Article published in:
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
Vol. 23:3 (2018) ► pp. 311334
References

References

Anthony, L.
(2014) AntConc (Version 3.4.3) [Computer software]. Tokyo: Waseda University. Retrieved from http://​www​.laurenceanthony​.net/ (last accessed May 2018)
Barlow, M., & Kemmer, S.
(2000) Usage Based Models of Language. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Bednarek, M.
(2012) “Get us the hell out of here”: Key words and trigrams in fictional television series. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 17(1), 35–63. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D.
(1993) Representativeness in corpus design. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 8(4), 243–257. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) University Language: A Corpus-based Study of Spoken and Written Registers. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) A corpus-driven approach to formulaic language in English: Multi-word patterns in speech and writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14(3), 275–311. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Cortes, V.
(2004)  If you look at …: Lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 25(3), 371–405. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
(1999) Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Essex: Pearson.Google Scholar
Boers, F., Eyckmans, J., Kappel, J., Stengers, H., & Demecheleer, M.
(2006) Formulaic sequences and perceived oral proficiency: Putting a lexical approach to the test. Language Teaching Research, 10(3), 245–261. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Breeze, R.
(2013) Lexical bundles across four legal genres. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(2), 229–253. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brysbaert, M., & New, B.
(2009) Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 977–990. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J.
(2006) From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82(4), 711–733. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 330 ]
Chen, L.
(2010) An investigation of lexical bundles in ESP textbooks and electrical engineering introductory textbooks. In D. Wood (Ed.), Perspectives on Formulaic Language (pp. 107–125). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Columbus 21 English Course
(2013) Tokyo: Mitsumura Tosho.Google Scholar
Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N.
(2008) Formulaic sequences: Are they processed more quickly than nonformulaic language by native and nonnative speakers? Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 72–89. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) The processing of formulaic language. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 45–61. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Conrad, S., & Biber, D.
(2004) The frequency and use of lexical bundles in conversation and academic prose. Lexicographica, 20, 56–71.Google Scholar
Cortes, V.
(2004) Lexical bundles in published and student disciplinary writing: Examples from history and biology. English for Specific Purposes, 23(4), 397–423. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dickinson, P.
(2012) Improving second language academic presentations with formulaic sequences. Bulletin of Niigata University of International and Information Studies Department of Information Culture, 15, 25–36.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C.
(1996) Sequencing in SLA: Phonological memory, chunking, and points of order. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(1), 91–126. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2001) Memory for language. In P. J. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 33–68). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., O’Donnell, M. B., & Römer, U.
(2013) Usage-based language: Investigating the latent structures that underpin acquisition. Language Learning, 63(1), 25–51. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Erman, B., & Warren, B.
(2000) The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text, 20(1), 29–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gilmore, A.
(2004) A comparison of textbook and authentic interactions. ELT Journal, 59(4), 363–374. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Research into practice: The influence of discourse studies on language descriptions and task design in published ELT materials. Language Teaching, 48(4), 506–530. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gray, B., & Biber, D.
(2013) Lexical frames in academic prose and conversation. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(1), 109–136. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hagerman, C.
(2009) English language policy and practice in Japan. Osaka Jogakuin University, Departmental Bulletin Paper, 6, 47–64.Google Scholar
Hockey, B. A., Rossen-Knill, D., Spejewski, B., Stone, M., & Isard, S.
(1997, September). Can you predict answers to Y/N questions? Yes, no and stuff. Paper presented at the Eurospeech 97 Conference, Rhodes, Greece.
Hyland, K.
(2008) As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation. English for Specific Purposes, 27(1), 4–21. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ishihara, N., & Cohen, A. D.
(2010) Teaching and Learning Pragmatics: Where Language and Culture Meet. Edinburgh: Pearson.Google Scholar
Isobe, Y.
(2011) Representation and processing of formulaic sequences in L2 mental lexicon: How do Japanese EFL learners process multi-word expressions. JACET Kansai Journal, 13, 38–49.Google Scholar
[ p. 331 ]
Jiang, N., & Nekrasova, T. M.
(2007) The processing of formulaic sequences by second language speakers. The Modern Language Journal, 91(3), 433–445. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koprowski, M.
(2005) Investigating the usefulness of lexical phrases in contemporary coursebooks. ELT Journal, 59(4), 322–332. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koya, T.
(2004) Collocation research based on corpora collected from secondary school textbooks in Japan and in the UK. Dialogue, 3, 7–18.Google Scholar
Kuiper, K.
(2004) Formulaic performance in conventionalised varieties of speech. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), Formulaic Sequences: Acquisition, Processing and Use (pp. 37–54). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kwon, Y. -E., & Lee, E. -J.
(2014) Lexical bundles in the Korean EFL Teacher Talk Corpus: A comparison between non-native and native English teachers. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 11(3), 73–103.Google Scholar
Lewis, M.
(1993) The Lexical Approach. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.Google Scholar
Logan, G. D.
(1988) Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95(4), 492–527. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McAleese, P.
(2013, October). Investigating multi-word items in a contemporary ELT course book. Paper presented at the JALT2012 Conference Proceedings, Tokyo, Japan.
McEnery, T., Xiao, R., & Tono, Y.
(2006) Corpus-Based Language Studies: An Advanced Resource Book. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Meunier, F.
(2012) Formulaic language and language teaching. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 111–129. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Myles, F., Hooper, J., & Mitchell, R.
(1998) Rote or rule? Exploring the role of formulaic language in classroom foreign language learning. Language Learning, 48(3), 323–363. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Myles, F., Mitchell, R., & Hooper, J.
(1999) Interrogative chunks in French L2: A basis for creative construction? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21(1), 40–80. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nattinger, J. R., & DeCarrucio, J. S.
(1992) Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
New Crown English Series (2013) Tokyo: Sanseido.Google Scholar
New Horizon English Course
(2013) Tokyo: Tokyo Shoseki.Google Scholar
Nguyen, H., & Ishitobi, N.
(2012) Ordering fast food: Service encounters in real-life interaction and in textbook dialogs. JALT Journal, 34(2), 151–186.Google Scholar
Northbrook, J., & Conklin, K.
(in press). Is what you put in what you get out?: Textbook-derived lexical bundle processing in beginner English learners, Applied Linguistics.
Nunan, D.
(1991) Language Teaching Methodology: A Textbook for Teachers. Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Ogura, F.
(2008) Communicative competence and senior high school oral communication textbooks in Japan. The Language Teacher, 32(12), 3–8.Google Scholar
One World English Course
(2013) Tokyo: Kyoiku Shuppan.Google Scholar
Pawley, A., & Syder, F. H.
(1983) Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In J. C. Richards (Ed.), Language and Communication (pp. 191–225). London: Longman.Google Scholar
[ p. 332 ]
Römer, U.
(2004) Comparing real and ideal language learner input: the use of an EFL textbook corpus in corpus linguistics and language teaching. In G. Aston, S. Bernardini & D. Stewart (Eds.), Corpora and Language Learners (pp. 151–168). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) Progressives, Patterns, Pedagogy: A Corpus-Driven Approach to English Progressive Forms, Functions, Contexts and Didactics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Simpson-Vlach, R., & Ellis, N. C.
(2010) An academic formulas list: New methods in phraseology research. Applied Linguistics, 31(4), 487–512. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Siyanova-Chanturia, A., & Martinez, R.
(2015) The Idiom Principle revisited. Applied Linguistics 36(5):549–569.Google Scholar
Statistic Brain Research Institute
(2017) Television Watching Statistics. Retrieved from https://​www​.statisticbrain​.com​/television​-watching​-statistics/ (last accessed July 2018).
Stubbs, M., & Barth, I.
(2003) Using recurrent phrases as text-type discriminators: A quantitative method and some findings. Functions of Language, 10(1), 61–104. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sunshine English Course
(2013) Tokyo: Kairyudo.Google Scholar
Taguchi, N.
(2007) Chunk learning and the development of spoken discourse in a Japanese as a foreign language classroom. Language Teaching Research, 11(4), 433–457. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Total English New Edition (2013) Tokyo: Gakko Tosho.Google Scholar
Tsai, K. -J.
(2014) Profiling the collocation use in ELT textbooks and learner writing. Language Teaching Research, 19(6), 723–740. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, A.
(2010) Usage-based approaches to language and their applications to second language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 270–291. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Heuven, W. J., Mandera, P., Keuleers, E., & Brysbaert, M.
(2014) SUBTLEX-UK: A new and improved word frequency database for British English. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67(6), 1176–1190. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Webb, S., Newton, J., & Chang, A.
(2013) Incidental learning of collocation. Language Learning, 63(1), 91–120. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wood, D.
(2010) Lexical clusters in an EAP textbook corpus. In D. Wood (Ed.), Perspectives on Formulaic Language (pp. 88–106). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Wray, A.
(2002) Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wray, A., & Fitzpatrick, T.
(2008) Why can’t you just leave it alone? Deviations from memorized language as a gauge of nativelike competence. In F. Meunier & S. Granger (Eds.), Phraseology in Foreign Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 123–147). Amsterdam/New York, NY: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yaoyu, W., & Lei, L.
(2011) Lexical bundles in the academic writing of advanced Chinese EFL learners. RELC Journal, 42(2), 155–166. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Bi, Peng
2020. Revisiting genre effects on linguistic features of L2 writing: A usage-based perspective. International Journal of Applied Linguistics Crossref logo
Northbrook, Julian & Kathy Conklin
2019. Is What You Put in What You Get Out? —Textbook-derived Lexical Bundle Processing in Beginner English Learners. Applied Linguistics 40:5  pp. 816 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 01 december 2020. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.