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-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T18:07:38.390Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 April 2022

Susan Hunston
Susan Hunston
Affiliation:
University of Birmingham
Get access
Type
Chapter
Information
Corpora in Applied Linguistics , pp. 307 - 333
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

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

Ackermann, K. and Chen, Y. 2013. Developing the Academic Collocation List (ACL) – A corpus-driven and expert-judged approach. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 12(4): 235–47.Google Scholar
Ädel, A. 2006. Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam: 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(2): 81–92.Google Scholar
Adger, D. 2021. Grammar in Language Use: a minimalist view. Talk given at the University of Birmingham, February 2021.Google Scholar
Adolphs, S., Knight, D., Smith, C. and Price, D. 2020. Crowdsourcing formulaic phrases: towards a new type of spoken corpus. Corpora 15(2): 141–68.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): 231–54.Google Scholar
Aijmer, K. and Altenberg, B. 2013. Advances in Corpus-based Contrastive Linguistics: Studies in honour of Stig Johansson. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Alharbi, A. 2019. Signalling Nouns in Corpora of Learner and Native Speaker English. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
Allen, R. 2009. Can a graded reader corpus provide ‘authentic’ input? ELT Journal 63(1): 23–32.Google Scholar
Andor, J. 2004. The master and his performance: an interview with Noam Chomsky. Intercultural Pragmatics 1(1): 93–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anthony, L. 2010. AntConc [Computer Software]. Tokyo: Waseda University. laurenceanthony.net/software.Google Scholar
BAAL 2016. Recommendations on Good Practice in Applied Linguistics. 3rd edn. British Association for Applied Linguistics (baal.org.uk).Google Scholar
Baker, M. 1993. Corpus linguistics and translation studies: implications and applications. In Baker, Francis and Tognini-Bonelli, (eds.), 233–52.Google Scholar
Baker, M., Francis, G. and Tognini-Bonelli, E. (eds.) 1993. Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, P. 2004. Querying keywords: questions of difference, frequency and sense in keywords analysis. Journal of English Linguistics 32(4): 346–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, P. 2010. Sociolinguistics and Corpus Linguistics. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, P., Brookes, G. and Evans, C. 2019. The Language of Patient Feedback: A Corpus Study of Online Health Communication. London: Routledge.Google 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 & Society 19(3): 273–305.Google Scholar
Baker, P., Gabrielatos, C. and McEnery, T. 2013a. Discourse Analysis and Media Attitudes: The representation of Islam in the British Press. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, P., Gabrielatos, C. and McEnery, T. 2013b. Sketching Muslims: a corpus-driven analysis of representations around the word ‘Muslim’ in the British press 1998–2009. Applied Linguistics 34(3): 255–78.Google Scholar
Balfour, J. 2019. ‘The mythological marauding violent schizophrenic’: using the Word Sketch tool to examine representations of schizophrenic people as violent in the British press. Journal of Corpora and Discourse Studies 2: 40–64.Google Scholar
Bang, M. and Hunston, S. 2008. The corpus and the stereotype. Paper presented at the BAAL conference, Swansea University, September 2008.Google Scholar
Banks, D. 2008. The Development of Scientific Writing: Linguistic Features and Historical Context. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Barker, F. 2006. Corpora and Language Assessment: Trends and Prospects. Research Notes 26: 2–9.Google Scholar
Barnbrook, G. 2002. Defining Language: A Local Grammar of Definition Sentences. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Baroni, M. and Bernadini, 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): 259–74.Google Scholar
Barry, A. and Born, G. 2013. Interdisciplinarity: Reconfigurations of the Social and Natural Sciences. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becher, T. 1989. Academic Tribes and Terroritories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Cultures of Disciplines. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Bednarek, M. 2008. Emotion Talk across Corpora. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bednarek, M. 2010. The Language of Fictional Television. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Bernadini, S. 2006. Corpora for Translator Education and Translation Practice: Achievements and Challenges. Proceedings of LREC 2006 (5th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference). Paris: ELRA. 17–22.Google Scholar
Bhatia, V. 2019. Critical Genre Analysis: Investigating Interdiscursive Performance in Professional Practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Biber, D. 1988. Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, D. 2006a. Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5(2): 97–116.Google Scholar
Biber, D. 2006b. University Language: A Corpus-based Study of Spoken and Written Registers. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Biber, D. and Barbieri, F. 2007. Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers. English for Specific Purposes 26: 263–86.Google Scholar
Biber, D. and Clark, V. 2002. Historical shifts in modification patterns with complex noun phrase structures: How long can you go without a verb? In Fanego, T., López-Couso, M.J. and Pérez-Guerra, J. (eds.), English Historical Syntax and Morphology. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 43–66.Google Scholar
Biber, D. and Conrad, S. 1998. Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S. and Cortez, V. 2004. ‘If you look at…’: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics 25(3): 371–405.Google Scholar
Biber, D. and Egbert, J. 2018. Register Variation Online. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, D. and Finegan, E. 2001. Intra-textual variation within medical research articles. In Conrad, S and Biber, D (eds.), Variation in English: Multi-Dimensional Studies. London: Longman. 108–23.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): 223–50.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(1): 5–35.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Gray, B., Staples, S. and Egbert, J. 2020. Investigating grammatical complexity in L2 English writing research: linguistic description versus predictive measurement. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 46: 100869.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. and Finegan, E. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Blanco, Suárez Z., Gallardo-del-Puerto, F. and Gandón-Chapela, E. 2020. The Primary Education Learners’ English Corpus (PELEC): design and compilation. Research in Corpus Linguistics 8(1): 147–63.Google Scholar
Blei, D. 2012. Probabilistic topic models: surveying a suite of algorithms that offer a solution to managing large document archives. Communications of the ACM 55(4): 77–84.Google Scholar
Blommaert, J. and Bulcaen, C. 2000. Critical discourse analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology 29: 447–66.Google Scholar
Boas, H. 2017. Computational resources: FrameNet and Constructicon. In Dancygier, B. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge University Press. 549–73.Google Scholar
Bondi, M. 2010. Perspecties on keywords and keyness: an introduction. In Bondi, M. and Scott, M. (eds.), Keyness in Texts. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 1–20.Google Scholar
Bondi, M. and Scott, M. (eds.) 2010. Keyness in Texts. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Boulton, A. 2021. Research in data-driven learning. In Pérez-Paredes, P and Mark, G (eds.), Beyond the Concordance: Corpora in Language Education. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Boulton, A. and Cobb, T. 2017. Corpus use in language learning: a meta-analysis. Language Learning 67(2): 348–93.Google Scholar
Braun, S. 2007. Integrating corpus work into secondary education: from data-driven learning to needs-driven corpora. ReCALL 19(3): 307–28.Google Scholar
Breiman, L. 2001. Random forests. Machine Learning 45(1): 5–32.Google Scholar
Brezina, V. 2018. Statistics in Corpus Linguistics: A Practical Guide. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brezina, V. and Fox, L. 2021. Adjective + noun collocations in L2 and L1 speech: evidence from the Trinity Lancaster Corpus and the Spoken BNC2014. In Granger, S. (ed.) Perspectives on the L2 Phrasicon: The View from Learner Corpora. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Brezina, V., Weill-Tessier, P. and McEnery, A. 2020. #LancsBox v.5.x. corpora.lancs.ac.uk/lancsbox.Google Scholar
Buerki, A. 2020. Formulaic Language and Linguistic Change. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bulté, B. and Housen, A. 2012. Defining and operationalising L2 complexity. In Housen, A., Kuiken, F. and Vedder, I. (eds.), Dimensions of L2 Performance and Proficiency: Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency in SLA. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 21–45.Google Scholar
Burrows, J. 1992. Not unless you ask nicely: the interpretative nexus between analysis and information. Literary and Linguistic Computing 7(2): 91–109.Google Scholar
Buttery, P. 2021. The use of corpora in education technology. Paper given at the BAAL/CUP seminar Corpora in Applied Linguistics: expanding the horizons, Aston University, April 2021.Google Scholar
Buysse, L. 2015. ‘Well it’s not very ideal…’: The pragmatic marker well in learner English. Intercultural Pragmatics 12(1): 59–89.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Calude, A. 2017. Sociolinguistic variation at the grammatical/discourse level: demonstrative clefts in spoken British English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22(3): 429–55.Google Scholar
Cameron, D. 2007. The Myth of Mars and Venus: Do Men and Women Really Speak Different Languages? Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cameron, L. and Larsen-Freeman, D. 2007. Complex systems and applied linguistics. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 17(2): 226–39.Google Scholar
Candarli, D., Love, R. and Deignan, A. 2019. Using corpora to explore the language challenges of the transition from primary to secondary school. Paper presented at the International Corpus Linguistics Conference, Cardiff University, July 2019.Google Scholar
Caple, H., Huan, C. and Bednarek, M. 2020. Multimodal News Analysis across Cultures. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carlsen, C. 2012. Proficiency level – a fuzzy variable in computer learner corpora. Applied Linguistics 33(2): 161–83.Google Scholar
Carter, R. and McCarthy, M. 1995. Grammar and the spoken language. Applied Linguistics 16(2): 141–58.Google Scholar
Carter, R. and McCarthy, M. 2006. Cambridge Grammar of English: A Comprehensive Guide: Spoken and Written English Grammar and Usage. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Centre for English Corpus Linguistics. July 2020. Learner Corpora around the World. Louvain-la-Neuve : Université catholique de Louvain. https://uclouvain.be/en/research-institutes/ilc/cecl/learner-corpora-around-the-world.htmlGoogle Scholar
Channell, J. 2000. Corpus-based analysis of evaluative lexis. In Hunston, S. and Thompson, G. (eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford University Press. 39–55.Google Scholar
Charles, M. 2006. The construction of stance in reporting clauses: a cross-disciplinary study of theses. Applied Linguistics 27(3): 492–518.Google Scholar
Charles, M. 2007. Argument or evidence? Disciplinary variation in the use of the Noun-that pattern in stance construction. English for Specific Purposes 26(2): 203–18.Google Scholar
Charles, M. 2012. ‘Proper vocabulary and juicy collocations’: EAP students evaluate do-it-yourself corpus-building. English for Specific Purposes 31(2): 93–102.Google Scholar
Charles, M. 2014. Getting the corpus habit: EAP students’ long-term use of personal corpora. English for Specific Purposes 35: 30–40.Google Scholar
Charles, M. 2018. Corpus-assisted editing for doctoral students: more than just concordancing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 36: 15–25.Google Scholar
Chau, M.H. 2015. From Language Learners to Dynamic Meaning Makers: A Longitudinal Investigation of Malaysian Secondary School Students’ Development of English from Text and Corpus Perspectives. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
Chen, Y. and Baker, P. 2010. Lexical bundles in L1 and L2 academic writing. Language Learning and Technology 14(2): 30–49.Google Scholar
Chen, Y. and Baker, P. 2016. Investigating criterial discourse features across second language development: lexical bundles in rated learner essays, CEFR B1, B2 and C1. Applied Linguistics 37(6): 849–80.Google Scholar
Chiang, E. and Grant, T. 2019. Deceptive identity performance: offender moves and multiple identities in online child abuse conversations. Applied Linguistics 40(4): 675–98.Google Scholar
Chung, C. and Pennebaker, J. 2008. Revealing dimensions of thinking in open-ended self-descriptions: an automated meaning extraction method for natural language. Journal of Research in Personality 42(1): 96–132.Google Scholar
Ciampaglia, G., Shiralkar, P., Rocha, L., Bollen, J., Menczer, F. and Flammini, A. 2015. Computational fact checking from knowledge networks. PLOS One 10(10).Google Scholar
Clarke, I. 2019. Functional linguistic variation in Twitter trolling. Speech, Language and the Law 26(1).Google Scholar
Clarke, I. and Grieve, J. 2019. Stylistic variation on the Donald Trump Twitter account: a linguistic analysis of tweets posted between 2009 and 2018. PLOS ONE 14(9): 1–27.Google Scholar
Coffin, C. 2002. The voices of history: theorizing the interpersonal semantics of historical discourses. Text and Talk 22(4): 503–28.Google Scholar
Collins, L., Semino, E., Demjén, Z., Hardie, A., Moseley, P., Woods, A. and Alderson-Day, B. 2020. A linguistic approach to the psychosis continuum: (dis)similarities and (dis)continuities in how clinical and non-clinical voice-hearers talk about their voices. Cognitive Neuropsychiatry 25(6): 447–65.Google Scholar
Collins, P. and Yao, X. 2013. Colloquial features in World Englishes. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18(4): 479–505.Google Scholar
Conroy, N., Rubin, V. and Chen, Y. 2016. Automatic deception detection: methods for finding fake news. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology 52(1): 1–4.Google Scholar
Cook, G. 2010. Sweet talking: food, language and democracy. Language Teaching 43(2): 168–81.Google Scholar
Coulthard, M. 1994. On the use of corpora in the analysis of forensic texts. Forensic Linguistics 1: 27–44.Google Scholar
Coulthard, M. 2004. Author identification, idiolect and linguistics uniqueness. Applied Linguistics 25(4): 431–47.Google Scholar
Coulthard, M. and Johnson, A. (eds.) 2010. The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Coulthard, M., Johnson, A., Kredens, K. and Woolls, D. 2010. Four forensic linguists’ responses to suspected plagiarism. In Coulthard, and Johnson, (eds.), 523–38.Google Scholar
Council of Europe 2001. The Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Coxhead, A. 2000. A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly 34(2): 213–38.Google Scholar
Crawley, M. 2007. The R Book. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Crosthwaite, P. 2016. L2 English article use of L1 speakers of article-less languages. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 2(1): 68–100.Google Scholar
Crosthwaite, P., Choy, L. and Bae, Y. 2016. ‘Almost people’: a learner corpus account of L2 use and misuse of non-numerical quantification. Open Linguistics 2: 317–36.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. 2009. 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.Google Scholar
Curry, N. and Pérez-Paredes, P. 2021. Stance nouns in COVID-19 related blog posts: a contrastive analysis of blog posts published in The Conversation in Spain and the UK. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 26(4): 469–97.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. 2015. What exactly is Universal Grammar, and has anyone seen it? Frontiers in Psychology 6: 852.Google Scholar
Dagneaux, E., Denness, S. and Granger, S. 1998. Computer-aided error analysis. System 26(2): 163–74.Google Scholar
Dagneaux, E., Denness, S., Granger, S., Meunier, F., Neff van Aertselaer, J. and Thewissen, J. 2008. Error tagging manual version 1.3. Centre for English Corpus Linguistics, University of Louvain.Google Scholar
Davies, M. 2012. Expanding Horizons in Historical Linguistics with the 400 million word Corpus of Historical American English. Corpora 7: 121–57.Google Scholar
Davies, M. 2021. The Coronavirus Corpus: design, construction, and use. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 26(4): 583–98.Google Scholar
Dayrell, C., Chakravarthi, R-P. and Griffith-Dickson, G. 2020. Bringing corpus linguistics into religious studies: self-representation amongst various immigrant communities with religious identity. Journal of Corpora and Discourse Studies 3: 96–121.Google Scholar
Deshors, S. and Gries, S. 2016. Profiling verb complementation constructions across New Englishes: a two-step random forests analysis of -ing vs to complements. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 21(2): 192–218.Google Scholar
Dey, A., Jenamani, M. and Thakkar, J. 2018. Senti-N-Gram: an n-gram lexicon for sentiment analysis. Expert Systems with Applications 103: 92–105.Google Scholar
Ding, R. and Wang, L. 2017. Mo Yan’s style in using colour expressions and Goldblatt’s translation strategies: a corpus-based study. Asia Pacific Translation and Intercultural Studies 4(2): 117–31.Google Scholar
Divjak, D. 2015. Four challenges for usage-based linguistics. In Daems, J., Zenner, E., Heylen, K., Speelman, D. and Cuyckens, H. (eds.), Change of Paradigms: New Paradoxes. Berlin: De Gruyter. 297–309.Google Scholar
Dobson, M. and Wells, S. (eds.) 2008. The Oxford Companion to Shakespeare. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dong, J. and Buckingham, L. and Wu, H. 2021. A discourse dynamics exploration of attitudinal responses towards COVID-19 in academia and media. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 26(4): 532–56.Google Scholar
Dong, M. and Fang, A. 2021. Shell nouns as grammatical metaphor revealing disparate construals: investigating the differences between British English and China English based on a comparable corpus. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 17(3): 743–79. doi:10.1515/cllt-2018-0047.Google Scholar
Drasovean, A. and Tagg, C. 2015. Evaluative language and its solidarity-building role on TED.com: an appraisal and corpus analysis. Language@Internet 12, article no. 1.Google Scholar
Durrant, P. 2016. To what extent is the Academic Vocabulary List relevant to university student writing? English for Specific Purposes 43: 49–61.Google Scholar
Durrant, P. 2017. Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation in university students’ writing: mapping the territories. Applied Linguistics 38(2): 165–93.Google Scholar
Eberhardt, M. 2017. Gendered representations through speech: the case of the Harry Potter series. Language and Literature 26(3): 227–46.Google Scholar
Egbert, J. and Biber, D. 2019. Incorporating test dispersion into keyword analyses. Corpora 14(1): 77–104.Google Scholar
Egbert, J. and Biber, D. 2020. ‘It’s just words, folks. It’s just words’: Donald Trump’s distinctive linguistic style. In Schneider, and Eitelmann, (eds.), 17–40.Google Scholar
Egbert, J., Burch, B. and Biber, D. 2020. Lexical dispersion and corpus design. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 25(1): 89–115.Google Scholar
Egbert, J., Larsson, T. and Biber, D. 2020. Doing Linguistics with a Corpus. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Elliott, R., Glauert, J., Kennaway, J., Marshall, I. and Safar, E. 2007. Linguistic modelling and language-processing technologies for avatar-based sign language presentation. University Access in the Information Society 6: 375–91.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. 2012. Formulaic language and second language acquisition: Zipf and the phrasal teddy bear. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 32: 17–44.Google Scholar
Ellis, N., Römer, U. and O’Donnell, M. 2016. Usage-based Approaches to Language Acquisition and Processing: Cognitive and Corpus Investigations of Construction Grammar. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. 2009. The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics 30(4): 474–509.Google Scholar
Esimaje, A. 2019. The purpose, design and use of the Corpus of Nigerian and Cameroonian English Learner Language (Conacel). In Esimaje, A., Gut, U. and Antia, B. (eds.), Corpus Linguistics and African Englishes. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 71–96.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. 2014. Language and Power. 3rd edn. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Feng, J. and Hyland, K. 2015. ‘The fact that’: stance nouns in disciplinary writing. Discourse Studies 15(5): 529–50.Google Scholar
Feng, R., Yang, C. and Qu, Y. 2022. A word embedding model for analyzing patterns and their distributional semantics. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 29(1): 80–105. doi:10.1080/09296174.2020.1767481.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. 1982. Frame semantics. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co. 111–37.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. 1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di semantica 6(2): 222–54.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. and Atkins, B. 1992. Towards a frame-based lexicon: the semantics of RISK and its neighbors. In Lehrer, A. and Kittay, E. (eds.), Frames, Fields and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 75–102.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C., Johnson, C. and Petruck, M. 2003. Background to FrameNet. International Journal of Lexicography 16(3): 235–50.Google Scholar
Firth, J.R. 1957. A synopsis of linguistic theory, 1930–1955. Studies in Linguistic Analysis, Special Volume, Philological Society: 1–32.Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, C. 2020. Penetrating historical discourse’s truth matrix: a corpus analysis of oral history testimonies. Journal of Corpora and Discourse Studies 3: 75–95.Google Scholar
Fitzsimmons-Doolan, S. 2009. Is public discourse about language policy really public discourse about immigration? A corpus-based study. Language Policy 8: 377–402.Google Scholar
Fitzsimmons-Doolan, S. 2014. Using lexical variables to identify language ideologies in a policy corpus. Corpora 9(1): 57–82.Google Scholar
Flowerdew, J. 2006. Use of signalling nouns in a learner corpus. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 11(3): 345–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flowerdew, J. 2010. Use of signalling nouns across L1 and L2 writer corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 15(1): 36–55.Google Scholar
Flowerdew, J. and Forest, R. 2015. Signalling Nouns in English: a Corpus-based Discourse Approach. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Foster, P. and Skehan, P. 1999. The influence of source of planning and focus of planning on task-based performance. Language Teaching Research 3(3): 215–47.Google Scholar
Foster, P. and Tavakoli, P. 2009. Native speakers and task performance: comparing effects on complexity, fluency and lexical diversity. Language Learning 59(4): 866–96.Google Scholar
Francis, G. 1993. A corpus-driven approach to grammar: principles, methods and examples. In Baker, M., Francis, G. and Tognini-Bonelli, E. (eds.), Text and Technology: in honour of John Sinclair. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 137–56.Google Scholar
Francis, G. 1994. Labelling discourse: an aspect of nominal-group lexical cohesion. In Coulthard, M. (ed.), Advances in Written Text Analysis. London: Routledge. 83–101.Google 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 Corpus of Present-Day Edited American English, for use with Digital Computers. Providence, RI: Department of Linguistics, Brown University. Rev. 1971. Rev. and amplified 1979.Google Scholar
Frankenberg-Garcia, A. 2008. Suggesting rather special facts: a corpus-based study of distinctive lexical distributions in translated texts. Corpora 3(2): 195–211.Google Scholar
Frankenberg-Garcia, A. 2015. Training translators to use corpora hands-on: challenges and reactions by a group of thirteen students at a UK university. Corpora 10(3): 351–80.Google Scholar
Frankenberg-Garcia, A., Lew, R., Roberts, J., Rees, G. and Sharma, N. 2019. Developing a writing assistant to help EAP writers with collocations in real time. ReCALL 31(1): 23–39.Google Scholar
French, P. 2007. Caller on the line: an illustrated introduction to the work of a forensic speech scientist. Medico-legal Journal 75(3): 83–96.Google Scholar
Fuchs, R. 2017. Do women (still) use more intensifiers than men? Recent change in the sociolinguistics of intensifiers in British English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22(3): 345–74.Google Scholar
Fuoli, M. and Hart, C. 2018. Trust-building strategies in corpora discourse: an experimental study. Discourse & Society 29(5): 514–52.Google Scholar
Fuoli, M. and Paradis, C. 2014. A model of trust-repair discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 74: 52–69.Google Scholar
Gablasova, D. and Brezina, V. 2015. Does speaker role affect the choice of epistemic adverbials in L2 speech? Evidence from the Trinity Lancaster Corpus. In Romero-Trillo, J. (ed.), Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Gablasova, D., Brezina, V., McEnery, T. and Boyd, E. 2017. Epistemic stance in spoken L2 English: the effect of task and speaker style. Applied Linguistics 38(5): 613–37.Google Scholar
Gabrielatos, C. 2018. Keyness analysis: nature, metrics and techniques. In Taylor, C. and Marchi, A. (eds.), Corpus Approaches to Discourse: A Critical Review. London: Routledge. 225–58.Google 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.Google Scholar
Gabrielatos, C. and Marchi, A. 2012. Keywords: appropriate metrics and practical issues. Paper given at CADS International Conference, Bologna, 13–15 September 2012.Google Scholar
Gales, T. 2015. The stance of stalking: a corpus-based analysis of grammatical markers of stance in threatening communications. Corpora 10(2): 171–200.Google Scholar
Gardner, D. and Davies, M. 2014. A new academic vocabulary list. Applied Linguistics 35(3): 305–27.Google Scholar
Gardner, S. and Nesi, H. 2013. A classification of genre families in university student writing. Applied Linguistics 34(1): 25–52.Google Scholar
Gardner, S., Nesi, H. and Biber, D. 2019. Discipline, level, genre: integrating situational perspectives in a new MD analysis of university student writing. Applied Linguistics 40(4): 646–74.Google Scholar
Garside, R., Leech, G. and McEnery, A. (eds.) 1997. Corpus Annotation: Linguistic Information from Computer Text Corpora. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Geertzen, J., Alexopoulou, T. and Korhonen, A. 2014. Automatic linguistic annotation of large scale L2 database: the EF‐Cambridge Open Language Database (EFCAMDAT). In Millar, R et al. (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 2012 Second Language Research Forum: Building Bridges between Disciplines. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. 240–54.Google Scholar
Gerbig, A. 2010. Key words and key phrases in a corpus of travel writing: from Early Modern English literature to contemporary ‘blooks’. In Bondi, and Scott, (eds.), 147–68.Google Scholar
Gilquin, G. 2014. The use of phrasal verbs by French-speaking EFL learners: a constructional and collostructional corpus-based approach. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 11(1): 51–88.Google Scholar
Glaas, S. 2022. Evaluative Language in Political and Media Discourse on the European Union. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
Gledhill, C. 2000. Collocations in Science Writing. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Goatly, A. 2004. Corpus linguistics, systemic functional grammar and literary meaning: a critical analysis of Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone. Ilha do Desterro 46: 115–54.Google Scholar
Goddard, C., Taboada, M. and Trnavac, R. 2019. The semantics of evaluational adjectives: perspectives from natural semantic metalanguage and appraisal. Functions of Language 26(3): 308–42.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gomez, P. 2013. Statistical Methods in Language and Linguistic Research. London: Equinox.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: Text-based Cross-linguistic Studies. Lund: Lund University Press. 37–51.Google Scholar
Granger, S. 2002. A bird’s-eye view of learner corpus research. In Granger, S., Hung, J. and Petch-Tyson, S. (eds.), Computer Learner Corpora, Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 3–36.Google Scholar
Granger, S. 2015. Contrastive interlanguage analysis: a reappraisal. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 1(1): 7–24.Google Scholar
Granger, S. 2021. Phraseology, corpora and L2 research. In Granger, S. (ed.), Perspectives on the L2 Phrasicon: The View from Learner Corpora. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Granger, S., Dagneaux, E., Meunier, F. and Paquot, M. 2009. International Corpus of Learner English, Version 2. Louvain: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Granger, S, Gilquin, G. and Meunier, F. (eds.) 2015. The Cambridge Handbook of Learner Corpus Research. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granger, S. and Tribble, C. 1998. Learner corpus data in the foreign language classroom: form-focused instruction and data-driven learning. In Granger, S. (ed.), Learner English on Computer. London: Longman. 199–209.Google Scholar
Grant, T. and Macleod, N. 2016. Assuming identities online: experimental linguistics applied to the policing of online paedophile activity. Applied Linguistics 37(1): 50–70.Google Scholar
Gray, B. 2015. Linguistic Variation in Research Articles: When Discipline Tells Only Part of the Story. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Green, C. and Lambert, J. 2018. Advancing disciplinary literacy through English for Academic Purposes: discipline-specific wordlists, collocations and word families for eight secondary subjects. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 35: 105–15.Google Scholar
Gries, S. 2015. Some current quantitative problems in corpus linguistics and a sketch of some solutions. Language & Linguistics 16(1): 93–117.Google Scholar
Gries, S. 2019. 15 years of collostructions: some long overdue additions/corrections (to/of actually all sorts of corpus-linguistics measures). International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 24(3): 385–412.Google Scholar
Grieve, J., Clarke, I., Chiang, E., Gideon, H., Heini, A., Nini, A. and Waibel, E. 2019. Attributing the Bixby letter using n-gram tracing. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 34(3): 493–512.Google Scholar
Grieve, J., Montgomery, C., Nini, A., Murakami, A. and Guo, D. 2019. Mapping lexical dialect variation in British English using Twitter. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence 2(11): 1–18.Google Scholar
Grieve, J., Nini, A. and Guo, D. 2018 Mapping lexical innovation on American social media. Journal of English Linguistics 46(4): 293–319.Google Scholar
Groom, N. 2010. Closed-class keywords and corpus-driven discourse analysis. In Bondi, M. and Scott, M. (eds.), Keyness in Texts. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 59–78.Google Scholar
Groom, N. 2019. Construction grammar and the corpus-based analysis of discourses: the case of the WAY IN WHICH construction. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 24(3): 291–323.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. 1978. Language as Social Semiotic: The social interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 1st edn. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. 1989. Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-semiotic Perspective. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. 1993. Quantitative studies and probabilities in grammar. In Hoey, M. (ed.), Data, Description, Discourse: Papers on the English Language in Honour of John McH Sinclair. London: HarperCollins. 1–26.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2nd edn. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. 1998. Things and relations: regrammaticising experience as technical knowledge. In Martin, J.R. and Veel, R. (eds.), Reading Science: Critical and Functional Perspectives on Discourses of Science. London: Routledge. 185–235.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. 2008. Complementarities in Language. Beijing: Commercial Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. and James, Z. 1993. A quantitative study of polarity and primary tense in the English finite clause. In Sinclair, J., Hoey, M. and Fox, G. (eds.), Techniques of Description: Spoken and Written Discourse. London: Routledge. 32–66.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. and Martin, J. 1993. Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. and Matthiessen, C. 2014. Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar. 4th edn. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Handford, M. 2010. The Language of Business Meetings. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Handford, M., Lisboa, M., Koester, A. and Pitt, A. 2007. Business Advantage. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hanks, P. 2013. Lexical Analysis: Norms and Exploitations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hansen, B. 2018. Corpus Linguistics and Sociolinguistics: A Study of Variation and Change in the Modal Systems of World Englishes. Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill.Google Scholar
Hardy, J. and Friginal, E. 2016. Genre variation in student writing: a multi-dimensional analysis. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 22(1): 119–31.Google Scholar
Hardy, J. and Römer, U. 2013. Revealing disciplinary variation in student writing: a multi-dimensional analysis of the Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers. Corpora 8(2): 183–207.Google Scholar
Hasan, R. 1996 [1987]. The grammarian’s dream: lexis as most delicate grammar. In Cloran, C, , D. Butt, and Williams, G (eds.), Ways of Saying: Ways of Meaning. Papers by Ruqaiya Hasan. London: Cassell. 73–103.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
Hasan, R. 1985/1989. The structure of a text. In Halliday, M.A.K and Hasan, R (eds.), Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-semiotic Perspective. Geelong: Deakin University Press. Republished 1989. Oxford University Press. 52–69.Google Scholar
Hasselgård, H. 2019. Phraseological teddy bears: frequent lexical bundles in academic writing by Norwegian learners and native speakers of English. In Wiegand, V. and Mahlberg, M. (eds.), Corpus Linguistics, Context and Culture Berlin: De Gruyter. 339–62.Google Scholar
Hasselgård, H. 2020. Corpus-based contrastive studies: beginnings, developments and directions. Languages in Contrast 20(2): 184–208.Google Scholar
Hasselgren, A. 1994. Lexical teddy bears and advanced learners: a study into the ways Norwegian students cope with English vocabulary. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 4(2): 237–58.Google Scholar
He, Q. and Yang, B. 2018. A corpus-based study of the correlation between text technicality and ideational metaphor in English. Lingua 203: 51–65.Google Scholar
Hodge, G., Sekine, K., Schembri, A. and Johnston, T. 2019. Comparing signers and speakers: building a directly comparable corpus of Auslan and Australian English. Corpora 14(1): 63–76.Google Scholar
Hoey, M. 2005. Lexical Priming: A New Theory of Words and language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. and Trousdale, G. 2013. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hong, J. and Cao, F. 2014. Interactional metadiscourse in young EFL learner writing: a corpus-based study. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 19(2): 201–24.Google Scholar
Hornby, A. 1974. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English. Oxford University Press.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. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 77–118.Google Scholar
Hundt, M., Rautionaho, P. and Strobl, C. 2020. Progressive or simple? A corpus-based study of aspect in World Englishes. Corpora 15(1): 77–106.Google Scholar
Hundt, M, Sand, A. and Siemund, R. 1999. Manual of Information to Accompany The Freiburg – LOB Corpus of British English (‘FLOB’). Freiburg: Department of English, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität.Google Scholar
Hundt, M., Sand, A. and Skandera, P. 1999. Manual of Information to Accompany The Freiburg – Brown Corpus of American English (‘Frown’). Freiburg: Department of English, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität.Google Scholar
Hung, Y., Guo, D., Kasakoff, A. and Grieve, J. 2016. Understanding US regional linguistic variation with Twitter data analysis. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 59: 244–55.Google Scholar
Hunston, S. 2000. Evaluation and planes of discourse: status and value in persuasive texts. In Hunston, S. and Thompson, G. (eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford University Press. 176–206.Google Scholar
Hunston, S. 2002. Corpora in Applied Linguistics. 1st edn. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hunston, S. 2007. Semantic prosody revisited. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 12(2): 249–68.Google Scholar
Hunston, S. 2010. Starting with the small words: patterns, lexis and semantic sequences. In Römer, U. and Schulze, R. (eds.), Patterns, Meaningful Units and Specialized Discourses. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 7–30.Google Scholar
Hunston, S. 2011. Corpus Approaches to Evaluation: Phraseology and Evaluative Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hunston, S. 2013. Systemic functional linguistics, corpus linguistics, and the ideology of science. Text & Talk 33(4–5): 617–40.Google Scholar
Hunston, S. 2019. Patterns, constructions, and applied linguistics. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 24(3): 324–53.Google Scholar
Hunston, S. 2020. Changing language in unprecedented times. University of Birmingham. birmingham.ac.uk/schools/edacs/departments/englishlanguage/news/2020/changing-language.aspx.Google Scholar
Hunston, S. and Francis, G. 1998. Verbs observed: a corpus-driven pedagogic grammar. Applied Linguistics 19(1): 45–72.Google Scholar
Hunston, S. and Francis, G. 2000. Pattern Grammar: A Corpus-driven Approach to the Lexical Grammar of English. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hunston, S. and Perek, F. (eds.) 2019. Constructions in applied linguistics. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, Special issue, 24(3).Google 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. Oxford University Press. 75–101.Google Scholar
Hunston, S. and Su, H. 2019. Patterns, constructions, and local grammar: a case study of ‘evaluation’. Applied Linguistics 40(4): 567–93.Google Scholar
Hunt, D. and Harvey, K. 2015. Health communication and corpus linguistics: using corpus tools to analyse eating disorder discourse online. In Baker, P. and McEnery, T. (eds.), Corpora and Discourse Studies: Integrating Discourse and Corpora. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. 2005. Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. 2006. Applying a gloss: exemplifying and reformulating in academic discourse. Applied Linguistics 28(2): 266–85.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. 2012. Disciplinary Identities: Individuality and Community in Academic Discourse. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. and Jiang, F. 2016. Change of attitude? A diachronic study of stance. Written Communication 33(3): 251–74.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. and Jiang, F. 2021. The Covid infodemic. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 26(4): 444–68.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. and Tse, P. 2004. Metadiscourse in academic writing: a reappraisal. Applied Linguistics 25(2): 156–77.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. and Tse, P. 2005. Evaluative that constructions: signalling stance in research abstracts. Functions of Language 12(1): 39–63.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. and Tse, P. 2007. Is there an ‘academic vocabulary’? TESOL Quarterly 41(2): 235–53.Google Scholar
Incelli, E. 2018. Popularising the Higgs boson: a corpus-assisted approach to reporting scientific discovery in online media. Corpora 13(2): 169–203.Google Scholar
Ishihara, S. 2017. Strength of forensic text comparison evidence from stylometric features: a multivariate likelihood ratio-based analysis. Speech, Language and the Law 24:1.Google Scholar
Ishikawa, S. 2015. Lexical development in L2 English learners’ speeches and writings. Procedia 198: 202–10.Google Scholar
Jaihow, P. 2018. Corpus Use by Student Writers: Error Correction by Thai Learners of English. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
Jeffries, L. 2009. Critical Stylistics: The Power of English. London: Red Globe Press.Google Scholar
Jeffries, L. and McIntyre, D. 2010. Stylistics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jessen, M. 2010. The forensic phonetician: forensic speaker identification by experts. In Coulthard, M. and Johnson, A. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics. London: Routledge. 378–94.Google Scholar
Johansson, S. 1981. Word frequencies in different types of English texts. ICAME News 5: 1–13.Google Scholar
Johansson, S. 2007. Seeing through Multilingual Corpora: On the Use of Corpora in Contrastive Studies. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Johansson, S., Leech, G. and Goodluck, H. 1978. Manual of Information to Accompany the Lancaster-Oslo-Bergen Corpus of British English, for Use with Digital Computers. Oslo: Department of English, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Johns, T. 1991. Should you be persuaded: two samples of data-driven learning materials. ELR Journal 4: 1–16.Google Scholar
Johnson, A. 1997. Textual kidnapping: a case of plagiarism among three students texts? Forensic Linguistics 4: 210–25.Google Scholar
Jowett, J. 2019. Shakespeare and Text. Rev. edn. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Karpenko-Seccombe, T. 2021. Academic Writing with Corpora: A Resource Book for Data-driven Learning. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kay, C. and Alexander, M. 2016. Diachronic and synchronic thesauruses. In Durkin, P. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Lexicography. Oxford University Press. 367–80.Google Scholar
Khoo, C. and Johnkhan, S. 2018. Lexicon-based sentiment analysis: comparative evaluation of six sentiment lexicons. Journal of Information Science 44(4): 491–512.Google Scholar
Khoo, C. and Johnkhan, S. 2009. Simple maths for keywords. In Mahlberg, M, , V. González-Díaz, and Smith, C (eds.), Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics Conference CL 2009. University of Liverpool. ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/pubs.html.Google Scholar
Knight, D., Evans, D., Carter, R. and Adolphs, S. 2009. HeadTalk, HandTalk and the corpus: towards a framework for multi-modal, multi-media corpus development. Corpora 14(1): 1–32.Google Scholar
Knight, D., Loizides, F., Neale, S., Anthony, L. and Spasić, I. 2020. Developing computational infrastructure for the CorCenCC corpus: the National Corpus of Contemporary Welsh. Language Resources and Evaluation 55: 789–816. doi:10.1007/s10579–020-09501-9.Google Scholar
Koester, A. 2004. The Language of Work. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Koester, A. 2010 Building small specialised corpora. In O’Keeffe, A. and McCarthy, M. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Koester, A. 2017. Spoken workplace discourse. In Rainer, F. and Mautner, G. (eds.), Handbook of Business Communication. Berlin: De Gruyter. 629–56.Google Scholar
Koppel, M., Schler, J. and Argamon, S. 2009. Computational methods in authorship attribution. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 60(1): 9–26.Google Scholar
Kwary, D., Ratri, D. and Artha, A. 2017. Lexical bundles in journal articles across academic disciplines. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics 7(1): 131–140.Google Scholar
Kyle, K. and Crossley, S. 2018. Measuring syntactic complexity in L2 writing using fine-grained clausal and phrasal indices. Modern Language Journal 102(2): 333–49.Google Scholar
Lakoff, R. 1975. Language and Woman’s Place. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Larsson, T. 2017. A functional classification of the introductory it pattern: investigating academic writing by non-native-speaker and native-speaker students. English for Specific Purposes 48(1): 57–70.Google Scholar
Lawrence, S. 2019. A Rite on the Edge: The Language of Baptism and Christening in the Church of England. London: SCM Press.Google Scholar
Laws, J., Ryder, C. and Jaworska, S. 2017. A diachronic corpus-based study into the effects of age and gender on the usage patterns of verb-forming suffixation in spoken British English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22(3): 375–402.Google Scholar
Leech, G. 1997. Introducing corpus annotation. In Garside, R., Leech, G. and McEnery, A. (eds.), Corpus Annotation: linguistic information from computer text corpora. London: Longman. 1–18.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. Berlin: De Gruyter. 223–40.Google Scholar
Leech, G., Hundt, M., Mair, C. and Smith, N. 2009. Change in Contemporary English: A Grammatical Study. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Leech, G., Rayson, P. and Wilson, A. 2001. Word Frequencies in Written and Spoken English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lei, L. and Liu, D. 2016. A new medical academic word list: a corpus-based study with enhanced methodology. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 22: 42–53.Google Scholar
Lei, L. and Liu, D. 2018. The academic English collocation list: a corpus-driven study. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 23(2): 216–43.Google Scholar
Levin, B. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Liu, B. 2015. Sentiment Analysis: Mining Opinions, Sentiments, and Emotions. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
López, C.M. and Méndez, N.B. 1996. On the use of the subjunctive and modals in Old and Middle English dependent commands and requests. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 97(4): 411–21.Google Scholar
Louw, B. 1993. Irony in the text of insincerity in the writer? The diagnostic potential of semantic prosodies. In Baker, M., Francis, G. and Tognini-Bonelli, E. (eds.), Text and Technology: in honour of John Sinclair. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 157–76.Google Scholar
Love, R., Dembry, C., Hardie, A., Brezina, V. and McEnery, T. 2017. The Spoken BNC2014: designing and building a spoken corpus of everyday conversations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22(3): 319–44.Google Scholar
Lu, X. 2010. Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 15(4): 474–96.Google Scholar
Lüdeling, A. and Hirschmann, H. 2015. In S. Granger, G. Gilquin and F. Meunier (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Learner Corpus Research. Cambridge University Press. 135–58.Google Scholar
Luzon, M.M. 2011. Exploring atypical verb + noun combinations in learner technical writing. International Journal of English Studies 11(2): 77–95.Google Scholar
Ma, H. and Qian, M. 2020. The creation and evaluation of a grammar pattern list for the most frequent academic verbs. English for Specific Purposes 58: 155–69.Google Scholar
Madabushi, H., Romain, L., Divjak, D. and Milin, P. 2020. CxGBERT: BERT meets construction grammar. Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING 2020).Google Scholar
Mahlberg, M. 2013. Corpus Stylistics and Dickens’s Fiction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mahlberg, M. and Smith, C. 2012. Dickens, the suspended quotation and the corpus. Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics 21(1): 51–65.Google Scholar
Mahlberg, M., Stockwell, P., de Joode, J., Smith, C. and O’Donnell, M. 2017. CliC Dickens: novel uses of concordances for the integration of corpus stylistics and cognitive poetics. Corpora 11(3): 433–63.Google Scholar
Mahlberg, M., Wiegand, V. and Stockwell, P. 2019. Speech bundles in the 19th-century English novel. Language and Literature 28(4): 326–53.Google Scholar
Mair, C., Hundt, M., Leech, G. and Smith, N. 2003. Short term diachronic shifts in part-of-speech frequencies: a comparison of the tagged LOB and F-LOB corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 7(2): 245–64.Google Scholar
Malmkjaer, K. 2011. Translation universals. In Malmkjaer, K. and Windle, K. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Translation Studies. Oxford University Press. 83–94.Google Scholar
Martin, J. 1984/2010 Language, register and genre. In Christie, F (ed.), Children Writing: Reader. Geelong: Deakin University Press. 21–30.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. 1992. English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Martin, J. 2003. Introduction. Text & Talk 23(2): 171–81.Google Scholar
Martin, J. and White, P. 2005. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Martínez, I., Beck, S. and Panza, C. 2009. Academic vocabulary in agriculture research articles: a corpus-based study. English for Specific Purposes 28(3): 183–98.Google Scholar
Marzo, S., Heylen, K. and de Sutter, G. (eds.) 2012. Corpus Studies in Contrastive Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mastropierro, L. 2020. The translation of reporting verbs in Italian: the case of the Harry Potter series. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 25(3): 241–69.Google Scholar
Matthiessen, C. and Teruya, K. 2015. Grammatical realisations of rhetorical relations in different registers. Word 61(3): 232–81.Google Scholar
Mauranen, A. 2010. Discourse reflexivity – a discourse universal? The case of ELF. Nordic Journal of English Studies 9(2): 13–40.Google Scholar
Mauranen, A. 2012. Exploring ELF: Academic English Shaped by Non-native Speakers. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mauranen, A. and Kujamäki, P. (eds.) 2004. Translation Universals: Do They Exist? Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mautner, G. 2007. Mining large corpora for social information: the case of elderly. Language in Society 36(1): 51–72.Google Scholar
McCarthy, M., McCarten, J. and Sandiford, H. 2005. Touchstone. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McEnery, T. and Baker, H. 2017. Corpus Linguistics and 17th Century Prostitution: Computational Linguistics and History. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
McEnery, T. and Hardie, A. 2012. Corpus Linguistics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McEnery, T., Love, R. and Brezina, V. 2017. Compiling and analysing the Spoken British National Corpus 2014. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22(3): 311–18.Google Scholar
McGlashan, M. 2021. Networked discourses of bereavement in COVID-19 memorials. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 26(4): 557–82.Google Scholar
McIntyre, D. 2015. Towards an integrated corpus stylistics. Topics in Linguistics 16(1): 59–68.Google Scholar
McIntyre, D. and Lugea, J. 2015. The effects of deaf and hard-of-hearing subtitles on the characterisation process: a cognitive stylistic study of ‘The Wire’. Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice 23(1): 62–88.Google Scholar
Meunier, F. 2020. A case for constructive alignment in DDL: rethinking outcomes, practices and assessment in (data-driven) language learning. In Crosthwaite, P. (ed.), Data-Driven Learning for the Next Generation: Corpora and DDL for Pre-tertiary Learners. London: Routledge. 1–18.Google Scholar
Millar, N. and Hunston, S. 2015. Adjectives, communities, and taxonomies of evaluative meaning. Functions of Language 22(3): 297–331.Google Scholar
Millar, N., Salager-Meyer, F. and Budgell, B. 2019. ‘It is important to reinforce the importance of…’: ‘hype’ in reports of randomized control trials. English for Specific Purposes 54: 139–51.Google Scholar
Miller, R., Mitchell, T. and Pessoa, S. 2014. Valued voices: students’ use of engagement in argumentative history writing. Linguistics and Education 28: 107–20.Google Scholar
Mudraya, O. 2006. Engineering English: a lexical frequency instructional model. English for Specific Purposes 25(2): 235–56.Google Scholar
Muguiro, N. 2020. Citations in interdisciplinary research articles. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mukherjee, J. 2009. The lexicogrammar of present-day Indian English. In Römer, U. and Schulze, R. (eds.), Exploring the Lexis-Grammar Interface. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 117–36.Google 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(1): 27–51.Google Scholar
Müller, M., Bartsch, S. and Zinn, J. 2021. Communicating the unknown: an interdisciplinary annotation study of uncertainty in the coronavirus pandemic. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 26(4): 498–531.Google Scholar
Murakami, A. 2016. Modeling systematicity and individuality in nonlinear second language development: the case of English grammatical morphemes. Language Learning 66(4): 834–71.Google Scholar
Murakami, A. and Alexopoulou, T. 2016. L1 influence on the acquisition order of English grammatical morphemes: a learner corpus study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 38(3): 365–401.Google Scholar
Murakami, A., Thompson, P., Hunston, S. and Vajn, D. 2017. ‘What is this corpus about?’: using topic modelling to explore a specialised corpus. Corpora 12(2): 243–77.Google Scholar
Murphy, A. 2004. Evaluation in English and Italian Newspaper Opinion Articles on the Kosovo Crisis. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
Murphy, A. 2010. Corpus and Sociolinguistics: Investigating Age and Gender in Female Talk. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nesi, H. and Gardner, S. 2012. Genres across the Disciplines: Student Writing in Higher Education. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nesselhauf, N. 2005. Collocations in a Learner Corpus. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nini, A. 2017. Register variation in malicious forensic texts. Speech, Language and the Law 24(1): 99–126.Google Scholar
Nini, A. 2019. The Multi-Dimensional Analysis Tagger. In Berber Sardinha, T. and Veirano Pinto, M. (eds.), Multi-Dimensional Analysis: Research Methods and Current Issues. London and New York: Bloomsbury Academic. 67–94.Google Scholar
Nini, A. and Grant, T. 2013. Bridging the gap between stylistic and cognitive approaches to authorship analysis using systemic functional linguistics and multidimensional analysis. Speech, Language and the Law 20(2): 173–202.Google Scholar
Oakes, C. 1998. Statistics for Corpus Linguistics. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Oakey, D. 2009. Fixed collocational patterns in isolexical and isotextual versions of a corpus. In Baker, P. (ed.), Contemporary Corpus Linguistics. London: Continuum. 142–60.Google Scholar
O’Donnell, M. 2008a. Demonstration of the UAM Corpus Tool for text and image annotation. Proceedings of the ACL-08: HLT Demo Session, Columbus Ohio, June 2008, Association for Computational Linguistics. 13–16.Google Scholar
O’Donnell, M. 2008b. The UAM CorpusTool: software for corpus annotation and exploration. In Bretones Callejas, C.M. et al. (eds), Applied Linguistics Now: Understanding Language and Mind / La lingüística aplicada hoy: comprendiendo el lenguaje y la mente. Universidad de Almería. 1433–47.Google Scholar
O’Donnell, M. 2010. UAM Corpus Tool, Version 2.6.Google Scholar
O’Donnell, M. 2013. From learner corpora to curriculum design: an empirical approach to staging the teaching of grammatical concepts. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences 95: 571–80.Google Scholar
O’Donnell, M., Murcia, S., García, R., Molina, C., Rollinson, P., MacDonald, P., Stuart, K. and Boquera, M. 2009. Exploring the proficiency of English learners: the TREACLE project. Proceedings of the Fifth Corpus Linguistics Conference, University of Liverpool.Google Scholar
O’Halloran, K. 2009. Inferencing and cultural reproduction: a corpus-based critical discourse analysis. Text & Talk 29(1): 21–51.Google Scholar
O’Halloran, K. 2015. Deconstructing arguments via digital mining of online comments. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 30(4): 559–88.Google Scholar
Olsson, J. 2012. Wordcrime: Solving Crime through Forensic Linguistics. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
O’Sullivan, J. 2020. Corpus Linguistics and the Analysis of Sociolinguistic Change: Language Variety and Ideology in Advertising. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Page, R. 2019. Group selfies and Snapchat: from sociality to synthetic collectivisation. Discourse, Context & Media 28: 79–92.Google Scholar
Pakhomov, S., Chacon, D., Wicklund, M. and Gundel, J. 2011. Computerized assessment of syntactic complexity in Alzheimer’s disease: a case study of Iris Murdoch’s writing. Behavior Research Methods 43(1): 136–44.Google Scholar
Pang, B. and Lee, L. 2008. Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval 2(1–2): 1–135.Google Scholar
Pápai, V. 2004. Explicitation: a universal of translated text? In Mauranen, and Kujamäki, (eds.), 150–64.Google Scholar
Paquot, M. 2007. Towards a productively oriented academic word list. In Walinski, J., Kredens, K. and Gozdz-Roszkowski, S. (eds.), Practical Applications in Language and Computers 2005. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 127–40.Google Scholar
Paquot, M. 2010. Academic Vocabulary in Learner Writing: From Extraction to Analysis. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Partington, A. 2004. ‘“Utterly content in each other’s company”: Semantic prosody and semantic preference,’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(1): 131–56.Google Scholar
Partington, A., Duguid, A. and Taylor, C. 2013. Patterns and Meanings in Discourse: Theory and Practice in Corpus-assisted Discourse Studies (CADS). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pecorari, D. and Shaw, P. (eds.) 2018. Student Plagiarism in Higher Education: Reflections on Teaching Practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pendar, N. and Chapelle, C. 2008. Investigating the promise of learner corpora: methodological issues. CALICO Journal 25(2): 189–206.Google Scholar
Perek, F. and Patten, A. 2019. Towards an English Constructicon using patterns and frames. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 24(3): 354–84.Google Scholar
Pérez-Paredes, P. and Díez-Bedmar, M. 2012. The use of intensifying adverbs in learner writing. In Tono, Y., Kawaguchi, Y. and Minegishi, M. (eds.), Developmental and Crosslinguistic Perspectives in Learner Corpus Research. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 105–23.Google Scholar
Potthast, M., Kiesel, J., Reinartz, K., Bevendorff, J. and Stein, B. 2017. A stylometric inquiry into hyperpartisan and fake news. Proceedings of the 56th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, vol. i. Melbourne. 231–40.Google Scholar
Pounds, G., Hunt, D. and Koteyko, N. 2018. Expressions of empathy in a Facebook-based diabetes support group. Discourse, Context and Media 25: 34–43.Google Scholar
Prabhu, N. 1987. Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Price, H. 2022. The Language of Mental Illness: Corpus Linguistics and the Construction of Mental Illness in the Press. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Prieto, V.J. 2013. A corpus-based approach to the multimodal analysis of specialised knowledge. Language Resources and Evaluation 47: 399–423.Google Scholar
Puurtinen, T. 2004. Explicitation of clausal relations: a corpus-based analysis of clause connectives in translated and non-translated Finnish children’s literature. In Mauranen, A. and Kujamäki, P. P. (eds.) Translation Universals: Do They Exist? Amsterdam: Benjamins. 165–76.Google Scholar
Quinn, C. 2021. L2 Writers Referencing Corpora to Address Accuracy: A Qualitative Analysis of Learners’ Lexicogrammatical Error Corrections. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
Ramón, N. and Labrador, B. 2008. Translations of ‘-ly’ adverbs of degree in an English-Spanish parallel corpus. Target 20(2): 275–96.Google Scholar
Rashkin, H., Choi, E., Jang, J.Y., Volkova, S. and Choi, Y. 2017. Truth of varying shades: analysing language in fake news and political fact-checking. Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics. 2931–7.Google Scholar
Rayson, P. 2008. From key words to key semantic domains. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 13(4): 519–49.Google Scholar
Rayson, P., Archer, D., Piao, S. and McEnery, T. 2004 The UCREL Semantic Analysis System. Proceedings of the workshop on Beyond Named Entity Recognition Semantic Labelling for NLP tasks in association with the 4th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2004). Lisbon and Paris: European Language Resources Association. 7–12.Google Scholar
Rayson, P., Leech, G. and Hodges, M. 1997. Social differentiation in the use of English vocabulary: some analyses of the conversational component of the British National Corpus. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 2(1): 133–52.Google Scholar
Ringbom, H. 1998. Vocabulary frequencies in advanced learner English: a cross-linguistic approach. In Granger, S. (ed.), Learner English on Computer. London: Longman. 41–52.Google Scholar
Roads, J. 2012. Early Quaker broadsides corpus: a case study. Quaker Studies 17(1): 27–47.Google Scholar
Römer, U. 2019. A corpus perspective on the development of verb constructions in second language learners. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 24(3): 268–90.Google Scholar
Römer, U. and O’Donnell, M. 2011. From student hard drive to web corpus (part 1): the design, compilation and genre classification of the Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers (MICUSP). Corpora 6(2): 159–77.Google Scholar
Ronan, P. and Schneider, G. 2020. ‘A man who was just an incredible man, an incredible man’: Age factors and coherence in Donald Trump’s spontaneous speech. In Schneider, and Eitelmann, (eds.), 62–84.Google Scholar
Roy, T., Acharya, R. and Roy, A. 2016. Statistical Survey Design and Evaluating Impact. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rudkowsky, E., Haselmayer, M., Wastian, M., Jenny, M., Emrich, S. and Sedlmair, M. 2018. More than bags of words: sentiment analysis with word embeddings. Communication Methods and Measures 12(2–3): 140–57.Google Scholar
Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M., Johnson, C., Baker, C. and Scheffczyk, J. 2016. FrameNet II: Extended Theory and Practice. Rev. edn. framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu/fndrupal/the_book.Google Scholar
Ryshina-Pankova, M. 2015. A meaning-based approach to the study of complexity in L2 writing: the case of grammatical metaphor. Journal of Second Language Writing 29: 51–63.Google Scholar
Salas, M.D. 2015. Reflexive metadiscourse in research articles in Spanish: variation across three disciplines (linguistics, economics and medicine). Journal of Pragmatics 77: 20–40.Google Scholar
Samuda, V. and Bygate, M. 2008. Tasks in Second Language Learning. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Santa Ana, O. 2002. Brown Tide Rising: Metaphors of Latinos in Contemporary American Public Discourse. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Schembri, A., Fenlon, J., Rentelis, R., Reynolds, S. and Cormier, K. 2013. Building the British Sign Language Corpus. Language Documentation and Conservation 7: 136–54.Google Scholar
Schilk, M., Mukherjee, J., Nam, C. and Mukherjee, S. 2013. Complementation of ditransitive verbs in South Asian Englishes: a multifactorial analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 9(2): 187–225.Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. 2000. English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells: From Corpus to Cognition. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schmid, H.-J. 2003. Do men and women really live in different cultures? Evidence from the BNC. In Wilson, A., Rayson, P. and McEnery, A. (eds.), Corpus Linguistics by the Lune. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. 185–221.Google Scholar
Schneider, E. 2007. Postcolonial English: Varieties around the World. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schneider, U. and Eitelmann, M. 2020a. ‘Great movement’ versus ‘crooked opponents’: is Donald Trump’s language populist? In Schneider, and Eitelmann, (eds.), 236–50.Google Scholar
Schneider, U. and Eitelmann, M. (eds.) 2020b. Linguistic Inquiries into Donald Trump’s Language: From ‘Fake News’ to ‘Tremendous Success’. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Scott, M. 1997. PC analysis of key words – and key key words. System 25(1): 1–13.Google Scholar
Scott, M. 2010. Problems in investigating keyness, or clearing the undergrowth and marking out trails… In Bondi, M. and Scott, M. (eds.), Keyness in Texts. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 43–57.Google Scholar
Scott, M. and Tribble, C. 2006. Textual Patterns: Key Words and Corpus Analysis in Language Education. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Semino, E. and Short, M. 2004. Corpus Stylistics: Speech Writing and Thought Presentation in a Corpus of English Writing. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sharma, R., Palhikar, G. and Pawar, S. 2018. An unsupervised approach for cause-effect relation extraction from biomedical text. In Silberztein, M, , F. Atigui, E. Kornyshova, E. Métais, and Meziane, F (eds.), Natural Language Processing and Information Systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 10859. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Simpson, P. and Montgomery, M. 1995. Language, literature and film: the stylistics of Bernard MacLaverty’s Cal. In Verdonk, P. and Weber, J.J. (eds.), Twentieth Century Fiction: From Text to Context. London: Routledge. 138–64.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. (ed.) 1987a. Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary. 1st edn. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. (ed.) 1987b. Looking UP: An Account of the Cobuild Project in Lexical Computing. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. (ed.) 1990. Collins Cobuild English Grammar. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. (ed.) 1995. Collins Cobuild English Dictionary. 2nd edn. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. 2003. Reading Concordances. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. 2004. Trust the Text: Language, Corpus and Discourse. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. and Coulthard, M. 1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J., Jones, S. and Daley, R. 1970/2004. The OSTI Report. Ed. Krishnamurthy, R.. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. 2009. Modelling second language performance: integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis. Applied Linguistics 30(4): 510–32.Google Scholar
Skehan, P. and Foster, P. 2016. Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research 1(3): 185–211.Google Scholar
Skelton, J., O’Riordan, M., Berenguera, A., Beavan, J. and Weetman, K. 2017. Learning from patients: trainers’ use of narratives of learning and teaching. BJGP Open: 1–11.Google Scholar
Smith, S. 2020. DIY corpora for accounting and finance vocabulary learning. English for Specific Purposes 57: 1–12.Google Scholar
Spilioti, T. and Tagg, C. 2017. The ethics of online research methods in applied linguistics: challenges, opportunities and directions in ethical decision making. Applied Linguistics Review 8 (2–3): 163–7.Google Scholar
Stange, U. 2020. Very emotional, totally conservative and somewhat all over the place: an analysis of intensifiers in Donald Trump’s speech. In Schneider, U. and Eitelmann, M. (eds.) Linguistic Inquiries into Donald Trump’s Language: From ‘Fake News’ to ‘Tremendous Success’. London: Bloomsbury. 87–108.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. and Gries, S. 2003. Collostructions: investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2): 209–43.Google Scholar
Stubbs, M. 1993. British traditions in text analysis: from Firth to Sinclair. In Baker, M., Francis, G. and Tognini-Bonelli, E. (eds.), Text and Technology: in honour of John Sinclair. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 1–33.Google Scholar
Stubbs, M. 1995. Collocations and semantic profiles: on the cause of the trouble with quantative methods. Functions of Language 2(1): 23–55.Google Scholar
Stubbs, M. 1996. Text and Corpus Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stubbs, M. 2001. Words and Phrases: Corpus Studies of Lexical Semantics. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stubbs, M. 2010. Three concepts of keywords. In Bondi, M. and Scott, M. (eds.), Keyness in Texts. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 21–42.Google Scholar
Su, H. 2015. Adjective Complementation Patterns and Judgement in Biographical Discourse: A Corpus Study. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
Su, H. 2017. Local grammars of speech acts: an exploratory study. Journal of Pragmatics 111: 72–83.Google Scholar
Su, H. 2020. Local grammars and diachronic speech act analysis: a case study of apology in the history of American English. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 21(1): 109–36.Google Scholar
Su, H. and Hunston, S. 2019a. Adjective complementation patterns and judgement: aligning lexical-grammatical and discourse-semantic approaches in appraisal research. Text and Talk 39(3): 415–39.Google Scholar
Su, H. and Hunston, S. 2019b. Language patterns and attitude revisited: adjective patterns, attitude and appraisal. Functions of Language 26(3): 343–71.Google Scholar
Swales, J. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Taboada, M. 2016. Sentiment analysis: an overview from linguistics. Annual Review of Linguistics 2: 325–47.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. 2013. Searching for similarity using corpus-assisted discourse studies. Corpora 8(1): 81–113.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. 2018. Similarity. In Taylor, C. and Marchi, A. (eds.), Corpus Approaches to Discourse: A Critical Review. London: Routledge. 19–37.Google Scholar
Taylor, G., Jowett, J., Bourus, T. and Egan, G. 2016. The New Oxford Shakespeare: Critical Reference Edition. Oxford University Press.Google 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(4): 524–48.Google Scholar
Thewissen, J. 2013. Capturing L2 accuracy developmental patterns: insights from an error-tagged EFL learner corpus. Modern Language Journal 97: 77–101.Google Scholar
Thewissen, J. 2015. Accuracy across Proficiency Levels: A Learner Corpus Approach. Louvain: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Thompson, G., Bowcher, W., Fontaine, L. and Schönthal, D. 2019. The Cambridge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, P. 2001a. Looking at citations: using corpora in English for Academic Purposes. Language Learning and Technology 5(3): 91–105.Google Scholar
Thompson, P. 2001b. A pedagogically-motivated corpus-based examination of PhD theses: macrostructure, citation practices and uses of modal verbs. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Reading.Google Scholar
Thompson, P. and Hunston, S. 2020. Interdisciplinary Research Discourse: Corpus investigations into Environment Journals. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Thompson, P., Hunston, S., Murakami, A. and Vajn, D. 2017. Multi-dimensional analysis, text constellations, and interdisciplinary discourse. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22(2): 153–86.Google Scholar
Tkacukova, T. 2015. A corpus-assisted study of the discourse marker ‘well’ as an Indicator of judges’ institutional roles in court cases with litigants in person. Corpora 10(2): 145–70.Google Scholar
Tognini-Bonelli, E. 2001. Corpus Linguistics at Work. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. 2003. Constructing a Language: A Usage-based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tongpoon-Patanasorn, A. 2018. Developing a frequent technical words list for finance: a hybrid approach. English for Specific Purposes 51: 45–54.Google Scholar
Tono, Y. 2012. International corpus of crosslinguistic interlanguage: project overview and a case study on the acquisition of new verb co-occurrence patterns. In Tono, Y., Kawaguchi, Y. and Minegishi, M. (eds.), Developmental and Crosslinguistic Perspectives in Learner Corpus Research. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 27–46.Google Scholar
Toolan, M. 1997. What is critical discourse analysis and why are people saying such terrible things about it? Language and Literature 6(2): 83–103.Google Scholar
Torabi Asr, F. and Taboada, M. 2019. Big data and quality data for fake news and misinformation detection. Big Data & Society 6(1): 1–14.Google Scholar
Tracy-Ventura, N., Huensch, A. and Mitchell, R. 2021. Understanding the long-term evolution of L2 lexical diversity: the contribution of a longitudinal learner corpus. In le Bruyn, B. and Paquot, M. (eds.), Learner Corpus Research Meets Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge University Press. 148–71.Google Scholar
Trkjla, A. and McAuliffe, K. 2019. Formulaic metadiscursive signalling devices in judgements of the Court of Justice of the European Union: a new corpus-based model for studying discourse relations of texts. International Journal of Speech Language and the Law 26(1): 21–55.Google Scholar
Turney, P. 2002. Thumbs up or thumbs down? Semantic orientation applied to unsupervised classification of reviews. Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Philadelphia, July 2002. 417–24.Google Scholar
Valipouri, L. and Nassaji, H. 2013. A corpus-based study of academic vocabulary in chemistry research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 12(4): 248–63.Google Scholar
van Eck, N.J. and Waltman, L. 2010. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 84: 523–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Leeuwen, T. 1996. The representation of social actors. In Caldas-Coulthard, C. and Coulthard, M. (eds.), Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge. 32–70.Google Scholar
Vetchinnikova, S. 2019. Phraseology and the Advanced Language Learner. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Viberg, Å. 2013. Seeing the lexical profile of Swedish through multilingual corpora: the case of Swedish åka and other vehicle verbs. In Aijmer, K. and Altenberg, B. (eds.), Advances in Corpus-based Contrastive Linguistics: Studies in honour of Stig Johansson. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 25–56.Google Scholar
Vincent, B. and Nesi, H. 2018. The BAWE Quicklinks Project: a new DDL resource for university students. Lidil 58.Google Scholar
Volansky, V., Ordan, N. and Wintner, S. 2015. On the features of translationese. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 30(1): 98–118.Google Scholar
Vrana, L. and Schneider, G. 2017. Saying whatever it takes: creating and analyzing corpora from US presidential debate transcripts. Paper given at the Corpus Linguistics Conference, University of Birmingham, July 2017.Google Scholar
Wallis, S. 2021. Statistics in Corpus Linguistics Research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wang, J. Liang, S. and Ge, G. 2008. Establishment of a medical academic word list. English for Specific Purposes 27(4): 442–58.Google Scholar
Wang, L.L. et al. (2020). CORD-19: The Covid-19 Open Research Dataset. ArXiv.Google Scholar
Wang, Q. and Li, D. 2012. Looking for translator’s fingerprints: a corpus-based study on Chinese translations of Ulysses. Literary and Linguistic Computing 27(1): 81–93.Google Scholar
Watson-Todd, R. 2017. An opaque engineering word list: which words should a teacher focus on? English for Specific Purposes 45: 31–9.Google Scholar
West, M. 1953. A General Service List of English Words. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Wharton, S. 2017. Reflection in university and the employability agenda: a discourse analysis case study. Reflective Practice 18(4): 567–79.Google Scholar
Whitelaw, C., Garg, N. and Argamon, S. 2005. Using appraisal groups for sentiment analysis. CIKM’05: Proceedings of the 14th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, 625–31.Google Scholar
Whitsitt, S. 2005. A critique of the concept of semantic prosody. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 10(3): 283–305.Google Scholar
Williams, R. 1976. Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. London: Fontana Press.Google Scholar
Willis, D. 1990. The Lexical Syllabus: A New Approach to Language Teaching. Glasgow: Collins.Google Scholar
Willis, D. 2003. Rules, Patterns And Words: Grammar and Lexis in English Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Willis, D. and Willis, J. 1996. Consciousness-raising activities. In Willis, J. and Willis, D. (eds.), Challenge and Change in Language Teaching. Oxford: Heinemann. 63–76.Google Scholar
Willis, J. 1996. A Framework for Task-Based Learning. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Willis, J. and Willis, D. 1989. The Collins Cobuild English Course. Glasgow: Collins.Google Scholar
Winter, B. 2019. Statistics for Linguists: An Introduction Using R. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wodak, R. 1995. Critical linguistics and critical discourse analysis. In Verschuren, J, , J. Östman, and Blommaert, J (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics 1995. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 204–10.Google Scholar
Wodak, R. 2009. The Discourse of Politics in Action: Politics as Usual. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Wolf, M., Chung, C. and Kordy, H. 2010. Inpatient treatment to online aftercare: e-mailing themes as a function of therapeutic outcomes. Psychotherapy Research: Journal of the Society for Psychotherapy Research 20(1): 71–85.Google Scholar
Wolfer, S., Koplenig, A., Michaelis, F. and Müller-Spitzer, C. 2020. Tracking and analyzing recent developments in German-language online press in the face of the coronavirus crisis. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 25(3): 347–59.Google Scholar
Woolley, J. and Peters, G. 1999. The American Presidency Project. University of California Santa Barbara. presidency.ucsb.edu.Google Scholar
Woolls, D. 2010 Computational forensic linguistics: searching for similarity in large specialised corpora. In Coulthard, M. and Johnson, A. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics. London: Routledge. 576–90.Google Scholar
Woolls, D. and Coulthard, M. 1998. Tools for the trade. Forensic Linguistics 5 : 33–57.Google Scholar
Wray, A. 2002. Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wright, D. 2021. On the use of corpora in forensic linguistics: traditions and trends. Paper given at the BAAL/CUP Seminar Corpora in Applied Linguistics: Broadening the Agenda, Aston University, April 2021.Google Scholar
Wulff, S., Stefanowitsch, A and Gries, S. 2007. Brutal Brits and persuasive Americans. In Radden, G., Köpcke, K.-M., Berg, T. and Siemund, P. (eds.), Aspects of Meaning Construction. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 265–81.Google Scholar
Xiao, Q. 2005. Complete Works of Xiao Qian. Wuhan: Hubei People’s Press.Google Scholar
Xiao, R. and McEnery, T. 2006. Collocation, semantic prosody, and near synonymy: a cross-linguistic perspective. Applied Linguistics 27(1): 103–29.Google Scholar
Xiao, R. and McEnery, T. 2010. Corpus-based Contrastive Studies of English and Chinese. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Xu, X. and Nesi, H. 2019. Differences in engagement: a comparison of the strategies used by British and Chinese research article writers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 38: 121–34.Google Scholar
Ying, A. and Hyland, K. 2017. What is technicality? A technicality analysis model for EAP vocabulary. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 28: 35–49.Google Scholar
Yoon, J. and Gries, S. (eds.) 2016. Corpus-based Approaches to Construction Grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Young, L. and Soroka, S. 2012. Affective news: the automated coding of sentiment in political texts. Political Communication 29(2): 205–31.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
  • Susan Hunston, University of Birmingham
  • Book: Corpora in Applied Linguistics
  • Online publication: 21 April 2022
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108616218.011
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
  • Susan Hunston, University of Birmingham
  • Book: Corpora in Applied Linguistics
  • Online publication: 21 April 2022
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108616218.011
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
  • Susan Hunston, University of Birmingham
  • Book: Corpora in Applied Linguistics
  • Online publication: 21 April 2022
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108616218.011
Available formats
×