Book contents
- Language Change
- Language Change
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Abbreviations
- Introduction
- Part I Pooling Perspectives
- 1 Calling Englishes As Complex Dynamic Systems: Diffusion and Restructuring
- 2 English as a Lingua Franca in the Context of a Sociolinguistic Typology of Contact Languages
- 3 How Writing Changes Language
- 4 ELF and Translation As Language Contact
- 5 Present-Day Standard English
- 6 Beyond Language Change
- Part II Zooming in on ELF
- Index
- References
4 - ELF and Translation As Language Contact
from Part I - Pooling Perspectives
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 December 2020
Book contents
- Language Change
- Language Change
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Abbreviations
- Introduction
- Part I Pooling Perspectives
- 1 Calling Englishes As Complex Dynamic Systems: Diffusion and Restructuring
- 2 English as a Lingua Franca in the Context of a Sociolinguistic Typology of Contact Languages
- 3 How Writing Changes Language
- 4 ELF and Translation As Language Contact
- 5 Present-Day Standard English
- 6 Beyond Language Change
- Part II Zooming in on ELF
- Index
- References
Summary
This paper explores multilingual language contact in seemingly unrelated settings: translation and English as a lingua franca, also touching on learner language. By delving into similar processes in these settings at three levels – the macro level of a language as a whole, the intermediate level of social interaction and the micro level of cognition – it argues that translation and ELF are sites of multilingual contact resulting in a degree of hybridization in the languages involved, and are thereby important drivers of language change. It is suggested that macro-level similarities in translation and ELF, such as the relative over-representation of high-frequency items and structures and untypical multiword combinations, ensue from interactional and cognitive processes where one fundamental mechanism is priming. Translations engage in cross-linguistic textual priming, while users of ELF interact with other ‘similects’ in complex second-order language contact. Both can contribute crucially to understanding processes of change and contact-induced variation.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Language ChangeThe Impact of English as a Lingua Franca, pp. 95 - 122Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
References
Aijmer, Karin, Altenberg, Bengt & Johansson, Stig (eds.) 1996. Languages in Contrast. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Altenberg, Bengt & Granger, Sylviane. 2002. The grammatical and lexical patterning of make in native and non-native student writing. Applied Linguistics 22(2), 173–189.Google Scholar
Baker, Mona. 1993. Corpus linguistics and translation studies: Implications and applications. In Baker, Mona, Francis, Gill & Tognini-Bonelli, Elena (eds.), Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair, 233–250. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becher, Victor. 2010. Abandoning the notion of ‘translation-inherent’ explicitation. Against a dogma of translation studies. Across Languages and Cultures 11(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bestgen, Yves, Granger, Sylviane & Thewissen, Jennifer. 2012. Error patterns and automatic L1 identification. In Jarvis, Scott & Crossley, Scott A. (eds.), Approaching Language Transfer through Text Classification, 127–153. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 2006. University Language. A Corpus-Based Study of Spoken and Written Registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 2009. Are there linguistic consequences of literacy? Comparing the potentials of language use in speech and writing. In Olson, David R. & Torrance, Nancy (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Literacy, 75–91. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Gray, Bethany. 2010. Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 1(19), 2–20.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Edward, Finegan E. 1999. The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Blommaert, Jan & Rampton, Ben. 2011. Language and superdiversity: a position paper. Available at www.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/departments/education/research/Research-Centres/ldc/publications/workingpapers/abstracts/WP070-Language-and-superdiversity-a-position-paper-.aspx.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana. 1986. Shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation. In House, Juliane & Blum-Kulka, Shoshana (eds.), Interlingual and Intercultural Communication: Discourse and Cognition in Translation and Second Language Acquisition Studies, 17–35. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Canagarajah, A. Suresh. 2013. Translingual Practice: Global Englishes and Cosmopolitan Relations. New York and Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, Ray. 2013. On the other side: Formulaic organizing chunks in spoken and written academic ELF. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 2(2), 207–228.Google Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew. 2004. Beyond the particular. In Mauranen, & Kujamäki, (eds.), 33–49.Google Scholar
Cook, Vivian. 1991. The poverty-of-the-stimulus argument and multi-competence. Second Language Research 7(2), 103–117.Google Scholar
Cook, Vivian. 2003. Introduction: The changing L1 in the L2 user’s mind. In Cook, Vivian (ed.), Effects of the Second Language on the First, 1–18. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, Vivian (ed.). 2003b. Effects of the Second Language on the First. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Cook, Vivian & Bassetti, Benedetta. 2011. Relating language and cognition: The second language user. In Cook, Vivian & Bassetti, Benedetta (eds.), Language and Bilingual Cognition, 143–190. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth & Selting, Margaret. 2018. Interactional Linguistics: An Introduction to Language in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crossley, Scott A., Salsbury, Tom & McNamara, Danielle S.. 2015. Assessing lexical proficiency using analytical ratings: A case for collocation accuracy. Applied Linguistics 36(5), 570–590.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa. 2004. Language, Mind and Brain. Some Psychological and Neurological Constraints on Theories of Grammar. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Djikstra, Ton & Van Heuven, Walter J. B.. 2002. The architecture of the bilingual word recognition system: from identification to decision. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 5(3), 51–66.Google Scholar
Ellis, Nick. 2007. Cognitive perspectives on SLA: The associative-cognitive CREED AILA Review 19(1), 100–121.Google Scholar
Ellis, Nick. 2017. Chunking in language usage, learning and change: I don’t know. In Hundt, Marianne, Sandra Mollin & Simone Pfenninger (eds.), The Changing English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eskola, Sari. 2002. Syntetisoivat rakenteet käännössuomessa. Joensuu: University of Joensuu.Google Scholar
Eskola, Sari. 2004. Untypical frequencies in translated language. In Mauranen, Anna & Pekka Kujamäki (eds.) 2004. Translation universals – Do they exist? Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 83–99.Google Scholar
Ferraresi, Adriano & Bernardini, Silvia. 2019. Lexical simplification in English and Italian Eurolects: (con/di)vergences. Presentation at the AIA conference, 5–7 September 2019, Padova, Italy.Google Scholar
Filppula, Markku, Klemola, Juhani, Mauranen, Anna & Vetchinnikova, Svetlana (eds.) 2017. Changing English: Global and Local Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Firth, Alan & Wagner, Johannes. 1997. On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. Modern Language Journal 81, 285–300.Google Scholar
Firth, John R. 1957. General linguistics and descriptive grammar. In Firth, John Papers in Linguistics 1934–1951, 216–228. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Garcia, Ofelia & Wei, Li. 2014. Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gellerstam, Martin. 1996. Translation as a source for cross-linguistic studies. In Aijmer, , Altenberg, & Johansson, (eds.), 53–62.Google Scholar
Giles, Howard. 1973. Accent mobility: A model and some data. Anthropological Linguistics 33, 27–42.Google Scholar
Gilner, Leah & Morales, Franc. 2011. The ICE-CORE word list: The lexical foundation of 7 varieties of English. Asian Englishes 14(1), 4–21.Google Scholar
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle. 2008. Combining contrastive and interlanguage analysis to apprehend transfer: Detection, explanation, evaluation. In Gilquin, Gaëtanelle, Papp, Szilivia & Diez-Bedmar, Maria Belén (eds.), Linking Up Contrastive and Learner Corpus Research, 3–33. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Gilquin, Gaëtanelle & Granger, Sylviane. 2011. From EFL to ESL: Evidence from the International Corpus of Learner English. In Mukherjee, Joybrato & Hundt, Marianne (eds.), Exploring Second-Language Varieties of English and Learner Englishes, 55–78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Granger, Sylviane, Hung, Joseph & Petch-Tyson, Stephanie (eds.). 2002. Computer Learner Corpora, Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granger, Sylviane & Meunier, Fanny (eds.). 2008. Phraseology. An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hari, Riitta, Sams, Mikko & Nummenmaa, Lauri. 2016. Attending to and neglecting people: bridging neuroscience, psychology and sociology. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 371: 20150365. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0365.Google Scholar
Hasselgård, Hilde & Johansson, Stig. 2011. Learner corpora and contrastive interlanguage analysis. In Meunier, Fanny, De Cock, Sylviane, Gilquin, Gaëtanelle & Paquot, Magali (eds.), A Taste for Corpora. A Tribute to Professor Sylviane Granger, 33–61. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John A. & Filipović, Luna. 2012. Criterial Features in L2 English: Specifying the Reference Levels of the Common European Framework. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hoey, Michael. 2005. Lexical Priming. A New Theory of Words and Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
House, Juliane. 2011. Translation and bilingual cognition. In Cook, Vivian & Bassetti, Benedetta (eds.), Language and Bilingual Cognition, 519–527. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne, Mollin, Sandra & Pfenninger, Simone (eds.) 2017. The Changing English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2000. Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hynninen, Niina. 2016. Language Regulation in English as a Lingua Franca. Berlin: DeGruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Jarvis, Scott & Pavlenko, Aneta. 2007. Crosslinguistic Influence in Language and Cognition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jenkins, Jennifer. 2000. The Phonology of English as an International Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jenkins, Jennifer. 2015. Repositioning English and multilingualism in English as a lingua franca. Englishes in Practice 2(3), 49–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, Jennifer, Baker, Will & Dewey, Martin (eds.). 2018. The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Käännössuomen korpus (Corpus of Translated Finnish). Käännössuomen sähköinen tutkimusaineisto. Käännössuomi ja kääntämisen universaalit –hankkeessa koostanut Joensuun yliopiston kansainvälisen viestinnän laitos 1997–. Availability: Anna Mauranen, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Kujamäki, Pekka. 2000. Seitsemän veljen saksannokset ja romaanin saksankielinen vastaanotto – kaksi eri maailmaako? In Paloposki, Outi & Makkonen-Craig, Henna (eds.), Käännöskirjallisuus ja sen kritiikki, 199–227. Helsinki: Yliopistopaino.Google Scholar
Kujamäki, Pekka. 2004. What happens to ‘unique items’ in learners’ translations? ‘Theories’ and ‘concepts’ as a challenge for novices’ views on ‘good translation’. In Mauranen, & Kujamäki, (eds.), 187–204.Google Scholar
Laitinen, Mikko. 2016. Ongoing changes in English modals: On the developments in ELF. In Timofeeva, Olga, Gardner, Anne-Christine, Honkapohja, Alpo & Chevalier, Sarah (eds.), New Approaches to English Linguistics: Building Bridges, 175–196. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Laitinen, Mikko. 2018. Placing ELF among the varieties of English. In Deshors, Sandra C. (ed.), Modeling World Englishes: Assessing the Interplay of Emancipation and Globalization of ESL Varieties, 109–131. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lanstyák, Istvan & Heltai, Pal. 2012. Universals in language contact and translation. Across Languages and Cultures 13(1), 99–121. doi.org/10.1556/Acr.13.2012.1.6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, Diane. 2018. Complexity and ELF. In Jenkins, Jennifer, Baker, Will and Dewey, Martin (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca, 51–60. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Laviosa-Braithwaite, Sara. 1996. The English Comparable Corpus (ECC): A Resource and a Methodology for the Empirical Study of Translation, unpublished PhD thesis. Manchester: University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology.Google Scholar
LePage, Robert B. & Tabouret-Keller, Andrée. 1985. Acts of Identity: Creole-Based Approaches to Language and Ethnicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Li, Wei. 2018. Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics 39(1), 9–30.Google Scholar
Low, Ee-Ling. 2016. A features-based description of phonological patterns in English as a lingua franca in Asia: Implications for standards and norms. JELF 5(2), 309–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian. 2005. A unified model of language acquisition. In Kroll, Judith & De Groot, Annette M.B. (eds.), Handbook of Bilingualism: Psycholinguistic Approaches, 49–67. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mauranen, Anna. 1998. Käännössuomi ja kääntämisen universaalit: tutkimus korpusaineistolla. [Translated Finnish and Translation Universals: A Corpus Study], project research plan, MS, Savonlinna School of Translation Studies.Google Scholar
Mauranen, Anna. 1999. Will ‘Translationese’ ruin a contrastive study? Languages in Contrast 2(2), 161–185.Google Scholar
Mauranen, Anna. 2000. Strange strings translated language: A study on corpora. In Olohan, Maeve (ed.), Intercultural Faultlines. Research Models in Translation Studies 1: Textual and Cognitive Aspects, 119–141. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.Google Scholar
Mauranen, Anna. 2004a. Corpora, universals, and interference. In Mauranen, & Kujamäki, (eds.), 65–82.Google Scholar
Mauranen, Anna. 2004b. Talking academic: A corpus approach to academic speech. In Aijmer, Karin (ed.), Dialogue Analysis VIII: Understanding and Misunderstanding in Dialogue, 201–217. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mauranen, Anna. 2006. Signalling and preventing misunderstanding in English as lingua franca communication. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 177, 123–150.Google Scholar
Mauranen, Anna. 2007. Hybrid voices: English as the lingua franca of academics. In Fløttum, Kjersti, Dahl, Trine & Kinn, Torodd (eds.), Language and Discipline Perspectives on Academic Discourse, 244–259. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Press.Google Scholar
Mauranen, Anna. 2013. Lingua franca discourse in academic contexts: shaped by complexity. In Flowerdew, John (ed.), Discourse in Context, 225–246. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Mauranen, Anna. 2018. Second language acquisition, World Englishes, and English as a Lingua Franca (ELF). World Englishes 37, 106–119.Google Scholar
Mauranen, Anna. 2019. Academically speaking. English as the lingua franca. In Hyland, Ken & Wong, Lillian L. C. (eds.), Specialised English: New Directions in ESP and EAP Research and Practice, 9–21. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mauranen, Anna & Jantunen, Jarmo (eds.). 2005. Käännössuomeksi. Tutkimuksia suomennosten kielestä. Tampere: Tampere University Press.Google Scholar
Mauranen, Anna & Kujamäki, Pekka (eds.). 2004. Translation Universals – Do They Exist?. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mauranen, Anna & Tiittula, Liisa. 2005. MINÄ käännössuomessa ja supisuomessa. In Mauranen, & Jantunen, (eds.), 35–70.Google Scholar
Meriläinen, Lea, Paulasto, Heli & Rautionaho, Paula. 2017. Extended uses of the progressive form in Inner, Outer and Expanding Circle Englishes. In Filppula, et al. (eds.), 191–221.Google Scholar
Mesthrie, Rajend & Bhatt, Rakesh. 2008. World Englishes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Milroy, Jim & Milroy, Lesley. 1985. Linguistic change, social network and speaker innovation. Journal of Linguistics 21, 339–384.Google Scholar
Nattinger, James R. & DeCarrico, Jeannette S.. 1992. Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nevalainen, Sampo. 2005. Köyhtyykö kieli käännettäessä? Mitä taajuuslistat kertovat suomennosten sanastosta. In Mauranen, & Jantunen, (eds.), 139-162.Google Scholar
Nitschke, Sanjo, Kidd, Evan & Serratrice, Ludovica. 2010. First language transfer and long-term structural priming in comprehension. Language and Cognitive Processes 25(1), 94–114.Google Scholar
Odlin, Terence. 2003. Cross-linguistic influence. In Doughty, Catherine J. & Long, Michael H. (eds.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition, 436–486. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Olohan, Maeve & Baker, Mona. 2000. Reporting THAT in translated English. Evidence for subconscious processes of explicitation? Across Languages and Cultures 1(2), 141–158.Google Scholar
Ortega, Lourdes. 2009. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. London: Hodder Education.Google Scholar
Øverås, Linn. 1998. In search of the third code: An investigation of norms in literary translation. Meta 43, 571–588.Google Scholar
Paradis, Michel. 2004. A Neurolinguistic Theory of Bilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Pawley, Andrew & Syder, Frances H.. 1983. Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In Richards, Jack C. & Schmidt, Richard W. (eds.), Language and Communication, 191–225. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Pickering, Martin J. & Garrod, Simon. 2004. Towards a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioural and Brain Sciences 27(2), 169–225.Google Scholar
Pickering, Martin J. & Garrod, Simon. 2017. Priming and language change. In Hundt, et al. (eds.), 173–190.Google Scholar
Pitzl, Marie-Luise. 2010. English as a Lingua Franca in International Business: Resolving Miscommunication and Reaching Shared Understanding. Saarbrücken: VDM.Google Scholar
Ranta, Elina. 2006. The ‘attractive’ progressive – why use the -ing form in English as a Lingua Franca? Nordic Journal of English Studies 5(2), 95–116.Google Scholar
Ranta, Elina. 2013. Universals in a Universal Language? Exploring Verb-Syntactic Features in English as a Lingua Franca, PhD thesis. University of Tampere.Google Scholar
Renouf, Antoinette & Sinclair, John McH.. 1991. Collocational frameworks in English. In Aijmer, Karin & Altenberg, Bengt (eds.), English Corpus Linguistics: Studies in Honour of Jan Svartvik, 128–143. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Ringbom, Håkan. 1992. On L1 transfer in L2 comprehension and production. Language Learning 42, 85–112.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emanuel & Jefferson, Gail. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language (50), 696–735.Google Scholar
Sajavaara, Kari. 1996. New challenges for contrastive linguistics. In Aijmer, , Altenberg, & Johansson, (eds.), 7–36.Google Scholar
Schmid, Monika. 2019. When is a bilingual an attriter? – Bilingualism as a two-way street. Presentation at the 5th International Conference of Applied Linguistics in Lithuania, 26–28 September 2019, Vilnius University, Lithuania.Google Scholar
Schneider, Edgar W. 1997. Chaos theory as a model for dialect variability and change? In Thomas, Alan R. (ed.), Issues and Methods in Dialectology, 22–36. Bangor: Department of Linguistics, University of Wales.Google Scholar
Daniel, Schreier & Hundt, Marianne (eds.). 2013. English as a Contact Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2004. Research perspectives on teaching English as a lingua franca. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 24, 209–239.Google Scholar
Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2011. Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Silva-Corvalan, Carmen. 1998. On borrowing as a mechanism of syntactic change. In Schwegler, Armin, Tranel, Bernard & Etcxebarria, Myriam Uribe- (eds.), Romance Linguistics: Theoretical Perspectives, 225–246. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sharwood Smith, Michael & Truscott, John. 2014. The Multilingual Mind: A Modular Processing Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John McH. 1996. The search for units of meaning. Textus 9(1), 75–106. Reprinted in Sinclair, John McH. 2004. Trust the Text, 24–48. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Suviniitty, Jaana. 2012. Lectures in English as a Lingua Franca: Interactional Features, unpublished doctoral dissertation. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. HELDA E-thesis. [Online]. Available from http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-10-8540-6.Google Scholar
Swales, John M. & Burke, Amy. 2003. ‘It’s really fascinating work’: Differences in evaluative adjectives across academic registers. In Meyer, Charles & Leistyna, Pepi (eds.), Corpus Analysis: Language Structure and Use, 1–18. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Teubert, Wolfgang. 1996. Comparable or parallel corpora? International Journal of Lexicography 9(3), 238–264.Google Scholar
Thomason, Sarah G. & Kaufman, Thomas. 1988. Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja. 2004. Unique items – over-or under-represented in translated language?. In Mauranen, & Kujamäki, (eds.), 207–220.Google Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja. 2005. Häviävätkö uniikkiainekset käännössuomesta?. In Mauranen, & Jantunen, (eds.), 123–137.Google Scholar
Toury, Gideon. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies – and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Trosborg, Anna. 1997. Translating hybrid political texts. In Trosborg, Anna (ed.), Analysing Professional Genres, 145–158. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Van Assche, Ewa, Wouter, Duyck & Hartsuiker, Robert. J.. 2012: Bilingual word recognition in a sentence context. Frontiers in Psychology 3, 174. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00174.Google Scholar
Vetchinnikova, Svetlana. 2017. On the relationship between the cognitive and the communal: a complex systems perspective. In Filppula, et al. (eds.), 277–310.Google Scholar
Weinreich, Uriel. 1953. Languages in Contact: Findings and Problems. New York: Linguistic Circle. Reprinted: 1963. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Wray, Alison. 2002. Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
ELFA. 2008. The Corpus of English as a Lingua Franca in Academic Settings. Director: Anna Mauranen. www.helsinki.fi/elfa/elfacorpus (25 February 2013).Google Scholar
FECC. Finnish-English Contrastive Corpus. Finland: University of Jyväskylä.Google Scholar
Simpson, R. C., Briggs, S. L., Ovens, J. & Swales, J. M. 2002. The Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English. Ann Arbor, MI: The Regents of the University of Michigan. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/micase/ (25 February 2013).Google Scholar
VOICE. 2013. The Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English (version POS XML 2.0). Director: Barbara Seidlhofer. www.univie.ac.at/voice/page/download_voice_xml (25 February 2013).Google Scholar
A Standard Corpus of Present-Day Edited American English, for use with Digital Computers (Brown). 1964, 1971, 1979. Compiled by Francis, W. N. and Kučera, H.. Providence, Rhode Island: Brown University.Google Scholar
ELFA. 2008. The Corpus of English as a Lingua Franca in Academic Settings. Director: Anna Mauranen. www.helsinki.fi/elfa/elfacorpus (25 February 2013).Google Scholar
FECC. Finnish-English Contrastive Corpus. Finland: University of Jyväskylä.Google Scholar
Simpson, R. C., Briggs, S. L., Ovens, J. & Swales, J. M. 2002. The Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English. Ann Arbor, MI: The Regents of the University of Michigan. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/micase/ (25 February 2013).Google Scholar
VOICE. 2013. The Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English (version POS XML 2.0). Director: Barbara Seidlhofer. www.univie.ac.at/voice/page/download_voice_xml (25 February 2013).Google Scholar
A Standard Corpus of Present-Day Edited American English, for use with Digital Computers (Brown). 1964, 1971, 1979. Compiled by Francis, W. N. and Kučera, H.. Providence, Rhode Island: Brown University.Google Scholar
Corpora
ELFA. 2008. The Corpus of English as a Lingua Franca in Academic Settings. Director: Anna Mauranen. www.helsinki.fi/elfa/elfacorpus (25 February 2013).Google Scholar
FECC. Finnish-English Contrastive Corpus. Finland: University of Jyväskylä.Google Scholar
Simpson, R. C., Briggs, S. L., Ovens, J. & Swales, J. M. 2002. The Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English. Ann Arbor, MI: The Regents of the University of Michigan. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/micase/ (25 February 2013).Google Scholar
VOICE. 2013. The Vienna-Oxford International Corpus of English (version POS XML 2.0). Director: Barbara Seidlhofer. www.univie.ac.at/voice/page/download_voice_xml (25 February 2013).Google Scholar
A Standard Corpus of Present-Day Edited American English, for use with Digital Computers (Brown). 1964, 1971, 1979. Compiled by Francis, W. N. and Kučera, H.. Providence, Rhode Island: Brown University.Google Scholar
- 2
- Cited by