Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T08:24:50.916Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bibliography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2014

Manfred Krug
Affiliation:
Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg, Germany
Julia Schlüter
Affiliation:
Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg, Germany
Get access

Summary

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2013

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

ABVD The Austronesian Basic Vocabulary Database. 2003–2008. Compiled by Greenhill, Simon J., Blust, Robert and Gray, Russell D. .
ADAmerican Drama. 2005. Enigma Corporation Inc./ ProQuest Information and Learning Company. Ann Arbor, MI and Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
ARCHER-3.1 A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers. 1990–1993/2002/2007/2010. Version 3.1. Compiled under the supervision of Biber, Douglas and Finegan, Edward at Northern Arizona University, University of Southern California, University of Freiburg, University of Heidelberg, University of Helsinki, Uppsala University, University of Michigan, University of Manchester, Lancaster University, University of Bamberg, University of Zurich, University of Trier, University of Salford, and University of Santiago de Compostela. .
BNC British National Corpus. 1995. Version 1.0. BNC Consortium/Oxford University Computing Services.
CEEC The Corpus of Early English Correspondence. 1998. Compiled by Nevalainen, Terttu, Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena, Keränen, Jukka, Nevala, Minna, Nurmi, Arja and Palander-Collin, Minna. University of Helsinki.
EAF Early American Fiction. 2000. University of Virginia Library/ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
ECF Eighteenth-Century Fiction. 1996. Electronic Book Technologies Inc./Chadwyck-Healey. Cambridge.
EEPF Early English Prose Fiction. 1997. Electronic Book Technologies Inc./Chadwyck-Healey. Cambridge. In association with the Salzburg Centre for Research on the English Novel SCREEN.Google Scholar
EPD English Prose Drama. 1996/1997. Electronic Book Technologies Inc./Chadwyck-Healey. Cambridge.
HC The Helsinki Corpus of English Texts. 1991. Compiled by Rissanen, Matti, Kytö, Merja, Kahlas-Tarkka, Leena, Kilpiö, Matti, Nevanlinna, Saara, Taavitsainen, Irma, Nevalainen, Terttu and Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. Department of English, University of Helsinki. .
ICE International Corpus of English. .
MED Middle English Dictionary. 2007. Electronic edition. .
NCFNineteenth-Century Fiction. 1999/2000. Electronic Book Technologies Inc./Chadwyck-Healey. Cambridge.Google Scholar
OED2Oxford English Dictionary 1989. 2nd edn. Edited by Simpson, John A. and Weiner, Edmund S.C.Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
OED on CD-RomOxford English Dictionary (Second Edition) on CD-Rom 1992 (Version 1.10). Edited by Simpson, John A. and Weiner, Edmund S.C.Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
OED onlineThe Oxford English Dictionary, online edition. Oxford University Press. .
Oxford English Dictionary Second Edition on Compact Disc for the IBM PC [manual] 1995. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
PPCEME Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early Modern English. 2004. Compiled by Kroch, Anthony, Santorini, Beatrice and Diertani, Ariel. .
PPCMBE Penn Parsed Corpus of Modern British English. 2010. Compiled by Kroch, Anthony, Santorini, Beatrice and Diertani, Ariel. .
PPCME2 Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Middle English. 2000. 2nd edn. Compiled by Kroch, Anthony and Taylor, Ann. .
APiCSAtlas of Pidgin and Creole Language Structures. 2011. Compiled by Michaelis, Susanne, Maurer, Philippe, Haspelmath, Martin and Huber, Magnus. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
eWAVE The Electronic World Atlas of Varieties of English. 2011. Compiled by Kortmann, Bernd and Lunkenheimer, Kerstin. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. .
LAEThe Linguistic Atlas of England. 1978. Compiled by Orton, Harold, Stewart, Sanderson and Widdowson, John. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
LAEME A Linguistic Atlas of Early Middle English, 1150–1325. 2007. Compiled by Laing, Margaret and Lass, Roger. University of Edinburgh. .
LALMEA Linguistic Atlas of Late Mediaeval English. 4 vols. 1986. Compiled by McIntosh, Angus, Samuels, M.L. and Benskin, Michael with the assistance of Laing, Margaret and Williamson, Keith. Aberdeen University Press.Google Scholar
LAMSASLinguistic Atlas of the Middle and South Atlantic States. 1980. Compiled by McDavid, Raven I. and O’Cain, Raymond K.Chicago, IL and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
LANELinguistic Atlas of New England. 1939–1943. Compiled by Kurath, Hans. Providence, RI: Brown University.Google Scholar
WALSThe World Atlas of Language Structures. 2005. Compiled by Haspelmath, Martin, Dryer, Matthew, Gil, David and Comrie, Bernard. Oxford University Press. (Book with interactive CD-ROM).Google Scholar
WAVEWorld Atlas of Variation in English. 2012. Compiled by Kortmann, Bernd and Lunkenheimer, Kerstin. Berlin and New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Maechler, Martin and Dai, Bin 2009. lme4: linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999375–31. .
Beckman, Mary and Ayers, Gayle 1993. Guidelines for ToBI labelling. Ohio State University. .Google Scholar
Fox, John 2008. Rcmdr 1.4–6: a package for R. .
Google Docs. (Create Form; only available to gmail users).
Hines, , , Philip (ed.) 1994. Newdigate newsletters: numbers 1 through 2100. .
Huson, Daniel H. and Bryant, David 2006. SplitsTree4: software for computing phylogenetic networks. University of Tübingen. . [See Huson and Bryant (2006) under secondary sources.]Google Scholar
Lancaster University Centre for Computer Corpus Research on Language (UCREL) 2011. CLAWS part-of-speech tagger for English. .
LimeSurvey. .
ling-r-lang-L. A mailing list for language researchers using the R statistical programming language. .
Mannila, Heikki 2011. Implementations of bootstrapping for estimating frequencies of linguistic variables. .
Nerbonne, John and Kleiweg, Peter 2011. RuG/LO4: online mapping software. .
North Carolina State University, Linguistics Department. North Carolina language and life project. .
ProQuest LLC 1996–2012. Chadwyck-Healey literature collections: about the literature collections. .
R Development Core Team 2006–2013. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. .Google Scholar
Rohrmann, Bernd 2007. ‘Verbal qualifiers for rating scales: sociolinguistic considerations and psychometric data.’ Project report. University of Melbourne. .
Sankoff, David, Tagliamonte, Sali A. and Smith, Eric 2005. Goldvarb X. Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto. .Google Scholar
Statistics for Linguists with R. Newsgroup. .
StatSoft, Inc. 2012. Electronic statistics textbook. Tulsa, OK: StatSoft. .Google Scholar
SurveyMonkey. .
Abercrombie, David 1967. Elements of general phonetics. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Abraham, Werner and Bayer, Josef (eds.) 1993. Dialektsyntax. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adger, David 2006. ‘Combinatorial variability’, Journal of Linguistics 42(3): 503–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adger, David and Smith, Jennifer 2005. ‘Variation and the minimalist program’, in Cornips and Corrigan (eds.), 149–178.
Adger, David and Smith, Jennifer 2010. ‘Variation in agreement: a lexical feature-based approach’, Lingua 120: 1109–1134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agresti, Alan and Finlay, Barbara 2009. Statistical methods for the social sciences. 4th edn. London: Pearson.Google Scholar
Aissen, Judith and Bresnan, Joan 2002. ‘Optimality theory and typology’, course held at the DGfS/LSA Summer School Formal and Functional Linguistics, Heinrich-Heine University Düsseldorf, 14 July–3 August 2002. .
Albert, Ruth and Marx, Nicole. 2010. Empirisches Arbeiten in Linguistik und Sprachlehrforschung: Anleitung zu quantitativen Studien von der Planungsphase bis zum Forschungsbericht. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Aldenderfer, Mark S. and Blashfield, Roger K. 1984. Cluster analysis. Newbury Park, CA, London and New Delhi: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altenberg, Bengt 1982. The genitive v. the of- construction: a study of syntactic variation in 17th century English. Malmö: CWK Gleerup.Google Scholar
Altenberg, Bengt 1984. ‘Causal linking in spoken and written English’, Studia Linguistica 28: 20–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Bridget 2002. ‘Dialect levelling and /ai/ monophthongisation among African American Detroiters’, Journal of Sociolinguistics 6: 86–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderwald, Lieselotte 2002. Negation in non-standard British English: gaps, regularizations and asymmetries. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderwald, Lieselotte 2009. The morphology of English dialects: verb-formation in non-standard English. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderwald, Lieselotte 2012. ‘Negation in varieties of English’, in Hickey, Raymond (ed.), Areal features of the Anglophone world. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 299–328.Google Scholar
Anderwald, Lieselotte and Kortmann, Bernd 2002. ‘Typology and dialectology: a programmatic sketch’, in Berns, Jan and van Marle, Jaap (eds.), Present day dialectology: problems and findings. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 159–171.Google Scholar
Anderwald, Lieselotte and Wagner, Susanne 2007. ‘FRED: the Freiburg English Dialect corpus’, in Beal, Joan, Corrigan, Karen and Moisl, Hermann (eds.), Creating and digitizing language corpora. Vol. 1: Synchronic corpora. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 35–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angouri, Jo 2010. ‘Quantitative, qualitative or both? Combining methods in linguistic research’, in Litosseliti (ed.), 29–45.
Anschutz, Arlea 1997. ‘How to choose a possessive construction in four easy steps’, Studies in Language 21(1): 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, Mira 1990. Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Arnold, Jennifer E., Wasow, Thomas, Losongco, Anthony and Ginstrom, Ryan 2000. ‘Heaviness vs. newness: the effects of structural complexity and discourse status on constituent ordering’, Language 76(1): 28–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arppe, Antti and Järvikivi, Juhani 2007. ‘Take empiricism seriously! In support of methodological diversity in linguistics’, Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 3: 99–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arvaniti, Amalia 2012. ‘The usefulness of metrics in the quantification of speech rhythm’, Journal of Phonetics 40: 351–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashby, Michael and Maidment, John 2005. Introducing phonetic science. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aston, Guy and Burnard, Lou 1998. The BNC handbook: exploring the British National Corpus with SARA. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Atkinson, Quentin D., Meade, Andrew, Venditti, Chris, Greenhill, Simon J. and Pagel, Mark 2008. ‘Languages evolve in punctuational bursts’, Science 319: 588.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Attridge, Derek 1982. The rhythms of English poetry. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald 2004. ‘Statistics in psycholinguistics: a critique of some current gold standards’, Mental Lexicon Working Papers 1: 1–45.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald 2008. Analyzing linguistic data: a practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald, Davidson, Douglas J. and Bates, Douglas M. 2008. ‘Mixed effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items’, Journal of Memory and Language 59: 390–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bäcklund, Ulf (ed.) 1973. The collocation of adverbs of degree in English. Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
Bailey, Guy 2002. ‘Real and apparent time’, in Chambers, J.K., Trudgill, Peter and Schilling-Estes, Natalie (eds.), The handbook of language variation and change. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 312–332.Google Scholar
Baker, Paul 2009. ‘The BE06 Corpus of British English and recent language change’, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14(3): 312–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbiers, Sjef, Cornips, Leonie and van der Kleij, Susanne (eds.) 2002. Syntactic microvariation. Amsterdam: SAND. .Google Scholar
Barbiers, Sjef, Koeneman, Olaf, Lekakou, Marika and van der Ham, Margreet (eds.) 2008. Microvariations in syntactic doubling. Bingley: Emerald Group.Google Scholar
Bard, Ellen G., Robertson, Dan and Sorace, Antonella 1996. ‘Magnitude estimation of linguistic acceptability’, Language 72: 32–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barley, Nigel 1983. The innocent anthropologist: notes from a mud hut. London: British Museum Publications.Google Scholar
Baroni, Marco and Evert, Stefan 2009. ‘Statistical methods for corpus exploitation’, in Lüdeling and Kytö (eds.), 777–802.
Baroni, Marco, Bernardini, Silvia, Ferraresi, Adriano and Zanchetta, Eros 2009. ‘The WaCky Wide Web: a collection of very large linguistically processed Web-crawled corpora’, Language Resources and Evaluation 43(3): 209–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, William 2007. ‘Rhythm as an L2 problem: how prosodic is it?’, in Trouvain, Jürgen and Gut, Ulrike (eds.), Non-native prosody: phonetic description and teaching practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 97–120.Google Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Maechler, Martin and Dai, Bin 2009. lme4: linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999375–31. .
Bauer, Laurie 2002. ‘Inferring variation and change from public corpora’, in Chambers, J.K., Trudgill, Peter and Schilling-Estes, Natalie (eds.), The handbook of language variation and change. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 97–116.Google Scholar
Bayley, Robert 2002. ‘The quantitative paradigm’, in Chambers, J.K., Trudgill, Peter and Schilling-Estes, Natalie (eds.), The handbook of language variation and change. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 117–141.Google Scholar
Bayley, Robert and Young, Richard in press. ‘VARBRUL: a special case of logistic regression’, in Bayley, Robert and Preston, Dennis R. (eds.), Linguistic data computation. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Beckman, Mary 1986. Stress and non-stress accent. (Netherlands Phonetic Archives 7.) Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckman, Mary and Ayers, Gayle 1993. Guidelines for ToBI labelling. Ohio State University. .Google Scholar
Beckman, Mary, Hirschberg, Julia and Shattuck-Hufnagel, Stefani 2005. ‘The original ToBI system and the evolution of the ToBI framework’, in Jun, Sun-Ah (ed.), Prosodic typology: the phonology of intonation and phrasing. Oxford University Press. 9–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behaghel, Otto 1909/1910. ‘Beziehungen zwischen Umfang und Reihenfolge von Satzgliedern’, Indogermanische Forschungen 25: 110–142.Google Scholar
Bell, Allan 2001. ‘Back in style: reworking audience design’, in Eckert, Penelope and Rickford, John R. (eds.), Style and sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge University Press. 139–169.Google Scholar
Benincà, Paola (ed.) 1989. Dialect variation and the theory of grammar. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Benor, Sarah 2001. ‘The learned /t/: phonological variation in orthodox Jewish English’, in Sanchez, Tara and Johnson, Daniel Ezra (eds.), Penn working papers in linguistics: selected papers from NWAV 29. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Linguistics Department. 1–16.Google Scholar
Benson, Larry D. (ed.) 1987. The Riverside Chaucer. 3rd edn. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Berg, Donna Lee 1991. A user’s guide to the Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bergh, Gunnar and Seppänen, Aimo 2000. ‘Preposition stranding with wh-relatives: a historical survey’, English Language and Linguistics 4: 295–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berlage, Eva 2009. ‘Prepositions and postpositions’, in Rohdenburg and Schlüter (eds.), 130–148.
Bernardo, José and Smith, Adrian 1994. Bayesian theory. New York: John Wiley Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernini, Giuliano and Ramat, Paolo 1996. Negative sentences in the languages of Europe: a typological approach. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besnier, Niko 1988. ‘The linguistic relationships of spoken and written Nukulaelae registers’, Language 64: 707–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas 1984. A model of textual relations within the written and spoken modes. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of Southern California.
Biber, Douglas 1985. ‘Investigating macroscopic textual variation through multi-feature/multi-dimensional analyses’, Linguistics 23: 337–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas 1986. ‘Spoken and written textual dimensions in English: resolving the contradictory findings’, Language 62: 384–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas 1988. Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas 1990. ‘Methodological issues regarding corpus-based analyses of linguistic variation’, Literary and Linguistic Computing 5: 257–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas 1993a. ‘The multi-dimensional approach to linguistic analyses of genre variation: an overview of methodology and findings’, Computers and the Humanities 26: 331–345.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas 1993b. ‘Representativeness in corpus design’, Literary and Linguistic Computing 8: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas 1993c. ‘Using register-diversified corpora for general language studies’, Computational Linguistics 19: 219–241.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas 1995. Dimensions of register variation: a cross-linguistic comparison. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas 2003. ‘Variation among university spoken and written registers: a new multi-dimensional analysis’, in Meyer, Charles and Leistyna, Pepi (eds.), Corpus analysis: language structure and language use. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 47–70.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas 2006. University language: a corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas 2009a. ‘Are there linguistic consequences of literacy? Comparing the potentials of language use in speech and writing’, in Olson, David and Torrance, Nancy (eds.), Cambridge handbook of literacy. Cambridge University Press. 75–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas 2009b. ‘Multidimensional approaches’, in Lüdeling and Kytö (eds.), 822–855.
Biber, Douglas and Finegan, Edward 1989. ‘Drift and the evolution of English style: a history of three genres’, Language 65: 487–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas and Finegan, Edward 1991. ‘On the exploitation of computerized corpora in variation studies’, in Aijmer, Karin and Altenberg, Bengt (eds.), English corpus linguistics: studies in honour of Jan Svartvik. London: Longman. 204–220.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas and Hared, Mohamed 1992a. ‘Dimensions of register variation in Somali’, Language Variation and Change 4: 41–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas and Hared, Mohamed 1992b. ‘Literacy in Somali: linguistic consequences’, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 12: 260–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas and Hared, Mohamed 1994. ‘Linguistic correlates of the transition to literacy in Somali: language adaptation in six press registers’, in Biber, Douglas and Finegan, Edward (eds.), Sociolinguistic perspectives on register. New York: Oxford University Press. 182–216.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas and Jones, James 2005. ‘Merging corpus linguistic and discourse analytic research goals: discourse units in biology research articles’, Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1: 151–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas and Kurjian, Jerry 2007. ‘Towards a taxonomy of web registers and text types: a multi-dimensional analysis’, in Hundt, Nesselhauf and Biewer (eds.), 109–131.
Biber, Douglas, Connor, Ulla and Upton, Thomas 2007. Discourse on the move: using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Conrad, Susan and Reppen, Randi 1998. Corpus linguistics: investigating language structure and use. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Conrad, Susan, Reppen, Randi, Byrd, Pat, Helt, Marie, Clark, Victoria, Cortes, Viviana, Csomay, Eniko and Urzua, Alfredo 2004. Representing language use in the university: analysis of the TOEFL 2000 Spoken and Written Academic Language Corpus. ETS Monograph Report No. RM-04–03/TOEFL-MS-25.
Biber, Douglas, Davies, Mark, Jones, James K. and Tracy-Ventura, Nicole 2006. ‘Spoken and written register variation in Spanish: a multi-dimensional analysis’, Corpora 1: 7–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan and Finegan, Edward 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa and Richards, Marc 2006. ‘True optionality: when the grammar doesn’t mind’, in Boeckx, Christian (ed.), Minimalist essays. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 35–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar 2007. ‘Typology in the 21st century: major current developments’, Linguistic Typology 11: 239–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birner, Betty J. and Ward, Gregory 1998. Information status and noncanonical word order in English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bisang, Walter 2004. ‘Dialectology and typology: an integrative perspective’, in Kortmann (ed.), 11–45.
Blachowicz, James 2009. ‘How science textbooks treat scientific method: a philosopher’s perspective’, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 2: 303–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, James R. and Motapanyane, Virginia (eds.) 1996. Microparametric syntax and dialect variation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, Renée 1997. ‘Resolving the don’t count cases in the quantiative analyses of the copula in African American vernacular English’, Language Variation and Change 9(1): 57–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, J. Kathryn 1982. ‘Toward a cognitive psychology of syntax: information processing contributions to sentence formulation’, Psychological Review 89: 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, J. Kathryn 1987. ‘Coordinating words and syntax in speech plans’, in Ellis, Andrew (ed.), Progress in the psychology of language. London: Lawrence Erlbaum. 337–390.Google Scholar
Bock, J. Kathryn 1990. ‘Structure in language: creating form in talk’, American Psychologist 45: 1221–1236.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bock, J. Kathryn and Levelt, Willem 1994. ‘Language production: grammatical encoding’, in Gernsbacher, Morton Ann (ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 945–984.Google Scholar
Bock, J. Kathryn, Loebell, Helga and Randal, Morey 1992. ‘From conceptual roles to structural relations: bridging the syntactic cleft’, Psychological Review 99(1): 150–171.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bod, Rens, Hay, Jennifer and Jannedy, Stefanie (eds.) 2003. Probabilistic linguistics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight L. 1980. ‘A not impartial review of a not unimpeachable theory: some new adventures of ungrammaticality’, in Shuy, Roger W. and Shnukal, Anna (eds.), Language use and the uses of language. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 53–67.Google Scholar
Bonnici, Lisa, Hilbert, Michaela and Krug, Manfred 2012. ‘Maltese English’, in Kortmann and Lunkenheimer (eds.), 653–668.
Borg, Albert and Azzopardi-Alexander, Marie 1997. Maltese. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Borgatti, Steven, Everett, Martin and Freeman, Linton 2002. Ucinet for Windows: software for social network analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.Google Scholar
Bornkessel-Schlesewsky, Ina and Schlesewsky, Matthias 2007. ‘The wolf in sheep’s clothing: against a new judgment-driven imperialism’, Theoretical Linguistics 33(3): 319–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bounds, Paulina 2010. Perception of dialects in Poland. Dissertation. University of Georgia.Google Scholar
Bowen, Glenn 2008. ‘Naturalistic inquiry and the saturation concept: a research note’, Qualitative Research 8(1): 137–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowern, Claire 2008. Linguistic fieldwork: a practical guide. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brato, Thorsten and Huber, Magnus. 2012. ‘English in Africa’, in Hickey, Raymond (ed.), Areal features of the Anglophone world. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 161–185.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan 2007. ‘Is syntactic knowledge probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation’, in Featherston, Sam and Sternefeld, Wolfgang (eds.), Roots: linguistics in search of its evidential base. (Studies in generative grammar.) Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 75–96.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan and Ford, Marilyn 2010. ‘Predicting syntax: processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English’, Language 86: 168–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan and Nikitina, Tatiana 2009. ‘The gradience of the dative alternation’, in Uyechi, Linda and Wee, Lian-Hee (eds.), Reality exploration and discovery: pattern interaction in language and life. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. 161–184.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Cueni, Anna, Nikitina, Tatiana and Baayen, R. Harald 2007. ‘Predicting the dative alternation’, in Boume, Gerlof, Kraemer, Irene and Zwarts, Joost (eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science. 69–94.Google Scholar
Brewer, Charlotte 2009. ‘The Oxford English Dictionary’s treatment of female-authored sources of the eighteenth century’, in Tieken-Boon van Ostade and van der Wurff (eds.), 209–238.
Brosius, Hans-Bernd, Koschel, Friederike and Haas, Alexander 2008. Methoden der empirischen Kommunikationsforschung. Eine Einführung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
Bucholtz, Mary 1996. ‘Geek the girl: language, femininity and female nerds’, in Ahlers, Jocelyn, Warner, Natasha, Bilmes, Leela, Oliver, Monica, Wertheim, Suzanne and Chen, Melinda (eds.), Gender and belief systems: proceedings of the 4th Berkeley Women and Language Conference. Berkeley, CA, 19–21 April 1996. Berkeley Women and Language Group. 110–131.Google Scholar
Bucholtz, Mary 1999. ‘“Why be normal?”: language and identity practices in a community of nerd girls’, Language in Society 28: 203–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buchstaller, Isabelle and D’Arcy, Alexandra 2009. ‘Localized globalization: a multi-local, multivariate investigation of quotative be like’, Journal of Sociolinguistics 13(3): 291–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bühl, Achim 2006. SPSS 14. Einführung in die moderne Datenanalyse. München: Pearson Studium.Google Scholar
Burnard, Lou 1995. Users guide for the British National Corpus. British National Corpus Consortium, Oxford University Computing Service.Google Scholar
Cable, Thomas 1991. The English alliterative tradition. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Alistair 1959. Old English grammar. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, Nick and Beckman, Mary 1997. ‘Stress, prominence and spectral tilt’, in Botinis, Antonis, Kouroupetroglou, Georgios and Carayiannis, George (eds.), Intonation: theory, models and applications: proceedings of an ESCA workshop. Athens, 18–20 September 1997. ESCA and University of Athens Department of Informatics. 67–70.Google Scholar
Cardinal, Rudolf N. and Aitken, Michael R.F. 2006. ANOVA for the behavioural sciences researcher. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Carletta, Jean 1996. ‘Assessing agreement on classification tasks: the kappa statistic’, Computational Linguistics 22: 249–254.Google Scholar
Cedergren, Henrietta J. and Sankoff, David 1974. ‘Variable rules: performance as a statistical reflection of competence’, Language 50(2): 333–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, Wallace and Tannen, Deborah 1987. ‘The relation between written and spoken language’, Annual Review of Anthropology 16: 383–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chalmers, Alan F. 1990. Science and its fabrication. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Chambers, J.K. 2004. ‘Dynamic typology and vernacular universals’, in Kortmann (ed.), 127–145.
Chambers, J.K. 2009. Sociolinguistic theory: linguistic variation and its social significance. 2nd edn. (revised). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chen, Kuang-hua and Chen, Hsin-His, 1994. ‘Extracting noun phrases from large-scale texts: a hybrid approach and its automatic evaluation’, in Proceedings of the 32nd ACL Annual Meeting. Las Cruces, NM, 27–30 June 1994. Association for Computational Linguistics. 234–241.Google Scholar
Chen, Ping 1986. ‘Discourse and particle movement in English’, Studies in Language 10: 79–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny 2005. ‘Syntactic variation and beyond: gender and social class variation in the use of discourse-new markers’, Journal of Sociolinguistics 9(4): 479–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny, Edwards, Viv and Whittle, Pamela 1993. ‘Non-standard English and dialect levelling’, in Milroy, Jim and Milroy, Lesley (eds.), Real English: the grammar of English dialects in the British Isles. Real Language Series. London: Longman. 52–96.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton & Co.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht and Cinnaminson, NJ: Foris.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 1973. ‘The language-as-fixed-effect-fallacy: a critique of language statistics in psychological research’, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 12: 335–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, John, Yallop, Colin and Fletcher, Janet 2007. An introduction to phonetics and phonology. 3rd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Clark, Lynn 2009. Variation, change and the usage-based approach. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Clark, Lynn and Trousdale, Graeme 2009. ‘Exploring the role of token frequency in phonological change: evidence from th-fronting in east-central Scotland’, English Language and Linguistics 13(1): 33–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cochrane, Moncrieff, Larner, Mary, Riley, David, Gumnarson, Lars and Henderson, Charles 1990. Extending families: the social networks of parents and their children. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Collins, Peter 1991. Cleft and pseudo-cleft constructions in English. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Peter 1995. ‘The indirect object construction approach’, Linguistics 33: 35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard and Keenan, Edward L. 1979. ‘Noun phrase accessibility revisited’, Language 55: 649–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connor-Linton, Jeff 1989. Crosstalk: a multi-feature analysis of Soviet-American spacebridges. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Conrad, Susan 2001. ‘Variation among disciplinary texts: a comparison of textbooks and journal articles in biology and history’, in Conrad and Biber (eds.), 94–107.
Conrad, Susan and Biber, Douglas (eds.) 2001. Variation in English: multi-dimensional studies. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Cornips, Leonie and Corrigan, Karen (eds.) 2005. Syntax and variation: reconciling the biological and the social. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornips, Leonie and Corrigan, Karen 2005. ‘Toward an integrated approach to syntactic variation: a retrospective and prospective synopsis’, in Cornips and Corrigan (eds.), 1–27.
Coupland, Nikolas 2001. ‘Language, situation, and the relational self: theorizing dialect-style in sociolinguistics’, in Eckert, Penelope and Rickford, John R. (eds.), Style and sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge University Press. 185–210.Google Scholar
Cowart, Wayne 1997. Experimental syntax: applying objective methods to sentence judgements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Crawley, Michael J. 2005. Statistics: an introduction using R. Chichester: Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawley, Michael J. 2012. The R book. 2nd edn. Chichester: Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creswell, John W. 2009. Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Croft, William 1990. Typology and universals. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Croft, William 2001. Radical construction grammar: syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William 2003. Typology and universals. 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cruttenden, Alan 1997. Intonation. 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Östen and Fraurud, Kari 1996. ‘Animacy in grammar and discourse’, in Fretheim and Gundel (eds.), 47–64.
D’Arcy, Alexandra 2004. ‘Contextualizing St. John’s Youth English within the Canadian quotative system’, Journal of English Linguistics 32(4): 323–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Arcy, Alexandra 2007. ‘Like and language ideology: disentangling fact from fiction’, American Speech 82(4): 386–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Arcy, Alexandra 2008. ‘Canadian English as a window to the rise of like in discourse’, in Meyer, Matthias (ed.), Focus on Canadian English. Special issue of Anglistik: International Journal of English Studies. Heidelberg: Winter. 125–140.Google Scholar
D’Arcy, Alexandra and Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2008. ‘Who knew? New insights into the social life of relatives’, paper presented at NWAV 37 (New Ways of Analyzing Variation). Houston, TX, 6–9 November 2008.
Dauer, Rebecca 1983. ‘Stress-timing and syllable-timing reanalysed’, Journal of Phonetics 11: 51–62.Google Scholar
Davenport, Mike and Hannahs, Stephen 2005. Introducing phonetics and phonology. 2nd edn. London: Hodder Arnold.Google Scholar
Davies, Martin Brett 2007. Doing a successful research project: using qualitative or quantitative methods. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Dayton, Elizabeth 1996. Grammatical categories of the verb in African-American vernacular English. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
de Groot, Adrianus D. 1969. Methodology: foundations of inference and research in the behavioral sciences. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Dellwo, Volker 2006. ‘Rhythm and speech rate: a variation coefficient for deltaC’, in Karnowski, Pawel and Szigeti, Imre (eds.), Language and language processing: proceedings of the 38th Linguistics Colloquium, Piliscsaba 2003. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. 231–241.Google Scholar
de Schryver, Gilles-Maurice 2002. ‘Web for/as corpus: a perspective for the African languages’, Nordic Journal of African Studies 11(2): 266–282.Google Scholar
De Smet, Hendrik 2005. ‘A corpus of Late Modern English texts’, ICAME Journal 29: 69–82.Google Scholar
de Smet, Hendrik 2008. ‘Functional motivations in the development of nominal and verbal gerunds in Middle and Early Modern English’, English Language and Linguistics 12(1): 55–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delattre, Pierre 1981. Studies in comparative phonetics: English, German, Spanish and French. Heidelberg: Groos.Google Scholar
Deterding, David 2001. ‘The measurement of rhythm: a comparison of Singapore and British English’, Journal of Phonetics 29: 217–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diekmann, Andreas 2007. Empirische Sozialforschung: Grundlagen, Methoden, Anwendungen (17th revised and enlarged edition). Reinbek: Rowohlt.Google Scholar
Docherty, Gerard and Foulkes, Paul (eds.) 1999. Urban voices: accent studies in the British Isles. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Dodsworth, Robin 2005. ‘Attribute networking: a technique for modelling social perceptions’, Journal of Sociolinguistics 9(2): 225–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dodsworth, Robin and Hume, Elizabeth 2005. ‘Review of Marshall, Jonathan (2004) Language change and sociolinguistics: rethinking social networks’, Journal of Sociolinguistics 9(2): 289–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Draxler, Christoph 2008. Korpusbasierte Sprachverarbeitung: Eine Einführung. Tübingen: Narr Studienbücher.Google Scholar
Duffell, Martin 2008. A new history of English metre. London: Legenda (Modern Humanities Research Association and Maney Publishing).Google Scholar
Dufter, Andreas, Fleischer, Jürg and Seiler, Guido (eds.) 2009. Describing and modeling variation in grammar. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duranti, Alessandro 1997. Linguistic anthropology. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyer, Judy 2002. ‘“We all speak the same round here”: dialect levelling in a Scottish English community’, Journal of Sociolinguistics 6(1): 99–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, Penelope 2000. Linguistic variation as social practice: the linguistic construction of social identity in Belten High. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope 2004. ‘The meaning of style’, in Chun, Elaine, Chiang, Wai-Fong, Mahalingappa, Laura and Mehus, Siri (eds.), Salsa 11. Texas Linguistics Forum 47. Austin, TX: Linguistics Department, University of Texas. 41–53.Google Scholar
Eckert, Penelope 2005. ‘Variation, convention and social meaning’, paper presented at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America. .
Eckert, Penelope 2008. ‘Variation and the indexical field’, Journal of Sociolinguistics 12: 453–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, Penelope and McConnell-Ginet, Sally 1992. ‘Think practically and look locally: language and gender as community-based practice’, Annual Review of Anthropology 21: 461–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, Penelope and Rickford, John R. 2001. Style and sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Efron, Bradley and Gong, Gail 1983. ‘A leisurely look at the bootstrap, the jackknife, and cross-validation’, The American Statistician 37: 36–48.Google Scholar
Efron, Bradley and Tibshirani, Robert 1993. An introduction to the bootstrap. London: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ernst, Thomas 2002. The syntax of adjuncts. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fanego, Teresa 1996. ‘The gerund in Early Modern English: evidence from the Helsinki Corpus’, Folia Linguistica Historica 17: 97–152.Google Scholar
Fanego, Teresa 2004. ‘On reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change: the rise and development of English verbal gerunds’, Diachronica 21(1): 5–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fang, Hu 2008. ‘The three sibilants in Standard Chinese’, in Proceedings of the 8th International Seminar on Speech Production (ISSP 2008). Strasbourg, 8–12 December 2008. Institut de Phonétique. .Google Scholar
Fanselow, Gisbert 2007. ‘Carrots: perfect as vegetables, but please not as a main dish’, Theoretical Linguistics 33(3): 353–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fant, Gunnar, Kruckenberg, Anita and Nord, Lennart 1991. ‘Durational correlates of stress in Swedish, French and English’, Journal of Phonetics 19: 351–365.Google Scholar
Fauré, Georges, Hirst, Daniel and Chafcouloff, Michel 1980. ‘Rhythm in English: isochronism, pitch, and perceived stress’, in Waugh, Linda and van Schooneveld, Cornelis (eds.), The melody of language. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press. 71–79.Google Scholar
Feagin, Crawford 1979. Variation and change in Alabama English: a sociolinguistic study of the white community. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Feagin, Crawford 2002. ‘Entering the community: fieldwork’, in Chambers, J.K., Trudgill, Peter and Schilling-Estes, Natalie (eds.), The handbook of language variation and change. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 20–39.Google Scholar
Featherston, Sam 2004. ‘Bridge verbs and V2 verbs: the same thing in spades?’, Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 23(2): 181–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Featherston, Sam 2005. ‘Magnitude estimation and what it can do for your syntax: some wh-constraints in German’, Lingua 115(11): 1525–1550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Featherston, Sam 2007a. ‘Data in generative grammar: the stick and the carrot’, Theoretical Linguistics 33(3): 269–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Featherston, Sam 2007b. ‘Reply’, Theoretical Linguistics 33(3): 319–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fellbaum, Christiane 2005. ‘Examining the constraints on the benefactive alternation by using the World Wide Web as a corpus’, in Reis, Marga and Kepser, Stephan (eds.), Evidence in linguistics: empirical, theoretical, and computational perspectives. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 207–236.Google Scholar
Fetterman, David 1998. Ethnography step by step. 2nd edn. Newbury Park, CA and London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Field, Andy 2003. ‘Repeated measures ANOVA’, , accessed 7 March 2012.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1992. ‘“Corpus linguistics” or “computer-aided armchair linguistics”’, in Svartvik, Jan (ed.), Directions in corpus linguistics: proceedings of Nobel Symposium 82. Stockholm, 4–8 August 1991. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 35–60.Google Scholar
Filppula, Markku, Klemola, Juhani and Paulasto, Heli (eds.) 2009. Vernacular universals and language contacts: evidence from varieties of English and beyond. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fletcher, Janet, Grabe, Esther and Warren, Paul 2005. ‘Intonational variation in four dialects of English: the high rising tune’, in Jun, Sun-Ah (ed.), Prosodic typology: the phonology of intonation and phrasing. Oxford University Press. 390–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, William H. 1999. ‘Winnowing the Web with KWiCFinder’, paper presented at CALICO, Miami University, Oxford, OH, 5–9 June 1999.Google Scholar
Fletcher, William H. 2004. ‘Making the Web more useful as a source for linguistic corpora’, in Connor, Ulla and Upton, Thomas (eds.), Corpus linguistics in North America 2002: selections from the fourth North American Symposium of the American Association for Applied Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 191–205.Google Scholar
Fletcher, William H. 2007. ‘Concordancing the Web: promise and problems, tools and techniques’, in Hundt, Nesselhauf and Biewer (eds.), 25–45.
Ford, Marilyn 1983. ‘A method for obtaining measures of local parsing complexity throughout sentences’, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 22: 203–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forster, Kenneth I. 2000. ‘The potential for experimenter bias effects in word recognition experiments’, Memory and Cognition 28: 1109–1115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forster, Peter and Renfrew, Colin (eds.) 2007. Phylogenetic methods and the prehistory of language. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
Fowler, Joy 1986. ‘The social stratification of (r) in New York City: the effects of methods on department stores, 24 years after Labov.’ New York University Ms.
Fox, Anthony 2001. Prosodic features and prosodic structure. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fox, John 2005. ‘The R commander: a basic statistics graphical user interface to R’, Journal of Statistical Software 14(9): 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, John 2008. Rcmdr 1.4–6: a package for R. .
Francis, W. Nelson 1983. Dialectology: an introduction. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Francis, W. Nelson and Kučera, Henry 1964. BROWN corpus manual. Providence, RI: Brown University.Google Scholar
Fretheim, Thorstein and Gundel, Jeanette K. (eds.) 1996. Reference and referent accessibility. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fry, Dennis 1955. ‘Duration and intensity as physical correlates of linguistic stress’, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 27(4): 765–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Funke, Otto 1914. Die gelehrten lateinischen Lehn- und Fremdwörter in der altenglischen Literatur von der Mitte des X. Jahrhunderts bis um das Jahr 1066: nebst einer einleitenden Abhandlung über die “Quaestiones grammaticales” des Abbo Floriacensis. Halle a. S.: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Gamerman, Dani 1997. Markov chain Monte Carlo: stochastic simulation for Bayesian inference. Texts in Statistical Science. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Garside, Roger and Smith, Nicholas 1997. ‘A hybrid grammatical tagger: CLAWS4’, in Garside, Roger, Leech, Geoffrey and McEnery, Andrew (eds.), Corpus annotation: linguistic information from computer text corpora. London: Longman. 102–121.Google Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, Carlin, John. B., Stern, Hal. S. and Rubin, Donald. B. 2004. Bayesian data analysis. 2nd edn. New York: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Geluykens, Ronald 1988. ‘Five types of clefting in English discourse’, Linguistics 26: 823–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbon, Dafydd and Gut, Ulrike 2001. ‘Measuring speech rhythm’, in Proceedings of Eurospeech. Aalborg, Denmark, 3–7 September 2001. 91–94.Google Scholar
Giegerich, Heinz 1992. English phonology. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilks, Walter, Richardson, Sylvia and Spiegelhalter, David (eds.) 1996. Markov chain Monte Carlo in practice. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle and Gries, Stefan 2009. ‘Corpora and experimental methods: a state-of-the-art review’, Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 5: 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaser, Barney G. and Strauss, Anselm L. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.Google Scholar
Godfrey, John J., Holliman, Edward C. and McDaniel, Jane 1992. ‘SWITCHBOARD: telephone speech corpus for research and development’, in Proceedings of ICASSP-92. San Francisco, CA, 23–26 March 1992. 517–520.Google Scholar
Goebl, Hans 1982. Dialektometrie: Prinzipien und Methoden des Einsatzes der numerischen Taxonomie im Bereich der Dialektgeographie. Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Goebl, Hans 2007. ‘A bunch of dialectometrical flowers: a brief introduction to dialectometry’, in Smit, Ute, Dollinger, Stefan, Hüttner, Julia, Kaltenböck, Gunther and Lutzky, Ursula (eds.), Tracing English through time: explorations in language variation. (Austrian Studies in English 95.) Vienna: Braumüller. 133–171.Google Scholar
Goebl, Hans and Schiltz, Guillaume 1997. ‘A dialectometrical compilation of CLAE 1 and CLAE 2: isoglosses and dialect integration’, in Viereck, Wolfgang and Ramisch, Heinrich (eds.), Computer developed linguistic atlas of England (CLAE). Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. 13–21.Google Scholar
Gold, Elaine 2005. ‘Canadian eh?: a survey of contemporary use’, in Junker, Marie-Odile, McGinnis, Martha and Roberge, Yves (eds.), Proceedings of the 2004 Canadian Lingusitics Association Annual Conference. Winnipeg, MB, CAN, 29–31 May 2004. University of Manitoba.Google Scholar
Goldschmidt, Nils and Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt 2007. ‘What do economists talk about? A linguistic analysis of published writing in economic journals’, The American Journal of Economics and Sociology 66(2): 335–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Matthew and Milroy, Leslie 2003. Sociolinguistics: method and interpretation. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Görlach, Manfred 1999. Aspects of the history of English. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Grabe, Esther and Low, Ee-Ling 2002. ‘Durational variability in speech and the rhythm class hypothesis’, in Gussenhoven, Carlos and Warner, Natasha (eds.), Papers in laboratory phonology 7. Berlin: Mouton. 515–546.Google Scholar
Grabe, Esther and Post, Brechtje 2002. ‘Intonational variation in the British Isles’, in Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2002. Aix-en-Provence, 11–13 April 2002. Laboratoire Parole et Langage. 343–346.Google Scholar
Gray, Russell D. and Atkinson, Quentin D. 2003. ‘Language-tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin’, Nature 426: 391–392.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Green, Lisa 2002. African American English: a linguistic introduction. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenbaum, Sidney 1973. ‘Informant elicitation of data on syntactic variation’, Lingua 31: 201–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenbaum, Sidney and Quirk, Randolph 1970. Elicitation experiments in English: linguistic studies in use and attitude. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1960. ‘A quantitative approach to the morphological typology of language’, International Journal of American Linguistics 26(3): 178–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, Joseph H. 1963. ‘Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements’, in Greenberg, Joseph H. (ed.), Universals of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 58–90.Google Scholar
Greenhill, Simon J., Blust, Robert and Gray, Russell D. 2003–2008. The Austronesian basic vocabulary database [ABVD]. .
Gries, Stefan 2003. Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: a study of particle placement. New York and London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan 2009. Quantitative corpus linguistics with R: a practical introduction. London and New York: Routledge, Taylor Francis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan 2013. Statistics for linguistics with R: a practical introduction. 2nd edn. Berlin and New York: DeGruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan, Hampe, Beate and Schönefeld, Doris 2005. ‘Converging evidence: bringing together experimental and corpus data on the association of verbs and constructions’, Cognitive Linguistics 16(4): 635–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gut, Ulrike 2002. ‘Prosodic aspects of standard Nigerian English’, in Gut, Ulrike and Gibbon, Dafydd (eds.), Typology of African prosodic systems. (Bielefeld Occasional Papers in Typology 1.) University of Bielefeld. 167–178.Google Scholar
Gut, Ulrike 2004. ‘Nigerian English: phonology’, in Kortmann and Schneider with Burridge, Mesthrie and Upton (eds.), 813–830.
Gut, Ulrike 2005a. ‘Nigerian English prosody’, English World-Wide 26: 153–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gut, Ulrike 2005b. ‘The realisation of final plosives in Singapore English: phonological rules & ethnic differences’, in Deterding, David, Brown, Adam and Low, Ee-Ling (eds.), English in Singapore: phonetic research on a corpus. Singapore: McGraw-Hill Education (Asia). 14–25.Google Scholar
Gut, Ulrike 2009a. Non-native speech: a corpus-based analysis of the phonological and phonetic properties of L2 English and German. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gut, Ulrike 2009b. Introduction to English phonetics and phonology. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gut, Ulrike and Bayerl, Petra Saskia 2004. ‘Measuring the reliability of manual annotations of speech corpora’, in Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2004. Nara, Japan, 23–26 March 2004. 565–568.Google Scholar
Guy, Gregory R. 1980. ‘Variation in the group and the individual: the case of final stop deletion’, in Labov, William (ed.), Locating language in time and space. New York: Academic Press. 1–36.Google Scholar
Guy, Gregory R. 1988. ‘Advanced VARBRUL analysis’, in Ferrara, Kathleen, Brown, Becky, Walters, Keith and Baugh, John (eds.), Linguistic change and contact. Austin, TX: Department of Linguistics, University of Texas at Austin. 124–136.Google Scholar
Guy, Gregory R. 1991. ‘Contextual conditioning in variable lexical phonology’, Language Variation and Change 3(2): 223–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guy, Gregory R. 1993. ‘The quantitative analysis of linguistic variation’, in Preston, Dennis R. (ed.), American dialect research. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins. 223–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hackert, Stephanie 2008. ‘Counting and coding the past: circumscribing the variable context in quantitative analyses of past inflection’, Language Variation and Change 20(1): 127–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halle, Morris and Keyser, Samuel J. 1971. English stress: its form, its growth, and its role in verse. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael 1967. Intonation and grammar in British English. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammersley, Martyn and Atkinson, Paul 1983. Ethnography: principles in practice. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
Hanneman, Robert and Riddle, Mark 2005. Introduction to social network methods. Riverside, CA: University of California, Riverside. Published in digital form at .Google Scholar
Hanson, Kristin 2002. ‘Vowel variation in English rhyme’, in Minkova, Donka and Stockwell, Robert (eds.), Studies in the history of the English language: a millennial perspective. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter. 207–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanson, Kristin and Kiparsky, Paul 1996. ‘A parametric theory of poetic meter’, Language 72(2): 287–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrington, Jonathan, Palethorpe, Sallyanne, and Watson, Catherine 2000. ‘Monophthongal vowel changes in Received Pronunciation: an acoustic analysis of the Queen’s Christmas broadcasts’, Journal of the International Phonetic Association 30: 63–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin, Dryer, Matthew, Gil, David and Comrie, Bernard (eds.) 2005. The world atlas of language structures [WALS]. (Book with interactive CD-ROM.) Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin, König, Ekkehard, Oesterreicher, Wulf and Raible, Wolfgang (eds.) 2001. Language typology and language universals. 2 volumes. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1999. ‘Processing complexity and filler-gap dependencies across grammars’, Language 75: 245–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, Sarah and Midgley, Jonathan 2005. ‘Formant frequencies of RP monophthongs in four age groups of speakers’, Journal of the International Phonetic Association 35: 183–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bruce 1983. ‘A grid-based theory of English meter’, Linguistic Inquiry 14: 357–393.Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce 1988. ‘Metrics and phonological theory’, in Newmeyer, Frederick (ed.), Linguistics: the Cambridge survey. Cambridge University Press. 220–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bruce 1989. ‘The prosodic hierarchy in meter’, in Kiparsky, Paul and Youmans, Gilbert (eds.), Rhythm and meter. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. 201–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Bruce, Wilson, Colin and Shisko, Anne 2012. ‘Maxent grammars for the metrics of Shakespeare and Milton’, Language 88(4): 691–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazen, Kirk 2000. Identity and ethnicity in the rural South: a sociolinguistic view through past and present be. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Heeringa, Wilbert 2004. Measuring dialect pronunciation differences using Levenshtein distance. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Heeringa, Wilbert and Nerbonne, John 2001. ‘Dialect areas and dialect continua’, Language Variation and Change 13: 375–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heggarty, Paul, McMahon, April and Maguire, Warren 2010. ‘Splits or waves? Trees or webs? How divergence measures and network analysis can unravel language histories’, in Steele, James, Jordan, Peter and Cochrane, Ethan (eds.), Cultural and linguistic diversity: evolutionary approaches. Special issue of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (B). 3829–3843.
Heggarty, Paul, McMahon, April and McMahon, Robert 2005. ‘From phonetic similarity to dialect classification: a principled approach’, in Delbecque, Nicole, van der Auwera, Johan and Geeraerts, Dirk (eds.), Perspectives on variation. Amsterdam: Mouton de Gruyter. 43–91.Google Scholar
Hernández, Nuria 2006. User’s guide to FRED. University of Freiburg. .Google Scholar
Hernández, Nuria, Kolbe, Daniela and Schulz, Monika 2011. A comparative grammar of British English dialects. Vol 2: Modals, pronouns, complement clauses. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herriman, Jennifer 2005. ‘Negotiating a position within heteroglossic diversity: wh-clefts and it-clefts in written discourse’, Word 56: 223–248.Google Scholar
Herring, Susan C. and Paolillo, John C. 2006. ‘Gender and genre variation in web-logs’, Journal of Sociolinguistics 10(4): 439–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrmann, Tanja 2005. ‘Relative clauses in English dialects of the British Isles’, in Kortmann, Herrmann, Pietsch and Wagner (eds.), 21–123.
Hilbert, Michaela and Krug, Manfred 2012. ‘Progressives in Maltese English: a comparison with spoken and written text types of British and American English’, in Gut, Ulrike and Hundt, Marianne (eds.), Mapping unity in diversity. (Varieties of English around the World 43.) Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. 103–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, David, Jassem, Wiktor and Witten, Ian 1979. ‘A statistical approach to the problem of isochrony in spoken British English’, in Hollien, Harry and Hollien, Patricia (eds.), Current issues in linguistic theory. Vol. 9: Current issues in the phonetic science. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 285–294.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin and Gries, Stefan 2009. ‘Assessing frequency changes in multistage diachronic corpora: applications for historical corpus linguistics and the study of language acquisition’, Literary and Linguistic Computing 34(4): 385–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hines, Philip. (ed.) 1994. Newdigate newsletters: numbers 1 through 2100. .
Hinneburg, Alexander, Mannila, Heikki, Kaislaniemi, Samuli, Nevalainen, Terttu and Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena 2007. ‘How to handle small samples: bootstrap and Bayesian methods in the analysis of linguistic change’, Literary and Linguistic Computing 22: 137–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinrichs, Lars and Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt 2007. ‘Recent changes in the function and frequency of standard English genitive constructions: a multivariate analysis of tagged corpora’, English Language and Linguistics 11(3): 437–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirose, Hajime 1988. ‘High-speed digital imaging of vocal fold vibration’, Acta Otolaryngol Suppl. 458: 151–153.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoffmann, Sebastian 2004. ‘Using the OED quotations database as a corpus: a linguistic appraisal’, ICAME Journal 28: 17–29.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Sebastian 2005. Grammaticalization and English complex prepositions: a corpus-based study. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Sebastian, Sebastian, 2007a. ‘From web-page to mega-corpus: the CNN transcripts’, in Hundt, Nesselhauf and Biewer (eds.), 69–85.
Hoffmann, Sebastian 2007b. ‘Processing Internet-derived text: creating a corpus of Usenet messages’, Literary and Linguistic Computing 22(2): 151–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Sebastian, Evert, Stefan, Smith, Nicholas, Lee, David and Berglund-Prytz, Ylva 2008. Corpus linguistics with BNCweb: a practical guide. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Sebastian, Hundt, Marianne and Mukherjee, Joybrato 2011. ‘Indian English: an emerging epicentre? A pilot study on light-verbs in web-derived corpora of South Asian Englishes’, Anglia 129: 258–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas 2006. ‘Corpora and introspection as corroborating evidence: the case of preposition placement English relative clause’, Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 2(2): 165–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas 2007. Preposition placement in British and Kenyan English: corpus and experimental evidence for a construction grammar analysis. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. University of Regensburg.Google Scholar
Hogg, Richard 2004. ‘The spread of negative contraction in Early English’, in Curzan, Anne and Emmons, Kimberly (eds.), Studies in the history of the English Language, II: unfolding conversations. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 459–482.Google Scholar
Hoole, Phil and Nguyen, Noel 1999. ‘Electromagnetic articulography in coarticulation research’, in Hardcastle, William and Hewlett, Nigel (eds.), Coarticulation: theory, data and techniques. Cambridge University Press. 260–269.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 2001. ‘Grammatical constructions and their discourse origins: prototype or family resemblance?’, in Pütz, Martin and Niemeier, Susanne (eds.), Applied cognitive linguistics I: theory and language acquisition. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 109–129.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. 2004. ‘The openness of grammatical constructions’, Chicago Linguistic Society 40: 239–256.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs 1993. Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Horvath, Barbara M. 1985. Variation in Australian English: the sociolects of Sydney. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Horvath, Barbara M. and Horvath, Ronald J. 2003. ‘A closer look at the constraint hierarchy: order, contrast, and geographical scale’, Language Variation and Change 15(2): 143–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney and Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English Language. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Richard A. 1996. Sociolinguistics. 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne 2004a. ‘Animacy, agency and the spread of the progressive in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century English’, English Language and Linguistics 8(1): 47–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne 2004b. ‘The passival and the progressive passive: a case study of layering in the English aspect and voice systems’, in Lindquist, Hans and Mair, Christian (eds.), Corpus approaches to grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 79–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne 2008. ‘Text corpora’, in Lüdeling and Kytö (eds.), 168–186.
Hundt, Marianne 2009a. ‘Colonial lag, colonial innovation or simply language change?’, in Rohdenburg, Günter and Schlüter, Julia (eds.), One language, two grammars? Differences between British and American English. (Studies in English Language.) Cambridge University Press. 13–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne 2009b. ‘Global feature – local norms? A case study on the progressive passive’, in Siebers, Lucia and Hoffmann, Thomas (eds.), World Englishes: problems, properties and prospects. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins. 287–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hundt, Marianne and Leech, Geoffrey 2012. ‘“Small is beautiful”: on the value of standard reference corpora for observing recent grammatical change’, in Nevalainen, Terttu and Traugott, Elizabeth C. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of English. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. 175–188.Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne and Smith, Nicholas 2009. ‘The present perfect in British and American English: has there been any change recently?’, ICAME Journal 33: 45–63.Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne, Nesselhauf, Nadja and Biewer, Carolin (eds.) 2007. Corpus linguistics and the Web. Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunston, Susan 2008. ‘Collection strategies and design decisions’, in Lüdeling and Kytö (eds.), 154–168.
Huson, Daniel and Bryant, David 2006. ‘Application of phylogenetic networks in evolutionary studies’, Molecular Biology and Evolution 23(2): 254–267. Program available at .CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hutcheson, Rand B. 1995. Old English poetic metre. Cambridge: Boydell and Brewer.Google Scholar
International Phonetic Association 1999. Handbook of the International Phonetic Association. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ito, Rika and Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2003. ‘Well weird, right dodgy, very strange, really cool: layering and recycling in English intensifiers’, Language in Society 32(2): 257–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, Florian T. 2008. ‘Categorical data analysis: away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models’, Journal of Memory and Language 59: 434–446.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jäger, Gerhard and Rosenbach, Anette 2008. ‘Priming and unidirectional language change’, Theoretical Linguistics 34: 85–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jahr Sørheim, Mette-Catherine 1980. The s-genitive in present-day English. University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Jang, Shyue-Chian 1998. Dimensions of spoken and written Taiwanese: a corpus-based register study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Hawaii.Google Scholar
Jian, Hua-Li 2004. ‘On the syllable timing in Taiwan English’, in Proceedings of Speech Prosody 2004. Nara, Japan, 23–26 March 2004. 247–250.Google Scholar
Johnson, Keith 1997. Acoustic and auditory phonetics. 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Johnson, Keith 2008. Quantitative methods in linguistics. Malden, MA and Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Johnstone, Barbara 2000. Qualitative methods in sociolinguistics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Joseph, Brian D. 2008. ‘Last scene of all . . ..’, Language 84(4): 686–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jowitt, David 1991. Nigerian English usage. Lagos: Bencod Press.Google Scholar
Jowitt, David 2000. ‘Patterns of Nigerian English intonation’, English World-Wide 21: 63–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jucker, Andreas 1993. ‘The genitive versus the of-construction in newspaper language’, in Jucker, Andreas (ed.), The noun phrase in English: its structure and variability. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. 121–136.Google Scholar
Jules-Rosette, Benetta 1978. ‘The veil of objectivity: prophecy, division and social inquiry’, American Anthropologist 80(3): 549–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaunisto, Mark 2006. ‘Anaphoric reference in the nineteenth century: that/those + of constructions’, in Kytö, Rydén and Smitterberg (eds.), 183–199.
Kayne, Richard S. 1996. ‘Microparametric syntax: some introductory remarks’, in Black and Motapanyane (eds.), ix–xviii.
Keenan, Edward L. and Comrie, Bernard 1977. ‘Noun phrase accessibility and universal grammar’, Linguistic Inquiry 8: 63–99.Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward L. and Comrie, Bernard 1979. ‘Data on the noun phrase accessibility hierarchy’, Language 55: 333–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, Frank 2000. Gradience in grammar: experimental and computational aspects of degrees of grammaticality. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Keller, Frank and Alexopoulou, Theodora 2005. ‘A crosslinguistic, experimental study of resumptive pronouns and that-trace effects’, in Bara, Bruno G., Barsalou, Lawrence and Bucciarelli, Monica (eds.), Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Stresa, Italy, 21–23 July 2005. 1120–1125. .Google Scholar
Keller, Frank and Lapata, Mirella 2003. ‘Using the Web to obtain frequencies for unseen bigrams’, Computational Linguistics 29: 459–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, Frank, Corley, Martin, Corley, Steffan, Konienczny, Lars and Todirascu, Amalia 1998. ‘WebExp: a Java toolbox for web-based psychological experiments’, Technical Report HCRC/TR-99, Human Communication Research Centre, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Keller, Frank, Lapata, Maria and Ourioupina, Olga 2002. ‘Using the Web to overcome data sparseness’, in Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP). Philadelphia, PA, 6–7 July 2002. University of Philadelphia. 230–237.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Graeme D. 1998. An introduction to corpus linguistics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Kent, Raymond and Read, Charles 2002. The acoustic analysis of speech. 2nd edn. Albany, NY: Delmar, Thompson Learning.Google Scholar
Kerswill, Paul 2003. ‘Dialect levelling and geographical diffusion in British English’, in Britain, David and Cheshire, Jenny (eds.), Social dialectology: in honour of Peter Trudgill. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 223–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerswill, Paul 2007. ‘Standard and non-standard English’, in Britain, David (ed.), Language in the British Isles. Cambridge University Press. 34–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kessler, Brett 2001. The significance of word lists. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kessler, Brett 2005. ‘Phonetic comparison algorithms’, Transactions of the Philological Society 103(2): 243–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Yong-Jin 1990. Register variation in Korean: a corpus-based study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Kim, Yong-Jin and Biber, Douglas 1994. ‘A corpus-based analysis of register variation in Korean’, in Biber, Douglas and Finegan, Edward (eds.), Sociolinguistic perspectives on register. New York: Oxford University Press. 157–181.Google Scholar
Kingdon, Roger 1958. The groundwork of English intonation. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul 1977. ‘The rhythmic structure of English verse’, Linguistic Inquiry 8: 189–248.Google Scholar
Kirby, Simon 1999. Function, selection, and innateness: the emergence of language universals. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kirk, John and Kretzschmar, William A. 1992. ‘Interactive linguistic mapping of dialect features’, Literary and Linguistic Computing 7: 168–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kjellmer, Göran 1988. ‘“What a night on which to die!” On symmetry in English relative clauses’, English Studies 69: 559–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kjellmer, Göran 1998. ‘On contraction in Modern English’, Studia Neophilologica 69: 155–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, Wolfgang and Perdue, Clive 1997. ‘The basic variety (or: Couldn’t natural languages be much simpler?)’, Second Language Research 13: 301–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kline, Paul 1993. The handbook of psychological testing. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Koch, Peter and Oesterreicher, Wulf 1985. ‘Sprache der Nähe – Sprache der Distanz: Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgeschichte’, Romanistisches Jahrbuch 36: 15–43.Google Scholar
Koch, Peter and Oesterreicher, Wulf 1990. Gesprochene Sprache in der Romania: Französisch, Italienisch, Spanisch. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd 1999. ‘Typology and dialectology’, in Caron, Bernard (ed.), Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Linguists. Paris, 20–27 July 1997. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd 2003. ‘Comparative English dialect grammar: a typological approach’, in Palacios, Ignacio M., López Couso, María José, Fra, Patricia and Seoane, Elena (eds.), Fifty years of English studies in Spain: a commemorative volume. Santiago de Compostela: University of Santiago. 65–83.Google Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd (ed.) 2004. Dialectology meets typology. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd 2010. ‘Variation across Englishes’, in Kirkpatrick, Andrew (ed.), Routledge handbook of world Englishes. London: Routledge. 400–424.Google Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd and Lunkenheimer, Kerstin (eds.) 2011. The electronic world atlas of varieties of English [eWAVE]. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. .Google Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd and Lunkenheimer, Kerstin (eds.) 2012. The Mouton world atlas of variation in English [WAVE]. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd and Schneider, Agnes 2011. ‘Grammaticalization in non-standard varieties of English’, in Narrog, Heiko and Heine, Bernd (eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. 263–278.Google Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd and Schneider, Edgar (eds.) with Burridge, Kate, Mesthrie, Rajend and Upton, Clive 2004. A handbook of varieties of English. Vol. 1: Phonology; Vol. 2: Morphology and syntax. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. (Reprinted as 4 regional paperbacks 2008.)Google Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd and Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt 2004. ‘Global synopsis – morphological and syntactic variation in English’, in Kortmann, Bernd and Schneider, Edgar (eds.), Vol. 2, 1142–1202.
Kortmann, Bernd and Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt 2009. ‘World Englishes between simplification and complexification’, in Siebers, Lucia and Hoffmann, Thomas (eds.), World Englishes – problems, properties and prospects: selected papers from the 13th IAWE conference. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 265–285.Google Scholar
Kortmann, Bernd and Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt 2011. ‘Parameters of morphosyntactic variation in world Englishes: prospects and limitations of searching for universals’, in Siemund (ed.), 264–290.
Kortmann, Bernd, Herrmann, Tanja, Pietsch, Lukas and Wagner, Susanne 2005. A comparative grammar of British English dialects: agreement, gender, relative clauses. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kretzschmar, William A. 1992. ‘Isoglosses and predictive modeling’, American Speech 67: 227–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kretzschmar, William A. 1996. ‘Quantitative areal analysis of dialect features’, Language Variation and Change 8: 13–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kretzschmar, William A. 2003. ‘Mapping southern English’, American Speech 78: 130–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kretzschmar, William A. 2008. ‘Neural networks and the linguistics of speech’, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 33: 336–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kretzschmar, William A. 2009. The linguistics of speech. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kretzschmar, William A. 2013. ‘GIS for language and literary study’, in Siemens, Ray and Price, Kenneth (eds.), Literary studies in a digital age: an evolving anthology. New York: MLA. No pagination. Google Scholar
Kretzschmar, William A., McDavid, Virginia G., Lerud, Theodore K. and Johnson, Ellen 1993. Handbook of the linguistic atlas of the Middle and South Atlantic States. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Krippendorff, Klaus 2004. Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA, and London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Kroch, Anthony S. 1989. ‘Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change’, Language Variation and Change 1(3): 199–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krug, Manfred 2000. Emerging English modals: a corpus-based study of grammaticalization. (Topics in English Linguistics 32.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krug, Manfred 2007. ‘Modern methodologies and changing standards in English linguistics’, in Losada Friend, María, Ron Vaz, Pilar, Hernández Santano, Sonia and Casanova, Jorge (eds.), Proceedings of the 30th International AEDEAN Conference. Huelva, 14–16 December 2006. Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Huelva. [CD-Rom]Google Scholar
Krug, Manfred 2008. ‘New approaches to the study of variation and change in new Englishes: focus on Malta’, paper presented at the First Triennial Conference of the International Society for the Linguistics of English (ISLE 1), Freiburg, October 2008.Google Scholar
Krug, Manfred 2009. ‘Modality and the history of English adhortatives’, in Salkie, Raphael, Busuttil, Pierre and van der Auwera, Johan (eds.), Modality in English: theory and description. (Topics in English Linguistics 58.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 315–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krug, Manfred in press. ‘English in Malta’, in Williams, Jeffrey P., Schneider, Edgar, Schreier, Daniel and Trudgill, Peter (eds.), Further lesser-known varieties of English. (Studies in English Language.) Cambridge University Press.
Krug, Manfred, Hilbert, Michaela and Fabri, Ray in press. ‘Maltese English morphosyntax: corpus-based and questionnaire-based studies’, in Vella, Alexandra and Fabri, Ray (eds.), Il-Lingwa Taghna. Special Issue: Towards a description of Maltese English, 49pp.
Krug, Manfred and Rosen, Anna 2012. ‘Standards of English in Malta and the Channel Islands’, in Hickey, Raymond (ed.), Standards of English: codified varieties around the world. Cambridge University Press. 117–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krug, Manfred and Schützler, Ole 2013. ‘Recent change and grammaticalization’, in Aarts, Bas, Leech, Geoffrey and Close, Joanne (eds.), Current change in the English verb phrase. Cambridge University Press. 155–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruskal, Joseph B. and Wish, Myron 1978. Multidimensional scaling. Newbury Park, CA, London and New Delhi: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kučera, Henry 1980. ‘Computational analysis of predicational structures in English’, COLING 80 (International Conference on Computational Linguistics): 32–37.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu and Kaburaki, Etsuko 1977. ‘Empathy and syntax’, Linguistic Enquiry 8: 627–673.Google Scholar
Kurath, Hans (ed.) 1939–1943. Linguistic atlas of New England [LANE]. Providence, RI: Brown University.Google Scholar
Kurath, Hans 1949. A word geography of the eastern United States. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Kytö, Merja, Rydén, Mats and Smitterberg, Erik 2006. Nineteenth-century English: stability and change. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William 1963. ‘The social motivation of a sound change’, Word 19: 273–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William 1969. ‘Contraction, deletion, and inherent variability of the English copula’, Language 45(4): 715–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William 1972a. Language in the inner city: studies in the Black English vernacular. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William 1972b. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William 1972c. ‘Some principles of linguistic methodology’, Language in Society 1: 97–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William 1975. What is a linguistic fact?Ghent: The Peter de Ridder Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William 1982a. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. [1st edn. 1972.]Google Scholar
Labov, William 1982b. ‘Building on empirical foundations’, in Lehmann, Winfred P. and Malkiel, Yakov (eds.), Perspectives on historical linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins. 17–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William 1984a. ‘Field methods of the project on linguistic change and variation’, in Baugh, John and Sherzer, Joel (eds.), Language in use. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 28–53.Google Scholar
Labov, William 1984b. ‘The interpretation of zeroes’, in Dressler, Wolfgang U. (ed.), Phonologica 1984: proceedings of the 5th International Phonology Meeting. Eisenstadt, 25–28 June 1984. Cambridge University Press. 135–156.Google Scholar
Labov, William 1989. ‘The child as linguistic historian’, Language Variation and Change 1(1): 85–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William 1990. ‘The intersection of sex and social class in the course of linguistic change’, Language Variation and Change 2: 205–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, William 1994. Principles of linguistic change. Vol. 1: Internal factors. Cambridge and Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Labov, William 1997. ‘How I got into linguistics, and what I got out of it’, , accessed 12 July 2011.
Labov, William 1999. ‘Quantitative reasoning in linguistics’, in Ammon, Ulrich, Dittmar, Norbert, Mattheier, Klaus J. and Trudgill, Peter (eds.), HSK Sociolinguistics/Soziolinguistik. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 6–22.Google Scholar
Labov, William 2001. ‘The anatomy of style-shifting’, in Eckert, Penelope and Rickford, John R. (eds.), Style and sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge University Press. 85–108.Google Scholar
Labov, William 2006. The social stratification of English in New York City. 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press. [1st edn. 1966.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladd, Robert D. 1996. Intonational phonology. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ladefoged, Peter 2003. Phonetic data analysis: an introduction to fieldwork and instrumental techniques. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Laing, Margaret and Lass, Roger 2007. A linguistic atlas of Early Middle English, 1150–1325 [LAEME]. University of Edinburgh. .Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud 1994. Information structure and sentence form: topic, focus, and the mental representations of discourse referents. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lancaster University Centre for Computer Corpus Research on Language (UCREL) 2011. CLAWS part-of-speech tagger for English. .
Langacker, Ronald W. 2005. ‘Construction grammars: cognitive, radical, and less so’, in Ruiz de Mendoza Ibánez, Francisco J. and Pena Cervel, M. Sandra (eds.), Cognitive linguistics: internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 101–195.Google Scholar
Lappe, Sabine 2007. English prosodic morphology. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lass, Roger 1997. Historical linguistics and language change. (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 81.) Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lave, Jean and Wenger, Etienne 1991. Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Chungmin 1996. ‘Generic sentences are topic constructions’, in Fretheim and Gundel (eds.), 213–222.
Lee, Jay and Kretzschmar, William A. 1993. ‘Spatial analysis of linguistic data with GIS functions’, International Journal of Geographical Information Systems 7: 541–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, Francis, Brian and Xu, Xunfeng 1994. ‘The use of computer corpora in textual demonstrability of gradience in linguistic categories’, in Fuchs, Catherine and Victorri, Bernard (eds.) Continuity in linguistic semantics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 57–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, Hundt, Marianne, Mair, Christian and Smith, Nicholas 2009. Change in contemporary English: a grammatical study. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Page, Robert B. 1998. Ivory towers: the memoirs of a pidgin fancier: a personal memoir of 50 years in universities around the world. University of West Indies, Mona, Jamaica: Society for Caribbean Linguistics.Google Scholar
Levelt, Willem J.M. 1989. Speaking: from intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levelt, Willem J.M. and Kelter, Stephanie 1982. ‘Surface form and memory in question answering’, Cognitive Psychology 14(1): 78–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, Magnus 2009. ‘The formation of the preterite and the past participle’, in Rohdenburg and Schlüter (eds.), 60–85.
Li, Xingzhong 1995. Chaucer’s meters. Ph.D. dissertation. Department of English, University of Missouri, Columbia.Google Scholar
Light, Deanna and Kretzschmar, William A. 1996. ‘Mapping with numbers’, Journal of English Linguistics 24: 343–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindquist, Hans 2009. Corpus linguistics and the description of English. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
ling-r-lang-L. A mailing list for language researchers using the R statistical programming language. .
Litosseliti, Lia (ed.) 2010. Research methods in linguistics. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Longobardi, Giuseppe and Guardiano, Cristina 2009. ‘Evidence for syntax as a signal of historical relatedness’, Lingua 119(11): 1679–1706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorenz, Gunter 2002. ‘Really worthwhile or not really significant? A corpus-based approach to the delexicalization and grammatialization of intensifiers in Modern English’, in Wischer, Ilse and Diewald, Gabriele (eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins. 144–161.Google Scholar
Low, Ee-Ling and Grabe, Esther 1995. ‘Prosodic patterns in Singapore English’, in Proceedings of the 13th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. Stockholm, Sweden, 13–19 August 1995. 636–639.Google Scholar
Low, Ee-Ling, Grabe, Esther and Nolan, Francis 2001. ‘Quantitative characterizations of speech rhythm: syllable-timing in Singapore English’, Language and Speech 43: 377–401.Google Scholar
Ludwig-Meyerhofer, Wolfgang 1999. ‘Messniveau’, in ILMES – Internet-Lexikon der Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung. .
Lüdeling, Anke and Kytö, Merja (eds.) 2009. Corpus linguistics: an international handbook. 2 volumes. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lunkenheimer, Kerstin 2012. ‘Tense and aspect’, in Hickey, Raymond (ed.), Areal features of the Anglophone world. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 329–353.Google Scholar
Lutz, Angelika 1998. ‘The interplay of external and internal factors in morphological restructuring: the case of you’, in Fisiak, Jacek and Krygier, Marcin (eds.), Advances in English historical linguistics (1996). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 189–210.Google Scholar
Maguire, Warren and McMahon, April 2011. ‘Quantifying relations between dialects’, in Maguire, Warren and McMahon, April (eds.), Analysing variation in English. Cambridge University Press. 93–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maguire, Warren, McMahon, April, Heggarty, Paul and Dediu, Dan 2010. ‘The past, present, and future of English dialects: quantifying convergence, divergence, and dynamic equilibrium’, Language Variation and Change 22(1): 69–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mair, Christian 2003. ‘Kreolismen und verbales Identitätsmanagement im geschriebenen jamaikanischen Englisch’, in Vogel, Elisabeth, Napp, Antonia and Lutterer, Wolfram (eds.), Zwischen Ausgrenzung und Hybridisierung. Würzburg: Ergon. 79–96.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian 2004. ‘Corpus linguistics and grammaticalization theory: statistics, frequencies and beyond’, in Lindquist, Hans and Mair, Christian (eds.), Corpus approaches to grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 121–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mair, Christian 2006. Twentieth-century English: history, variation, standardization. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mair, Christian 2007. ‘Change and variation in present-day English: integrating the analysis of closed corpora and web-based monitoring’, in Hundt, Nesselhauf and Biewer (eds.), 233–247.
Mair, Christian 2008. ‘Varieties of English around the world: collocational and cultural profiles’, in Skandera, Paul (ed.), Phraseology and culture in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 437–470.Google Scholar
Mannila, Heikki 2011. Implementations of bootstrapping for estimating frequencies of linguistic variables. .
Marchand, Hans 1969. The categories and types of present-day English word-formation. Munich: C.H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Maslova, Elena and Bernini, Giuliano 2006. ‘Sentence topics in the languages of Europe and beyond’, in Bernini, Giuliano and Schwartz, Marcia L. (eds.), Pragmatic organization of discourse in the languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 67–120.Google Scholar
Matthews, Tanya 2005. Discourses of intergroup distinctiveness among adolescent girls. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. Cornell University.Google Scholar
Mayer, Horst Otto 2008. Interview und schriftliche Befragung: Entwicklung, Durchführung und Auswertung. 4th revised and enlarged edition. Munich: Oldenbourg.Google Scholar
Mazzon, Gabriella 1992. L’inglese di Malta. Naples: Liguori Editore.Google Scholar
McDavid, Raven I. and O’Cain, Raymond K. (eds.) 1980. Linguistic atlas of the Middle and South Atlantic States [LAMSAS]. Chicago, IL, and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McDonald, Janet L., Bock, J. Kathryn and Kelly, Michael 1993. ‘Word and world order: semantic, phonological, and metrical determinants of serial position’, Cognitive Psychology 25: 188–230.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McEnery, Tony and Wilson, Andrew 1996. Corpus linguistics. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
McEnery, Tony, Xiao, Richard and Tono, Yukio 2006. Corpus-based language studies: an advanced resource book. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
McIntosh, Angus, Samuels, M.L. and Benskin, Michael with the assistance of Laing, Margaret and Williamson, Keith 1986. A linguistic atlas of Late Mediaeval English [LALME]. Vol. 4. Aberdeen University Press.Google Scholar
McMahon, April (ed.) 2005. ‘Quantitative methods in language comparison’. Special issue of Transactions of the Philological Society 103(2).Google Scholar
McMahon, April and McMahon, Robert 2005. Language classification by numbers. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McMahon, April, Heggarty, Paul, McMahon, Robert and Maguire, Warren 2007. ‘The sound patterns of Englishes: representing phonetic similarity’, English Language and Linguistics 11(1): 113–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendoza-Denton, Norma 1997. Chicana/Mexicana identity and linguistic variation: an ethnographic and sociolinguistic study of gang affiliation in an urban high school. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Stanford University.Google Scholar
Mennen, Inneke 2007. ‘Phonological and phonetic influences in non-native intonation’, in Trouvain, Jürgen and Gut, Ulrike (eds.), Non-native prosody: phonetic description and teaching practice. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 53–76.Google Scholar
Mesthrie, Rajend and Bhatt, Rakesh 2008. World Englishes: the study of new language varieties. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meurman-Solin, Anneli 2007. ‘Annotating variational space over time’, in Meurman-Solin, Anneli and Nurmi, Arja (eds.), Studies in variation, contacts and change in English. Vol. 1: Annotating variation and change. .
Meyer, Charles F. 2002. English corpus linguistics: an introduction. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, Charles F. 2009. ‘In the profession: the “empirical tradition” in linguistics’, Journal of English Linguistics 37: 208–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyerhoff, Miriam 2002. ‘Communities of practice’, in Chambers, J.K., Trudgill, Peter and Schilling-Estes, Natalie (eds.), The handbook of language variation and change. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 526–548.Google Scholar
Meyerhoff, Miriam 2006. Introducing sociolinguistics. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Susanne, Maurer, Philippe, Haspelmath, Martin and Huber, Magnus (eds.) 2013. Atlas of pidgin and creole language structure [APiCS]. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, Jim and Weinert, Regina 1998. Spontaneous spoken language: syntax and discourse. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Milroy, James 1992. Linguistic variation and change. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Milroy, Lesley 1987a. Language and social networks. 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Milroy, James 1987b. Observing and analysing natural language: a critical account of sociolinguistic method. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Milroy, Lesley and Gordon, Matthew 2003. Sociolinguistics: method and interpretation. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minkova, Donka 1997. ‘Constraint ranking in Middle English stress-shifting’, English Language and Linguistics 1(1): 135–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minkova, Donka 2000. ‘Middle English prosodic innovations and their testability in verse’, in Taavitsainen, Irma, Nevalainen, Terttu, Pahta, Päivi and Rissanen, Matti (eds.), Placing Middle English in context. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 431–461.Google Scholar
Minkova, Donka 2003. Alliteration and sound change in Early English. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minkova, Donka 2008. ‘Prefixation and stress in Old English’, Word Structure 1(1): 21–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minkova, Donka 2009. ‘Diagnostics of metricality in Middle English alliterative verse’, in Jefferson, Judith and Putter, Ad (eds.), Approaches to the metres of alliterative verse. (Leeds Texts and Monographs. New Series 17.) Leeds: Leeds Studies in English. School of English, University of Leeds. 77–114.Google Scholar
Mondorf, Britta 2010. ‘Variation and change in English resultative constructions’, Language Variation and Change 22: 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, Michael 2007. ‘Variation and historical linguistics’, in Bayley, Robert and Lucas, Ceil (eds.), Sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge University Press. 110–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moon, An-Nah 1999. ‘The stress pattern of the Latin loan names in Old English verse and substructure of Old English lexicon’, Ŏhak Yŏn’guso 35(3): 465–488. Sŏul: Sŏul Taehakkyo.Google Scholar
Moore, Emma 2003. Learning style and identity: a sociolinguistic analysis of a Bolton high school. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Moore, Emma 2007. ‘“We do say ‘in he’, don’t we?”’, plenary paper presented at 6th UK Language Variation and Change, Lancaster University, 11–13 September 2007.Google Scholar
Mukherjee, Joybrato and Hoffmann, Sebastian 2006. ‘Describing verb-complementational profiles of new Englishes: a pilot study of Indian English’, English World-Wide 27(2): 147–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murelli, Adriano and Kortmann, Bernd 2011. ‘Non-standard varieties in the areal typology of Europe’, in Kortmann, Bernd and van der Auwera, Johan (eds.), The languages and linguistics of Europe: a comprehensive guide. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 525–544.Google Scholar
Murray, James A. H. 1873. The dialect of the southern counties of Scotland: its pronunciation, grammar and historical relations. London: Philological Society.Google Scholar
Murray, Stephen 1993. ‘Network determination of linguistic variables’, American Speech 68(2): 161–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, Thomas E. and Simon, Beth Lee 2008. ‘Colloquial American English: grammatical features’, in Schneider, Edgar W. (ed.), Varieties of English: the Americas and the Caribbean. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 401–427.Google Scholar
Nairn, Moray and Hurford, James 1995. ‘The effect of context on the transcription of vowel quality’, in Lewis, Jack (ed.), Studies in general and English phonetics: essays in honour of Prof. J. D. O’Connor. London: Routledge. 96–120.Google Scholar
Nakao, Toshio 1977. The prosodic phonology of late Middle English. Tokyo: Shinozaki Shorin.Google Scholar
Nakhleh, Luay, Ringe, Don and Warnow, Tandy 2005. ‘Perfect phylogenetic networks: a new methodology for reconstructing the evolutionary history of natural languages’, Language 81: 382–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakhleh, Luay, Warnow, Tandy, Ringe, Don and Evans, Steven N. 2005. ‘A comparison of phylogenetic reconstruction methods on an Indo-European dataset’, Transactions of the Philological Society 103(2): 171–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, Gerald, Wallis, Sean and Aarts, Bas 2002. Exploring natural language: working with the British component of the International Corpus of English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nerbonne, John 2006. ‘Identifying linguistic structure in aggregate comparison’, Literary and Linguistic Computing 21(4): 463–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nerbonne, John 2008. ‘Variation in the aggregate: an alternative perspective for variationist linguistics’, in Dekker, Kees, MacDonald, Alasdair and Niebaum, Hermann (eds.), Northern voices: essays on Old Germanic and related topics offered to Professor Tette Hofstra. Leuven: Peeters. 365–382.Google Scholar
Nerbonne, John and Heeringa, Wilbert 2001. ‘Computational comparison and classification of dialects’, Dialectologia et Geolinguistica 9: 69–83.Google Scholar
Nerbonne, John and Heeringa, Wilbert 2010. ‘Measuring dialect differences’, in Schmidt, Jürgen Erich and Auer, Peter (eds.), Language and space: theories and methods. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 550–567.Google Scholar
Nerbonne, John and Kleiweg, Peter 2011. RuG/LO4: online mapping software. .
Nerbonne, John and Manni, Franz (eds.) 2009. The forests behind the trees. Special issue of Lingua 119(11).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nerbonne, John, Gooskens, Charlotte, Kürschner, Sebastian and van Bezooijen, Renée (eds.) 2008. Language variation. Special issue of International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing 2(1–2).Google Scholar
Nerbonne, John, Heeringa, Wilbert and Kleiweg, Peter 1999. ‘Edit distance and dialect proximity’, in Sankoff, David and Kruskal, Joseph B. (eds.), Time warps, string edits and macromolecules: the theory and practice of sequence comparison. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. v–xv.Google Scholar
Nesselhauf, Nadja 2007. ‘Diachronic analysis with the Internet? Will and shall in ARCHER and in a corpus of e-texts from the Web’, in Hundt, Nesselhauf and Biewer (eds.), 287–305.
Neu, Helen 1980. ‘Ranking of constraints on /t,d/ deletion in American English: a statistical analysis’, in Labov, William (ed.), Locating language in time and space. New York: Academic Press. 37–54.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu 1999. ‘Lexis and semantics’, in Lass, Roger (ed.), The Cambridge history of the English language. Vol. III: 1476–1776. Cambridge University Press. 332–458.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu and Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena (eds.) 1996. Sociolinguistics and language history: studies based on the Corpus of Early English Correspondence. Amsterdam and Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu and Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena 2003. Historical sociolinguistics: linguistic change in Tudor and Stuart England. London: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu, Klemola, Juhani and Laitinen, Mikko (eds.) 2006. Types of variation: diachronic, dialectal and typological interfaces. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nevalainen, Terttu, Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena and Mannila, Heikki 2011. ‘The diffusion of language change in real time: progressive and conservative individuals and the time-depth of change’, Language Variation and Change 23(1): 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2007. ‘Commentary on Sam Featherston, “Data in generative grammar: the stick and the carrot”’, Theoretical Linguistics 33(3): 395–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, Lynn 2007. ‘Methodology and the empirical base of typology’, Linguistic Typology 11: 259–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
North Carolina State University, Linguistics Department. North Carolina Language and Life Project. .
O’Connor, Catherine, Anttila, Arto, Fong, Vivienne and Mailing, Joan 2004. ‘Differential possessor expression in English: re-evaluating animacy and topicality effects’, paper presented at the Annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America. Boston, MA.Google Scholar
O’Connor, Joseph and Arnold, Gordon 1961. Intonation of colloquial English. 1st edn. London: Longman.Google Scholar
O’Connor, Joseph and Arnold, Gordon 1973. Intonation of colloquial English. 2nd edn. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ogura, Mieko and Wang, William S.-Y. 1996. ‘Snowball effect in lexical diffusion: the development of -s in the third person singular present indicative in English’, in Britton, Derek (ed.), English historical linguistics 1994: papers from the 8th International Conference on English Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 119–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okobi, Anthony 2006. Acoustic correlates of word stress in American English. PhD thesis. Harvard University. .Google Scholar
Orton, Harold, Dieth, Eugen and Tilling, P. M. 1962–1971. Survey of English dialects. 4 volumes. Leeds: Arnold.Google Scholar
Orton, Harold, Sanderson, Stewart and Widdowson, John (eds.) 1978. The linguistic atlas of England [LAE]. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Österman, Aune 1997. ‘There compounds in the history of English’, in Rissanen, Kytö and Heikkonen (eds.), 191–276.
Ousby, Ian (ed.) 1993. The Cambridge guide to literature in English. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pagel, Mark, Atkinson, Quentin D. and Meade, Andrew 2007. ‘Frequency of word-use predicts rates of lexical evolution throughout Indo-European history’, Nature 449: 717–720.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Palmer, Harold 1922. English intonation, with systematic exercises. Cambridge: Heffer.Google Scholar
Paolillo, John C. 2002. Analyzing linguistic variation: statistical models and methods. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Paolillo, John C. 2007. ‘Speakers, independence and variation: re-examining group-level variation’, paper presented at the Linguistics Department, University of Toronto, 26 October 2007.
Patterson, David 2000. A linguistic approach to pitch range modelling. Ph.D. thesis. Edinburgh University.Google Scholar
Pawley, Andrew 2008. ‘Australian vernacular English: some grammatical characteristics’, in Burridge, Kate and Kortmann, Bernd (eds.), Varieties of English: the Pacific and Australasia. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 362–397.Google Scholar
Pearsall, Derek 1985. The Canterbury tales. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Pederson, Lee 1986. ‘A graphic plotter grid’, Journal of English Linguistics 19: 25–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peng, Long and Ann, Jean 2001. ‘Stress and duration in three varieties of English’, World Englishes 30(1): 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penke, Martina and Rosenbach, Anette 2004. ‘What counts as evidence in linguistics? An introduction’, Studies in Language 28: 480–526.Google Scholar
Penzl, Herbert 1957. ‘The evidence for phonemic change’, in Pulgram, Ernst (ed.), Studies presented to Joshua Whatmough on his sixtieth birthday. Den Haag: Mouton. 193–208. Repr. in Lass, Roger (ed.) 1969, Approaches to English historical linguistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 10–25.Google Scholar
Perkins, Revere D. 2001. ‘Sampling procedures and statistical methods’, in Haspelmath, König, Oesterreicher and Raible (eds.), 419–434.
Peterson, Gordon and Lehiste, Ilse 1960. ‘Duration of syllable nuclei in English’, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 32: 693–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, Lucy and Wiltshire, Caroline 2003. ‘Pitch accent in Indian-English teaching discourse’, World Englishes 19(2): 173–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, Janet and Hirschberg, Julia 1990. ‘The meaning of intonational contours in discourse’, in Cohen, Philip, Morgan, Jerry and Pollack, Martha (eds.), Intentions in communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 271–311.Google Scholar
Pietsch, Lukas 2005. Variable grammars: verbal agreement in northern dialects of English. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinheiro, José C. and Bates, Douglas M. 2000. Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pintzuk, Susan 2003. ‘Variationist approaches to syntactic change’, in Joseph, Brian and Janda, Richard (eds.), Handbook of historical linguistics. Malden, MA, and Oxford: Blackwell. 509–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Podesva, Rob 2006. Phonetic detail in sociolinguistic variation: its linguistic significance and role in the construction of social meaning. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. Stanford University.Google Scholar
Poplack, Shana and Tagliamonte, Sali A. 1999. ‘The grammaticalization of going to in (African American) English’, Language Variation and Change 11(3): 315–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poplack, Shana and Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2001. African American English in the diaspora: tense and aspect. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Powdermaker, Hortense 1966. Stranger and friend: the way of an anthropologist. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Preston, Dennis R. 1991. ‘Sorting out the variables in sociolinguistic theory’, American Speech 66(1): 33–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preston, Dennis R. 2000. ‘“Mowr and Mowr Bayud Spellin”: confessions of a sociolinguist’, Journal of Sociolinguistics 4: 614–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, Patti 1981. ‘Using the acoustic signal to make inferences about place and duration of tongue-palate contact’, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 69 (Suppl. 1): S56-S56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, Ellen F. 1981. ‘Toward a taxonomy of given-new information’, in Cole, Peter (ed.), Radical pragmatics. New York: Academic Press. 223–255.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen F. 1992. ‘The ZPG letter: subject, definiteness, and information-status’, in Thompson, Sandra A. and Mann, William C. (eds.), Discourse description: diverse analyses of a fund raising text. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins. 295–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. and Huddleston, Rodney 2002. ‘Prepositions and prepositional phrases’, in Pullum, Geoffrey K. and Huddleston, Rodney (eds.), The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge University Press. 597–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quené, Hugo and van den Bergh, Huub 2008. ‘Examples of mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects and with binomial data’, Journal of Memory and Language 59: 413–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey and Svartvik, Jan 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team 2006–2013. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. .Google Scholar
Ramus, Franck, Nespor, Marina and Mehler, Jacques 1999. ‘Correlates of linguistic rhythm in the speech signal’, Cognition 73: 265–292.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rasinger, Sebastian M. 2008. Quantitative research in linguistics: an introduction. (Research methods in linguistics.) London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Rathore, Claudia in press. Migration and contact: East African Indian English in Leicester, UK. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Zurich.
Renouf, Antoinette, Kehoe, Andrew and Banerjee, Jayeeta 2007. ‘WebCorp: an integrated system for web text search’, in Hundt, Nesselhauf and Biewer (eds.), 47–67.
Reppen, Randi 1994. Variation in elementary student writing. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Northern Arizona University.Google Scholar
Reppen, Randi 2001. ‘Register variation in student and adult speech and writing’, in Conrad and Biber (eds.), 187–199.
Richter, Tobias 2006. ‘What is wrong with ANOVA and multiple regression? Analysing sentence reading times with hierarchical linear models’, Discourse Processes 41: 221–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rickford, John R. 1986. ‘The need for new approaches to social class analysis in sociolinguistics’, Language and Communication 6: 215–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rickford, John R. 1987. ‘The haves and have nots: sociolinguistic surveys and the assessment of speaker competence’, Language in Society 16(2): 149–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rickford, John R. and McNair-Knox, Faye 1994. ‘Addressee- and topic-influenced style shift: a quantitative sociolinguistic study’, in Biber, Douglas and Finegan, Edward (eds.), Perspectives on register: situating register variation within sociolinguistics. Oxford University Press. 235–276.Google Scholar
Riney, Timothy and Takagi, Naoyuki 1999. ‘Global foreign accent and voice onset time among Japanese EFL speakers’, Language Learning 49(2): 275–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ringe, Don, Warnow, Tandy and Taylor, Ann 2002. ‘Indo-European and computational cladistics’, Transactions of the Philological Society 100: 59–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rissanen, Matti, Kytö, Merja and Heikkonen, Kirsi (eds.) 1997. Grammaticalization at work: studies of long-term developments in English. (Topics in English Linguistics 24.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rissanen, Matti, Kytö, Merja and Palander, Minna (eds.) 1993. Early English in the computer age: explorations through the Helsinki Corpus. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Roach, Peter 1982. ‘On the distinction between “stress-timed” and “syllable-timed” languages’, in Crystal, David (ed.), Linguistic controversies: essays in linguistic theory and practice. London: Edward Arnold. 73–79.Google Scholar
Roach, Peter 1991. English phonetics and phonology. 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, F.N. (ed.) 1957. The Canterbury tales. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter 2000. ‘The complexity principle as a factor determining grammatical variation and change in English’, in Plag, Ingo and Schneider, Klaus Peter (eds.), Language use, language acquisition and language history: (mostly) empirical studies in honour of Rüdiger Zimmermann. Trier: WVT. 25–44.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter 2006a. ‘The role of functional constraints in the evolution of the English complementation system’, in Dalton-Puffer, Christiane, Kastovsky, Dieter, Ritt, Nikolaus and Schendl, Herbert (eds.), Syntax, style and grammatical norms: English from 1500–2000. Bern: Lang. 143–166.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter 2006b. ‘Variable plural marking with measure nouns in non-standard English and Low German dialects’, NOWELE 48: 111–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter 2007. ‘Functional constraints in syntactic change: the rise and fall of prepositional constructions in Early and Late Modern English’, English Studies 88: 217–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter 2008. ‘On the history and present behaviour of subordinating that with adverbial conjunctions in English’, in Seoane, Elena and López-Couso, Maria José (eds.), Theoretical and empirical issues in grammaticalization. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins. 315–331.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter 2009. ‘Grammatical divergence between British and American English in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries’, in Tieken-Boon van der Ostade and van der Wurff (eds.), 301–329.
Rohdenburg, Günter 2010a. ‘Complement negation and the choice between more or less explicit clausal structures in English’, paper presented at the University of Jena.
Rohdenburg, Günter 2010b. ‘The variable use of prepositions in verb-dependent arguments and the contrast between actives and passives in British and American English’, paper presented at the ICAME conference, Gießen.
Rohdenburg, Günter 2012. ‘Britisches und amerikanisches Englisch: Eine Sprache, zwei Grammatiken?’, in Anderwald, Lieselotte (ed.), Sprachmythen: Fiktion oder Wirklichkeit?Frankfurt a.M.: Lang. 137–160.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter and Schlüter, Julia (eds.) 2009. One language, two grammars? Differences between British and American English. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter and Schlüter, Julia 2009. ‘New departures’, in Rohdenburg and Schlüter (eds.), 364–423.
Rohrmann, Bernd 1998. ‘The use of verbal scale point labels in annoyance scales’, in Norman, C. and Job, S.R.F. (eds.), 7th International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem. Vol. 2. Sydney: Noise Effects Pty Ltd. 523–527.Google Scholar
Rohrmann, Bernd 2007. ‘Verbal qualifiers for rating scales: sociolinguistic considerations and psychometric data’. Project report. University of Melbourne. , accessed 1 August 2012.
Roland, Douglas and Jurafsky, Daniel 2002. ‘Verb sense and verb subcategorization probabilities’, in Merlo, Paola and Stevenson, Suzanne (eds.), The lexical basis of sentence processing: formal, computational, and experimental issues. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 325–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roland, Douglas, Elman, Jeffrey L. and Ferreira, Victor S. 2006. ‘Why is that? Structural prediction and ambiguity resolution in a very large corpus of English sentences’, Cognition 98: 245–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne 1982. Socio-historical linguistics: its status and methodology. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romaine, Suzanne 1984. The language of children and adolescents: the acquisition of communicative competence. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette 2002. Genitive variation in English: conceptual factors in synchronic and diachronic studies. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette 2003. ‘Aspects of iconicity and economy in the choice between the s-genitive and the of-genitive in English’, in Rohdenburg, Günter and Mondorf, Britta (eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 379–411.Google Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette 2005. ‘Animacy versus weight as determinants of grammatical variation in English’, Language 81(3): 613–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette 2006. ‘Descriptive genitives in English’, English Language and Linguistics 10(1): 77–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette 2007a. ‘Emerging variation: determiner genitives and noun modifiers in English’, English Language and Linguistics 11(1): 143–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette 2007b. ‘Exploring constructions on the web: a case study’, in Hundt, Nesselhauf and Biewer (eds.), 167–190.
Rosenbach, Anette 2008. ‘Animacy and grammatical variation: findings from English genitive variation’, Lingua 118: 151–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenfelder, Ingrid 2007. ‘Canadian raising in Victoria, B.C.: an acoustic analysis’, Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik 32(2): 257–284.Google Scholar
Roy, Joseph 2011. ‘Sociolinguistics statistics: the intersection between statistical models, empirical data and sociolinguistic theory’, paper presented at Methods in Dialectology 14. London, Ontario. 2–6 August 2011.Google Scholar
Rudanko, Juhani 2000. Corpora and complementation: tracing sentential complementation patterns of nouns, adjectives and verbs over the last three centuries. Lanham: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Sampson, Geoffrey 2001. Empirical linguistics. (Reprinted paperback edition 2002.) London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Sand, Andrea 2008. ‘Review of Kytö, Rydén and Smitterberg (eds.) 2006’, ICAME Journal 32: 267–271.Google Scholar
Sankoff, David 1978. ‘Probability and linguistic variation’, Synthèse 37: 217–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sankoff, David 1988a. ‘Sociolinguistics and syntactic variation’, in Newmeyer, Frederick J. (ed.), Linguistics: the Cambridge survey. Cambridge University Press. 140–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sankoff, David 1988b. ‘Variable rules’, in Ammon, Ulrich, Dittmar, Norbert and Mattheier, Klaus J. (eds.), Sociolinguistics: an international handbook of the science of language and society. Vol. 2. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 984–997.Google Scholar
Sankoff, David and Labov, William 1979. ‘On the uses of variable rules’, Language in Society 8(2): 189–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sankoff, David and Rousseau, Pascale 1979. ‘Categorical contexts and variable rules’, in Jacobson, Sven (ed.), Papers from the Scandinavian symposium on syntactic variation. Stockholm, 18–19 May 1979. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell. 7–22.Google Scholar
Sankoff, David, Tagliamonte, Sali A. and Smith, Eric 2005. Goldvarb X. Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto. .Google Scholar
Sankoff, Gillian 1974. ‘A quantitative paradigm for the study of communicative competence’, in Bauman, Richard and Sherzer, Joel (eds.), Explorations in the ethnography of speaking. Cambridge University Press. 18–49.Google Scholar
Santa Ana, Otto A. 1996. ‘Sonority and syllable structure in Chicano English’, Language Variation and Change 8(1): 63–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sapir, Edward 1921. Language: an introduction to the study of speech. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.Google Scholar
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen 1993. ‘Syntactic categories and subcategories’, in Jacobs, Joachim, von Stechow, Arnim, Sternefeld, Wolfgang and Vennemann, Theo (eds.), Syntax: ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 646–686.Google Scholar
Schilling, Natalie 2013. Sociolinguistic fieldwork. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schilling-Estes, Natalie 2007. ‘Sociolinguistic fieldwork’, in Bayley, Robert and Lucas, Ceil (eds.), Sociolinguistic variation: theories, methods and applications. Cambridge University Press. 165–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlüter, Julia 2003. ‘Phonological determinants of grammatical variation in English: Chomsky’s worst possible case’, in Rohdenburg, Günter and Mondorf, Britta (eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English. (Topics in English Linguistics 43.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 69–118.Google Scholar
Schlüter, Julia 2005. Rhythmic grammar: the influence of rhythm on grammatical variation and change in English. (Topics in English Linguistics 46.) Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlüter, Julia 2009a. ‘Consonant or “vowel”? A diachronic study of the status of initial ‹h› from early Middle English to nineteenth-century English’, in Minkova, Donka (ed.), Phonological weakness in English: from Old to Present-Day English. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 168–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlüter, Julia 2009b. ‘Weak segments and syllable structure in Middle English’, in Minkova, Donka (ed.), Phonological weakness in English: from Old to Present-Day English. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 199–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, Anna and Flege, James 1996. ‘Speaking rate effects on stops produced by Spanish and English monolinguals and Spanish/English bilinguals’, Phonetica 53: 162–179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schneider, Edgar 2007. Postcolonial English. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Edgar, Burridge, Kate, Kortmann, Bernd, Mesthrie, Rajend and Upton, Clive (eds.) 2004. A handbook of varieties of English. Vol. 1: Phonology. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schreier, Daniel 2003. Isolation and language change: contemporary and sociohistorical evidence from Tristan da Cunha English. Houndmills, Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schreier, Daniel 2006. ‘The backyard as a dialect boundary? Individuation, linguistic heterogeneity and sociolinguistic eccentricity in a small speech community’, Journal of English Linguistics 34: 26–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schreier, Daniel 2008. St Helenian English: origins, evolution, and variation. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schreier, Daniel in press. Investigating variation and change in English: an introduction. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.
Schütze, Carson T. 1996. The empirical base of linguistics: grammaticality judgements and linguistic methodology. Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Schützler, Ole. 2012. Modelling internal and external factors in accent variation: a sociophonetic approach to Scottish Standard English. Ph.D. thesis. University of Bamberg.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Randal L., Phoenix, Tom and Foy, Brian D. 2008. Learning Perl. Beijing and Sebastopol: O’Reilly.Google Scholar
Schwenter, Scott 1994. ‘The grammaticalization of an anterior in progress: evidence from a peninsular Spanish dialect’, Studies in Language 18(1): 71–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, John 2000. Social network analysis: a handbook. 2nd edn. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Sealey, Alison 2010. Researching English language: a resource book for students. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Séguy, Jean 1971. ‘La relation entre la distance spatiale et la distance lexicale’, Revue de Linguistique Romane 35: 335–357.Google Scholar
Sell, Katrin 2012. ‘[ˈfɪlǝm] and [ˈfarǝm]? Sociolinguistic findings on schwa epenthesis in Galway English’, in Migge, Bettina and Ní Chiosáin, Máire (eds.), New perspectives on Irish English. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 47–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seoane, Elena 2006. ‘Information structure and word order: the passive as an information rearranging strategy’, in van Kemenade, Ans and Los, Bettelou (eds.), Handbook of the history of English. Oxford: Blackwell. 360–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seoane, Elena 2009. ‘Syntactic complexity, discourse status and animacy as determinants of grammatical variation in Modern English’, English Language and Linguistics 13(3): 365–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seoane, Elena 2012. ‘Givenness and word order: a study of long passives in Modern and Present-Day English’, in Meurman-Solin, Anneli, López-Couso, María José and Los, Bettelou (eds.), Information structure and syntactic change in the history of English. (Oxford Studies in the History of English 1.) Oxford University Press. 139–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Setter, Jane 2003. ‘A comparison of speech rhythm in British and Hong Kong English’, in Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of the Phonetic Sciences. Barcelona, 3–9 August 2003. 467–470.Google Scholar
Shackleton, Robert G. 2005. ‘English-American speech relationships: a quantitative approach’, Journal of English Linguistics 33: 99–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shackleton, Robert G. 2007. ‘Phonetic variation in the traditional English dialects: a computational analysis’, Journal of English Linguistics 35: 30–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheskin, David 2011. Handbook of parametric and non-parametric statistical procedures. 5th edn. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Shuy, Roger, Wolfram, Walt and Riley, William 1968. Field techniques in an urban language study. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Siemund, Peter (ed.) 2011. Linguistic universals and language variation. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siemund, Peter 2008. Pronominal gender in English: a study of English varieties from a cross-linguistic perspective. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sievers, Eduard 1893. Altgermanische Metrik. Halle: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna 1988. Word order rules. London, New York and Sydney: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna 1994. ‘Word order and linearization’, in Asher, Ronald E. and Simpson, J. M. Y. (eds.), The encyclopedia of language and linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon Press. 4993–4999.Google Scholar
Sigley, Robert 2003. ‘The importance of interaction effects’, Language Variation and Change 15(2): 227–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverman, Kim, Beckman, Mary, Pitrelli, John, Ostendorf, Mari, Wightman, Colin, Pierrehumbert, Janet and Hirschberg, Julia 1992. ‘ToBI: a standard for labeling English prosody’, in Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Spoken Language Processing 2. Banff, AB, CAN, 13–16 October 1992. 867–870.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John 1991. Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Nicholas and Rayson, Paul 2007. ‘Recent change and variation in the British English use of the progressive passive’, ICAME Journal 31: 129–159.Google Scholar
Smith, Nicholas, Rayson, Paul, and Hoffmann, Sebastian 2008. ‘Corpus tools and methods, today and tomorrow: incorporating linguists’ manual annotations’, Literary and Linguistic Computing 23(2): 163–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorace, Antonella and Keller, Frank 2005. ‘Gradience in linguistic data’, Lingua 115(11): 1497–1525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sornicola, Rosanna 2006. ‘Interaction of syntactic and pragmatic factors on basic word order in the languages of Europe’, in Bernini, Giuliano and Schwartz, Marcia L. (eds.), Pragmatic organization of discourse in the languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 357–544.Google Scholar
Spector, Phil 2008. Data manipulation with R. Berlin and New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Starr, G.A. 1973/74. ‘Defoe’s prose style: 1. The language of interpretation’, Modern Philology 71: 277–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistics for Linguists with R. Newsgroup. .
StatSoft, Inc. 2012. Electronic Statistics Textbook. Tulsa, OK: StatSoft. .Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol 2007. ‘Linguistics beyond grammaticality’, Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 3: 57–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, Stanley Smith 1975. Psychophysics. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Stone, Maureen 2005. ‘A guide to analysing tongue motion from ultrasound images’, Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 19: 455–501.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strevens, Peter 1972. British and American English. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Strunk, Jan 2005. ‘The role of animacy in the nominal possessive constructions of Modern Low Saxon’, paper presented at Pionier workshop Animacy, Radboud University Nijmegen, 19–20 May 2005.Google Scholar
Stuart-Smith, Jane and Timmins, Claire 2006. ‘The role of the lexicon in TH-fronting in Glaswegian’, in Caie, Graham, Hough, Carole and Wotherspoon, Irene (eds.) The power of words: essays in lexicography, lexicology and semantics: in honour of Christian J. Kay. (Costerus NS 163.) Amsterdam: Rodopi. 171–184.Google Scholar
Stuart-Smith, Jane, Timmins, Claire and Tweedie, Fiona 2007. ‘“Talkin’ Jockney”? Variation and change in Glaswegian accent’, Journal of Sociolinguistics 11(2): 221–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, Jennifer 2010. Approaching the measurement of intonational similarity. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Sunderland, Jane 2010. ‘Research questions in linguistics’, in Litosseliti, Lia (ed.), Research methods in linguistics. London: Continuum International Publishing Group. 9–28.Google Scholar
Svartvik, Jan 1966. On voice in the English verb. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Swan, Michael 1995. Practical English usage. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Syrdal, Ann and Gopal, H. S. 1986. ‘A perceptual model of vowel recognition based on the auditory representation of American English vowels’, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 79: 1086–1100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt 2005. ‘Language users as creatures of habit: a corpus-based analysis of persistence in spoken English’, Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1: 113–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt 2008. ‘Corpus-based dialectometry: aggregate morphosyntactic variability in British English dialects’, International Journal of Humanities and Arts Computing 2(1–2): 279–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt 2009. ‘Typological parameters of intralingual variability: grammatical analyticity vs. syntheticity in varieties of English’, Language Variation and Change 21(3): 319–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt 2010a. ‘The English genitive alternation in a cognitive sociolinguistics perspective’, in Geeraerts, Dirk, Kristiansen, Gitte and Peirsman, Yves (eds.), Advances in cognitive sociolinguistics. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 141–166.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt 2010b. ‘The morphosyntax of BrE dialects in a corpus-based dialectometrical perspective: feature extraction, coding protocols, projections to geography, summary statistics’. University of Freiburg. .
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt 2011. ‘Corpus-based dialectometry: a methodological sketch’, Corpora 6(1): 45–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt 2012. ‘Geography is overrated’, in Hansen, Sandra, Schwarz, Christian, Stoeckle, Philipp and Streck, Tobias (eds.), Dialectological and folk dialectological concepts of space. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 215–231.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt 2013. Grammatical variation in British English dialects: a study in corpus-based dialectometry. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt and Hernández, Nuria 2007. ‘Manual of information to accompany the Freiburg Corpus of English Dialects Sampler (“FRED-S”)’. University of Freiburg. .
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt and Kortmann, Bernd 2009a. ‘Vernacular universals and angloversals in a typological perspective’, in Filppula, Klemola and Paulasto (eds.), 33–53.
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt and Kortmann, Bernd 2009b. ‘Between simplification and complexification: non-standard varieties of English around the world’, in Sampson, Geoffrey, Gil, David and Trudgill, Peter (eds.), Language complexity as an evolving variable. Oxford University Press. 64–79.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt and Kortmann, Bernd 2009c. ‘The morphosyntax of varieties of English worldwide: a quantitative perspective’, in Nerbonne and Manni (eds.), 1643–1663.
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt and Kortmann, Bernd 2011. ‘Typological profiling: learner Englishes versus indigenized L2 varieties of English’, in Mukherjee, Joybrato and Hundt, Marianne (eds.), Exploring second-language varieties of English and learner Englishes: bridging a paradigm gap. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins. 167–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt and Wälchli, Bernhard (eds.) in press. Cross-linguistic and language-internal variation in text and speech: focus on the joint analysis of multiple characteristics. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt and Wolk, Christoph 2011. ‘Holistic corpus-based dialectology’, Brazilian Journal of Applied Linguistics/Revista Brasileira de Linguística Aplicada. .
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2002. ‘Comparative sociolinguistics’, in Chambers, J.K., Trudgill, Peter and Schilling-Estes, Natalie (eds.), Handbook of language variation and change. Malden, MA, and Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. 729–763.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2004. ‘Someth[in]’s go[ing] on!: variable ing at ground zero’, in Gunnarsson, Britt-Louise, Bergström, Lena, Eklund, Gerd, Fridell, Staffan, Hansen, Lise H., Karstadt, Angela, Nordberg, Bengt, Sundergren, Eva and Thelander, Mats (eds.), Language variation in Europe: papers from the Second International Conference on Language Variation in Europe, ICLAVE 2. Uppsala: Dept. of Scandinavian Languages, Uppsala University. 390–403.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2006. Analysing sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2007. ‘Quantitative analysis’, in Bayley, Robert and Lucas, Ceil (eds.), Sociolinguistic variation: theory, methods, and applications, dedicated to Walt Wolfram. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2008. ‘So different and pretty cool! Recycling intensifiers in Canadian English’, in Mendez-Naya, Belén (ed.) Intensifiers. Special issue of English Language and Linguistics 12(2): 361–394.
Tagliamonte, Sali A. and D’Arcy, Alexandra 2004. ‘He’s like; She’s like: the quotative system in Canadian youth’, Journal of Sociolinguistics 8(4): 493–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. and Denis, Derek 2008. ‘Linguistic ruin? LOL! Instant messaging and teen language’, American Speech 83(1): 3–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. and Hudson, Rachel 1999. ‘Be like et al. beyond America: the quotative system in British and Canadian youth’, Journal of Sociolinguistics 3(2): 147–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. and Smith, Jennifer 2005. ‘No momentary fancy! The zero ‘complementizer’ in English dialects’, English Language and Linguistics 9(2): 289–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. and Temple, Rosalind 2005. ‘New perspectives on an ol’ variable: (t,d) in British English’, Language Variation and Change 17(3): 281–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A., Smith, Jennifer and Lawrence, Helen 2005. ‘No taming the vernacular! Insights from the relatives in northern Britain’, Language Variation and Change 17(2): 75–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarlinskaja, Marina 1976. English verse: theory and history. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Terajima, Michiko 1985. The trajectory constraint and ‘irregular’ rhymes in Middle English. Tokyo: Shinozaki Shorin.Google Scholar
Teubert, Wolfgang and Cermakova, Anna 2007. Corpus linguistics: a short introduction. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
The Oxford English Dictionary Second Edition on Compact Disc for the IBM PC [manual] 1995. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Thill, Jean-Claude, Kretzschmar, William A., Casas, Irene and Yao, Xiaobai 2008. ‘Detecting geographic associations in English dialect features in North America with self-organising maps’, in Agarwal, Pragya and Skupin, Andre (eds.), Self-organising maps: applications in GI science. London: Wiley. 87–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, Alan R. 1980. A real analysis of dialect data by computer: a Welsh example. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. 1983. ‘Grammar and discourse: the English detached participial clause’, in Klein-Andreu, Flora (ed.), Discourse perspectives on syntax. New York: Academic Press. 43–65.Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. 1990. ‘Information flow and dative shift in English discourse’, in Edmondson, Jerold A., Feagin, Crawford and Mühlhäusler, Peter (eds.), Development and diversity: language variation across time and space. Dallas: Summer Institute of Linguistics and University of Texas at Arlington. 239–253.Google Scholar
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid and van der Wurff, Wim (eds.) 2009. Current issues in Late Modern English. Bern: Lang.Google Scholar
Tognini Bonelli, Elena 1992. ‘“All I’m saying is . . .”: the correlation of form and function in pseudo-cleft sentences’, Literary and Linguistic Computing 2: 30–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, Michael 2003. Constructing a language: a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomić, Olga Mišeska 2011. ‘Balkan Sprachbund features’, in Kortmann, Bernd and van der Auwera, Johan (eds.), The languages and linguistics of Europe: a comprehensive guide. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 307–323.Google Scholar
Torres-Cacoullos, Rena 1999. ‘Variation and grammaticalization in progressives: Spanish ‑ndo constructions’, Studies in Language 23(1): 25–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel 2002. An introduction to American English. Oxford and Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tottie, Gunnel 2009. ‘How different are American and British English grammar? And how are they different?’, in Rohdenburg and Schlüter (eds.), 341–363.
Traugott, Elizabeth 2008. ‘“All that he endeavoured to prove was . . .”: on the emergence of grammatical constructions in dialogic contexts’, in Cooper, Robin and Kempson, Ruth (eds.), Language in flux: dialogue coordination, language variation, change and evolution. London: Kings College Publications. 143–177.Google Scholar
Trim, John 1959. ‘Major and minor tone-groups in English’, Le Maître Phonétique 112: 26–29.Google Scholar
Trotta, Joe 2000. Wh-clauses in English: aspects of theory and description. Amsterdam and Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme and Adger, David (eds.) 2007. Dialect syntax. Special issue of English Language and Linguistics 11(2). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, Graeme and Adger, David 2007. ‘Preface’, in Trousdale and Adger (eds.), 257–259.
Trudgill, Peter 1974a. ‘Linguistic change and diffusion: description and explanation in sociolinguistic dialect geography’, Language in Society 2: 215–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, Peter 1974b. The social differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter and Hannah, Jean 2002. International English. A guide to varieties of Standard English. 4th edn. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Udofot, Inyang 2003. ‘Stress and rhythm in the Nigerian accent of English: a preliminary investigation’, English World-Wide 24(2): 201–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van de Velde, Hans and van Hout, Roeland (eds.) 2001. R-atics: sociolinguistic, phonetic and phonological characteristics of /r/. Special issue of Etudes & Travaux (4).
van Halteren, Hans (ed.) 1999. Syntactic wordclass tagging. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viereck, Wolfgang 1986. ‘Dialectal speech areas in England: Orton’s lexical evidence’, in Kastovsky, Dieter and Szwedek, Alexander (eds.), Linguistics across historical and geographical boundaries. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 725–740.Google Scholar
Viereck, Wolfgang and Ramisch, Heinrich 2001. ‘Recent developments in computer cartography for linguistic purposes’, paper presented at IAUPE, Bamberg.Google Scholar
Volk, Martin 2001. ‘Exploiting the WWW as a corpus to resolve PP attachment ambiguities’, in Rayson, Paul, Wilson, Andrew, McEnery, Tony, Hardie, Andrew and Khoja, Shereen (eds.), Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics 2001 conference. Lancaster, 30 March – 2 April 2001. Department of Linguistics. No pagination.Google Scholar
Volk, Martin 2002. ‘Using the Web as corpus for linguistic research’, in Pajusalu, Renate and Hennoste, Tiit (eds.), Tähendusepüüdja: catcher of the meaning: a Festschrift for Professor Haldur Õim. Publications of the Department of General Linguistics 3. University of Tartu. 1–10.Google Scholar
Vosberg, Uwe 2009. ‘Non-finite complements’, in Rohdenburg and Schlüter (eds.), 212–227.
Wagner, Susanne 2005. ‘Gender in English pronouns: Southwest England’, in Kortmann, Herrmann, Pietsch and Wagner (eds.), 211–367.
Warren, Martin 2004. ‘A corpus-driven analysis of the use of intonation to assert dominance and control’, in Connor, Ulla and Upton, Thomas (eds.), Applied corpus linguistics: a multidimensional perspective. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 21–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wasow, Thomas 1997a. ‘End-weight from the speaker’s perspective’, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 26: 347–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wasow, Thomas 1997b. ‘Remarks on grammatical weight’, Language Variation and Change 9: 81–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wasow, Thomas 2002. Postverbal behavior. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas and Arnold, Jennifer 2003. ‘Post-verbal constituent ordering in English’, in Rohdenburg, Günter and Mondorf, Britta (eds.), Determinants of grammatical variation in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 119–154.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas and Arnold, Jennifer 2005. ‘Intuitions in linguistic argumentation’, Lingua 115: 1481–1496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watt, Dominic and Tillotson, Jennifer 2001. ‘A spectrographic analysis of vowel fronting in Bradford English’, English World-Wide 22(2): 269–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wedgwood, Daniel 1995. Grammaticalisation by re-analysis in an adaptive model of language change: a case study of the English genitive constructions. Master’s thesis, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel, Labov, William and Herzog, Marvin 1968. ‘Empirical foundations for a theory of language change’, in Lehmann, Winfred P. and Malkiel, Yakov (eds.), Directions for historical linguistics. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 95–188.Google Scholar
Wells, John C. 1982. Accents of English. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, John C., Barry, William, Grice, Martine, Fourcin, Adrian and Gibbon, Dafydd 1992. ‘Standard computer-compatible transcription. SAM Stage Report Sen. 3 SAM UCL-037, 28 February 1992’, in SAM (1992) ESPRIT PROJECT 2589 (SAM) Multilingual Speech Input/Output Assessment, Methodology and Standardisation: final report. Year three: 1.III.91–28.II.92. London: University College London.Google Scholar
Wennerstrom, Ann 1998. ‘Intonation as cohesion in academic discourse’, Studies in Second Language Acquisition 20: 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wesenick, Maria-Barbara and Kipp, Andreas 1996. ‘Estimating the quality of phonetic transcriptions and segmentations of speech signals’, in Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing. Philadelphia, PA, 3–6 October 1996. 129–132.Google Scholar
Wester, Mirjam, Kessens, Judith, Cucchiarini, Catia and Strik, Helmer 2001. ‘Obtaining phonetic transcriptions: a comparison between expert listeners and a continuous speech recognizer’, Language and Speech 44(3): 377–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, Laurence and Mattys, Sven L. 2007. ‘Calibrating rhythm: first language and second language studies’, Journal of Phonetics 35: 501–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, Margie 1994. ‘Language in job interviews: differences relating to success and socioeconomic variables.’ Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Northern Arizona University.
Wichmann, Anne 2000. Intonation in text and discourse. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Wichmann, Søren 2008. ‘The emerging field of language dynamics’, Language and Linguistics Compass 2(3): 442–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wichmann, Søren and Saunders, Arpiar 2007. ‘How to use typological databases in historical linguistic research’, Diachronica 24(2): 373–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wichmann, Søren and Urban, Matthias 2011. ‘Towards an automated classification of Englishes’, in Nevalainen, Terttu and Traugott, Elizabeth Closs (eds.), Handbook on the history of English: rethinking approaches to the history of English. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, Briony and Hiller, Steven 1994. ‘The question of randomness in English foot timing: a control experiment’, Journal of Phonetics 22: 423–439.Google Scholar
Wolfram, Walt 1993. ‘Identifying and interpreting variables’, in Preston, Dennis R. (ed.), American dialect research. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins. 193–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfram, Walt and Fasold, Ralph W. 1974. The study of social dialects in American English. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Wolfram, Walt and Schilling-Estes, Natalie 1996. ‘Dialect change and maintenance in a post-insular community’, in Schneider, Edgar (ed.), Focus on the USA. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 103–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfram, Walt and Schilling-Estes, Natalie 1998. American English: dialects and variation. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wolfram, Walt, Hazen, Kirk and Schilling-Estes, Natalie 1999. Dialect change and maintenance on the outer banks. (Publication of the American Dialect Society (PADS) 80.) Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Wolfson, Nessa 1982. CHP: the Conversational Historical Present in American English narrative. Dordrecht and Cinnaminson, NJ: Foris Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woods, Anthony, Fletcher, Paul and Hughes, Arthur 1986. Statistics in language studies. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wray, Alison and Bloomer, Aileen 2012. Projects in linguistics and language studies: a practical guide to researching language. 3rd edn. London: Hodder Arnold.Google Scholar
Yamamoto, Mutsumi 1999. Animacy and reference. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yavaş, Mehmet 2006. Applied English phonology. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Youmans, Gilbert 1996. ‘Reconsidering Chaucer’s prosody’, in Anderson, John J. and McCully, Chris B. (eds.), English historical metrics. Cambridge University Press. 185–209.Google Scholar
Youmans, Gilbert 2009. ‘“For all this werlde ryche”: syntactic inversions as evidence for metrical principles in the alliterative Morte Arthure’, in Jefferson, Judith and Putter, Ad (eds.), Approaches to the metres of alliterative verse. (Leeds Texts and Monographs: New Series 17.) Leeds: Leeds Studies in English. School of English, University of Leeds. 115–133.Google Scholar
Young, Richard and Bayley, Robert 1996. ‘VARBRUL analysis for second language acquisition research’, in Bayley, Robert and Preston, Dennis R. (eds.), Second language acquisition and linguistic variation. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 253–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org 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.

  • Bibliography
  • Edited by Manfred Krug, Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg, Germany, Julia Schlüter, Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg, Germany
  • Book: Research Methods in Language Variation and Change
  • Online publication: 05 June 2014
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511792519.029
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.

  • Bibliography
  • Edited by Manfred Krug, Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg, Germany, Julia Schlüter, Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg, Germany
  • Book: Research Methods in Language Variation and Change
  • Online publication: 05 June 2014
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511792519.029
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.

  • Bibliography
  • Edited by Manfred Krug, Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg, Germany, Julia Schlüter, Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg, Germany
  • Book: Research Methods in Language Variation and Change
  • Online publication: 05 June 2014
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511792519.029
Available formats
×