Aarts, B. 2007. Syntactic gradience: The nature of grammatical indeterminacy. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Aarts, B., Close, J., Leech, G., and Wallis, S. (eds.). 2013. The verb phrase in English: Investigating recent language change with corpora. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aarts, B., Close, J., and Wallis, S. 2013. Choices over time: Methodological issues in investigating current change. In Aarts, , Close, , Leech, , and Wallis, (eds.), 14–45.Google Scholar

Aarts, F. G. A. M. 1971. On the distribution of noun-phrase types in English clause-structure. Lingua 26(3): 281–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aarts, J. 1999. The description of language use. In Hasselgård, H. and Oksefjell, S. (eds.), Out of corpora: Studies in honour of Stig Johansson, 3–20. Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ädel, A. 2008a. Involvement features in writing: Do time and interaction trump register awareness? In Gilquin, G., Papp, S., and Díez-Bedmar, M. B. (eds.), Linking up contrastive and learner corpus research, 35–53. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ädel, A. 2008b. Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Ädel, A. and Erman, B. 2012. Recurrent word combinations in academic writing by native and non-native speakers of English: A lexical bundles approach. English for Specific Purposes 31: 81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Adger, D. and Smith, J. 2010. Variation in agreement: A lexical feature-based approach. Lingua 120: 1109–1134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Adolphs, S. 2008. Corpus and context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Adolphs, S. and Knight, D. 2010. Building a spoken corpus: what are the basics? In O’Keeffe, A. and McCarthy, M. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics, 38–52. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Adolphs, S., Atkins, S., and Harvey, K. 2007. Caught between professional requirements and interpersonal needs: Vague language in healthcare contexts. In Cutting, J. (ed.), Vague language explored, 62–78. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Afida, M. A. 2007. Semantic fields of problem in business English: Malaysian and British journalistic business texts. Corpora 2(2): 211–239.Google Scholar

Aguado-Jiménez, P., Pérez-Paredes, P., and Sanchez, P. 2012. Exploring the use of multidimensional analysis of learner language to promote register awareness. System 40: 90–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ahmad, K., Corbett, G., and Rogers, M. 1985. Using computers with advanced language learners: An example. Language Teacher (Tokyo) 9(3): 4–7.Google Scholar

Aijmer, K. 2002a. English discourse particles: Evidence from corpora. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aijmer, K. 2002b. Modality in advanced Swedish learners’ written interlanguage. In Granger, S., Hung, J., and Petch-Tyson, S. (eds.), Computer learner corpora, second language acquisition and foreign language teaching, 55–76. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Aijmer, K. 2011. Well I’m not sure I think …: The use of well by non-native speakers. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 16(2): 231–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aijmer, K. 2013. Understanding pragmatic markers: A variational pragmatic approach. Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aijmer, K. and Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M. (eds.). 2006. Pragmatic markers in contrast. Oxford: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Allan, R. 2006. Data-driven learning and vocabulary: Investigating the use of concordances with advanced learners of English. Centre for Language and Communication Studies, Occasional Paper, 66. Dublin: Trinity College Dublin.Google Scholar

Alonso-Almeida, F., Ortega-Barrera, I., and Quintana-Toledo, E. 2012. Corpus of Early English Recipes: Design and implementation. In Vázquez, (ed.), 37–50.Google Scholar

Al-Surmi, M. 2012. Authenticity and TV shows: A multidimensional analysis perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 46(4): 671–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Altenberg, B. 1998. On the phraseology of spoken English: The evidence of recurrent word combinations. In Cowie, A. (ed.), Phraseology: Theory, analysis and applications, 101–122. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Altenberg, B. and Granger, S. 2001. The grammatical and lexical patterning of make in native and non-native student writing. Applied Linguistics 22(2), 173–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Alves, F., Pagano, A., Neumann, S., Steiner, E., and Hansen-Schirra, S. 2010. Translation units and grammatical shifts: Towards an integration of product- and process-based translation research. In Shreve, G. and Angelone, E. (eds.), Translation and cognition, 109–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Amador-Moreno, C. 2012. A corpus-based approach to contemporary Irish writing: Ross O’Carroll-Kelly’s use of like as a discourse marker. International Journal of English Studies 12(2): 19–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Andersen, G. 1997. They like wanna see like how we talk and all that: The use of like as a discourse marker in London teenage speech. In Ljung, M. (ed.), Corpus-based studies in English, 37–48. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar

Andersen, G. 2001. Pragmatic markers and sociolinguistic variation: A relevance-theoretic approach to the language of adolescents. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Andersen, G. and Bech, K. (eds.). 2013. English corpus linguistics: Variation in time, space and genre. Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anderwald, L. 2002. Negation in non-standard British English: Gaps, regularizations and asymmetrics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Anderwald, L. 2005. Negative concord in British English dialects. In Iyeiri, Y. (ed.), Aspects of English negation, 113–137. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anderwald, L. 2009. The morphology of English dialects: Verb formation in non-standard English. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anderwald, L. and Wagner, S. 2007. FRED – The Freiburg English Dialect Corpus: Applying corpus-linguistic research tools to the analysis of dialect data. Creating and digitizing language corpora. Synchronic Databases 1: 35–53.Google Scholar

Anshen, F. and Aronoff, M. 1999. Using dictionaries to study the mental lexicon. Brain and Language 68(1–2): 16–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

AntConc. 2007–2013. Anthony, L. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. See www.antlab.sci.waseda.ac.jp/index.html (accessed 28 February 2013).Google Scholar

Anthony, L. 2004. AntConc: A learner and classroom friendly, multi-platform corpus analysis toolkit. Proceedings of IWLeL 2004: An Interactive Workshop on Language e-Learning 7–13.Google Scholar

Archer, D. 2005. Questions and answers in the English courtroom (1640–1760): A sociopragmatic analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Archer, D. (ed.). 2009. What’s in a word-list? Investigating word frequency and keyword extraction. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate.Google Scholar

Archer, D. 2014. Exploring verbal aggression in English historical texts using USAS: The possibilities, the problems and potential solutions. In Taavitsainen, , Jucker, , and Tuominen, (eds.), 277–302.Google Scholar

Archer, D., Aijmer, K., and Wichmann, A. 2012. Pragmatics: An advanced resource book for students. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Archer, D. and Bousfield, D. 2010. See better, Lear? See Lear better! A corpus-based pragma-stylistic investigation of Shakespeare’s King Lear. In McIntyre, and Busse, (eds.), 183–203.Google Scholar

Archer, D., Culpeper, J., and Rayson, P. 2009. Love – a familiar or a devil? An exploration of key domains in Shakespeare’s comedies and tragedies. In Archer, (ed.), 137–157.Google Scholar

Argamon, S., Koppel, M., Fine, J., and Shimoni, A. R. 2003. Gender, genre, and writing style in formal written texts. Text, 23: 321–346.Google Scholar

Arnold, M. 1861. On translating Homer. London: Longman, Green, Longman, and Roberts.Google Scholar

Arnovick, L. K. 1999. Diachronic pragmatics: Seven case studies in English illocutionary development. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Asención-Delaney, Y. and Collentine, J. 2011. A multidimensional analysis of written L2 Spanish. Applied Linguistics 32: 299–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Asmussen, J. 2013. Combined products: Dictionary and corpus. In Gouws, R. H., Heid, U., Schweickard, W., and Wiegand, H. E. (eds.), Dictionaries: An international encyclopedia of lexicography, vol. 5.4 (suppl.): Recent developments with focus on electronic and computational lexicography, 1081–1090. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Aston, G. and Burnard, L. 1998. The BNC handbook. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Azar, B. S. and Hagen, S. A. 2009. Understanding and using English grammar, 4th edn. White Plains, NY: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar

Baayen, R. H. 1993. On frequency, transparency, and productivity. In Booij, G. E. and van Marle, J. (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology 1992, 181–208. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baayen, R. H. 1994. Productivity in language production. Language and Cognitive Processes 9(3), 447–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baayen, R. H. 2008. Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baayen, R. H. 2010. A real experiment is a factorial experiment. The Mental Lexicon 5(1): 149–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baayen, R. H. 2011. Corpus linguistics and naïve discriminative learning. Brazilian Journal of Applied Linguistics 11(2): 295–328.Google Scholar

Baayen, H., van Halteren, H., and Tweedie, F. 1996. Outside the cave of shadows: Using syntactic annotation to enhance authorship attribution. Literary and Linguistic Computing 11(3): 121–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bachmann, I. 2011. Civil partnership – “Gay marriage in all but name”: A corpus-driven analysis of discourses of same-sex relationships in the UK Parliament. Corpora 6(1): 77–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bahumaid, S. 2006. Collocation in English-Arabic translation. Babel 52(2): 133–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baker, M. 1993. Corpus linguistics and translation studies: Implications and applications. In Baker, M., Francis, G., and Bonelli, E. Tognini (eds.), Text and technology, 223–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baker, M. 1995. Corpora in translation studies: An overview and some suggestions for future research. Target 7(2): 223–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baker, M. 2000. Towards a methodology for investigating the style of a literary translator. Target 12(2): 241–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baker, P. 2004. Querying keywords: Questions of difference, frequency and sense in keywords analysis. Journal of English Linguistics 32(4): 346–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baker, P. 2005. The public discourses of gay men. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Baker, P. 2006. Using corpora in discourse analysis. London: Continuum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baker, P. 2008. “Eligible” bachelors and “frustrated” spinsters: Corpus linguistics, gender and language. In Sunderland, J., Harrington, K., and Stantson, H. (eds.), 73–84. Gender and language research methodologies. London: Palgrave.Google Scholar

Baker, P. 2009a. The BE06 Corpus of British English and recent language change. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14(3): 312–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baker, P. 2009b. The question is, how cruel is it? Keywords, fox hunting and the House of Commons. In Archer, (ed.), 125–136.Google Scholar

Baker, P. 2010. Sociolinguistics and corpus linguistics. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Baker, P. 2011. Times may change, but we will always have money: Diachronic variation in recent British English, Journal of English Linguistics 39(1): 65–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baker, P., Gabrielatos, C., Khosravinik, M., Krzyzanowski, M., McEnery, T., and Wodak, R. 2008. A useful methodological synergy? Combining critical discourse analysis and corpus linguistics to examine discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK press. Discourse and Society 19(3): 273–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baker, P., Gabrielatos, C., and McEnery, T. 2013. Sketching Muslims: A corpus driven analysis of representations around the word “Muslim” in the British press 1998–2009. Applied Linguistics 34(3): 255–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baker, P. and McEnery, T. 2005. A corpus-based approach to discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in UN and newspaper texts. Journal of Language and Politics 4(2): 197–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Balasubramanian, C. 2009a. Register variation in Indian English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Balasubramanian, C. 2009b. Circumstance adverbials in registers of Indian English. World Englishes 28: 485–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ballier, N. and Martin, P. 2013. Developing corpus interoperability for phonetic investigation of learner corpora. In Diaz-Negrillo, Ana, Ballier, N., and Thompson, P. (eds.), Automatic treatment and analysis of learner corpus data, 33–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barbieri, F. 2005. Quotative use in American English: A corpus-based, cross-register comparison. Journal of English Linguistics 33: 222–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barbieri, F. 2007. Older men and younger women: A corpus-based study of quotative use in American English. English World-Wide 28: 23–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barbieri, F. 2008a. Patterns of age-based linguistic variation in American English. Journal of Sociolinguistics 12: 58–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barbieri, F. 2008b. Involvement in university classroom discourse. Unpublished dissertation, Northern Arizona University.Google Scholar

Barbieri, F. 2009. Quotative be like in American English: Ephemeral or here to stay? English World-Wide 30: 68–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barbieri, F. and Eckhardt, S. 2007. Applying corpus-based findings to form-focused instruction: The case of reported speech. Language Teaching Research 11(3): 319–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barnbrook, G. 2002. Defining language: A local grammar of definition sentences. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baron, A. and Rayson, P. 2008. VARD 2: A tool for dealing with spelling variation in historical corpora. Proceedings of the Postgraduate Conference in Corpus Linguistics, Aston University, Birmingham, 22 May 2008. Available at http://acorn.aston.ac.uk/conf_proceedings.htmlGoogle Scholar

Baron, N. S. 2004. See you online: Gender issues in college student use of instant messaging. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 23: 397–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baroni, M. and Bernardini, S. 2004. BootCaT: Bootstrapping corpora and terms from the web. Proceedings of LREC 2004.Google Scholar

Baroni, M. and Bernardini, S. 2006. A new approach to the study of translationese: Machine-learning the difference between original and translated text. Literary and Linguistic Computing 21(3): 259–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baroni, M., Bernardini, S., Ferraresi, A., and Zanchetta, E. 2009. The WaCky Wide Web: A collection of very large linguistically processed web-crawled corpora. Language Resources and Evaluation 43(3) 209–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baroni, M., Kilgarriff, A., Pomikálek, J., and Rychlý, P. 2006. WebBootCaT: A web tool for instant corpora. In Proceedings of Euralex 2006. Turin.Google Scholar

Bartsch, S. 2004. Structural and functional properties of collocations in English: A corpus study of lexical and pragmatic constraints on lexical co-occurrence. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar

Baten, L., Cornu, A-M., and Engels, L. 1989. The use of concordances in vocabulary acquisition. In Laurent, C. and Nordman, M. (eds.), Special language: From humans thinking to thinking machines, 452–467. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Bauer, L. 1993. Manual of information to accompany the Wellington Corpus of Written New Zealand English. Wellington: Victoria University, Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar

Bauer, L. 2001. Morphological productivity. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bauer, L. 2002. Inferring variation and change from public corpora. In Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, P., and Schilling-Estes, N. (eds.), The handbook of language variation and change, 97–114. Malden, MA, and Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Bauer, L. and Nation, P. 1993. Word families. International Journal of Lexicography, 6(4): 253–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bayley, P. and Williams, G. 2012. European identity: What the media say. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beaufort, A. 2007. College writing and beyond. Logan: Utah State University Press.Google Scholar

Becher, V. 2011. When and why do translators add connectives? A corpus-based study. Target 23(1): 26–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beckman, M. E., Hirschberg, J., and Shattuck-Hufnagel, S. 2005. The original ToBI system and the evolution of the ToBI framework. In Jun, S.-A. (ed.), 15th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS15), Barcelona, Spain, 2–9 August 2003, 9–14.Google Scholar

Bednarek, M. 2006a. Evaluation in media discourse: Analysis of a newspaper corpus. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Bednarek, M. 2006b. Evaluating Europe: Parameters of evaluation in the British press. In Leung, C. and Jenkins, J. (eds.), Reconfiguring Europe: The contribution of applied linguistics, 137–156. London: BAAL/Equinox.Google Scholar

Bednarek, M. 2008. Emotion talk across corpora. London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bednarek, M. 2010. The language of fictional television: Drama and identity. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Bednarek, M and Caple, H. 2012. News discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Behre, F. 1955. Meditative-polemic should in Modern English that-clauses. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar

Behre, F. 1967. Studies in Agatha Christie’s writings: The behaviour of a good (great) deal, a lot, lots, much, plenty, many, a good (great) many. Stockholm, Gothenburg, and Uppsala: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar

Behre, F. 1969. Variation and change in the distribution of lot(s), deal, much, many, etc. English Studies 50: 435–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bell, A. 1984. Language style as audience design. Language in Society 13: 145–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Belz, J. and Vyatkina, N. 2005. Learner corpus research and the development of L2 pragmatic competence in networked intercultural language study: The case of German modal particles. Canadian Modern Language Review 62(1): 17–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Belz, J. and Vyatkina, N. 2008. The pedagogical mediation of a developmental learner corpus for classroom-based language instruction. Language Learning & Technology, 12(3): 33–52.Google Scholar

Bennett, G. 2010. Using corpora in the language learning classroom: Corpus linguistics for teachers. University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Benson, M. 1990. Collocation and general-purpose dictionaries. International Journal of Lexicography 3(1): 23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Benson, M., Benson, E., and Ilson, R. 1986/2010. The BBI combinatory dictionary of English (3rd edn.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Benwell, B. and Stokoe, E. 2006. Discourse and identity. Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Berber Sardinha, T. 2011. Metaphor and corpus linguistics. RBLA, Belo Horizonte 11: 329–360.Google Scholar

Berglund, Y. 2000. Gonna and going to in the spoken component of the British National Corpus. Language and Computers 33: 35–50.Google Scholar

Berman, A. 1985. La traduction comme épreuve de l’étranger. Texte 4: 67–81.Google Scholar

Bernaisch, T., Gries, S. Th., and Mukherjee, J. 2014. The dative alternation in South Asian English(es): Modelling predictors and predicting prototypes. English World-Wide 35(1): 7–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bernardini, S. and Zanettin, F. 2004. When is a universal not a universal? Some limits of current corpus-based methodologies for the investigation of translation universals. In Mauranen, A. and Kujamäki, P. (eds.), Translation universals: Do they exist?, 51–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bertuccelli Papi, M. 2000. Is a diachronic speech act theory possible? Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1(1): 57–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bestgen, Y. 2013. Inadequacy of the chi-squared test to examine vocabulary differences between corpora. Literary and Linguistic Computing 29(2): 164–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bhana, N. 2009. The chairman’s statements and annual reports: Are they reporting the same company performance to investors? Investment Analysts Journal 70: 32–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bhuian, S. N., Menguc, B., and Bell, S. J. 2005. Just entrepreneurial enough: the moderating effect of entrepreneurship on the relationship between market orientation and performance. Journal of Business Research 58: 9–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, D. 1986. Spoken and written textual dimensions in English: Resolving the contradictory findings. Language 62: 384–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, D. 1987. A textual comparison of British and American writing. American Speech 62: 99–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, D. 1988. Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, D. 1993a. Co-occurrence patterns among collocations: A tool for corpus-based lexical knowledge acquisition. Computational Linguistics 19(3): 531–538.Google Scholar

Biber, D. 1993b. Representativeness in corpus design. Literary and Linguistic Computing 8(4), 243–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, D. 1995. Dimensions of register variation. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, D. 2003. Compressed noun-phrase structures in newspaper discourse: The competing demands of popularization vs. economy. In Aitchison, J. and Lewis, D. M. (eds.), New media language, 169–181. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Biber, D. 2004. Historical patterns for the grammatical marking of stance: A cross-register comparison. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 5(1): 107–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, D. 2006a. University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, D. 2006b. Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5: 97–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, D. 2009. A corpus-driven approach to formulaic language in English: Multi-word patterns in speech and writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14(3): 275–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, D. 2011. Corpus linguistics and the scientific study of literature: Back to the future? Scientific Study of Literature 1(1): 15–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, D. 2012. Register as a predictor of linguistic variation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 8: 9–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, D. and Barbieri, F. 2007. Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers. English for Specific Purposes 26: 263–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, D. and Burges, J. 2000. Historical change in the language use of women and men: Gender differences in dramatic dialogue. Journal of English Linguistics 28: 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, D., Connor, U., and Upton, T. 2007. Discourse on the move: Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, D. and Conrad, S. 1999. Lexical bundles in conversation and academic prose. In Hasselgård, H. and Oksefjell, S. (eds.), Out of corpora: Studies in honour of Stig Johansson, 181–190. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, D. and Conrad, S. 2009. Register, genre, and style. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, D., Conrad, S., and Cortes, V. 2004. “If you look at … ”: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics 25: 371–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, D., Conrad, S., and Leech, G. 2002. The Longman student grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Biber, D., Conrad, S., and Reppen, R. 1998. Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, D., Conrad, S., Reppen, R., Byrd, P., and Helt, M. 2002. Speaking and writing in the university: A multi-dimensional comparison. TESOL Quarterly 36: 9–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, D., Conrad, S., Reppen, R., Byrd, P., Helt, M., Clark, V., Cortez, V., Csomay, E., and Urzua, A. 2004. Representing language use in the university: Analysis of the TOEFL 2000 spoken and written academic language corpus. Princeton: ETS/TOEFL.Google Scholar

Biber, D., Davies, M., Jones, J., and Tracy-Ventura, N. 2006. Spoken and written register variation in Spanish: A multi-dimensional analysis. Corpora 1: 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, D., Egbert, J. A., Gray, B., Oppliger, R., and Szmrecsanyi, B. Forthcoming. Variationist versus text-linguistic approaches to grammatical change in English: Nominal modifiers of head nouns. Handbook of English historical linguistics.Google Scholar

Biber, D. and Finegan, E. 1989. Drift and the evolution of English style: A history of three genres. Language 65: 487–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, D. and Finegan, E. 1997. Diachronic relations among speech-based and written registers in English. In Nevalainen, T. and Kahlas-Tarkka, L. (eds.), To explain the present: Studies in the changing English language in honour of Matti Rissanen, 253–275. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar

Biber, D. and Gray, B. 2011. Grammatical change in the noun phrase: The influence of written language use. English Language and Linguistics 15(2): 223–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, D. and Gray, B. 2012. The competing demands of popularization vs. economy: Written language in the age of mass literacy. In Nevalainen, T. and Traugott, E. C. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of English, 314–328. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, D. and Gray, B. 2013. Discourse characteristics of writing and speaking task types on the TOEFL iBT test: A lexico-grammatical analysis (TOEFL iBT Research Report No. 19). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar

Biber, D., Gray, B., and Poonpon, K. 2011. Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? TESOL Quarterly 45: 5–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, D., Grieve, J., and Iberri-Shea, G. 2010. Noun phrase modification. In Rohdenburg, G. and Schlüter, J. (eds.), One language, two grammars? Differences between British and American English, 182–193. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Biber, D. and Hared, M. 1992. Dimensions of register variation in Somali. Language Variation and Change 4: 41–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., and Finegan, E. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar

Biber, D. and Jones, J. 2005. Merging corpus linguistic and discourse analytic research goals: Discourse units in biology research articles. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1: 151–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, D., Kim, Y-J., and Tracy-Ventura, N. 2010. A corpus-driven approach to comparative phraseology: Lexical bundles in English, Spanish, and Korean. In Iwasaki, S., Hoji, H., Clancy, P. M., and Sohn, S-O. (eds.), Japanese/Korean linguistics, vol. 17: 75–94. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI).Google Scholar

Biewer, C. 2015. A Sociolinguistic and morphosyntactic profile of Fiji English, Samoan English and Cook Island English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Biewer, C., Hundt, M., and Zipp, L. 2010. How a Fiji corpus? Challenges in the compilation of an ESL ICE component. ICAME Journal 34: 5–23.Google Scholar

Bigi, S. and Greco Morasso, S. 2006. Focus on cultural keywords. Studies in Communication Sciences 6(1): 157–174.Google Scholar

Bigi, S. and Greco Morasso, S. 2012. Keywords, frames and the reconstruction of material starting points in argumentation. Journal of Pragmatics 44(10),1135–1149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bizzell, P. 1989. Cultural criticism: a social approach to studying writing. Rhetoric Review 7: 224–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blackwell, S. 1987. Syntax versus orthography: Problems in the automatic parsing of idioms. In Garside, R., Leech, G., and Sampson, G. (eds.), The computational analysis of English, 110–119. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar

Blankenship, J. 1962. A linguistic analysis of oral and written style. Quarterly Journal of Speech 48: 419–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blass, L., Iannuzzi, S., Savage, A., and Reppen, R. 2012. Grammar and beyond: Level 3. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bloomfield, L. 1933. Language. New York: Henry Holt.Google Scholar

Blum-Kulka, S. 1997. Dinner talk: Cultural patterns of sociability and socialization in family discourse. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Bolinger, D. 1961. Generality, gradience, and the all-or-none. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar

Bondi, M. 2008. Emphatics in academic discourse: Integrating corpus and discourse tools in the study of cross-disciplinary variation. In Ädel, A. and Reppen, R. (eds.), Exploring discourse through corpora, 31–55. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bondi, M. 2012. Voice in textbooks: Between exposition and argument. In Hyland, K. and Guinda, C. Sancho (eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres, 101–117. London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bondi, M. and Scott, M. (eds.). 2010. Keyness in texts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bondi, M. and Silver, M. 2004. Textual voices: A cross disciplinary study of attribution in academic discourse. In Anderson, L. and Bamford, J. (eds.), Evaluation in oral and written discourse, 117–136. Rome: Officina Edizioni.Google Scholar

Borin, L. and Prütz, K. 2004. New wine in old skins? A corpus investigation of L1 syntactic transfer in learner language. In Aston, G., Bernardini, S., and Stewart, D. (eds.), Corpora and language learners, 45.66. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Bothma, T. J. D. 2011. Filtering and adapting data and information in an online environment in response to user needs. In Fuertes-Olivera, and Bergenholtz, (eds.), 71–102.Google Scholar

Boulton, A. 2009. Corpora for all? Learning styles and data-driven learning. In Mahlberg, M., González-Díaz, V., and Smith, C. (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th Corpus Linguistics Conference. Downloaded from http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/publications/cl2009Google Scholar

Boulton, A. 2010a. Learning outcomes from corpus consultation. In Jaén, M. Moreno, Valverde, F. Serrano, and Pérez, M. Calzada (eds.), Exploring new paths in language pedagogy: Lexis and corpus-based language teaching, 129–144. London: Equinox.Google Scholar

Boulton, A. 2010b. Data-driven learning: Taking the computer out of the equation. Language Learning 60(3): 534–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boulton, A. 2010c. Consultation de corpus et styles d’apprentissage. Cahiers de l’APLIUT 29(1): 98–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Boulton, A. 2011. Language awareness and medium-term benefits of corpus consultation. In Sanz, A. Gimeno (ed.), New trends in computer-assisted language learning: Working together, 39–46. Madrid: Macmillan ELT.Google Scholar

Boulton, A. 2012a. Computer corpora in language learning: DST approaches to research. Mélanges Crapel 33: 79–91.Google Scholar

Boulton, A. 2012b. Hands-on/hands-off: Alternative approaches to data-driven learning. In Thomas, J. and Boulton, A. (eds.), Input, process and product: Developments in teaching and language corpora, 153–169. Brno: Masaryk University Press.Google Scholar

Boulton, A. In press. Applying data-driven learning to the web. In Leńko-Szymańska, A. and Boulton, A. (eds.), Multiple affordances of language corpora for data-driven learning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Boulton, A. and Tyne, H. 2014. Méthodologie de la découverte en didactique des langues: Des documents authentiques aux corpus. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar

Bowie, J., Wallis, S., and Aarts, B. 2013. The perfect in spoken British English. In Aarts, et al. (eds.), 318–352.Google Scholar

Brazil, D. 1994. Pronunciation for advanced learners of English. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Brazil, D. 1994. Pronunciation for advanced learners of English. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Brazil, D. 1995. A grammar of speech. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Brazil, D. 1997. The communicative value of intonation in English. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Breen, M. 1987. Learner contributions to task design. In Candlin, C. and Murphy, D. (eds.), Language learning tasks, 23–46. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

Breiteneder, A. 2005. The naturalness of English as a European lingua franca: The case of the ‘third person -s’. VIEWS 14(2): 3–26. Downloaded from http://anglistik.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/dep_anglist/weitere_Uploads/Views/Views0502ALL_new.pdf (accessed 9 July 2013).Google Scholar

Breiteneder, A., Pitzl, M. L., Majewski, S., and Klimpfinger, T. 2006. VOICE recording: Methodological challenges in the compilation of a corpus of spoken ELF. Nordic Journal of English Studies 5(2): 161–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brems, L. 2011. Measure noun constructions: An instance of semantically-driven grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Bresnan, J. 2007. Is syntactic knowledge probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation. In Featherston, S. and Sternefeld, W. (eds.), Roots: Linguistics in search of its evidential base, 77–96. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T., and Baayen, H. R. 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. In Boume, G., Kraemer, I., and Zwarts, J. (eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation, 69–94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar

Bresnan, J. and Ford, M. 2010. Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language 86/1: 186–213.Google Scholar

Bretz, F., Hothorn, T., and Pestfall, P. 2010. Multiple comparisons using R. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC.Google Scholar

Brezina, V. and Gablasova, D. 2013. Is there a core general vocabulary? Introducing the New General Service List. Applied Linguistics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brinton, L. J. 2007. The development of I mean: Implications for the study of historical pragmatics. In Fitzmaurice, and Taavitsainen, (eds.), 37–79.Google Scholar

Brinton, L. J. 2010. Discourse markers. In Jucker, and Taavitsainen, (eds.), 285–314.Google Scholar

Brinton, L. J. 2015. Interjection-based delocutive verbs in the history of English. In Taavitsainen, I. et al. (eds.), Developments in English: Expanding electronic evidence, 140–161. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Briscoe, T., Medlock, B., and Andersen, Ø. 2010. Automated assessment of ESOL free text examinations. Cambridge ESOL. University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory. www.cl.cam.ac.uk/techreports/UCAM-CL-TR-790.pdfGoogle Scholar

Brown, A. and Deterding, D. 2005. A checklist of Singapore English pronunciation features. In Deterding, D., Brown, A., and Ling, L. Ee (eds.), English in Singapore: Phonetic research on a corpus, 7–13. Singapore: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Brown, P. and Fraser, C. 1979. Speech as a marker of situation. In Scherer, K. and Giles, H. (eds.), Social markers in speech, 33–62. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Brown, P. and Levinson, S. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brown, R. and Gilman, A. 1960. The pronouns of power and solidarity. In Sebeok, T. (ed.), Style in language, 253–276. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Bruce, I. 2009. Results sections in sociology and organic chemistry articles: A genre analysis English for Specific Purposes 28(2): 105–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bryson, B. 1991. Neither here nor there: Travels in Europe. London: Secker & Warburg.Google Scholar

Buchstaller, I. 2011. Quotations across the generations: A multivariate analysis of speech and thought introducers across 5 decades of Tyneside speech. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 7(1): 59–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bündgens-Kosten, J. 2013. Authenticity in CALL: Three domains of “realness” ReCALL, 25/2, 272–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bunton, D. 1999. The use of higher level metatext in PhD theses. English for Specific Purposes 18: S41–S56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Burnard, L. (ed.). 1995. British National Corpus: Users reference guide British National Corpus Version 1.0. Oxford University Computing Service.Google Scholar

Burnard, L. 2002. Where did we go wrong? A retrospective look at the British National Corpus. Language and Computers 42: 51–70.Google Scholar

Burrows, J. F. 1987. Computation into criticism: A study of Jane Austen’s novels and an experiment in method. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar

Busse, B. 2006. Vocative constructions in the language of Shakespeare (Pragmatics & Beyond new series 150). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Busse, B. 2010. Speech, writing and thought presentation in a corpus of nineteenth-century English narrative fiction. University of Bern.Google Scholar

Busse, U. and Hübler, A. (eds.). 2012. The meta-communicative lexicon of English now and then: A historical pragmatics approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Butler, C. 1974. German for chemists: Teaching languages to adults for special purposes. CILT Reports and Papers 11: 50–53.Google Scholar

Butler, C. 1998. Collocational frameworks in Spanish. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 3(1): 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bybee, J. 2007. Frequency of use and the organization of language. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Caldas-Coulthard, C. and Coulthard, M. (eds.). 1996. Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Calhoun, S. 2010. How does informativeness affect prosodic prominence? Language and Cognitive Processes 25(7–9): 1099–1140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Callies, M. 2009. “What is even more alarming is … ” A contrastive learner-corpus study of what-clefts in advanced German and Polish L2 writing. In Wysocka, M. (ed.), On Language structure, acquisition and teaching. Studies in honour of Janusz Arabski on the occasion of his 70th birthday, 283–292. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersyetu Slaskiego.Google Scholar

Campion, M. and Elley, W. 1971. An academic vocabulary list. Wellington, New Zealand: Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar

Carter, R. 2004. Language and creativity: The art of common talk. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Carter, R., Hughes, R., and McCarthy, M. 1998. Telling tails: Grammar, the spoken language and materials development. In Tomlinson, B. (ed.), Materials development in language teaching, 67–89. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Carter, R. and McCarthy, M. 1995. Grammar and the spoken language. Applied Linguistics 16.2: 141–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. 1997. Exploring spoken English. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Carter, Ronald and McCarthy, M. 1999. The English get-passive in spoken discourse: Description and implications for an interpersonal grammar. English Language and Linguistics 3: 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carter, Ronald and McCarthy, M. 2004. Talking, creating: Interactional language, creativity, and context. Applied Linguistics 25: 62–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carter, Ronald and McCarthy, M. 2006. Cambridge grammar of English: A comprehensive guide. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Carter, R., McCarthy, M., Mark, G., and O’Keeffe, A. 2011. English grammar today. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Catford, J. C. 1965. A linguistic theory of translation: An essay in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Cauldwell, R. T. 2003a. Streaming speech: Listening and pronunciation for advanced learners of English (Windows CD-ROM). Birmingham: Speechinaction.Google Scholar

Cauldwell, R. T. 2003b. Streaming speech: Listening and pronunciation for advanced learners of English (Student’s book). Birmingham: Speechinaction.Google Scholar

Cauldwell, R. T. 2007. SpeechinAction Research Centre (SPARC). (www.speechinaction.com/, accessed 18 March 2013.)Google Scholar

Cauldwell, R. T. 2013. Phonology for listeners: Teaching the stream of speech. Birmingham: Speechinaction.Google Scholar

Cauldwell, R. T. and Hewings, M. 1996. Intonation rules in ELP textbooks. ELT Journal 50:4, 327–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chambers, A. 2007. Popularising corpus consultation by language learners and teachers. In Hidalgo, E., Quereda, L., and Santana, J. (eds.), Corpora in the foreign language classroom, 3–16. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar

Chambers, A., Conacher, J., and Littlemore, J. (eds.). 2004. ICT and language learning: Integrating pedagogy and practice. University of Birmingham Press.Google Scholar

Chambers, J. K. 2004. Dynamic typology and vernacular roots. In Kortmann, B. (ed.), Dialectology meets typology: Dialect grammar from a cross-linguistic perspective, 127–145. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Chan, T-P. and Liou, H-C. 2005. Effects of web-based concordancing instruction on EFL students’ learning of verb-noun collocations. Computer Assisted Language Learning 18(3): 231–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chang, P. 2012. Using a stance corpus to learn about effective authorial stance-taking: A textlinguistic approach. ReCALL 24(2): 209–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chang, W-L. and Sun, Y-C. 2009. Scaffolding and web concordancers as support for language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning 22(4): 283–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Charles, M. 2006a. Phraseological patterns in reporting clauses used in citation: a corpus-based study of theses in two disciplines. English for Specific Purposes 25: 310–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Charles, M. 2006b. The construction of stance in reporting clauses: a cross-disciplinary study of theses. Applied Linguistics 27: 492–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Charles, M. 2007. Argument or evidence? Disciplinary variation in the use of the noun that pattern. English for Specific Purposes 26: 203–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chen, Y.-H. and Baker, P. 2010. Lexical bundles in L1 and L2 academic writing. Language Learning and Technology 14(2): 30–49.Google Scholar

Cheng, W. 2007. The use of vague language across genres in an International Hong Kong Corpus. In Cutting, J. (ed.), Vague language explored, 161–181. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cheng, W. 2012. Exploring corpus linguistics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Cheng, W., Greaves, C., Sinclair, J., and Warren, M. 2008. Uncovering the extent of the phraseological tendency: Towards a systematic analysis of concgrams. Applied Linguistics 30(2): 236–52.Google Scholar

Cheng, W., Greaves, C., and Warren, M. 2006. From n-gram to skipgram to concgram. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 11(4): 411–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cheng, W., Greaves, C. and Warren, M. 2008. A corpus-driven study of discourse intonation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chesterman, A. 2004. Hypotheses about translation universals. In Hansen, G., Malmkjær, K., and Gile, D. (eds.), Claims, changes and challenges in translation studies, 1–13. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Cho, H. and Yoon, H. 2013. A corpus-assisted comparative genre analysis of corporate earnings calls between Korean and native-English speakers. English for Specific Purposes 32: 170–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1962/1964. A transformational approach to syntax. In Hill, A. A. (ed.), Proceedings of the Third Texas Conference on Problems of Linguistics Analysis, 124–58. Austin: University of Texas, 1962. Reprinted in Fodor, J. A. and Katz, J. J., The Structure of language, 211–241. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1964.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. and Halle, M. 1968. The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar

Chun, D. M. 2002. Discourse intonation in L2: From theory and research to practice. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Church, K. and Hanks, P. 1990. Word association norms, mutual information and lexicography. Computational Linguistics 16(1): 22–29.Google Scholar

Clancy, B. 2005. “You’re fat. You’ll eat them all.” Politeness strategies in family discourse. In Schneider, K. P. and Barron, A. (eds.), The pragmatics of Irish English, 177–197. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clancy, B. 2010. Building a corpus to represent a variety of language. In O’Keeffe, A. and McCarthy, M. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics, 80–92. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar

Clancy, B. Forthcoming. Hurry up baby son all the boys is finished their breakfast: Examining the use of vocatives as pragmatic markers in Irish Traveller and settled family discourse. In Moreno, C. Amador, McCafferty, K., and Vaughan, E. (eds.), Pragmatic markers in Irish English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Clancy, B. and McCarthy, M. 2015. Co-constructed turn-taking. In Aijmer, K. and Rühlemann, C. (eds.), Corpus pragmatics, 430–453. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Clancy, B. and Vaughan, E. 2012. It’s lunacy now: A corpus-based pragmatic analysis of the use of now in contemporary Irish English. In Migge, B. and Chiosáin, M. Ní (eds.), New perspectives on Irish English, 225–246. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Claridge, C. 2008. Historical corpora. In Lüdeling, A. and Kytö, M. (eds.), Corpus linguistics. Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, 242–259. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Claridge, C. 2012. Chapter 16. Linguistic levels: Styles, registers, genres, text types. In Bergs, A. and Brinton, L. J. (eds.), English historical linguistics: An international handbook, vol. 1: 237–253. Berlin and Boston: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Claridge, C. and Arnovick, L. 2010. Pragmaticalisation and discursisation. In Jucker, and Taavitsainen, (eds.), 165–192.Google Scholar

Clark, H. H. 1973. The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: a critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 12(4). 335–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cobb, T. 1997a. From concord to lexicon: Development and test of a corpus-based lexical tutor. Unpublished PhD thesis, Concordia University.Google Scholar

Cobb, T. 1997b. Is there any measurable learning from hands-on concordancing? System 25(3): 301–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cobb, T. 1999a. Applying constructivism: A test for the learner-as-scientist. Educational Technology Research & Development 47(3): 15–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cobb, T. 1999b. Breadth and depth of lexical acquisition with hands-on concordancing. Computer Assisted Language Learning 12(4): 345–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cobb, T. 2003. Analyzing late interlanguage with learner corpora: Québec replications of three European studies. The Canadian Modern Language Review 59(3) 393–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cobb, T. 2007. Computing the vocabulary demands of L2 reading. Language Learning & Technology 11(3): 38–63.Google Scholar

Cobb, T., Greaves, C., and Horst, M. 2001. Can the rate of lexical acquisition from reading be increased? An experiment in reading French with a suite of on-line resources. In Raymond, P. and Cornaire, C. (eds.), Regards sur la didactique des langues secondes, 133–153. Montreal: Editions Logique.Google Scholar

Cochran, W. G. 1954. Some methods for strengthening the common χ2 tests. Biometrics 10: 417–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Coffey, S. 2006. “Delexical verb + noun” phrases in monolingual English learners’ dictionaries. Proceedings of the XII EURALEX Congress. Downloaded from www.euralex.org/elx_proceedings/Euralex2006/Google Scholar

Cogo, A. and Dewey, M. 2006. Efficiency in ELF communication: From pragmatic motives to lexico-grammatical innovation. Nordic Journal of English Studies 5(2): 59–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cogo, A. and Dewey, M. 2012. Analysing English as a lingua franca: A corpus-driven investigation. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Cole, J., Mo, Y., and Baek, S. 2010. The role of syntactic structure in guiding prosody perception with ordinary listeners and everyday speech. Language and Cognitives Processes 25(7–9), 1141–1177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cole, J., Mo, Y., and Hasegawa-Johnson, M. 2010. Signal-based and expectation-based factors in the perception of prosodic prominence. Laboratory Phonology 1, 425–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Collins, P. 2009. The progressive in English. In Peters, et al. (eds.), 115–123.Google Scholar

Collins, P. and Peters, P. 1988. The Australian corpus project. In Kytö, M., Ihalainen, O., and Rissanen, M. (eds.), Corpus linguistics, hard and soft, 103–121. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar

Collins, P. and Yao, X. 2012. Modals and quasi-modals in New Englishes. In Hundt, and Gut, (eds.), 35–53.Google Scholar

Connor, U. and Upton, T. 2003. Linguistic dimensions of direct mail letters. In Meyer, C. and Leistyna, P. (eds.), Corpus analysis: Language structure and language use, 71–86. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Connor, U. and Upton, T. 2004. The genre of grant proposals: A corpus linguistic analysis. In Connor, U. and Upton, T. (eds.), Discourse in the professions: Perspectives from corpus linguistics, 235–256. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Conrad, S. 1996. Investigating academic texts with corpus-based techniques: An example from biology. Linguistics and Education 8: 299–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Conrad, S. 1999. The importance of corpus-based research for language teachers. System 27: 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Conrad, S. 2000. Will corpus linguistics revolutionize grammar teaching in the 21st century? TESOL Quarterly 34: 548–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Conrad, S. 2001. Variation among disciplinary texts: A comparison of textbooks and journal articles in biology and history. In Conrad, S. and Biber, D. (eds.), Multi-dimensional studies of register variation in English, 94–107. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar

Conrad, S. 2014. Expanding multi-dimensional analysis with qualitative research techniques. In Sardinha, T. Berber and Pinto, M. Veirano (eds.), Multi-dimensional analysis 25 years on: A tribute to Douglas Biber, 273–295. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Conrad, S. and Biber, D. 2000. Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. In Hunston, S. and Thompson, G. (eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse, 56–73. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Conrad, S. and Biber, D. 2009. Real grammar: A corpus-based approach to English grammar. New York: Pearson Education.Google Scholar

Conrad, S. and Pfeiffer, T. 2011. A preliminary analysis of student and workplace writing in civil engineering. Proceedings of the 2012 American Society for Engineering Education Conference. Downloaded from www.asee.org/search/proceedingsGoogle Scholar

Conrad, S., Pfeiffer, T., and Szymoniak, T. 2012. Preparing students for writing in civil engineering practice. Proceedings of the 2012 American Society for Engineering Education Conference. Downloaded from www.asee.org/search/proceedingsGoogle Scholar

Conzett, J. 1997. Integrating collocation into a reading and writing course. In Coady, J. and Huckin, T. (eds.), Second language vocabulary acquisition, 70–87. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Cortes, V. 2004. Lexical bundles in published and student disciplinary writing: Examples from history and biology. English for Specific Purposes 23: 397–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cortes, V. 2008. A comparative analysis of lexical bundles in academic history writing in English and Spanish. Corpora 3: 43–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cortes, V. 2013. The purpose of this study is to: Connecting lexical bundles and moves in research article introductions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 12: 33–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cotter, C. 2010. News talk: Investigating the language of journalism. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Council of Europe 2001. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Cowden-Clarke, M. V. 1881. The complete concordance to Shakespeare: Being a verbal index to all the passages in the dramatic works of the poet, new and rev. edn. Bickers & Son, London.Google Scholar

Cowie, A. P. 1999. English dictionaries for foreign learners: A history. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cowie, C. 2010. Researching and understanding accent shifts in Indian call centre agents. In Forey, G. and Lockwood, J. (eds.), Globalization, communication and the workplace: Talking across the world, 125–144. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Coxhead, A. 2000. A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly 34: 213–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Craig, H. 2004. Stylistic analysis and authorship studies. In Schreibman, S., Siemens, R., and Unsworth, J. (eds.), A companion to digital humanities, 273–288. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Craig, H. 2008. “Speak, that I may see thee”: Shakespeare characters and common words. Shakespeare Survey 61: 281–288.Google Scholar

Craig, W. J. 1914. William Shakespeare (1564–1616). The Oxford Shakespeare. Oxford University Press. www.bartleby.com/70/ (accessed 5 March 2013).Google Scholar

Cresti, E. and Moneglia, M. 2005. C-Oral-Rom Integrated Reference Corpora for Spoken Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Crombie, A. C. 1995. Commitments and styles of European scientific thinking. History of science 33: 225–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Crossley, S. and Louwerse, M. 2007. Multi-dimensional register classification using bigrams. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 12: 453–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cruttenden, A. 1997. Intonation, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Crystal, D. 1975. The English tone of voice. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar

Crystal, D. 1995. The Cambridge encyclopedia of the English language. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Crystal, D. 2012. Searchlinguistics. In Chapelle, C. (ed.), The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Csomay, E. 2005. Linguistic variation within university classroom talk: A corpus-based perspective. Linguistics and Education 15: 243–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Csomay, E. 2013. Lexical bundles in discourse structure: A corpus-based study of classroom discourse. Applied Linguistics 34(3): 369–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Culpeper, J. 2001. Language and characterization: People in plays and other texts. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar

Culpeper, J. 2002. Computers, language and characterisation: An analysis of six characters in Romeo and Juliet. In Melander-Marttala, U., Ostman, C., and Kytö, M. (eds.), Conversation in life and in literature: Papers from the ASLA Symposium (Association Suédoise de Linguistique Appliquée (ASLA), 15), 11–30. Uppsala: Universitetstryckeriet. See www.lexically.net/wordsmith/corpus_linguistics_links/Keywords-Culpeper.pdf (accessed 5 March 2013).Google Scholar

Culpeper, J. 2009a. Historical sociopragmatics: An introduction. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 10(2): 179–186; rpt Historical Sociopragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Culpeper, J. 2009b. Keyness: Words, parts-of-speech and semantic categories in the character-talk of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14(1): 29–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Culpeper, J. 2011. Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Culpeper, J. and Kytö, M. 2010. Early Modern English dialogues: Spoken interaction as writing. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Curado Fuentes, A. 2001. Lexical behaviour in academic and technical corpora: Implications for ESP development. Language Learning and Technology 5(3):106–129.Google Scholar

Curzan, A. 2012. Interdisciplinarity and historiography: periodization in the history of the English language. In Bergs, A. and Brinton, L. (eds.), Historical linguistics of English, vol. 2:1233–1256. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Cutler, A., Dahan, D., and van Donselaar, W. 1997. Prosody in the comprehension of spoken language: A literature review. Language and Speech 40: 141–201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Dagneaux, E., Denness, S., and Granger, S. 1998. Computer-aided error analysis. System 26: 163–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dalton-Puffer, C. 1996. The French influence on Middle English morphology: A corpus-based study of derivation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Damerau, F. J. 1993. Generating and evaluating domain-oriented multi-word terms from texts. Information Processing and Management 29: 433–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Danielsson, P. 2001. The automatic identification of meaningful units in language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Göteborg University.Google Scholar

D’Arcy, A. 2011. Corpora: Capturing language in use. In Maguire, W. and McMahon, A. (eds.), Analysing variation in English, 49–72. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

D’Arcy, A. 2012. The diachrony of quotation: Evidence from New Zealand English. Language Variation and Change 24(3): 343–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

da Silva, A. S. 2010. Measuring and parameterizing lexical convergence and divergence between European and Brazilian Portuguese. In Geeraerts, D., Kristiansen, G., and Peirsman, Y. (eds.), Advances in cognitive sociolinguistics, 41–84. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

da Silva, J. F., Dias, G., Guilloré, S., and Pereira Lopes, J. G. 1999. Using LocalMaxs Algorithm for the extraction of contiguous and non-contiguous multiword lexical units. Proceedings of the 9th Portuguese Conference on Artificial Intelligence: Progress in Artificial Intelligence, 113–132. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Daudaravičius, V. and Marcinkevičienė, R. 2004. Gravity counts for the boundaries of collocations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9 (2): 321–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Davies, M. 2007. The TIME Magazine Corpus (100 million words, 1920s–2000s). Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/timeGoogle Scholar

Davies, M. 2008. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 400+ million words, 1990-present. Available online at www.americancorpus.orgGoogle Scholar

Davies, M. 2009. The 385+ million word Corpus of Contemporary American English (1990–2008+): Design, architecture, and linguistic insights. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14: 159–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Davies, M. 2010. The Corpus of Historical American English (COHA): 400+ million words, 1810–2009. http://corpus.byu.edu/cohaGoogle Scholar

Davies, M. 2011. The Corpus of Contemporary American English as the first reliable monitor corpus of English. Literary and Linguistic Computing 25: 447–65.Google Scholar

Davies, M. 2012a. Expanding horizons in historical linguistics with the 400 million word Corpus of Historical American English. Corpora 7: 121–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Davies, M. 2012b. Examining recent changes in English: Some methodological issues. In Nevalainen, T. and Traugott, E. C. (eds.), Handbook on the history of English: Rethinking approaches to the history of English, 263–87. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Davies, M. 2013. Recent shifts with three nonfinite verbal complements in English: data from the 100-million-word Time corpus (1920s-2000s). In Aarts, et al. (eds.), 46–67.Google Scholar

Davies, M. Forthcoming. A corpus-based study of lexical developments in Early and Late Modern English. In Kytö, Merja and Pahta, Päivi (eds.), Handbook of English historical linguistics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Davydova, J. 2011. The present perfect in non-native Englishes: A corpus-based study of variation. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dayrell, C. 2007. A quantitative approach to compare collocational patterns in translated and non-translated texts. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 12(3): 375–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

De Cock, S. 2002. Pragmatic prefabs in learners’ dictionaries. Proceedings of the X EURALEX Congress. Downloaded from www.euralex.org/elx_proceedings/Euralex2002/Google Scholar

De Cock, S. 2004. Preferred sequences of words in NS and NNS speech. Belgian Journal of English Language and Literatures (BELL), New Series 2: 225–246.Google Scholar

De Cock, S. and Granger, S. 2004. High frequency words: The bête noire of lexicographers and learners alike. A close look at the verb “make” in five monolingual learners’ dictionaries of English. Proceedings of the XI EURALEX Congress. Downloaded from www.euralex.org/elx_proceedings/Euralex2004/Google Scholar

De Cock, S. and Granger, S. 2005. Computer learner corpora and monolingual learners’ dictionaries: The perfect match. Lexicographica 20: 72–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

de Haan, P. 1989. Postmodifying clauses in the English noun phrase: A corpus-based study. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dehé, N. 2009. Clausal parentheticals, intonational phrasing, and prosodic theory. Journal of Linguistics 45(3):569–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dehé, N. and Wichmann, A. 2010. The multifunctionality of epistemic parentheticals in Discourse: Prosodic cues to the semantic–pragmatic boundary. Functions of Language 17(1): 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Deignan, A. and Semino, E. 2010. Corpus techniques for metaphor analysis. In Cameron, L. and Maslen, R. (eds.), Metaphor analysis: Research practice in applied linguistics, social sciences and the humanities, 161–179. London: Equinox.Google Scholar

Delaere, I., De Sutter, G., and Plevoets, K. 2012. Is translated language more standardized than non-translated language? Target 24(2): 203–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Demol, A. and Hadermann, P. 2008. An exploratory study of discourse organisation in French L1, Dutch L1, French L2 and Dutch L2 written narratives. In Gilquin, G., Papp, S., and Díez-Bedmar, M. B. (eds.), Linking up contrastive and learner corpus research, 255–282. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

de Schryver, G.-M. 2003. Lexicographer’s dreams in the electronic-dictionary age. International Journal of Lexicography 16(2): 143–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Deshors, S. C. 2014. A case for a unified treatment of EFL and ESL: A multifactorial approach. English World-Wide 35(3): 277–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Deshors, S. C. and Gries, S. Th. Forthcoming. A case for the multifactorial assessment of learner language: The uses of may and can in French–English interlanguage. In Glynn, D. and Robinson, J. (eds.), Polysemy and synonymy: Corpus methods and applications in cognitive linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

de Smet, Hendrik. 2012a. The course of actualization. Language 88(3): 601–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

de Smet, Hendrik. 2012b. Spreading patterns: Diffusional change in the English system of complementation. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

de Smet, H. and Cuyckens, H. 2005. Pragmatic strengthening and the meaning of complement constructions: The case of like and love with the to-infinitive. Journal of English Linguistics 33: 3–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Deuber, D., Biewer, C., Hackert, S., and Hilbert, M. 2012. Will and would in selected New Englishes: General and variety-specific tendencies. In Hundt, and Gut, (eds.), 77–102.Google Scholar

Devitt, A. J. 1989. Standardizing written English: Diffusion in the case of Scotland 1520–1659. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Dewey, M. 2007a. English as a lingua franca: An empirical study of innovation in lexis and grammar. PhD thesis, King’s College London.Google Scholar

Dewey, M. 2007b. English as a lingua franca and globalization: An interconnected perspective. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 17(3): 332–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dewey, M. 2009. English as a lingua franca: Heightened variability and theoretical implications. In Mauranen, A. and Ranta, E. (eds.), English as a lingua franca: Studies and findings, 60–83. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Press.Google Scholar

Díaz-Negrillo, A. and Fernández-Domínguez, J. 2006. Error tagging systems for learner corpora. RESLA 19: 83–102.Google Scholar

Diessel, H. and Tomasello, M. 2005. Particle placement in early child language: A multifactorial analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1(1): 89–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Díez-Bedmar, M. B. and Papp, S. 2008. The use of the English article system by Chinese and Spanish learners. In Gilquin, G., Papp, S., and Díez-Bedmar, M. B. (eds.), Linking up contrastive and learner corpus research, 147–175. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ding, Huiling. 2007. Genre analysis of personal statements: Analysis of moves in application essays to medical and dental schools. English for Specific Purposes 26: 368–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Divjak, Dagmar S. and Gries, Stefan Th. 2006. Ways of trying in Russian: Clustering behavioral profiles. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 2(1): 23–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Divjak, Dagmar S. and Gries, Stefan Th. 2008. Clusters in the mind? Converging evidence from near synonymy in Russian. The Mental Lexicon 3(2): 188–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dodd, B. 2000. Introduction: The relevance of corpora in German studies. In Dodd, B. (ed.), Working with German corpora, 1–39. University of Birmingham Press.Google Scholar

Doherty, M. 2002. Language processing in discourse. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Dor, D. 2005. Toward a semantic account of that-deletion in English. Linguistics 43: 345–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dorgeloh, H. and Wanner, A. (eds.). 2010. Syntactic variation and genre. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Drew, P. and Heritage, J. 1992. Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Dueñas, P. M. 2007. “I/we focus on …”: A cross-cultural analysis of self-mentions in business management research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 6(2): 143–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Duguid, A. 2007. Men at work: How those at Number 10 construct their working identity. In Garzone, G. and Sarangi, S. (eds.), Discourse, ideology and specialized communication, 453–484 Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Duguid, A. 2009. Insistent voices: Government messages. In Morley, and Bayley, (eds.), 234–260.Google Scholar

Duguid, A. 2010a. Investigating anti and some reflections on Modern Diachronic Corpus-Assisted Discourse Studies (MD-CADS). Corpora 5(2): 191–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Duguid, A. 2010b. Newspapers discourse informalisation: A diachronic comparison from keywords. Corpora 5(2): 109–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dunning, T. 1993. Accurate methods for the statistics of surprise and coincidence. Computational Linguistics 19(1): 61–74.Google Scholar

Durrant, P. and Schmitt, N. 2009. To what extent do native and non-native writers make use of collocations? International Review of Applied Linguistics 47(2): 157–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ebeling, J., Ebeling, S., and Hasselgård, H. 2013. Using recurrent word-combinations to explore cross-linguistic differences. In Aijmer, K. and Altenberg, B. (eds.), Advances in corpus-based contrastive linguistics: Studies in honour of Stig Johansson, 177–200. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Eeg-Olofsson, M. and Altenberg, B. 1994. Discontinuous recurrent word combinations in the London–Lund Corpus. In Fries, U., Tottie, G., and Schneider, P. (eds.), Creating and using English language corpora: Papers from the fourteenth international conference on English language research on computerized corpora, 63–77. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Egan, T. 2012. Through seen through the looking glass of translation equivalence: a proposed method for determining closeness of word senses. In Hoffmann, Sebastian, Rayson, Paul, and Leech, Geoffrey N. (eds.), English corpus linguistics: Looking back, moving forward, 41–56. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Elbaum, S. N. 2009. Grammar in context, 5th edn. Boston, MA: HeinleCengage.Google Scholar

Ellis, N. 2006. Meta-analysis, human cognition, and language learning. In Norris, J. and Ortega, L. (eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching, 301–322. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ellis, N. 2007. Language acquisition as rational cue-contingency learning. Applied Linguistics 27(1): 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ellis, N. C. and Ferreira-Junior, F. 2009. Constructions and their acquisition: Islands and the distinctiveness of their occupancy. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 7: 187–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ellis, N., Simpson-Vlach, R., and Maynard, C. 2008. Formulaic language in native and second language speakers: Psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and TESOL. TESOL Quarterly 42: 375–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ellis, R. 1994. The study of second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Elsness, J. 1997. The perfect and the preterite in contemporary and earlier English. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Elsness, J. 2009. The perfect and the preterite in Australian and New Zealand English. In Peters, et al. (eds.), 89–114.Google Scholar

Elspaß, S., Langer, N., Scharloth, J., and Vandenbussche, . 2007. Germanic language histories “from below” (1700–2000). Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Engel, D. M. and Ritz, M. E. 2000. The use of the present perfect in Australian English. Australian Journal of Linguistics 20(2): 119–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Enkvist, N. E. 1964. On defining style. In Enkvist, N. E., Spencer, J., and Gregory, M. (eds.), Linguistics and style, 1–56. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Erman, B. 1987. Pragmatic expressions in English: A study of you know, you see and I mean in face-to-face conversation. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar

Ervin-Tripp, S. 1971. Sociolinguistics. In Fishman, J. (ed.), Advances in the sociology of language, 15–91. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Everitt, B. and Hothorn, T. 2011. An introduction to applied multivariate analysis with R. Berlin and New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Evert, S. 2004. The statistics of word cooccurrences: Word pairs and collocations. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Stuttgart.Google Scholar

Evert, S. 2008. Corpora and collocations. In Lüdeling, A. and Kytö, M. (eds.), Corpus linguistics: An international handbook, 1212–1248. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Evert, S. and Lüdeling, A. 2001. Measuring morphological productivity: Is automatic preprocessing sufficient? In Rayson, P., Wilson, A., McEnery, T., Hardie, A., and Khoja, S. (eds.), Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics Conference 2001, 167–175.Google Scholar

Evison, J. 2013. Turn openings in academic talk: Where goals and roles intersect. Classroom Discourse 4(1): 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Evison, J., McCarthy, M., and O’Keeffe, A. 2007. “Looking out for love and all the rest of it”: Vague category markers as shared social space. In Cutting, J. (ed.), Vague language explored, 138–160. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fairclough, N. 1989. Language and power. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Fairclough, N. 1996. Technologisation of discourse. In Caldas-Coulthard, and Coulthard, (eds.), 71–83.Google Scholar