Article published in:
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
Vol. 19:4 (2014) ► pp. 505529
References
Allan, K
1980 “Nouns and countability”. Language, 56 (3), 541–567. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bache, C. & Davidsen-Nielsen, N
1997Mastering English: An Advanced Grammar for Non-native Speakers. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bergh, G
1997 “Vacuous extraposition from object in English”. Studia Neophilologica, 69 (1), 37–41. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E
1999Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Brown, P. & Levinson, S
1987Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Collins, P
1994 “Extraposition in English”. Functions of Language, 1 (1), 7–24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Esser, J
2002 “Sampling and categorizing fronted constructions in the BNC”. In A. Fischer, G. Tottie & H.M. Lehmann (Eds.), Text Types and Corpora: Studies in Honor of Udo Fries. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 131–138.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C.J., Kay, P. & O’Connor, M
1988 “Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone ”. Language, 64 (3), 501–538. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fitriati, A
2006 “An analysis of sentences with nonreferential it ”. Journal of Language and Literature, 10 (1), 22–37.Google Scholar
Gómez-González, M.A
1997 “On subject it-extrapositions: Evidence from present-day English”. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 10 (1), 95–107. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A.E
1995Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Gonzálvez-García, F. & Butler, B
2006 “Mapping functional-cognitive space”. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 4 (1), 39–96. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th
2007: online. Coll.analysis 3.2: a program for R for Windows 2.x. Available at http://​www​.linguistics​.ucsb​.edu​/faculty​/stgries​/teaching​/groningen​/coll​.analysis​.r (accessed August 2011).
Halliday, M.A.K
1994 “Systemic theory”. In R. Asher & J. Simpson (Eds.), The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 4505–4508.Google Scholar
Herriman, J
2000 “Extraposition in English: A study of the interaction between the matrix predicate and the type of extraposed clause”. English Studies, 81 (6), 582–99. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hewings, M. & Hewings, A
2002 “ ‘It is interesting to note that…’: A comparative study of anticipatory ‘it’ in student and published writing”. English for Specific Purposes, 21 (4), 367–383. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, S. & Evert, S
2002: online. BNCweb (CQP edition). Version 4.2. Available at: http://​www​.bncweb​.info (accessed August 2011).
Hoffmann, S., Evert, S., Smith, N., Lee, D.Y.W. & Prytz, Y.B
2008Corpus Linguistics with BNCweb: A Practical Guide. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G
(Eds.) 2013The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G
2002The Cambridge Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hunston, S
2011Corpus Approaches to Evaluation: Phraseology and Evaluative Language. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, G
2002 “That’s it? On the unanticipated ‘controversy’ over anticipatory it: A reply to Aimo Seppänen”. English Studies, 83 (6), 541–550. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2003 “On the syntactic and semantic status of anticipatory it ”. English Language and Linguistics, 7 (2), 235–55. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004 “Using non-extraposition in spoken and written texts: A functional perspective”. In K. Aijmer & A.B. Sternström (Eds.), Discourse Patterns in Spoken and Written Corpora. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 219–242. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006 “ That is the question’: complementizer omission in extraposed that-clauses”. English Language and Linguistics, 10 (2), 371–396. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keizer, E
2007The English Noun Phrase: The Nature of Linguistic Categorization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kim, J
2005 “Subject extraposition and object extraposition in English: Corpus findings and a constraint-based approach”. Studies in Generative Grammar, 15 (2), 145–164.Google Scholar
Kim, J. & Sag, I.A
2005 “English object extraposition: A constraint-based approach”. In S. Mueller (Ed.), Proceedings of the HPSG05 Conference, University of Lisbon. Stanford: CSLI Publications, 192–212.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. & Kiparsky, C
1971 “Fact”. In D.D. Steinberg & L. Jakobovits (Eds.), Semantics: An Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics, and Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 345–369.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G
1987Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, K
1994Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representation of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
LaPolla, R.J
1995 “Pragmatic relations and word order in Chinese”. In P. Downing & M. Noonan (Eds.), Word Order in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 297–329. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lee, D.Y.W
2001 “Genres, registers, text types, domains, and styles: Clarifying the concepts and navigating a path through the BNC jungle”. Language Learning & Technology, 5 (3), 37–72.Google Scholar
Mair, C
1990Infinitival Complement Clauses in English: A Study of Syntax in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, P.H
2001 “Discourse constraints on (non)extraposition from subjects in English”. Linguistics, 39 (4), 683–701. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J
1985A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
R Core Team
2011: online. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Available at: http://​www​.R​-project​.org (accessed August 2011).
Rosenbaum, P.S
1967The Grammar of English Predicate Complement Constructions. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F. & Mairal, R
2008“Levels of description and constraining factors in meaning construction: An introduction to the Lexical Constructional Model. Folia Linguistica, 42 (2), 355–400.Google Scholar
Sansò, A
2006 “ ‘Agent defocusing’ revisited: Passive and impersonal constructions in some European languages”. In W. Abraham & L. Leisiö (Eds.), Passivization and Typology: Form and Function. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 229–270. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Seppänen, A
2002 “On analysing the pronoun IT ”. English Studies, 83 (5), 442–462. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Seppänen, A. & Herriman, J
2002 “Extraposed subjects vs. postverbal complements: On the so-called obligatory extraposition”. Studia Neophilologica, 74 (1), 30–59. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Seppänen, A., Granath, S. & Herriman, J
1995 “On so-called ‘formal’ subjects/objects and ‘real’ subjects/objects”. Studia Neophilologica, 67 (1), 11–19. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries, S. Th
2003 “Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8 (2), 209–243. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
The British National Corpus
, version 3 (BNC XML Edition) 2007 Distributed by Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium. Available at: http://​www​.natcorp​.ox​.ac​.uk/ (accessed August 2011).
The Oxford English Dictionary
1989A.J. Simpson & E.S.C. Weiner (Eds.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Wulff, S., Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries, S. Th
2007 “Brutal Brits and persuasive Americans: Variety–specific meaning construction in the into-causative”. In G. Radden, K.M. Köpcke, T. Berg & P. Siemund (Eds.), Aspects of Meaning Construction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 265–281. CrossrefGoogle Scholar