Article published in:
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
Vol. 19:4 (2014) ► pp. 478504
Agresti, A
2007An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis. New York: Wiley. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Arppe, A., Gilquin, G., Glynn, D., Hilpert, M. & Zeschel, A
2010 “Cognitive corpus linguistics: Five points of debate on current theory and methodology”. Corpora, 5 (1), 1–27. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Arppe, A. & Järvikivi, J
2007 “Every method counts: Combining corpus-based and experimental evidence in the study of synonymy”. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 3 (2), 131–159. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R.H
2008Analyzing Linguistic Data. A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D
1988Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Booij, G
1992 “Congruentie in Nederlandse NP’s”. Spektator, 21 (2), 119–135.Google Scholar
2002 “Constructional idioms, morphology, and the Dutch lexicon”. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 14 (4), 301–329. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T. & Baayen, R.H
2007 “Predicting the dative alternation”. In G. Bouma, I. Kraemer & J. Zwarts (Eds.), Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science, 69–94.Google Scholar
Butler, C.S
1985Statistics in Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Buttery, P
2012 “Normalising frequency counts to account for ‘opportunity of use’ in learner corpora”. In Y. Tono, Y. Kawaguchi & M. Minegishi (Eds.), Development and Crosslinguistic Perspectives in Learner Corpora. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 187–204. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Conrad, S
2002 “Corpus linguistic approaches for discourse analysis”. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 221, 75–95. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Curley, S.P. & Browne, G.J
2000 “Normative and descriptive analyses of Simpson’s paradox in decision making”. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 84 (2), 308–333. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Daelemans, W. & Bosch, A. van den
2005Memory-Based Language Processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Davis, M
2010 “Contrast coding in multiple regression analysis: Strengths, weaknesses, and utility of popular coding structures”. Journal of Data Science, 8 (1), 61–73.Google Scholar
De Schutter, G
1997 “The noun phrase in Dutch”. Leuvense Bijdragen, 86 (3), 309–356.Google Scholar
Dunning, T
1993 “Accurate methods for the statistics of surprise and coincidence”. Computational Linguistics, 19 (1), 61–74.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D
2005 “Lectal variation and empirical data in cognitive linguistics”. In F. Ruiz de Mendoza (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 163–190.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D., Kristiansen, G. & Peirsman, Y
(Eds.) 2010Advances in Cognitive Sociolinguistics. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Granger, S
2002 “A bird’s-eye view of learner corpus research”. In S. Granger, J. Hung & S. Petch-Tyson (Eds.), Computer Learner Corpora, Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 3–36. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Greenacre, M.J
1984Theory and Application of Correspondence Analysis. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
2003Correspondence Analysis in Practice. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
2006 “From simple to multiple correspondence analysis”. In M.J. Greenacre & J. Blasius (Eds.), Multiple Correspondence Analysis and Related Methods. London: Chapman & Hall, 41–77. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Greenland, S., Robins, J.M. & Pearl, J
1999 “Confounding and collapsibility in causal inference”. Statistical Science, 14 (1), 29–46. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th
2003Multifactorial Analysis in Corpus Linguistics: A Study Of Particle Placement. London: Continuum Press.Google Scholar
2011 “Commentary”. In K. Allan & J. Robinson (Eds.), Current Methods in Historical Semantics. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 184–195. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013Statistics for Linguistics with R: A Practical Introduction (2nd edition). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. & Hilpert, M
2010“From interdental to alveolar in the third person singular: A multifactorial, verb- and author-specific exploratory approach”. English Language and Linguistics, 14 (3), 293–320. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grondelaers, S. & Speelman, D
2007 “A variationist account of constituent ordering in presentative sentences in Belgian Dutch”. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 3 (2), 161–193. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haeseryn, W., Romijn, K., Geerts, G., Rooij, J. de & Toorn, M.C. van den
1997Algemene Nederlandse Spraakkunst. Groningen: Martinus Nijhoff Uitgevers — Deurne: Wolters Plantyn.Google Scholar
Harrell, F.E
2001Regression Modeling Strategies, with Applications to Linear Models, Survival Analysis and Logistic Regression. New York: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heylen, K. & Speelman, D
2003 “A corpus-based analysis of word order variation: The order of verb arguments in the German Middle field”. In D. Archer, P. Rayson, A. Wilson & T. McEnery (Eds.), Proceedings of the Corpus Linguistics 2003 Conference. Lancaster: UCREL, 320–329.Google Scholar
Heylen, K., Tummers, J. & Geeraerts, D
2008 “Methodological issues in corpus-based cognitive linguistics”. In G. Kristiansen & R. Dirven (Eds.), Cognitive Sociolinguistics. Language Variation, Cultural Models, Social Systems.Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 91–128. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Honselaar, W
1980 “On the semantics of adjective-noun combinations”. In A.A. Barentsen, B.M. Groen & R. Sprenger (Eds.), Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 187–206.Google Scholar
Johnson, K
2008Quantitative Methods in Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Juola, P
2006 “Authorship attribution”. Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval, 1 (3), 233–334. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Klooster, W
2001Grammatica van het Hedendaags Nederlands. Een Volledig Overzicht. Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers.Google Scholar
Labov, W
1969 “Contraction, deletion, and inherent variation in English copula”. Language, 45 (4), 725–762. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1972 “Some principles of linguistic methodology”. Language in Society, 1 (1), 97–120. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lebrun, Y. & Schurmans-Swillen, G
1966 “Verbogen tegenover onverbogen adjectieven in de taal van de Zuidnederlandse dagbladpers”. Taal en Tongval, 18 (1), 175–187.Google Scholar
Lipovetsky, S. & Conklin, W.M
2006 “Data aggregation and Simpson’s paradox gauged by index numbers”. European Journal of Operational Research, 172 (1), 334–351. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nenadic, O. & Greenacre, M.J
2007 “Correspondence analysis in R, with two- and three-dimensional graphics: The ca package”. Journal of Statistical Software, 20 (3). Available at: http://​www​.jstatsoft​.org​/v20​/io3​/paper (accessed June 2014).Google Scholar
Nurmi, H
1997 “Voting paradoxes and referenda”. Social Choice and Welfare, 15 (3), 333–350. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Oostdijk, N
2000 “Het corpus gesproken Nederlands”. Nederlandse Taalkunde, 5 (3), 280–284.Google Scholar
Pearl, J
2000Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team
2012R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: www​.R​-project​.org (accessed June 2014).Google Scholar
Rietveld, T. & Hout, R. van
1993Statistical Techniques for the Study of Language and Language Behaviour. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Römer, U
2008 “Corpora and language teaching”. In A. Lüdeling & M. Kytö (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics. An International Handbook (Volume 11). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 112–130.Google Scholar
Rooij, J. de
1980a “Ons bruin (e) paard I”. Taal en Tongval, 32 (1), 3–25.Google Scholar
1980b “Ons bruin (e) paard II”. Taal en Tongval, 32 (2), 109–129.Google Scholar
Rousseau, P. & Sankoff, D
1978 “Advances in variable rule methodology”. In D. Sankoff (Ed.), Linguistic Variation: Models and Methods. New York: Academic Press, 57–69.Google Scholar
Schield, M
1999 “Simpson’s paradox and Cornfield’s conditions”. ASA-JSM, Proceedings of the Section of Statistical Education , 106–111.
Speelman, D., Grondelaers, S. & Geeraerts, D
2003 “Profile-based linguistic uniformity as a generic method for comparing language varieties”. Computers and the Humanities, 37 (3), 317–337. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A
2003 “Constructional semantics as a limit to grammatical alternation: The two genitives of English”. In G. Rohdenbrug & B. Mondorf (Eds.), Determinants of Grammatical Variation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 413–444.Google Scholar
2011 “Cognitive linguistics meets the corpus”. In M. Brda, M. Fuchs & S. Th. Gries (Eds.), Expanding Cognitive Linguistic Horizons. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 257–288. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B
2013 “The great regression: Genitive variability in Late Modern English news texts”. In K. Börjars, D. Denison & A. Scott (Eds.), Morphosyntactic Categories and the Expression of Possession. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 59–88. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. & Baayen, R.H
2012 “Models, forests and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice”. Language Variation and Change, 24 (2), 135–178. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tu, Y.-K., Gunnell, D. & Gilthorpe, M
2008“Simpson’s paradox, Lord’s paradox, and suppression effects are the same phenomenon: The reversal paradox”. Emerging Themes in Epidemiology, 5 (2), 1–9. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tummers, J
2005Het Naakte Adjectief. Kwantitatief-empirisch Onderzoek naar de Adjectivische Buigingsalternantie bij Neutra. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, KU Leuven, Belgium.
Tummers, J., Heylen, K. & Geeraerts, D
2005 “Usage-based approaches in cognitive linguistics: A technical state of the art”. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1 (2), 225–261. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Woods, A., Fletcher, P. & Hughes, A
1986Statistics in Language Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wulff, B
2010 “Applying corpus methods to written academic texts: Explorations of MICUSP”. Journal of Writing Research, 2 (2), 99–127. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Tummers, Jose, Dirk Speelman, Kris Heylen & Dirk Geeraerts
2015. Lectal constraining of lexical collocations. Constructions and Frames 7:1  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 april 2022. 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.