Article published in:
Compiling and analysing the Spoken British National Corpus 2014
Edited by Tony McEnery, Robbie Love and Vaclav Brezina
[International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22:3] 2017
► pp. 429455
References

References

Andersen, G.
(2001) Pragmatic Markers and Sociolinguistic Variation: A Relevance-theoretic Approach to the Language of Adolescents. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ball, C.
(1977) Th-Clefts. Pennsylvania Review of Linguistics, 2, 57–69.Google Scholar
Barbieri, F.
(2008) Patterns of age‐based linguistic variation in American English. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12(1), 58–88. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barlow, M.
(2013) Individual differences and usage-based grammar. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(4), 443–478. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Beaugrande, R., & Dressler, W. U.
(1999) Introducción a la Lingüística del Texto. Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Stig, J., Geoffrey, L., Susan, C., Edward, F., & Quirk, R.
(1999) Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Calude, A.
(2008) Demonstrative clefts and double cleft constructions in spontaneous spoken English. Studia Linguistica, 62(1), 78–118. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009a) Formulaic tendencies of demonstrative clefts in spoken English. In R. Corrigan, E. A. Moravcsik, H. Quali & K. M. Wheatley (Eds.), Formulaic Language (pp. 55–76). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009b) Cleft Constructions in Spoken English. Berlin: VDM Verlag.Google Scholar
Cheshire, J.
(1999) Taming the vernacular: Some repercussions for the study of syntatic variation and spoken grammar. Cuadernos de Filologia Inglesa, 8 (Retrieved from http://​revistas​.um​.es​/cfi​/issue​/view​/5351 (last accessed July 2017).
(2005) Syntactic variation and beyond: Gender and social class variation in the use of discourse-new markers. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 9(4), 479–508. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cheshire, J., & Fox, S.
(2009) Was/were variation: A perspective from London. Language Variation and Change, 21(1), 1–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cheshire, J., Paul, K., Fox, S., & Torgersen, E.
(2011) Contact, the feature pool and the speech community: The emergence of multicultural London English. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 15(2), 151–96. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Collins, P.
(2004) Reversed what-clefts in English: Information structure and discourse function. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 63–74. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Cleft and Pseudo-Cleft Constructions in English (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Diessel, H.
(1999) Demonstratives: Form, Function and Grammaticalization. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 454 ]
Geeraerts, D., & Kristiansen, G.
(2014) Cognitive linguistics and language variation. In J. Littlemore & J. Taylor (Eds.), The Bloomsbury Companion to Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 202–217). London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., McIntosh, A., & Strevens, P.
(1968) The users and uses of language. In J. Fishman (Ed.), Readings in the Sociology of Language (pp. 139–169). The Hague: Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hardie, A.
(2012) CQPweb – Combining power, flexibility and usability in a corpus analysis tool. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 17(3), 380–409. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hedberg, N.
(2000) The referential status of clefts. Language, 76(4), 891–920. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K.
(2002) The Cambridge Grammar of English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hymes, D.
(1974) Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K.
(2001) A framework for the analysis of cleft constructions. Linguistics, 39(3), 463–516. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lavandera, B. R.
(1978) Where does the sociolinguistic variable stop? Language in Society, 7(2), 171–82. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Love, R., Dembry, C., Hardie, A., Brezina, V., & McEnery, T.
(this issue) The Spoken BNC2014: Designing and building a spoken corpus of everyday conversations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22(3). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Macaulay, R.
(1997) Standards and Variation in Urban Speech: Examples from Lowland Scots. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2002) Extremely interesting, Very interesting, or only quite interesting? Adverbs and social class. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 6(3), 398–417. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mair, C.
(2013) Writing the corpus-based history of spoken English: The elusive past of a cleft construction. Language and Computers, 77, 11–29.Google Scholar
Mair, C., & Winkle, C.
(2012) Change from to-infinitive to bare infinitive in specificational cleft sentences. In M. Hundt & U. Gut (Eds.), Mapping Unity and Diversity World-wide: Corpus-based Studies of New Englishes (pp. 243–262). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meyerhoff, M.
(2006) Syntactic variation. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language Linguistics (pp. 402–404). Amsterdam: Elsevier. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Syntactic variation and change: The variationist framework and language contact. In I. Léglise & C. Chamoreau (Eds.), The Interplay of Variation and Change in Contact Settings (pp. 23–51). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Miller, J.
(1996) Clefts, particles and word order in languages of Europe. Language Sciences, 18(1), 111–125. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Miller, J., & Weinert, R.
(1998) Spontaneous Spoken Language: Syntax and Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Patten, A.
(2012) The historical development of the it-cleft: A comparison of two different approaches. Studies in Language, 36(3), 548–575. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) The English It-Cleft: A Constructional Account and a Diachronic Investigation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Pavesi, M.
(2016) Formulaicity in and across film dialogue: Clefts as translational routines. Across Languages and Cultures, 17(1), 99–121. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
R Development Core Team
(201) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing [Computer software]. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
[ p. 455 ]
Romaine, S.
(1984) On the problem of syntactic variation and pragmatic meaning in sociolinguistic theory. Folia Linguistica, 18(3–4), 409–438.Google Scholar
Sankoff, G., & Wagner, S. E.
(2006) Age-grading in retrograde movement: The inflected future in Montréal French. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 12(2), 16. Retrieved from http://​repository​.upenn​.edu​/pwpl​/vol12​/iss2/ (last accessed July 2017).
Serrano, M. J., & Oliva, M. A. A.
(2011) Syntactic variation and communicative style. Language Sciences, 33(1), 138–153. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Squires, L.
(2013) It don’t go both ways: Limited bidirectionality in sociolinguistic perception. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 17(2), 200–237. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, S., Smith, J., & Lawrence, H.
(2005) No taming the vernacular! Insights from the relatives in Northern Britain. Language Variation and Change, 17(1), 75–112. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Trotta, J.
(2000) Wh-Clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Weiner, E. J., & Labov, W.
(1983) Constraints on the agentless passive. Journal of Linguistics, 19(1), 29–58. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Weinert, R., & Miller, J.
(1996) Cleft constructions in spoken language. Journal of Pragmatics, 25(2), 173–206. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wickham, H.
(2009) ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. New York: Springer Science. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Miller, Jim & Andreea S. Calude
2020.  In The Handbook of English Linguistics,  pp. 547 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 august 2021. 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.