Blommaert, Jan. 2010. The Sociolinguistics of Globalization (Cambridge Approaches to Language Contact). Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blommaert, Jan. 2011. Supervernaculars and their dialects. Working Papers in Urban Language & Literacies 81. 1–14.Google Scholar
Blommaert, Jan. 2013. Ethnography, Superdiversity and Linguistic Landscapes: Chronicles of Complexity (Critical Language and Literacy Studies 18). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohmann, Axel. 2014. Enquoting voices on Twitter: A multi-local analysis of be + like in computer-mediated discourse. Presented at ISLE 3, Zürich.Google Scholar
Bohmann, Axel. 2016a. “Nobody canna cross it”: Language-ideological dimensions of hypercorrect speech in Jamaica. English Language & Linguistics 20(1). 129–152.Google Scholar
Bohmann, Axel. 2016b. Grammatical change because Twitter? Factors motivating innovative uses of because across the English-speaking Twittersphere. In Squires, Lauren (ed.), English in Computer-Mediated Communication: Variation, Representation, and Change, 149–178. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bohmann, Axel. Forthcoming. Situating Twitter discourse in relation to spoken and written text: A lectometric analysis. Zeitschrift für Dialektologie und Linguistik.Google Scholar
boyd, danah, Golder, Scott, & Lotan, Gilad. 2010. Tweet, tweet, retweet: Conversational aspects of retweeting on Twitter. Proceedings of the 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’10), 1–10. Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan & Hay, Jennifer. 2008. Gradient grammar: An effect of animacy on the syntax of give in New Zealand and American English. Lingua 118(2). 245–259.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1995. Non-anaphoric reflexives in free indirect style: Expressing the sujectivity of the non-speaker. In Stein, Dieter & Wright, Susan (eds.), Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: Linguistic Perspectives, 173–194. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bruns, Axel & Moe, Hallvard. 2014. Structural layers of communication on Twitter. In Weller, Katrin, Bruns, Axel, Burgess, Jean, Mahrt, Merja, & Puschmann, Cornelius (eds.), Twitter and Society (Digital Formations vol. 89), 15–28. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Bruthiaux, Paul. 2003. Squaring the circles: Issues in modeling English worldwide. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 13(2). 159–178.Google Scholar
Bucholtz, Mary & Hall, Kira. 2005. Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies 7(4–5). 585–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchstaller, Isabelle & D’Arcy, Alexandra. 2009. Localized globalization: A multi-local, multivariate investigation of quotative be like. Journal of Sociolinguistics 13(3). 291–331.Google Scholar
Carter, Bob & Sealey, Alison. 2000. Language, structure and agency: What can realist social theory offer to sociolinguistics? Journal of Sociolinguistics 4(1). 3–20.Google Scholar
Cattell, Raymond B. 1966. The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research 1(2). 245–276.Google Scholar
Chambers, John M., Cleveland, William S., Kleiner, Beat, & Tukey, Paul A.. 1983. Graphical Methods for Data Analysis. Belmont, CA, Boston: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Collins, Peter. 2012. Singular agreement in there-existentials. English World-Wide 33(1). 53–68.Google Scholar
Collins, Peter (ed.). 2015a. Grammatical Change in English World-Wide. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Collins, Peter. 2015b. Diachronic variation in the grammar of Australian English: Corpus-based explorations. In Collins, Peter (ed.), Grammatical Change in English World-Wide, 15–42. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Collins, Peter. 2015c. Recent diachronic change in the progressive in Philippine English. In Collins, Peter (ed.), Grammatical Change in English World-Wide, 271–296. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Collins, Peter & Yao, Xinyue. 2012. Modals and quasi-modals in New Englishes. In Hundt, Marianne & Gut, Ulrike (eds.), Mapping Unity and Diversity World-Wide: Corpus-Based Studies of New Englishes (Varieties of English around the World 43), 35–54. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Corrigan, Karen P., Mearns, Adam, & Moisl, Hermann. 2014. Feature-based versus aggregate analyses of the DECTE corpus: Phonological and morphological variability in Tyneside English. In Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt & Wälchli, Bernhard (eds.), Aggregating Dialectology, Typology, and Register Analysis: Linguistic Variation in Text and Speech (Linguae & Litterae 28), 113–149. Berlin, Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Costello, Anna B. & Osborne, Jason W.. 2005. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 10. 173–178.Google Scholar
Coupland, Nikolas. 2007. Style: Language Variation and Identity (Key Topics in Sociolinguistics). Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Coupland, Nikolas. 2014. Language change, social change, sociolinguistic change: A meta-commentary. Journal of Sociolinguistics 18(2). 277–286.Google Scholar
Coupland, Nikolas. 2016. Labov, vernacularity and sociolinguistic change. Journal of Sociolinguistics 20(4). 409–430.Google Scholar
Crystal, David. 2006. Chapter 9: English worldwide. In Denison, David & Hogg, Richard (eds.), A History of the English Language, 420–439. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
D’Arcy, Alexandra. 2015. At the crossroads of change: Possession, periphrasis, and prescriptivism in Victoria English. In Collins, Peter (ed.), Grammatical Change in English World-Wide, 43–64. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2009. The 385+ million word Corpus of Contemporary American English (1990–2008+). International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14(2). 159–190.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark & Fuchs, Robert. 2015. Expanding horizons in the study of World Englishes with the 1.9 billion word Global Web-based English Corpus (GloWbE). English World-Wide 36(1). 1–28.Google Scholar
Davydova, Julia. 2015. Linguistic change in a multilingual setting: A case study of quotatives in Indian English. In Collins, Peter (ed.), Grammatical Change in English World-Wide, 297–334. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Davydova, Julia. 2016. Indian quotatives in a real-time perspective. In Seoane, Elena & Suárez-Gómez, Cristina (eds.), World Englishes: New Theoretical and Methodological Considerations (Varieties of English around the World 57), 173–204. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Davydova, Julia. 2019. Quotation in Indigenised and Learner English: A Sociolinguistic Account of Variation. Berlin, Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
De Clerck, Bernard & Vanopstal, Kaar. 2015. Patterns of regularisation in British, American and Indian English: A closer look at irregular verbs with t/ed variation. In Collins, Peter (ed.), Grammatical Change in English World-Wide, 335–372. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Derczynski, Leon, Ritter, Alan, Clark, Sam, & Bontcheva, Kalina. 2013. Twitter part-of-speech tagging for all: Overcoming sparse and noisy data. Proceedings of the International Conference on Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing, 198–206.Google Scholar
Deuber, Dagmar. 2005. Nigerian Pidgin in Lagos: Language Contact, Variation and Change in an African Urban Setting. London: Battlebridge.Google Scholar
Deuber, Dagmar, Biewer, Carolin, Hackert, Stephanie, & Hilbert, Michaela. 2012. Will and would in selected New Englishes: General and variety-specific tendencies. In Hundt, Marianne & Gut, Ulrike (eds.), Mapping Unity and Diversity World-Wide: Corpus-Based Studies of New Englishes (Varieties of English around the World 43), 77–102. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dinno, Alexis. 2018. Package “paran.” Version 1.5.2. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/paran/paran.pdf.Google Scholar
Dunn, Michael, Terrill, Angela, Reesink, Ger, Foley, Robert A., & Levinson, Stephen C.. 2005. Structural phylogenetics and the reconstruction of ancient language history. Science 309(5743). 2072–2075.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2003. Sociolinguistics and authenticity: An elephant in the room. Journal of Sociolinguistics 7(3). 392–397.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope. 2008. Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12(4). 453–476.Google Scholar
Egbert, Jesse. 2012. Style in nineteenth century fiction: A Multi-dimensional analysis. Scientific Study of Literature 2(2). 167–198.Google Scholar
Egbert, Jesse & Biber, Douglas. 2018. Do all roads lead to Rome? Modeling register variation with factor analysis and discriminant analysis. Corpus Linguistics & Linguistic Theory 14(2). 233–273.Google Scholar
Eisenstein, Jacob. 2013. What to do about bad language on the internet. Proceedings of the NAACL-HLT 2013, 359–369. Atlanta, Georgia: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Eisenstein, Jacob. 2015. Systematic patterning in phonologically-motivated orthographic variation. Journal of Sociolinguistics 19(2). 161–188.Google Scholar
Erdmann, Peter. 2009. Compound verbs. In Rohdenburg, Günter & Schlüter, Julia (eds.), One Language, Two Grammars? Differences between British and American English (Studies in English Language), 38–59. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fabrigar, Leandre R., Wegener, Duane T., MacCallum, Robert C., & Strahan, Erin J.. 1999. Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods 4(3). 272–299.Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 1992. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Faraclas, Nicholas G. 2013. Nigerian Pidgin. In Michaelis, Susanne, Haspelmath, Martin, & Huber, Magnus (eds.), The Survey of Pidgin and Creole Languages: English-Based and Dutch-Based Languages, vol. 1, 176–183. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ferguson, Charles A. 1972. Diglossia. In Paolo Giglioli, Pier (ed.), Language and Social Context: Selected Readings, 232–251. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Fletcher, William H. 2007. Concordancing the web: Promise and problems, tools and techniques. In Hundt, Marianne, Nesselhauf, Nadja, & Biewer, Carolin (eds.), Corpus Linguistics and the Web (Language and Computers), 25–46. Amsterdam: Brill Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Fuchs, Robert & Gut, Ulrike. 2015. An apparent time study of the progressive in Nigerian English. In Collins, Peter (ed.), Grammatical Change in English World-Wide, 373–388. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gabrielatos, Costas, Torgersen, Eivind N., Hoffmann, Sebastian, & Fox, Sue. 2010. A corpus-based sociolinguistic study of indefinite article forms in London English. Journal of English Linguistics 38(4). 297–334.Google Scholar
Gardner, Sheena. 2008. Integrating ethnographic, multidimensional, corpus linguistic and systemic functional approaches to genre description: An illustration through university history and engineering assignments. In Steiner, Erich & Neumann, Stella (eds.), Proceedings of the 19th European Systemic Functional Linguistics Conference and Workshop. Saarbrücken. Universität des Saarlandes.Google Scholar
Garley, Matthew E. 2012. Crossing the lexicon: Anglicisms in the German hip hop community. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign PhD Dissertation.Google Scholar
Ghyselen, Anne-Sophie & De Vogelaer, Gunther. 2018. Seeking systematicity in variation: Theoretical and methodological considerations on the “Variety” concept. Frontiers in Psychology 9(385). 1–19.Google Scholar
Giles, Howard, Coupland, Justine, & Coupland, Nikolas (eds.). 1991. Contexts of Accommodation: Developments in Applied Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gill, Martin. 2014. “Real communities,” rhetorical borders: Authenticating British identity in political discourse and on-line debate. In Lacoste, Véronique, Leimgruber, Jakob, & Breyer, Thiemo (eds.), Indexing Authenticity (Linguae & Litterae 39), 324–342. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Goebl, Hans. 1982. Dialektometrie: Prinzipien und Methoden des Einsatzes der Numerischen Taxonomie im Bereich der Dialektgeographie. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Goebl, Hans. 2006. Recent advances in Salzburg dialectometry. Literary and Linguistic Computing 21(4). 411–435.Google Scholar
Görlach, Manfred. 1990. Studies in the History of the English Language (Anglistische Forschungen Heft 210). Heidelberg: C. Winter.Google Scholar
Gorsuch, Richard L. 1983. Factor Analysis. 2nd ed. Hillsdale: L. Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Gorsuch, Richard L. 2003. Factor analysis. In Weiner, Irving B., Schinka, John A., & Velicer, Wayne F. (eds.), Handbook of Psychology, Research Methods in Psychology, vol. 2, 143–164. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Gray, Bethany. 2013. More than discipline: uncovering multi-dimensional patterns of variation in academic research articles. Corpora 8(2). 153–181.Google Scholar
Greenbaum, Sidney. 1991. ICE: The International Corpus of English. English Today 7(4). 3–7.Google Scholar
Greenbaum, Sidney & Nelson, Gerald. 1996. The International Corpus of English (ICE) project. World Englishes 15(1). 3–15.Google Scholar
Grice, James W. 2001. A comparison of factor scores under conditions of factor obliquity. Psychological Methods 6(1). 67–83.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2015a. Quantitative design and statistical techniques. In Biber, Douglas & Reppen, Randi (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of English Corpus Linguistics (Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics), 50–71. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2015b. The most under-used statistical method in corpus linguistics: Multi-level (and mixed-effects) models. Corpora 10(1). 95–125.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. & Mukherjee, Joybrato. 2010. Lexical gravity across varieties of English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 15(4). 520–548.Google Scholar
Grieve, Jack. 2014a. A multidimensional analysis of regional variation in American English. In Sardinha, Tony Berber & Veirano Pinto, Marcia (eds.), Multi-Dimensional Analysis, 25 Years on, 3–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grieve, Jack. 2014b. A comparison of statistical methods for the aggregation of regional linguistic variation. In Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt & Wälchli, Bernhard (eds.), Aggregating Dialectology, Typology, and Register Analysis: Linguistic Variation in Text and Speech (Linguae & Litterae 28), 53–88. Berlin, Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Grieve, Jack. 2016. Regional Variation in Written American English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grieve, Jack, Biber, Douglas, Friginal, Eric, & Nekrasova, Tatiana. 2011. Variation among blogs: A multi-dimensional analysis. In Mehler, Alexander, Sharoff, Serge, & Santini, Marina (eds.), Genres on the Web: Computational Models and Empirical Studies (Text, Speech and Language Technology), 303–322. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Gut, Ulrike & Coronel, Lilian. 2012. Relatives worldwide. In Hundt, Marianne & Gut, Ulrike (eds.), Mapping Unity and Diversity World-Wide: Corpus-Based Studies of New Englishes (Varieties of English around the World 43), 215–242. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Guttman, Louis. 1954. Some necessary conditions for common-factor analysis. Psychometrika 19(2). 149–161.Google Scholar
Guy, Gregory R. 2013. The cognitive coherence of sociolects: How do speakers handle multiple sociolinguistic variables? Journal of Pragmatics 52 (Special Issue: Contexts of Use in Cognitive Sociolinguistics). 63–71.Google Scholar
Hackert, Stephanie & Deuber, Dagmar. 2015. American influence on written Caribbean English: A diachronic analysis of newspaper reportage in the Bahamas and in Trinidad and Tobago. In Collins, Peter (ed.), Grammatical Change in English World-Wide, 389–410. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Haddican, Bill & Johnson, Daniel. 2012. Effects on the particle verb alternation across English dialects. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 18(2). 31–40.Google Scholar
van Hattum, Marije. 2015. May and might in nineteenth century Irish English and English English. In Collins, Peter (ed.), Grammatical Change in English World-Wide, 221–246. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hazen, Kirk. 2011. Labov: Language variation and change. In Wodak, Ruth, Johnstone, Barbara, & Kerswill, Paul E. (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Sociolinguistics, 24–39. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
Heeringa, Wilbert. 2004. Measuring dialect pronunciation differences using Levenshtein distance. University of Groningen PhD Dissertation.Google Scholar
Heeringa, Wilbert & Nerbonne, John. 2013. Dialectometry. In Hinskens, Frans & Taeldeman, Johan (eds.), Language and Space: An International Handbook of Linguistic Variation (Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science), vol. 3: Dutch, 624–645. Berlin, Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Heller, Benedikt, Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, & Grafmiller, Jason. 2017. Stability and fluidity in syntactic variation world-wide: The genitive alternation across varieties of English. Journal of English Linguistics 45(1). 3–27.Google Scholar
Heyd, Theresa & Mair, Christian. 2014. From vernacular to digital ethnolinguistic repertoire: The case of Nigerian Pidgin. In Lacoste, Véronique, Leimgruber, Jakob, & Breyer, Thiemo (eds.), Indexing Authenticity (Linguae & Litterae 39), 244–268. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hilbert, Michaela & Krug, Manfred. 2010. The compilation of ICE Malta: State of the art and challenges along the way. ICAME Journal 34. 54–63.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin. 2008. The English comparative: Language structure and language use. English Language & Linguistics 12(3). 395–417.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, Lars. 2006. Codeswitching on the Web: English and Jamaican Creole in E-mail Communication (Pragmatics & Beyond). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, Lars. 2018. The language of diasporic blogs: A framework for the study of rhetoricity in online codeswitching. In Cutler, Cecelia & Røyneland, Unn (eds.), Multilingual Youth Practices in Computer Mediated Communication, 186–204. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, Lars & Bohmann, Axel. 2019. Sociolinguistics. In Adolphs, Svenja & Knight, Dawn (eds.), Routledge Handbook of English Language and Digital Humanities. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, Lars, Smith, Nicholas, & Waibel, Birgit. 2010. Manual of information for the part-of-speech tagged, post edited “Brown” corpora. ICAME Journal 34. 189–231.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, Lars, Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, & Bohmann, Axel. 2015. Which-hunting and the standard English relative clause. Language 91(4). 806–836.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, Lars & White-Sustaíta, Jessica. 2011. Global Englishes and the sociolinguistics of spelling: A study of Jamaican blog and email writing. English World-Wide 32(1). 46–73.Google Scholar
Hodsdon-Champeon, Connie. 2010. Conversations within conversations: Intertextuality in racially antagonistic online discourse. Language@Internet 7. Article 10.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas & Siebers, Lucia (eds.). 2009. World Englishes: Problems, Properties and Prospects: Selected Papers from the 13th IAWE Conference (Varieties of English around the World 40). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Höhn, Nicole. 2012. “And they were all like ‘What’s going on?’”: New quotatives in Jamaican and Irish English. In Hundt, Marianne & Gut, Ulrike (eds.), Mapping Unity and Diversity World-Wide: Corpus-Based Studies of New Englishes (Varieties of English around the World 43), 263–290. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Honeycutt, Courtenay & Herring, Susan C.. 2009. Beyond microblogging: Conversation and collaboration via Twitter. 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 1–10.Google Scholar
Honkanen, Mirka. 2018. “like my homeboy will say, THIS NA REALLY NAIJA”: African-American and Nigerian resources in U.S.-Nigerians’ digital communication. Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg PhD Dissertation.Google Scholar
Horn, John L. 1965. A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika 30(2). 179–185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horvath, Barbara & Sankoff, David. 1987. Delimiting the Sydney speech community. Language in Society 16(2). 179–204.Google Scholar
Howard, Robert Glenn. 2008. The vernacular web of participatory media. Critical Studies in Media Communication 25(5). 490–513.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne. 2009a. Colonial lag, colonial innovation, or simply language change? In Rohdenburg, Günter & Schlüter, Julia (eds.), One Language, Two Grammars? Morphosyntactic Differences between British and American English (Studies in English Language), 13–37. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne. 2009b. Global feature – local norms? A case study on the progressive passive. In Hoffmann, Thomas & Siebers, Lucia (eds.), World Englishes – Problems, Properties and Prospects: Selected Papers from the 13th IAWE Conference (Varieties of English around the World 40), 287–308. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne & Biewer, Carolin. 2007. The dynamics of inner and outer circle varieties in the South Pacific and East Asia. In Hundt, Marianne, Nesselhauf, Nadja, & Biewer, Carolin (eds.), Corpus Linguistics and the Web (Language and Computers), 249–270. Amsterdam: Brill Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne & Gut, Ulrike (eds.). 2012. Mapping Unity and Diversity World-Wide: Corpus-Based Studies of New Englishes (Varieties of English around the World 43). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne & Mair, Christian. 1999. “Agile” and “uptight” genres: The corpus-based approach to language change in progress. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 4(2). 221–242.Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne, Nesselhauf, Nadja, & Biewer, Carolin (eds.). 2007. Corpus Linguistics and the Web (Language and Computers). Amsterdam: Brill Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Hymes, Dell H. 1974. Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Hymes, Dell H. 1984. Sociolinguistics: Stability and consolidation. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 45. 39–46.Google Scholar
Ifukor, Presley. 2011. Linguistic marketing in a marketplace of ideas: Language choice and intertextuality in a Nigerian virtual community. Pragmatics and Society 2(1). 110–147.Google Scholar
Jang, Shyue-Chian. 1998. Dimensions of spoken and written Taiwanese: A corpus-based register study. University of Hawaii PhD Dissertation.Google Scholar
Johansson, Stig. 2007. Seeing through Multilingual Corpora. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Johnstone, Barbara. 1999. Uses of Southern-sounding speech by contemporary Texas women. Journal of Sociolinguistics 3(4). 505–522.Google Scholar
Johnstone, Barbara. 2009. Stance, style, and the linguistic individual. In Jaffe, Alexandra M. (ed.), Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives (Oxford Studies in Sociolinguistics), 29–52. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jones, Graham M. & Schieffelin, Bambi B.. 2009. Enquoting voices, accomplishing talk: Uses of be + like in instant messaging. Language & Communication 29(1). 77–113.Google Scholar
Jonsson, Ewa. 2015. Conversational Writing: A Multidimensional Study of Synchronous and Supersynchronous Computer-Mediated Communication (English Corpus Linguistics 16). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Kachru, Braj. 1985. Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the Outer Circle. In Quirk, Randolph & Widdowson, H.G. (eds.), English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures, 11–30. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kanoksilapatham, Budsaba. 2009. Rhetorical moves in biochemistry research articles. In Biber, Douglas, Connor, Ulla, & Upton, Thomas A. (eds.), Discourse on the Move: Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure, 73–119. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kendall, Tyler, Bresnan, Joan, & van Herk, Gerard. 2011. The dative alternation in African American English: Researching syntactic variation and change across sociolinguistic datasets. Corpus Linguistics & Linguistic Theory 7(2). 229–244.Google Scholar
Kim, Young-Jin & Biber, Douglas. 1994. A corpus-based analysis of register variation in Korean. In Biber, Douglas & Finegan, Edward (eds.), Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register, 157–181. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kirk, John M. 2015. The progressive in Irish English: Looking both ways? In Collins, Peter (ed.), Grammatical Change in English World-Wide, 87–118. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Koch, Peter & Oesterreicher, Wulff. 1985. Sprache der Nähe – Sprache der Distanz. Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgeschichte. Romanistisches Jahrbuch 36(85). 15–43.Google Scholar
Kodytek, Vilem. 2007. On the Replicability of the Biber Model: The Case of Czech. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd & Lunkenheimer, Kerstin (eds.). 2013a. The Mouton World Atlas of Variation in English. Berlin, Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd & Lunkenheimer, Kerstin (eds.). 2013b. eWAVE. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.Google Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd & Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2004. Global synopsis: Morphological and syntactic variation in English. In Kortmann, Bernd, Burridge, Kate, Mesthrie, Rajend, & Schneider, Edgar W. (eds.), Handbook of Varieties of English, Vol. 2: Morphology and Syntax, 1142–1202. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd & Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2009. World Englishes between simplification and complexification. In Hoffmann, Thomas & Siebers, Lucia (eds.), World Englishes – Problems, Properties and Prospects: Selected Papers from the 13th IAWE conference (Varieties of English around the World 40). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd & Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2011. Parameters of morphosyntactic variation in World Englishes: Prospects and limitations of searching for universals. In Siemund, Peter (ed.), Linguistic Universals and Language Variation, 264–290. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kretzschmar, William A. 2015. Language and Complex Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kruger, Haidee & van Rooy, Bertus. 2018. Register variation in written contact varieties of English. English World-Wide 39(2). 214–242.Google Scholar
Kučera, Henry & Nelson Francis, W.. 1967. Computational Analysis of Present-Day English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1966. The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1972a. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1972b. Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change (Vol. 1: Internal Factors) (Language in Society 20). Oxford, Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2001. Principles of Linguistic Change (Vol. 2: External Factors) (Language in Society 29). Oxford, Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2010. Principles of Linguistic Change (Vol. 3: Cognitive and Cultural Factors) (Language in Society 39). Oxford, Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Laitinen, Mirko & Levin, Magnus. 2016. On the globalization of English: Observations of subjective progressives in present-day Englishes. In Seoane, Elena & Suárez-Gómez, Cristina (eds.), World Englishes: New Theoretical and Methodological Considerations (Varieties of English around the World 57), 229–252. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lavandera, Beatriz R. 1978. Where does the sociolinguistic variable stop? Language in Society 7(2). 171–182.Google Scholar
Le Page, Robert B. & Tabouret-Keller, Andrée. 1985. Acts of Identity: Creole-Based Approaches to Language and Ethnicity. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, Carmen K.M. & Barton, David. 2011. Constructing glocal identities through multilingual writing practices on Flickr.com®. International Multilingual Research Journal 5(1). 39–59.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey N. 2003. Modality on the move: The English modal auxiliaries 1961–1992. In Facchinetti, Roberta, Krug, Manfred G., & Palmer, F.R. (eds.), Modality in Contemporary English, 223–240. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey N. 2007. New resources, or just better old ones? The Holy Grail of representativeness. In Hundt, Marianne, Nesselhauf, Nadja, & Biewer, Carolin (eds.), Corpus Linguistics and the Web (Language and Computers), 133–150. Amsterdam: Brill Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey N., Hundt, Marianne, Mair, Christian, & Smith, Nicholas. 2009. Change in Contemporary English: A Grammatical Study (Studies in English Language). Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levin, Magnus. 2009. The formation of the preterite and the past participle. In Rohdenburg, Günter & Schlüter, Julia (eds.), One Language, Two Grammars? Differences between British and American English (Studies in English Language), 60–85. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lopez, Qiuana La’teese. 2012. White bodies, black voices: The linguistic construction of racialized authenticity in US film. The University of Texas at Austin PhD Dissertation.Google Scholar
Loureiro-Porto, Lucía. 2016. (Semi-)modals of necessity in Hong Kong and Indian Englishes. In Seoane, Elena & Suárez-Gómez, Cristina (eds.), World Englishes: New Theoretical and Methodological Considerations (Varieties of English around the World 57), 143–172. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lüdeling, Anke, Evert, Stefan, & Baroni, Marco. 2007. Using web data for corpus linguistics. In Hundt, Marianne, Nesselhauf, Nadja, & Biewer, Carolin (eds.), Corpus Linguistics and the Web (Language and Computers), 7–24. Amsterdam: Brill Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian. 2002. Three changing patterns of verb complementation in Late Modern English: A real-time study based on matching text corpora. English Language & Linguistics 6(1). 105–131.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian. 2009. Corpus linguistics meets sociolinguistics: Studying educated spoken usage in Jamaican on the basis of the International Corpus of English. In Hoffmann, Thomas & Siebers, Lucia (eds.), World Englishes – Problems, Properties and Prospects: Selected Papers from the 13th IAWE Conference (Varieties of English around the World 40), 39–60. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian. 2013. The World System of Englishes: Accounting for the transnational importance of mobile and mediated vernaculars. English World-Wide 34(3). 253–278.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian. 2015a. Response to Davies and Fuchs. English World-Wide 36(1). 29–33.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian. 2015b. Cross-variety diachronic drifts and ephemeral regional contrasts: An analysis of modality in the extended Brown family of corpora and what it can tell us about the New Englishes. In Collins, Peter (ed.), Grammatical Change in English World-Wide. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian & Pfänder, Stefan. 2013. Vernacular and multilingual writing in mediated spaces. In Auer, Peter, Hilpert, Martin, Stukenbrock, Anja, & Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt (eds.), Space in Language and Linguistics: Geographical, Interactional, and Cognitive Perspectives (Linguae & Litterae 24), 529–556. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian & Winkle, Claudia. 2012. Change from to-infinitive to bare infinitive in specificational cleft sentences: Data from World Englishes. In Hundt, Marianne & Gut, Ulrike (eds.), Mapping Unity and Diversity World-Wide: Corpus-Based Studies of New Englishes (Varieties of English around the World 43), 243–262. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Marwick, Alice E. & boyd, danah. 2011. I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society 13(1). 114–133.Google Scholar
Matthias, Mia & Blake, Renée. 2015. “Black Twitter”: AAE lexical innovation, appropriation, and change in computer-mediated discourse. Presented at New Ways of Analyzing Variation (NWAV) 44, Toronto, Ontario.Google Scholar
McArthur, Tom. 1987. The English languages? English Today (11). 9–11.Google Scholar
McArthur, Tom. 1998. The English Languages. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McEnery, Tony & Hardie, Andrew. 2012. Corpus Linguistics: Method, Theory and Practice (Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mesthrie, Rajend. 2008. English circling the globe. English Today 24(1). 28–32.Google Scholar
Mesthrie, Rajend & Bhatt, Rakesh M.. 2008. World Englishes: The Study of New Linguistic Varieties. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Meyerhoff, Miriam & Niedzielski, Nancy. 2003. The globalisation of vernacular variation. Journal of Sociolinguistics 7(4). 534–555.Google Scholar
Milroy, James & Milroy, Lesley. 1985. Authority in Language: Investigating Language Prescription and Standardisation (Language, Education and Society). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Milroy, Lesley & Gordon, Matthew J.. 2003. Sociolinguistics: Method and Interpretation (Language in Society 34). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Milroy, Lesley, Wei, Li, & Moffatt, Suzanne. 1995. Discourse patterns and fieldwork strategies in urban settings. In Werlen, Iwar (ed.), Verbale Kommunikation in der Stadt, 277–294. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Moll, Andrea. 2014. Authenticity in dialect performance? In Lacoste, Véronique, Leimgruber, Jakob, & Breyer, Thiemo (eds.), Indexing Authenticity (Linguae & Litterae 39), 209–243. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mondorf, Britta. 2009. More Support for More-Support. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mukherjee, Joybrato & Gries, Stefan Th.. 2009. Collostructional nativisation in New Englishes. English World-Wide 30(1). 27–51.Google Scholar
Nelson, Gerald. 2015. Response to Davies and Fuchs. English World-Wide 36(1). 38–40.Google Scholar
Nerbonne, John. 2006. Identifying linguistic structure in aggregate comparison. Literary and Linguistic Computing 21(4). 463–475.Google Scholar
Nerbonne, John. 2009. Data-driven dialectology. Language and Linguistics Compass 3(1). 175–198.Google Scholar
Nerbonne, John, Heeringa, Wilbert, & Kleiweg, Peter. 1983. Edit distance and dialect proximity. In Sankoff, David & Kruskal, Joseph B. (eds.), Time Warps, String Edits, and Macromolecules: The Theory and Practice of Sequence Comparison, v–xv. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Neumann, Stella. 2014. Cross-linguistic register studies. Languages in Contrast 14(1). 35–57.Google Scholar
Noël, Dirk. 2003. Is there semantics in all syntax? The case of accusative and infinitive constructions vs. that-clauses. In Rohdenburg, Günter & Mondorf, Britta (eds.), Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English (Topics in English Linguistics 43), 347–378. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Noël, Dirk & Van der Auwera, . 2015. Recent quantitative changes in the use of modals and quasi-modals in the Hong Kong, British and American printed press: Exploring the potential of Factiva® for the diachronic investigation of World Englishes. In Collins, Peter (ed.), Grammatical Change in English World-Wide, 437–464. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Owoputi, Olutobi, O’Connor, Brendan, Dyer, Chris, Gimpel, Kevin, Schneider, Nathan, & Smith, Noah A.. 2013. Improved part-of-speech tagging for online conversational text with word clusters. Proceedings of the 2013 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, 380–390. Atlanta, Georgia: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Page, Ruth E. 2012a. Stories and Social Media: Identities and Interaction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Page, Ruth E. 2012b. The linguistics of self-branding and micro-celebrity in Twitter: The role of hashtags. Discourse & Communication 6(2). 181–201.Google Scholar
Parodi, Giovanni. 2007. Variation across registers in Spanish. In Parodi, Giovanni (ed.), Working with Spanish Corpora, 11–53. London, New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Patrick, Peter L. 2003. Creole, community, identity. AAA: Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik 28(2). 249–277.Google Scholar
Pennycook, Alastair. 2007. Global Englishes and Transcultural Flows. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pennycook, Alastair. 2012. Language and Mobility: Unexpected Places (Critical Language and Literacy Studies). Bristol, Buffalo: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Peters, Pam. 2009. Australian English as a regional epicentre. In Hoffmann, Thomas & Siebers, Lucia (eds.), World Englishes – Problems, Properties and Prospects: Selected Papers from the 13th IAWE Conference (Varieties of English around the World 40), 107–124. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Peters, Pam. 2015. Dual adverbs in Australian English. In Collins, Peter (ed.), Grammatical Change in English World-Wide, 179–204. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Peuronen, Saija. 2011. “Ride hard, live forever”: Translocal identities in an online community of extreme sports Christians. In Thurlow, Crispin & Mroczek, Kristine R. (eds.), Digital Discourse: Language in the New Media (Oxford Studies in Sociolinguistics), 154–176. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pichler, Heike. 2010. Methods in discourse variation analysis: Reflections on the way forward. Journal of Sociolinguistics 14(5). 581–608.Google Scholar
Pihlaja, Stephen. 2011. Cops, popes, and garbage collectors: Metaphor and antagonism in an atheist/Christian YouTube video thread. Language@Internet 8. Article 1.Google Scholar
Platt, John Talbot, Weber, Heidi, & Lian, Ho Mian. 1984. The New Englishes. London, Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Pollard, Velma. 2000. Dread Talk: The Language of Rastafari. Rev. ed. Barbados: Canoe Press.Google Scholar
Poplack, Shana. 1989. The care and handling of a mega-corpus: The Ottawa-Hull French project. In Fasold, Ralph W. & Schiffrin, Deborah (eds.), Language Change and Variation (Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 52). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Poplack, Shana & Tagliamonte, Sali. 1989. There’s no tense like the present: Verbal -s inflection in early Black English. Language Variation and Change 1(1). 47–84.Google Scholar
Powell, Richard. 2009. The roles of English in Southeast Asian legal systems. In Hoffmann, Thomas & Siebers, Lucia (eds.), World Englishes – Problems, Properties and Prospects: Selected Papers from the 13th IAWE Conference (Varieties of English around the World 40). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Preston, Dennis R. 1985. The Li’l Abner syndrome: Written representations of speech. American Speech 60(4). 328–336.Google Scholar
Purvis, Tristan Michael. 2008. A linguistic and discursive analysis of register variation in Dagbani. Indiana University PhD Dissertation.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey, & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. 2nd Revised ed. London, New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Rayson, Paul. 2008. From key words to key semantic domains. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 13(4). 519–549.Google Scholar
Renouf, Antoinette, Kehoe, Andrew, & Banerjee, Jayeeta. 2007. WebCorp: an intergration system for web text search. In Hundt, Marianne, Nesselhauf, Nadja, & Biewer, Carolin (eds.), Corpus Linguistics and the Web (Language and Computers), 47–67. Amsterdam: Brill Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Rickford, John R. 1986. The need for new approaches to social class analysis in sociolinguistics. Language & Communication 6(3). 215–221.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter. 2009. Reflexive structures. In Schlüter, Julia & Rohdenburg, Günter (eds.), One Language, Two Grammars? Differences between British and American English (Studies in English Language), 166–181. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter & Mondorf, Britta (eds.). 2003. Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English (Topics in English Linguistics 43). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter & Schlüter, Julia (eds.). 2009a. One Language, Two Grammars? Differences between British and American English (Studies in English Language). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter & Schlüter, Julia. 2009b. New departures. In Rohdenburg, Günter & Schlüter, Julia (eds.), One Language, Two Grammars? Differences between British and American English (Studies in English Language), 364–423. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne. 1984. On the problem of syntactic variation and pragmatic meaning in sociolinguistic theory. Folia Linguistica 18(3/4). 409–437.Google Scholar
van Rooy, Bertus. 2009. The shared core of the perfect across Englishes: A corpus-based analysis. In Hoffmann, Thomas & Siebers, Lucia (eds.), World Englishes – Problems, Properties and Prospects: Selected Papers from the 13th IAWE Conference (Varieties of English around the World 40), 309–330. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
van Rooy, Bertus & Caroline Piotrowska, . 2015. The development of an extended time period meaning of the progressive in Black South African English. In Collins, Peter (ed.), Grammatical Change in English World-Wide, 465–484. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
van Rooy, Bertus, Terblanche, Lize, Haase, Christoph, & Schmied, Josef J.. 2010. Register differentiation in East African English: A multidimensional study. English World-Wide 31(3). 311–349.Google Scholar
Russell, Daniel W. 2002. In search of underlying dimensions: The use (and abuse) of factor analysis in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28(12). 1629–1646.Google Scholar
Sand, Andrea. 2004. Shared morpho-syntactic features in contact varieties of English: Article use. World Englishes 23(2). 281–298.Google Scholar
Sankoff, David & Thibault, P.. 1981. Weak complementarity: Tense and aspect in Montreal French. In Johns, Brenda B. & Strong, David R. (eds.), Syntactic Change, 205–216. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Santa Ana, Otto & Parodi, Claudia. 1998. Modeling the speech community: Configuration and variable types in the Mexican Spanish setting. Language in Society 27(1). 23–51.Google Scholar
Sayers, Dave. 2014. The mediated innovation model: A framework for researching media influence in language change. Journal of Sociolinguistics 18(2). 185–212.Google Scholar
Schilk, Marco, Bernaisch, Tobias, & Mukherjee, Joybrato. 2012. Mapping unity and diversity in South Asian English lexicogrammar: Verb-complementational preferences across varieties. In Hundt, Marianne & Gut, Ulrike (eds.), Mapping Unity and Diversity World-Wide: Corpus-Based Studies of New Englishes (Varieties of English around the World 43), 137–166. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schneider, Edgar W. 2007. Postcolonial English: Varieties around the World (Cambridge Approaches to Language Contact). Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schneider, Edgar W. 2014. New reflections on the evolutionary dynamics of world Englishes. World Englishes 33(1). 9–32.Google Scholar
Schneider, Edgar W. & Kortmann, Bernd (eds.). 2004. A Handbook of Varieties of English: A Multimedia Reference Tool. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schneider, Gerold & Hundt, Marianne. 2012. “Off with their heads” – profiling TAM in ICE corpora. In Hundt, Marianne & Gut, Ulrike (eds.), Mapping Unity and Diversity World-Wide: Corpus-Based Studies of New Englishes (Varieties of English around the World 43), 1–34. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Seargeant, Philip. 2010. Naming and defining in World Englishes. World Englishes 29(1). 97–113.Google Scholar
Seargeant, Philip. 2012. Exploring World Englishes: Language in a Global Context (Routledge Introductions to Applied Linguistics). Milton Park, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Séguy, Jean. 1971. La relation entre distance spatiale et la distance lexicale. Revue de Linguistique Romane 35. 335–357.Google Scholar
Seoane, Elena & Suárez-Gómez, Cristina (eds.). 2016. World Englishes: New Theoretical and Methodological Considerations (Varieties of English around the World 57). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google 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
Shields-Brodber, Kathryn. 1989. Standard English in Jamaica: A case of competing models. English World-Wide 10(1). 41–53.Google Scholar
Siemund, Peter. 2003. Varieties of English from a cross-linguistic perspective: Intensifiers and reflexives. In Rohdenburg, Günter & Mondorf, Britta (eds.), Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English, 479–506. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 2016. The “push” of Lautgesetze, the “pull” of enregisterment. In Coupland, Nikolas (ed.), Sociolinguistics: Theoretical Debates, 37–67. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie & Aijmer, Karin. 2007. The Semantic Field of Modal Certainty: A Corpus-Based Study of English Adverbs (Topics in English Linguistics). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Smakman, Dick. 2015. The westernising mechanisms in sociolinguistics. In Smakman, Dick & Heinrich, Patrick (eds.), Globalising Sociolinguistics: Challenging and Expanding Theory, 16–36. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Spitulnik, Debra. 1996. The social circulation of media discourse and the mediation of communities. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 6(2). 161–187.Google Scholar
Squires, Lauren. 2014. From TV personality to fans and beyond: Indexical bleaching and the diffusion of a media innovation. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 24(1). 42–62.Google Scholar
Squires, Lauren. 2015. Twitter: Design, discourse, and the implications for public text. In Georgakopoulou, Alexandra & Spilioti, Tereza (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Language and Digital Communication, 239–256. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Squires, Lauren & Iorio, Josh. 2014. Tweets in the news: Legitimizing medium, standardizing form. In Androutsopoulos, Jannis K. (ed.), Mediatization and Sociolinguistic Change (Linguae & Litterae 36), 331–360. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Strevens, Peter. 1980. Teaching English as an International Language. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
de Swaan, Abram. 2001. Words of the World: The Global Language System. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
de Swaan, Abram. 2010. Language systems. In Coupland, Nikolas (ed.), The Handbook of Language and Globalization, 56–76. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2013. Grammatical Variation in British English Dialects: A Study in Corpus-Based Dialectometry (Studies in English Language). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2014. Forests, trees, corpora, and dialect grammars. In Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt & Wälchli, Bernhard (eds.), Aggregating Dialectology, Typology, and Register Analysis: Linguistic Variation in Text and Speech (Linguae & Litterae 28), 89–112. Berlin, Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, Grafmiller, Jason, Heller, Benedikt, & Röthlisberger, Melanie. 2016. Around the world in three alternations. English World-Wide 37(2). 109–137.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt & Hinrichs, Lars. 2008. Probabilistic determinants of genitive variation in spoken and written English: A multivariate comparison across time, space, and genres. In Nevalainen, Terttu, Taavitsainen, Irma, Pahta, Päivi, & Korhonen, Minna (eds.), The Dynamics of Linguistic Variation: Corpus Evidence on English Past and Present, 291–309. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt & Kortmann, Bernd. 2009a. Between simplification and complexification: Non-standard varieties of English around the world. In Sampson, Geoffrey, Gil, David, & Trudgill, Peter (eds.), Language Complexity as an Evolving Variable (Oxford Linguistics 13), 64–79. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt & Kortmann, Bernd. 2009b. The morphosyntax of varieties of English worldwide: A quantitative perspective. Lingua 119(11). 1643–1663.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt & Kortmann, Bernd. 2011. Typological profiling: Learner Englishes versus indigenized L2 varieties of English. In Mukherjee, Joybrato & Hundt, Marianne (eds.), Exploring Second-Language Varieties of English and Learner Englishes: Bridging a Paradigm Gap, 167–187. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt & Wälchli, Bernhard (eds.). 2014. Aggregating Dialectology, Typology, and Register Analysis: Linguistic Variation in Text and Speech (Linguae & Litterae 28). Berlin, Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2003. “Every place has a different toll”: Determinants of grammatical variation in a cross-variety perspective. In Rohdenburg, Günter & Mondorf, Britta (eds.), Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English (Topics in English Linguistics 43), 531–554. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Tan, Rachel Siew Kuang & Low, Ee-Ling. 2010. How different are the monophthongs of Malay speakers of Malaysian and Singapore English? English World-Wide 31(2). 162–189.Google Scholar
Thompson, Bruce. 2002. Score Reliability: Contemporary Thinking on Reliability Issues. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
Thompson, Bruce. 2004. Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Understanding Concepts and Applications. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel. 2009. How different are American and British English grammar? And how are they different? In Rohdenburg, Günter & Schlüter, Julia (eds.), One Language, Two Grammars? Differences between British and American English (Studies in English Language), 341–364. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 1972. Sex, covert prestige and linguistic change in the urban British English of Norwich. Language in Society 1(2). 179–195.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 1974. The Social Differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 2008. Colonial dialect contact in the history of European languages: On the irrelevance of identity to new-dialect formation. Language in Society 37(2). 241–254.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter & Hannah, Jean. 1982. International English: A Guide to Varieties of Standard English. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Van der Auwera, Johan, Noël, Dirk, & De Wit, Astrid. 2012. The diverging need (to)’s of Asian Englishes. In Hundt, Marianne & Gut, Ulrike (eds.), Mapping Unity and Diversity World-Wide: Corpus-Based Studies of New Englishes (Varieties of English around the World 43). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Vertovec, Steven. 2007. Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies 30(6). 1024–1054.Google Scholar
Voormann, Holger & Gut, Ulrike. 2008. Agile corpus creation. Corpus Linguistics & Linguistic Theory 4(2). 235–251.Google Scholar
Vosberg, Uwe. 2003. The role of extractions and horror aecqui in the evolution of -ing-complements in Modern English. In Rohdenburg, Günter & Mondorf, Britta (eds.), Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English (Topics in English Linguistics 43), 305–328. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Vosberg, Uwe. 2009. Non-finite complements. In Rohdenburg, Günter & Schlüter, Julia (eds.), One Language, Two Grammars? Differences between British and American English (Studies in English Language), 212–227. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wälchli, Bernhard & Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2014. Introduction: The text-feature-aggregation pipeline in variation studies. In Benedikt Szmrecsanyi, & Wälchli, Bernhard (eds.), Aggregating Dialectology, Typology, and Register Analysis: Linguistic Variation in Text and Speech (Linguae & Litterae 28), 1–25. Berlin, Boston: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel, Labov, William, & Herzog, Marvin. 1967. Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In Lehmann, Winfred P. & Malkiel, Yakov (eds.), Directions for Historical Linguistics: A Symposium in Austin, TX. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Werner, Valentin. 2013. Temporal adverbials and the present perfect/past tense alternation. English World-Wide 34(2). 202–240.Google Scholar
Werner, Valentin. 2016. Overlap and divergence: Aspects of the present perfect in World Englishes. In Seoane, Elena & Suárez-Gómez, Cristina (eds.), World Englishes: New Theoretical and Methodological Considerations (Varieties of English around the World 57), 113–142. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Westphal, Michael. 2015. Attitudes toward accents of Standard English in Jamaican radio newscasting. Journal of English Linguistics 43(4). 311–333.Google Scholar
Wieling, Martijn, Nerbonne, John, & Harald Baayen, R.. 2011. Quantitative social dialectology: Explaining linguistic variation geographically and socially. PLoS ONE 6(9). 1–14.Google Scholar
Wolfram, Walt & Beckett, Dan. 2000. The role of the individual and group in Earlier African American English. American Speech 75(1). 3–33.Google Scholar
Wong, Deanna, Cassidy, Steve, & Peters, Pam. 2011. Updating the ICE annotation system: Tagging, parsing and validation. Corpora 6(2). 115–144.Google Scholar
Xiao, Richard. 2009. Multidimensional analysis and the study of World Englishes. World Englishes 28(4). 421–450.Google Scholar
Yano, Yasukata. 2001. World Englishes in 2000 and beyond. World Englishes 20(2). 119–132.Google Scholar
Yao, Xinyue. 2015. The present perfect and the preterite in Australian English: A diachronic perspective. In Collins, Peter (ed.), Grammatical Change in English World-Wide, 247–268. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Zappavigna, Michele. 2012. Discourse of Twitter and Social Media (Continuum Discourse Series). London, New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Zipp, Lena & Bernaisch, Tobias. 2012. Particle verbs across first and second language varieties of English. In Hundt, Marianne & Gut, Ulrike (eds.), Mapping Unity and Diversity World-Wide: Corpus-Based Studies of New Englishes (Varieties of English around the World 43), 167–196. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Zwick, William R. & Velicer, Wayne F.. 1986. Comparison of five rules for determining the number of components to retain. Psychological Bulletin 99(3). 432–442.Google 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
  • Axel Bohmann, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Germany
  • Book: Variation in English Worldwide
  • Online publication: 03 November 2019
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108751339.014
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
  • Axel Bohmann, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Germany
  • Book: Variation in English Worldwide
  • Online publication: 03 November 2019
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108751339.014
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
  • Axel Bohmann, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Germany
  • Book: Variation in English Worldwide
  • Online publication: 03 November 2019
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108751339.014
Available formats
×