Aarts, J. (1991). ‘Intuition-based and observation-based grammars’, English Corpus Linguistics: Studies in honour of Jan Svartvik, Longman, London, pp. 44–63.Google Scholar

Aarts, J. (2011). ‘Corpus analysis’, Handbook of Pragmatics, 15, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar

Abercrombie, A. (1971). Robert Grossteste and the Origins of Experimental Science, 1100–1700, Clarendon, Oxford.Google Scholar

Albert, M. (2007). ‘The propensity theory: A decision-theoretic restatement’, Synthese, 156 (3), pp. 587–603.Google Scholar

Alderson, J.C. (2007). ‘Judging the frequency of English words’, Applied Linguistics, 28 (3), pp. 383–409.Google Scholar

Alford, H. (1864). A Plea for the Queen’s English, Strahan, London.Google Scholar

Altendorf, U. (2017). ‘Estuary English’, in Bergs, A. and Brinton, L. (eds.) Varieties of English, De Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 170–187.Google Scholar

Andersson, G. (1982). ‘Naïve and critical falsification’, in Levinson, P. (ed.) In Pursuit of Truth: Essays on the philosophy of Karl Popper on the occasion of his 80th birthday, Harvester Press, Sussex, pp. 50–63.Google Scholar

Andersson, G. (2016). ‘The problem of the empirical basis in critical rationalism, in Shearmur, J. and Stokes, G. (eds.) The Cambridge Companion to Popper, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 125–152.Google Scholar

Andor, J. (2004). ‘The master and his performance: An interview with Noam Chomsky’, Intercultural Pragmatics, 1 (1), pp. 93–111.Google Scholar

Andringa, S. and Godfroid, A. (2020). ‘Sampling bias and the problem of generalizability in applied linguistics’, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 40, pp. 134–142.Google Scholar

Annis, D. (1978). ‘A contextualist theory of epistemic justification’, American Philosophical Quarterly, 15 (3), pp. 213–219.Google Scholar

Arnett, J. (2008). ‘The neglected 95%: Why American psychology needs to become less American’, American Psychologist, 63 (7), pp. 602–614.Google Scholar

Arppe, A., Gilquin, G., Glynn, D., Hilpert, M. and Zeschel, A. (2010). ‘Cognitive corpus linguistics: five points of debate on current theory and methodology’, Corpora, 5 (1), pp. 1–27.Google Scholar

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

Baker, P. (2009). ‘The BE06 corps of British English and recent language change’, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14 (3), pp. 312–337.Google Scholar

Baker, P. (2017). American and British English: Divided by a common language?, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baker, P. and Egbert, J. (eds.) (2016). Triangulating Methodological Approaches in Corpus Linguistic Research, Routledge, New York.Google Scholar

Baker, P. and Potts, A. (2013). ‘Why do white people have thin lips? Google and the perpetuation of stereotypes via auto-complete search forms’, Critical Discourse Studies, 10 (2), pp. 187–204.Google Scholar

Baker, P., Bontcheva, K., Cunningham, H., et al. (2004). ‘Corpus linguistics and South Asian languages: Corpus creation and tool development’, Literary and Linguistic Computing, 19 (4), pp. 509–524.Google Scholar

Baker, P., Gabrielatos, C., Khosravnik, M., Kryzanowski, M., McEnery, T. and Wodak, R. (2008). ‘A useful methodological synergy? Combining critical discourse analysis and corpus linguistics to examine discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK press’, Discourse and Society, 19 (3), pp. 273–306.Google Scholar

Barlow, M. (2013). ‘Individual differences and usage-based grammar’, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18 (4), pp. 443–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Barnbrook, G., Mason, O. and Krishnamurthy, R. (2013). ‘Collocation and language theory: recent developments’, in Barnbrook, G., Mason, O. and Krishnamurthy, R. (eds.) Collocation: Applications and implications, Palgrave, Basingstoke, pp. 147–173.Google Scholar

Bartley, W.W. (1962). The Retreat to Commitment, Chatto & Windus, London.Google Scholar

Bestgen, Y. (2014). ‘Inadequacy of the chi-squared test to examine vocabulary differences between corpora’, Literary and Linguistic Computing, 29 (2), 164–170.Google Scholar

Biber, D. (1988). Variation across Speech and Writing, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biber, D. (1993). ‘Representativeness in corpus design’, Literary and Linguistic Computing, 8 (4), pp. 243–257.Google Scholar

Biber, D. (1995). Dimensions of Register Variation: A cross-linguistic comparison. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

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

Black, E., Garside, R. and Leech, G. (eds.) (1993). Statistically-driven Computer Grammars of English: The IBM/Lancaster approach, Rodopi, Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Born, M. (2012). Physics in My Generation, Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar

Brame, M.K. (1976). Conjectures and Refutations in Syntax and Semantics, North Holland Publishing Company, New York.Google Scholar

Brereton, W. (1644). The Successes of Our Cheshire Forces, as They Came Related by Sir William Breretons Own Pen to a Minister of Note, Thomas Underhill, London.Google Scholar

Brezina, V. (2018). Statistics in Corpus Linguistics: A practical guide. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Brezina, V. and Gablasova, D. (2015). ‘Is there a core general vocabulary? Introducing the New General Service List’, Applied Linguistics, 36 (1), pp. 139–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brezina, V. and Gablasova, D. (2017). ‘How to produce vocabulary lists? Issues of definition, selection and pedagogical aims. A response to Gabriele Stein’. Applied Linguistics, 38 (5), pp. 764–767.Google Scholar

Brezina, V. and Timperley, M. (2017). ‘How large is the BNC? A proposal for standardized tokenization and word counting’, Proceedings of Corpus Linguistics 2017, Birmingham University, Birmingham, www.birmingham.ac.uk/documents/college-artslaw/corpus/conference-archives/2017/general/paper303.pdfGoogle Scholar

Brezina, V. and Meyerhoff, M. (2014). ‘Significant or random?: A critical review of sociolinguistic generalisations based on large corpora’, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 19 (1), pp. 1–28.Google Scholar

Brezina, V., Hawtin, A. and McEnery, T. (2021). ‘The Written British National Corpus 2014 – design and comparability’, Text and Talk, 41 (5–6), pp. 595–615.Google Scholar

Brezina, V., McEnery, T. and Wattam, S. (2015). ‘Collocations in context: A new perspective on collocational networks’, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 20 (2), pp. 139–173.Google Scholar

Brezina, V., Weill-Tessier, P. and McEnery, T. (2021). LancsBox v 5.x (software package).Google Scholar

Brookes, G. and McEnery, T. (2019). ‘The utility of topic modelling for discourse studies: A critical evaluation’, Discourse Studies, 21 (1), pp. 3–21.Google Scholar

Bruening, B. (2020). ‘Idioms, collocations, and structure’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 38 (2), pp. 365–424.Google Scholar

Bryant, C.G. (1985). Positivism in Social Theory and Research. Macmillan, London.Google Scholar

Buchanan, M.A. (1929). A Graded Spanish Word Book, Publications of the American and Canadian Committees on Modern Languages, Toronto.Google Scholar

Butler, K.T., Davies, D.W., Cartwright, H. Isayev, O. and Walsh, A. (2018). ‘Machine learning for molecular and materials science’, Nature, 559, pp. 547–555.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Cajori, F. (1947). Principia in Modern English, University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar

Carnap, R. (1932). ‘Uberwindung der Metaphysik durch Logische Analyse der Sprache’, Erkenntnis, II, pp. 60–81.Google Scholar

Choi, H.-S., Guillaume, B. and Fort, K. (2022). ‘Corpus-based Language Universals Analysis using Universal Dependencies’, Quasy (Quantitative Syntax), SyntaxFest, March, Sofia, Bulgaria, https://hal.inria.fr/hal-03501774Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures, Mouton, The Hague.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1966). Cartesian Linguistics, Harper & Row, New York.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1969). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2012). ‘Poverty of stimulus: Unfinished business’, Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 33 (1), pp. 3–16.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (2021). Linguistics then and now: Some personal reflections, Annual Review of Linguistics, 7, pp. 1–11.Google Scholar

Clarke, I., McEnery, T. and Brookes, G. (2021). Multiple Correspondence Analysis, newspaper discourse and subregister: A case study of discourses of Islam in the British press, Register Studies, 3 (1), 144–171.Google Scholar

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis of Behaviour Sciences, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.Google Scholar

Comte, A. (1858). The Positive Philosophy of Auguste Comte, Blanchard, New York.Google Scholar

Cook, G. (2008). ‘Hocus-pocus or God’s truth: The dual identity of Michael Stubbs’, in Gerbig, A. and Mason, O. (eds.) Language, People, Numbers: Corpus linguistics and society, Brill, Leiden, pp. 305–327.Google Scholar

Corvi, R. (1996). An Introduction to the Thought of Karl Popper, Routledge, London.Google Scholar

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

Cumming, G. (2012). Understanding the New Statistics: Effect sizes, confidence intervals, and meta-analysis, Routledge, London.Google Scholar

Curry, N. (2019) ‘Learners as models: The pedagogical value of near-peer role models’, Speak Out! Journal of the IATEFL Pronunciation Special Interest Group, 60, pp. 34–43.Google Scholar

Curry, N. (2021). Academic Writing and Reader Engagement: Contrasting questions in English, French and Spanish corpora, Routledge, London.Google Scholar

Curry, N. (forthcoming) ‘Question illocutionary force indicating devices in academic writing: A corpus-pragmatic and contrastive approach to identifying and analysing direct and indirect questions in English, French and Spanish’, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics.Google Scholar

Davis, J. (2006). ‘Phonology without the phoneme’, in Davis, J., Gorup, R.J. and Stern, N. (eds.) Advances in Functional Linguistics: Colombia School beyond its origins, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 163–175.Google Scholar

de Beaugrande, R. (1996). ‘The ‘pragmatics’ of doing language science: The ‘warrant’ for large-scale corpus linguistics’, Journal of Pragmatics, 25 (4), pp. 503–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Desagulier, G. (2017). “Noam Chomsky’s Colourless Green Idea: Corpus linguistics doesn’t mean anything’, Around the Word, 5 December, https://corpling.hypotheses.org/252Google Scholar

Desagulier, G. (2019). ‘Can word vectors help corpus linguistics?’, Studia Neophilologica, 91 (2), pp. 219–240.Google Scholar

Dickins, J. (1998). Extended Axiomatic Linguistics (Vol. 111), Mouton de Gruyter, BerlinGoogle Scholar

Dickins, J (2009). ‘Extended axiomatic functionalism: Postulates’, Linguistica Online, pp. 1–52.Google Scholar

Doyle, P. (2003). ‘Replicating Corpus Linguistics: A corpus-driven investigation of lexical networks in texts’, unpublished PhD thesis, Lancaster University.Google Scholar

Duhem, P. (1906). La Theorie Physique, Son Objet – Sa Structure, Chevalier et Rivière, Paris.Google Scholar

Dunning, T. (1993). ‘Accurate methods for the statistics of surprise and coincidence’, Computational Linguistics, 19 (1), pp. 61–74.Google Scholar

Earp, B. and Trafimow, D. (2015). ‘Replication, falsification, and the crisis of confidence in social psychology’, Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 621, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00621Google Scholar

Edmonds, D. and Eidinow, J. (2001). Wittgenstein’s Poker. Faber & Faber, London.Google Scholar

Egbert, J. and Baker, P. (eds.) (2019). Using Corpus Methods to Triangulate Linguistic Analysis, Routledge, New York.Google Scholar

Egbert, J. and Biber, D. (2019). ‘Incorporating text dispersion into keyword analyses’, Corpora, 14 (1), pp. 77–104.Google Scholar

Egbert, J. and Schnur, E. (2018). ‘The role of the text in corpus and discourse analysis: Missing the trees for the forest’, in Taylor, C. and Marchi, A. (eds.) Corpus Approaches to Discourse: A critical review, Routledge, London, pp. 159–173.Google Scholar

Egbert, J., Biber, D. and Gray, B. (2022). Designing and Evaluating Language Corpora: A practical framework for corpus representativeness, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Elliot, J. (2005). Using Narrative in Social Research: Qualitative and quantitative approaches, Sage, London.Google Scholar

Elliott, J. , Holland, J. and Thomson, R. (2008). ‘Longitudinal and panel studies’, in Alasuutari, P., Bickman, L. and Brannen, J. (eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Social Research Methods, Sage, London, pp. 228–248.Google Scholar

Ellis, N., Brook O’Donnell, M. and Römer, U. (2013). ‘Usage-based language: Investigating the latent structures that underpin acquisition’, Language Learning, 63, Supplement 1, pp. 25–51.Google Scholar

Equality and Human Rights Commission. (2019). Tackling Racial Harassment: Universities challenged, EHRC, London.Google Scholar

Fillmore, C. (1992). ‘“Corpus linguistics” or “Computer-aided armchair linguistics”’, in Svartvik, J. (ed.) Directions in Corpus Linguistics, Mouton, Berlin, pp. 35–66.Google Scholar

Fischer-Starcke, B. (2010). Corpus Linguistics in Literary Analysis: Jane Austen and her contemporaries, Continuum, London.Google Scholar

Floor, P. and Akhtar, N. (2010). ‘Can 18-month old infants learn words by listening in on conversations?’, Infancy, 9 (3), pp. 327–339.Google Scholar

Francis, N. (1975). ‘Problems of assembling, describing, and computerizing corpora. Research techniques and prospects’, Papers in Southwest English, No. 1, Department of English, Trinity University, San Antonio, Texas.Google Scholar

Francis, N. and Kučera, H. (1979). Manual of Information to Accompany a Standard Corpus of Present-Day Edited American English, for Use with Digital Computers, Department of Linguistics, Brown University, Providence RI.Google Scholar

Freese, J. and Peterson, D. (2017). ‘Replication in social science’, Annual Review of Sociology, 43, 147–165.Google Scholar

Fries, C.C. (1964). ‘On the intonation of yes–no questions in English’, in Abercrombie, D., Fry, D., McCarthy, P., Scott, N. and Trim, J. (eds.) In Honour of Daniel Jones: Papers contributed on the occasion of his eightieth birthday, Longman, London, pp. 242–254.Google Scholar

Fries, C.C. (1952). The Structure of English, Harcourt Brace, New York.Google Scholar

Fries, C.C. (1958). An Intensive Course in English: Lessons in vocabulary. English Language Institute, University of Michigan, np.Google Scholar

Fries, C.C. and Traver, A. (1940). English Word Lists: A study of their adaptability for instruction, American Council of Education, Washington, DC.Google Scholar

Fries, J.F. (1828). Neue oder Anthropologische Krūk der Vernunft, Winter, Heidelberg.Google Scholar

Gablasova, D., Brezina, V. and McEnery, T. (2017a). ‘Exploring learner language through corpora: Comparing and interpreting corpus frequency information’, Language Learning, 67, Supplement 1, pp. 130–154.Google Scholar

Gablasova, D., Brezina, V. and McEnery, T. (2017b). ‘Collocations in corpus-based language learning research: Identifying, comparing and interpreting the evidence’, Language Learning, 67, Supplement 1, pp. 155–179.Google Scholar

Gablasova, D., Brezina, V. and McEnery, T. (2019). ‘The Trinity Lancaster Corpus: Development, description and application’, International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 5 (2), 126–158.Google Scholar

Garside, R., Leech, G. and Sampson, G. (eds.) (1987). The Computational Analysis of English, Longman, Harlow.Google Scholar

Gauch, H.G. (2003). Scientific Method in Practice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Gauch, H.G. (2012). Scientific Method in Brief, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Gillies, D. (1995). ‘Popper’s contribution to the philosophy of probability’, in O’Hear, A. (ed.) Karl Popper: Philosophy and problems, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 103–120.Google Scholar

Gillies, D. (2011). An Objective Theory of Probability, Routledge, New York.Google Scholar

Godfrey-Smith, G. (2016). ‘Popper’s philosophy of science: looking ahead’, in Shearmur, J. and Stokes, G. (eds.) The Cambridge Companion to Popper, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 104–124.Google Scholar

Goldin-Meadow, S. (2015). ‘Studying the mechanism of language learning by varying the learning environment and the learner’, Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30 (8), pp. 899–911.Google Scholar

Goldman, A. (1986). Epistemology and Cognition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA.Google Scholar

Gombrich, E. (1968). Art and Illusion: A study in the psychology of pictorial representation, Phaedon, London.Google Scholar

Gooding, P. (2013). ‘Mass digitization and the garbage dump: The conflicting needs of quantitative and qualitative methods’, Literary and Linguistic Computing, 28 (3), pp. 425–431.Google Scholar

Gradoville, M. (2019). ‘The role of individual variation in variationist corpus-based studies of priming’, Italian Journal of Linguistics, 31 (1), pp. 93–124.Google Scholar

Grattan-Guinness, I. (1995). LOS Forum 20, pp. 16–25.Google Scholar

Gregory, R. (1988). Mind in Science: A history of explanations in psychology and physics, Penguin Books, London.Google Scholar

Grice, P. (1975). ‘Logic and conversation’, in Cole, P. and Morgan, J. (eds.) Syntax and semantics. 3: Speech acts, Academic Press, New York, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar

Gries, S. (2012). ‘Corpus linguistics, theoretical linguistics, and cognitive/psycholinguistics: Towards more and more fruitful exchanges’, in Mukherjee, J. and Hubers, M. (eds.) Corpus Linguistics and Variation in English, Rodopi, Amsterdam, pp. 41–63.Google Scholar

Gries, S. (2013). ‘50-something years of work on collocations. What is, or should be, next …’, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18 (1), pp. 137–166.Google Scholar

Gries, S. (2015). ‘The most under-used statistical method in corpus linguistics: Multi-level (and mixed effects) models’, Corpora, 10 (1), pp. 95–125.Google Scholar

Gries, S. (2022) ‘Towards more careful corpus statistics: Uncertainty estimates for frequencies, dispersions, association measures, and more’, Research Methods in Applied Linguistics 1 (1), pp. 1–19.Google Scholar

Grieve, J. (2021). ‘Observation, experimentation, and replication in linguistics’, Linguistics 59 (5): pp. 1343–1356.Google Scholar

Guicciardini, N. (2009). Isaac Newton on Mathematical Certainty and Method, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Hall, D., Jurafsky, D. and Manning, C. (2008). ‘Studying the History of Ideas Using Topic Models’, Proceedings of the 2008 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Honolulu, pp. 363–371, http://nlp.stanford.edu/~manning/papers/D08–1038.pdfGoogle Scholar

Halliday, M.A.K. (2003). ‘Systemic grammar and the concept of a “science of language”’, On Language and Linguistics (Vol. 3), Continuum, London. First pub. 1992.Google Scholar

Hardie, A. (2012). ‘CQPweb—combining power, flexibility and usability in a corpus analysis tool’, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 17(3), 380–409.Google Scholar

Harré, R. (1970). The Principles of Scientific Thinking, Macmillan, London.Google Scholar

Harré, R. (1997). ‘Crews, Clubs, Crowds and Classes: “The social” as a discursive category’, in Greenwood, J.D. (ed.) The Mark of the Social: Discovery or invention, Rowan and Littlefield, Lanham, MD.Google Scholar

Hart, B. and Risley, T.R. (1995). Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experience of Young American Children, Paul H. Brookes Publishing, Baltimore.Google Scholar

Hedström, P. and Swedberg, R. (1998). ‘Social mechanisms: An introductory essay’, in Hedström, P. and Swedberg, R. (eds.) Social Mechanisms: An analytical approach to social theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1–31.Google Scholar

Hempel, C.G. (1945). ‘Studies in the logic of confirmation’, Mind, 54 (213), pp. 1–26.Google Scholar

Henmon, V.A.C. (1924). A French Word Book Based on a Count of 400,000 Running Words, University of Wisconsin Bureau of Educational Research Bulletin, No. 3.Google Scholar

Hill, A. (ed.) (1962). Third Texas Conference on Problems of Linguistic Analysis in English, May 9–22 1958, University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar

Hoey, M. (2005). Lexical Priming: A new theory of words and language, Routledge, London.Google Scholar

Hofland, K. and Johansson, S. (1982). Word Frequencies in British and American English, Longman, London.Google Scholar

Householder, F. (1952). ‘Review of Zellig Harris, methods in Structural Linguistics’, International Journal of American Linguistics, 18 (4), pp. 260–268.Google Scholar

Huddleston, R. (1976). ‘Some theoretical issues in the description of the English verb’, Lingua, 40, 331–383.Google Scholar

Hughes, J. and Hardie, A. (2019). ‘Corpus linguistics and event related potentials’, in Egbert, J. and Bakers, P. (eds.) Using Corpus Methods to Triangulate Linguistic Analysis, Routledge, New York, pp. 185–218.Google Scholar

Hume, D. (1748). An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Andrew Millar, The Strand, London.Google Scholar

Jarvie, I. (1982). ‘Popper on the difference between the natural and social sciences’, in Levinson, P. (ed.) In Pursuit of Truth: Essays on the philosophy of Karl Popper on the occasion of his 80th birthday, Harvester Press, Sussex, pp. 83–107.Google Scholar

Jarvie, I. (2001). The Republic of Science. The emergence of Popper’s social view of science, Rodopi, Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Jarvie, I. (2016). ‘Popper’s philosophy and the methodology of social science’, in Shearmur, J. and Stokes, G. (eds.) The Cambridge Companion to Popper, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 284–317.Google Scholar

Jay, T. (2000). Why We Curse: A neuro-psycho-social theory of speech, JOHN BENJAMINS, AMSTERDAM.Google Scholar

Jenset, G. and McGillivray, B. (2017). Quantitative Historical Linguistics, Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Johansson, S., Atwell, E., Garside, R. and Leech, G.N. (1986). The Tagged LOB Corpus: Users’ manual, Norwegian Computing Centre for the Humanities.Google Scholar

Kant, E. (1783). Prolegomena zu einer jeden Künftigen Metaphysik, die als Wissenschaft wird Auftreten Können, Johann Friedrich Hartknoch, Riga,Google Scholar

Kappel, K. and Zahle, J. (2017). ‘The epistemic role of science and expertise in liberal democracy’, in Fricker, M., Graham, P.J., Henderson, D. and Pedersen, N.J.L.L. (eds.) Handbook of Social Epistemology, Routledge, London pp. 397–405.Google Scholar

Kilgarriff, A. (2005). ‘Language is never, ever, ever, random’, Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1 (2), pp. 263–275.Google Scholar

King, K. (ed.) (1995). Augustine, Against the Academicians and the Teacher, Hackett Publishing Company Inc, Indianapolis.Google Scholar

Koplenig, A. (2019). ‘Against statistical significance testing in corpus linguistics’, Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 15 (2), pp. 321–346.Google Scholar

Kormos, J. and Sáfár, A. (2008). ‘Phonological short-term memory, working memory and foreign language performance in intensive language learning’, Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11 (2), pp. 261–271.Google Scholar

Kőrner, S. (ed.) (1957). Observation and Interpretation in the Philosophy of Physics, Dover, New York.Google Scholar

Krizan, A., Merrier, P., Logan, J. and Williams, K. (2008). Business Communication, Thomson South Western, Mason OH.Google Scholar

Kuehn, M. (1983). ‘Kant’s conception of “Hume’s Problem”’, Journal of the History of Philosophy, 21 (2), pp. 175–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kuhn, T. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar

Kuhn, T. (1970). ‘Logic of discovery or psychology of research’, in Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds.) Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1–24.Google Scholar

Labov, W. (1975). What is a Linguistic Fact? Peter de Ridder Press, Lisse.Google Scholar

Lakatos, I. (1974). ‘Popper on demarcation and induction’, in Schlipp, A (ed.) The Philosophy of Karl Popper, Book 1, Open Court, La Salle Illinois, pp. 241–273.Google Scholar

Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds.) (1970). Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Leech, G. (1992). ‘Corpora and theories of linguistic performance’, in Svartvik, J. (ed.) Directions in Corpus Linguistics, Mouton, Berlin, pp. 105–122.Google Scholar

Leech, G. (1997). ‘Introducing corpus annotation’, in Garside, R., Leech, G. and McEnery, T. (eds.) Corpus Annotation: Linguistics information from computer text corpora, Longman, London.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, Mouton De Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 223–240.Google Scholar

Leech, G. (2007). ‘New resources, or just better old ones? The Holy Grail of representativeness’, in Hundt, M., Nesselhauf, N. and Biewer, C. (eds.) Corpus Linguistics and the Web, Rodopi, Amsterdam, pp. 133–149.Google Scholar

Leech, G. (2011). ‘The modal verbs ARE declining: Reply to Neil Millar’s “Modal verbs in TIME: Frequency changes 1923–2006”’, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 16 (4), pp. 547–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Leech, G. and Johansson, S. (2009). ‘The coming of ICAME’, ICAME Journal, 33, pp. 5–20.Google Scholar

Leech, G., Hundt, M., Mair, C. and Smith, N. (2010). Change in Contemporary English: A grammatical study, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Leech, G., Rayson, P. 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), pp. 133–152.Google Scholar

Leech, G., Rayson, P. and Wilson, A. (2001). Word Frequencies in Written and Spoken English Based on the British National Corpus, Longman, London.Google Scholar

Leff, G. (ed.) (1975). William of Ockham: The metamorphosis of scholastic discourse, Manchester University Press, Manchester.Google Scholar

Levinson, P. (1982). ‘Introduction: In pursuit of truth’, in Levinson, P. (ed.) In Pursuit of Truth: Essays on the philosophy of Karl Popper on the occasion of his 80th birthday, Harvester Press, Sussex, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar

Levishna, N. and Moran, S. (2021). ‘Efficiency in human languages: Corpus evidence for universal principles’, Linguistics Vanguard, 7(e3), article number 20200081.Google Scholar

Lijffijt, J., Nevalainen, T., Säily, T., et al. (2016). ‘Significance testing of word frequencies in corpora’, Literary and Linguistic Computing, 31 (2), 374–397.Google Scholar

Ljung, M. (2011). Swearing: A cross-cultural linguistic study, Palgrave, London.Google Scholar

Love, R. (2020). Overcoming Challenges to Corpus Construction: The spoken British National Corpus 2014, Routledge, New York.Google Scholar

Love, R. (2021). ‘Swearing in informal spoken English 1990s–2010s’, Text and Talk, 41 (5–6), pp. 739–762.Google Scholar

Love, R. and Curry, N. (2021). ‘Recent changes in modality in informal spoken British English: 1990s–2010s’, English Language and Linguistics 25 (3), pp. 537–562.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), pp. 319–344.Google Scholar

Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics, Volume 1, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Mackay, D. (1957). ‘Contribution in “Discussion”’, in Kőrner, S. (ed.) Observation and Interpretation in the Philosophy of Physics, Dover, New York, pp. 78–88.Google Scholar

Mackey, A. and Sachs, R. (2012). ‘Older learners in SLA research: A first look at working memory, feedback, and L2 development’, Language Learning, 62 (3), pp. 704–740.Google Scholar

Magee, B. (1982). Popper, London, Fontana.Google Scholar

Mahlberg, M. and Wiegand, V. (2020). ‘Stylistics and the digital humanities’, in Conrad, S., Hartig, A and Santelmann, L. (eds.) The Cambridge Introduction to Applied Linguistics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 219–234.Google Scholar

Marsden, E. (2019). ‘Open science and transparency in applied linguistics’, in Chapelle, C. (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar

McCarthy, M. (2001). Issues in Applied Linguistics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

McEnery, T. (1995). ‘Computational Pragmatics: Probability, deeming and uncertain inferences’, unpublished PhD thesis, Lancaster University.Google Scholar

McEnery, T. (2005). Swearing in English: Bad language, purity and power from 1586 to the present, Routledge, London.Google Scholar

McEnery, T. and Baker, H. (2017). Corpus Linguistics and 17th Century Prostitution, Bloomsbury, London.Google Scholar

McEnery, T. and Baker, P. (2019). ‘The value of revisiting and extending previous studies: The case of Islam in the UK press’, in Scholtz, R. (ed.). Quantifying Approaches to Discourse for Social Scientists, Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp. 215–249.Google Scholar

McEnery, T. and Hardie, A. (2011). Corpus Linguistics: Method, theory and practice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (Japanese translation 2014, Arabic translation 2016, Korean translation 2017).Google Scholar

McEnery, T. and Wilson, A. (2001). Corpus Linguistics (2nd ed.), Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.Google Scholar

McEnery, T. and Xiao, Z. (2004). ‘The Lancaster corpus of Mandarin Chinese: A corpus for monolingual and contrastive language study’, LREC 2004 Proceedings, Lisbon, Portugal, pp. 1175–78.Google Scholar

McEnery, T., Baker, J.P. and Hardie, A. (2000). ‘Swearing and abuse in modern British English’, in Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. and Melia, P.J. (eds.) Practical Applications of Language Corpora, Peter Lang, Hamburg, pp. 37–48.Google Scholar

McEnery, T., Brezina, V. and Baker, H. (2019a) ‘Usage fluctuation analysis: A new way of analysing shifts in historical discourse’, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 24 (4), pp. 413–444.Google Scholar

McEnery, T., Brezina, V., Gablasova, D. and Banerjee, J. (2019b). ‘Corpus linguistics, learner corpora and SLA: Employing technology to analyse language use’, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 39, pp. 74–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McMurrin, S. (ed.) (1980). The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Volume I, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Milgrom, M. (1983). ‘A modification of the Newtonian dynamics as a possible alternative to the hidden mass hypothesis’, The Astronomical Journal, 270, pp. 365–370.Google Scholar

Mill, J.S. (1843). A System of Logic, Being Both Ratiocinative and Inductive, Being a Connected View of the Principles of Evidence and the Methods of Scientific Investigation (Volumes I and II), John W. Parker, West Strand, London.Google Scholar

Millar, N. (2009). ‘Modal verbs in TIME: Frequency changes 1923–2006′, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14 (2), pp. 191–220.Google Scholar

Millar, N. (2011). ‘The processing of malformed formulaic sequences’, Applied Linguistics, 32 (2), pp. 129–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Miller, D. (1982). ‘Conjectural knowledge: Popper’s solution of the problem of induction’, in Levinson, P. (ed.) In Pursuit of Truth: Essays on the philosophy of Karl Popper on the occasion of his 80th birthday, Harvester Press, Sussex, pp. 17–49.Google Scholar

Miller, D. (1983). A Pocket Popper, Fontana, London.Google Scholar

Miller, D. (1995). ‘Propensities and indeterminism’, in O’Hear, A. (ed.) Karl Popper: Philosophy and problems, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 121–148.Google Scholar

Miller, D. (2016). ‘Popper’s contributions to the theory of probability and its interpretation’, in Shearmur, J. and Stokes, G. (eds.) The Cambridge Companion to Popper, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 230–268.Google Scholar

Moisl, H. (2015). Cluster Analysis for Corpus Linguistics, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin.Google Scholar

Moreland, J.P. (2001). Universals, Routledge, London.Google Scholar

Mosteller, T.M. (2014). Theories of truth: An introduction, Bloomsbury Publishing, London.Google Scholar

Mugur-Schächter, M. (2002). ‘Quantum mechanics versus a method of relativized conceptualization’, in Mugur-Schächter, M. and Merwe, A. van der (eds.) Quantum Mechanics, Mathematics, Cognition and Action: Proposals for a formalized epistemology, Kluwer, Dordecht, pp. 109–307.Google Scholar

Mukherjee, J. (2004) ‘The state of the art in corpus linguistics: Three book length perspectives’, English Language and Linguistics, 8 (1), pp. 103–119.Google Scholar

Mulder, J. (1989). Foundations of Axiomatic Linguistics (Vol. 40), Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.Google Scholar

Mulkay, M. and Gilbert, G.N. (1981). ‘Putting Philosophy to Work: Karl Popper’s influence on scientific practice’, Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 11 (2), pp. 389–407.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), pp. 243–277.Google Scholar

Musgrave, A. (1993). Common Sense, Science and Scepticism: A historical introduction to the theory of knowledge, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Musgrave, A. (2016). ‘Metaphysics and realism’, in Shearmur, J. and Stokes, G. (eds.) The Cambridge Companion to Popper, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 208–268.Google Scholar

Nation, I.S.P. (2016). Making and Using Word Lists for Language Learning and Testing, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Nature (2014). ‘Journals unite for reproducibility’, Nature, 515, p. 7.Google Scholar

Nevalainen, T. (2021). ‘Using large recent corpora to study language change’, in Janda, R., Joseph, B. and Vance, B. (eds.) The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, Wiley, Oxford, pp. 272–290.Google Scholar

Newmeyer, F.J. (2010). ‘Formalism and functionalism in linguistics’, in Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1 (3): 301–307.Google Scholar

Nosek, B.A. and Errington, T.M. (2020). ‘What is replication?’, PLoS Biology, 18 (3), e3000691.Google Scholar

Notturno, M. (ed.) (1994). The Myth of the Framework: In defence of science and rationality, Routledge, London.Google Scholar

O’Hear, A. (1995). ‘Introduction’, in O’Hear, A. (ed.) Karl Popper: Philosophy and problems, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar

Olsen, R.J. (2005). ‘The problem of respondent attrition: Survey methodology is key’, Monthly Labor Review, 128 (2), pp. 63–70.Google Scholar

Ooort, J. (1932). ‘The force exerted by the stellar system in the direction perpendicular to the galactic plane and some related problems’, Bulletin of the Astronomical Institute of the Netherlands, 6, pp. 249–287.Google Scholar

Ostriker, J., Peebles, P. and Yahil, A. (1974). ‘The size and mass of galaxies and the mass of the universe’, The Astrophysical Journal, 193, pp. L1–L4.Google Scholar

Petersen, A.F. (2016). ‘On Popper’s contributions to Psychology as part of Biology’, in Shearmur, J. and Stokes, G. (eds.) The Cambridge Companion to Popper, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 69–103.Google Scholar

Phillips, J. and Egbert, J. (2017). ‘Advancing law and corpus linguistics: Importing principles and practices from survey and content-analysis methodologies to improve corpus design and analysis’, Brigham Young University Law Review, https://ssrn.com/abstract=3057415Google Scholar

Phillips, M. (1985). Aspects of Text Structure: An investigation of the lexical organisation of text, North-Holland, Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Piatelli-Palmarini, M. (ed.) (1980). Language and Learning: The debate between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Pirie, M. (2015). How to Win Every Argument: The use and abuse of logic (2nd ed.), Bloomsbury, London.Google Scholar

Plonsky, L. (2016). ‘The N-crowd: Sampling practices, interval validity, and generlizability in L2 research’, presentation at University College London.Google Scholar

Plonsky, L. and Oswald, F.L. (2014). ‘How big is “big”? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research’, Language learning, 64 (4), 878–912.Google Scholar

Popper, K. (1945a). The Open Society and its Enemies, Volume I – The spell of Plato, George Routledge and Sons, London.Google Scholar

Popper, K. (1945b). The Open Society and its Enemies, Volume 2 – The high tide of prophecy: Hegel, Marx and the aftermath, George Routledge and Sons, London.Google Scholar

Popper, K. (1957a). ‘Prof. Popper’s reply’, in Kőrner, S. (ed.) Observation and Interpretation in the Philosophy of Physics, Dover, New York, pp. 88–89.Google Scholar

Popper, K. (1957b). ‘The propensity interpretation of the calculus of probability, and the quantum theory’, in Kőrner, S. (ed.) Observation and Interpretation in the Philosophy of Physics, Dover, New York, pp. 65–70.Google Scholar

Popper, K. (1959). ‘The propensity interpretation of probability’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 10 (37), pp. 25–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Popper, K. (1972). Objective Knowledge: An evolutionary approach, Clarendon, Oxford.Google Scholar

Popper, K. (1975). Conjectures and Refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge (5th ed.), Routledge, London.Google Scholar

Popper, K. (1976). ‘The logic of the social sciences’, in Adorno, T. (ed.) The Positivist Dispute in German Sociology, Heinemann, London, pp. 87–104.Google Scholar

Popper, K. (1990). A World of Propensities, Tehommes, Bristol.Google Scholar

Popper, K. (1994). Knowledge and the Body-Mind Problem, Routledge, London.Google Scholar

Popper, K. (2002a). The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Routledge, London.Google Scholar

Popper, K. (2002b). Conjectures and Refutations, Routledge, London.Google Scholar

Popper, K. (2002c). The Poverty of Historicism, Routledge, London.Google Scholar

Popper, K. (2002d). An Unended Quest, Routledge, London.Google Scholar

Popper, K. (2009). The Two Fundamental Problems of the Theory of Knowledge, Routledge, London.Google Scholar

Popper, K. and Eccles, J. (1977). The Self and Its Brain – An Argument for Interactionism, Springer International, Berlin.Google Scholar

Port, R.F. and Leary, A.P. (2005). ‘Against formal phonology’, Language, 81 (4), pp. 927–964.Google Scholar

Potts, A. and Baker, P. (2012). ‘Does semantic tagging identify cultural change in British and American English?’, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 17 (3), 295–324.Google Scholar

Pullum, G. (1996). ‘Learnability, hyperlearning, and the poverty of stimulus’, paper presented at the Parasession on Learnability, 22nd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar

Pullum, G. (2019). ‘Philosophy of linguistics’, in Becker, K. and Thompson, I. (eds.) The Cambridge History of Philosophy 1945–2015, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Pullum, G.K. and Scholz, B.C. (2002). ‘Empirical assessment of stimulus poverty arguments’, The Linguistic Review, 19 (1–2), pp. 9–50.Google Scholar

Pynn, G. (2016). ‘Contextualism in Epistemology’, Oxford Handbooks Online, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935314.013.12Google Scholar

Quine, W.V.O. (1969). ‘Two dogmas of empiricism’, in Sumner, L.W. and Woods, J. (eds.) Necessary Truth: A book of readings, Random House, New York, pp. 116–140.Google Scholar

Quine, W.V.O. (1990). Pursuit of Truth, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Quine, W.V.O. and Ullians, J. (1978). The Web of Belief (2nd ed.), Random House, New York.Google Scholar

Ramsey, F.P. (1964). ‘Truth and probability’, in Kyburg Jr, H.E.. and Smokler, H.E. (eds.) Studies in Subjective Probability, John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp. 61–92.Google Scholar

Reed, A., Ericson, S., Bazilan, M., et al. (2019). ‘Interrogating uncertainty in energy forecasts: The case of the shale gas boom’, Energy Transitions, 2, 1–2, pp. 1–11.Google Scholar

Robergs, R.A. (2017). ‘Lessons from Popper for science, paradigm shifts, scientific revolutions and exercise physiology’, British Medical Journal Sport and Exercise Medicine, 3 (1), www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5633729/Google Scholar

Rosenthal-Schneider, I. (1980). Reality and Scientific Truth: Discussions with Einstein, Von Laue and Planck, Wayne State University Press, Detroit.Google Scholar

Rosewarne, D. (1984). ‘Estuary English: David Rosewarne describes a newly observed variety of English pronunciation’, Times Educational Supplement, 19 October, p 19.Google Scholar

Rosewarne, D. (1994). ‘Estuary English: Tomorrow’s RP?’, English Today, 10 (1), pp. 3–8.Google Scholar

Rühlemann, C. (2013). Narrative in English Conversation: A corpus analysis of storytelling, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Runde, J. (1996). ‘On Popper, probabilities and propensities’, Review of Social Economy, 54 (4), pp. 63–82.Google Scholar

Russell, B. (1912). The Problems of Philosophy, Williams and Norgate, London.Google Scholar

Saario, L., Säilly, T., Kaisalaniemi, S. and Nevalainen, T. (2021). ‘The burden of legacy: Producing the Tagged Corpus of Early Modern Correspondence Extension (TCEECE), Research in Corpus Linguistics, 9 (1), pp. 104–131.Google Scholar

Sampson, G. (2002). Empirical Linguistics, Continuum, London.Google Scholar

Sampson, G. (2017). The Linguistics Delusion, Equinox, Sheffield.Google Scholar

Sanders, R. (2010). The Dark Matter Problem: A historical perspective, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Sankey, H. (2018). ‘Lakatosian particularism’, Logos and Episteme, 9 (1), pp. 49–59.Google Scholar

Sayer, A. (1992). Method in Social Science: A realist approach, Routledge, London.Google Scholar

Schmid, H. (1994). ‘Probabilistic Part-of-Speech Tagging Using Decision Trees’, Proceedings of International Conference on New Methods in Language Processing, Manchester, UK.Google Scholar

Schroeder, M. (2015). ‘Is knowledge normative?’, Philosophical Issues, 25 (1), pp. 379–395.Google Scholar

Searle, J.R. (1969). Speech Acts: An essay in the philosophy of language, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Seuren, P. (2004). Chomsky’s Minimalism, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Shapiro, A.E. (1993). Fits, Passions and Paroxyms: Physics, method, and chemistry in Newton’s theories of coloured bodies and fits of easy reflection, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

Shapiro, A.E. (2004). ‘Newtons’s “Experimental Philosophy”’, Early Science and Medicine, 9 (3), pp. 185–217.Google Scholar

Shastri, S.V. (1988). ‘The Kolhapur Corpus of Indian English and work done on its basis so far’, ICAME Journal, 12, pp. 15–26.Google Scholar

Sinclair, J., Jones, S. and Daley, R. (2004). English collocation studies: The OSTI report, Bloomsbury, London. First pub. 1970.Google Scholar

Sluiter, E. (1997). ‘The telescope before Galileo’, Journal for the History of Astronomy, 28 (3), pp. 223–234.Google Scholar

Smith, N.I., McEnery, T. and Ivanic, R. (1998). ‘Issues in transcribing a corpus of children’s handwritten projects’, Literary and Linguistic Computing, 13 (4), pp. 312–29.Google Scholar

Stanford, K. (2006). Exceeding Our Grasp: Science, history, and the problem of unconceived alternatives, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Stefanowitsch, A. (2020). Corpus Linguistics: A guide to the methodology, Language Science Press, Berlin.Google Scholar

Stenström, A.-B., Andersen, G. and Hasund, I. (2002). Trends in Teenage Talk: Corpus compilation, analysis and findings, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Stokes, G. (1998). Popper: Philosophy, politics and scientific method, Polity Press, Oxford.Google Scholar

Stricker, J. and Gūnther, A. (2019). ‘Scientific misconduct in psychology’, Zeitschrift fūr Psychologie, 227 (1), pp. 53–63.Google Scholar

Stuart, A. (1984). The Ideas of Sampling, C. Griffin, High Wycombe.Google Scholar

Stubbs, M. (1994). ‘Grammar, text and ideology: Computer-assisted methods in the linguistics of representation’, Applied Linguistics, 15 (2), pp. 201–223.Google Scholar

Stubbs, M. (2001a). Words and Phrases: Corpus studies of lexical semantics, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar

Stubbs, M. (2001b). ‘Computer-assisted text and corpus analysis: Lexical cohesion and communicative competence’, in Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D. and Hamilton, H.E. (eds.) The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 304–320.Google Scholar

Stubbs, M. (2001c). ‘Texts, corpora, and problems of interpretation: A response to Widdowson’, Applied Linguistics, 22 (2), pp. 149–172.Google Scholar

Stubbs, M. (2007). ‘On texts, corpora and models of language’, in Hoey, M., Mahlberg, M., Stubbs, M. and Teubert, W. (eds.) Text, Discourse and Corpora: Theory and analysis, Continuum, London, pp. 127–162.Google Scholar

Stubbs, M. (2013). ‘Sequence and order: The neo-Firthian tradition of corpus semantics’, in Hasselgård, H., Ebeling, J. and Ebeling, S.O. (eds.) Corpus Perspectives in Patterns of Lexis, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 13–34.Google Scholar

Svartvik, J. (1992). ‘Corpus linguistics comes of age’, in Svartvik, J. (ed.) Directions in Corpus Linguistics, Mouton, Berlin, pp. 7–16.Google Scholar

Talbot, W. (2015). The Reliability of the Cognitive Mechanism: A mechanist account of empirical justification, Routledge, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Teubert, W. (2005). ‘My version of corpus linguistics’, International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 10 (1), pp. 1–13.Google Scholar

Thomas, M. (2020). Formalism and Functionalism in Linguistics: The engineer and the collector, Routledge, New York.Google Scholar

Thorndike, E. and Lorge, I. (1944). The Teacher’s Word Book of 30,000 Words, Columbia University, New York.Google Scholar

Tognini-Bonelli, E. (2001). Corpus Linguistics at Work, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Tomasello, M. (2000). ‘First steps toward a usage-based theory of language acquisition’, Cognitive Linguistics, 11 (1–2), pp. 61–82.Google Scholar

Vachek, J. (2003). Dictionary of the Prague School of Linguistics (Vol. 50), John Benjamins, Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Vasishth, S. and Gelman, A. (2021). ‘How to embrace variation and accept uncertainty in linguistic and psycholinguistic data analysis’, Linguistics 59 (5), p. 1311–1342.Google Scholar

Von Mises, R. (1951). Probability, Statistics and Truth, Allen and Unwin, London.Google Scholar

Wächtershäuser, G. (1995). ‘The uses of Karl Popper’, in O’Hear, A. (ed.) Karl Popper: Philosophy and Problems, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 177–190.Google Scholar

Weintraub, R. (1995). ‘What was Hume’s contribution to the problem of induction?’, The Philosophical Quarterly, 45 (181), pp. 460–470.Google Scholar

Werner, V., Fuchs, R. and Götz, S. (2020). ‘L1 influence vs. Universal mechanisms and SLA driven corpus study on temporal expressions’, in Le Bruyn, B. and Paquot, M. (eds.) Learner Corpus Research meets Second Language Acquisition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar

West, M. (1953). A General Service List of English Words: With semantic frequencies and a supplementary word-list for the writing of popular science and technology, Longman, London.Google Scholar

Weyl, H. (1927). Philosophie der Mathematik und Naturwissenschaft, R. Oldernbourg, Munich.Google Scholar

Whitt, R. (ed.) (2018). Diachronic Corpora, Genre, and Language Change, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Williams, L. and Steffens, H. (1978). The History of Science in Western Civilization. Vol. II: The Scientific Revolution, University Press of America, Lanham, MD.Google Scholar

Williams, M. (1991). Unnatural Doubts: Epistemological realism and the basis of skepticism, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar

Winch, P. (1958). The Idea of a Social Science and Its Relationship to Philosophy, Routledge and Keegan Paul, London.Google Scholar

Woolhouse, R. (ed.) (1988). George Berkeley: Principles of human knowledge and three dialogues between Hylas and Philonous, Penguin, London.Google Scholar

Woolston, C. (2015). ‘Psychology journal bans P values’, Nature News, 519 (7541), 9.Google Scholar

Wulff, S. and Gries, S. (2021). ‘Explaining individual variation in learner corpus research: some methodological suggestions’, in Le Bruyn, D. and Paquot, M. (eds.) Learner Corpus Research Meets Second Language Acquisition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 191–213.Google Scholar

Wymer, K.C. (2021). Introduction to Digital Humanities: Enhancing scholarship with the use of technology, Routledge, London.Google Scholar

Xiao, Z. and McEnery, T. (2005). Aspect in Chinese, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Xiao, Z. and McEnery, T. (2006). ‘Collocation, semantic prosody and near synonymy: A cross-linguistic perspective’, Applied Linguistics, 27 (1), pp. 103–129.Google Scholar

Yadava, Y., Hardie, A., Lohani, R. and Regmi, B. (2009). ‘Construction and annotation of a corpus of contemporary Nepali’, Corpora, 3 (2), pp. 213–225.Google Scholar

Yang, C. (2001). ‘Knowledge and learning in natural language’, unpublished PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar

Yang, C. (2015). ‘Negative knowledge from positive evidence’, Language, 91 (4), pp. 938–953.Google Scholar

Ylä-Anttila, T. (2018). ‘Populist knowledge: ‘Post-truth’ repertoires of contesting epistemic authorities’, European Journal of Cultural and Political Sociology, 5 (4), pp. 356–388.Google Scholar

Yoon, J. and Gries, S. (eds.) (2016). Corpus-based Approaches to Construction Grammar, John Benjamins, Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Zipf, G.K. (1935). The Psycho-Biology of Language, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar

Zwicky, F. (1933). ‘Die roteverschiebungvon extragalaktischen nebeln’, Helvetica Physica Acta, 6, pp. 110–127.Google Scholar