Loading...
Title: Diachrony and Synchrony in English Corpus Linguistics

Diachrony and Synchrony in English Corpus Linguistics

by Alejandro Alcaraz Sintes (Volume editor) Salvador Valera Hernández (Volume editor)
©2014 Edited Collection 393 Pages
Linguistics
Series: Linguistic Insights, Volume 181

Summary

The volume brings together a selection of invited articles and papers presented at the 4th International CILC Conference held in Jaén, Spain, in March 2012. The chapters describe English using a range of corpora and other resources. There are two parts, one dealing with diachronic research and the other with synchronic research. Both parts investigate several aspects of the English language from various perspectives and illustrate the use of corpora in current research. The structure of the volume allows for the same linguistic aspect to be discussed both from the diachronic and the synchronic point of view. The chapters are also useful examples of corpus use as well as of use of other resources as corpus, specifically dictionaries. They investigate a broad array of issues, mainly using corpora of English as a native language, with a focus on corpus tools and corpus description.

Table Of Contents

  • Cover
  • Title
  • Copyright
  • About the Editors
  • About the Book
  • This eBook can be cited
  • Contents
  • Acknowledgements
  • Preface: Bas Aarts
  • Part 1: Corpora and Historical Linguistics
  • Dictionary- and corpus-based research in historical linguistics: Alejandro Alcaraz-Sintes
  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. Studies
  • References
  • A corpus-based study of gradual meaning change in Late Modern English: Nuria Calvo-Cortés
  • 1. Introduction
  • 1.1. The original meanings and the new meanings
  • 1.2. The meanings of the nouns board, head, loof and stern
  • 1.3. Processes involved in the appearance of the new meanings
  • 2. Methodology
  • 3. Results
  • 3.1. Meanings of the four terms found in the CLMETEV
  • 3.2. Results word by word
  • 3.2.1. Aboard
  • 3.2.2. Ahead
  • 3.2.3. Aloof
  • 3.2.4. Astern
  • 4. Discussion
  • 5. Conclusions
  • References
  • Dictionary-based corpus linguistics and beyond: developments in the expression of motion events in the history of English: Teresa Fanego
  • 1. Introduction: sources of data
  • 1.1. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED)
  • 1.2. The Middle English Dictionary (MED)
  • 1.3. The Historical Thesaurus of the OED (HTOED)
  • 1.4. Chadwyck-Healey Literature Collections Online
  • 2. Motion events across languages
  • 3. The conceptual domain of ‘manner of motion’ from OE to LModE: elaboration in terms of semantic specificity
  • 4. The emergence of new manner-of-motion construction types
  • 4.1. Theoretical preliminaries
  • 4.2. The ‘sound emission to motion’ construction (SEtoM Cxn)
  • 4.2.1. Formal and semantic properties of the SEtoM Cxn
  • 4.2.2. Growth and history of the SEtoM Cxn
  • 5. Conclusions
  • Primary sources
  • References
  • The use of if as a declarative complementizer in English: theoretical and empirical considerations: María José López-Couso / Belén Méndez-Naya
  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. The subordinator if
  • 2.1. Conditionals vs. declarative complements
  • 2.2. Interrogative vs. declarative complements
  • 2.3. Gradience in if-clauses
  • 3. The data
  • 3.1. Function and predicate
  • 3.2. If-complements and non-assertiveness
  • 3.3. If-complements and clause integration
  • 3.4. If-complements and text-type
  • 4. Conclusions
  • References
  • On English historical corpora, with notes on the development of adverbial connectives: Matti Rissanen
  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. Old English
  • 3. Middle English
  • 4. Early Modern English
  • 5. Late Modern English
  • 6. 20th century
  • 7. Conclusions
  • References
  • Some important English historical corpora
  • 1. Old English
  • 2. Middle English
  • 3. Early Modern English
  • 4. Late Modern English
  • 5. Present-day English
  • Studies
  • Measuring typological syntheticity of English diachronically with the use of corpora: Ondřej Tichý / Jan Čermák
  • 1. Preliminaries
  • 2. Szmrecsanyi’s analysis
  • 3. Aims and Sources
  • 4. Methodology
  • 4.1. Selecting the representative list of words
  • 4.2. Capturing the word-forms
  • 4.3. Categorization
  • 5. Problems in generating the data
  • 6. Measuring syntheticity
  • 7. Conclusions and paths for further research
  • References
  • Part 2: Corpora and Descriptive Linguistics
  • Dictionary- and corpus-based research in applied and descriptive linguistics: Salvador Valera-Hernández
  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. Dictionary- and corpus-based research in applied and descriptive linguistics
  • 3. Conclusions
  • References
  • Formal, syntactic, semantic and textual features of English shell nouns: a manual corpus-driven approach: Miguel-Ángel Benítez-Castro
  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. Theoretical background
  • 2.1. Definitions
  • 2.2. Corpus methodology and analytical procedures
  • 3. Methodology
  • 4. Findings and discussion
  • 4.1. Genre: academic and journalistic genres?
  • 4.2. The formal structure of shell-noun phrases: specific deictics and noun complement clauses?
  • 4.3. Reference and antecedent: Anaphora and stretch of discourse?
  • 4.4. Other variables
  • 5. Conclusions
  • References
  • From prototypical to peripheral: the ‘get + Ven’ construction in contemporary spoken British English: Eduardo Coto-Villalibre
  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. The passive gradience: from prototypical to peripheral
  • 2.1. Central get-passives
  • 2.2. Semi get-constructions
  • 2.3. Pseudo get-constructions
  • 2.4. Adjectival get-constructions
  • 2.5. Idiomatic get-constructions
  • 2.6. Reflexive get-constructions
  • 3. Characteristics of central get-passives
  • 3.1. Presence of an agent by-phrase
  • 3.2. Type of lexical verb
  • 3.3. Responsibility and animacy of the subject
  • 3.4. Attribution of beneficial and adversative consequences
  • 4. A corpus-based study of get-constructions
  • 4.1. The corpus and the database
  • 4.2. The results of the analysis
  • 4.2.1. The agent by-phrase
  • 4.2.2. The dynamicity of the verb category
  • 4.2.3. The adversative semantic nuance
  • 4.2.4. The subject: degree of responsibility and animacy features
  • 4.2.5. Summary of findings
  • 5. Conclusions
  • References
  • Encoding ‘throughness’ in English and French: Thomas Egan
  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. Multilingual corpora as sources of tertia comparationis
  • 3. The semantic field of ‘throughness’
  • 4. English and French strategies for coding ‘throughness’
  • 4.1. Coding Motion ‘throughness’
  • 4.2. Coding Perception ‘throughness’
  • 4.3. Coding Time ‘throughness’
  • 4.4. Coding Other (metaphorical) ‘throughness’
  • 5. Summary and conclusions
  • References
  • Appendix
  • If you would like to lead: on the grammatical status of directive isolated if-clauses in spoken British English: Beatriz Mato-Míguez
  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. Isolated if-clauses
  • 2.1. Isolated if-clauses in the literature
  • 2.2. Stirling’s analysis of isolated if-clauses in Australian English
  • 3. Corpus study: modality and grammatical status of isolated if-clauses
  • 3.1. Corpus description and results
  • 3.2. Verb tense and modality of directive isolated if-clauses
  • 3.3. Grammatical status of directive isolated if-clauses
  • 4. Isolated if-clauses as an example of insubordination
  • 5. Conclusions and paths for further research
  • References
  • On the automatic analysis of learner corpora. Native Language Identification as experimental testbed of language modeling between surface features and linguistic abstraction: Detmar Meurers / Julia Krivanek / Serhiy Bykh
  • 1. Introduction
  • 1.1. Learner corpora in SLA
  • 1.2. Linguistic corpus annotation
  • 1.3. Linguistic categories for annotating learner language
  • 1.4. An experimental testbed for studying linguistic modeling
  • 2. Experiments in Native Language Identification
  • 2.1. Data-driven approach
  • 2.1.1. Data and Tools
  • 2.1.2. Features
  • 2.1.3. Results
  • 2.2. Theory-driven approach
  • 2.2.1. An alternative perspective
  • 2.2.2. Syntactic alternations as characteristic features
  • 2.2.2.1. Setup
  • 2.2.2.2. Identifying alternations
  • 2.2.2.3. Quantitative Results
  • 2.2.2.4. Adding a data-driven twist
  • 2.2.3. Qualitative Results
  • 2.2.3.1. Underuse/overuse of patterns
  • 2.2.3.2. Distinctive alternations
  • 3. Conclusions
  • References
  • ‘Adjective + whether/if-clause’ constructions in English. An exploratory corpus-based study: Juan Santana-Lario
  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. Method
  • 3. Syntactic constructions associated with the ‘adjective + whether/if-clause’ pattern
  • 3.1. Whether/if-clause as (extraposed) subject [EXT S]
  • 3.2. Whether/if-clause as (extraposed) object [EXT O]
  • 3.3. Whether/if-clause as complement of the adjective [ADJ COMP]
  • 4. Lexico-grammatical associations of the [EXT S/O] and the [ADJ COMP] constructions
  • 4.1. Semantic colligation
  • 4.2. Non-assertiveness
  • 4.3. ‘Or (not)’
  • 5. Conclusions
  • References
  • Exploring Hoey’s notion of textual colligation in a corpus of student writing: Paul Thompson
  • 1. Introduction
  • 2. Textual Colligation
  • 2.1. Lexical Priming (Hoey 2005)
  • 2.2. Textual distribution of phraseological items in student writing (O’Donnell/Römer 2010)
  • 3. The British Academic Written English (BAWE) corpus
  • 4. Methodology
  • 5. Analysis
  • 5.1. General
  • 5.2. Essay
  • 5.3. Important
  • 5.4. Thus and therefore
  • 5.5. P-frames
  • 5.6. Variation by level
  • 6. Conclusions
  • References
  • Notes on contributors
  • Subject index

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (grant FFI2011–15186-E), which has helped cover the organizational costs of the 4th International Conference on Corpus Linguistics organized at the University of Jaén (Spain) (22nd-24th March 2011) on behalf of AELINCO (Spanish Association for Corpus Linguistics) by A. Alcaraz-Sintes, M. A. Benítez-Castro, A. V. Casas-Pedrosa, A. Díaz-Negrillo, F. J. Díaz-Pérez, J. Fernández-Domínguez and S. Valera-Hernández, as well as the publication of this book containing selected papers and guest contributions.

We are also grateful for the assistance given by a number of colleagues who acted as peer-reviewers in the selection process.

The Editors
Jaén, June 2013

← 7 | 8 → ← 8 | 9 →

Preface

The scholarly articles in this volume are based on presentations delivered at the Fourth International Conference on Corpus Linguistics (CILC) held at the University of Jaén from 22 to 24 March 2012 under the aegis of AELINCO, the Spanish Association of Corpus Linguistics. The conference attracted almost two hundred scholars from a large number of countries in several continents.

The book before you contains a selection of the papers presented at the conference and is organised into two parts: one focuses on diachronic, the other on synchronic research. Within these two parts the various chapters cover a very wide span of research topics, mostly on English, and each of them attests to the lively issues and debates currently taking place in the burgeoning field of Corpus Linguistics.

This book is a stimulating read and is certain to make an important and lasting contribution to our knowledge.

Bas Aarts
University College London
June 2013

← 9 | 10 → ← 10 | 11 →

Part 1

Corpora and Historical Linguistics

← 11 | 12 → ← 12 | 13 →

ALEJANDRO ALCARAZ-SINTES

Dictionary- and corpus-based research in historical linguistics1

Abstract

Research on historical linguistics conducted with corpora has for quite some time now come to be accepted as the most reliable type of research, not only to confirm or hypothesize on patterns and causes of linguistic change, but also to test different theoretical models applied to the study of specific grammatical issues and to perform accurate descriptions of language features in or through past synchronies. The present chapter analyses the five contributions in Part 1 insofar as they bear witness to this claim. Five very specific grammar issues are addressed and investigated: the Late Modern English semantic changes and grammaticalization processes undergone by a closed set of nautical a-prefixed words originally denoting location and direction, the evolution of verbs expressing manner of the motion, the development of the adverbial subordinator if as a declarative complementizer down to Modern English, the progress of three specific adverbial connectives along the history of English as evidenced by data gathered from different historical corpora, and the manner in which the evolution of English over the centuries as regards its analicity versus syntheticity typology can be measured and established.

1.Introduction

One of the strengths of corpus-based research in historical linguistics lies in the increasing availability of historical corpora, large and small, ← 13 | 14 → (see CorD),2 in the wider range of corpus tools that can be used on corpora and, as a result of both, in the relative ease with which data and results can be verified or falsified by the researchers.

The corpora used by the contributors also reflect the trend in corpus compilation from the small-sized “long-diachrony” or “multipurpose” (Rissanen 2000: 8) corpora, such as the Helsinki Corpus HC3 or ARCHER,4 towards larger but period- or genre-specific ones, such as the CEEC5 or the CED,6 to name just a couple. In other words, the overall trends for certain phenomena observed in data obtained from general corpora are checked against those from “short and fat” (Kohnen 2009: §2.1) ones. At the same time, some contributors have also obtained their data from dictionary quotation databases, mainly that of the OED,7 and full-text collections (equivalent for certain purposes to genuine corpora; see Hoffman 2004; Mair 2004: §2; Lindquist 2009: §9.4).

There are differences between the contributions as regards the descriptive, theoretical and explanatory approaches taken by their authors to describe or explain the phenomena studied. As Rissanen (this volume) aptly writes in his introduction, “[t]heoretical considerations add to the value of data-based results, while surveys of data are essential to trigger and support theoretical discussions.”

2.Studies

Nuria Calvo-Cortés’ detailed study on how four a-words underwent metaphoric extensions through different processes of grammaticalization confirms a couple of requisites to relate the full story of specific ← 14 | 15 → grammatical or lexical problems. On the one hand, the importance of the ModE period for many changes (also manifest in other contributions), particularly LModE, and, on the other hand, how the data in the OED can be complemented by corpus-based data. The author has used the 15-million-word CLMETEV.8 Through the detailed study of examples found in the corpus she identifies meanings hitherto unrecorded by the OED and presents data for each period and word, specifying with accuracy when the semantic changes took place.

Teresa Fanego’s contribution on “verbs of sound emission” shows that historical dictionaries, thesauri and literature collections too, namely, the OED, the MED,9 the HTOED10 and the Chadwyck-Healey Literature Collections Online, offer sufficiently large amounts of data to trace the history of words and grammatical constructions. Her particular object of study – verbs that combine the meanings of motion and manner of motion – are approached from the perspectives of cognitive semantics and Constructional Grammar (Goldberg 1995, 2006; Talmy 2000; Slobin 2004a, 2004b, 2006). While Fanego’s previous studies on motion verbs (e.g., Fanego 2012) show that the stock of such verbs in the English lexicon has been constantly added to in the different periods of English, in this paper she focuses specifically on “verbs of sound emission” (where motion and manner generate a sound) whose appearance in the Early Modern English (EModE) period was made possible or “motivated” (cf. Lakoff 1987) by the previous existence of manner verbs. The new intransitive “sound emission to motion” construction has gradually spread in usage and members since then, not only for reasons of “motivation”, but also of phonesthesia (many verbs ending in /ʃ/), and the construction has in fact become firm enough now to integrate verbs other than sound verbs.

Unlike the previous two authors, María José López-Couso and Belén Méndez-Naya’s approach to their object of study, the long history of the conditional link if used as a declarative complementizer from OE to Present-Day English (PDE), is based on data obtained ← 15 | 16 → from two general corpora, the HC and ARCHER. Interestingly, this type of structures overlap in part with those studied by Santana-Lario in the second part of this volume. After a revision of the established criteria to be met by this if-construction to be considered a complement equivalent to a that-construction, López-Couso and Méndez-Naya present a thorough synchronic and diachronic description of the data obtained from the corpora and the trends observed for the different periods. One of the most interesting results is reached thanks to the filtering capacities of ARCHER for registers: if-complements are more commonly found in the speech registers than in the written ones, and in the less formal text-types in either register. This confirms precisely what the authors have found to be the case for other minor complementizers in previous research.

Matti Rissanen’s paper seeks to show what historical corpora can be used to study linguistic change and, what is more important, how. For this purpose he looks into the behaviour and diachronic evolution of three adverbial connectives. Like other contributors, Rissanen does not merely offer a detailed review of their evolution, but also provides explanations from the perspectives of grammaticalization and language contact. For the OE period, the author analyzes the connective nemne/nymþe ‘except’ and, at the same time, illustrates the differences between two corpora, the all-inclusive DOEC11 and the TEI XML version of the HC,12 which permits searching by date, dialects and genres. While the data retrieved from the latter speedily show that the term may be considered as non-West Saxon and poetical, the DOEC, though yielding all the occurrences of the word, is less amenable to searching.

For the Middle English (ME) and later periods Rissanen focuses on a couple of French-based connectives. The first one, according to, started to be used as a preposition in the 15th century and soon became grammaticalized, three centuries after the verb accord had been borrowed. By comparing the relatively scant data from the ME part of the HC and the more abundant ones from the larger ← 16 | 17 → ICoMEP13 and CMEPV,14 Rissanen proves that grammaticalization from verb to preposition started in the 15th century and was well established in the 16th century. Equally important, the HC data reveal that most ME tokens are found in statutory texts. Similar trends are manifest in data for the EModE part of the HC and in the PPCEME.15 These findings justify – Rissanen rightly argues – the inclusion of this genre in any Late Middle English (LME) corpora. Unlike according to, the second connective, concerning, was introduced at the same time as the verb in very late ME as an already grammaticalized form and became firmly established in the 17th century, according to HC, ICoMEP and CMEPV data. Besides, on the evidence from the HC, although concerning was used in many different text-types, it is particularly present in formal registers. The availability of genre-specific EModE corpora, such as the PCEEC,16 the CEEM,17 and the CED, does not only throw light on the speed at which the form spread from formal to other registers, but also confirms the increasing rate of occurrence of concerning (and concern) in 17th century dialogue texts from trials and depositions, and in medical texts. The evidence gathered by the author for LModE and the 20th century from ARCHER and much larger corpora, such as the CLMETEV, the PPCMBE,18 the COHA,19 Brown,20 Frown,21 the LOB,22 the F-LOB,23 the BNC24 and the COCA,25 showing that connective concerning dramatically de ← 17 | 18 → creases in usage, unlike verbal forms of concern, proves that some kind of register-based restriction seems be in force, hindering its complete grammaticalization. Rissanen’s chapter, therefore, not only shows that using general corpora permits to obtain overall frequencies of items or infer trends of linguistic change, but that descriptions of language change will be more fine-grained and truer to actual language use and synchronic variation if they rely on corpora that allow filtering results by text-genre, dialect and sociolinguistic factors.

Finally, Tichy and Cermak’s contribution to this volume deals with the evolution of English as regards its typological status, analytical or synthetic, and attempts to test whether this status is susceptible of measurement by conducting a series of morphological and statistical analyses on historical corpora (The York-Toronto-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Old English Poetry (Taylor et al. 2001), the YCOE26 and the BNC). Following Szmrecsanyi (forthcoming), the authors define analycity as the frequency of free grammatical markers, and syntheticity as the frequency of bound grammatical markers. According to Szmerecanyi (forthcoming), the change of English towards analycity started to decline in the EModE period, that is, syntheticity was on the rise. This is directly contrary to the accepted view on the typological history of English. However, the authors’ refined measurement of the trends in the different periods of English (though excluding different varieties of English and measurements of analycity) and the application of statistical tests to verify their significance confirm, contrary to Szmerecanyi’s claim, the syntheticity-to-analycity evolution of English. The main contribution is to show how to use corpora, particularly tagged corpora, in order to measure the frequency of distribution of morphological markers across paradigms and how an index of syntheticity for a given word-class and period can be given by means of a formula. The authors also show that different word-classes differ in their syntheticity levels (verbs and adjectives, become less homogeneous, but nouns do not) and that, within the same class, some words may lose their syntheticity, while others may increase it, as exceptional residues of an older system. ← 18 | 19 →

References

ARCHER = A Representative Corpus of Historical English Registers. 1993-. <manchester.ac.uk/archer>.

The British National Corpus, version 3 (BNC XML Edition). 2007. Distributed by Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium: <http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk>.

Corpus of Early English Correspondence. 1998. Compiled by Terttu Nevalainen, Helena Raumolin-Brunberg, Jukka Keränen, Minna Nevala, Arja Nurmi and Minna Palander-Collin at the Department of Modern Languages, University of Helsinki.

Davies, Mark 2008-. The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 450 Million Words, 1990-present. Brigham Young University. <http://corpus.byu.edu/coca>.

Davies, Mark 2010-. The Corpus of Historical American English: 400 Million Words, 1810–2009. Brigham Young University. <http: //corpus.byu.edu/coha>.

De Smet, Hendrik 2006. The Corpus of Late Modern English Texts (Extended Version). Department of Linguistics, University of Leuven. <https://perswww.kuleuven.be/~u0044428>.

diPaolo Healey, Antonette / Holland, Joan / McDougall, Ian / McDougall, David 2009. The Dictionary of Old English Corpus in Electronic Form. Toronto: Dictionary of Old English Project, Centre for Medieval Studies, University of Toronto.

diPaolo Healey, Antonette Ongoing. The Dictionary of Old English Web Corpus. Toronto: Dictionary of Old English Project, Centre for Medieval Studies, University of Toronto. <http://quod.lib.umich.edu/o/oec>.

Fanego, Teresa 2012. Motion Events in English: The Emergence and Diachrony of Manner Salience from Old English to Late Modern English. Folia Linguistica Historica. 33, 29–85.

Francis, W. Nelson / Kučera, Henry 1964, 1971, 1979. The Standard Corpus of Present-Day Edited American English, for Use with Digital Computers (Brown). Providence, RI: Brown University. ← 19 | 20 →

Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at Work. The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Humanities Text Initiative, University of Michigan 2006. Corpus of Middle English Prose and Verse. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. <http://quod.lib.umich.edu/c/cme>.

Helsinki Corpus TEI XML Edition. 2011. First edition. Designed by Alpo Honkapohja, Samuli Kaislaniemi, Henri Kauhanen, Matti Kilpiö, Ville Marttila, Terttu Nevalainen, Arja Nurmi, Matti Rissanen and Jukka Tyrkkö. Implemented by Henri Kauhanen and Ville Marttila. Based on The Helsinki Corpus of English Texts (1991). Helsinki: The Research Unit for Variation, Contacts and Change in English (VARIENG), University of Helsinki.

Hoffmann, Sebastian 2004. Using the OED Quotations Database as a Corpus. A Linguistics Appraisal. ICAME Journal. Computers in English Linguistics. 28: 17–30.

Kay, Christian J. / Roberts, Jane / Samuels, Michael / Wotherspoon, Irené 2009. Historical Thesaurus of the Oxford English Dictionary. 2 volumes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kohnen, Thomas 2007. From Helsinki through the Centuries: The Design and Development of English Diachronic Corpora. Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English. Volume 2. Towards Multimedia in Corpus Studies. Rayson, Paul / Hoffmann, Sebastian / Leech, Geoffrey (eds). Helsinki: Research Unit for Variation, Contacts, and Change in English. <http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/series/volumes/02>.

Kroch, Anthony / Santorini, Beatrice / Delfs, Lauren 2004. Penn-Helsinki Parsed Corpus of Early Modern English. CD-ROM. Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania. <http://www.ling.upenn.edu/hist-corpora/PPCEMERELEASE-2/index.html. ← 20 | 21 →

Kroch, Anthony / Santorini, Beatrice / Diertani, Ariel 2010. Penn Parsed Corpus of Modern British English. CD-ROM. First edition. Department of Linguistics, University of Pennsylvania. <http://www.ling.upenn.edu/hist-corpora/PPCMBE-RELEASE-1/index.html>.

Kurath, Hans / Kuhn, Sherman M. / Lewis, Robert E. (eds) 1952-2001. Middle English Dictionary. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. <http://ets.umdl.umich.edu/m/med>.

Kytö, Merja / Culpeper, Jonathan 2006. Corpus of English Dialogues 1560–1760. University of Uppsala / Lancaster University. <http://www.engelska.uu.se/Research/English_Language/Resea rch_Areas/Electronic_Resource_Projects/A_Corpus_of_English _Dialogues>.

Lakoff, George 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Leech, Geoffrey / Johansson, Stig 1976. The Lancaster-Oslo/Bergen Corpus (1986: POS-tagged version). Lancaster University/ University of Oslo. <http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/CoRD/corp ora/LOB>.

Lindquist, Hans 2009. Corpus Linguistics and the Description of English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Mair, Christian 1999. The Freiburg-Brown Corpus of American English. Albert Ludwigs Universität Freiburg. <http://www.helsin ki.fi/varieng/CoR D/corpora/FROWN>.

Mair, Christian 2004. Corpus Linguistics and Grammaticalisation Theory. Statistics, Frequencies, and Beyond. In Lindquist, Hans / Mair, Christian (eds) Corpus Approaches to Grammaticalization in English. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, 121–150.

Details

Pages
393
Publication Year
2014
ISBN (PDF)
9783035106404
ISBN (MOBI)
9783035199086
ISBN (ePUB)
9783035199093
ISBN (Softcover)
9783034313261
DOI
10.3726/978-3-0351-0640-4
Language
English
Publication date
2014 (June)
Keywords
Corpus-based research English grammar, dictionary English as a native language
Published
Bern, Berlin, Bruxelles, Frankfurt am Main, New York, Oxford, Wien, 2014. 393 pp., num. tables

Biographical notes

Alejandro Alcaraz Sintes (Volume editor) Salvador Valera Hernández (Volume editor)

Alejandro Alcaraz-Sintes (Casablanca, Morocco, 1959) is senior lecturer (tenured) at the University of Jaén. Salvador Valera-Hernández (Jaén, Spain, 1967) is senior lecturer (tenured) at the University of Granada and teaches regularly at Pavol Jozef Šafárik University in Košice, Slovakia.

Previous

Title: Diachrony and Synchrony in English Corpus Linguistics