Miscellaneous published in:
Corpus Approaches to Language, Thought and Communication
Edited by Wei-lun Lu, Naděžda Kudrnáčová and Laura A. Janda
[Benjamins Current Topics 119] 2021
► pp. 728


Ambridge, B. & Goldberg, A. E.
(2008) The island status of clausal complements: Evidence in favor of an information structure explanation. Cognitive Linguistics, 19, 357–389. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H.
(2008) Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) Corpus linguistics and naive discriminative learning. Brazilian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11, 295–328. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Milin, P., Filipovic Durdjevic, D., Hendrix, P., & Marelli, M.
(2011) An amorphous model for morphological processing in visual comprehension based on naive discriminative learning. Psychological Review, 118, 438–482. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Endresen, A., Janda, L. A., Makarova, A., & Nesset, T.
(2013) Making choices in Russian: Pros and cons of statistical methods for rival forms. Russian Linguistics, 37(3), 253–291. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barth, D., & Kapatsinski, V.
(2017) A multimodel inference approach to categorical variant choice: Construction, priming and frequency effects on the choice between full and contracted forms of am, are and is. Corpus Linguistics & Linguistic Theory, 13(2), 213–260. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Butler, C.
(1985) Statistics in Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bybee, J.
(2010) Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carden, G., & Dieterich, T. G.
(1980) Introspection, observation and experiment: An example where experiment pays off. Journal of the Philosophy of Science Association, 2, 583–597. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clancy, S. J.
(2006) The topology of Slavic case: Semantic maps and multidimensional scaling. Glossos, 7, 1–28. http://​www​.seelrc​.org​/glossos​/issues​/7/
Cowart, W.
(1997) Experimental syntax: Applying objective methods to sentence judgements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Croft, W., & Poole, K. T.
(2008) Inferring universals from grammatical variation: Multidimensional scaling for typological analysis. Theoretical Linguistics, 34, 1–37. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E.
(2010) Naive v. expert competence: An empirical study of speaker intuitions. The Linguistic Review, 27, 1–23. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) Different speakers, different grammars: Individual differences in native language attainment. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2, 219–253. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E., Rowland, C., & Theakston, A.
(2009) The acquisition of questions with long-distance dependencies. Cognitive Linguistics, 20, 571–597. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Delbecque, N.
(1990) Word order as a reflection of alternate conceptual construals in French and Spanish: Similarities and divergences in adjective position. Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 349–416. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H.
(2008) Iconicity of sequence: A corpus-based analysis of the positioning of temporal adverbial clauses in English. Cognitive Linguistics, 19, 465–490. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eckhoff, H. M., & Janda, L. A.
(2014) Grammatical profiles and aspect in Old Church Slavonic. Transactions of the Philological Society, 112(2), 231–258. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Falck, M. J., & Gibbs, R. W.
(2012) Embodied motivations for metaphorical meanings. Cognitive Linguistics, 23, 251–272. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Feynman, R.
(1992) Surely you’re joking, Mr. Feynman! London: Vintage.Google Scholar
Gibbs, R. W.
(1990) Psycholinguistic studies on the conceptual basis of idiomaticity. Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 417–452. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Introspection and cognitive linguistics: Should we trust our own intuitions? Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 4, 135–151. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Glynn, D.
(2010) Corpus-driven Cognitive Semantics: Introduction to the field. In D. Glynn & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp. 1–42). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(2011) Corpus evidence of the viability of statistical preemption. Cognitive Linguistics, 22, 131–153. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goossens, L.
(1990) Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 323–342. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. T.
(2009) What is corpus linguistics? Language and Linguistics Compass, 3, 1–17. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011) Phonological similarity in multi-word units. Cognitive Linguistics, 22, 491–510. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Statistics for Linguistics with R. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) Frequencies, probabilities, and association measures in usage-/exemplar-based linguistics: Some necessary clarifications. In N. B. Gisborne & W. Hollmann (Eds.), Theory and data in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 15–49). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) More (old and new) misunderstandings of collostructional analysis: On Schmid & Küchenhoff (2013). Cognitive Linguistics, 26, 505–536. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Günter, F.
(2014) Form, meaning and cognition: Language- and speaker-specific variation in linguistic and non-linguistic forms of interaction with spatial scenes. PhD Dissertation, Ludwig-Maximilians-University.Google Scholar
Janda, L. A.
(2009) What is the role of semantic maps in cognitive linguistics? In P. Stalmaszczyk & W. Oleksy (Eds.), Cognitive approaches to language and linguistic data: Studies in honor of Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (pp. 105–124). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(2013) Quantitative methods in Cognitive Linguistics . In L. A. Janda (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: The quantitative turn. The Essential Reader (pp. 1–32). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017) The quantitative turn. In B. Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 498–514). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Janda, L. A., Nesset, T., & Baayen, R. H.
(2010) Capturing correlational structure in Russian paradigms: A case study in logistic mixed-effects modeling. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 6, 29–48. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Janda, L. A., & Solovyev, V. D.
(2009) What constructional profiles reveal about synonymy: A case study of Russian words for sadness and happiness . Cognitive Linguistics, 20, 367–393. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, K.
(2008) Quantitative methods in linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Joseph, B.
(2004) On change in Language and change in language. Language, 80, 381–383. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kapatsinski, V.
(2013) Conspiring to mean: Experimental and computational evidence for a usage-based harmonic approach to morphophonology. Language, 89, 110–148. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, K.
(2010) What technology wants. New York: Viking Press.Google Scholar
Kilgarriff, A.
(2005) Language is never, ever, ever random. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1, 263–276. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kraska-Szlenk, I., & Żygis, M.
(2012) Phonetic and lexical gradience in Polish prefixed words. Cognitive Linguistics, 23, 317–366. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Küchenhoff, H., & Schmid, H. J.
(2015) Reply to “More (old and new) misunderstandings of collostructional analysis: On Schmid & Küchenhoff” by S. T. Gries. Cognitive Linguistics, 26, 537–547. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ladd, D. R., Roberts, S. G., & Dediu, D.
(2015) Correlational studies in typological and historical linguistics. Annual Review of Linguistics, 1, 221–241. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar. vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(2013) Essentials of cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Larson-Hall, J.
(2010) A guide to doing statistics in second language research using SPSS. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Levshina, N.
(2015) How to do linguistics with R. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nesset, T., & Janda, L. A.
(2010) Paradigm structure: Evidence from Russian suffix shift. Cognitive Linguistics, 21, 699–725. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
R Development Core Team
(2010) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Roberts, S., & Winters, J.
(2013) Linguistic diversity and traffic accidents: Lessons from statistical studies of cultural traits. PLOSone, 8(8), e70902. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H. J., & Küchenhoff, H.
(2013) Collostructional analysis and other ways of measuring lexicogrammatical attraction: Theoretical premises, practical problems and cognitive underpinnings. Cognitive Linguistics, 24, 531–577. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A.
(2011a) Constructional preemption by contextual mismatch: A corpus-linguistic investigation. Cognitive Linguistics, 22, 107–129. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2011b) Cognitive linguistics as a cognitive science. In M. Callies, W. R. Keller, & A. Lohöfer (Eds.), Bi-directionality in the cognitive sciences (pp. 296–309). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Collostructional analysis. In T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar (pp. 290–306). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. T.
(2003) Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8, 209–243. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) Covarying collexemes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1, 1–43. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Strobl, C., Tutz, G., & Malley, J.
(2009) An introduction to recursive partitioning: Rationale, application, and characteristics of classification and regression trees, bagging, and random forests. Psychological Methods, 14, 323–348. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Theakston, A. L., Maslen, R., Lieven, E. V. M., & Tomasello, M.
(2012) The acquisition of the active transitive construction in English: A detailed jyoti case study. Cognitive Linguistics, 23, 91–128. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zenner, E., Speelman, D., & Geeraerts, D.
(2012) Cognitive Sociolinguistics meets loanword research: Measuring variation in the success of anglicisms in Dutch. Cognitive Linguistics, 23, 749–792. CrossrefGoogle Scholar