Corpora, Constructions, New Englishes

A constructional and variationist approach to verb patterning

| University of Louvain
HardboundForthcoming
ISBN 9789027208507 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
 
e-BookOrdering information
ISBN 9789027260086 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
 
This book takes an integrated approach to the fields of Corpus Linguistics, Construction Grammar, and World Englishes through a thorough constructional and corpus-based examination of the patterning of the versatile high-frequency verb make in British English and New Englishes. It contributes to Construction Grammar theory by adopting a verb-based, rather than construction-based, perspective on argument structure. This allows the probing of the interface between verb-independent generalizations and item-specificity from an underexplored angle that offers new insights into the shape of the constructicon. From a variationist perspective, it seeks to (i) identify features of New Englishes and gauge whether these features exhibit traces of conventionalization, and (ii) assess whether the degree of institutionalization of the New Englishes correlates with linguistic behavior, both from a social and cognitive perspective, thereby contributing to the budding effort to integrate the cognitive and social dimensions into the modeling of linguistic variation in World Englishes.
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 100]  Expected May 2021.  xxii, 391 pp. + index
Publishing status: In production
Table of Contents
This is a provisional table of contents, and subject to changes.
List of abbreviations
List of tables
List of figures
Acknowledgements
Chapter 1. Introduction
Chapter 2. The World Englishes paradigm and New Englishes: From colonial past to present sociolinguistic profile
Chapter 3. Structural nativization in New Englishes
Chapter 4. Construction Grammar meets Corpus Pattern Analysis
Chapter 5. Data and methods: Identifying constructions bottom-up in the International Corpus of English
Chapter 6. Establishing the native norm: The make-constructicon in British English
Chapter 7. The schematic to substantive patterning of make across New Englishes
Chapter 8. General conclusion
References
Appendix 1: The Lexically-Bound Constructions of make and their allostructions in ICE-GB
Appendices. Appendix 1: The Lexically-Bound Constructions of make and their allostructions in ICE-GB
Appendix 2: The LBCs of make broken down by ASC in ICE-GB
Appendix 3: The LBCs of make broken down per ASC and their frequency in ICE-GB, ICE-HK, ICE-IND and ICE-SIN
Appendix 4: The syntactic profiling the Light Verb Construction: output of the mixed-effects regression models
References

References

Aarts, B.
2004Modelling linguistic gradience. Studies in Language 28(1): 1–49.Google Scholar
Algeo, J.
1995Having a look at the expanded predicate. In The Verb in Contemporary English, B. Aarts & C. F. Meyer (eds), 203–217. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2006British or American English? A Handbook of Word and Grammar Patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Allerton, D. J.
2002Stretched Verb Constructions in English. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Alsagoff, L.
2010English in Singapore: Culture, capital and identity in linguistic variation. World Englishes 29(3): 336–348.Google Scholar
Altenberg, B. & Granger, S.
2001The grammatical and lexical patterning of make in native and non-native student writing. Applied Linguistics 22(2): 173–194.Google Scholar
Ansaldo, U.
2004The evolution of Singapore English Finding the matrix. In Singapore English: A Grammatical Description, L. Lim (ed.), 129-149. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2010Contact and Asian varieties of English. In The Handbook of Language Contact, R. Hickey (ed.), 498–517. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Ansaldo, U. & Lim, L.
2012English in Asia. In Areal Features of the Anglophone World, R. Hickey (ed.), 187–210. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Anthony, L.
2014aAntConc (version 3.4.4)[computer software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. http://​www​.laurenceanthony​.net​/software (20 April 2020)Google Scholar
2014bAntWordProfiler (version 1.4.1)[computer software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. http://​www​.laurenceanthony​.net​/software (20 April 2020)Google Scholar
Arppe, A., Gilquin, G., Glynn, D., Hilpert, M. & Zeschel, A.
2010Cognitive Corpus Linguistics: Five points of debate on current theory and methodology. Corpora 5(1): 1–27.Google Scholar
Axler, M., Yang, A. & Stevens, T.
1998Current language attitudes of Hong Kong Chinese adolescents and young adults. In Language in Hong Kong at Century’s End, M. C. Pennington (ed.), 329–338. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H. & Prado Martin, F. M. del.
2005Semantic density and past-tense formation in three Germanic languages. Language 81(3): 666–698.Google Scholar
Bakshi, R. N.
1991Indian English. English Today 7(3): 43–46.Google Scholar
Bamgbose, A.
1998Torn between the norms: Innovations in World Englishes. World Englishes 17(1): 1–14.Google Scholar
Bao, Z.
1995 Already in Singapore English. World Englishes 14(2): 181–188.Google Scholar
Barðdal, J.
2008Productivity: Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Baron, I. & Herslund, M.
1998Support verb constructions as predicate formation. In The Structure of the Lexicon in Functional Grammar, H. Olbertz, K. Hengeveld & J. Sánchez García (eds), 99–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bartoń, K.
2018MuMIn: Multi-Model Inference, R package version 1.42.1. <https://​cran​.r​-project​.org​/web​/packages​/MuMIn​/index​.html> (20 April 2020)
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., Walker, S.
2015Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1): 1-48.Google Scholar
2019lme4: Linear Mixed-Effects Models using ‘Eigen’ and S4, R package version 1.1-21. <https://​cran​.r​-project​.org​/web​/packages​/lme4​/index​.html> (20 April 2020)
Bauer, L.
2002An Introduction to International Varieties of English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M. H., Croft, W., Ellis, N. C., Holland, J., Ke, J., Larsen-Freeman, D., Schoenemann, T.
2009Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning 59, Supplement 1: 1–26.Google Scholar
Bergs, A.
2008Can we take Construction Grammar beyond sneezing napkins off tables?In Proceedings of the Anglistentag Münster 2007, K. Stierstorfer (ed.), 269–276. Trier: WVT.Google Scholar
Bernaisch, T.
2013The verb complementational profile of offer in Sri Lankan English. In Corpus linguistics and Variation in English: Focus on Non-native Englishes, M. Huber & J. Mukherjee (eds). Helsinki: Research unit for variation, contacts and change in English. <http://​www​.helsinki​.fi​/varieng​/series​/volumes​/13​/bernaisch​/> (20 April 2020)Google Scholar
2015The Lexis and Lexicogrammar of Sri Lankan English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bernaisch, T., Gries, S. T. & Mukherjee, J.
2014The dative alternation in South Asian English(es): Modelling predictors and predicting prototypes. English World-Wide 35(1): 7–31.Google Scholar
Bernaisch, T. & Koch, C.
2016Attitudes towards Englishes in India. World Englishes 35(1): 118–132.Google Scholar
Bernaisch, T. & Zipp, L.
2012Particle verbs across first and second language varieties of English. In Mapping unity and diversity world-wide: corpus-based studies of New Englishes, M. Hundt & U. Gut (eds), 167–196. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Berns, M., De Bot, K. & Hasebrink, U.
2007In the presence of English: Media and European youth. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Bhatt, R. M.
2001World Englishes. Annual Review of Anthropology 30(1): 527–550.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E.
(eds). 1999Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bird, N.
2001The most common Hong Kong English language errors and how to avoid them. The Hong Kong Linguist, Journal of the Institute of Linguists, Hong Kong Regional Society 22: 7–10.Google Scholar
Bley-Vroman, R.
1983The comparative fallacy in interlanguage studies: The case of systematicity. Language Learning 33(1): 1–17.Google Scholar
Bloomfield, L.
1933Language. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Blumenthal-Dramé, A.
2012Entrenchment in Usage-based Theories: What Corpus Data do and do not Reveal about the Mind. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Boas, H.
2003aA Constructional Approach to Resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
2003bTowards a lexical-constructional account of the locative alternation. In Proceedings of the 2001 Western Conference in Linguistics, L. Carmichael, C.-H. Huang & V. Samiian (eds), 27–42. Fresno: California State University.Google Scholar
2007Construction Grammar in the twenty-first century. English Language and Linguistics 11(3): 569–585.Google Scholar
2008aResolving form-meaning discrepancies in Construction Grammar. In Constructional Reorganization, J. Leino (ed.), 11–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2008bDetermining the structure of lexical entries and grammatical constructions in Construction Grammar. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 6(1): 113–144.Google Scholar
2010The syntax-lexicon continuum in Construction Grammar: A case study of English communicative verbs. Belgian Journal of Linguistics 24: 54–82.Google Scholar
2013Cognitive Construction Grammar. In The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (eds), 233–254. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2014Lexical and phrasal approaches to argument structure: Two sides of the same coin. Theoretical Linguistics 40(1–2): 89-112.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D.
1961Syntactic blends and other matters. Language 37(3): 366–381.Google Scholar
1976Meaning and memory. Forum Linguisticum 1(1): 1–14.Google Scholar
Bolt, P. & Bolton, K.
1996The International Corpus of English in Hong Kong. In Comparing English Worldwide: The International Corpus of English, S. Greenbaum (ed.), 197–214. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bolton, K.
2000The sociolinguistics of Hong Kong and the space for Hong Kong English. World Englishes 19(3): 265–285.Google Scholar
2002Introduction. In Hong Kong English: Autonomy and Creativity, K. Bolton (ed.), 1–25. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Google Scholar
2003Chinese Englishes. A Sociolinguistic History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2006World Englishes Today. In The Handbook of World Englishes, B. B. Kachru, Y. Kachru & C. L. Nelson (eds), 240–269. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
2012Language policy and planning in Hong Kong: The historical context and current realities. In English in Southeast Asia: Features, Policy and Language in Use, E. Low & A. Hashim (eds), 220–238. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bolton, K. & Lim, S.
2000Futures for Hong Kong English. World Englishes 19(3): 429–443.Google Scholar
Bolton, K. & Ng, B. C.
2014The dynamics of multilingualism in contemporary Singapore. World Englishes 33(3): 307–318.Google Scholar
Boyd, J. K. & Goldberg, A. E.
2011Learning what NOT to say: The role of statistical preemption and categorization a-adjective production. Language 87(1): 55–83.Google Scholar
Brinton, L. J.
2011The grammaticalization of complex predicates. In The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, B. Heine & H. Narrog (eds), 559–569.
Brinton, L. J. & Traugott, E. C.
2005Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bruckmaier, E.
2017Getting at GET in World Englishes: A Corpus-based Semasiologicalsyntactic Analysis. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Brugman, C.
2001Light verbs and polysemy. Language Sciences 23(4–5): 551–578.Google Scholar
Brunner, T.
2014Structural nativization, typology and complexity: Noun phrase structures in British, Kenyan and Singaporean English. English Language and Linguistics 18(1): 23–48.Google Scholar
Bruthiaux, P.
2003Squaring the circles: Issues in modeling English worldwide. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 13(2): 159–178.Google Scholar
Brutt-Griffler, J.
2002World English: A Study of its Development. Clevedon, UK & Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Bunton, D.
1989Common English Errors in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Longman.Google Scholar
2012More Common English Errors in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Longman.Google Scholar
Buschfeld, S.
2013English in Cyprus or Cyprus English: An Empirical Investigation of Variety Status. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Buschfeld, S., Hoffmann, T., Huber, M. & Kautzsch, A.
2014Introduction. In The evolution of Englishes: the Dynamic Model and beyond, S. Buschfeld, T. Hoffmann, M. Huber & A. Kautzsch (eds), 1–18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Butler, S.
1997Corpus of English in Southeast Asia: Implications for a regional dictionary. In English is an Asian Language: The Philippine Context, M. L. Bautista (ed.), 103–124. Sydney: Macquarie Library.Google Scholar
Butt, M.
2010The light verb jungle: Still hacking away. In Complex Predicates: Cross-linguistic Perspectives on Event Structure, M. Amberber, B. Baker & M. Harvey (eds), 48–78. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J.
2006From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82(4): 711–733.Google Scholar
2008Usage-based grammar and second language acquisition. In Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition, P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (eds), 216–236. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
2010Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. & Hopper, P.
2001Introduction to frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. In Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure, J. Bybee & P. Hopper (eds), 1–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. & Scheibman, J.
1999The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: The reduction of don’t in English. Linguistics 37(4): 575–596.Google Scholar
Cappelle, B.
2006Particle placement and the case for ‘allostructions’. Constructions online, sv1–7: 1–28.Google Scholar
Carnie, A.
2010Constituent Structure (2nd edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cavallaro, F., Ng, B. C. & Seilhamer, M. F.
2014Singapore Colloquial English: Issues of prestige and identity. World Englishes 33(3): 378–397.Google Scholar
Chew, P. G. L.
1995Lectal power in Singapore English. World Englishes 14(2): 163–180.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Lasnik, H.
1993The theory of principles and parameters. In Syntax: an international handbook of contemporary research, J. Jacobs, A. von Stechow, W. Sternefeld & T. Vennemann (eds), 506–569. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Church, K. & Hanks, P.
1990Word association norms, mutual information, and lexicography. Computational Linguistics 16(1): 22–29.Google Scholar
Cinkova, S. & Hanks, P.
2010Validation of Corpus Pattern Analysis: Assigning pattern numbers to random verb samples. <https://​nlp​.fi​.muni​.cz​/projects​/cpa​/CPA​_valiman​.pdf (20 April 2020)
Cogo, A. & Dewey, M.
2012Analyzing English as a Lingua Franca: A Corpus-driven Investigation. London & New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Collins COBUILD English Grammar
. Digital edition 2017 (3rd edition). Collins COBUILD.Google Scholar
Collins, P.
2012Singular agreement in there-existentials: An intervarietal corpus-based study. English World-Wide 33(1): 53–68.Google Scholar
Collins, P. & Yao, X.
2013Colloquial features in Word Englishes. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18(4): 479–505.Google Scholar
Contreras-Cabrera, M., Bravo-Dutt, M. & Valles, E. T.
(eds). 2015Get Lucky: An Anthology of Philippine and Singapore Writings. Singapore: Ethos Books.Google Scholar
Cook, V.
1991The poverty-of-the-stimulus argument and multicompetence. Second Language Research 7(2): 103–117.Google Scholar
1999Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly 33(2): 185–209.Google Scholar
2016Where is the native speaker now? TESOL Quarterly 50(1): 186–189.Google Scholar
Corder, S. P.
1967The significance of learner’s errors. IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 5(4): 161-170.Google Scholar
Croft, W.
2000Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach. Harlow, England & New York: Longman.Google Scholar
2001Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2003Lexical rules vs. constructions: A false dichotomy. In Motivation in Language: Studies in Honor of Günter Radden, H. Cuyckens, T. Berg, R. Dirven & K.-U. Panther (eds), 49–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2005Logical and typological arguments for Radical Construction Grammar. In Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions, J.-O. Östman & M. Fried (eds), 273–314. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2007Construction Grammar. In The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (eds), 463–508. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2009Toward a social cognitive linguistics. In Human Cognitive Processing, V. Evans & S. Pourcel (eds), 395–420. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Croft, W. & Cruse, D. A.
2004Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crystal, D.
2003English as a Global Language (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Culicover, P. W.
1999Syntactic Nuts: Hard Cases, Syntactic Theory, and Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cummings, P. J. & Wolf, H.-G.
2011A Dictionary of Hong Kong English: Words from the Fragrant Harbor. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Google Scholar
Dabrowska, E. & Divjak, D.
2015Introduction. In Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, E. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (eds), 1–9. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Davies, M. & Fuchs, R.
2015Expanding horizons in the study of World Englishes with the 1.9 billion word Global Web-based English Corpus (GloWbE). English World-Wide 36(1): 1–28.Google Scholar
De Cuypere, L. & Verbeke, S.
2013Dative alternation in Indian English: A corpus-based analysis. World Englishes 32(2):169–184.Google Scholar
Deshors, S. C.
2015A multifactorial approach to gerundial and to-infinitival verb-complementation patterns in native and non-native English. English Text Construction 8(2): 207–235.Google Scholar
2017Structuring subjectivity in Asian Englishes: Multivariate approaches to mental predicates across genres and functional uses. English Text Construction 10(1): 132–164.Google Scholar
Deshors, S. C., Götz, S. & Laporte, S.
2016Linguistic innovations in EFL and ESL: Rethinking the linguistic creativity of non-native English speakers. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 2(2): 131–150.Google Scholar
Deshors, S. C. & Götz, S.
2017Common ground across globalized English varieties: A multivariate exploration of mental predicates in World Englishes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, published online ahead of print.
Deshors, S. C. & Gries, S. Th.
2016Profiling verb complementation constructions across New Englishes: A two-step random forests analysis of -ing vs. to-complements. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 21(2): 192–218.Google Scholar
De Smet, H.
2016How gradual change progresses: The interaction between convention and innovation. Language Variation and Change 28(1): 83–102.Google Scholar
Deterding, D.
2007Singapore English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Dewaele, J.-M.
2018Why the dichotomy ‘L1 versus LX user’ is better than ‘native versus Non-native speaker’. Applied Linguistics 39(2): 236–240.Google Scholar
Diessel, H.
2007Frequency effects in language acquisition, language use, and diachronic change. New Ideas in Psychology 25(2): 108–127.Google Scholar
Dirven, R., Goossens, L., Putseys, Y. & Vorlat, E.
1982The Scene of Linguistic Action and its Perspectivization by Speak, Talk, Say and Tell. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W.
2005A Semantic Approach to English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Downes, J.
2018Mainland Chinese immigration in Hong Kong: Analysing anti-immigrant sentiment. In Citizenship, Identity and Social Movements in the New Hong Kong, W. Lam & L. Cooper (eds), 51-71. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dunlap, T. R.
1997Ecology and environmentalism in the Anglo settler colonies. In Ecology and Empire: Environmental History of Settler Societies, L. Robin & T. Griffiths (eds), 76–86. Keele: Keele University press.Google Scholar
Edwards, A.
2014English in the Netherlands: Functions, Forms and Attitudes. PhD Dissertation. Cambridge.Google Scholar
2016English in the Netherlands: Functions, Forms and Attitudes. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Edwards, A. & Lange, R.-J.
2016 In case of innovation: Academic phraseology in the Three Circles. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 2(2): 252–277.Google Scholar
Edwards, A. & Laporte, S.
2015Outer and Expanding Circle Englishes: The competing roles of norm orientation and proficiency levels. English World-Wide 36(2): 135–169.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C.
2002Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 24(2): 143–188.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C. & Ferreira-Junior, F.
2009Construction learning as a function of frequency, frequency distribution, and function. The Modern Language Journal 93(3): 370–385.Google Scholar
Ellis, N. C., Römer, U. & O’Donnell, M. B.
2016Usage-based Approaches to Language Acquisition and Processing: Cognitive and Corpus Investigations of Construction Grammar. Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Google Scholar
Evans, S.
2009The medium of instruction in Hong Kong revisited: Policy and practice in the reformed Chinese and English streams. Research Papers in Education 24(3): 287–309.Google Scholar
2010Business as usual: The use of English in the professional world in Hong Kong. English for Specific Purposes 29(3): 153–167.Google Scholar
2011Hong Kong English and the professional world: Hong Kong English and the professional world. World Englishes 30(3): 293–316.Google Scholar
Evans, V. & Green, M.
2006Cognitive linguistics: An Introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Faulhaber, S.
2011aIdiosyncrasy in verb valency patterns. Zeitschrift Für Anglistik Und Amerikanistik 59(4): 331–346.Google Scholar
2011bVerb Valency Patterns: A Challenge for Semantics-based Accounts. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Fellbaum, C.
201120. Idioms and collocations. In Semantics, C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger & P. Portner (eds), 441–456. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J.
1968The case for case. In Universals in Linguistic Theory, E. Bach & R. Harms (eds), 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
1976Frame semantics and the nature of language. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 280(1): 20–32.Google Scholar
2000Describing polysemy: the case of ‘crawl.’In Polysemy: Theoretical and Computation approaches, Y. Ravin & C. Leacock (eds), 91–110. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C.J., Kay, P. & O’Conner, C.
1988Regularity and Idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64(3): 501–38.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Lee-Goldman, R. R. & Rhomieux, R.
2012The FrameNet constructicon. In Sign-based Construction Grammar, H. Boas & I. A. Sag (eds), 283–299. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Fischer, O.
2013An inquiry into unidirectionality as a foundational element of grammaticalization: On the role played by analogy and the synchronic grammar system in processes of language change. Studies in Language 37(3): 515–533.Google Scholar
Fischer, R.
2014Lexical creativity reconsidered: GUI, cyborg, cred, pay-per-view, techno and cyber . In The Evolution of Englishes: The Dynamic Model and Beyond, S. Buschfeld, T. Hoffmann, M. Huber & A. Kautzsch (eds), 448–469. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fodor, J.
1975The Language of Thought. Hassock, Sussex: Harvester Press.Google Scholar
Fuchs, R.
2012Focus marking and semantic transfer in Indian English: The case of also . English World-Wide 33(1): 27–53.Google Scholar
2016Speech Rhythm in Varieties of English: Evidence from Educated Indian English and British English. New York, NY: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D.
1993Vagueness’s puzzles, polysemy’s vagaries. Cognitive Linguistics 4:223–272.Google Scholar
2006Introduction: A rough guide to Cognitive Linguistics. In Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings, D. Geeraerts (ed.), 1–28. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
2010Theories of Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Giles, H.
1973Accent mobility: A model and some data. Anthropological Linguistics 15(2): 87–105.Google Scholar
Gilquin, G.
2006The verb slot in causative constructions: Finding the best fit. Constructions 1(3): 1–46.Google Scholar
2007To err is not all: What corpus and elicitation can reveal about the use of collocations by learners. Zeitschrift Für Anglistik Und Amerikanistik 55(3): 273–291.Google Scholar
2008What you think ain’t what you get: Highly polysemous verbs in mind and language. In From Gram to Mind: Grammar as Cognition, J.-R. Lapaire, G. Desagulier & J.-B. Guignard (eds), 235–255. Bordeaux: Presses Universitaires de Bordeaux.Google Scholar
2010Corpus, Cognition and Causative Constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2011Corpus linguistics to bridge the gap between World Englishes and Learner Englishes. In Comunicación Social en el siglo XXI Vol. II, 638–642.Google Scholar
2012The non-finite verb slot in English causative constructions: Comparing native and learner collostructions. In Analytical Causatives: From ‘Give’ and ‘Come’ to ‘Let’ and ‘Make’, J. Leino & R. von Waldenfels (eds), 41-63. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
2013Making sense of collostructional analysis: On the interplay between verb senses and constructions. Constructions and Frames 5(2): 119–142.Google Scholar
2015At the interface of contact linguistics and second language acquisition research: New Englishes and Learner Englishes compared. English World-Wide 36(1): 91–124.Google Scholar
2016Input-dependent L2 acquisition: Causative constructions in English as a foreign and second language. In Applied Construction Grammar, S. De Knop & G. Gilquin (eds), 115–148. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Giparaitè, J.
2016Complementation of light verb constructions in World Englishes: A Corpus-based Study. Zmogus Ir Zodis 18(3): 19–39.Google Scholar
Gisborne, N.
2009Aspects of the morphosyntactic typology of Hong Kong English. English World-Wide 30(2): 149–169.Google Scholar
Glynn, D.
2010Corpus-driven cognitive semantics: Introduction to the field. In Quantitative Methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-Driven Approaches, D. Glynn & K. Fischer (eds), 1–42. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
1995Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1996Construction Grammar. In Concise Encylcopedia of Syntactic Theories, K. Brown & J. Miller (eds), 68–71. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
1999The emergence of the semantics of argument structure constructions. In Emergence of Language, B. MacWhinney (ed.), 197–212. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
2000Patient arguments of causative verbs can be omitted. Language Sciences 23(4–5): 503–524.Google Scholar
2002Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics 13(4): 327–356.Google Scholar
2003Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(5): 219–224.Google Scholar
2005Argument realization: The role of constructions, lexical semantics and discourse factors. In Construction Grammar: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions, J.-O. Östman & M. Fried (eds), 17–43. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2006aConstructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2006bThe inherent semantics of argument structure: The case of the English ditransitive construction. In Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings, D. Geeraerts (ed.), 401–437. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2011Corpus evidence of the viability of statistical preemption. Cognitive Linguistics 22(1):131–153.Google Scholar
2013Constructionist approaches. In The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (eds), 15–31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2015Tuning in to the verb-particle construction in English. In Approaches to Complex Predicates, L. Nash & P. Samvelian (eds), 110–141. Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. & Casenhiser, D.
2006English constructions. In The andbook of English linguistics, B. Aarts & A. McMahon (eds), 343–355. Malden, MA, USA: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. & Jackendoff, R.
2004The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language 80(3): 532–568.Google Scholar
Görlach, M.
1990Studies in the History of the English Language. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Granger, S. & Gilquin, G.
2011From EFL to ESL: Evidence from the International Corpus of Learner English. In Exploring Second-Language Varieties of English and Learner Englishes: Bridging a Paradigm Gap, J. Mukherjee & M. Hundt (eds), 55-78. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Granger, S. & Paquot, M.
2008Disentangling the phraseological web. In Phraseology: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, S. Granger & F. Meunier (eds), 27–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Greenbaum, S.
1986The Grammar of contemporary English and a comprehensive grammar of the English Language. In The English Reference Grammar, G. Leitner (ed.), 6–14. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
1988A proposal for an international computerized corpus of English. World Englishes 7(3): 315–315.Google Scholar
(ed.). 1996Comparing English Worldwide: The International Corpus of English. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Greenbaum, S. & Nelson, G.
1996The International Corpus of English (ICE) Project. World Englishes 15(1): 3–15.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th.
2003Multifactorial Analysis in Corpus Linguistics: A Study of Particle Placement. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
2006Exploring variability within and between corpora: Some methodological considerations. Corpora 1(2): 109–151.Google Scholar
2007Coll.analysis 3.2a. A program for R for Windows 2.x. <http://​www​.stgries​.info​/teaching​/groningen​/index​.html> (20 April 2020)
2008Phraseology and linguistic theory: A brief survey. In Phraseology: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, S. Granger & F. Meunier (eds), 3–25. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2010Useful statistics for corpus linguistics. In A Mosaic of Corpus Linguistics: Selected Approaches, A. Sánchez Pérez & M. Almela Sánchez (eds), 269–291. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2013Statistics for Linguistics with R: A Practical Introduction (2nd edition). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
2018On over-and underuse in learner corpus research and multifactoriality in corpus linguistics more generally. Journal of Second Language Studies 1(2): 276–308.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. & Bernaisch, T.
2016Exploring epicentres empirically: Focus on South Asian Englishes. English World-Wide 37(1): 1–25.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th., Bernaisch, T. & Heller, B.
2018A corpus-linguistic account of the history of the genitive alternation in Singapore English. In Modeling World Englishes: Assessing the Interplay of Emancipation and Globalization of ESL Varieties, S. C. Deshors (ed.), 245–280. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. & Mukherjee, J.
2010Lexical gravity across varieties of English: An ICE-based study of n-grams in Asian Englishes. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 15(4): 520–548.Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. & Stefanowitsch, A.
2004aCovarying collexemes in the into-causative. In Language, Culture, and Mind, M. Achard & S. Kemmer (eds), 225–236. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
2004bExtending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspectives on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(1): 97–129.Google Scholar
2010Cluster analysis and the identification of collexeme classes. In Empirical and Experimental Methods in Cognitive/Functional Research, J. Newman & S. Rice (eds), 73–90. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Groves, J.
2009Hong Kong English: Does it exist (yet)? HKBU Papers in Applied Linguistics 13: 54-79.Google Scholar
2010Error or feature? The issue of interlanguage and deviations in Non-Native Varieties of English. HKBU Papers in Applied Language Studies 14: 108–129.Google Scholar
2011‘Linguistic schizophrenia’ in Hong Kong. English Today 27(4): 33–42.Google Scholar
Gupta, A. F.
1991Almost a creole: Singapore Colloquial English. California Linguistic Notes 23: 9–21.Google Scholar
1997Colonisation, migration, and functions of English. In Englishes around the World, Volume 1: General Studies, British Isles, North America, Studies in Honour of Manfred Görlach, E. W. Schneider (ed.), 47-58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
1998The situation of English in Singapore. In English in New Cultural Contexts: Reflections from Singapore, J. A. Foley, T. Kandiah, Z. Bao, A. F. Gupta, L. Alsagoff, C. L. Ho, W. Bokhorst-Heng (eds), 106–126. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gut, U. & Coronel, L.
2012Relatives worldwide. In Mapping Unity and Diversity World-Wide: Corpus-based Studies of New Englishes, M. Hundt & U. Gut (eds), 215–242. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Gut, U. & Fuchs, R.
2017Exploring speaker fluency with phonologically annotated ICE corpora. World Englishes 36(3): 387–403.Google Scholar
Haiman, J.
1980Dictionaries and encyclopedia. Lingua 50: 329–357.Google Scholar
Hampe, B. & Schönefeld, D.
2003Creative syntax: Iconic principles within the symbolic. In Iconicity in Language and Literature, W. G. Müller & O. Fischer (eds), 243–261. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2006Syntactic leaps or lexical variation? More on ‘creative syntax’. In Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based Approaches to Syntax and Lexis, S. Th. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (eds), 127–158. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Hanks, P.
2004The syntagmatics of metaphor and idiom. International Journal of Lexicography 17(3): 245–274.Google Scholar
2007Preference syntagmatics. In Words and intelligence II: Essays in Honor of Yorick Wilks, K. Ahmad & C. Brewster (eds), 119–135. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
2008aHow to say new things: An essay on linguistic creativity. Brno Studies in English 34: 39–50.Google Scholar
2008bThe lexicographical legacy of John Sinclair. International Journal of Lexicography 21(3): 219–229.Google Scholar
2009aComputational lexicography-mapping meaning onto use. <http://​www​.patrickhanks​.com​/powerpoint​.html> (20 April 2020)
2009bThe linguistic double helix: Norms and exploitations. In After Half a Century of Slavonic Natural Language Processing (Festschrift for Karel Pala), D. Hlavácˇková, A. Horák, K. Osolsobe & P. Rychlý (eds), 63-80. Brno: Masaryk University.Google Scholar
2010Elliptical arguments: A problem in relating meaning to use. In eLexicography in the 21st Century: New Challenges, New Applications. Proceedings of ELEX2009, S. Granger & M. Paquot (eds), 109–124. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
2012How people use words to make meanings: Semantic types meet valencies. In Input, Process and Product: Developments in Teaching and Language Corpora, A. Bulton & J. Thomas (eds), 54–69. Brno: Masaryk University Press.Google Scholar
2013Lexical Analysis: Norms and Exploitations. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hanks, P. & Jezek, E.
2008Shimmering lexical sets. In Proceedings of the XIII EURALEX International Congress, E. Bernal & J. DeCesaris (eds), 391–402. Bercelona: Institut Universitari de Lingüística Aplicada – Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
Harrel, F.
2019Hmisc: Harrell Miscellaneous, R package version 4.2-0. <https://​cran​.r​-project​.org​/web​/packages​/Hmisc​/index​.html> (20 April 2020)
Hasselgren, A.
1994Lexical teddy-bears and advanced learners: A study into the ways Norwegian students cope with English vocabulary. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 4(2): 237–260.Google Scholar
Hebb, D. O.
1949The organization of behavior: A neuropsychological theory. Mahwah, N.J: L. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Herbst, T.
1987A Proposal for a Valency Dictionary of English. In A Spectrum of Lexicography:Papers from AILA Brussels 1984, R. Ilson (ed.), 115-127. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2007Valency complements or valency patterns?In Valency: Theoretical, Descriptive and Cognitive Issues, T. Herbst & K. Götz-Votteler (eds), 15–35. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
2009Valency: Item-specificity and idiom principle. In Exploring the Lexis-Grammar Interface, U. Römer & R. Schulze (eds), 49–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2010Valency constructions and clause constructions or how, if at all, valency grammarians might sneeze the foam off the cappuccino. In Cognitive Foundations of Linguistic Usage Patterns: Empirical Approaches, H.-J. Schmid & S. Handl (eds), 225–256. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
2011The status of generalizations: Valency and argument structure constructions. Zeitschrift Für Anglistik Und Amerikanistik 59(4): 347–367.Google Scholar
2014aIdiosyncrasies and generalizations: Argument structure, semantic roles and the valency realization principle. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 2(1): 253–289.Google Scholar
2014bThe valency approach to argument structure constructions. In Constructions, Collocations, Patterns, T. Herbst, H.-J. Schmid & S. Faulhaber (eds), 159–207. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Herbst, T., Heath, D., Roe, I. F. & Götz, D.
2004A valency dictionary of English: A corpus-based analysis of the complementation patterns of English verbs, nouns, and adjectives. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Hilpert, M.
2012Diachronic collostructional analysis meets the noun phrase: Studying many a noun in COHA. In The Oxford Handbook of the History of English, T. Nevalainen & E. C. Traugott (eds), 233–244. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2014Construction Grammar and its Application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Höder, S.
2014Constructing diasystems: Grammatical organisation in bilingual groups. In The Sociolinguistics of Grammar, T. A. Åfarli & B. Maehlum (eds), 137–152. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, S.
2004Are low-frequency complex prepositions grammaticalized? On the limits of corpus data — and the importance of intuition. In Corpus Approaches to Grammaticalization in English, H. Lindquist & C. Mair (eds), 171–210. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, S., Hundt, M. & Mukherjee, J.
2011Indian English: an emerging epicentre? A pilot study on light verbs in web-derived corpora of South Asian Englishes. Anglia 129(3–4): 258–280.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, S. & Mukherjee, J.
2007Ditransitive verbs in Indian English and British English: A corpus-linguistic study. Arbeiten Aus Anglistik Und Amerikanistik 32(1): 5–24.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T.
2007Complements versus adjuncts: A Construction Grammar approach of English prepositional phrases. Occasional papers in language and linguistics (University of Nairobi) 3: 92-119.Google Scholar
2014The cognitive evolution of Englishes: The role of constructions in the Dynamic Model. In The Evolution of Englishes: The Dynamic Model and Beyond, S. Buschfeld, T. Hoffmann, M. Huber & A. Kautzsch (eds), 160–180. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2017aConstruction Grammars. In The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, B. Dancygier (ed.), 284–309. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2017bMultimodal constructs – multimodal constructions? The role of constructions in the working memory. Linguistics Vanguard 3(1).Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G.
(eds). 2013The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hohenthal, A.
2003English in India: Loyalty and attitudes. Language in India, 3(5.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. & Thompson, S.
1980Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56(2), 251–299.Google Scholar
Horch, S.
2016Innovative conversions in South-East Asian Englishes: Reassessing ESL status. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 2(2): 278–301.Google Scholar
Hosmer, D. W., Lemeshow, S. & Sturdivant, R. X.
2013Applied Logistic Regression (Third edition). Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley.Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. J.
1984On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 15(4): 531–574.Google Scholar
Huber, M.
2012Ghanaian English. In The Mouton World Atlas of Variation in English. B. Kortmann & K. Lunkenheimer (eds), 382-393. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R.
1984Introduction to the Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G.
2002The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hugon, C.
2008High-frequency verbs: Starting block or stumbling block for advanced L2 communication? Insights from native and learner corpora. In Taal aan den Lijve: Het Gebruik van Corpora in Taalkundig Onderzoek en Taalonderwijs, G. Rawoens (ed.), 69–98. Gent: Academia Press.Google Scholar
Hundt, M.
2001Grammatical variation in national varieties of English — The corpus-based approach. Revue belge de philologie et d’histoire 79(3): 737–756.Google Scholar
2009How often do things get V-ed in Philippine and Singapore English? A case study on the get-passive in two outer-circle varieties of English. In Corpora and Discourse – and Stuff: Papers in Honour of Karin Aijmer, R. Bowen, M. Mobärg & S. Ohlander (eds), 121–129. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
2016Error, feature, (incipient) change – or something else altogether? On the role of low-frequency deviant patterns for the description of Englishes. In World Englishes: New Theoretical and Methodological Considerations, E. Seoane & C. Suárez-Gómez (eds), 37–60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hundt, M. & Vogel, K.
2011Overuse of the progressive in ESL and learner Englishes – fact or fiction?In Exploring Second-Language Varieties of English and Learner Englishes: Bridging a Paradigm Gap, J. Mukherjee & M. Hundt (eds), 145–166. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hung, T. T. N.
2000Towards a phonology of Hong Kong English. World Englishes 19(3): 337–356.Google Scholar
Hunston, S.
2017Corpus Linguistics in 2017: A personal view. Presented at the Corpus Linguistics conference 24-28 July 2017, Birmingham.
2019Patterns, constructions, and applied linguistics. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 24(3): 324–353.Google Scholar
Hyland, K.
1997Language attitudes at the handover: Communication and identity in 1997 Hong Kong. English World-Wide 18(2): 191–210.Google Scholar
Ide, N. & Wilks, Y.
2006Making sense about sense. In Word Sense Disambiguation: Algorithms and Applications, E. Agirre & P. Edmonds (eds), 47–73. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Ike, S.
2012Japanese English as a Variety: Features and Intelligibility of an Emerging Variety of English. PhD dissertation, The University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
Ingham, M.
2003Writing on the margin: Hong Kong English poetry, fiction and creative non-fiction. In City Voices: Hong Kong Writing in English, 1945 to the Present, Xu Xi & M. Ingham (eds), 1–16. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Google Scholar
Jenkins, J.
2003World Englishes: A Resource Book for Students. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jezek, E. & Hanks, P.
2010What lexical sets tell us about conceptual categories. Lexis: Journal in English Lexicology 4: 7–22.Google Scholar
Kachru, B. B.
1965The Indianness in Indian English. Word 21: 391–410.Google Scholar
1976Models of English for the third world: Whiteman’s linguistic burden or language pragmatics. TESOL Quarterly, 10(2): 221–239.Google Scholar
1982Models for Non-Native Englishes. In The Other Tongue: English across Cultures, B. B. Kachru (ed.), 31–57. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
1983Models for non-native Englishes. In World Englishes: Concepts in Linguistics, K. Bolton & B. B. Kachru (eds), 108–130. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
1985Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the Outer Circle. In English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures, R. Quirk & H. G. Widdowson (eds), 11–30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1986The Alchemy of English: The Spread, Functions and Models of Non-Native Englishes. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
1988The sacred cows of English. English Today 4(4): 3–8.Google Scholar
1991Liberation linguistics and the Quirk Concern. English Today 7(1): 1-13.Google Scholar
1997World Englishes and English-using communities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 17: 66–87.Google Scholar
2005Asian Englishes: Beyond the Canon. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Google Scholar
Kachru, B. B. & Nelson, C. L.
1996World Englishes. In Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching, S. L. McKay & N. Hornberger (eds), 71–102. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kachru, B. B. & Smith, L. E.
1985Editorial. World Englishes 4(2): 209–212.Google Scholar
Kachru, Y.
1993Interlanguage and language acquisition research. World Englishes 12(2): 265–268.Google Scholar
1994Monolingual bias in SLA research. TESOL Quarterly 28(4): 795.Google Scholar
2005Teaching and learning of World Englishes. In Handbook of Research in Second Language Learning and Teaching, E. Hinkel (ed.), 155–173. Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kay, P.
2005Argument structure constructions and the argument-adjunct distinction. In Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots, M. Fried & H. Boas (eds), 71–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kearns, K.
1988/2002Light Verbs in English. MA dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Kim, J.-B. & Sag, I. A.
2005English object extraposition: A constraint-based approach. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, S. Müller (ed.), 192–212. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick, A.
2007World Englishes: Implications for International Communication and English Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Klein, U., Kracht, M. & Vogel, R.
2012Creation constructions and frames. Paper presented at the Concept Types and Frames in Language, Cognition, and Science conference, University of Düsseldorf.
Koch, C. & Bernaisch, T.
2013Verb complementation in South Asian Englishes: The range and frequency of new ditransitives. In English Corpus Linguistics: Variation in Time, Space and Genre, Selected Papers from ICAME 32, G. Andersen & K. Bech (eds), 69–89. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Koch, C., Lange, C. & Leuckert, S.
2016“This hair-style called as ‘duck tail’”: The ‘intrusive as’-construction in South Asian varieties of English and Learner Englishes. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 2(2): 151–176.Google Scholar
Kortmann, B., Burridge, K., Mesthrie, R., Schneider, E. W. & Upton, C.
(eds). 2004A Handbook of Varieties of English. Vol. II: Morphology and Syntax. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Kortmann, B. & Lunkenheimer, K.
(eds). 2013The Electronic World Atlas of Varieties of English. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.Google Scholar
Kortmann, B. & Szmrecsanyi, B.
2004Global synopsis: Morphological and syntactic variation in English. In A Handbook of Varieties of English, Vol. II: Morphology and Syntax., B. Kortmann, K. Burridge, R. Mesthrie, E. W. Schneider & C. Upton (eds), 1142–1202. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Labov, W.
1972Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Lai, M.-L.
2001Hong Kong students’ attitudes towards Cantonese, Putonghua and English after the change of sovereignty. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 22(2): 112–133.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G.
1987Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1990The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reasoning based on image schemas? Cognitive Linguistics 1(1): 39–74.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M.
1980Metaphors we Live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W.
1987aFoundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1987bNouns and verbs. Language 63(1): 53–94.Google Scholar
1991Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2000A dynamic usage-based model. In Usage-based Models of Language, M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (eds), 1–63. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
2005Integration, grammaticization, and constructional meaning. In Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots, M. Fried & H. Boas (eds), 157–189. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2008Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2013Essentials of Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lange, C.
2012The Syntax of Spoken Indian English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2016The ‘intrusive as’-construction in South Asian varieties of English. World Englishes 35(1): 133–146.Google Scholar
Langer, S.
2004A linguistic test battery for support verb constructions. Lingvisticae Investigationes 27(2): 171–184.Google Scholar
Laporte, S.
2012Mind the gap! Bridge between World Englishes and Learner Englishes in the making. English Text Construction 5(2): 265–292.Google Scholar
Lee, D.
2001Cognitive linguistics: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, K.
1996Getting at the meaning of make. In Cognitive Linguistics in the Redwoods, E. H. Casad (ed.), 389–422. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Lee, T.
2009Singapore. In Encyclopedia of Journalism, C. Sterling (ed.), 1291–1293. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Leech, G.
1992Corpora and theories of linguistic performance. In Directions in Corpus Linguistics: Proceedings of Noberl Symposium 82, J. Svartvik (ed.), 105–122. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Legallois, D.
2005Du bon usage des expressions idiomatiques dans l’argumentation de deux modèles anglo-saxon: La Grammaire de Construction et la Grammaire des Patterns. Cahiers de l’Institut de Linguistique de Louvain 31(2–4): 109–127.Google Scholar
Legallois, D. & François, J.
2006Autour des grammaires de constructions et de patterns. Cahier Du CRISCO 21.Google Scholar
Leimgruber, J. R. E.
2009Modelling Variation in Singapore English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2013Singapore English: Structure, Variation, and Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levin, B.
1993English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2013Argument structure. In Oxford Bibliographies in Linguistics, M. Aronoff (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levin, B. & Hovav, M. R.
2005Argument Realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B.
2007Polysemy, prototypes, and radial categories. In Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (eds), 139–169.
Li., C. & Thompson, S.
1981Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Li, D. C. S.
1999The functions and status of English in Hong Kong: A post-1997 update. English World-Wide 20(1): 67–110.Google Scholar
2000Cantonese-English code-switching research in Hong Kong: A Y2K review. World Englishes 19(3): 305–322.Google Scholar
2010When does an unconventional form become an innovation?In The Routledge Handbook of World Englishes, A. Kirkpatrick (ed.), 617–633. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lim, L.
2010Migrants and ‘Mother Tongues’: Extralinguistic forces in the ecology of English in Singapore. In English in Singapore. Modernity and Management, L. Lim, A. Pakir & L. Wee (eds), 19–54. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Google Scholar
2001Ethnic group varieties of Singapore English: Melody or harmony? In Evolving Identities. The English Language in Singapore and Malaysia, V. B. Ooi (ed.), 53–58. Singapore: Times Academic Press.Google Scholar
(ed.) 2004Singapore English: A Grammatical Description. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lim, L. & Foley, J. A.
2004English in Singapore and Singapore English. In Singapore English: A Grammatical Description, L. Lim (ed.), 1–18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lim, L., Pakir, A. & Wee, L.
2010English in Singapore: Policies and prospects. In English in Singapore. Modernity and Management, L. Lim, A. Pakir & L. Wee (eds), 3-18. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Google Scholar
Ling, L. E.
2010English in Singapore and Malaysia: Differences and similarities. In The Routledge Handbook of World Englishes, A. Kirkpatrick (ed.), 229–246. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Liu, E. T. & Shaw, P.
2001Investigating learner vocabulary: A possible approach to looking at EFL/ESL learners’ qualitative knowledge of the word. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 39(3): 171–194.Google Scholar
Lowenberg, P. H.
1986Sociolinguistic context and second-language acquisition: Acculturation and creativity in Malaysian English. World Englishes 5(1): 71–83.Google Scholar
Luke, K. K. & Richards, J. C.
1982English in Hong Kong: Functions and status. English World-Wide 3(1): 47–64.Google Scholar
Mair, C.
2002Three changing patterns of verb complementation in Late Modern English: A real-time study based on matching text corpora. English Language and Linguistics 6(1): 105-131.Google Scholar
2007Varieties of English around the world: Collocational and cultural profiles. In Phraseology and Culture in English, P. Skandera (ed.), 437–468. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
2013The World System of Englishes: Accounting for the transnational importance of mobile and mediated vernaculars. English World-Wide 34(3): 253–278.Google Scholar
2016Englishes beyond and between the three circles: World Englishes research in the age of globalization. In World Englishes: New Theoretical and Methodological Considerations, E. Seoane & C. Suárez-Gómez (eds), 17–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2017Crisis of the ‘Outer Circle’? Globalisation, the weak nation state, and the need for new taxonomies in World Englishes research. In Changing English: Global and Local Perspectives, M. Filppula, A. Mauranen, J. Klemola & S. Vetchinnikova (eds), 5–24. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Makkai, A.
1972Idiom Structure in English. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
McArthur, T.
1987The English languages? English Today 3(3): 9-11.Google Scholar
2003World English, Euro-English, Nordic English? English Today 19(1): 54-58.Google Scholar
McLuhan, M.
1962The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
McMahon, A. M. S.
1994Understanding Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mehl, S.
2016Corpus Onomasiology: A Study in World Englishes. PhD dissertation, University College London.Google Scholar
2018What we talk about when we talk about corpus frequency: The example of polysemous verbs with light and concrete senses. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, published online ahead of print.
Mehrotra, R. R.
1998Indian English: Texts and Interpretation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Melchers, G. & Shaw, P.
2003World Englishes: An Introduction. Great Britain: Hodder Education.Google Scholar
2011World Englishes: An Introduction (2nd edition). Great Britain: Hodder Education.Google Scholar
Mel’cuk, I. A.
2006The explanatory combinatorial dictionary. In Open Problems in Linguistics and Lexicography, S. Giandomenico (ed.), 225–355. Monza: Polimetrica.Google Scholar
Mesthrie, R.
1993South African Indian English. English Today 9(2): 12-16.Google Scholar
2006Anti-deletions in an L2 grammar: A study of Black South African English mesolect. English World-Wide 27(2): 111–145.Google Scholar
Mesthrie, R. & Bhatt, R. M.
2008World Englishes: The Study of New Linguistic Varieties. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Meyer, D., Zeileis, A. & Hornik, K.
2017vcd: Visualizing categorical data. R package version 1.4 4. https://​CRAN​.R​-project​.org​/package​=vcd (20 April 2020)Google Scholar
Meyers, A., Macleod, C. & Grishman, R.
1996Standardization of the complement adjunct distinction. In Proceedings of Euralex ’96, M. Gellerstam, J. Järborg, S.-G. Malmgren, K. Norén, L. Rogström & C. R. Papmehl (eds), 141–150. Göteborg: Göteborg University.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. A.
2004Type shifting in Construction Grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics 15(1): 1–67.Google Scholar
Mindt, I.
2011Adjective Complementation: An Empirical Analysis of Adjectives Followed by that-Clauses. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Moag, R. F.
1982The life cycle of non-native Englishes: A case study. In The Other Tongue: English across Cultures, B. B. Kachru (ed.), 270–288. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Modiano, M.
1999Standard English(es) and educational practices for the world’s lingua franca. English Today 15(4): 3-13.Google Scholar
Mollin, S.
2006Euro-English: Assessing Variety Status. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
2007New variety or learner English? Criteria for variety status and the case of Euro-English. English World-Wide 28(2): 167–185.Google Scholar
Moody, A.
2010The Englishes of popular cultures. In The Routledge Handbook of World Englishes, A. Kirkpatrick (ed.), 535–549. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Moon, R.
1998Fixed Expressions and Idioms in English: A Corpus-based Approach. Oxford, New York: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Mufwene, S. S.
1993African substratum: Possibility and evidence. A discussion of Alleyne’s and Hancock’s papers. In Africanisms in Afro-American language varieties, S. S. Mufwene (ed.), 192–208. Athens: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
2001The Ecology of Language Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mukherjee, J.
2007Steady states in the evolution of New Englishes: Present-day Indian English as an equilibrium. Journal of English Linguistics 35(2): 157–187.Google Scholar
2004Corpus data in a usage-based Cognitive Grammar. In Advances in Corpus Linguistics. Papers from ICAME 23, K. Aijmer & B. Altenberg (eds), 85–100. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
2005English Ditransitive Verbs: Aspects of Theory, Description and a Usage-based Model. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
2010Corpus-based insights into verb-complementational innovations in Indian English: Cases of nativised semantico-structural analogy. In Grammar between Norm and Variation, A. N. Lenz & P. Albrecht (eds), 219–241. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Mukherjee, J. & Bernaisch, T.
2015Cultural keywords in context: A pilot study of linguistic acculturation in South Asian Englishes. In Grammatical Change in English World-Wide, P. Collins (ed.), 411-435. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mukherjee, J & Gries, S. T.
2009Collostructional nativisation in New Englishes: Verb-construction associations in the International Corpus of English. English World-Wide 30(1): 27–51.Google Scholar
Mukherjee, J & Hoffmann, S.
2006Describing verb-complementational profiles of New Englishes: A pilot study of Indian English. English World-Wide 27(2): 147–173.Google Scholar
Mukherjee, J & Hundt, M.
(eds). 2011Exploring Second-Language Varieties of English and Learner Englishes: Bridging a Paradigm Gap. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Mukherjee, J & Schilk, M.
2008Verb complementational profiles across varieties of English: Comparing verb-classes in Indian and British English. In The Dynamics of Linguistic Variation. Corpus Evidence on English Past and Present, T. Nevalainen, I. Taavitsainen & P. Korhonen (eds), 163–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2012Exploring variation and change in New Englishes: Looking into the International Corpus of English (ICE) and beyond. In The Oxford Handbook of the History of English, T. Nevalainen & E. C. Traugott (eds), 189–199. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Müller, S.
2006Discussion note: Phrasal or lexical constructions? Language 82(4): 850–883.Google Scholar
Nam, C. F. H., Mukherjee, S., Schilk, M. & Mukherjee, J.
2013Statistical analysis of varieties of English. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) 176(3): 777–793.Google Scholar
Nehls, D.
1991English DO/MAKE Compared with German TUN/MACHEN and Dutch DOEN/MAKEN. A Synchronic-Diachronic Approach. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 29(4), 303–316.Google Scholar
Nelson, G. & Hongtao, R.
2012Particle verbs in African Englishes: Nativization and innovation. In Mapping Unity and Diversity World-Wide: Corpus-based Studies of New Englishes, M. Hundt & U. Gut (eds), 197–214. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nesselhauf, N.
2004Collocations in a Learner Corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2009Co-selection phenomena across New Englishes: Parallels (and differences) to foreign learner varieties. English World-Wide 30(1): 1–25.Google Scholar
2011Exploring the phraseology of ESL and EFL varieties. In The Phraseological View of Language: A tribute to John Sinclair, T. Herbst, S. Faulhaber & P. Uhrig (eds), 159–177. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Nihalani, P., Tongue, R. K. & Hosali, P.
1979Indian and British English. A Handbook of Usage and Pronunciation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nihalani, P., Tongue, R. K., Hosali, P. & Crowther, J.
2004Indian and British English. a Handbook of Usage and Pronunciation (2nd edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ninio, A.
1996Pathbreaking verbs in syntactic development. Paper presented at the 7th International Congress for the Study of Child Language, Istanbul, Turkey.
Nunberg, G., Sag, I. A. & Wasow, T.
1994Idioms. Language 70(3): 491–538.Google Scholar
Olavarría de Ersson, E. & Shaw, P.
2003Verb complementation patterns in Indian Standard English. English World-Wide 24(2): 137–161.Google Scholar
Ong, H. T.
2016Singapore Economy and Environment in 2065. In Singapore 2065: Leading Insights on Economy and Environment from 50 Singapore Icons and Beyond, E. Quah (ed.), 373–380. New Jersey: New Scientific.Google Scholar
Ortega, L.
2018Ontologies of language, Second Language Acquisition, and World Englishes. World Englishes 37(1), 64–79.Google Scholar
Pang, A. & Shankar, R.
(eds). 2015UNION: 15 Years of Drunken Boat, 50 Years of Writing from Singapore. Singapore: Ethos Books.Google Scholar
Papafragou, A.
2010Source-goal asymmetries in motion representation: Implications for language production and comprehension. Cognitive Science 34(6): 1064–1092.Google Scholar
Paquot, M.
2010Academic Vocabulary in Learner Writing: From Extraction to Analysis. London & New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Parés, R.
1961The economic factors in the history of the Empire. In The Historian’s Business, and Other Essays, R. A. Humphreys & E. Humphreys (eds), 49–76. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Parviainen, H.
2017Omission of direct objects in New Englishes. In Changing English: Global and Local Perspectives, M. Filppula, J. Klemola, A. Mauranen & S. Vetchinnikova (eds), 129–153. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Paul, P.
2003The master’s language and its Indian uses. In The Politics of English as a World Language: New Horizons in Postcolonial Cultural Studies, C. Mair (ed.), 359–365. Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Pawley, A. & Syder, E.
1983Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Native-like selection and native-like fluency. In Language and communication, J. C. Richards & R. Schmidt (eds), 191–226. Harlow, Essex: Longman.Google Scholar
Percillier, M.
2016World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition: Insights from Southeast Asian Englishes. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Perek, F.
2009Distributional characterization of constructional meaning. Paper presented at the Corpus Linguistics 2009 conference, Liverpool.
2015Argument Structure in Usage-based Construction Grammar: Experimental and Corpus-based Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2018Recent change in the productivity and schematicity of the way-construction: A distributional semantic analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 14(1): 65–97.Google Scholar
Perek, F. & Lemmens, M.
2010Getting at the meaning of the English at-construction: The case of a constructional split. CogniTextes 5.Google Scholar
Platt, J. T.
1975The Singapore English speech continuum and its basilect ‘Singlish’ as a ‘creoloid.’ Anthropological Linguistics 17: 363–374.Google Scholar
1977The subvarieties of Singapore English and their sociolectal and functional status. In The English language in Singapore, W. J. Crewe (ed.), 83–95. Singapore: Eastern Universities Press.Google Scholar
1991Social and linguistic constraints on variation in the use of two grammatical variables in Singapore English. In English around the Wold: Sociolinguistic Perspectives, J. Cheshire (ed.), 376-387. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Platt, J. T. & Weber, H.
1980English in Singapore and Malaysia: Status, Features, Functions. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Platt, J. T., Weber, H. & Ho, M. L.
1984The New Englishes. London & Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Proctor, L. M.
2014English and globalization in India: The fractal nature of discourse. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 24(3): 294–314.Google Scholar
Proshina, Z. G.
2007The ABC and controversies of World Englishes. Хабаровск: ДВИИЯ. <https://​proshinazoyag​.weebly​.com​/uploads​/1​/0​/3​/5​/10358342​/abc​.pdf> (20April 2020)Google Scholar
Pullum, G.
Quirk, R.
1990Language varieties and standard language. English Today 6(1): 3-10.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J.
1972A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
1985A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
R Core Team
2013R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. <http://​www​.R​-project​.org​/> (20 April 2020)
Radden, G. & Dirven, R.
2007Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Radford, A.
1988Transformational Grammar: A First Course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, M. & Levin, B.
1998Building verb meaning. In The Projection of Arguments, M. Butt & W. Geuder (eds), 97–134. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Rayson, P.
2009Wmatrix: A web-based corpus processing environment. Computing Department, Lancaster University. Accessible at <http://​ucrel​.lancs​.ac​.uk​/wmatrix​/> (20 April 2020)
Rice, S., Sandra, D. & Vanrespaille, M.
1999Prepositional semantics and the fragile link between space and time. In Cultural, Typology and Psycholinguistic Issues in Cognitive Linguistics, M. Hiraga, C. Sinha & S. Wilcox (eds), 107–127. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Richards, J. C.
1979Rhetorical and communicative styles in the new varieties of English. Language Learning 29(1): 1–25.Google Scholar
Rickheit, G. & Sichelschmidt, L.
2007Valency and cognition - A notion in transition. In Valency: Theoretical, Descriptive and Cognitive Issues, T. Herbst & K. Götz-Votteler (eds), 163–182. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Ringböm, H.
1998Highfrequency verbs in the ICLE corpus. In Explorations in Corpus Linguistics, A. Renouf (ed.), 191–200. Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Rodríguez, H., Climent, S., Vossen, P., Bloksma, L., Peters, W., Alonge, A., Bertagna, F., Roventini, A.
1998The top-down strategy for building eurowordnet: Vocabulary coverage, base concepts and top ontology. Computers and the Humanities 32(2–3): 117–152.Google Scholar
Römer, U.
2009The inseparability between lexis and grammar: Corpus linguistic perspectives. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 7: 141–163.Google Scholar
Ronan, P. & Schneider, G.
2015Determining light verb constructions in contemporary British and Irish English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 20(3): 326–354.Google Scholar
Rosch, E.
1999Principles of categorization. In Concepts: Core Readings, E. Margolis & S. Laurence (eds), 189-206. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rosen, A.
2016The fate of linguistic innovations: Jersey English and French learner English compared. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 2(2): 302–322.Google Scholar
Röthlisberger, M.
2018Syntactic variation, constructional entrenchment and World Englishes: Inside the English dative alternation. Paper presented at the 51th annual meeting of the SLE 29 August01 September 2018, Tallin, Estonia.
Röthlisberger, M., Grafmiller, J. & Szmrecsanyi, B.
2017Cognitive indigenization effects in the English dative alternation. Cognitive Linguistics 28(4): 673-710.Google Scholar
Rubdy, R.
2001Creative destruction: Singapore’s Speak Good English movement. World Englishes 20(3): 341–355.Google Scholar
Ruppenhofer, J. & Michaelis, L. A.
2010A constructional account of genre-based argument omissions. Constructions and Frames 2(2): 158–184.Google Scholar
Sahgal, A.
1991Patterns of language use in a bilingual setting in India. In English around the World: Sociolinguistic Perspectives, J. Cheshire (ed.), 299–307. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sand, A.
2004Shared morpho-syntactic features in contact varieties of English: Article use. World Englishes 23(2): 281–298.Google Scholar
2005The effects of language contact on the morpho-syntax of English. In Anglistentag 2004 Aachen: Proceedings, L. Moessner & C. M. Schmidt (eds), 449–460. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.Google Scholar
Saraceni, M.
2010The Relocation of English: Shifting Paradigms in a Global Era. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Schiffmann, H. F.
2005Bilingualism in South Asia: Friend or foe?In ISB4: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism, J. Cohen, K. T. McAlister, K. Rolstad & J. MacSwan (eds), 2104–2114. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Schilk, M.
2011Structural Nativization in Indian English Lexicogrammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schilk, M., Bernaisch, T. & Mukherjee, J.
2012Mapping unity and diversity in South Asian English lexicogrammar: Verb-complementational preferences across varieties. In Mapping Unity and Diversity World-Wide: Corpus-based Studies of New Englishes, M. Hundt & U. Gut (eds), 137–166. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schilk, M., Mukherjee, J., Nam, C. & Mukherjee, S.
2013Complementation of ditransitive verbs in South Asian Englishes: A multifactorial analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 9(2): 187-225.Google Scholar
Schmied, J.
1996Second-language corpora. In Comparing English Worldwide: The International Corpus of English, S. Greenbaum (ed.), 182–196. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Schneider, E. W.
2003The Dynamics of New Englishes: From identity construction to dialect birth. Language 79(2): 233–281.Google Scholar
2004How to trace structural nativization: Particle verbs in world Englishes. World Englishes 23(2): 227–249.Google Scholar
2007Postcolonial English: Varieties around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2012Exploring the interface between World Englishes and Second Language Acquisition – and implications for English as a Lingua Franca. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca 1(1): 57-91.Google Scholar
2014New reflections on the evolutionary dynamics of world Englishes. World Englishes 33(1): 9–32.Google Scholar
Schneider, E. W., Burridge, K., Kortmann, B., Mesthrie, R. & Upton, C.
(eds). 2004A Handbook of Varieties of English. Vol. I: Phonology. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Schneider, G. & Gilquin, G.
2016Detecting innovations in a parsed corpus of learner English. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 2(2): 177–204.Google Scholar
Schneider, G. & Zipp, L.
2013Discovering new verb-preposition combinations in New Englishes. In Corpus linguistics and Variation in English: Focus on Non-native Englishes, M. Huber & J. Mukherjee (eds). Helsinki: Research unit for variation, Contacts and change in English. <http://​www​.helsinki​.fi​/varieng​/series​/volumes​/13​/schneider​_zipp​/> (20 April 2020)Google Scholar
Scott, M.
2004WordSmith Tools Version 4. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Seargeant, P.
2012Exploring World Englishes: Language in a Global Context. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sedlatschek, A.
2009Contemporary Indian English Variation and Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Seoane, E.
2016World Englishes Today. In World Englishes: New Theoretical and Methodological Considerations, E. Seoane & C. Suárez-Gómez (eds), 1–16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Setter, J., Wong, C. S. P. & Chan, B. H.-S.
2010Hong Kong English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Shahrokny-Prehn, A. & Höche, S.
2011Rising through the registers: A corpus-based account of the stylistic constraints on light verb constructions. Corpus 10: 239–257.Google Scholar
Sharma, D.
2005Language transfer and discourse universals in Indian English article use. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27: 535–566.Google Scholar
2009Typological diversity in New Englishes. English World-Wide 30(2): 170–195.Google Scholar
2012Shared features in New Englishes. In Areal Features of the Anglophone World, R. Hickey (ed.), 211–232. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Shatz, C. J.
1992The developing brain. Scientific American 267(3): 60–67.Google Scholar
Sheskin, D.
2011Handbook of Parametric and Nonparametric Statistical Procedures (5th edition). Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Siemund, P., Schulz, M. E. & Schweinberger, M.
2014Studying the linguistic ecology of Singapore: A comparison of college and university students. World Englishes 33(3): 340–362.Google Scholar
Simpson, J.
1983Resultatives. In Papers in Lexical-Functional Grammar, L. Levin, M. Rappaport & A. Zaenen (eds), 143-157. Bloomington: Indiana University/Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J.
1991Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
1996The search for units of meaning. TEXTUS IX(1): 75–106.Google Scholar
1998The lexical item. In Constrastive Lexical Semantics, E. Weigand (ed.), 1–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2004The search for units of meaning. In Trust the Text: Language, Corpus and Discourse, 24–48. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Smith, Adam.
2009Light verbs in Australian, New Zealand and British English. In Comparative Studies in Australian and New Zealand English: Grammar and beyond, P. Peters, P. Collins & A. Smith (eds), 139-155. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Spencer, B.
2011International sporting events in South Africa, identity re-alignment, and Schneider’s EVENT X. African Identities 9(3): 267–278.Google Scholar
Sridhar, K. K. & Sridhar, S. N.
1986Bridging the paradigm gap: Second language acquisition theory and indigenized varieties of English. World Englishes 5(1): 3–14.Google Scholar
Sridhar, S. N.
1986Sociolinguistic Contexts and Non-native Varieties of English.
1994A reality check for SLA theories. TESOL Quarterly 28(4): 800–805.Google Scholar
Staples, S. & Biber, D.
2015Cluster analysis. In Advancing quantitative methods in second language research, L. Plonsky (ed.), 243–274. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A.
2001Constructing Causation: A Construction Grammar Approach to Analytic Causatives. PhD dissertation, Rice University.Google Scholar
2003A construction-based approach to indirect speech acts. In Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing, K.-U. Panther & L. L. Thornburg (eds), 105–126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2011Argument structure: Item-based or distributed? Zeitschrift Für Anglistik Und Amerikanistik 59(4): 369–386.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries, S. Th.
2003Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2): 209–243.Google Scholar
2008Channel and constructional meaning: A collostructional case study. In Cognitive Sociolinguistics: Language Variation, Cultural Models, Social Systems, G. Kristiansen & R. Dirven (eds), 129–152. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Stubbs, M.
2009Technology and phraseology: With notes on the history of corpus linguistics. In Exploring the Lexis-Grammar Interface, U. Römer & R. Schulze (eds), 15–32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B., Grafmiller, J., Bresnan, J., Rosenbach, A., Tagliamonte, S. & Todd, S.
2017Spoken syntax in a comparative perspective: The dative and genitive alternation in varieties of English. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 2(1):86.1–27.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B., Grafmiller, J., Heller, B. & Röthlisberger, M.
2016Around the world in three alternations: Modeling syntactic variation in varieties of English. English World-Wide 37(2): 109–137.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B. & Kortmann, B.
2011Typological profiling: Learner Englishes versus indigenized L2 varieties of English. In Exploring Second-Language Varieties of English and Learner Englishes: Bridging a Paradigm Gap, J. Mukherjee & M. Hundt (eds), 167–188. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Talib, I. S.
1994Responses to the language of Singaporean literature in English. In Language, Education and Society in Singapore Issues and Trends, S. Gopinathan, A. Pakir, W. K. Ho & V. Saravanan (eds), 153–174. Singapore: Times Academic Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, C.
2008What is Corpus Linguistics? What the data says. ICAME Journal 32: 179–200.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R.
2002Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2012The Mental Corpus: How Language is Represented in the Mind. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Terziev, A., Kiryakov, A. & Manov, D.
2005D1.8.1 Base Upper-level Ontology (BULO) Guidance. <http://​ontotext​.com​/documents​/proton​/Proton​-Ver3​.0B​.pdf> (20 April 2020)
Teubert, W.
2005My version of corpus linguistics. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 10(1): 1–13.Google Scholar
Thomason, S.
2007Language contact and deliberate change. Journal of Language Contact 1(1): 41–62.Google Scholar
(fc.). Can rules be borrowed?In Festschrift for Terrance Kaufman, T. Smith-Stark & R. Zavala eds
Thompson, S. & Hopper, P.
2001Transitivity, clause structure and argument structure: Evidence from conversation. In Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure, J. Bybee & P. Hopper (eds), 27–60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M.
2003Constructing a Language: A Usage-based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Trotta, J.
2000Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description. Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Trousdale, G.
2008Constructions in grammaticalization and lexicalization: Evidence from the history of a composite predicate construction in English. In Constructional approaches to English grammar, G. Trousdale & N. Gisborne (eds), 33–67. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
2015Multiple inheritance and constructional change. In On Multiple Source Constructions in Language Change, H. De Smet, L. Ghesquière & F. Van de Velde (eds), 19–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P.
2003A Glossary of Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tuggy, D.
1993Ambiguity, polysemy, and vagueness. Cognitive Linguistics 4(3): 273–290.Google Scholar
Tummers, J., Heylen, K. & Geeraerts, D.
2005Usage-based approaches in Cognitive Linguistics: A technical state of the art. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1(2): 225–261.Google Scholar
Uhrig, P.
2015Why the principle of no synonymy is overrated. Zeitschrift Für Anglistik Und Amerikanistik 63(3): 323–337.Google Scholar
Van der Auwera, J. & Gast, V.
2011Categories and prototypes. In The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Typology, J. J. Song (ed.), 166–189. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Van der Auwera, J., Noël, D. & De Wit, A.
2012The diverging need (to)’s of Asian Englishes. In Mapping Unity and Diversity World-Wide: Corpus-based Studies of New Englishes, M. Hundt & U. Gut (eds), 55–76. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Van Rooy, B.
2010Social and linguistic perspectives on variability in World Englishes. World Englishes 29(1): 3–20.Google Scholar
2011A principled distinction between error and conventionalized innovation in African Englishes. In Exploring Second-Language Varieties of English and Learner Englishes: Bridging a Paradigm Gap, J. Mukherjee & M. Hundt (eds), 189–208. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2014Convergence and endonormativity at phase four of the Dynamic Model. In The Evolution of Englishes: The Dynamic Model and beyond, S. Buschfeld, T. Hoffmann, M. Huber & A. Kautzsch (eds), 21–38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Van Rooy, B. & Terblanche, L.
2010Complexity in word-formation processes in New Varieties of South African English. Southern African linguistics and applied language studies 28(4): 357–374.Google Scholar
Viberg, A.
1996Cross-linguistic lexicology: the case of English go and Swedish . In Languages in Contrast: Papers from aSsymposium on Text-based Cross-linguistic Studies, Lund 4-5 March 1994., K. Aijmer, B. Altenberg & M. Johansson (eds), 151–182. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
2002Basic verbs in Second Language Acquisition. Revue Française de Linguistique Appliquée 7(2): 51–69.Google Scholar
Vogel, R.
2016Optimal constructions. In Optimality-theoretic Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics, G. Legendre, M. T. Putnam, H. de Swart & E. Zaroukian (eds), 55–77. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wee, L.
2014Linguistic chutzpah and the Speak Good Singlish movement. World Englishes 33(1): 85–99.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U., Labov, W. & Herzog, M.
1968Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. In Directions for Historical Linguistics: A Symposium, W. P. Lehmann & Y. Malkiel (eds), 95–188. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Werner, J. & Mukherjee, J.
2012Highly polysemous verbs in New Englishes: A corpus-based study of Sri Lankan and Indian English. In Corpus Linguistics: Looking Back – Moving Forward, S. Hoffmann, P. Rayson & G. Leech (eds), 249–266. Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Werner, V.
2013Temporal adverbials and the present perfect/past tense alternation. English World-Wide 34(2): 202–240.Google Scholar
2016Overlap and divergence: Aspects of the present perfect in World Englishes. In World Englishes: New Theoretical and Methodological Considerations, E. Seoane & C. Suárez-Gómez (eds), 113–142. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Wickham, H., Chang, W., Henry, L., Pedersen, T. L., Takahashi, K., Wilke, C., Woo, K.
2019ggplot2: Create Elegant Data Visualisations Using the Grammar of Graphics, R package version 3.1.0. <https://​cran​.r​-project​.org​/web​/packages​/ggplot2​/index​.html> (20 April 2020)
Widdowson, H. G.
1994The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly 28(2): 377.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A.
1972Semantic Primitives. Frankfurt: Athenäum-Verl.Google Scholar
1982Why can you have a drink when you can’t have an eat? Language 58(4): 753–799.Google Scholar
Williams, J.
1987Non-native varieties of English: A special case of language acquisition. English World-Wide 8(2): 161–199.Google Scholar
Winford, D.
2013Substrate influence and universals in the emergence of contact Englishes: Re-evaluating the evidence. In English as a Contact Language, D. Schreier & M. Hundt (eds), 222–241. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wolf, H.-G. & Polzenhagen, F.
2007Fixed expressions as manifestations of cultural conceptualizations: Examples from African varieties of English. In Phraseology and Culture in English, P. Skandera (ed.), 399-435. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
2009World Englishes: A Cognitive Sociolinguistic Approach. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Wong, J.
2014The Culture of Singapore English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wong, M. L.-Y.
2014Verb-preposition constructions in Hong Kong English: A cognitive semantic account. Linguistics 52(3): 603-635.Google Scholar
Wray, A.
2002Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wulff, S.
2006 Go-V vs. go-and-V in English: A case of constructional synonymy?In Corpora in Cognitive Linguistics: Corpus-based Approaches to Syntax and Lexis, S. Th. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (eds), 101–126. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
2008Rethinking Idiomaticity: A Usage-based Approach. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Wulff, S., Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries, S. Th.
2007Brutal Brits and persuasive Americans: Variety-specific meaning construction in the into-causative. In Aspects of Meaning Construction, G. Radden, K.-M. Köpcke, T. Berg & P. Siemund (eds), 265–281. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Xi, X. & Ingham, M.
(eds). 2003City Voices: Hong Kong Writing in English, 1945 to the Present. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Google Scholar
Yamaguchi, T. & Deterding, D.
2016English in Malaysia: Background, status and use. In English in Malaysia: Current Use and Status, T. Yamaguchi & D. Deterding (eds), 3–24. Leiden & Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Yano, Y.
2001World Englishes in 2000 and beyond. World Englishes 20(2): 119–132.Google Scholar
Yao, X.
2016Cleft constructions in Hong Kong English. English World-Wide 37(2): 197–220.Google Scholar
Yuen-Ying, C.
2000The English-language media in Hong Kong. World Englishes 19(3): 323–335.Google Scholar
Zeileis, A., Meyer, D. & Hornik, K.
2007Residual-based shadings for visualizing conditional independence. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 16(3): 507–525.Google Scholar
Ziegeler, D.
2015Converging Grammars: Constructions in Singapore English. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Zipf, G. K.
1945The meaning-frequency relationship of words. The Journal of General Psychology 33(2): 251–256.Google Scholar
Zipp, L.
2014Educated Fiji English: Lexico-Grammar and Variety Status. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Subjects
BIC Subject: CFK – Grammar, syntax
BISAC Subject: LAN009060 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / Syntax