Chapter in:
Broadening the Spectrum of Corpus Linguistics: New approaches to variability and change
Edited by Susanne Flach and Martin Hilpert
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 105] 2022
► pp. 940


SPOKENBNC2014 = Spoken BNC
BigBrother = BigBrother-korpuset, Tekstlaboratoriet, ILN, Universitetet i Oslo
NoTa = Norsk talespråkskorpus – Oslodelen, Tekstlaboratoriet, ILN, Universitetet i Oslo
Artstein, Ron & Poesio, Massimo
2008Inter-coder agreement for computational linguistics. Computational Linguistics 34(4): 555–96. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald
2008Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Mächler, Martin, Bolker, Ben & Walker, Steve
2015Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1): 1–48. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Berglund, Ylva
2005Expressions of Future in Present-Day English: A Corpus-Based Approach. PhD dissertation, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.
Bergs, Alexander
2010Expressions of futurity in contemporary English: A Construction Grammar perspective. English Language & Linguistics 14(2): 217–238. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Binnick, Robert I.
1971Will and be going to. In Papers from the Seventh Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 40–53. Chicago IL: CLS.Google Scholar
Close, Reginald A.
1988The future in English. In Kernprobleme der Englischen Grammatik: Sprachliche Fakten und Ihre Vermittlung, 51–66. München: Langenscheidt-Longman.Google Scholar
Cohen, Jacob
1960A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 20(1): 37–46. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1989On identifying future tenses. In Tempus – Aspekt – Modus. Die Lexikalischen und Grammatischen Formen in den Germanischen Sprachen, Werner Abraham & Theo Janssen (eds), 51–63. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen
(ed.) 2000Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Denis, Derek & Tagliamonte, Sali A.
2018The changing future: Competition, specialization and reorganization in the contemporary English future temporal reference system. English Language and Linguistics 22(3): 403–30. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eide, Kristin Melum
2015Tilegnelse av verbale kategorier. In Norsk Andrespråkssyntaks, Kristin Melum Eide (ed.), 135–196. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Faarlund, Jan Terje, Lie, Svein & Vannebo, Kjell Ivar
1997Norsk Referansegrammatikk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Flach, Susanne
2021Beyond modal idioms and modal harmony: A corpus-based analysis of gradient idiomaticity in mod+adv collocations. English Language & Linguistics. 25(4): 743–765. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E.
1995Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. & Stefanowitsch, Anatol
2004Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9: 97–129. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th
2016Variationist analysis. In Triangulating Methodological Approaches in Corpus-Linguistic Research, Paul Baker & Jesse Egbert (eds), 108–123. New York NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
2019On classification trees and random forests in corpus linguistics: Some words of caution and suggestions for improvement. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 16(3): 617–647. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane
1989 Be going to and will: A pragmatic account. Journal of Linguistics 25: 291–317. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haiman, John
1980The iconicity of grammar: Isomorphism and motivation. Language 56(3): 515–540. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hasselgård, Hilde
2015Coming and going to the future: Future-referring expressions in English and Norwegian. In Cross-Linguistic Perspectives on Verb Constructions, Signe Oksefjell Ebeling & Hilde Hasselgård (eds), 88–115. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Hilpert, Martin
2006A synchronic perspective on the grammaticalization of Swedish future constructions. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 29(2): 151–173. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008Germanic Future Constructions: A Usage-Based Approach to Language Change [Constructional Approaches to Language 7]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth C.
2003Grammaticalization (2nd edn). Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hosmer, David W., Lemeshow, Stanley & Sturdivant, Rodney X.
2013Applied Logistic Regression (3rd edn). New York NY: Wiley & Sons. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney
1995The case against a future tense in English. Studies in Language 19(2): 399–446. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K.
2017The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Landis, J. Richard & Koch, Gary G.
1977The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(1): 159. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey N.
1971Meaning and the English Verb. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Levy, Roger & Jaeger, T. Florian
2007Speakers optimize information density through syntactic reduction. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 19: 849–856.Google Scholar
Lie, Svein
2005Kontrastiv Grammatikk – Med Norsk i Sentrum. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Lorenz, David
2013On-going change in English modality: Emancipation through frequency. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 43(1): 33–48. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Love, Robbie, Dembry, Claire, Hardie, Andrew, Brezina, Vaclav & McEnery, Tony
2017The Spoken BNC2014: Designing and building a spoken corpus of everyday conversations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22 (3): 319–44. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mac Donald, Kirsti
1982Uttrykk for ramtid i norsk. Norskrift 39: 74–87.Google Scholar
Nakagawa, Shinichi & Schielzeth, Holger
2013A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 4(2): 133–142. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nicolle, Steve
1997A relevance-theoretic account of be going to . Linguistics 33: 355–377. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pietrandrea, Paola, Kahane, Sylvain, Lacheret, Anne & Sabio, Fréderic
2014The notion of sentence and other discourse units in corpus annotation. In Spoken Corpora and Linguistic Studies [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 61], Tommaso Raso & Heliana Mello (eds), 331–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pijpops, Dirk, Speelman, Dirk, Grondelaers, Stefan & Van de Velde, Freek
2018Comparing explanations for the Complexity Principle: Evidence from argument realization. Language and Cognition 10(3): 514–543. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
R Core Team
2019R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://​www​.R​-project​.org/ (31 March 2022).
Rohdenburg, Günter
1996Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English. Cognitive Linguistics 7(2): 149–82. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ruppenhofer, Josef & Rehbein, Ines
2019Detecting the boundaries of sentence-like units in spoken German. In Proceedings of the 15th Conference on Natural Language Processing (KONVENS2019), 130–139. Nürnberg: FAU Erlangen-Nürnberg.Google Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt
2002The Expression of Future Time Reference. MA thesis, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg.
2003 Be going to versus will/shall: Does syntax matter? Journal of English Linguistics 31(4): 295–323. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2020How difficult is grammatical variation, really? Keynote lecture presented at Grammar and Corpora 8, Cracow (Poland), November 2020.
Torres Cacoullos, Rena & Walker, James A.
2009The present of the English future: Grammatical variation and collocations in discourse. Language 85(2): 321–54. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vannebo, Kjell Ivar
1985Tempussystemet i norsk. Norskrift 46: 1–60.Google Scholar
Wekker, Herman C.
1976The Expression of Future Time in Contemporary British English: An Investigation into the Syntax and Semantics of Five Verbal Constructions Expressing Futurity. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Winter, Bodo
2019Statistics for Linguists: An Introduction Using R. New York NY: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar