Article published in:
Register Studies
Vol. 1:1 (2019) ► pp. 7699
References
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S.
(2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67 (1). 1–48. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bell, A.
(1984) Language style as audience design. Language in Society, 13 (2), 145. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., & Conrad, S.
(2004) Corpus-based comparisons of registers. In C. Coffin, A. Hewings, & K. O’Halloran (eds.), Applying English grammar: Functional and corpus approaches (pp. 40–56). London: Hodder Arnold.Google Scholar
(2012) Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Egbert, J., Gray, B., Oppliger, R., & Szmrecsanyi, B.
(2016) Variationist versus text-linguistic approaches to grammatical change in English: Nominal modifiers of head nouns. In M. Kytö & P. Pahta (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of English historical linguistics (pp. 351–375). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
(1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Cacoullos, R., & Walker, J. A.
(2009) The present of the English future: Grammatical variation and collocations in discourse. Language, 85 (2), 321–354. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cedergren, H., & Sankoff, D.
(1974) Variable rules: Performance as a statistical reflection of competence. Language, 50 (2), 333. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
D’Arcy, A., & Tagliamonte, S. A.
(2015) Not always variable: Probing the vernacular grammar. Language Variation and Change, 27 (3), 255–285. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, P.
(2000) Linguistic variation as social practice: The linguistic construction of identity in Belten High (Language in Society 27). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
(2018) Meaning and linguistic variation: The third wave in sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, P., & Rickford, J. R.
(2001) Style and sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grafmiller, J.
(2014) Variation in English genitives across modality and genres. English Language and Linguistics, 18 (3), 471–496. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grafmiller, J., & Szmrecsanyi, B.
in press). Mapping out particle placement in Englishes around the world. A case study in comparative sociolinguistic analysis. Language Variation and Change.
Grafmiller, J., Szmrecsanyi, B., & Hinrichs, L.
(2016) Restricting the restrictive relativizer. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 14 (2), 309–355 Crossref. https://​www​.degruyter​.com​/view​/j​/cllt​.ahead​-of​-print​/cllt​-2016​-0015​/cllt​-2016​-0015​.xml> (1 March 2018).
Gries, S. T.
(2005) Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34 (4), 365–399. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) The most under-used statistical method in corpus linguistics: Multi-level (and mixed-effects) models. Corpora, 10 (1), 95–125. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grondelaers, S., Speelman, D., & Geeraerts, D.
(2008) National variation in the use of er “there”. Regional and diachronic constraints on cognitive explanations. In G. Kristiansen, & R. Dirven, Cognitive sociolinguistics: Language variation, cultural models, social systems (pp. 153–204). Berlin: De Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Guy, G. R.
(2005) Letters to language. Language, 81 (3), 561–563. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) The cognitive coherence of sociolects: How do speakers handle multiple sociolinguistic variables? Journal of Pragmatics, 52 1, 63–71. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) Coherence, constraints and quantities. Talk given at NWAV44, Toronto.Google Scholar
Guy, G. R., & Hinskens, F.
(2016) Linguistic coherence: Systems, repertoires and speech communities. Lingua, 172–173, 1–9. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heller, B.
(2017) Stability and fluidity in syntactic variation world-wide: The genitive alternation across varieties of English. Unpublished PhD dissertation, KU Leuven. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heylen, K.
(2005) Zur Abfolge (pro)nominaler Satzglieder im Deutschen. Eine korpusbasierte Analyse der relativen Abfolge von nominalem Subjekt und pronominalem Objekt im Mittelfeld. Unpublished PhD dissertation, KU Leuven.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, L., Smith, N., & Waibel, B.
(2010) Manual of information for the part-of-speech tagged, post-edited “Brown” corpora. ICAME Journal, 34 1, 189–231.Google Scholar
Hinrichs, L., Szmrecsanyi, B., & Bohmann, A.
(2015) Which-hunting and the Standard English relative clause. Language, 91 (4), 806–836. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hothorn, T., Hornik, K., & Zeileis, A.
(2006) Unbiased recursive partitioning: A conditional inference framework. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 15 (3), 651–674. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W.
(1966) The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
(1969) Contraction, deletion, and inherent variability of the English copula. Language, 45 1, 715–762. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1972) Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia, PA: University of Philadelphia Press.Google Scholar
(2010) Principles of linguistic change. Vol. 3: Cognitive and cultural factors (Language in Society 39). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levshina, N.
(2011) Doe wat je niet laten kan [Do what you cannot let]: A usage-based analysis of Dutch causative constructions. Unpublished PhD dissertation, KU Leuven.Google Scholar
Lohmann, A.
(2011) Help vs help to: A multifactorial, mixed-effects account of infinitive marker omission. English Language and Linguistics, 15 (3), 499–521. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nerbonne, J.
(2009) Data-driven dialectology. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3 (1), 175–198. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pijpops, D., & Van de Velde, F.
(2014) A multivariate analysis of the partitive genitive in Dutch. Bringing quantitative data into a theoretical discussion. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 10 1, 1–30. Crossref. https://​www​.degruyter​.com​/view​/j​/cllt​.ahead​-of​-print​/cllt​-2013​-0027​/cllt​-2013​-0027​.xml> (14 February 2018).
Pinheiro, J. C., & Bates, D. M.
(2000) Mixed-effects models in S and S-{PLUS}. New York: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rickford, J. R., & Eckert, P.
(2001) Introduction: John R. Rickford and Penelope Eckert. In P. Eckert & J. R. Rickford (Eds.), Style and Sociolinguistic Variation (pp. 1–18). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crossref. http://​ebooks​.cambridge​.org​/ref​/id​/CBO9780511613258A010> (31 December 2017).
Rickford, J. R., & McNair-Knox, F.
(1994) Addressee-and topic-influenced style shift: A quantitative sociolinguistic study. In D. Biber & E. Finegan (Eds.), Perspectives on register: Situating register variation within sociolinguistics (pp. 235–276). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, G.
(1996) Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English. Cognitive Linguistics, 7 1, 149–182. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rosemeyer, M., & Enrique-Arias, A.
(2016) A match made in heaven: Using parallel corpora and multinomial logistic regression to analyze the expression of possession in Old Spanish. Language Variation and Change, 28 (3), 307–334. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Röthlisberger, M., Grafmiller, J., & Szmrecsanyi, B.
(2017) Cognitive indigenization effects in the English dative alternation. Cognitive Linguistics, 28 (4), 673–710. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sankoff, D.
(1988) Sociolinguistics and syntactic variation. In F. J. Newmeyer (Ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge survey (pp. 140–161). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Scherre, M., & Naro, A.
(1991) Marking in discourse: “Birds of a feather.” Language Variation and Change, 3 1, 23–32. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Strobl, C., Boulesteix, A., Kneib, T., Augustin, T. & Zeileis, A.
(2008) Conditional variable importance for random forests. BMC Bioinformatics, 9 (1), 307. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Strobl, C., Boulesteix, A., Zeileis, A., & Hothorn, T.
(2007) Bias in random forest variable importance measures: Illustrations, sources and a solution. BMC Bioinformatics, 8 (1), 25. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Strunk, W., & White, E. B.
(1999) The elements of style, 4th ed. Longman.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B.
(2005) Language users as creatures of habit: A corpus-based analysis of persistence in spoken English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1 (1), 113–150. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2006) Morphosyntactic persistence in spoken English: A corpus study at the intersection of variationist sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and discourse analysis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Grammatical variation in British English dialects: A study in corpus-based dialectometry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017) Variationist sociolinguistics and corpus-based variationist linguistics: Overlap and cross-pollination potential. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue Canadienne de Linguistique, 62 (4), 1–17. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B., Biber, D., Egbert, J., & Franco, K.
(2016) Toward more accountability: Modeling ternary genitive variation in Late Modern English. Language Variation and Change, 28 (1), 1–29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B., & Wälchli, B.
(Eds.) (2014) Aggregating dialectology, typology, and register analysis: Linguistic variation in text and speech. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, S.
(2012) Variationist sociolinguistics change, observation, interpretation. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. http://​public​.eblib​.com​/EBLPublic​/PublicView​.do​?ptiID​=819316> (29 August 2013).
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
Tagliamonte, S. A., & 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
Weiner, J., & Labov, W.
(1983) Constraints on the agentless passive. Journal of Linguistics, 19 1, 29–58. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wolk, C., Bresnan, J., Rosenbach, A., & Szmrecsanyi, B.
(2013) Dative and genitive variability in Late Modern English: Exploring cross-constructional variation and change. Diachronica, 30 (3), 382–419. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zuur, A. F., Ieno, E. N., Walker, N. J., Saveliev, A. A., & Smith, G.
(2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. New York: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

Full-text

Register in variationist linguistics
Cited by

Cited by 7 other publications

Engel, Alexandra, Jason Grafmiller, Laura Rosseel, Benedikt Szmrecsanyi & Freek Van de Velde
2021.  In Corpus-based Approaches to Register Variation [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 103],  pp. 51 ff. Crossref logo
Goulart, Larissa, Bethany Gray, Shelley Staples, Amanda Black, Aisha Shelton, Douglas Biber, Jesse Egbert & Stacey Wizner
2020. Linguistic Perspectives on Register. Annual Review of Linguistics 6:1  pp. 435 ff. Crossref logo
Ivaska, Ilmari
2022.  In Handbook of Pragmatics [Handbook of Pragmatics, ],  pp. 4 ff. Crossref logo
Neumann, Stella & Stefan Evert
2021.  In Corpus-based Approaches to Register Variation [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 103],  pp. 143 ff. Crossref logo
Röthlisberger, Melanie
2021.  In Corpus-based Approaches to Register Variation [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 103],  pp. 111 ff. Crossref logo
Shadrova, Anna, Pia Linscheid, Julia Lukassek, Anke Lüdeling & Sarah Schneider
2021. A Challenge for Contrastive L1/L2 Corpus Studies: Large Inter- and Intra-Individual Variation Across Morphological, but Not Global Syntactic Categories in Task-Based Corpus Data of a Homogeneous L1 German Group. Frontiers in Psychology 12 Crossref logo
Winter, Bodo & Martine Grice
2021. Independence and generalizability in linguistics. Linguistics 59:5  pp. 1251 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 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.