References (51)
Corpora
SPOKENBNC2014 = Spoken BNC 2014, <[URL]>, see Love et al. 2017.
BigBrother = BigBrother-korpuset, Tekstlaboratoriet, ILN, Universitetet i Oslo. <[URL]>
NoTa = Norsk talespråkskorpus – Oslodelen, Tekstlaboratoriet, ILN, Universitetet i Oslo. <[URL]>
References
Artstein, Ron & Poesio, Massimo. 2008. Inter-coder agreement for computational linguistics. Computational Linguistics 34(4): 555–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, R. Harald. 2008. Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, Douglas, Mächler, Martin, Bolker, Ben & Walker, Steve. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1): 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berglund, Ylva. 2005. Expressions of Future in Present-Day English: A Corpus-Based Approach. PhD dissertation, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.
Bergs, Alexander. 2010. Expressions of futurity in contemporary English: A Construction Grammar perspective. English Language & Linguistics 14(2): 217–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Binnick, Robert I. 1971. Will 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. 1988. The future in English. In Kernprobleme der Englischen Grammatik: Sprachliche Fakten und Ihre Vermittlung, 51–66. München: Langenscheidt-Longman.Google Scholar
Cohen, Jacob. 1960. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 20(1): 37–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1989. On 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.). 2000. Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Denis, Derek & Tagliamonte, Sali A. 2018. The changing future: Competition, specialization and reorganization in the contemporary English future temporal reference system. English Language and Linguistics 22(3): 403–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eide, Kristin Melum. 2015. Tilegnelse av verbale kategorier. In Norsk Andrespråkssyntaks, Kristin Melum Eide (ed.), 135–196. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Faarlund, Jan Terje, Lie, Svein & Vannebo, Kjell Ivar. 1997. Norsk Referansegrammatikk. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Flach, Susanne. 2021. Beyond modal idioms and modal harmony: A corpus-based analysis of gradient idiomaticity in mod+adv collocations. English Language & Linguistics. 25(4): 743–765. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. & Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2004. Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9: 97–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan Th. 2016. Variationist analysis. In Triangulating Methodological Approaches in Corpus-Linguistic Research, Paul Baker & Jesse Egbert (eds), 108–123. New York NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2019. On 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1989. Be going to and will: A pragmatic account. Journal of Linguistics 25: 291–317. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haiman, John. 1980. The iconicity of grammar: Isomorphism and motivation. Language 56(3): 515–540. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hasselgård, Hilde. 2015. Coming 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. 2006. A synchronic perspective on the grammaticalization of Swedish future constructions. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 29(2): 151–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Germanic Future Constructions: A Usage-Based Approach to Language Change [Constructional Approaches to Language 7]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2003. Grammaticalization (2nd edn). Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hosmer, David W., Lemeshow, Stanley & Sturdivant, Rodney X. 2013. Applied Logistic Regression (3rd edn). New York NY: Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney. 1995. The case against a future tense in English. Studies in Language 19(2): 399–446. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2017. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Landis, J. Richard & Koch, Gary G. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(1): 159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey N. 1971. Meaning and the English Verb. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Levy, Roger & Jaeger, T. Florian. 2007. Speakers optimize information density through syntactic reduction. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 19: 849–856.Google Scholar
Lie, Svein. 2005. Kontrastiv Grammatikk – Med Norsk i Sentrum. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Lorenz, David. 2013. On-going change in English modality: Emancipation through frequency. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 43(1): 33–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Love, Robbie, Dembry, Claire, Hardie, Andrew, Brezina, Vaclav & McEnery, Tony. 2017. The Spoken BNC2014: Designing and building a spoken corpus of everyday conversations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22 (3): 319–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mac Donald, Kirsti. 1982. Uttrykk for ramtid i norsk. Norskrift 39: 74–87.Google Scholar
Nakagawa, Shinichi & Schielzeth, Holger. 2013. A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 4(2): 133–142. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nicolle, Steve. 1997. A relevance-theoretic account of be going to. Linguistics 33: 355–377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pietrandrea, Paola, Kahane, Sylvain, Lacheret, Anne & Sabio, Fréderic. 2014. The 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pijpops, Dirk, Speelman, Dirk, Grondelaers, Stefan & Van de Velde, Freek. 2018. Comparing explanations for the Complexity Principle: Evidence from argument realization. Language and Cognition 10(3): 514–543. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team. 2019. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. <[URL]> (31 March 2022).
Rohdenburg, Günter. 1996. Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English. Cognitive Linguistics 7(2): 149–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruppenhofer, Josef & Rehbein, Ines. 2019. Detecting 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. 2002. The 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. How difficult is grammatical variation, really? Keynote lecture presented at Grammar and Corpora 8, Cracow (Poland), November 2020.
Torres Cacoullos, Rena & Walker, James A. 2009. The present of the English future: Grammatical variation and collocations in discourse. Language 85(2): 321–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vannebo, Kjell Ivar. 1985. Tempussystemet i norsk. Norskrift 46: 1–60.Google Scholar
Wekker, Herman C. 1976. The 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. 2019. Statistics for Linguists: An Introduction Using R. New York NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Glynn, Dylan & Olaf Mikkelsen
2024. Concrete constructions or messy mangroves? How modelling contextual effects on constructional alternations reflect theoretical assumptions of language structure. Linguistics Vanguard 10:s1  pp. 9 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.