Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-888d5979f-22jsc Total loading time: 10.279 Render date: 2021-10-25T18:37:42.526Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2015

Douglas Biber
Affiliation:
Northern Arizona University
Randi Reppen
Affiliation:
Northern Arizona University
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: 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aarts, B. 2007. Syntactic gradience: The nature of grammatical indeterminacy. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Aarts, B., Close, J., Leech, G., and Wallis, S. (eds.). 2013. The verb phrase in English: Investigating recent language change with corpora. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aarts, B., Close, J., and Wallis, S. 2013. Choices over time: Methodological issues in investigating current change. In Aarts, , Close, , Leech, , and Wallis, (eds.), 1445.
Aarts, F. G. A. M. 1971. On the distribution of noun-phrase types in English clause-structure. Lingua 26(3): 281293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aarts, J. 1999. The description of language use. In Hasselgård, H. and Oksefjell, S. (eds.), Out of corpora: Studies in honour of Stig Johansson, 320. Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Ädel, A. 2008a. Involvement features in writing: Do time and interaction trump register awareness? In Gilquin, G., Papp, S., and Díez-Bedmar, M. B. (eds.), Linking up contrastive and learner corpus research, 3553. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ädel, A. 2008b. Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ädel, A. and Erman, B. 2012. Recurrent word combinations in academic writing by native and non-native speakers of English: A lexical bundles approach. English for Specific Purposes 31: 8192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adger, D. and Smith, J. 2010. Variation in agreement: A lexical feature-based approach. Lingua 120: 11091134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adolphs, S. 2008. Corpus and context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adolphs, S. and Knight, D. 2010. Building a spoken corpus: what are the basics? In O’Keeffe, A. and McCarthy, M. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics, 3852. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Adolphs, S., Atkins, S., and Harvey, K. 2007. Caught between professional requirements and interpersonal needs: Vague language in healthcare contexts. In Cutting, J. (ed.), Vague language explored, 6278. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Afida, M. A. 2007. Semantic fields of problem in business English: Malaysian and British journalistic business texts. Corpora 2(2): 211239.Google Scholar
Aguado-Jiménez, P., Pérez-Paredes, P., and Sanchez, P. 2012. Exploring the use of multidimensional analysis of learner language to promote register awareness. System 40: 90103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahmad, K., Corbett, G., and Rogers, M. 1985. Using computers with advanced language learners: An example. Language Teacher (Tokyo) 9(3): 47.Google Scholar
Aijmer, K. 2002a. English discourse particles: Evidence from corpora. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, K. 2002b. Modality in advanced Swedish learners’ written interlanguage. In Granger, S., Hung, J., and Petch-Tyson, S. (eds.), Computer learner corpora, second language acquisition and foreign language teaching, 5576. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, K. 2011. Well I’m not sure I think …: The use of well by non-native speakers. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 16(2): 231254.Google Scholar
Aijmer, K. 2013. Understanding pragmatic markers: A variational pragmatic approach. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Aijmer, K. and Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M. (eds.). 2006. Pragmatic markers in contrast. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Allan, R. 2006. Data-driven learning and vocabulary: Investigating the use of concordances with advanced learners of English. Centre for Language and Communication Studies, Occasional Paper, 66. Dublin: Trinity College Dublin.Google Scholar
Alonso-Almeida, F., Ortega-Barrera, I., and Quintana-Toledo, E. 2012. Corpus of Early English Recipes: Design and implementation. In Vázquez, (ed.), 3750.
Al-Surmi, M. 2012. Authenticity and TV shows: A multidimensional analysis perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 46(4): 671694.Google Scholar
Altenberg, B. 1998. On the phraseology of spoken English: The evidence of recurrent word combinations. In Cowie, A. (ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis and applications, 101122. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Altenberg, B. and Granger, S. 2001. The grammatical and lexical patterning of make in native and non-native student writing. Applied Linguistics 22(2), 173194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alves, F., Pagano, A., Neumann, S., Steiner, E., and Hansen-Schirra, S. 2010. Translation units and grammatical shifts: Towards an integration of product- and process-based translation research. In Shreve, G. and Angelone, E. (eds.), Translation and cognition, 109142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amador-Moreno, C. 2012. A corpus-based approach to contemporary Irish writing: Ross O’Carroll-Kelly’s use of like as a discourse marker. International Journal of English Studies 12(2): 1938.Google Scholar
Andersen, G. 1997. They like wanna see like how we talk and all that: The use of like as a discourse marker in London teenage speech. In Ljung, M. (ed.), Corpus-based studies in English, 3748. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Andersen, G. 2001. Pragmatic markers and sociolinguistic variation: A relevance-theoretic approach to the language of adolescents. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, G. and Bech, K. (eds.). 2013. English corpus linguistics: Variation in time, space and genre. Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Anderwald, L. 2002. Negation in non-standard British English: Gaps, regularizations and asymmetrics. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderwald, L. 2005. Negative concord in British English dialects. In Iyeiri, Y. (ed.), Aspects of English negation, 113137. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderwald, L. 2009. The morphology of English dialects: Verb formation in non-standard English. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderwald, L. and Wagner, S. 2007. FRED – The Freiburg English Dialect Corpus: Applying corpus-linguistic research tools to the analysis of dialect data. Creating and digitizing language corpora. Synchronic Databases 1: 3553.Google Scholar
Anshen, F. and Aronoff, M. 1999. Using dictionaries to study the mental lexicon. Brain and Language 68(1–2): 1626.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
AntConc. 2007–2013. Anthony, L. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. See www.antlab.sci.waseda.ac.jp/index.html (accessed 28 February 2013).
Anthony, L. 2004. AntConc: A learner and classroom friendly, multi-platform corpus analysis toolkit. Proceedings of IWLeL 2004: An Interactive Workshop on Language e-Learning 713.
Archer, D. 2005. Questions and answers in the English courtroom (1640–1760): A sociopragmatic analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archer, D. (ed.). 2009. What’s in a word-list? Investigating word frequency and keyword extraction. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Archer, D. 2014. Exploring verbal aggression in English historical texts using USAS: The possibilities, the problems and potential solutions. In Taavitsainen, , Jucker, , and Tuominen, (eds.), 277302.
Archer, D., Aijmer, K., and Wichmann, A. 2012. Pragmatics: An advanced resource book for students. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Archer, D. and Bousfield, D. 2010. See better, Lear? See Lear better! A corpus-based pragma-stylistic investigation of Shakespeare’s King Lear. In McIntyre, and Busse, (eds.), 183203.
Archer, D., Culpeper, J., and Rayson, P. 2009. Love – a familiar or a devil? An exploration of key domains in Shakespeare’s comedies and tragedies. In Archer, (ed.), 137157.
Argamon, S., Koppel, M., Fine, J., and Shimoni, A. R. 2003. Gender, genre, and writing style in formal written texts. Text, 23: 321346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, M. 1861. On translating Homer. London: Longman, Green, Longman, and Roberts.Google Scholar
Arnovick, L. K. 1999. Diachronic pragmatics: Seven case studies in English illocutionary development. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Asención-Delaney, Y. and Collentine, J. 2011. A multidimensional analysis of written L2 Spanish. Applied Linguistics 32: 299322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asmussen, J. 2013. Combined products: Dictionary and corpus. In Gouws, R. H., Heid, U., Schweickard, W., and Wiegand, H. E. (eds.), Dictionaries: An international encyclopedia of lexicography, vol. 5.4 (suppl.): Recent developments with focus on electronic and computational lexicography, 1081–1090. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Aston, G. and Burnard, L. 1998. The BNC handbook. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Azar, B. S. and Hagen, S. A. 2009. Understanding and using English grammar, 4th edn. White Plains, NY: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H. 1993. On frequency, transparency, and productivity. In Booij, G. E. and van Marle, J. (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1992, 181208. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H. 1994. Productivity in language production. Language and Cognitive Processes 9(3), 447469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H. 2008. Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H. 2010. A real experiment is a factorial experiment. The Mental Lexicon 5(1): 149157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H. 2011. Corpus linguistics and naïve discriminative learning. Brazilian Journal of Applied Linguistics 11(2): 295328.Google Scholar
Baayen, H., van Halteren, H., and Tweedie, F. 1996. Outside the cave of shadows: Using syntactic annotation to enhance authorship attribution. Literary and Linguistic Computing 11(3): 121131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachmann, I. 2011. Civil partnership – “Gay marriage in all but name”: A corpus-driven analysis of discourses of same-sex relationships in the UK Parliament. Corpora 6(1): 77105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bahumaid, S. 2006. Collocation in English-Arabic translation. Babel 52(2): 133152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. 1993. Corpus linguistics and translation studies: Implications and applications. In Baker, M., Francis, G., and Bonelli, E. Tognini (eds.), Text and technology, 223–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. 1995. Corpora in translation studies: An overview and some suggestions for future research. Target 7(2): 223243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. 2000. Towards a methodology for investigating the style of a literary translator. Target 12(2): 241266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, P. 2004. Querying keywords: Questions of difference, frequency and sense in keywords analysis. Journal of English Linguistics 32(4): 346359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, P. 2005. The public discourses of gay men. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Baker, P. 2006. Using corpora in discourse analysis. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Baker, P. 2008. “Eligible” bachelors and “frustrated” spinsters: Corpus linguistics, gender and language. In Sunderland, J., Harrington, K., and Stantson, H. (eds.), 7384. Gender and language research methodologies. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Baker, P. 2009a. The BE06 Corpus of British English and recent language change. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14(3): 312337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, P. 2009b. The question is, how cruel is it? Keywords, fox hunting and the House of Commons. In Archer, (ed.), 125136.
Baker, P. 2010. Sociolinguistics and corpus linguistics. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, P. 2011. Times may change, but we will always have money: Diachronic variation in recent British English, Journal of English Linguistics 39(1): 6588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, P., Gabrielatos, C., Khosravinik, M., Krzyzanowski, M., McEnery, T., and Wodak, R. 2008. A useful methodological synergy? Combining critical discourse analysis and corpus linguistics to examine discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK press. Discourse and Society 19(3): 273306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, P., Gabrielatos, C., and McEnery, T. 2013. Sketching Muslims: A corpus driven analysis of representations around the word “Muslim” in the British press 1998–2009. Applied Linguistics 34(3): 255278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, P. and McEnery, T. 2005. A corpus-based approach to discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in UN and newspaper texts. Journal of Language and Politics 4(2): 197226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balasubramanian, C. 2009a. Register variation in Indian English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balasubramanian, C. 2009b. Circumstance adverbials in registers of Indian English. World Englishes 28: 485508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ballier, N. and Martin, P. 2013. Developing corpus interoperability for phonetic investigation of learner corpora. In Diaz-Negrillo, Ana, Ballier, N., and Thompson, P. (eds.), Automatic treatment and analysis of learner corpus data, 3364. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbieri, F. 2005. Quotative use in American English: A corpus-based, cross-register comparison. Journal of English Linguistics 33: 222256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbieri, F. 2007. Older men and younger women: A corpus-based study of quotative use in American English. English World-Wide 28: 2345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbieri, F. 2008a. Patterns of age-based linguistic variation in American English. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12: 5888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbieri, F. 2008b. Involvement in university classroom discourse. Unpublished dissertation, Northern Arizona University.
Barbieri, F. 2009. Quotative be like in American English: Ephemeral or here to stay? English World-Wide 30: 6890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbieri, F. and Eckhardt, S. 2007. Applying corpus-based findings to form-focused instruction: The case of reported speech. Language Teaching Research 11(3): 319346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnbrook, G. 2002. Defining language: A local grammar of definition sentences. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron, A. and Rayson, P. 2008. VARD 2: A tool for dealing with spelling variation in historical corpora. Proceedings of the Postgraduate Conference in Corpus Linguistics, Aston University, Birmingham, 22 May 2008. Available at http://acorn.aston.ac.uk/conf_proceedings.html
Baron, N. S. 2004. See you online: Gender issues in college student use of instant messaging. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 23: 397423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baroni, M. and Bernardini, S. 2004. BootCaT: Bootstrapping corpora and terms from the web. Proceedings of LREC 2004.
Baroni, M. and Bernardini, S. 2006. A new approach to the study of translationese: Machine-learning the difference between original and translated text. Literary and Linguistic Computing 21(3): 259274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baroni, M., Bernardini, S., Ferraresi, A., and Zanchetta, E. 2009. The WaCky Wide Web: A collection of very large linguistically processed web-crawled corpora. Language Resources and Evaluation 43(3) 209226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baroni, M., Kilgarriff, A., Pomikálek, J., and Rychlý, P. 2006. WebBootCaT: A web tool for instant corpora. In Proceedings of Euralex 2006. Turin.Google Scholar
Bartsch, S. 2004. Structural and functional properties of collocations in English: A corpus study of lexical and pragmatic constraints on lexical co-occurrence. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Baten, L., Cornu, A-M., and Engels, L. 1989. The use of concordances in vocabulary acquisition. In Laurent, C. and Nordman, M. (eds.), Special language: From humans thinking to thinking machines, 452467. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. 1993. Manual of information to accompany the Wellington Corpus of Written New Zealand English. Wellington: Victoria University, Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. 2001. Morphological productivity. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, L. 2002. Inferring variation and change from public corpora. In Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, P., and Schilling-Estes, N. (eds.), The handbook of language variation and change, 97114. Malden, MA, and Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bauer, L. and Nation, P. 1993. Word families. International Journal of Lexicography, 6(4): 253279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayley, P. and Williams, G. 2012. European identity: What the media say. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beaufort, A. 2007. College writing and beyond. Logan: Utah State University Press.Google Scholar
Becher, V. 2011. When and why do translators add connectives? A corpus-based study. Target 23(1): 2647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckman, M. E., Hirschberg, J., and Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. 2005. The original ToBI system and the evolution of the ToBI framework. In Jun, S.-A. (ed.), 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS15), Barcelona, Spain, 2–9 August 2003, 914.
Bednarek, M. 2006a. Evaluation in media discourse: Analysis of a newspaper corpus. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Bednarek, M. 2006b. Evaluating Europe: Parameters of evaluation in the British press. In Leung, C. and Jenkins, J. (eds.), Reconfiguring Europe: The contribution of applied linguistics, 137156. London: BAAL/Equinox.Google Scholar
Bednarek, M. 2008. Emotion talk across corpora. London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bednarek, M. 2010. The language of fictional television: Drama and identity. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Bednarek, M and Caple, H. 2012. News discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Behre, F. 1955. Meditative-polemic should in Modern English that-clauses. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Behre, F. 1967. Studies in Agatha Christie’s writings: The behaviour of a good (great) deal, a lot, lots, much, plenty, many, a good (great) many. Stockholm, Gothenburg, and Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Behre, F. 1969. Variation and change in the distribution of lot(s), deal, much, many, etc. English Studies 50: 435451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, A. 1984. Language style as audience design. Language in Society 13: 145204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belz, J. and Vyatkina, N. 2005. Learner corpus research and the development of L2 pragmatic competence in networked intercultural language study: The case of German modal particles. Canadian Modern Language Review 62(1): 1748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belz, J. and Vyatkina, N. 2008. The pedagogical mediation of a developmental learner corpus for classroom-based language instruction. Language Learning & Technology, 12(3): 3352.Google Scholar
Bennett, G. 2010. Using corpora in the language learning classroom: Corpus linguistics for teachers. University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benson, M. 1990. Collocation and general-purpose dictionaries. International Journal of Lexicography 3(1): 2334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benson, M., Benson, E., and Ilson, R. 1986/2010. The BBI combinatory dictionary of English (3rd edn.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benwell, B. and Stokoe, E. 2006. Discourse and identity. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Berber Sardinha, T. 2011. Metaphor and corpus linguistics. RBLA, Belo Horizonte 11: 329360.Google Scholar
Berglund, Y. 2000. Gonna and going to in the spoken component of the British National Corpus. Language and Computers 33: 3550.Google Scholar
Berman, A. 1985. La traduction comme épreuve de l’étranger. Texte 4: 6781.Google Scholar
Bernaisch, T., Gries, S. Th., and Mukherjee, J. 2014. The dative alternation in South Asian English(es): Modelling predictors and predicting prototypes. English World-Wide 35(1): 731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernardini, S. and Zanettin, F. 2004. When is a universal not a universal? Some limits of current corpus-based methodologies for the investigation of translation universals. In Mauranen, A. and Kujamäki, P. (eds.), Translation universals: Do they exist?, 5162. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertuccelli Papi, M. 2000. Is a diachronic speech act theory possible? Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1(1): 5766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bestgen, Y. 2013. Inadequacy of the chi-squared test to examine vocabulary differences between corpora. Literary and Linguistic Computing 29(2): 164170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhana, N. 2009. The chairman’s statements and annual reports: Are they reporting the same company performance to investors? Investment Analysts Journal 70: 3246.Google Scholar
Bhuian, S. N., Menguc, B., and Bell, S. J. 2005. Just entrepreneurial enough: the moderating effect of entrepreneurship on the relationship between market orientation and performance. Journal of Business Research 58: 917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. 1986. Spoken and written textual dimensions in English: Resolving the contradictory findings. Language 62: 384414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. 1987. A textual comparison of British and American writing. American Speech 62: 99119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. 1988. Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. 1993a. Co-occurrence patterns among collocations: A tool for corpus-based lexical knowledge acquisition. Computational Linguistics 19(3): 531538.Google Scholar
Biber, D. 1993b. Representativeness in corpus design. Literary and Linguistic Computing 8(4), 243257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. 1995. Dimensions of register variation. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. 2003. Compressed noun-phrase structures in newspaper discourse: The competing demands of popularization vs. economy. In Aitchison, J. and Lewis, D. M. (eds.), New media language, 169181. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Biber, D. 2004. Historical patterns for the grammatical marking of stance: A cross-register comparison. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 5(1): 107135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. 2006a. University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. 2006b. Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5: 97116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. 2009. A corpus-driven approach to formulaic language in English: Multi-word patterns in speech and writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14(3): 275311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. 2011. Corpus linguistics and the scientific study of literature: Back to the future? Scientific Study of Literature 1(1): 1523.Google Scholar
Biber, D. 2012. Register as a predictor of linguistic variation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 8: 937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. and Barbieri, F. 2007. Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers. English for Specific Purposes 26: 263–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. and Burges, J. 2000. Historical change in the language use of women and men: Gender differences in dramatic dialogue. Journal of English Linguistics 28: 2137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Connor, U., and Upton, T. 2007. Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. and Conrad, S. 1999. Lexical bundles in conversation and academic prose. In Hasselgård, H. and Oksefjell, S. (eds.), Out of corpora: Studies in honour of Stig Johansson, 181190. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Biber, D. and Conrad, S. 2009. Register, genre, and style. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., and Cortes, V. 2004. “If you look at … ”: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics 25: 371405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., and Leech, G. 2002. The Longman student grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., and Reppen, R. 1998. Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., Reppen, R., Byrd, P., and Helt, M. 2002. Speaking and writing in the university: A multi-dimensional comparison. TESOL Quarterly 36: 948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., Reppen, R., Byrd, P., Helt, M., Clark, V., Cortez, V., Csomay, E., and Urzua, A. 2004. Representing language use in the university: Analysis of the TOEFL 2000 spoken and written academic language corpus. Princeton: ETS/TOEFL.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Davies, M., Jones, J., and Tracy-Ventura, N. 2006. Spoken and written register variation in Spanish: A multi-dimensional analysis. Corpora 1: 137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Egbert, J. A., Gray, B., Oppliger, R., and Szmrecsanyi, B. Forthcoming. Variationist versus text-linguistic approaches to grammatical change in English: Nominal modifiers of head nouns. Handbook of English historical linguistics.
Biber, D. and Finegan, E. 1989. Drift and the evolution of English style: A history of three genres. Language 65: 487517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. and Finegan, E. 1997. Diachronic relations among speech-based and written registers in English. In Nevalainen, T. and Kahlas-Tarkka, L. (eds.), To explain the present: Studies in the changing English language in honour of Matti Rissanen, 253275. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Biber, D. and Gray, B. 2011. Grammatical change in the noun phrase: The influence of written language use. English Language and Linguistics 15(2): 223250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. and Gray, B. 2012. The competing demands of popularization vs. economy: Written language in the age of mass literacy. In Nevalainen, T. and Traugott, E. C. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of English, 314328. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, D. and Gray, B. 2013. Discourse characteristics of writing and speaking task types on the TOEFL iBT test: A lexico-grammatical analysis (TOEFL iBT Research Report No. 19). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Gray, B., and Poonpon, K. 2011. Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? TESOL Quarterly 45: 535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Grieve, J., and Iberri-Shea, G. 2010. Noun phrase modification. In Rohdenburg, G. and Schlüter, J. (eds.), One language, two grammars? Differences between British and American English, 182193. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, D. and Hared, M. 1992. Dimensions of register variation in Somali. Language Variation and Change 4: 4175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., and Finegan, E. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Biber, D. and Jones, J. 2005. Merging corpus linguistic and discourse analytic research goals: Discourse units in biology research articles. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1: 151182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Kim, Y-J., and Tracy-Ventura, N. 2010. A corpus-driven approach to comparative phraseology: Lexical bundles in English, Spanish, and Korean. In Iwasaki, S., Hoji, H., Clancy, P. M., and Sohn, S-O. (eds.), Japanese/Korean linguistics, vol. 17: 7594. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI).Google Scholar
Biewer, C. 2015. A Sociolinguistic and morphosyntactic profile of Fiji English, Samoan English and Cook Island English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Biewer, C., Hundt, M., and Zipp, L. 2010. How a Fiji corpus? Challenges in the compilation of an ESL ICE component. ICAME Journal 34: 523.Google Scholar
Bigi, S. and Greco Morasso, S. 2006. Focus on cultural keywords. Studies in Communication Sciences 6(1): 157174.Google Scholar
Bigi, S. and Greco Morasso, S. 2012. Keywords, frames and the reconstruction of material starting points in argumentation. Journal of Pragmatics 44(10),11351149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bizzell, P. 1989. Cultural criticism: a social approach to studying writing. Rhetoric Review 7: 224230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackwell, S. 1987. Syntax versus orthography: Problems in the automatic parsing of idioms. In Garside, R., Leech, G., and Sampson, G. (eds.), The computational analysis of English, 110119. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Blankenship, J. 1962. A linguistic analysis of oral and written style. Quarterly Journal of Speech 48: 419422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blass, L., Iannuzzi, S., Savage, A., and Reppen, R. 2012. Grammar and beyond: Level 3. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, L. 1933. Language. New York: Henry Holt.Google ScholarPubMed
Blum-Kulka, S. 1997. Dinner talk: Cultural patterns of sociability and socialization in family discourse. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. 1961. Generality, gradience, and the all-or-none. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Bondi, M. 2008. Emphatics in academic discourse: Integrating corpus and discourse tools in the study of cross-disciplinary variation. In Ädel, A. and Reppen, R. (eds.), Exploring discourse through corpora, 3155. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bondi, M. 2012. Voice in textbooks: Between exposition and argument. In Hyland, K. and Guinda, C. Sancho (eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres, 101117. London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bondi, M. and Scott, M. (eds.). 2010. Keyness in texts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bondi, M. and Silver, M. 2004. Textual voices: A cross disciplinary study of attribution in academic discourse. In Anderson, L. and Bamford, J. (eds.), Evaluation in oral and written discourse, 117136. Rome: Officina Edizioni.Google Scholar
Borin, L. and Prütz, K. 2004. New wine in old skins? A corpus investigation of L1 syntactic transfer in learner language. In Aston, G., Bernardini, S., and Stewart, D. (eds.), Corpora and language learners, 45.66. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bothma, T. J. D. 2011. Filtering and adapting data and information in an online environment in response to user needs. In Fuertes-Olivera, and Bergenholtz, (eds.), 71102.
Boulton, A. 2009. Corpora for all? Learning styles and data-driven learning. In Mahlberg, M., González-Díaz, V., and Smith, C. (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th Corpus Linguistics Conference. Downloaded from http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/publications/cl2009
Boulton, A. 2010a. Learning outcomes from corpus consultation. In Jaén, M. Moreno, Valverde, F. Serrano, and Pérez, M. Calzada (eds.), Exploring new paths in language pedagogy: Lexis and corpus-based language teaching, 129144. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Boulton, A. 2010b. Data-driven learning: Taking the computer out of the equation. Language Learning 60(3): 534572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boulton, A. 2010c. Consultation de corpus et styles d’apprentissage. Cahiers de l’APLIUT 29(1): 98115.Google Scholar
Boulton, A. 2011. Language awareness and medium-term benefits of corpus consultation. In Sanz, A. Gimeno (ed.), New trends in computer-assisted language learning: Working together, 3946. Madrid: Macmillan ELT.Google Scholar
Boulton, A. 2012a. Computer corpora in language learning: DST approaches to research. Mélanges Crapel 33: 7991.Google Scholar
Boulton, A. 2012b. Hands-on/hands-off: Alternative approaches to data-driven learning. In Thomas, J. and Boulton, A. (eds.), Input, process and product: Developments in teaching and language corpora, 153169. Brno: Masaryk University Press.Google Scholar
Boulton, A. In press. Applying data-driven learning to the web. In Leńko-Szymańska, A. and Boulton, A. (eds.), Multiple affordances of language corpora for data-driven learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Boulton, A. and Tyne, H. 2014. Méthodologie de la découverte en didactique des langues: Des documents authentiques aux corpus. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar
Bowie, J., Wallis, S., and Aarts, B. 2013. The perfect in spoken British English. In Aarts, et al. (eds.), 318352.
Brazil, D. 1994. Pronunciation for advanced learners of English. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brazil, D. 1994. Pronunciation for advanced learners of English. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brazil, D. 1995. A grammar of speech. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brazil, D. 1997. The communicative value of intonation in English. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Breen, M. 1987. Learner contributions to task design. In Candlin, C. and Murphy, D. (eds.), Language learning tasks, 2346. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Breiteneder, A. 2005. The naturalness of English as a European lingua franca: The case of the ‘third person -s’. VIEWS 14(2): 326. Downloaded from http://anglistik.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/dep_anglist/weitere_Uploads/Views/Views0502ALL_new.pdf (accessed 9 July 2013).Google Scholar
Breiteneder, A., Pitzl, M. L., Majewski, S., and Klimpfinger, T. 2006. VOICE recording: Methodological challenges in the compilation of a corpus of spoken ELF. Nordic Journal of English Studies 5(2): 161187.Google Scholar
Brems, L. 2011. Measure noun constructions: An instance of semantically-driven grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. 2007. Is syntactic knowledge probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation. In Featherston, S. and Sternefeld, W. (eds.), Roots: Linguistics in search of its evidential base, 7796. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T., and Baayen, H. R. 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. In Boume, G., Kraemer, I., and Zwarts, J. (eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation, 6994. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. and Ford, M. 2010. Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language 86/1: 186213.Google Scholar
Bretz, F., Hothorn, T., and Pestfall, P. 2010. Multiple comparisons using R. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brezina, V. and Gablasova, D. 2013. Is there a core general vocabulary? Introducing the New General Service List. Applied Linguistics.
Brinton, L. J. 2007. The development of I mean: Implications for the study of historical pragmatics. In Fitzmaurice, and Taavitsainen, (eds.), 3779.
Brinton, L. J. 2010. Discourse markers. In Jucker, and Taavitsainen, (eds.), 285314.
Brinton, L. J. 2015. Interjection-based delocutive verbs in the history of English. In Taavitsainen, I. et al. (eds.), Developments in English: Expanding electronic evidence, 140161. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Briscoe, T., Medlock, B., and Andersen, Ø. 2010. Automated assessment of ESOL free text examinations. Cambridge ESOL. University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory. www.cl.cam.ac.uk/techreports/UCAM-CL-TR-790.pdfGoogle Scholar
Brown, A. and Deterding, D. 2005. A checklist of Singapore English pronunciation features. In Deterding, D., Brown, A., and Ling, L. Ee (eds.), English in Singapore: Phonetic research on a corpus, 713. Singapore: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Fraser, C. 1979. Speech as a marker of situation. In Scherer, K. and Giles, H. (eds.), Social markers in speech, 3362. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, R. and Gilman, A. 1960. The pronouns of power and solidarity. In Sebeok, T. (ed.), Style in language, 253276. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bruce, I. 2009. Results sections in sociology and organic chemistry articles: A genre analysis English for Specific Purposes 28(2): 105124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryson, B. 1991. Neither here nor there: Travels in Europe. London: Secker & Warburg.Google Scholar
Buchstaller, I. 2011. Quotations across the generations: A multivariate analysis of speech and thought introducers across 5 decades of Tyneside speech. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 7(1): 5992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bündgens-Kosten, J. 2013. Authenticity in CALL: Three domains of “realness” ReCALL, 25/2, 272285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunton, D. 1999. The use of higher level metatext in PhD theses. English for Specific Purposes 18: S41S56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnard, L. (ed.). 1995. British National Corpus: Users reference guide British National Corpus Version 1.0. Oxford University Computing Service.Google Scholar
Burnard, L. 2002. Where did we go wrong? A retrospective look at the British National Corpus. Language and Computers 42: 5170.Google Scholar
Burrows, J. F. 1987. Computation into criticism: A study of Jane Austen’s novels and an experiment in method. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Busse, B. 2006. Vocative constructions in the language of Shakespeare (Pragmatics & Beyond new series 150). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busse, B. 2010. Speech, writing and thought presentation in a corpus of nineteenth-century English narrative fiction. University of Bern.
Busse, U. and Hübler, A. (eds.). 2012. The meta-communicative lexicon of English now and then: A historical pragmatics approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Butler, C. 1974. German for chemists: Teaching languages to adults for special purposes. CILT Reports and Papers 11: 5053.Google Scholar
Butler, C. 1998. Collocational frameworks in Spanish. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 3(1): 132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. 2007. Frequency of use and the organization of language. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caldas-Coulthard, C. and Coulthard, M. (eds.). 1996. Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Calhoun, S. 2010. How does informativeness affect prosodic prominence? Language and Cognitive Processes 25(7–9): 10991140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callies, M. 2009. “What is even more alarming is … ” A contrastive learner-corpus study of what-clefts in advanced German and Polish L2 writing. In Wysocka, M. (ed.), On Language structure, acquisition and teaching. Studies in honour of Janusz Arabski on the occasion of his 70th birthday, 283292. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersyetu Slaskiego.Google Scholar
Campion, M. and Elley, W. 1971. An academic vocabulary list. Wellington, New Zealand: Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
Carter, R. 2004. Language and creativity: The art of common talk. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, R., Hughes, R., and McCarthy, M. 1998. Telling tails: Grammar, the spoken language and materials development. In Tomlinson, B. (ed.), Materials development in language teaching, 6789. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carter, R. and McCarthy, M. 1995. Grammar and the spoken language. Applied Linguistics 16.2: 141–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. 1997. Exploring spoken English. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carter, Ronald and McCarthy, M. 1999. The English get-passive in spoken discourse: Description and implications for an interpersonal grammar. English Language and Linguistics 3: 4158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, Ronald and McCarthy, M. 2004. Talking, creating: Interactional language, creativity, and context. Applied Linguistics 25: 6288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, Ronald and McCarthy, M. 2006. Cambridge grammar of English: A comprehensive guide. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Carter, R., McCarthy, M., Mark, G., and O’Keeffe, A. 2011. English grammar today. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Catford, J. C. 1965. A linguistic theory of translation: An essay in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cauldwell, R. T. 2003a. Streaming speech: Listening and pronunciation for advanced learners of English (Windows CD-ROM). Birmingham: Speechinaction.Google Scholar
Cauldwell, R. T. 2003b. Streaming speech: Listening and pronunciation for advanced learners of English (Student’s book). Birmingham: Speechinaction.Google Scholar
Cauldwell, R. T. 2007. SpeechinAction Research Centre (SPARC). (www.speechinaction.com/, accessed 18 March 2013.)
Cauldwell, R. T. 2013. Phonology for listeners: Teaching the stream of speech. Birmingham: Speechinaction.Google Scholar
Cauldwell, R. T. and Hewings, M. 1996. Intonation rules in ELP textbooks. ELT Journal 50:4, 327334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, A. 2007. Popularising corpus consultation by language learners and teachers. In Hidalgo, E., Quereda, L., and Santana, J. (eds.), Corpora in the foreign language classroom, 316. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Chambers, A., Conacher, J., and Littlemore, J. (eds.). 2004. ICT and language learning: Integrating pedagogy and practice. University of Birmingham Press.Google Scholar
Chambers, J. K. 2004. Dynamic typology and vernacular roots. In Kortmann, B. (ed.), Dialectology meets typology: Dialect grammar from a cross-linguistic perspective, 127145. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Chan, T-P. and Liou, H-C. 2005. Effects of web-based concordancing instruction on EFL students’ learning of verb-noun collocations. Computer Assisted Language Learning 18(3): 231251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, P. 2012. Using a stance corpus to learn about effective authorial stance-taking: A textlinguistic approach. ReCALL 24(2): 209236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, W-L. and Sun, Y-C. 2009. Scaffolding and web concordancers as support for language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning 22(4): 283302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charles, M. 2006a. Phraseological patterns in reporting clauses used in citation: a corpus-based study of theses in two disciplines. English for Specific Purposes 25: 310331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charles, M. 2006b. The construction of stance in reporting clauses: a cross-disciplinary study of theses. Applied Linguistics 27: 492518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charles, M. 2007. Argument or evidence? Disciplinary variation in the use of the noun that pattern. English for Specific Purposes 26: 203–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, Y.-H. and Baker, P. 2010. Lexical bundles in L1 and L2 academic writing. Language Learning and Technology 14(2): 3049.Google Scholar
Cheng, W. 2007. The use of vague language across genres in an International Hong Kong Corpus. In Cutting, J. (ed.), Vague language explored, 161181. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, W. 2012. Exploring corpus linguistics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cheng, W., Greaves, C., Sinclair, J., and Warren, M. 2008. Uncovering the extent of the phraseological tendency: Towards a systematic analysis of concgrams. Applied Linguistics 30(2): 236–52.Google Scholar
Cheng, W., Greaves, C., and Warren, M. 2006. From n-gram to skipgram to concgram. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 11(4): 411433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, W., Greaves, C. and Warren, M. 2008. A corpus-driven study of discourse intonation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chesterman, A. 2004. Hypotheses about translation universals. In Hansen, G., Malmkjær, K., and Gile, D. (eds.), Claims, changes and challenges in translation studies, 113. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Cho, H. and Yoon, H. 2013. A corpus-assisted comparative genre analysis of corporate earnings calls between Korean and native-English speakers. English for Specific Purposes 32: 170185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1962/1964. A transformational approach to syntax. In Hill, A. A. (ed.), Proceedings of the Third Texas Conference on Problems of Linguistics Analysis, 124–58. Austin: University of Texas, 1962. Reprinted in Fodor, J. A. and Katz, J. J., The Structure of language, 211241. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1964.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. and Halle, M. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Chun, D. M. 2002. Discourse intonation in L2: From theory and research to practice. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Church, K. and Hanks, P. 1990. Word association norms, mutual information and lexicography. Computational Linguistics 16(1): 2229.Google Scholar
Clancy, B. 2005. “You’re fat. You’ll eat them all.” Politeness strategies in family discourse. In Schneider, K. P. and Barron, A. (eds.), The pragmatics of Irish English, 177197. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Clancy, B. 2010. Building a corpus to represent a variety of language. In O’Keeffe, A. and McCarthy, M. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics, 8092. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Clancy, B. Forthcoming. Hurry up baby son all the boys is finished their breakfast: Examining the use of vocatives as pragmatic markers in Irish Traveller and settled family discourse. In Moreno, C. Amador, McCafferty, K., and Vaughan, E. (eds.), Pragmatic markers in Irish English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Clancy, B. and McCarthy, M. 2015. Co-constructed turn-taking. In Aijmer, K. and Rühlemann, C. (eds.), Corpus pragmatics, 430453. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clancy, B. and Vaughan, E. 2012. It’s lunacy now: A corpus-based pragmatic analysis of the use of now in contemporary Irish English. In Migge, B. and Chiosáin, M. Ní (eds.), New perspectives on Irish English, 225246. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claridge, C. 2008. Historical corpora. In Lüdeling, A. and Kytö, M. (eds.), Corpus linguistics. Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, 242259. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Claridge, C. 2012. Chapter 16. Linguistic levels: Styles, registers, genres, text types. In Bergs, A. and Brinton, L. J. (eds.), English historical linguistics: An international handbook, vol. 1: 237253. Berlin and Boston: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Claridge, C. and Arnovick, L. 2010. Pragmaticalisation and discursisation. In Jucker, and Taavitsainen, (eds.), 165192.
Clark, H. H. 1973. The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: a critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 12(4). 335359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobb, T. 1997a. From concord to lexicon: Development and test of a corpus-based lexical tutor. Unpublished PhD thesis, Concordia University.
Cobb, T. 1997b. Is there any measurable learning from hands-on concordancing? System 25(3): 301315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobb, T. 1999a. Applying constructivism: A test for the learner-as-scientist. Educational Technology Research & Development 47(3): 1533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobb, T. 1999b. Breadth and depth of lexical acquisition with hands-on concordancing. Computer Assisted Language Learning 12(4): 345360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobb, T. 2003. Analyzing late interlanguage with learner corpora: Québec replications of three European studies. The Canadian Modern Language Review 59(3) 393423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobb, T. 2007. Computing the vocabulary demands of L2 reading. Language Learning & Technology 11(3): 3863.Google Scholar
Cobb, T., Greaves, C., and Horst, M. 2001. Can the rate of lexical acquisition from reading be increased? An experiment in reading French with a suite of on-line resources. In Raymond, P. and Cornaire, C. (eds.), Regards sur la didactique des langues secondes, 133153. Montreal: Editions Logique.Google Scholar
Cochran, W. G. 1954. Some methods for strengthening the common χ2 tests. Biometrics 10: 417451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coffey, S. 2006. “Delexical verb + noun” phrases in monolingual English learners’ dictionaries. Proceedings of the XII EURALEX Congress. Downloaded from www.euralex.org/elx_proceedings/Euralex2006/
Cogo, A. and Dewey, M. 2006. Efficiency in ELF communication: From pragmatic motives to lexico-grammatical innovation. Nordic Journal of English Studies 5(2): 5993.Google Scholar
Cogo, A. and Dewey, M. 2012. Analysing English as a lingua franca: A corpus-driven investigation. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cole, J., Mo, Y., and Baek, S. 2010. The role of syntactic structure in guiding prosody perception with ordinary listeners and everyday speech. Language and Cognitives Processes 25(7–9), 11411177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, J., Mo, Y., and Hasegawa-Johnson, M. 2010. Signal-based and expectation-based factors in the perception of prosodic prominence. Laboratory Phonology 1, 425452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, P. 2009. The progressive in English. In Peters, et al. (eds.), 115123.
Collins, P. and Peters, P. 1988. The Australian corpus project. In Kytö, M., Ihalainen, O., and Rissanen, M. (eds.), Corpus linguistics, hard and soft, 103121. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Collins, P. and Yao, X. 2012. Modals and quasi-modals in New Englishes. In Hundt, and Gut, (eds.), 3553.
Connor, U. and Upton, T. 2003. Linguistic dimensions of direct mail letters. In Meyer, C. and Leistyna, P. (eds.), Corpus analysis: Language structure and language use, 7186. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Connor, U. and Upton, T. 2004. The genre of grant proposals: A corpus linguistic analysis. In Connor, U. and Upton, T. (eds.), Discourse in the professions: Perspectives from corpus linguistics, 235256. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conrad, S. 1996. Investigating academic texts with corpus-based techniques: An example from biology. Linguistics and Education 8: 299326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conrad, S. 1999. The importance of corpus-based research for language teachers. System 27: 118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conrad, S. 2000. Will corpus linguistics revolutionize grammar teaching in the 21st century? TESOL Quarterly 34: 548560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conrad, S. 2001. Variation among disciplinary texts: A comparison of textbooks and journal articles in biology and history. In Conrad, S. and Biber, D. (eds.), Multi-dimensional studies of register variation in English, 94107. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Conrad, S. 2014. Expanding multi-dimensional analysis with qualitative research techniques. In Sardinha, T. Berber and Pinto, M. Veirano (eds.), Multi-dimensional analysis 25 years on: A tribute to Douglas Biber, 273295. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conrad, S. and Biber, D. 2000. Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. In Hunston, S. and Thompson, G. (eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse, 5673. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Conrad, S. and Biber, D. 2009. Real grammar: A corpus-based approach to English grammar. New York: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Conrad, S. and Pfeiffer, T. 2011. A preliminary analysis of student and workplace writing in civil engineering. Proceedings of the 2012 American Society for Engineering Education Conference. Downloaded from www.asee.org/search/proceedings
Conrad, S., Pfeiffer, T., and Szymoniak, T. 2012. Preparing students for writing in civil engineering practice. Proceedings of the 2012 American Society for Engineering Education Conference. Downloaded from www.asee.org/search/proceedings
Conzett, J. 1997. Integrating collocation into a reading and writing course. In Coady, J. and Huckin, T. (eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition, 7087. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cortes, V. 2004. Lexical bundles in published and student disciplinary writing: Examples from history and biology. English for Specific Purposes 23: 397423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cortes, V. 2008. A comparative analysis of lexical bundles in academic history writing in English and Spanish. Corpora 3: 4358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cortes, V. 2013. The purpose of this study is to: Connecting lexical bundles and moves in research article introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 12: 3343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cotter, C. 2010. News talk: Investigating the language of journalism. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe 2001. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Cambridge University Press.
Cowden-Clarke, M. V. 1881. The complete concordance to Shakespeare: Being a verbal index to all the passages in the dramatic works of the poet, new and rev. edn. Bickers & Son, London.Google Scholar
Cowie, A. P. 1999. English dictionaries for foreign learners: A history. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cowie, C. 2010. Researching and understanding accent shifts in Indian call centre agents. In Forey, G. and Lockwood, J. (eds.), Globalization, communication and the workplace: Talking across the world, 125144. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Coxhead, A. 2000. A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly 34: 213238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, H. 2004. Stylistic analysis and authorship studies. In Schreibman, S., Siemens, R., and Unsworth, J. (eds.), A companion to digital humanities, 273288. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Craig, H. 2008. “Speak, that I may see thee”: Shakespeare characters and common words. Shakespeare Survey 61: 281288.Google Scholar
Craig, W. J. 1914. William Shakespeare (1564–1616). The Oxford Shakespeare. Oxford University Press. www.bartleby.com/70/ (accessed 5 March 2013).Google Scholar
Cresti, E. and Moneglia, M. 2005. C-Oral-Rom Integrated Reference Corpora for Spoken Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crombie, A. C. 1995. Commitments and styles of European scientific thinking. History of science 33: 225–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crossley, S. and Louwerse, M. 2007. Multi-dimensional register classification using bigrams. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 12: 453478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruttenden, A. 1997. Intonation, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crystal, D. 1975. The English tone of voice. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. 1995. The Cambridge encyclopedia of the English language. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. 2012. Searchlinguistics. In Chapelle, C. (ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Csomay, E. 2005. Linguistic variation within university classroom talk: A corpus-based perspective. Linguistics and Education 15: 243274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Csomay, E. 2013. Lexical bundles in discourse structure: A corpus-based study of classroom discourse. Applied Linguistics 34(3): 369–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, J. 2001. Language and characterization: People in plays and other texts. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. 2002. Computers, language and characterisation: An analysis of six characters in Romeo and Juliet. In Melander-Marttala, U., Ostman, C., and Kytö, M. (eds.), Conversation in life and in literature: Papers from the ASLA Symposium (Association Suédoise de Linguistique Appliquée (ASLA), 15), 1130. Uppsala: Universitetstryckeriet. See www.lexically.net/wordsmith/corpus_linguistics_links/Keywords-Culpeper.pdf (accessed 5 March 2013).Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. 2009a. Historical sociopragmatics: An introduction. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 10(2): 179186; rpt Historical Sociopragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Culpeper, J. 2009b. Keyness: Words, parts-of-speech and semantic categories in the character-talk of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14(1): 2959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, J. 2011. Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, J. and Kytö, M. 2010. Early Modern English dialogues: Spoken interaction as writing. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Curado Fuentes, A. 2001. Lexical behaviour in academic and technical corpora: Implications for ESP development. Language Learning and Technology 5(3):106129.Google Scholar
Curzan, A. 2012. Interdisciplinarity and historiography: periodization in the history of the English language. In Bergs, A. and Brinton, L. (eds.), Historical linguistics of English, vol. 2:12331256. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cutler, A., Dahan, D., and van Donselaar, W. 1997. Prosody in the comprehension of spoken language: A literature review. Language and Speech 40: 141201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dagneaux, E., Denness, S., and Granger, S. 1998. Computer-aided error analysis. System 26: 163174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton-Puffer, C. 1996. The French influence on Middle English morphology: A corpus-based study of derivation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damerau, F. J. 1993. Generating and evaluating domain-oriented multi-word terms from texts. Information Processing and Management 29: 433447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danielsson, P. 2001. The automatic identification of meaningful units in language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Göteborg University.
D’Arcy, A. 2011. Corpora: Capturing language in use. In Maguire, W. and McMahon, A. (eds.), Analysing variation in English, 4972. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D’Arcy, A. 2012. The diachrony of quotation: Evidence from New Zealand English. Language Variation and Change 24(3): 343369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
da Silva, A. S. 2010. Measuring and parameterizing lexical convergence and divergence between European and Brazilian Portuguese. In Geeraerts, D., Kristiansen, G., and Peirsman, Y. (eds.), Advances in cognitive sociolinguistics, 4184. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
da Silva, J. F., Dias, G., Guilloré, S., and Pereira Lopes, J. G. 1999. Using LocalMaxs Algorithm for the extraction of contiguous and non-contiguous multiword lexical units. Proceedings of the 9th Portuguese Conference on Artificial Intelligence: Progress in Artificial Intelligence, 113132. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Daudaravičius, V. and Marcinkevičienė, R. 2004. Gravity counts for the boundaries of collocations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9 (2): 321348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, M. 2007. The TIME Magazine Corpus (100 million words, 1920s–2000s). Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/time
Davies, M. 2008. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 400+ million words, 1990-present. Available online at www.americancorpus.org
Davies, M. 2009. The 385+ million word Corpus of Contemporary American English (1990–2008+): Design, architecture, and linguistic insights. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14: 159–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, M. 2010. The Corpus of Historical American English (COHA): 400+ million words, 1810–2009. http://corpus.byu.edu/coha
Davies, M. 2011. The Corpus of Contemporary American English as the first reliable monitor corpus of English. Literary and Linguistic Computing 25: 447–65.Google Scholar
Davies, M. 2012a. Expanding horizons in historical linguistics with the 400 million word Corpus of Historical American English. Corpora 7: 121–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, M. 2012b. Examining recent changes in English: Some methodological issues. In Nevalainen, T. and Traugott, E. C. (eds.), Handbook on the history of English: Rethinking approaches to the history of English, 263–87. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Davies, M. 2013. Recent shifts with three nonfinite verbal complements in English: data from the 100-million-word Time corpus (1920s-2000s). In Aarts, et al. (eds.), 4667.
Davies, M. Forthcoming. A corpus-based study of lexical developments in Early and Late Modern English. In Kytö, Merja and Pahta, Päivi (eds.), Handbook of English historical linguistics. Cambridge University Press.
Davydova, J. 2011. The present perfect in non-native Englishes: A corpus-based study of variation. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dayrell, C. 2007. A quantitative approach to compare collocational patterns in translated and non-translated texts. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 12(3): 375414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Cock, S. 2002. Pragmatic prefabs in learners’ dictionaries. Proceedings of the X EURALEX Congress. Downloaded from www.euralex.org/elx_proceedings/Euralex2002/
De Cock, S. 2004. Preferred sequences of words in NS and NNS speech. Belgian Journal of English Language and Literatures (BELL), New Series 2: 225246.Google Scholar
De Cock, S. and Granger, S. 2004. High frequency words: The bête noire of lexicographers and learners alike. A close look at the verb “make” in five monolingual learners’ dictionaries of English. Proceedings of the XI EURALEX Congress. Downloaded from www.euralex.org/elx_proceedings/Euralex2004/
De Cock, S. and Granger, S. 2005. Computer learner corpora and monolingual learners’ dictionaries: The perfect match. Lexicographica 20: 7286.Google Scholar
de Haan, P. 1989. Postmodifying clauses in the English noun phrase: A corpus-based study. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Dehé, N. 2009. Clausal parentheticals, intonational phrasing, and prosodic theory. Journal of Linguistics 45(3):569615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dehé, N. and Wichmann, A. 2010. The multifunctionality of epistemic parentheticals in Discourse: Prosodic cues to the semantic–pragmatic boundary. Functions of Language 17(1): 128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deignan, A. and Semino, E. 2010. Corpus techniques for metaphor analysis. In Cameron, L. and Maslen, R. (eds.), Metaphor analysis: Research practice in applied linguistics, social sciences and the humanities, 161179. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Delaere, I., De Sutter, G., and Plevoets, K. 2012. Is translated language more standardized than non-translated language? Target 24(2): 203224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demol, A. and Hadermann, P. 2008. An exploratory study of discourse organisation in French L1, Dutch L1, French L2 and Dutch L2 written narratives. In Gilquin, G., Papp, S., and Díez-Bedmar, M. B. (eds.), Linking up contrastive and learner corpus research, 255282. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Schryver, G.-M. 2003. Lexicographer’s dreams in the electronic-dictionary age. International Journal of Lexicography 16(2): 143199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deshors, S. C. 2014. A case for a unified treatment of EFL and ESL: A multifactorial approach. English World-Wide 35(3): 277305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deshors, S. C. and Gries, S. Th. Forthcoming. A case for the multifactorial assessment of learner language: The uses of may and can in French–English interlanguage. In Glynn, D. and Robinson, J. (eds.), Polysemy and synonymy: Corpus methods and applications in cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
de Smet, Hendrik. 2012a. The course of actualization. Language 88(3): 601633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Smet, Hendrik. 2012b. Spreading patterns: Diffusional change in the English system of complementation. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Smet, H. and Cuyckens, H. 2005. Pragmatic strengthening and the meaning of complement constructions: The case of like and love with the to-infinitive. Journal of English Linguistics 33: 334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deuber, D., Biewer, C., Hackert, S., and Hilbert, M. 2012. Will and would in selected New Englishes: General and variety-specific tendencies. In Hundt, and Gut, (eds.), 77102.
Devitt, A. J. 1989. Standardizing written English: Diffusion in the case of Scotland 1520–1659. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dewey, M. 2007a. English as a lingua franca: An empirical study of innovation in lexis and grammar. PhD thesis, King’s College London.
Dewey, M. 2007b. English as a lingua franca and globalization: An interconnected perspective. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 17(3): 332–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewey, M. 2009. English as a lingua franca: Heightened variability and theoretical implications. In Mauranen, A. and Ranta, E. (eds.), English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings, 6083. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Press.Google Scholar
Díaz-Negrillo, A. and Fernández-Domínguez, J. 2006. Error tagging systems for learner corpora. RESLA 19: 83102.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. and Tomasello, M. 2005. Particle placement in early child language: A multifactorial analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1(1): 89112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Díez-Bedmar, M. B. and Papp, S. 2008. The use of the English article system by Chinese and Spanish learners. In Gilquin, G., Papp, S., and Díez-Bedmar, M. B. (eds.), Linking up contrastive and learner corpus research, 147175. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ding, Huiling. 2007. Genre analysis of personal statements: Analysis of moves in application essays to medical and dental schools. English for Specific Purposes 26: 368392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Divjak, Dagmar S. and Gries, Stefan Th. 2006. Ways of trying in Russian: Clustering behavioral profiles. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 2(1): 2360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Divjak, Dagmar S. and Gries, Stefan Th. 2008. Clusters in the mind? Converging evidence from near synonymy in Russian. The Mental Lexicon 3(2): 188213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dodd, B. 2000. Introduction: The relevance of corpora in German studies. In Dodd, B. (ed.), Working with German corpora, 139. University of Birmingham Press.Google Scholar
Doherty, M. 2002. Language processing in discourse. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dor, D. 2005. Toward a semantic account of that-deletion in English. Linguistics 43: 345382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorgeloh, H. and Wanner, A. (eds.). 2010. Syntactic variation and genre. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drew, P. and Heritage, J. 1992. Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dueñas, P. M. 2007. “I/we focus on …”: A cross-cultural analysis of self-mentions in business management research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 6(2): 143162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duguid, A. 2007. Men at work: How those at Number 10 construct their working identity. In Garzone, G. and Sarangi, S. (eds.), Discourse, ideology and specialized communication, 453484 Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Duguid, A. 2009. Insistent voices: Government messages. In Morley, and Bayley, (eds.), 234260.
Duguid, A. 2010a. Investigating anti and some reflections on Modern Diachronic Corpus-Assisted Discourse Studies (MD-CADS). Corpora 5(2): 191220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duguid, A. 2010b. Newspapers discourse informalisation: A diachronic comparison from keywords. Corpora 5(2): 109138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunning, T. 1993. Accurate methods for the statistics of surprise and coincidence. Computational Linguistics 19(1): 6174.Google Scholar
Durrant, P. and Schmitt, N. 2009. To what extent do native and non-native writers make use of collocations? International Review of Applied Linguistics 47(2): 157177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ebeling, J., Ebeling, S., and Hasselgård, H. 2013. Using recurrent word-combinations to explore cross-linguistic differences. In Aijmer, K. and Altenberg, B. (eds.), Advances in corpus-based contrastive linguistics: Studies in honour of Stig Johansson, 177200. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eeg-Olofsson, M. and Altenberg, B. 1994. Discontinuous recurrent word combinations in the London–Lund Corpus. In Fries, U., Tottie, G., and Schneider, P. (eds.), Creating and using English language corpora: Papers from the fourteenth international conference on English language research on computerized corpora, 6377. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Egan, T. 2012. Through seen through the looking glass of translation equivalence: a proposed method for determining closeness of word senses. In Hoffmann, Sebastian, Rayson, Paul, and Leech, Geoffrey N. (eds.), English corpus linguistics: Looking back, moving forward, 4156. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Elbaum, S. N. 2009. Grammar in context, 5th edn. Boston, MA: HeinleCengage.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. 2006. Meta-analysis, human cognition, and language learning. In Norris, J. and Ortega, L. (eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching, 301322. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. 2007. Language acquisition as rational cue-contingency learning. Applied Linguistics 27(1): 124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. and Ferreira-Junior, F. 2009. Constructions and their acquisition: Islands and the distinctiveness of their occupancy. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 7: 187220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N., Simpson-Vlach, R., and Maynard, C. 2008. Formulaic language in native and second language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL. TESOL Quarterly 42: 375396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. 1994. The study of second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Elsness, J. 1997. The perfect and the preterite in contemporary and earlier English. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elsness, J. 2009. The perfect and the preterite in Australian and New Zealand English. In Peters, et al. (eds.), 89114.
Elspaß, S., Langer, N., Scharloth, J., and Vandenbussche, . 2007. Germanic language histories “from below” (1700–2000). Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engel, D. M. and Ritz, M. E. 2000. The use of the present perfect in Australian English. Australian Journal of Linguistics 20(2): 119140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enkvist, N. E. 1964. On defining style. In Enkvist, N. E., Spencer, J., and Gregory, M. (eds.), Linguistics and style, 156. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Erman, B. 1987. Pragmatic expressions in English: A study of you know, you see and I mean in face-to-face conversation. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S. 1971. Sociolinguistics. In Fishman, J. (ed.), Advances in the sociology of language, 1591. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Everitt, B. and Hothorn, T. 2011. An introduction to applied multivariate analysis with R. Berlin and New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evert, S. 2004. The statistics of word cooccurrences: Word pairs and collocations. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Stuttgart.
Evert, S. 2008. Corpora and collocations. In Lüdeling, A. and Kytö, M. (eds.), Corpus linguistics: An international handbook, 12121248. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Evert, S. and Lüdeling, A. 2001. Measuring morphological productivity: Is automatic preprocessing sufficient? In Rayson, P., Wilson, A., McEnery, T., Hardie, A., and Khoja, S. (eds.), Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics Conference 2001, 167175.
Evison, J. 2013. Turn openings in academic talk: Where goals and roles intersect. Classroom Discourse 4(1): 326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evison, J., McCarthy, M., and O’Keeffe, A. 2007. “Looking out for love and all the rest of it”: Vague category markers as shared social space. In Cutting, J. (ed.), Vague language explored, 138160. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, N. 1989. Language and power. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. 1996. Technologisation of discourse. In Caldas-Coulthard, and Coulthard, (eds.), 7183.
Fairclough, N. 2000. New Labour, new language? London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fallon, H. 2004. Comparing World Englishes: A research guide. World Englishes 23(2): 309316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farr, F. and O’Keeffe, A. 2002. Would as a hedging device in an Irish context: An intra-varietal comparison of institutionalised spoken interaction. In Reppen, R., Fitzmaurice, S., and Biber, D. (eds.), Using corpora to explore linguistic variation, 2548. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, G. 2001. If you pop over there: A corpus-based study of conditionals in medical discourse. English for Specific Purposes 20: 6182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernández, J. 2013. A corpus-based study of vague language use by learners of Spanish in a study abroad context. In Kinginger, C. (ed.), Social and cultural aspects of language learning in study abroad, 299332. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrangne, E. 2013. Automatic suprasegmental parameter extraction in learner corpora. In Diaz-Negrillo, Ana, Ballier, N., and Thompson, P. (eds.), Automatic treatment and analysis of learner corpus data, 151168. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferraresi, A., Bernardini, S., Picci, G., and Baroni, M. 2010. Web corpora for bilingual lexicography: A pilot study of English/French collocation extraction and translation. In Xiao, R. (ed.), Using corpora in contrastive and translation studies, 337359. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. 1985. Syntactic intrusions and the notion of grammatical construction. In Niepokuj, M., VanClay, M., Nikiforidou, V., and Feder, D. (eds.), Proceedings of the eleventh annual meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 7386. University of California, Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Johnson, C. R., and Petruck, M. R. L. 2003. Background to Framenet. International Journal of Lexicography 16: 235250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finegan, E. and Biber, D. 1994. Register and social dialect variation: An integrated approach. In Biber, D. and Finegan, E.. (eds.), Sociolinguistic perspectives on register, 315347. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Finegan, E. and Biber, D. 2001. Register variation and social dialect variation. In Eckert, P. and Rickford, J. R. (eds.), Style and sociolinguistic variation, 235267. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Firth, A. 1996. The discursive accomplishment of normality: On “lingua franca” English and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics 26(2): 237259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Firth, A. 1957. Papers in Linguistics 1934–1951. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Firth, A. 1968. A synopsis of linguistic theory 1930–1955. In Palmer, F. R. (ed.), Selected papers of J. R. Firth 1952–59, 132. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer-Starcke, B. 2009. Keywords and frequent phrases of Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice: A corpus-stylistic analysis. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14(4): 492523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer-Starcke, B. 2010. Corpus linguistics in literary analysis: Jane Austen and her contemporaries. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Fitzmaurice, S. M. and Taavitsainen, I. (eds.). 2007. Methods in historical pragmatics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flamson, T., Bryant, G. A., and Barrett, H. C. 2011. Prosody in spontaneous humor: Evidence for encryption. Pragmatics & Cognition 19(2), 248267.Google Scholar
Fletcher, W. 2013. Corpus analysis of the World Wide Web. In Chapelle, C. A (ed.), Encyclopedia of applied linguistics, 339347. Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Flowerdew, L. 1998. Integrating “expert” and “interlanguage” computer corpora findings on causality: Discoveries for teachers and students. English for Specific Purposes 17(4): 329345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flowerdew, L. 2012. Corpora and language education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fonseca-Greber, B. and Waugh, L. 2003. On the radical difference between the subject personal pronouns in written and spoken European French. In Leistyna, P. and Meyer, C. (eds.), Corpus analysis: Language structure and language use, 225240. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Forchini, P. 2012. Movie language revisited: Evidence from multi-dimensional analysis and corpora. Bern: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortanet, I. 2004. The use of “we” in university lectures: Reference and function. English for Specific Purposes 23: 4566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, B. 1987. Discourse structure and anaphora. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, B. and Thompson, S. 1990. A discourse explanation of the grammar of relative clauses in English conversation. Language 66: 297316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francis, G., Hunston, S., and Manning, E. 1996. Collins COBUILD grammar patterns 1: Verbs. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Francis, G., Hunston, S., and Manning, E. 1998. Collins COBUILD grammar patterns 2: Nouns and Adjectives. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Francis, W. N. and Kučera, H. 1964. Manual of information to accompany “A Standard Sample of Present-Day Edited American English, for use with Digital Computers.” Providence, RI: Brown University.Google Scholar
Francis, W. N. and Kučera, H. 1982. Frequency analysis of English usage: Lexicon and grammar. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Franconi, M. 2011. L’ingegneria linguistica dei briefings: Come viene gestito il dibattito tra la Casa Bianca e La Stampa sulle sommosse arabe. Dissertation, Faculty of Political Science, Bologna University.
Frawley, W. 1984. Prolegomenon to a theory of translation. In Frawley, W. (ed.), Translation: literary, linguistic, and philosophical perspectives, 159175. Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Presses.Google Scholar
Fraysse-Kim, Soon Hee. 2010. Keywords in Korean national consciousness: A corpus-based analysis of school textbooks. In Bondi, and Scott, (eds.), 219–33.
Frazier, Stefan. 2003. A corpus analysis of would-clauses without adjacent if-clauses. TESOL Quarterly 37: 443466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, G. L. 2009. Learner-created lexical databases using web-based source material. ELT Journal 63(2): 126136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fries, C. C. 1940. American English grammar: The grammatical structure of present-day American English with especial reference to social differences or class dialects (National Council of Teachers of English: English monograph). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
Fries, C. C. 1952. The structure of English: An introduction to the construction of English sentences. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Friginal, E. 2009. The language of outsourced call centers: A corpus-based study of cross-cultural interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friginal, E. 2010. Call centre training and language in the Philippines. In Forey, G. and Lockwood, J. (eds.), Globalization, communication and the workplace: Talking across the world, 190203. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Fritz, C. W. A. 2007. From English in Australia to Australian English: 1788–1900. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fu, X. 2012. The use of interactional metadiscourse in job postings. Discourse Studies 14: 399417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuchs, M. and Bonner, M. 2011. Focus on grammar, 4th edn. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Fuertes-Olivera, P. A. and Bergenholtz, H. (eds.). 2011. e-Lexicography: The internet, digital initiatives and lexicography. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Fung, L. and Carter, R. 2007. Discourse markers and spoken English: Native and learner use in pedagogic settings. Applied Linguistics 28: 410439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabrielatos, C. 2005. Corpora and language teaching: Just a fling or wedding bells? Teaching English as a Second Language – Electronic Journal 8(4): 135. Downloaded from http://tesl-ej.org/ej32/a1.htmlGoogle Scholar
Gabrielatos, C. and Baker, P. 2008. Fleeing, sneaking, flooding: A corpus analysis of discursive constructions of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK press, 1996–2005. Journal of English Linguistics 36(1): 538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gan, S-L., Low, F., and Yaakub, N. 1996. Modeling teaching with a computer-based concordancer in a TESL preservice teacher education program. Journal of Computing in Teacher Education 12(4): 2832.Google Scholar
Gardner, D. and Davies, M. 2007. Pointing out frequent phrasal verbs: A corpus-based analysis. TESOL Quarterly 41: 339359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, D. and Davies, M. 2013. A new academic vocabulary list. Applied Linguistics 34(5): 124.Google Scholar
Garside, R. 1987. The CLAWS word-tagging system. In Garside, R., Leech, G., and Sampson, G. (eds.), The computational analysis of English: A corpus-based approach, 3041. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Garside, R. 1993. The marking of cohesive relationships: Tools for the construction of a large bank of anaphoric data. ICAME Journal 17: 527.Google Scholar
Garside, R., Leech, G., and McEnery, T. (eds.) 1997. Corpus annotation: Linguistic information from computer text corpora. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Gaskell, D. and Cobb, T. 2004. Can learners use concordance feedback for writing errors? System 32(3): 301319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gavioli, L. 2005. Exploring corpora for ESP learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geisler, C. 2002. Investigating register variation in nineteenth-century English: A multi-dimensional comparison. In Reppen, R., Fitzmaurice, S. M., and Biber, D. (eds.), Using corpora to explore linguistic variation, 249271. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gellerstam, M. 1996. Translations as a source for cross-linguistic studies. In Aijmer, K., Altenberg, B., and Johansson, M. (eds.), Languages in contrast, 5361. Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Gelman, A., Hill, J., and Yajima, M. 2012. Why we (usually) don’t have to worry about multiple comparisons. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness 5: 189211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerbig, A. 2010. Key words and key phrases in a corpus of travel writing: From early modern English to contemporary “blooks.” In Bondi, and Scott, (eds.), 147168.
Giannoni, D. 2008. Popularizing features in English journal editorials. English for Specific Purposes 27: 212232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillard, P. and Gadsby, A. 1998. Using a learners’ corpus in compiling ELT dictionaries. In Granger, S. (ed.), Learner English on computer, 159171. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Gilmore, A. 2007. Authentic materials and authenticity in foreign language learning. Language Teaching 40, 97118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilmore, A. 2011, “I prefer not text”: Developing Japanese learners’ communicative competence with authentic materials. Language Learning 61: 786819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, G. 2000/2001. The integrated contrastive model: Spicing up your data. Languages in Contrast 3(1): 95123.Google Scholar
Gilquin, G. 2002. Automatic retrieval of syntactic structures: The quest for the Holy Grail. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 7(2): 183214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, G. 2007. To err is not all: What corpus and elicitation can reveal about the use of collocations by learners. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 55(3): 273291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, G. 2008. Hesitation markers among EFL learners: Pragmatic deficiency or difference? In Romero-Trillo, J. (ed.), Pragmatics and corpus linguistics: A mutualistic entente, 119149. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gilquin, G. 2012. Lexical infelicity in English causative constructions: Comparing native and learner collostructions. In Leino, J. and von Waldenfels, R. (eds.), Analytical causatives: From ‘give’ and ‘come’ to ‘let’ and ‘make’, 4163. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Gilquin, G., De Cock, S., and Granger, S. 2010. Louvain International Database of Spoken English Interlanguage. Handbook and CD-ROM. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Gilquin, G., Granger, S., and Paquot, M. 2007. Learner corpora: The missing link in EAP pedagogy. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 6(4): 319335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilquin, G., Papp, S., and Díez-Bedmar, M. B. (eds.). 2008. Linking up contrastive and learner corpus research. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Gledhill, C. 2000. Collocations in science writing. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Glynn, D. 2010. Testing the hypothesis: objectivity and verification in usage-based Cognitive Semantics. In Glynn, D. and Fischer, K. (eds.), Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches, 239629. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goatly, A. 2004. Corpus linguistics, systemic-functional grammar and literary meaning: A critical analysis of Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone. Revista Ilha do Desterro: A Journal of English Language, Literatures in English and Cultural Studies 46: 115154.Google Scholar
Godfrey, J., Holliman, E., and McDaniel, J. 1992. SWITCHBOARD: Telephone speech corpus for research and development. In Proceedings of ICASSP, 517520. San Francisco, CA: IEEE Signal Processing Society.Google Scholar
Goh, C. 1998. The level tone in Singapore English. English Today 14(1): 5053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goh, C. 2000. A discourse approach to the description of intonation in Singapore English. In Brown, A., Deterding, D., and Ling, L. E. (eds.), The English language in Singapore: Research on pronunciation, 3545. Singapore Association for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. 1999. The emergence of the semantics of argument structure constructions. In MacWhinney, B. (ed.), The emergence of language, 197212. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (ed.). 1995. Conceptual structure, discourse and language. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gordani, Y. 2012. The effect of the integration of corpora in reading comprehension classrooms on English as a foreign language learners’ vocabulary development. Computer Assisted Language Learning, i-First article. DOI:10.1080/09588221.2012.685078.
Görlach, M. 2004. Text types and the history of English. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Götz, S. 2013. Fluency in native and nonnative English speech. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Götz-Votteler, K. and Herbst, T. 2009. Innovation in advanced learners’ dictionaries of English. Lexicographica 25: 4766.Google Scholar
Gougenheim, G. 1958. Dictionnaire fondamental de la langue française. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar
Goulden, R., Nation, P., and Read, J. 1990. How large can a receptive vocabulary be? Applied Linguistics 11: 358359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grabe, E. and Post, B. 2002. The transcribed IViE corpus. University of Oxford, Phonetics Laboratory.Google Scholar
Grafmiller, J. 2014. Variation in English genitives across modality and genre. English Language and Linguistics 18(3), 471496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granger, S. 1983. The be + past participle construction in spoken English with special emphasis on the passive. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.Google Scholar
Granger, S. 1996. From CA to CIA and back: An integrated approach to computerized bilingual and learner corpora. In Aijmer, K., Altenberg, B., and Johansson, M. (eds.), Languages in contrast, 3751. Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Granger, S. 1998 Prefabricated patterns in advanced EFL writing: Collocations and formulae. In Cowie, A. P. (ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis, and applications, 145160. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Granger, S. (ed.). 1998b. Learner English on computer. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Granger, S. 2003a. The International Corpus of Learner English: A new resource for foreign language learning and teaching and second language acquisition research. TESOL Quarterly, 37: 538546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granger, S. 2003b. Error-tagged learner corpora and CALL: A promising synergy. CALICO 20(3): 465480.Google Scholar
Granger, S. 2009. The contribution of learner corpora to second language acquisition and foreign language teaching: A critical evaluation. In Aijmer, K. (ed.), Corpora and language teaching, 1332. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granger, S. 2012. Introduction: Electronic lexicography – from challenge to opportunity. In Granger, and Paquot, (eds.), 111.
Granger, S. 2013. The passive in learner English: Corpus insights and implications for pedagogical grammar. In Ishikawa, S. (ed.), Learner corpus studies in Asia and the world, vol. 1: Papers from LCSAW2013, 515. Kobe: School of Languages and Communication, Kobe University.Google Scholar
Granger, S., Dagneaux, E., and Meunier, F. 2002. The International Corpus of Learner English: Handbook and CD-ROM. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Granger, S., Dagneaux, E., Meunier, F., and Paquot, M. 2009. The International Corpus of Learner English. Version 2: Handbook and CD-Rom, Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Granger, S., Hung, J., and Petch-Tyson, S. (eds.). 2002. Computer learner corpora, second language acquisition and foreign language teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granger, S. and Lefer, M.-A. 2012. Towards more and better phrasal entries in bilingual dictionaries. Proceedings of the XV EURALEX Congress. Downloaded from www.euralex.org/proceedings-toc/euralex_2012/
Granger, S. and Meunier, F. 1994. Towards a grammar checker for learners of English. In Fries, U. and Tottie, G. (eds.), Creating and using English language corpora, 7991. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Granger, S. and Meunier, F. (eds.). 2008. Phraseology: An interdisciplinary perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granger, S. and Paquot, M. 2008. Disentangling the phraseological web. In Granger, and Meunier, (eds.), 2749.
Granger, S. & Paquot, M. 2009. In search of General Academic English: A corpus driven study. In Katsampoxaki-Hodgetts, K. (ed.), Options and practices of LSP practitioners conference proceedings, 94108. University of Crete.Google Scholar
Granger, S. and Paquot, M. 2010. Customising a general EAP dictionary to meet learner needs. In Granger, S. and Paquot, M. (eds.), eLexicography in the 21st century: New challenges, new applications, 8796. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Granger, S. and Paquot, M. (eds.). 2012. Electronic lexicography. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granger, S. and Rayson, P. 1998. Automatic profiling of learner texts. In Granger, S. (ed.), Learner English on computer, 119131. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Gray, B. and Biber, D. 2013. Lexical frames in academic prose and conversation. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18: 109135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, B., Biber, D., and Hiltunen, T. 2011. The expression of stance in early (1665–1712) publications of the Philosophical Transactions and other contemporary medical prose: Innovations in a pioneering discourse. In Taavitsainen, I. and Pahta, P. (eds.), Medical writing in Early Modern English, 221257. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, B. and Cortes, V. 2011. Perception vs. evidence: An analysis of this and these in academic prose. English for Specific Purposes 30, 1: 3143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greaves, C. 2009. ConcGram 1.0: A phraseological search engine. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Greenacre, M. 2007. Correspondence analysis in practice. 2nd edn. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenbaum, S. 1969. Studies in English adverbial usage. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Greenbaum, S. 1974. Some verb-intensifier collocations in American and British English. American Speech 49: 7989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenbaum, S. 1990. Standard English and the international corpus of English. World Englishes 9: 7983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenbaum, S. 1991. ICE: The International Corpus of English. English Today 28: 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenbaum, S. (ed.). 1996. Comparing English Worldwide: The International Corpus of English. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Greenbaum, S. and Nelson, G. 1996. The International Corpus of English (ICE) Project. World Englishes 15: 315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, B. B. and Rubin, G. M. 1971. Automatic grammatical tagging of English. Providence, RI: Department of Linguistics, Brown University.Google Scholar
Greule, A., Meier, J., and Ziegler, A. (eds.). 2012. Kanzleisprachenforschung: Ein internationales Handbuch. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grgurović, M., Chapelle, C. A., and Shelley, M. C. 2013. A meta-analysis of effectiveness studies on computer technology supported language learning. ReCALL 25(2): 165198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. 2000. Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: The case of particle placement. PhD dissertation, University of Hamburg.
Gries, S. Th. 2003a. Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: A study of particle placement. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. 2003b. Towards a corpus-based identification of prototypical instances of constructions. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 1: 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. 2004. HCFA 3.2. A program for R. Downloaded from: www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/faculty/stgries/
Gries, S. Th. 2005a. Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 34: 365399.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gries, S. Th. 2005b. Null-hypothesis significance testing of word frequencies: A follow-up on Kilgarriff. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1(2): 277294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. 2006. Exploring variability within and between corpora: Some methodological considerations. Corpora 1(2): 109151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. 2008. Dispersions and adjusted frequencies in corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 13: 403–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. 2009. Quantitative corpus linguistics with R: A practical introduction. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. 2010a. Corpus linguistics and theoretical linguistics: A love–hate relationship? Not necessarily … International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 15(3): 327343.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. 2010b. Useful statistics for corpus linguistics. In Sánchez, A. and Almela, M. (eds.), A mosaic of corpus linguistics: selected approaches, 269291. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. 2010c. Dispersions and adjusted frequencies in corpora: Further explorations. In Gries, S. Th., Wulff, S., and Davies, M. (eds.), Corpus linguistic applications: Current studies, new directions, 197212. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. 2012a. Frequencies, probabilities, association measures in usage-/exemplar-based linguistics: Some necessary clarifications. Studies in Language 36(3): 477510.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. 2012b. Corpus linguistics, theoretical linguistics and cognitive/psycholinguistics: Towards more and more fruitful exchanges. In Mukherjee, J. and Huber, M. (eds.), Corpus linguistics and variation in English: Theory and description, 4163. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. 2013a. Statistics for linguistics using R, 2nd rev. and ext. edn. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. 2013b. 50-something years of work on collocations: what is or should be next … International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18(1): 137165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. 2014b. Quantitative corpus approaches to linguistic analysis: Seven or eight levels of resolution and the lessons they teach us. In Taavitsainen, I., Kytö, M., Claridge, C., and Smith, J. (eds.), Developments in English: Expanding electronic evidence, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. Forthcoming. Statistics for learner corpus research. Gilquin, G., Granger, S., and Meunier, F. (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of learner corpus research. Cambridge University Press.
Gries, S. Th. and Deshors, S. C. 2014. Using regressions to explore deviations between corpus data and a standard/target: two suggestions. Corpora 9(1): 109136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. and Hilpert, M. 2008. The identification of stages in diachronic data: variability-based neighbor clustering. Corpora 3(1): 5981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. and Hilpert, M. 2010. Modeling diachronic change in the third person singular: a multifactorial, verb- and author-specific exploratory approach. English Language and Linguistics 14(3): 293320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. and Hilpert, M. 2012. Variability-based neighbor clustering: a bottom-up approach to periodization in historical linguistics. In Nevalainen, T. and Traugott, E. C. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of English, 134144. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. and Mukherjee, J. 2010. Lexical gravity across varieties of English: An ICE-based study of n-grams in Asian Englishes. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 15(4): 520548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. and Stefanowitsch, A. 2004. Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on “alternations.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(1): 97129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grieve, J. 2007. Quantitative authorship attribution: An evaluation of techniques. Literary and Linguistic Computing 22: 251270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grieve, J. 2011. A regional analysis of contraction rate in written Standard American English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 16: 514546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grieve, J. 2012. A statistical analysis of regional variation in adverb position in a corpus of written Standard American English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 8: 3972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grieve, J. 2013. A statistical comparison of regional phonetic and lexical variation in American English. Literary and Linguistic Computing 28(1): 3972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grieve, J., Biber, D., Friginal, E., and Nekrasova, T. 2011. Variation among blogs: A multi-dimensional analysis. In Mehler, A., Sharoff, S., and Santini, M. (eds.), Genres on the web, 303322. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Grieve, J., Speelman, D., and Geeraerts, D. 2011. A statistical method for the identification and aggregation of regional linguistic variation. Language Variation and Change 23: 193221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grondelaers, S., and Speelman, D. 2007. A variationist account of constituent ordering in presentative sentences in Belgian Dutch. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 3: 161193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groom, N. 2010. Closed-class keywords and corpus-driven discourse analysis. In Bondi, and Scott, (eds.), pp. 5978.
Grundmann, R. and Krishnamurthy, R. 2010. The discourse of climate change: A corpus-based approach. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines 4(2): 125146.Google Scholar
Gu, Y. G. 2002. Towards an understanding of workplace discourse. In Candlin, C. (ed.), Research and practice in professional discourse, 137186. City University of Hong Kong Press.Google Scholar
Guiraud, P. 1954. Les caractères statistiques du vocabulaire, pages 64–7 reprinted 1975 in Guiraud, P. and Kuentz, P. (eds.), La stylistique: Lectures. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Gut, U. 2009. Non-native speech: A corpus-based analysis of phonological and phonetic properties of L2 English and German. Oxford: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hakuta, K. 1974. Prefabricated patterns and the emergence of structure in second language acquisition. Language Learning 24: 287–97.CrossRef