Levshina, Natalia. 2015. How to Do Linguistics with R: Data Exploration and Statistical Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Chapter 14.Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th. 2020. On Classification Trees and Random Forests in Corpus Linguistics: Some Words of Caution and Suggestions for Improvement. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 16(3). 617–47.Google Scholar

Field, Andy, Miles, Jeremy and Field, Zoe. 2012. Discovering Statistics Using R. London: Sage. Chapter 19.Google Scholar

Anthony, Lawrence. 2017. AntConc (Version 3.5.7). Computer software. Tokyo: Waseda University.Google Scholar

Bernaisch, Tobias. 2015. The Lexis and Lexicogrammar of Sri Lankan English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bernaisch, Tobias, Gries, Stefan Th and Joybrato, Mukherjee. 2014. The Dative Alternation in South Asian Englishes: Modelling Predictors and Predicting Prototypes. English World-Wide 35(1). 7–31.Google Scholar

Breiman, Leo. 2001. Random Forests. Machine Learning 45. 5–32.Google Scholar

Clark, Herbert, and Fox Tree, Jean E.. 2002. Using Uh and Um in Spontaneous Speaking. Cognition 84. 73–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ephratt, Michal. 2008. The Functions of Silence. Journal of Pragmatics 40(11). 1909–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Field, Andy, Miles, Jeremy and Field, Zoe. 2012. Discovering Statistics Using R. London: Sage.Google Scholar

Fokkema, Marjolein, Edbrooke-Childs, Julian and Wolpert, Miranda. 2021. Generalized Linear Mixed-Model (GLMM) Trees: A Flexible Decision-Tree Method for Multilevel and Longitudinal Data. Psychotherapy Research 31(3). 329–41.Google Scholar

Fokkema, Marjolein, Smits, Niels, Zeileis, Achim, Hothorn, Torsten and Kelderman, Henk. 2018. Detecting Treatment-Subgroup Interactions in Clustered Data with Generalized Linear Mixed-Effects Model Trees. Behavior Research Methods 50(5). 2016–34.Google Scholar

Gilquin, Gaëtanelle. 2008. Hesitation Markers among EFL Learners: Pragmatic Deficiency or Difference. In Romero-Trillo, Jesús, ed. Pragmatics and Corpus Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 119–43.Google Scholar

Greenbaum, Sidney. 1991. The Development of the International Corpus of English. In Aijmer, Karin and Alternberg, Bengt, eds. English Corpus Linguistics: Studies in Honour of Jan Svartvik. London: Longman. 83–91.Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th. 2013. Statistics for Linguistics with R: A Practical Introduction. 2nd ed. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th. 2018. On Over- and Underuse in Learner Corpus Research and Multifactoriality in Corpus Linguistics More Generally. Journal of Second Language Studies 1(2). 276–308.Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th. 2020. On Classification Trees and Random Forests in Corpus Linguistics: Some Words of Caution and Suggestions for Improvement. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 16(3). 617–47.Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th., and Deshors, Sandra C.. 2014. Using Regressions to Explore Deviations between Corpus Data and a Standard/Target: Two Suggestions. Corpora 9(1). 109–36.Google Scholar

Harrell, Frank. 2015. Regression Modeling Strategies: With Applications to Linear Models, Logistic and Ordinal Regression, and Survival Analysis. 2nd ed. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Heller, Benedikt. 2017. Stability and Fluidity in Syntactic Variation World-Wide: The Genitive Alternation across Varieties of English. Doctoral thesis. KU Leuven.Google Scholar

Heller, Benedikt, Bernaisch, Tobias and Gries, Stefan Th.. 2017. Empirical Perspectives on Two Potential Epicenters: The Genitive Alternation in Asian Englishes. ICAME Journal 41. 111–44.Google Scholar

Hothorn, Torsten and Zeileis, Achim. 2015. Partykit: A Modular Toolkit for Recursive Partytioning in R. Journal of Machine Learning Research 16. 3905–9.Google Scholar

James, Gareth, Witten, Daniela, Hastie, Trevor and Tibshirani, Robert. 2015. An Introduction to Statistical Learning with Applications in R. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Max. 2008. Building Predictive Models in R Using the Caret Package. Journal of Statistical Software 28(5). 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kuhn, Max, and Johnson, Kjell. 2016. Applied Predictive Modeling. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Max. Contributions from Jed Wing, Steve Weston, Andre Williams, Chris Keefer, Allan Engelhardt, Tony Cooper, Zachary Mayer, Brenton Kenkel, the R Core Team, Michael Benesty, Reynald Lescarbeau, Andrew Ziem, Luca Scrucca, Yuan Tang, Can Candan and Tyler Hunt. 2018. Caret: Classification and regression training [R package version 6.0–81]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=caret.Google Scholar

Lange, Claudia. 2012. The Syntax of Spoken Indian English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Maclay, Howard, and Osgood, Charles E.. 1959. Hesitation Phenomena in Spontaneous English Speech. Word 15(1). 19–44.Google Scholar

Mukherjee, Joybrato. 2000. Speech Is Silver, but Silence Is Golden: Some Remarks on the Function(s) of Pauses. Anglia 118(4). 571–84.Google Scholar

Mukherjee, Joybrato. 2010. The Development of English in India. In Kirkpatrick, Andy, ed. The Routledge Handbook of World Englishes. London: Routledge. 167–80.Google Scholar

Oviatt, Sharon. 1995. Predicting Spoken Disfluencies During Human-Computer Interaction. Computer Speech & Language 9(1). 19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Revis, Melanie, and Bernaisch, Tobias. 2020. The Pragmatic Nativisation of Pauses in Asian Englishes. World Englishes 39(1). 135–53.Google Scholar

Rayson, Paul, Leech, Geoffrey N. and Hodges, Mary. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stenström, Anna-Brita. 1990. Pauses in Monologue and Dialogue. In Svartvik, Jan, ed. The London-Lund Corpus of Spoken English: Description and Research. Lund: Lund University Press. 211–52.Google Scholar

Strobl, Carolin, Malley, James D. and Tutz, Gerhard. 2009. An Introduction to Recursive Partitioning: Rationale, Application, and Characteristics of Classification and Regression Trees, Bagging, and Random Forests. Psychological Methods 14(4). 323–48.Google Scholar

Tottie, Gunnel. 2014a. On the Use of Uh and Um in American English. Functions of Language 21(1). 6–29.Google Scholar

Tottie, Gunnel. 2014b. Turn Management and the Fillers Uh and Um. In Aijmer, Karin and Rühlemann, Christoph, eds. Corpus Pragmatics: A Handbook. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 381–407.Google Scholar

Venables, William N., and Ripley, Brian D.. 2002. Modern Applied Statistics with S. 4th ed. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Zuur, Alain F., Ieno, Elena N., Walker, Neil and Saveliev, Anatoly A.. 2009. Mixed Effects Models and Extensions in Ecology with R. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Agresti, Alan. 2013. Categorical Data Analysis. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar

James, Gareth, Daniela Witten, , Trevor Hastie, and Robert Tibshirani, . 2013. An Introduction to Statistical Learning with Applications in R. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Vanderschueren, Clara, and Ludovic De Cuypere, . 2014. The Inflected/Non-Inflected Infinitive Alternation in Portuguese Adverbial Clauses. A Corpus Analysis. Language Sciences 41. 153–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Agresti, Alan. 2013. Categorical Data Analysis. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar

Baayen, R. Harald. 2008. Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan, and Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar

Breiman, Leo, Friedman, Jerome, Olshen, Richard and Stone, Charles. 1984. Classification and Regression Trees. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar

Chipman, Hugh, George, Edward and Richard, McCulloch. 2010. BART: Bayesian Additive Regression Trees. The Annals of Applied Statistics 4(1). 266–98.Google Scholar

Feist, Jim. 2012. What Controls the “Genitive Variation” in Present-Day English? Studies in Language 36(2). 261–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fox, John, Weisberg, Sandford, Price, Brad, Friendly, Michael and Hong, Jangman. 2019. effects: Effect Displays for Linear, Generalized Linear, and Other Models. R package, version 4.1–4. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=effects.Google Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th. 2013. Statistics for Linguistics with R: A Practical Introduction. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar

Hastie, Trevor, Tibshirani, Robert and Friedman, Jerome. 2015. The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Hinrichs, Lars, Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt and Bohmann, Axel. 2015. Which-Hunting and the Standard English Relative Clause. Language 91(4). 806–36.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Max, and Johnson, Kjell. 2013. Applied Predictive Modeling. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Labov, William. 1969. Contraction, Deletion, and Inherent Variability of the English Copula. Language 45(4). 715–62.Google Scholar

Labov, William 1982. Building on Empirical Foundations. In Lehmann, Winfred P. and Malkiel, Yakov, eds. Perspectives on Historical Linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 17–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Liaw, Andy, and Wiener, Matthew. 2002. Classification and Regression by randomForest. R News 2(3). 18–22.Google Scholar

Rickford, John, Ball, Arnetha, Blake, Renee, Jackson, Raina and Martin, Nomi. 1991. Rappin on the Copula Coffin: Theoretical and Methodological Issues in the Analysis of Copula Variation in African-American Vernacular English. Language Variation and Change 3. 103–32.Google Scholar

Ripley, Brian. 2018. tree: Classification and Regression Trees. R package, version 1.0–39. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=tree.Google Scholar

Rosenbach, Anette. 2014. English Genitive Variation: The State of the Art. English Language and Linguistics 18(2). 215–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Röthlisberger, Melanie, Grafmiller, Jason and Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2017. Cognitive Indigenization Effects in the English Dative Alternation. Cognitive Linguistics. 28(4). 673–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sankoff, David, and Rousseau, Pascale. 1989. Statistical Evidence for Rule Ordering. Language Variation and Change 1(1). 1–18.Google Scholar

Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt, Biber, Douglas, Egbert, Jesse and Franco, Karlien. 2016. Toward More Accountability: Modeling Ternary Genitive Variation in Late Modern English. Language Variation and Change 28. 1–29.Google Scholar

Tagliamonte, Sali. 2006. Analysing Sociolinguistic Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Venables, William, and Ripley, Brian. 2002. Modern Applied Statistics with S. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Gelman, Andrew, and Hill, Jennifer. 2007. Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Gelman, Andrew, Jakulin, Aleks, Pittau, Maria Grazia and Yu-Sung, Su. 2008. A Weakly Informative Prior Distribution for Logistic and Other Regression Models. The Annals of Applied Statistics 2(4). 1360–83. https://doi.org/10.1214/08-AOAS191.Google Scholar

Kruschke, John K. 2011a. Doing Bayesian Data Analysis: A Tutorial with R and BUGS. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar

McElreath, Richard. 2016. Statistical Rethinking: A Bayesian Course with Examples in R and Stan. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar

Nicenboim, Bruno, and Vasishth, Shravan. 2016. Statistical Methods for Linguistic Research: Foundational Ideas: Part II. Language and Linguistics Compass 10. 591–613. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12207.Google Scholar

van de Schoot, Rens, and Depaoli, Sarah. 2014. Bayesian Analyses: Where to Start and What to Report. The European Health Psychologist 16(2). 75–84.Google Scholar

van de Schoot, Rens, David Kaplan, Jaap J. Denissen, Jens B. Asendorpf, Franz J. Neyer, Marcel A. G. van Aken, . 2014. A Gentle Introduction to Bayesian Analysis: Applications to Developmental Research. Child Development 85. 842–860. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12169Google Scholar

Bartoń, Kamil. 2018. MuMIn: Multi-Model Inference. R package version 1.42.1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMIn.Google Scholar

Bates, Douglas, Maechler, Martin, Bolker, Ben and Walker, Steve. 2015. Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1). 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01.Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan and Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar

Bürkner, Paul-Christian. 2017. brms: An R Package for Bayesian Multilevel Models Using Stan. Journal of Statistical Software 80(1). 1–28. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v080.i01.Google Scholar

Davies, Mark. 2008–. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 560 million words, 1990–present. https://corpus.byu.edu/coca/.Google Scholar

Dixon, R.M.W. 1991. A New Approach to English Grammar, on Semantic Principles. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Fox, John. 2003. Effect Displays in R for Generalised Linear Models. Journal of Statistical Software 8(15). 1–27. www.jstatsoft.org/v08/i15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gelman, Andrew, and Hill, Jennifer. 2007. Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Gelman, Andrew, Jakulin, Aleks, Pittau, Maria Grazia and Yu-Sung, Su. 2008. A Weakly Informative Prior Distribution for Logistic and Other Regression Models. The Annals of Applied Statistics 2(4). 1360–83. https://doi.org/10.1214/08-AOAS191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goodman, Steven. 2008. A Dirty Dozen: Twelve P-Value Misconceptions. Seminars in Hematology 45(3). 135–40. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.seminhematol.2008.04.003.Google Scholar

Goodman, Steven N., Fanelli, Daniele and John, P. A. Ioannidis. 2016. What Does Research Reproducibility Mean? Science Translational Medicine 8(341). 12. https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf5027.Google Scholar

Huddleston, Rodney, and Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530.Google Scholar

Kruschke, John K. 2011a. Doing Bayesian Data Analysis: A Tutorial with R and BUGS. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Kruschke, John K. 2011b. Introduction to Special Section on Bayesian Data Analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science 6(3). 272–3. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611406926.Google Scholar

Levshina, Natalia. 2016. When Variables Align: A Bayesian Multinomial Mixed-Effects Model of English Permissive Constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 27(2). 235–68.Google Scholar

Levshina, Natalia. 2018. Probabilistic Grammar and Constructional Predictability: Bayesian Generalized Additive Models of Help + (To) Infinitive in Varieties of Web-Based English. Glossa 3(1). 55. 1–22. https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.294/.Google Scholar

Levshina, Natalia. In press. Communicative Efficiency: Language Structure and Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lind, Age. 1983. The Variant Forms of Help to/Help Ø. English Studies 64. 263–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/00138388308598255.Google Scholar

Lohmann, Arne. 2011. Help vs. Help to: A Multifactorial, Mixed-Effects Account of Infinitive Marker Omission. English Language and Linguistics 15(3). 499–521. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674311000141.Google Scholar

Lunn, David, Jackson, Christopher, Best, Nicky, Thomas, Andrew and Spiegelhalter, David. 2013. The BUGS Book: A Practical Introduction to Bayesian Analysis. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar

Mair, Christian. 2002. Three Changing Patterns of Verb Complementation in Late Modern English: A Real-Time Study Based on Matching Text Corpora. English Language and Linguistics 6(1). 105–31. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674302001065.Google Scholar

McElreath, Richard. 2016. Statistical Rethinking: A Bayesian Course with Examples in R and Stan. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar

McEnery, Anthony and Xiao, Zhonghua. 2005. HELP or HELP to: What Do Corpora Have to Say? English Studies 86(2). 161–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013838042000339880.Google Scholar

Nakagawa, Shinichi, Johnson, Paul C. D. and Schielzeth, Holger. 2017. The Coefficient of Determination R² and Intra-Class Correlation Coefficient from Generalized Linear Mixed-Effects Models Revisited and Expanded. Journal of The Royal Society Interface 14(134). http://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2017.0213.Google Scholar

Nicenboim, Bruno, and Vasishth, Shravan. 2016. Statistical Methods for Linguistic Research: Foundational Ideas: Part II. Language and Linguistics Compass 10. 591–613. https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12207.Google Scholar

Rohdenburg, Günter. 1996. Cognitive Complexity and Increased Grammatical Explicitness in English. Cognitive Linguistics 7(2). 149–82. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1996.7.2.149.Google Scholar

Rohdenburg, Günter. 2003. Horror Aequi and Cognitive Complexity as Factors Determining the Use of Interrogative Clause Linkers. In Rohdenburg, Günter and Mondorf, Britta, eds. Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 205–50. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110900019.205.Google Scholar

Rohdenburg, Günter. 2009. Grammatical Divergence between British and American English in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries. In Ingrid van Ostade, Tieken-Boon and van der Wurff, Wim, eds. Current Issues in Late Modern English. Linguistic Insights 77. Bern: Peter Lang. 301–30.Google Scholar

Schlüter, Julia. 2003. Phonological Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English: Chomsky’s Worst Possible Case. In Rohdenburg, Günter and Mondorf, Britta, eds. Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English. Berlin/New York, NY: Mouton de Gruyter. 69–118.Google Scholar

Scrivner, Olga B. 2015. A Probabilistic Approach in Historical Linguistics: Word Order Change in Infinitival Clauses: From Latin to Old French. Doctoral dissertation. Indiana University.Google Scholar

Straka, Milan, and Jana, Straková. 2017. Tokenizing, POS Tagging, Lemmatizing and Parsing UD 2.0 with UDPipe. Proceedings of the CoNLL 2017 Shared Task: Multilingual Parsing from Raw Text to Universal Dependencies, Vancouver, Canada, August 2017.Google Scholar

Van De Schoot, Rens, and Depaoli, Sarah. 2014. Bayesian Analyses: Where to Start and What to Report. The European Health Psychologist 16(2). 75–84.Google Scholar

van de Schoot, Rens, David Kaplan, Jaap J. Denissen, Jens B. Asendorpf, Franz J. Neyer and Marcel A. G. van Aken. 2014. A Gentle Introduction to Bayesian Analysis: Applications to Developmental Research. Child Development 85. 842–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12169.Google Scholar

Vasishth, Shravan, Chen, Zhong, Qiang, Li and Guo, Guelian. 2013. Processing Chinese Relative Clauses: Evidence for the Subject-Relative Advantage. PLoS ONE 8(10). 1–14. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0077006.Google Scholar

Wasow, Thomas, Levy, Roger, Melnick, Robin, Zhu, Hanzhi and Juzek, Tom. 2015. Processing, Prosody, and Optional to. In Frazier, Lyn and Gibson, Edward, eds. Explicit and Implicit Prosody in Sentence Processing. New York: Springer. 133–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/978–3–319–12961–7_8.Google Scholar

Borg, Ingwer, and Patrick, J. F. Groenen. 2005. Modern Multidimensional Scaling. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Everitt, Brian S., Landau, Sabine, Leese, Morven and Stahl, Daniel. 2011. Cluster Analysis. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Moisl, Hermann. 2015. Cluster Analysis for Corpus Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Anscombre, Jean-Claude. 1989. Théorie de l’argumentation, topoï, et structuration discursive. Revue Québécoise de Linguistique 18(1). 13–55.Google Scholar

Anthony, Laurence. 2018. AntConc. A Freeware Corpus Analysis Toolkit for Concordancing and Text Analysis. v. 3.5.7. www.laurenceanthony.net/software.html.Google Scholar

Azar, Moshe. 1997. Concessive Relations as Argumentations. Text 17(3). 301–16.Google Scholar

Bengtsson, Henrik, Bravo, Hector Corrada, Gentleman, Robert et al. 2019. Functions that Apply to Rows and Columns of Matrices (and to Vectors) (‘matrixStats’). R package. v. 0.55.0. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/matrixStats/matrixStats.pdf.Google Scholar

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

Borg, Ingwer, and Groenen, Patrick J. F.. 2005. Modern Multidimensional Scaling. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Bürkner, Paul. 2019. Bayesian Regression Models Using ‘Stan’ (‘brms’). R package v. 2.8.0. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/brms/brms.pdf.Google Scholar

Cormack, R. M. 1971. A Review of Classification. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A 134. 321–67.Google Scholar

Di Meola, Claudio. 1998. Zur Definition einer logisch-semantischen Kategorie: Konzessivität als „versteckte Kausalität“. Linguistische Berichte 175. 329–52.Google Scholar

Diessel, Holger. 2005. Competing Motivations for the Ordering of Main and Adverbial Clauses. Linguistics 43(3). 449–70.Google Scholar

Dugard, Pat, Todman, John and Staines, Harry. 2010. Approaching Multivariate Analysis: A Practical Introduction. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Dunn, J. C. 1974. Well Separated Clusters and Optimal Fuzzy Partitions. Journal of Cybernetics 4(1). 95–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Everitt, Brian S., Landau, Sabine, Leese, Morven and Stahl, Daniel. 2011. Cluster Analysis. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar

Gordon, Allan D. 1999. Classification. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gries, Stefan Th. 2013. Statistics for Linguistics with R: A Practical Introduction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Handl, Julia, Knowles, Joshua and Kell, Douglas B.. 2005. Computational Cluster Validation in Post-Genomic Data Analysis. Bioinformatics 21(15). 3201–212.Google Scholar

Hawkins, John A. 1994. A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hermodsson, Lars. 1994. Der Begriff „konzessiv“: Terminologie und Analysen. Studia Neophilologica 66. 59–75.Google Scholar

Hilpert, Martin. 2011. Dynamic Visualizations of Language Change: Motion Charts on the Basis of Bivariate and Multivariate Data from Diachronic Corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 4(16). 435–61.Google Scholar

Hilpert, Martin. 2013. Constructional Change in English: Developments in Allomorphy, Word Formation, and Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Huddleston, Rodney D. and Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Huson, Daniel H. and Bryant, David. 2017. SplitsTree4. Software for Computing Phylogenetic Networks. v. 4.16.6. www.splitstree.org/.Google Scholar

Kapp, Amy V. and Tibshirani, Robert. 2007. Are Clusters Found in One Dataset Present in Another Dataset? Biostatistics 8(1). 9–31.Google Scholar

König, Ekkehard. 2006. Concessive Clauses. In Brown, Keith, ed. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Vol. 2. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 820–4.Google Scholar

Kortmann, Bernd, and Wolk, Christoph. 2012. Morphosyntactic Variation in the Anglophone World: A Global Perspective. In Kortmann, Bernd & Lunkenheimer, Kerstin, eds. The Mouton World Atlas of Variation in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 906–36.Google Scholar

Kortmann, Bernd, and Lunkenheimer, Kerstin, eds. 2012. The Mouton World Atlas of Variation in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Kruskal, Joseph B., and Wish, Myron. 1978. Multidimensional Scaling. Beverly Hills, CA/London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Moisl, Hermann. 2015. Cluster Analysis for Corpus Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Nelson, Gerald. 1996. The Design of the Corpus. In Greenbaum, Sidney, ed. Comparing English Worldwide: The International Corpus of English. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 27–35.Google Scholar

Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey and Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Arnold.Google Scholar

R Development Core Team. 2018. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Version 3.5.2. www.R-project.org.Google Scholar

RStudio Team. 2009–18. RStudio: Integrated Development for R. Version 1.1.453. Boston, MA: RStudio, Inc. www.rstudio.com.Google Scholar

Sarkar, Deepayan, and Andrews, Felix. 2016. Extra Graphical Utilities Based on Lattice (‘lattice extra’). R package, version 0.6–28. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/latticeExtra/latticeExtra.pdf.Google Scholar

Sarkar, Deepayan. 2008. Lattice. Multivariate Data Visualization with R. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Sarkar, Deepayan. 2014. Lattice Graphics (‘lattice’). R package, version 0.20–29. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lattice/lattice.pdf.Google Scholar

Schliep, Klaus. 2018. Phylogenetic Reconstruction and Analysis (‘phangorn’). R package version 2.4.0. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/phangorn/phangorn.pdf.Google Scholar

Schützler, Ole. 2017. A Corpus-Based Study of Concessive Conjunctions in Three L1-Varieties of English. In Buchstaller, Isabelle and Siebenhaar, Beat, eds. Language Variation – European Perspectives VI: Selected Papers from the Eighth International Conference on Language Variation in Europe (ICLaVE 8), Leipzig, May 2015. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 173–84.Google Scholar

Schützler, Ole. 2018. Concessive Conjunctions in Written American English: Diachronic and Genre-Related Changes in Frequency and Semantics. In Whitt, Richard J., ed. Diachronic Corpora, Genre, and Language Change. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Sweetser, Eve E. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics: Metaphorical and Cultural Aspects of Semantic Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt. 2012. Typological Profile: L1 Varieties. In Kortmann, Bernd, and Lunkenheimer, Kerstin, eds. The Mouton World Atlas of Variation in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 826–42.Google Scholar

Werner, Valentin. 2014. The Present Perfect in World Englishes: Charting Unity and Diversity. Bamberg: University of Bamberg Press.Google Scholar

Wheeler, Eric S. 2005. Multidimensional Scaling for Linguistics. In Altmann, Gabriel, Piotrowski, Rajmund G. and Köhler, Reinhard, eds. Quantitative Linguistics: An International Handbook. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 548–53.Google Scholar