Ackermann, K. and Chen, Y. 2013. Developing the Academic Collocation List (ACL) – A corpus-driven and expert-judged approach. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 12(4): 235–47.Google Scholar

Ädel, A. 2006. Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam: 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(2): 81–92.Google Scholar

Adger, D. 2021. Grammar in Language Use: a minimalist view. Talk given at the University of Birmingham, February 2021.Google Scholar

Adolphs, S., Knight, D., Smith, C. and Price, D. 2020. Crowdsourcing formulaic phrases: towards a new type of spoken corpus. Corpora 15(2): 141–68.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): 231–54.Google Scholar

Aijmer, K. and Altenberg, B. 2013. Advances in Corpus-based Contrastive Linguistics: Studies in honour of Stig Johansson. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Alharbi, A. 2019. Signalling Nouns in Corpora of Learner and Native Speaker English. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Birmingham.Google Scholar

Allen, R. 2009. Can a graded reader corpus provide ‘authentic’ input? ELT Journal 63(1): 23–32.Google Scholar

Andor, J. 2004. The master and his performance: an interview with Noam Chomsky. Intercultural Pragmatics 1(1): 93–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Anthony, L. 2010. AntConc [Computer Software]. Tokyo: Waseda University. laurenceanthony.net/software.Google Scholar

BAAL 2016. Recommendations on Good Practice in Applied Linguistics. 3rd edn. British Association for Applied Linguistics (baal.org.uk).Google Scholar

Baker, M. 1993. Corpus linguistics and translation studies: implications and applications. In Baker, Francis and Tognini-Bonelli, (eds.), 233–52.Google Scholar

Baker, M., Francis, G. and Tognini-Bonelli, E. (eds.) 1993. Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baker, P. 2004. Querying keywords: questions of difference, frequency and sense in keywords analysis. Journal of English Linguistics 32(4): 346–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baker, P. 2010. Sociolinguistics and Corpus Linguistics. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Baker, P., Brookes, G. and Evans, C. 2019. The Language of Patient Feedback: A Corpus Study of Online Health Communication. London: Routledge.Google 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 & Society 19(3): 273–305.Google Scholar

Baker, P., Gabrielatos, C. and McEnery, T. 2013a. Discourse Analysis and Media Attitudes: The representation of Islam in the British Press. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Baker, P., Gabrielatos, C. and McEnery, T. 2013b. Sketching Muslims: a corpus-driven analysis of representations around the word ‘Muslim’ in the British press 1998–2009. Applied Linguistics 34(3): 255–78.Google Scholar

Balfour, J. 2019. ‘The mythological marauding violent schizophrenic’: using the Word Sketch tool to examine representations of schizophrenic people as violent in the British press. Journal of Corpora and Discourse Studies 2: 40–64.Google Scholar

Bang, M. and Hunston, S. 2008. The corpus and the stereotype. Paper presented at the BAAL conference, Swansea University, September 2008.Google Scholar

Banks, D. 2008. The Development of Scientific Writing: Linguistic Features and Historical Context. London: Equinox.Google Scholar

Barker, F. 2006. Corpora and Language Assessment: Trends and Prospects. Research Notes 26: 2–9.Google Scholar

Barnbrook, G. 2002. Defining Language: A Local Grammar of Definition Sentences. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Baroni, M. and Bernadini, 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): 259–74.Google Scholar

Barry, A. and Born, G. 2013. Interdisciplinarity: Reconfigurations of the Social and Natural Sciences. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Becher, T. 1989. Academic Tribes and Terroritories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Cultures of Disciplines. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar

Bednarek, M. 2008. Emotion Talk across Corpora. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Bednarek, M. 2010. The Language of Fictional Television. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Bernadini, S. 2006. Corpora for Translator Education and Translation Practice: Achievements and Challenges. Proceedings of LREC 2006 (5th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference). Paris: ELRA. 17–22.Google Scholar

Bhatia, V. 2019. Critical Genre Analysis: Investigating Interdiscursive Performance in Professional Practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Biber, D. 1988. Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Biber, D. 2006a. Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5(2): 97–116.Google Scholar

Biber, D. 2006b. University Language: A Corpus-based Study of Spoken and Written Registers. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

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

Biber, D. and Clark, V. 2002. Historical shifts in modification patterns with complex noun phrase structures: How long can you go without a verb? In Fanego, T., López-Couso, M.J. and Pérez-Guerra, J. (eds.), English Historical Syntax and Morphology. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 43–66.Google Scholar

Biber, D. and Conrad, S. 1998. Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Biber, D., Conrad, S. and Cortez, V. 2004. ‘If you look at…’: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics 25(3): 371–405.Google Scholar

Biber, D. and Egbert, J. 2018. Register Variation Online. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Biber, D. and Finegan, E. 2001. Intra-textual variation within medical research articles. In Conrad, S and Biber, D (eds.), Variation in English: Multi-Dimensional Studies. London: Longman. 108–23.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): 223–50.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(1): 5–35.Google Scholar

Biber, D., Gray, B., Staples, S. and Egbert, J. 2020. Investigating grammatical complexity in L2 English writing research: linguistic description versus predictive measurement. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 46: 100869.Google Scholar

Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. and Finegan, E. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Blanco, Suárez Z., Gallardo-del-Puerto, F. and Gandón-Chapela, E. 2020. The Primary Education Learners’ English Corpus (PELEC): design and compilation. Research in Corpus Linguistics 8(1): 147–63.Google Scholar

Blei, D. 2012. Probabilistic topic models: surveying a suite of algorithms that offer a solution to managing large document archives. Communications of the ACM 55(4): 77–84.Google Scholar

Blommaert, J. and Bulcaen, C. 2000. Critical discourse analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology 29: 447–66.Google Scholar

Boas, H. 2017. Computational resources: FrameNet and Constructicon. In Dancygier, B. (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge University Press. 549–73.Google Scholar

Bondi, M. 2010. Perspecties on keywords and keyness: an introduction. In Bondi, M. and Scott, M. (eds.), Keyness in Texts. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 1–20.Google Scholar

Bondi, M. and Scott, M. (eds.) 2010. Keyness in Texts. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Boulton, A. 2021. Research in data-driven learning. In Pérez-Paredes, P and Mark, G (eds.), Beyond the Concordance: Corpora in Language Education. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Boulton, A. and Cobb, T. 2017. Corpus use in language learning: a meta-analysis. Language Learning 67(2): 348–93.Google Scholar

Braun, S. 2007. Integrating corpus work into secondary education: from data-driven learning to needs-driven corpora. ReCALL 19(3): 307–28.Google Scholar

Breiman, L. 2001. Random forests. Machine Learning 45(1): 5–32.Google Scholar

Brezina, V. 2018. Statistics in Corpus Linguistics: A Practical Guide. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Brezina, V. and Fox, L. 2021. Adjective + noun collocations in L2 and L1 speech: evidence from the Trinity Lancaster Corpus and the Spoken BNC2014. In Granger, S. (ed.) Perspectives on the L2 Phrasicon: The View from Learner Corpora. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Brezina, V., Weill-Tessier, P. and McEnery, A. 2020. #LancsBox v.5.x. corpora.lancs.ac.uk/lancsbox.Google Scholar

Buerki, A. 2020. Formulaic Language and Linguistic Change. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bulté, B. and Housen, A. 2012. Defining and operationalising L2 complexity. In Housen, A., Kuiken, F. and Vedder, I. (eds.), Dimensions of L2 Performance and Proficiency: Complexity, Accuracy and Fluency in SLA. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 21–45.Google Scholar

Burrows, J. 1992. Not unless you ask nicely: the interpretative nexus between analysis and information. Literary and Linguistic Computing 7(2): 91–109.Google Scholar

Buttery, P. 2021. The use of corpora in education technology. Paper given at the BAAL/CUP seminar Corpora in Applied Linguistics: expanding the horizons, Aston University, April 2021.Google Scholar

Buysse, L. 2015. ‘Well it’s not very ideal…’: The pragmatic marker well in learner English. Intercultural Pragmatics 12(1): 59–89.Google Scholar

Bybee, J. 2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Calude, A. 2017. Sociolinguistic variation at the grammatical/discourse level: demonstrative clefts in spoken British English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22(3): 429–55.Google Scholar

Cameron, D. 2007. The Myth of Mars and Venus: Do Men and Women Really Speak Different Languages? Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Cameron, L. and Larsen-Freeman, D. 2007. Complex systems and applied linguistics. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 17(2): 226–39.Google Scholar

Candarli, D., Love, R. and Deignan, A. 2019. Using corpora to explore the language challenges of the transition from primary to secondary school. Paper presented at the International Corpus Linguistics Conference, Cardiff University, July 2019.Google Scholar

Caple, H., Huan, C. and Bednarek, M. 2020. Multimodal News Analysis across Cultures. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Carlsen, C. 2012. Proficiency level – a fuzzy variable in computer learner corpora. Applied Linguistics 33(2): 161–83.Google Scholar

Carter, R. and McCarthy, M. 1995. Grammar and the spoken language. Applied Linguistics 16(2): 141–58.Google Scholar

Carter, R. and McCarthy, M. 2006. Cambridge Grammar of English: A Comprehensive Guide: Spoken and Written English Grammar and Usage. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Centre for English Corpus Linguistics. July 2020. Learner Corpora around the World. Louvain-la-Neuve : Université catholique de Louvain. https://uclouvain.be/en/research-institutes/ilc/cecl/learner-corpora-around-the-world.htmlGoogle Scholar

Channell, J. 2000. Corpus-based analysis of evaluative lexis. In Hunston, S. and Thompson, G. (eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford University Press. 39–55.Google Scholar

Charles, M. 2006. The construction of stance in reporting clauses: a cross-disciplinary study of theses. Applied Linguistics 27(3): 492–518.Google Scholar

Charles, M. 2007. Argument or evidence? Disciplinary variation in the use of the Noun-that pattern in stance construction. English for Specific Purposes 26(2): 203–18.Google Scholar

Charles, M. 2012. ‘Proper vocabulary and juicy collocations’: EAP students evaluate do-it-yourself corpus-building. English for Specific Purposes 31(2): 93–102.Google Scholar

Charles, M. 2014. Getting the corpus habit: EAP students’ long-term use of personal corpora. English for Specific Purposes 35: 30–40.Google Scholar

Charles, M. 2018. Corpus-assisted editing for doctoral students: more than just concordancing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 36: 15–25.Google Scholar

Chau, M.H. 2015. From Language Learners to Dynamic Meaning Makers: A Longitudinal Investigation of Malaysian Secondary School Students’ Development of English from Text and Corpus Perspectives. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Birmingham.Google Scholar

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

Chen, Y. and Baker, P. 2016. Investigating criterial discourse features across second language development: lexical bundles in rated learner essays, CEFR B1, B2 and C1. Applied Linguistics 37(6): 849–80.Google Scholar

Chiang, E. and Grant, T. 2019. Deceptive identity performance: offender moves and multiple identities in online child abuse conversations. Applied Linguistics 40(4): 675–98.Google Scholar

Chung, C. and Pennebaker, J. 2008. Revealing dimensions of thinking in open-ended self-descriptions: an automated meaning extraction method for natural language. Journal of Research in Personality 42(1): 96–132.Google Scholar

Ciampaglia, G., Shiralkar, P., Rocha, L., Bollen, J., Menczer, F. and Flammini, A. 2015. Computational fact checking from knowledge networks. PLOS One 10(10).Google Scholar

Clarke, I. 2019. Functional linguistic variation in Twitter trolling. Speech, Language and the Law 26(1).Google Scholar

Clarke, I. and Grieve, J. 2019. Stylistic variation on the Donald Trump Twitter account: a linguistic analysis of tweets posted between 2009 and 2018. PLOS ONE 14(9): 1–27.Google Scholar

Coffin, C. 2002. The voices of history: theorizing the interpersonal semantics of historical discourses. Text and Talk 22(4): 503–28.Google Scholar

Collins, L., Semino, E., Demjén, Z., Hardie, A., Moseley, P., Woods, A. and Alderson-Day, B. 2020. A linguistic approach to the psychosis continuum: (dis)similarities and (dis)continuities in how clinical and non-clinical voice-hearers talk about their voices. Cognitive Neuropsychiatry 25(6): 447–65.Google Scholar

Collins, P. and Yao, X. 2013. Colloquial features in World Englishes. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18(4): 479–505.Google Scholar

Conroy, N., Rubin, V. and Chen, Y. 2016. Automatic deception detection: methods for finding fake news. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology 52(1): 1–4.Google Scholar

Cook, G. 2010. Sweet talking: food, language and democracy. Language Teaching 43(2): 168–81.Google Scholar

Coulthard, M. 1994. On the use of corpora in the analysis of forensic texts. Forensic Linguistics 1: 27–44.Google Scholar

Coulthard, M. 2004. Author identification, idiolect and linguistics uniqueness. Applied Linguistics 25(4): 431–47.Google Scholar

Coulthard, M. and Johnson, A. (eds.) 2010. The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Coulthard, M., Johnson, A., Kredens, K. and Woolls, D. 2010. Four forensic linguists’ responses to suspected plagiarism. In Coulthard, and Johnson, (eds.), 523–38.Google Scholar

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

Coxhead, A. 2000. A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly 34(2): 213–38.Google Scholar

Crawley, M. 2007. The R Book. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar

Crosthwaite, P. 2016. L2 English article use of L1 speakers of article-less languages. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 2(1): 68–100.Google Scholar

Crosthwaite, P., Choy, L. and Bae, Y. 2016. ‘Almost people’: a learner corpus account of L2 use and misuse of non-numerical quantification. Open Linguistics 2: 317–36.Google Scholar

Culpeper, J. 2009. 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.Google Scholar

Curry, N. and Pérez-Paredes, P. 2021. Stance nouns in COVID-19 related blog posts: a contrastive analysis of blog posts published in The Conversation in Spain and the UK. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 26(4): 469–97.Google Scholar

Dąbrowska, E. 2015. What exactly is Universal Grammar, and has anyone seen it? Frontiers in Psychology 6: 852.Google Scholar

Dagneaux, E., Denness, S. and Granger, S. 1998. Computer-aided error analysis. System 26(2): 163–74.Google Scholar

Dagneaux, E., Denness, S., Granger, S., Meunier, F., Neff van Aertselaer, J. and Thewissen, J. 2008. Error tagging manual version 1.3. Centre for English Corpus Linguistics, University of Louvain.Google Scholar

Davies, M. 2012. Expanding Horizons in Historical Linguistics with the 400 million word Corpus of Historical American English. Corpora 7: 121–57.Google Scholar

Davies, M. 2021. The Coronavirus Corpus: design, construction, and use. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 26(4): 583–98.Google Scholar

Dayrell, C., Chakravarthi, R-P. and Griffith-Dickson, G. 2020. Bringing corpus linguistics into religious studies: self-representation amongst various immigrant communities with religious identity. Journal of Corpora and Discourse Studies 3: 96–121.Google Scholar

Deshors, S. and Gries, S. 2016. Profiling verb complementation constructions across New Englishes: a two-step random forests analysis of -ing vs to complements. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 21(2): 192–218.Google Scholar

Dey, A., Jenamani, M. and Thakkar, J. 2018. Senti-N-Gram: an n-gram lexicon for sentiment analysis. Expert Systems with Applications 103: 92–105.Google Scholar

Ding, R. and Wang, L. 2017. Mo Yan’s style in using colour expressions and Goldblatt’s translation strategies: a corpus-based study. Asia Pacific Translation and Intercultural Studies 4(2): 117–31.Google Scholar

Divjak, D. 2015. Four challenges for usage-based linguistics. In Daems, J., Zenner, E., Heylen, K., Speelman, D. and Cuyckens, H. (eds.), Change of Paradigms: New Paradoxes. Berlin: De Gruyter. 297–309.Google Scholar

Dobson, M. and Wells, S. (eds.) 2008. The Oxford Companion to Shakespeare. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Dong, J. and Buckingham, L. and Wu, H. 2021. A discourse dynamics exploration of attitudinal responses towards COVID-19 in academia and media. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 26(4): 532–56.Google Scholar

Dong, M. and Fang, A. 2021. Shell nouns as grammatical metaphor revealing disparate construals: investigating the differences between British English and China English based on a comparable corpus. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 17(3): 743–79. doi:10.1515/cllt-2018-0047.Google Scholar

Drasovean, A. and Tagg, C. 2015. Evaluative language and its solidarity-building role on TED.com: an appraisal and corpus analysis. Language@Internet 12, article no. 1.Google Scholar

Durrant, P. 2016. To what extent is the Academic Vocabulary List relevant to university student writing? English for Specific Purposes 43: 49–61.Google Scholar

Durrant, P. 2017. Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation in university students’ writing: mapping the territories. Applied Linguistics 38(2): 165–93.Google Scholar

Eberhardt, M. 2017. Gendered representations through speech: the case of the Harry Potter series. Language and Literature 26(3): 227–46.Google Scholar

Egbert, J. and Biber, D. 2019. Incorporating test dispersion into keyword analyses. Corpora 14(1): 77–104.Google Scholar

Egbert, J. and Biber, D. 2020. ‘It’s just words, folks. It’s just words’: Donald Trump’s distinctive linguistic style. In Schneider, and Eitelmann, (eds.), 17–40.Google Scholar

Egbert, J., Burch, B. and Biber, D. 2020. Lexical dispersion and corpus design. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 25(1): 89–115.Google Scholar

Egbert, J., Larsson, T. and Biber, D. 2020. Doing Linguistics with a Corpus. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Elliott, R., Glauert, J., Kennaway, J., Marshall, I. and Safar, E. 2007. Linguistic modelling and language-processing technologies for avatar-based sign language presentation. University Access in the Information Society 6: 375–91.Google Scholar

Ellis, N. 2012. Formulaic language and second language acquisition: Zipf and the phrasal teddy bear. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 32: 17–44.Google Scholar

Ellis, N., Römer, U. and O’Donnell, M. 2016. Usage-based Approaches to Language Acquisition and Processing: Cognitive and Corpus Investigations of Construction Grammar. London: Wiley.Google Scholar

Ellis, R. 2009. The differential effects of three types of task planning on the fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 oral production. Applied Linguistics 30(4): 474–509.Google Scholar

Esimaje, A. 2019. The purpose, design and use of the Corpus of Nigerian and Cameroonian English Learner Language (Conacel). In Esimaje, A., Gut, U. and Antia, B. (eds.), Corpus Linguistics and African Englishes. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 71–96.Google Scholar

Fairclough, N. 2014. Language and Power. 3rd edn. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Feng, J. and Hyland, K. 2015. ‘The fact that’: stance nouns in disciplinary writing. Discourse Studies 15(5): 529–50.Google Scholar

Feng, R., Yang, C. and Qu, Y. 2022. A word embedding model for analyzing patterns and their distributional semantics. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics 29(1): 80–105. doi:10.1080/09296174.2020.1767481.Google Scholar

Fillmore, C. 1982. Frame semantics. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Co. 111–37.Google Scholar

Fillmore, C. 1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di semantica 6(2): 222–54.Google Scholar

Fillmore, C. and Atkins, B. 1992. Towards a frame-based lexicon: the semantics of RISK and its neighbors. In Lehrer, A. and Kittay, E. (eds.), Frames, Fields and Contrasts: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 75–102.Google Scholar

Fillmore, C., Johnson, C. and Petruck, M. 2003. Background to FrameNet. International Journal of Lexicography 16(3): 235–50.Google Scholar

Firth, J.R. 1957. A synopsis of linguistic theory, 1930–1955. Studies in Linguistic Analysis, Special Volume, Philological Society: 1–32.Google Scholar

Fitzgerald, C. 2020. Penetrating historical discourse’s truth matrix: a corpus analysis of oral history testimonies. Journal of Corpora and Discourse Studies 3: 75–95.Google Scholar

Fitzsimmons-Doolan, S. 2009. Is public discourse about language policy really public discourse about immigration? A corpus-based study. Language Policy 8: 377–402.Google Scholar

Fitzsimmons-Doolan, S. 2014. Using lexical variables to identify language ideologies in a policy corpus. Corpora 9(1): 57–82.Google Scholar

Flowerdew, J. 2006. Use of signalling nouns in a learner corpus. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 11(3): 345–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Flowerdew, J. 2010. Use of signalling nouns across L1 and L2 writer corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 15(1): 36–55.Google Scholar

Flowerdew, J. and Forest, R. 2015. Signalling Nouns in English: a Corpus-based Discourse Approach. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Foster, P. and Skehan, P. 1999. The influence of source of planning and focus of planning on task-based performance. Language Teaching Research 3(3): 215–47.Google Scholar

Foster, P. and Tavakoli, P. 2009. Native speakers and task performance: comparing effects on complexity, fluency and lexical diversity. Language Learning 59(4): 866–96.Google Scholar

Francis, G. 1993. A corpus-driven approach to grammar: principles, methods and examples. In Baker, M., Francis, G. and Tognini-Bonelli, E. (eds.), Text and Technology: in honour of John Sinclair. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 137–56.Google Scholar

Francis, G. 1994. Labelling discourse: an aspect of nominal-group lexical cohesion. In Coulthard, M. (ed.), Advances in Written Text Analysis. London: Routledge. 83–101.Google Scholar

Francis, G., Hunston, S. and Manning, E. 1996. Collins Cobuild Grammar Patterns 1: Verbs. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar

Francis, G., Hunston, S. and Manning, E. 1998. Collins Cobuild Grammar Patterns 2: Nouns and Adjectives. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar

Francis, W.N. and Kučera, H. 1964. Manual of Information to Accompany A Standard Corpus of Present-Day Edited American English, for use with Digital Computers. Providence, RI: Department of Linguistics, Brown University. Rev. 1971. Rev. and amplified 1979.Google Scholar

Frankenberg-Garcia, A. 2008. Suggesting rather special facts: a corpus-based study of distinctive lexical distributions in translated texts. Corpora 3(2): 195–211.Google Scholar

Frankenberg-Garcia, A. 2015. Training translators to use corpora hands-on: challenges and reactions by a group of thirteen students at a UK university. Corpora 10(3): 351–80.Google Scholar

Frankenberg-Garcia, A., Lew, R., Roberts, J., Rees, G. and Sharma, N. 2019. Developing a writing assistant to help EAP writers with collocations in real time. ReCALL 31(1): 23–39.Google Scholar

French, P. 2007. Caller on the line: an illustrated introduction to the work of a forensic speech scientist. Medico-legal Journal 75(3): 83–96.Google Scholar

Fuchs, R. 2017. Do women (still) use more intensifiers than men? Recent change in the sociolinguistics of intensifiers in British English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22(3): 345–74.Google Scholar

Fuoli, M. and Hart, C. 2018. Trust-building strategies in corpora discourse: an experimental study. Discourse & Society 29(5): 514–52.Google Scholar

Fuoli, M. and Paradis, C. 2014. A model of trust-repair discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 74: 52–69.Google Scholar

Gablasova, D. and Brezina, V. 2015. Does speaker role affect the choice of epistemic adverbials in L2 speech? Evidence from the Trinity Lancaster Corpus. In Romero-Trillo, J. (ed.), Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Gablasova, D., Brezina, V., McEnery, T. and Boyd, E. 2017. Epistemic stance in spoken L2 English: the effect of task and speaker style. Applied Linguistics 38(5): 613–37.Google Scholar

Gabrielatos, C. 2018. Keyness analysis: nature, metrics and techniques. In Taylor, C. and Marchi, A. (eds.), Corpus Approaches to Discourse: A Critical Review. London: Routledge. 225–58.Google Scholar

Gabrielatos, C. and Baker, P. 2008. Fleeing, sneaking, flooding: a corpus analysis of discursive constructions of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK press 1996–2005. Journal of English Linguistics 36(1): 5–38.Google Scholar

Gabrielatos, C. and Marchi, A. 2012. Keywords: appropriate metrics and practical issues. Paper given at CADS International Conference, Bologna, 13–15 September 2012.Google Scholar

Gales, T. 2015. The stance of stalking: a corpus-based analysis of grammatical markers of stance in threatening communications. Corpora 10(2): 171–200.Google Scholar

Gardner, D. and Davies, M. 2014. A new academic vocabulary list. Applied Linguistics 35(3): 305–27.Google Scholar

Gardner, S. and Nesi, H. 2013. A classification of genre families in university student writing. Applied Linguistics 34(1): 25–52.Google Scholar

Gardner, S., Nesi, H. and Biber, D. 2019. Discipline, level, genre: integrating situational perspectives in a new MD analysis of university student writing. Applied Linguistics 40(4): 646–74.Google Scholar

Garside, R., Leech, G. and McEnery, A. (eds.) 1997. Corpus Annotation: Linguistic Information from Computer Text Corpora. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Geertzen, J., Alexopoulou, T. and Korhonen, A. 2014. Automatic linguistic annotation of large scale L2 database: the EF‐Cambridge Open Language Database (EFCAMDAT). In Millar, R et al. (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 2012 Second Language Research Forum: Building Bridges between Disciplines. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project. 240–54.Google Scholar

Gerbig, A. 2010. Key words and key phrases in a corpus of travel writing: from Early Modern English literature to contemporary ‘blooks’. In Bondi, and Scott, (eds.), 147–68.Google Scholar

Gilquin, G. 2014. The use of phrasal verbs by French-speaking EFL learners: a constructional and collostructional corpus-based approach. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 11(1): 51–88.Google Scholar

Glaas, S. 2022. Evaluative Language in Political and Media Discourse on the European Union. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Birmingham.Google Scholar

Gledhill, C. 2000. Collocations in Science Writing. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar

Goatly, A. 2004. Corpus linguistics, systemic functional grammar and literary meaning: a critical analysis of Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone. Ilha do Desterro 46: 115–54.Google Scholar

Goddard, C., Taboada, M. and Trnavac, R. 2019. The semantics of evaluational adjectives: perspectives from natural semantic metalanguage and appraisal. Functions of Language 26(3): 308–42.Google Scholar

Goldberg, A. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Goldberg, A. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Gomez, P. 2013. Statistical Methods in Language and Linguistic Research. London: Equinox.Google Scholar

Granger, S. 1996. From CA to CIA and back: an integrated approach to computerized bilingual and learner corpora. In Aijmer, K., Altenberg, B. and Johansson, M. (eds.), Languages in Contrast: Text-based Cross-linguistic Studies. Lund: Lund University Press. 37–51.Google Scholar

Granger, S. 2002. A bird’s-eye view of learner corpus research. In Granger, S., Hung, J. and Petch-Tyson, S. (eds.), Computer Learner Corpora, Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 3–36.Google Scholar

Granger, S. 2015. Contrastive interlanguage analysis: a reappraisal. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 1(1): 7–24.Google Scholar

Granger, S. 2021. Phraseology, corpora and L2 research. In Granger, S. (ed.), Perspectives on the L2 Phrasicon: The View from Learner Corpora. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar

Granger, S., Dagneaux, E., Meunier, F. and Paquot, M. 2009. International Corpus of Learner English, Version 2. Louvain: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar

Granger, S, Gilquin, G. and Meunier, F. (eds.) 2015. The Cambridge Handbook of Learner Corpus Research. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Granger, S. and Tribble, C. 1998. Learner corpus data in the foreign language classroom: form-focused instruction and data-driven learning. In Granger, S. (ed.), Learner English on Computer. London: Longman. 199–209.Google Scholar

Grant, T. and Macleod, N. 2016. Assuming identities online: experimental linguistics applied to the policing of online paedophile activity. Applied Linguistics 37(1): 50–70.Google Scholar

Gray, B. 2015. Linguistic Variation in Research Articles: When Discipline Tells Only Part of the Story. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Green, C. and Lambert, J. 2018. Advancing disciplinary literacy through English for Academic Purposes: discipline-specific wordlists, collocations and word families for eight secondary subjects. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 35: 105–15.Google Scholar

Gries, S. 2015. Some current quantitative problems in corpus linguistics and a sketch of some solutions. Language & Linguistics 16(1): 93–117.Google Scholar

Gries, S. 2019. 15 years of collostructions: some long overdue additions/corrections (to/of actually all sorts of corpus-linguistics measures). International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 24(3): 385–412.Google Scholar

Grieve, J., Clarke, I., Chiang, E., Gideon, H., Heini, A., Nini, A. and Waibel, E. 2019. Attributing the Bixby letter using n-gram tracing. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 34(3): 493–512.Google Scholar

Grieve, J., Montgomery, C., Nini, A., Murakami, A. and Guo, D. 2019. Mapping lexical dialect variation in British English using Twitter. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence 2(11): 1–18.Google Scholar

Grieve, J., Nini, A. and Guo, D. 2018 Mapping lexical innovation on American social media. Journal of English Linguistics 46(4): 293–319.Google Scholar

Groom, N. 2010. Closed-class keywords and corpus-driven discourse analysis. In Bondi, M. and Scott, M. (eds.), Keyness in Texts. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 59–78.Google Scholar

Groom, N. 2019. Construction grammar and the corpus-based analysis of discourses: the case of the WAY IN WHICH construction. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 24(3): 291–323.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. 1978. Language as Social Semiotic: The social interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 1st edn. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. 1989. Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-semiotic Perspective. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. 1993. Quantitative studies and probabilities in grammar. In Hoey, M. (ed.), Data, Description, Discourse: Papers on the English Language in Honour of John McH Sinclair. London: HarperCollins. 1–26.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 2nd edn. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. 1998. Things and relations: regrammaticising experience as technical knowledge. In Martin, J.R. and Veel, R. (eds.), Reading Science: Critical and Functional Perspectives on Discourses of Science. London: Routledge. 185–235.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. 2008. Complementarities in Language. Beijing: Commercial Press.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. and James, Z. 1993. A quantitative study of polarity and primary tense in the English finite clause. In Sinclair, J., Hoey, M. and Fox, G. (eds.), Techniques of Description: Spoken and Written Discourse. London: Routledge. 32–66.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. and Martin, J. 1993. Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar

Halliday, M. and Matthiessen, C. 2014. Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar. 4th edn. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Handford, M. 2010. The Language of Business Meetings. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Handford, M., Lisboa, M., Koester, A. and Pitt, A. 2007. Business Advantage. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hanks, P. 2013. Lexical Analysis: Norms and Exploitations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Hansen, B. 2018. Corpus Linguistics and Sociolinguistics: A Study of Variation and Change in the Modal Systems of World Englishes. Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill.Google Scholar

Hardy, J. and Friginal, E. 2016. Genre variation in student writing: a multi-dimensional analysis. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 22(1): 119–31.Google Scholar

Hardy, J. and Römer, U. 2013. Revealing disciplinary variation in student writing: a multi-dimensional analysis of the Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers. Corpora 8(2): 183–207.Google Scholar

Hasan, R. 1996 [1987]. The grammarian’s dream: lexis as most delicate grammar. In Cloran, C, , D. Butt, and Williams, G (eds.), Ways of Saying: Ways of Meaning. Papers by Ruqaiya Hasan. London: Cassell. 73–103.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Hasan, R. 1985/1989. The structure of a text. In Halliday, M.A.K and Hasan, R (eds.), Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-semiotic Perspective. Geelong: Deakin University Press. Republished 1989. Oxford University Press. 52–69.Google Scholar

Hasselgård, H. 2019. Phraseological teddy bears: frequent lexical bundles in academic writing by Norwegian learners and native speakers of English. In Wiegand, V. and Mahlberg, M. (eds.), Corpus Linguistics, Context and Culture Berlin: De Gruyter. 339–62.Google Scholar

Hasselgård, H. 2020. Corpus-based contrastive studies: beginnings, developments and directions. Languages in Contrast 20(2): 184–208.Google Scholar

Hasselgren, A. 1994. Lexical teddy bears and advanced learners: a study into the ways Norwegian students cope with English vocabulary. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 4(2): 237–58.Google Scholar

He, Q. and Yang, B. 2018. A corpus-based study of the correlation between text technicality and ideational metaphor in English. Lingua 203: 51–65.Google Scholar

Hodge, G., Sekine, K., Schembri, A. and Johnston, T. 2019. Comparing signers and speakers: building a directly comparable corpus of Auslan and Australian English. Corpora 14(1): 63–76.Google Scholar

Hoey, M. 2005. Lexical Priming: A New Theory of Words and language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Hoffmann, T. and Trousdale, G. 2013. The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hong, J. and Cao, F. 2014. Interactional metadiscourse in young EFL learner writing: a corpus-based study. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 19(2): 201–24.Google Scholar

Hornby, A. 1974. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Housen, A. 2002. A corpus-based study of the L2-acquisition of the English verb system. In Granger, S., Hung, J. and Petch-Tyson, S. (eds.), Computer Learner Corpora, Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 77–118.Google Scholar

Hundt, M., Rautionaho, P. and Strobl, C. 2020. Progressive or simple? A corpus-based study of aspect in World Englishes. Corpora 15(1): 77–106.Google Scholar

Hundt, M, Sand, A. and Siemund, R. 1999. Manual of Information to Accompany The Freiburg – LOB Corpus of British English (‘FLOB’). Freiburg: Department of English, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität.Google Scholar

Hundt, M., Sand, A. and Skandera, P. 1999. Manual of Information to Accompany The Freiburg – Brown Corpus of American English (‘Frown’). Freiburg: Department of English, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität.Google Scholar

Hung, Y., Guo, D., Kasakoff, A. and Grieve, J. 2016. Understanding US regional linguistic variation with Twitter data analysis. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 59: 244–55.Google Scholar

Hunston, S. 2000. Evaluation and planes of discourse: status and value in persuasive texts. In Hunston, S. and Thompson, G. (eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford University Press. 176–206.Google Scholar

Hunston, S. 2002. Corpora in Applied Linguistics. 1st edn. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hunston, S. 2007. Semantic prosody revisited. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 12(2): 249–68.Google Scholar

Hunston, S. 2010. Starting with the small words: patterns, lexis and semantic sequences. In Römer, U. and Schulze, R. (eds.), Patterns, Meaningful Units and Specialized Discourses. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 7–30.Google Scholar

Hunston, S. 2011. Corpus Approaches to Evaluation: Phraseology and Evaluative Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Hunston, S. 2013. Systemic functional linguistics, corpus linguistics, and the ideology of science. Text & Talk 33(4–5): 617–40.Google Scholar

Hunston, S. 2019. Patterns, constructions, and applied linguistics. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 24(3): 324–53.Google Scholar

Hunston, S. 2020. Changing language in unprecedented times. University of Birmingham. birmingham.ac.uk/schools/edacs/departments/englishlanguage/news/2020/changing-language.aspx.Google Scholar

Hunston, S. and Francis, G. 1998. Verbs observed: a corpus-driven pedagogic grammar. Applied Linguistics 19(1): 45–72.Google Scholar

Hunston, S. and Francis, G. 2000. Pattern Grammar: A Corpus-driven Approach to the Lexical Grammar of English. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Hunston, S. and Perek, F. (eds.) 2019. Constructions in applied linguistics. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, Special issue, 24(3).Google Scholar

Hunston, S. and Sinclair, J. 2000. A local grammar of evaluation. In Hunston, S. and Thompson, G. (eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford University Press. 75–101.Google Scholar

Hunston, S. and Su, H. 2019. Patterns, constructions, and local grammar: a case study of ‘evaluation’. Applied Linguistics 40(4): 567–93.Google Scholar

Hunt, D. and Harvey, K. 2015. Health communication and corpus linguistics: using corpus tools to analyse eating disorder discourse online. In Baker, P. and McEnery, T. (eds.), Corpora and Discourse Studies: Integrating Discourse and Corpora. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Hyland, K. 2005. Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar

Hyland, K. 2006. Applying a gloss: exemplifying and reformulating in academic discourse. Applied Linguistics 28(2): 266–85.Google Scholar

Hyland, K. 2012. Disciplinary Identities: Individuality and Community in Academic Discourse. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hyland, K. and Jiang, F. 2016. Change of attitude? A diachronic study of stance. Written Communication 33(3): 251–74.Google Scholar

Hyland, K. and Jiang, F. 2021. The Covid infodemic. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 26(4): 444–68.Google Scholar

Hyland, K. and Tse, P. 2004. Metadiscourse in academic writing: a reappraisal. Applied Linguistics 25(2): 156–77.Google Scholar

Hyland, K. and Tse, P. 2005. Evaluative that constructions: signalling stance in research abstracts. Functions of Language 12(1): 39–63.Google Scholar

Hyland, K. and Tse, P. 2007. Is there an ‘academic vocabulary’? TESOL Quarterly 41(2): 235–53.Google Scholar

Incelli, E. 2018. Popularising the Higgs boson: a corpus-assisted approach to reporting scientific discovery in online media. Corpora 13(2): 169–203.Google Scholar

Ishihara, S. 2017. Strength of forensic text comparison evidence from stylometric features: a multivariate likelihood ratio-based analysis. Speech, Language and the Law 24:1.Google Scholar

Ishikawa, S. 2015. Lexical development in L2 English learners’ speeches and writings. Procedia 198: 202–10.Google Scholar

Jaihow, P. 2018. Corpus Use by Student Writers: Error Correction by Thai Learners of English. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Birmingham.Google Scholar

Jeffries, L. 2009. Critical Stylistics: The Power of English. London: Red Globe Press.Google Scholar

Jeffries, L. and McIntyre, D. 2010. Stylistics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Jessen, M. 2010. The forensic phonetician: forensic speaker identification by experts. In Coulthard, M. and Johnson, A. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics. London: Routledge. 378–94.Google Scholar

Johansson, S. 1981. Word frequencies in different types of English texts. ICAME News 5: 1–13.Google Scholar

Johansson, S. 2007. Seeing through Multilingual Corpora: On the Use of Corpora in Contrastive Studies. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Johansson, S., Leech, G. and Goodluck, H. 1978. Manual of Information to Accompany the Lancaster-Oslo-Bergen Corpus of British English, for Use with Digital Computers. Oslo: Department of English, University of Oslo.Google Scholar

Johns, T. 1991. Should you be persuaded: two samples of data-driven learning materials. ELR Journal 4: 1–16.Google Scholar

Johnson, A. 1997. Textual kidnapping: a case of plagiarism among three students texts? Forensic Linguistics 4: 210–25.Google Scholar

Jowett, J. 2019. Shakespeare and Text. Rev. edn. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Karpenko-Seccombe, T. 2021. Academic Writing with Corpora: A Resource Book for Data-driven Learning. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Kay, C. and Alexander, M. 2016. Diachronic and synchronic thesauruses. In Durkin, P. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Lexicography. Oxford University Press. 367–80.Google Scholar

Khoo, C. and Johnkhan, S. 2018. Lexicon-based sentiment analysis: comparative evaluation of six sentiment lexicons. Journal of Information Science 44(4): 491–512.Google Scholar

Khoo, C. and Johnkhan, S. 2009. Simple maths for keywords. In Mahlberg, M, , V. González-Díaz, and Smith, C (eds.), Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics Conference CL 2009. University of Liverpool. ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/pubs.html.Google Scholar

Knight, D., Evans, D., Carter, R. and Adolphs, S. 2009. HeadTalk, HandTalk and the corpus: towards a framework for multi-modal, multi-media corpus development. Corpora 14(1): 1–32.Google Scholar

Knight, D., Loizides, F., Neale, S., Anthony, L. and Spasić, I. 2020. Developing computational infrastructure for the CorCenCC corpus: the National Corpus of Contemporary Welsh. Language Resources and Evaluation 55: 789–816. doi:10.1007/s10579–020-09501-9.Google Scholar

Koester, A. 2004. The Language of Work. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Koester, A. 2010 Building small specialised corpora. In O’Keeffe, A. and McCarthy, M. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Koester, A. 2017. Spoken workplace discourse. In Rainer, F. and Mautner, G. (eds.), Handbook of Business Communication. Berlin: De Gruyter. 629–56.Google Scholar

Koppel, M., Schler, J. and Argamon, S. 2009. Computational methods in authorship attribution. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 60(1): 9–26.Google Scholar

Kwary, D., Ratri, D. and Artha, A. 2017. Lexical bundles in journal articles across academic disciplines. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics 7(1): 131–140.Google Scholar

Kyle, K. and Crossley, S. 2018. Measuring syntactic complexity in L2 writing using fine-grained clausal and phrasal indices. Modern Language Journal 102(2): 333–49.Google Scholar

Lakoff, R. 1975. Language and Woman’s Place. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar

Larsson, T. 2017. A functional classification of the introductory it pattern: investigating academic writing by non-native-speaker and native-speaker students. English for Specific Purposes 48(1): 57–70.Google Scholar

Lawrence, S. 2019. A Rite on the Edge: The Language of Baptism and Christening in the Church of England. London: SCM Press.Google Scholar

Laws, J., Ryder, C. and Jaworska, S. 2017. A diachronic corpus-based study into the effects of age and gender on the usage patterns of verb-forming suffixation in spoken British English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22(3): 375–402.Google Scholar

Leech, G. 1997. Introducing corpus annotation. In Garside, R., Leech, G. and McEnery, A. (eds.), Corpus Annotation: linguistic information from computer text corpora. London: Longman. 1–18.Google Scholar

Leech, G. 2003. Modality on the move: the English modal auxiliaries 1961–1992. In Facchinetti, R., Krug, M. and Palmer, F. (eds.), Modality in Contemporary English. Berlin: De Gruyter. 223–40.Google Scholar

Leech, G., Hundt, M., Mair, C. and Smith, N. 2009. Change in Contemporary English: A Grammatical Study. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Leech, G., Rayson, P. and Wilson, A. 2001. Word Frequencies in Written and Spoken English. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Lei, L. and Liu, D. 2016. A new medical academic word list: a corpus-based study with enhanced methodology. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 22: 42–53.Google Scholar

Lei, L. and Liu, D. 2018. The academic English collocation list: a corpus-driven study. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 23(2): 216–43.Google Scholar

Levin, B. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Liu, B. 2015. Sentiment Analysis: Mining Opinions, Sentiments, and Emotions. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

López, C.M. and Méndez, N.B. 1996. On the use of the subjunctive and modals in Old and Middle English dependent commands and requests. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 97(4): 411–21.Google Scholar

Louw, B. 1993. Irony in the text of insincerity in the writer? The diagnostic potential of semantic prosodies. In Baker, M., Francis, G. and Tognini-Bonelli, E. (eds.), Text and Technology: in honour of John Sinclair. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 157–76.Google Scholar

Love, R., Dembry, C., Hardie, A., Brezina, V. and McEnery, T. 2017. The Spoken BNC2014: designing and building a spoken corpus of everyday conversations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22(3): 319–44.Google Scholar

Lu, X. 2010. Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 15(4): 474–96.Google Scholar

Lüdeling, A. and Hirschmann, H. 2015. In S. Granger, G. Gilquin and F. Meunier (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Learner Corpus Research. Cambridge University Press. 135–58.Google Scholar

Luzon, M.M. 2011. Exploring atypical verb + noun combinations in learner technical writing. International Journal of English Studies 11(2): 77–95.Google Scholar

Ma, H. and Qian, M. 2020. The creation and evaluation of a grammar pattern list for the most frequent academic verbs. English for Specific Purposes 58: 155–69.Google Scholar

Madabushi, H., Romain, L., Divjak, D. and Milin, P. 2020. CxGBERT: BERT meets construction grammar. Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (COLING 2020).Google Scholar

Mahlberg, M. 2013. Corpus Stylistics and Dickens’s Fiction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Mahlberg, M. and Smith, C. 2012. Dickens, the suspended quotation and the corpus. Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics 21(1): 51–65.Google Scholar

Mahlberg, M., Stockwell, P., de Joode, J., Smith, C. and O’Donnell, M. 2017. CliC Dickens: novel uses of concordances for the integration of corpus stylistics and cognitive poetics. Corpora 11(3): 433–63.Google Scholar

Mahlberg, M., Wiegand, V. and Stockwell, P. 2019. Speech bundles in the 19th-century English novel. Language and Literature 28(4): 326–53.Google Scholar

Mair, C., Hundt, M., Leech, G. and Smith, N. 2003. Short term diachronic shifts in part-of-speech frequencies: a comparison of the tagged LOB and F-LOB corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 7(2): 245–64.Google Scholar

Malmkjaer, K. 2011. Translation universals. In Malmkjaer, K. and Windle, K. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Translation Studies. Oxford University Press. 83–94.Google Scholar

Martin, J. 1984/2010 Language, register and genre. In Christie, F (ed.), Children Writing: Reader. Geelong: Deakin University Press. 21–30.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar

Martin, J. 1992. English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Martin, J. 2003. Introduction. Text & Talk 23(2): 171–81.Google Scholar

Martin, J. and White, P. 2005. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Martínez, I., Beck, S. and Panza, C. 2009. Academic vocabulary in agriculture research articles: a corpus-based study. English for Specific Purposes 28(3): 183–98.Google Scholar

Marzo, S., Heylen, K. and de Sutter, G. (eds.) 2012. Corpus Studies in Contrastive Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Mastropierro, L. 2020. The translation of reporting verbs in Italian: the case of the Harry Potter series. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 25(3): 241–69.Google Scholar

Matthiessen, C. and Teruya, K. 2015. Grammatical realisations of rhetorical relations in different registers. Word 61(3): 232–81.Google Scholar

Mauranen, A. 2010. Discourse reflexivity – a discourse universal? The case of ELF. Nordic Journal of English Studies 9(2): 13–40.Google Scholar

Mauranen, A. 2012. Exploring ELF: Academic English Shaped by Non-native Speakers. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Mauranen, A. and Kujamäki, P. (eds.) 2004. Translation Universals: Do They Exist? Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Mautner, G. 2007. Mining large corpora for social information: the case of elderly. Language in Society 36(1): 51–72.Google Scholar

McCarthy, M., McCarten, J. and Sandiford, H. 2005. Touchstone. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

McEnery, T. and Baker, H. 2017. Corpus Linguistics and 17th Century Prostitution: Computational Linguistics and History. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar

McEnery, T. and Hardie, A. 2012. Corpus Linguistics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

McEnery, T., Love, R. and Brezina, V. 2017. Compiling and analysing the Spoken British National Corpus 2014. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22(3): 311–18.Google Scholar

McGlashan, M. 2021. Networked discourses of bereavement in COVID-19 memorials. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 26(4): 557–82.Google Scholar

McIntyre, D. 2015. Towards an integrated corpus stylistics. Topics in Linguistics 16(1): 59–68.Google Scholar

McIntyre, D. and Lugea, J. 2015. The effects of deaf and hard-of-hearing subtitles on the characterisation process: a cognitive stylistic study of ‘The Wire’. Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice 23(1): 62–88.Google Scholar

Meunier, F. 2020. A case for constructive alignment in DDL: rethinking outcomes, practices and assessment in (data-driven) language learning. In Crosthwaite, P. (ed.), Data-Driven Learning for the Next Generation: Corpora and DDL for Pre-tertiary Learners. London: Routledge. 1–18.Google Scholar

Millar, N. and Hunston, S. 2015. Adjectives, communities, and taxonomies of evaluative meaning. Functions of Language 22(3): 297–331.Google Scholar

Millar, N., Salager-Meyer, F. and Budgell, B. 2019. ‘It is important to reinforce the importance of…’: ‘hype’ in reports of randomized control trials. English for Specific Purposes 54: 139–51.Google Scholar

Miller, R., Mitchell, T. and Pessoa, S. 2014. Valued voices: students’ use of engagement in argumentative history writing. Linguistics and Education 28: 107–20.Google Scholar

Mudraya, O. 2006. Engineering English: a lexical frequency instructional model. English for Specific Purposes 25(2): 235–56.Google Scholar

Muguiro, N. 2020. Citations in interdisciplinary research articles. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Mukherjee, J. 2009. The lexicogrammar of present-day Indian English. In Römer, U. and Schulze, R. (eds.), Exploring the Lexis-Grammar Interface. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 117–36.Google Scholar

Mukherjee, J. and Gries, S. 2009. Collostructional nativisation in New Englishes: verb construction associations in the International Corpus of English. English World-Wide 30(1): 27–51.Google Scholar

Müller, M., Bartsch, S. and Zinn, J. 2021. Communicating the unknown: an interdisciplinary annotation study of uncertainty in the coronavirus pandemic. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 26(4): 498–531.Google Scholar

Murakami, A. 2016. Modeling systematicity and individuality in nonlinear second language development: the case of English grammatical morphemes. Language Learning 66(4): 834–71.Google Scholar

Murakami, A. and Alexopoulou, T. 2016. L1 influence on the acquisition order of English grammatical morphemes: a learner corpus study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 38(3): 365–401.Google Scholar

Murakami, A., Thompson, P., Hunston, S. and Vajn, D. 2017. ‘What is this corpus about?’: using topic modelling to explore a specialised corpus. Corpora 12(2): 243–77.Google Scholar

Murphy, A. 2004. Evaluation in English and Italian Newspaper Opinion Articles on the Kosovo Crisis. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Birmingham.Google Scholar

Murphy, A. 2010. Corpus and Sociolinguistics: Investigating Age and Gender in Female Talk. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Nesi, H. and Gardner, S. 2012. Genres across the Disciplines: Student Writing in Higher Education. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Nesselhauf, N. 2005. Collocations in a Learner Corpus. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Nini, A. 2017. Register variation in malicious forensic texts. Speech, Language and the Law 24(1): 99–126.Google Scholar

Nini, A. 2019. The Multi-Dimensional Analysis Tagger. In Berber Sardinha, T. and Veirano Pinto, M. (eds.), Multi-Dimensional Analysis: Research Methods and Current Issues. London and New York: Bloomsbury Academic. 67–94.Google Scholar

Nini, A. and Grant, T. 2013. Bridging the gap between stylistic and cognitive approaches to authorship analysis using systemic functional linguistics and multidimensional analysis. Speech, Language and the Law 20(2): 173–202.Google Scholar

Oakes, C. 1998. Statistics for Corpus Linguistics. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Oakey, D. 2009. Fixed collocational patterns in isolexical and isotextual versions of a corpus. In Baker, P. (ed.), Contemporary Corpus Linguistics. London: Continuum. 142–60.Google Scholar

O’Donnell, M. 2008a. Demonstration of the UAM Corpus Tool for text and image annotation. Proceedings of the ACL-08: HLT Demo Session, Columbus Ohio, June 2008, Association for Computational Linguistics. 13–16.Google Scholar

O’Donnell, M. 2008b. The UAM CorpusTool: software for corpus annotation and exploration. In Bretones Callejas, C.M. et al. (eds), Applied Linguistics Now: Understanding Language and Mind / La lingüística aplicada hoy: comprendiendo el lenguaje y la mente. Universidad de Almería. 1433–47.Google Scholar

O’Donnell, M. 2010. UAM Corpus Tool, Version 2.6.Google Scholar

O’Donnell, M. 2013. From learner corpora to curriculum design: an empirical approach to staging the teaching of grammatical concepts. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences 95: 571–80.Google Scholar

O’Donnell, M., Murcia, S., García, R., Molina, C., Rollinson, P., MacDonald, P., Stuart, K. and Boquera, M. 2009. Exploring the proficiency of English learners: the TREACLE project. Proceedings of the Fifth Corpus Linguistics Conference, University of Liverpool.Google Scholar

O’Halloran, K. 2009. Inferencing and cultural reproduction: a corpus-based critical discourse analysis. Text & Talk 29(1): 21–51.Google Scholar

O’Halloran, K. 2015. Deconstructing arguments via digital mining of online comments. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 30(4): 559–88.Google Scholar

Olsson, J. 2012. Wordcrime: Solving Crime through Forensic Linguistics. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar

O’Sullivan, J. 2020. Corpus Linguistics and the Analysis of Sociolinguistic Change: Language Variety and Ideology in Advertising. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar

Page, R. 2019. Group selfies and Snapchat: from sociality to synthetic collectivisation. Discourse, Context & Media 28: 79–92.Google Scholar

Pakhomov, S., Chacon, D., Wicklund, M. and Gundel, J. 2011. Computerized assessment of syntactic complexity in Alzheimer’s disease: a case study of Iris Murdoch’s writing. Behavior Research Methods 43(1): 136–44.Google Scholar

Pang, B. and Lee, L. 2008. Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval 2(1–2): 1–135.Google Scholar

Pápai, V. 2004. Explicitation: a universal of translated text? In Mauranen, and Kujamäki, (eds.), 150–64.Google Scholar

Paquot, M. 2007. Towards a productively oriented academic word list. In Walinski, J., Kredens, K. and Gozdz-Roszkowski, S. (eds.), Practical Applications in Language and Computers 2005. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 127–40.Google Scholar

Paquot, M. 2010. Academic Vocabulary in Learner Writing: From Extraction to Analysis. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Partington, A. 2004. ‘“Utterly content in each other’s company”: Semantic prosody and semantic preference,’ International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(1): 131–56.Google Scholar

Partington, A., Duguid, A. and Taylor, C. 2013. Patterns and Meanings in Discourse: Theory and Practice in Corpus-assisted Discourse Studies (CADS). Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Pecorari, D. and Shaw, P. (eds.) 2018. Student Plagiarism in Higher Education: Reflections on Teaching Practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Pendar, N. and Chapelle, C. 2008. Investigating the promise of learner corpora: methodological issues. CALICO Journal 25(2): 189–206.Google Scholar

Perek, F. and Patten, A. 2019. Towards an English Constructicon using patterns and frames. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 24(3): 354–84.Google Scholar

Pérez-Paredes, P. and Díez-Bedmar, M. 2012. The use of intensifying adverbs in learner writing. In Tono, Y., Kawaguchi, Y. and Minegishi, M. (eds.), Developmental and Crosslinguistic Perspectives in Learner Corpus Research. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 105–23.Google Scholar

Potthast, M., Kiesel, J., Reinartz, K., Bevendorff, J. and Stein, B. 2017. A stylometric inquiry into hyperpartisan and fake news. Proceedings of the 56th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, vol. i. Melbourne. 231–40.Google Scholar

Pounds, G., Hunt, D. and Koteyko, N. 2018. Expressions of empathy in a Facebook-based diabetes support group. Discourse, Context and Media 25: 34–43.Google Scholar

Prabhu, N. 1987. Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Price, H. 2022. The Language of Mental Illness: Corpus Linguistics and the Construction of Mental Illness in the Press. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Prieto, V.J. 2013. A corpus-based approach to the multimodal analysis of specialised knowledge. Language Resources and Evaluation 47: 399–423.Google Scholar

Puurtinen, T. 2004. Explicitation of clausal relations: a corpus-based analysis of clause connectives in translated and non-translated Finnish children’s literature. In Mauranen, A. and Kujamäki, P. P. (eds.) Translation Universals: Do They Exist? Amsterdam: Benjamins. 165–76.Google Scholar

Quinn, C. 2021. L2 Writers Referencing Corpora to Address Accuracy: A Qualitative Analysis of Learners’ Lexicogrammatical Error Corrections. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Birmingham.Google Scholar

Ramón, N. and Labrador, B. 2008. Translations of ‘-ly’ adverbs of degree in an English-Spanish parallel corpus. Target 20(2): 275–96.Google Scholar

Rashkin, H., Choi, E., Jang, J.Y., Volkova, S. and Choi, Y. 2017. Truth of varying shades: analysing language in fake news and political fact-checking. Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics. 2931–7.Google Scholar

Rayson, P. 2008. From key words to key semantic domains. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 13(4): 519–49.Google Scholar

Rayson, P., Archer, D., Piao, S. and McEnery, T. 2004 The UCREL Semantic Analysis System. Proceedings of the workshop on Beyond Named Entity Recognition Semantic Labelling for NLP tasks in association with the 4th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2004). Lisbon and Paris: European Language Resources Association. 7–12.Google Scholar

Rayson, P., Leech, G. and Hodges, M. 1997. Social differentiation in the use of English vocabulary: some analyses of the conversational component of the British National Corpus. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 2(1): 133–52.Google Scholar

Ringbom, H. 1998. Vocabulary frequencies in advanced learner English: a cross-linguistic approach. In Granger, S. (ed.), Learner English on Computer. London: Longman. 41–52.Google Scholar

Roads, J. 2012. Early Quaker broadsides corpus: a case study. Quaker Studies 17(1): 27–47.Google Scholar

Römer, U. 2019. A corpus perspective on the development of verb constructions in second language learners. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 24(3): 268–90.Google Scholar

Römer, U. and O’Donnell, M. 2011. From student hard drive to web corpus (part 1): the design, compilation and genre classification of the Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers (MICUSP). Corpora 6(2): 159–77.Google Scholar

Ronan, P. and Schneider, G. 2020. ‘A man who was just an incredible man, an incredible man’: Age factors and coherence in Donald Trump’s spontaneous speech. In Schneider, and Eitelmann, (eds.), 62–84.Google Scholar

Roy, T., Acharya, R. and Roy, A. 2016. Statistical Survey Design and Evaluating Impact. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Rudkowsky, E., Haselmayer, M., Wastian, M., Jenny, M., Emrich, S. and Sedlmair, M. 2018. More than bags of words: sentiment analysis with word embeddings. Communication Methods and Measures 12(2–3): 140–57.Google Scholar

Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M., Johnson, C., Baker, C. and Scheffczyk, J. 2016. FrameNet II: Extended Theory and Practice. Rev. edn. framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu/fndrupal/the_book.Google Scholar

Ryshina-Pankova, M. 2015. A meaning-based approach to the study of complexity in L2 writing: the case of grammatical metaphor. Journal of Second Language Writing 29: 51–63.Google Scholar

Salas, M.D. 2015. Reflexive metadiscourse in research articles in Spanish: variation across three disciplines (linguistics, economics and medicine). Journal of Pragmatics 77: 20–40.Google Scholar

Samuda, V. and Bygate, M. 2008. Tasks in Second Language Learning. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Santa Ana, O. 2002. Brown Tide Rising: Metaphors of Latinos in Contemporary American Public Discourse. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar

Schembri, A., Fenlon, J., Rentelis, R., Reynolds, S. and Cormier, K. 2013. Building the British Sign Language Corpus. Language Documentation and Conservation 7: 136–54.Google Scholar

Schilk, M., Mukherjee, J., Nam, C. and Mukherjee, S. 2013. Complementation of ditransitive verbs in South Asian Englishes: a multifactorial analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 9(2): 187–225.Google Scholar

Schmid, H.-J. 2000. English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells: From Corpus to Cognition. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Schmid, H.-J. 2003. Do men and women really live in different cultures? Evidence from the BNC. In Wilson, A., Rayson, P. and McEnery, A. (eds.), Corpus Linguistics by the Lune. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. 185–221.Google Scholar

Schneider, E. 2007. Postcolonial English: Varieties around the World. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Schneider, U. and Eitelmann, M. 2020a. ‘Great movement’ versus ‘crooked opponents’: is Donald Trump’s language populist? In Schneider, and Eitelmann, (eds.), 236–50.Google Scholar

Schneider, U. and Eitelmann, M. (eds.) 2020b. Linguistic Inquiries into Donald Trump’s Language: From ‘Fake News’ to ‘Tremendous Success’. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar

Scott, M. 1997. PC analysis of key words – and key key words. System 25(1): 1–13.Google Scholar

Scott, M. 2010. Problems in investigating keyness, or clearing the undergrowth and marking out trails… In Bondi, M. and Scott, M. (eds.), Keyness in Texts. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 43–57.Google Scholar

Scott, M. and Tribble, C. 2006. Textual Patterns: Key Words and Corpus Analysis in Language Education. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Semino, E. and Short, M. 2004. Corpus Stylistics: Speech Writing and Thought Presentation in a Corpus of English Writing. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Sharma, R., Palhikar, G. and Pawar, S. 2018. An unsupervised approach for cause-effect relation extraction from biomedical text. In Silberztein, M, , F. Atigui, E. Kornyshova, E. Métais, and Meziane, F (eds.), Natural Language Processing and Information Systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 10859. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar

Simpson, P. and Montgomery, M. 1995. Language, literature and film: the stylistics of Bernard MacLaverty’s Cal. In Verdonk, P. and Weber, J.J. (eds.), Twentieth Century Fiction: From Text to Context. London: Routledge. 138–64.Google Scholar

Sinclair, J. (ed.) 1987a. Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary. 1st edn. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar

Sinclair, J. (ed.) 1987b. Looking UP: An Account of the Cobuild Project in Lexical Computing. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar

Sinclair, J. (ed.) 1990. Collins Cobuild English Grammar. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar

Sinclair, J. 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Sinclair, J. (ed.) 1995. Collins Cobuild English Dictionary. 2nd edn. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar

Sinclair, J. 2003. Reading Concordances. London: Longman.Google Scholar

Sinclair, J. 2004. Trust the Text: Language, Corpus and Discourse. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Sinclair, J. and Coulthard, M. 1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Sinclair, J., Jones, S. and Daley, R. 1970/2004. The OSTI Report. Ed. Krishnamurthy, R.. London: Continuum.Google Scholar

Skehan, P. 2009. Modelling second language performance: integrating complexity, accuracy, fluency and lexis. Applied Linguistics 30(4): 510–32.Google Scholar

Skehan, P. and Foster, P. 2016. Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research 1(3): 185–211.Google Scholar

Skelton, J., O’Riordan, M., Berenguera, A., Beavan, J. and Weetman, K. 2017. Learning from patients: trainers’ use of narratives of learning and teaching. BJGP Open: 1–11.Google Scholar

Smith, S. 2020. DIY corpora for accounting and finance vocabulary learning. English for Specific Purposes 57: 1–12.Google Scholar

Spilioti, T. and Tagg, C. 2017. The ethics of online research methods in applied linguistics: challenges, opportunities and directions in ethical decision making. Applied Linguistics Review 8 (2–3): 163–7.Google Scholar

Stange, U. 2020. Very emotional, totally conservative and somewhat all over the place: an analysis of intensifiers in Donald Trump’s speech. In Schneider, U. and Eitelmann, M. (eds.) Linguistic Inquiries into Donald Trump’s Language: From ‘Fake News’ to ‘Tremendous Success’. London: Bloomsbury. 87–108.Google Scholar

Stefanowitsch, A. and Gries, S. 2003. Collostructions: investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2): 209–43.Google Scholar

Stubbs, M. 1993. British traditions in text analysis: from Firth to Sinclair. In Baker, M., Francis, G. and Tognini-Bonelli, E. (eds.), Text and Technology: in honour of John Sinclair. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 1–33.Google Scholar

Stubbs, M. 1995. Collocations and semantic profiles: on the cause of the trouble with quantative methods. Functions of Language 2(1): 23–55.Google Scholar

Stubbs, M. 1996. Text and Corpus Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Stubbs, M. 2001. Words and Phrases: Corpus Studies of Lexical Semantics. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Stubbs, M. 2010. Three concepts of keywords. In Bondi, M. and Scott, M. (eds.), Keyness in Texts. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 21–42.Google Scholar

Su, H. 2015. Adjective Complementation Patterns and Judgement in Biographical Discourse: A Corpus Study. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Birmingham.Google Scholar

Su, H. 2017. Local grammars of speech acts: an exploratory study. Journal of Pragmatics 111: 72–83.Google Scholar

Su, H. 2020. Local grammars and diachronic speech act analysis: a case study of apology in the history of American English. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 21(1): 109–36.Google Scholar

Su, H. and Hunston, S. 2019a. Adjective complementation patterns and judgement: aligning lexical-grammatical and discourse-semantic approaches in appraisal research. Text and Talk 39(3): 415–39.Google Scholar

Su, H. and Hunston, S. 2019b. Language patterns and attitude revisited: adjective patterns, attitude and appraisal. Functions of Language 26(3): 343–71.Google Scholar

Swales, J. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Taboada, M. 2016. Sentiment analysis: an overview from linguistics. Annual Review of Linguistics 2: 325–47.Google Scholar

Taylor, C. 2013. Searching for similarity using corpus-assisted discourse studies. Corpora 8(1): 81–113.Google Scholar

Taylor, C. 2018. Similarity. In Taylor, C. and Marchi, A. (eds.), Corpus Approaches to Discourse: A Critical Review. London: Routledge. 19–37.Google Scholar

Taylor, G., Jowett, J., Bourus, T. and Egan, G. 2016. The New Oxford Shakespeare: Critical Reference Edition. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Teich, E. and Holtz, M. 2009. Scientific registers in contact: an exploration of the lexico-grammatical properties of interdisciplinary discourses. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14(4): 524–48.Google Scholar

Thewissen, J. 2013. Capturing L2 accuracy developmental patterns: insights from an error-tagged EFL learner corpus. Modern Language Journal 97: 77–101.Google Scholar

Thewissen, J. 2015. Accuracy across Proficiency Levels: A Learner Corpus Approach. Louvain: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar

Thompson, G., Bowcher, W., Fontaine, L. and Schönthal, D. 2019. The Cambridge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Thompson, P. 2001a. Looking at citations: using corpora in English for Academic Purposes. Language Learning and Technology 5(3): 91–105.Google Scholar

Thompson, P. 2001b. A pedagogically-motivated corpus-based examination of PhD theses: macrostructure, citation practices and uses of modal verbs. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Reading.Google Scholar

Thompson, P. and Hunston, S. 2020. Interdisciplinary Research Discourse: Corpus investigations into Environment Journals. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Thompson, P., Hunston, S., Murakami, A. and Vajn, D. 2017. Multi-dimensional analysis, text constellations, and interdisciplinary discourse. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22(2): 153–86.Google Scholar

Tkacukova, T. 2015. A corpus-assisted study of the discourse marker ‘well’ as an Indicator of judges’ institutional roles in court cases with litigants in person. Corpora 10(2): 145–70.Google Scholar

Tognini-Bonelli, E. 2001. Corpus Linguistics at Work. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar

Tomasello, M. 2003. Constructing a Language: A Usage-based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Tongpoon-Patanasorn, A. 2018. Developing a frequent technical words list for finance: a hybrid approach. English for Specific Purposes 51: 45–54.Google Scholar

Tono, Y. 2012. International corpus of crosslinguistic interlanguage: project overview and a case study on the acquisition of new verb co-occurrence patterns. In Tono, Y., Kawaguchi, Y. and Minegishi, M. (eds.), Developmental and Crosslinguistic Perspectives in Learner Corpus Research. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 27–46.Google Scholar