Cover not available
Part of
Corpora, Constructions, New Englishes: A constructional and variationist approach to verb patterning
Samantha Laporte
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 100] 2021
► pp. 341–368

References

Aarts, B. 2004. Modelling linguistic gradience. Studies in Language 28(1): 1–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Algeo, J. 1995. Having 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
2006. British or American English? A Handbook of Word and Grammar Patterns. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Allerton, D. J. 2002. Stretched Verb Constructions in English. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Alsagoff, L. 2010. English in Singapore: Culture, capital and identity in linguistic variation. World Englishes 29(3): 336–348. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Altenberg, B. & Granger, S. 2001. The grammatical and lexical patterning of make in native and non-native student writing. Applied Linguistics 22(2): 173–194. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ansaldo, U. 2004. The evolution of Singapore English Finding the matrix. In Singapore English: A Grammatical Description, L. Lim (ed.), 129-149. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. Contact and Asian varieties of English. In The Handbook of Language Contact, R. Hickey (ed.), 498–517. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ansaldo, U. & Lim, L. 2012. English in Asia. In Areal Features of the Anglophone World, R. Hickey (ed.), 187–210. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anthony, L. 2014a. AntConc (version 3.4.4)[computer software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. [URL] (20 April 2020)Google Scholar
2014b. AntWordProfiler (version 1.4.1)[computer software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. [URL] (20 April 2020)Google Scholar
Arppe, A., Gilquin, G., Glynn, D., Hilpert, M. & Zeschel, A. 2010. Cognitive Corpus Linguistics: Five points of debate on current theory and methodology. Corpora 5(1): 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Axler, M., Yang, A. & Stevens, T. 1998. Current 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. 2005. Semantic density and past-tense formation in three Germanic languages. Language 81(3): 666–698. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bakshi, R. N. 1991. Indian English. English Today 7(3): 43–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bamgbose, A. 1998. Torn between the norms: Innovations in World Englishes. World Englishes 17(1): 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bao, Z. 1995. Already in Singapore English. World Englishes 14(2): 181–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barðdal, J. 2008. Productivity: Evidence from Case and Argument Structure in Icelandic. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baron, I. & Herslund, M. 1998. Support 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bartoń, K. 2018. MuMIn: Multi-Model Inference, R package version 1.42.1. [URL] (20 April 2020)
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., Walker, S. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software 67(1): 1-48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019. lme4: Linear Mixed-Effects Models using ‘Eigen’ and S4, R package version 1.1-21. [URL] (20 April 2020)
Bauer, L. 2002. An 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. 2009. Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning 59, Supplement 1: 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergs, A. 2008. Can 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. 2013. The 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. [URL] (20 April 2020)Google Scholar
2015. The Lexis and Lexicogrammar of Sri Lankan English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bernaisch, T., Gries, S. T. & Mukherjee, J. 2014. The dative alternation in South Asian English(es): Modelling predictors and predicting prototypes. English World-Wide 35(1): 7–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bernaisch, T. & Koch, C. 2016. Attitudes towards Englishes in India. World Englishes 35(1): 118–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bernaisch, T. & Zipp, L. 2012. Particle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berns, M., De Bot, K. & Hasebrink, U. 2007. In the presence of English: Media and European youth. New York: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bhatt, R. M. 2001. World Englishes. Annual Review of Anthropology 30(1): 527–550. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S. & Finegan, E. (eds). 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bird, N. 2001. The 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. 1983. The comparative fallacy in interlanguage studies: The case of systematicity. Language Learning 33(1): 1–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, L. 1933. Language. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Blumenthal-Dramé, A. 2012. Entrenchment in Usage-based Theories: What Corpus Data do and do not Reveal about the Mind. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boas, H. 2003a. A Constructional Approach to Resultatives. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
2003b. Towards 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
2007. Construction Grammar in the twenty-first century. English Language and Linguistics 11(3): 569–585. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008a. Resolving form-meaning discrepancies in Construction Grammar. In Constructional Reorganization, J. Leino (ed.), 11–36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008b. Determining the structure of lexical entries and grammatical constructions in Construction Grammar. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 6(1): 113–144. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. Cognitive Construction Grammar. In The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (eds), 233–254. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2014. Lexical and phrasal approaches to argument structure: Two sides of the same coin. Theoretical Linguistics 40(1–2): 89-112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. 1961. Syntactic blends and other matters. Language 37(3): 366–381. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1976. Meaning and memory. Forum Linguisticum 1(1): 1–14.Google Scholar
Bolt, P. & Bolton, K. 1996. The 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. 2000. The sociolinguistics of Hong Kong and the space for Hong Kong English. World Englishes 19(3): 265–285. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002. Introduction. In Hong Kong English: Autonomy and Creativity, K. Bolton (ed.), 1–25. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Google Scholar
2003. Chinese Englishes. A Sociolinguistic History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2006. World Englishes Today. In The Handbook of World Englishes, B. B. Kachru, Y. Kachru & C. L. Nelson (eds), 240–269. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. Language 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolton, K. & Lim, S. 2000. Futures for Hong Kong English. World Englishes 19(3): 429–443. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolton, K. & Ng, B. C. 2014. The dynamics of multilingualism in contemporary Singapore. World Englishes 33(3): 307–318. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boyd, J. K. & Goldberg, A. E. 2011. Learning what NOT to say: The role of statistical preemption and categorization a-adjective production. Language 87(1): 55–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, L. J. 2011. The grammaticalization of complex predicates. In The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, B. Heine & H. Narrog (eds), 559–569.
Brinton, L. J. & Traugott, E. C. 2005. Lexicalization and Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bruckmaier, E. 2017. Getting at GET in World Englishes: A Corpus-based Semasiologicalsyntactic Analysis. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brugman, C. 2001. Light verbs and polysemy. Language Sciences 23(4–5): 551–578. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brunner, T. 2014. Structural nativization, typology and complexity: Noun phrase structures in British, Kenyan and Singaporean English. English Language and Linguistics 18(1): 23–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bruthiaux, P. 2003. Squaring the circles: Issues in modeling English worldwide. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 13(2): 159–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brutt-Griffler, J. 2002. World English: A Study of its Development. Clevedon, UK & Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bunton, D. 1989. Common English Errors in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Longman.Google Scholar
2012. More Common English Errors in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Longman.Google Scholar
Buschfeld, S., Hoffmann, T., Huber, M. & Kautzsch, A. 2014. Introduction. In The evolution of Englishes: the Dynamic Model and beyond, S. Buschfeld, T. Hoffmann, M. Huber & A. Kautzsch (eds), 1–18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Butler, S. 1997. Corpus 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. 2010. The 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. 2006. From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language 82(4): 711–733. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. Usage-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
2010. Language, Usage and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. & Hopper, P. 2001. Introduction 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. & Scheibman, J. 1999. The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: The reduction of don’t in English. Linguistics 37(4): 575–596. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cappelle, B. 2006. Particle placement and the case for ‘allostructions’. Constructions online, sv1–7: 1–28.Google Scholar
Carnie, A. 2010. Constituent Structure (2nd edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cavallaro, F., Ng, B. C. & Seilhamer, M. F. 2014. Singapore Colloquial English: Issues of prestige and identity. World Englishes 33(3): 378–397. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chew, P. G. L. 1995. Lectal power in Singapore English. World Englishes 14(2): 163–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. & Lasnik, H. 1993. The 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Church, K. & Hanks, P. 1990. Word association norms, mutual information, and lexicography. Computational Linguistics 16(1): 22–29.Google Scholar
Cinkova, S. & Hanks, P. 2010. Validation of Corpus Pattern Analysis: Assigning pattern numbers to random verb samples. [URL] (20 April 2020)
Cogo, A. & Dewey, M. 2012. Analyzing 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. 2012. Singular agreement in there-existentials: An intervarietal corpus-based study. English World-Wide 33(1): 53–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collins, P. & Yao, X. 2013. Colloquial features in Word Englishes. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18(4): 479–505. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Contreras-Cabrera, M., Bravo-Dutt, M. & Valles, E. T. (eds). 2015. Get Lucky: An Anthology of Philippine and Singapore Writings. Singapore: Ethos Books.Google Scholar
Cook, V. 1991. The poverty-of-the-stimulus argument and multicompetence. Second Language Research 7(2): 103–117.Google Scholar
1999. Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly 33(2): 185–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016. Where is the native speaker now? TESOL Quarterly 50(1): 186–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corder, S. P. 1967. The significance of learner’s errors. IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 5(4): 161-170. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. 2000. Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach. Harlow, England & New York: Longman.Google Scholar
2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003. Lexical 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005. Logical 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. Construction Grammar. In The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (eds), 463–508. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2009. Toward a social cognitive linguistics. In Human Cognitive Processing, V. Evans & S. Pourcel (eds), 395–420. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. & Cruse, D. A. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crystal, D. 2003. English as a Global Language (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culicover, P. W. 1999. Syntactic Nuts: Hard Cases, Syntactic Theory, and Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cummings, P. J. & Wolf, H.-G. 2011. A Dictionary of Hong Kong English: Words from the Fragrant Harbor. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Google Scholar
Dabrowska, E. & Divjak, D. 2015. Introduction. In Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, E. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (eds), 1–9. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Cuypere, L. & Verbeke, S. 2013. Dative alternation in Indian English: A corpus-based analysis. World Englishes 32(2):169–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deshors, S. C., Götz, S. & Laporte, S. 2016. Linguistic innovations in EFL and ESL: Rethinking the linguistic creativity of non-native English speakers. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 2(2): 131–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deshors, S. C. & Götz, S. 2017. Common ground across globalized English varieties: A multivariate exploration of mental predicates in World Englishes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, published online ahead of print. DOI logo
Deshors, S. C. & Gries, S. Th. 2016. Profiling 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Smet, H. 2016. How gradual change progresses: The interaction between convention and innovation. Language Variation and Change 28(1): 83–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deterding, D. 2007. Singapore English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dewaele, J.-M. 2018. Why the dichotomy ‘L1 versus LX user’ is better than ‘native versus Non-native speaker’. Applied Linguistics 39(2): 236–240.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. 2007. Frequency effects in language acquisition, language use, and diachronic change. New Ideas in Psychology 25(2): 108–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dirven, R., Goossens, L., Putseys, Y. & Vorlat, E. 1982. The Scene of Linguistic Action and its Perspectivization by Speak, Talk, Say and Tell. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dixon, R. M. W. 2005. A Semantic Approach to English Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Downes, J. 2018. Mainland 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. 1997. Ecology 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. 2014. English in the Netherlands: Functions, Forms and Attitudes. PhD Dissertation. Cambridge.Google Scholar
2016. English in the Netherlands: Functions, Forms and Attitudes. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Edwards, A. & Laporte, S. 2015. Outer and Expanding Circle Englishes: The competing roles of norm orientation and proficiency levels. English World-Wide 36(2): 135–169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. 2002. Frequency 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. & Ferreira-Junior, F. 2009. Construction learning as a function of frequency, frequency distribution, and function. The Modern Language Journal 93(3): 370–385. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C., Römer, U. & O’Donnell, M. B. 2016. Usage-based Approaches to Language Acquisition and Processing: Cognitive and Corpus Investigations of Construction Grammar. Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Google Scholar
Evans, S. 2009. The 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. Business as usual: The use of English in the professional world in Hong Kong. English for Specific Purposes 29(3): 153–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. Hong Kong English and the professional world: Hong Kong English and the professional world. World Englishes 30(3): 293–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, V. & Green, M. 2006. Cognitive linguistics: An Introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Faulhaber, S. 2011a. Idiosyncrasy in verb valency patterns. Zeitschrift Für Anglistik Und Amerikanistik 59(4): 331–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011b. Verb Valency Patterns: A Challenge for Semantics-based Accounts. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fellbaum, C. 2011. 20. Idioms and collocations. In Semantics, C. Maienborn, K. von Heusinger & P. Portner (eds), 441–456. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. 1968. The case for case. In Universals in Linguistic Theory, E. Bach & R. Harms (eds), 1–88. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
1976. Frame semantics and the nature of language. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 280(1): 20–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000. Describing 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. 1988. Regularity and Idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64(3): 501–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J., Lee-Goldman, R. R. & Rhomieux, R. 2012. The FrameNet constructicon. In Sign-based Construction Grammar, H. Boas & I. A. Sag (eds), 283–299. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Fischer, R. 2014. Lexical 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. 1975. The Language of Thought. Hassock, Sussex: Harvester Press.Google Scholar
Fuchs, R. 2012. Focus marking and semantic transfer in Indian English: The case of also . English World-Wide 33(1): 27–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016. Speech Rhythm in Varieties of English: Evidence from Educated Indian English and British English. New York, NY: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, D. 1993. Vagueness’s puzzles, polysemy’s vagaries. Cognitive Linguistics 4:223–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006. Introduction: A rough guide to Cognitive Linguistics. In Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings, D. Geeraerts (ed.), 1–28. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. Theories of Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Giles, H. 1973. Accent mobility: A model and some data. Anthropological Linguistics 15(2): 87–105.Google Scholar
Gilquin, G. 2006. The verb slot in Causative constructions: Finding the best fit. Constructions 1(3): 1–46.Google Scholar
2007. To 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. What 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
2010. Corpus, Cognition and Causative Constructions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. Corpus linguistics to bridge the gap between World Englishes and Learner Englishes. In Comunicación Social en el siglo XXI Vol. II, 638–642.Google Scholar
2012. The 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
2016. Input-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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giparaitè, J. 2016. Complementation of light verb constructions in World Englishes: A Corpus-based Study. Zmogus Ir Zodis 18(3): 19–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gisborne, N. 2009. Aspects of the morphosyntactic typology of Hong Kong English. English World-Wide 30(2): 149–169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glynn, D. 2010. Corpus-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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
1996. Construction Grammar. In Concise Encylcopedia of Syntactic Theories, K. Brown & J. Miller (eds), 68–71. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
1999. The emergence of the semantics of argument structure constructions. In Emergence of Language, B. MacWhinney (ed.), 197–212. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
2000. Patient arguments of Causative verbs can be omitted. Language Sciences 23(4–5): 503–524. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002. Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics 13(4): 327–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003. Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(5): 219–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005. Argument 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006a. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2006b. The 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. Corpus evidence of the viability of statistical preemption. Cognitive Linguistics 22(1):131–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. Constructionist approaches. In The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, T. Hoffmann & G. Trousdale (eds), 15–31. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2015. Tuning 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. 2006. English constructions. In The Handbook of English linguistics, B. Aarts & A. McMahon (eds), 343–355. Malden, MA, USA: Blackwell Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. & Jackendoff, R. 2004. The English Resultative as a family of constructions. Language 80(3): 532–568. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Görlach, M. 1990. Studies in the History of the English Language. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Google Scholar
Granger, S. & Gilquin, G. 2011. From 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Granger, S. & Paquot, M. 2008. Disentangling the phraseological web. In Phraseology: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, S. Granger & F. Meunier (eds), 27–49. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenbaum, S. 1986. The 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
1988. A proposal for an international computerized corpus of English. World Englishes 7(3): 315–315. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed.). 1996. Comparing English Worldwide: The International Corpus of English. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Greenbaum, S. & Nelson, G. 1996. The International Corpus of English (ICE) Project. World Englishes 15(1): 3–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. 2003. Multifactorial Analysis in Corpus Linguistics: A Study of Particle Placement. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
2006. Exploring variability within and between corpora: Some methodological considerations. Corpora 1(2): 109–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. Coll.analysis 3.2a. A program for R for Windows 2.x. [URL] (20 April 2020)
2008. Phraseology and linguistic theory: A brief survey. In Phraseology: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, S. Granger & F. Meunier (eds), 3–25. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. Useful 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
2013. Statistics for Linguistics with R: A Practical Introduction (2nd edition). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018. On over-and underuse in learner corpus research and multifactoriality in corpus linguistics more generally. Journal of Second Language Studies 1(2): 276–308. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. & Bernaisch, T. 2016. Exploring epicentres empirically: Focus on South Asian Englishes. English World-Wide 37(1): 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th., Bernaisch, T. & Heller, B. 2018. A 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. & Mukherjee, J. 2010. Lexical gravity across varieties of English: An ICE-based study of n-grams in Asian Englishes. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 15(4): 520–548. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. & Stefanowitsch, A. 2004a. Covarying collexemes in the into-Causative. In Language, Culture, and Mind, M. Achard & S. Kemmer (eds), 225–236. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
2004b. Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspectives on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(1): 97–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. Cluster 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. 2009. Hong Kong English: Does it exist (yet)? HKBU Papers in Applied Linguistics 13: 54-79.Google Scholar
2010. Error 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gupta, A. F. 1991. Almost a creole: Singapore Colloquial English. California Linguistic Notes 23: 9–21.Google Scholar
1997. Colonisation, 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998. The 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. 2012. Relatives 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gut, U. & Fuchs, R. 2017. Exploring speaker fluency with phonologically annotated ICE corpora. World Englishes 36(3): 387–403. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haiman, J. 1980. Dictionaries and encyclopedia. Lingua 50: 329–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hampe, B. & Schönefeld, D. 2003. Creative syntax: Iconic principles within the symbolic. In Iconicity in Language and Literature, W. G. Müller & O. Fischer (eds), 243–261. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006. Syntactic 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. 2004. The syntagmatics of metaphor and idiom. International Journal of Lexicography 17(3): 245–274. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. Preference syntagmatics. In Words and intelligence II: Essays in Honor of Yorick Wilks, K. Ahmad & C. Brewster (eds), 119–135. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008a. How to say new things: An essay on linguistic creativity. Brno Studies in English 34: 39–50.Google Scholar
2008b. The lexicographical legacy of John Sinclair. International Journal of Lexicography 21(3): 219–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009a. Computational lexicography-mapping meaning onto use. [URL] (20 April 2020)
2009b. The 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
2010. Elliptical 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
2012. How 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
2013. Lexical Analysis: Norms and Exploitations. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hanks, P. & Jezek, E. 2008. Shimmering 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. 2019. Hmisc: Harrell Miscellaneous, R package version 4.2-0. [URL] (20 April 2020)
Hasselgren, A. 1994. Lexical 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hebb, D. O. 1949. The organization of behavior: A neuropsychological theory. Mahwah, N.J: L. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Herbst, T. 1987. A 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. Valency complements or valency patterns? In Valency: Theoretical, Descriptive and Cognitive Issues, T. Herbst & K. Götz-Votteler (eds), 15–35. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. Valency: Item-specificity and idiom principle. In Exploring the Lexis-Grammar Interface, U. Römer & R. Schulze (eds), 49–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. Valency 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. The status of generalizations: Valency and argument structure constructions. Zeitschrift Für Anglistik Und Amerikanistik 59(4): 347–367. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014a. Idiosyncrasies and generalizations: Argument structure, semantic roles and the valency realization principle. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 2(1): 253–289. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014b. The valency approach to argument structure constructions. In Constructions, Collocations, Patterns, T. Herbst, H.-J. Schmid & S. Faulhaber (eds), 159–207. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herbst, T., Heath, D., Roe, I. F. & Götz, D. 2004. A valency dictionary of English: A corpus-based analysis of the complementation patterns of English verbs, nouns, and adjectives. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hilpert, M. 2012. Diachronic 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
2014. Construction Grammar and its Application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Höder, S. 2014. Constructing diasystems: Grammatical organisation in bilingual groups. In The Sociolinguistics of Grammar, T. A. Åfarli & B. Maehlum (eds), 137–152. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, S. 2004. Are 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, S., Hundt, M. & Mukherjee, J. 2011. Indian English: an emerging epicentre? A pilot study on light verbs in web-derived corpora of South Asian Englishes. Anglia 129(3–4): 258–280. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, S. & Mukherjee, J. 2007. Ditransitive verbs in Indian English and British English: A corpus-linguistic study. Arbeiten Aus Anglistik Und Amerikanistik 32(1): 5–24.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. 2007. Complements versus adjuncts: A Construction Grammar approach of English prepositional phrases. Occasional papers in language and linguistics (University of Nairobi) 3: 92-119.Google Scholar
2014. The 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017a. Construction Grammars. In The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, B. Dancygier (ed.), 284–309. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017b. Multimodal constructs – multimodal constructions? The role of constructions in the working memory. Linguistics Vanguard 3(1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, T. & Trousdale, G. (eds). 2013. The Oxford handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hohenthal, A. 2003. English in India: Loyalty and attitudes. Language in India 3(5).Google Scholar
Hopper, P. & Thompson, S. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56(2), 251–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horch, S. 2016. Innovative conversions in South-East Asian Englishes: Reassessing ESL status. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 2(2): 278–301. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hosmer, D. W., Lemeshow, S. & Sturdivant, R. X. 2013. Applied Logistic Regression (Third edition). Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huang, C.-T. J. 1984. On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 15(4): 531–574.Google Scholar
Huber, M. 2012. Ghanaian English. In The Mouton World Atlas of Variation in English, B. Kortmann & K. Lunkenheimer (eds), 382-393. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R. 1984. Introduction to the Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hugon, C. 2008. High-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. 2001. Grammatical variation in national varieties of English — The corpus-based approach. Revue belge de philologie et d’histoire 79(3): 737–756. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. How 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
2016. Error, 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hundt, M. & Vogel, K. 2011. Overuse 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hung, T. T. N. 2000. Towards a phonology of Hong Kong English. World Englishes 19(3): 337–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hunston, S. 2017. Corpus Linguistics in 2017: A personal view. Presented at the Corpus Linguistics conference, 24-28 July 2017, Birmingham.
2019. Patterns, constructions, and applied linguistics. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 24(3): 324–353. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, K. 1997. Language attitudes at the handover: Communication and identity in 1997 Hong Kong. English World-Wide 18(2): 191–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ide, N. & Wilks, Y. 2006. Making sense about sense. In Word Sense Disambiguation: Algorithms and Applications, E. Agirre & P. Edmonds (eds), 47–73. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ike, S. 2012. Japanese English as a Variety: Features and Intelligibility of an Emerging Variety of English. PhD dissertation, The University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
Ingham, M. 2003. Writing 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. 2003. World Englishes: A Resource Book for Students. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jezek, E. & Hanks, P. 2010. What lexical sets tell us about conceptual categories. Lexis: Journal in English Lexicology 4: 7–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kachru, B. B. 1965. The Indianness in Indian English. Word 21: 391–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1976. Models of English for the third world: Whiteman’s linguistic burden or language pragmatics. TESOL Quarterly 10(2): 221–239. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1982. Models for Non-Native Englishes. In The Other Tongue: English across Cultures, B. B. Kachru (ed.), 31–57. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
1983. Models for non-native Englishes. In World Englishes: Concepts in Linguistics, K. Bolton & B. B. Kachru (eds), 108–130. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
1985. Standards, 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
1986. The Alchemy of English: The Spread, Functions and Models of Non-Native Englishes. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
1988. The sacred cows of English. English Today 4(4): 3–8. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1991. Liberation linguistics and the Quirk Concern. English Today 7(1): 1-13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997. World Englishes and English-using communities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 17: 66–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005. Asian Englishes: Beyond the Canon. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Google Scholar
Kachru, B. B. & Nelson, C. L. 1996. World 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. 1985. Editorial. World Englishes 4(2): 209–212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kachru, Y. 1993. Interlanguage and language acquisition research. World Englishes 12(2): 265–268.Google Scholar
1994. Monolingual bias in SLA research. TESOL Quarterly 28(4): 795. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005. Teaching 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. 2005. Argument structure constructions and the argument-adjunct distinction. In Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots, M. Fried & H. Boas (eds), 71–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kearns, K. 1988/2002. Light Verbs in English. MA dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Kim, J.-B. & Sag, I. A. 2005. English 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. 2007. World Englishes: Implications for International Communication and English Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Klein, U., Kracht, M. & Vogel, R. 2012. Creation constructions and frames. Paper presented at the Concept Types and Frames in Language, Cognition, and Science conference, University of Düsseldorf.
Koch, C. & Bernaisch, T. 2013. Verb 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kortmann, B., Burridge, K., Mesthrie, R., Schneider, E. W. & Upton, C. (eds). 2004. A Handbook of Varieties of English. Vol. II: Morphology and Syntax. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kortmann, B. & Lunkenheimer, K. (eds). 2013. The Electronic World Atlas of Varieties of English. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.Google Scholar
Kortmann, B. & Szmrecsanyi, B. 2004. Global 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Lai, M.-L. 2001. Hong Kong students’ attitudes towards Cantonese, Putonghua and English after the change of sovereignty. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 22(2): 112–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1990. The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reasoning based on image schemas? Cognitive Linguistics 1(1): 39–74. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors we Live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1987a. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
1987b. Nouns and verbs. Language 63(1): 53–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1991. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 2: Descriptive Application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
2000. A dynamic usage-based model. In Usage-based Models of Language, M. Barlow & S. Kemmer (eds), 1–63. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
2005. Integration, grammaticization, and constructional meaning. In Grammatical Constructions: Back to the Roots, M. Fried & H. Boas (eds), 157–189. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. Essentials of Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lange, C. 2012. The Syntax of Spoken Indian English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016. The ‘intrusive as’-construction in South Asian varieties of English. World Englishes 35(1): 133–146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langer, S. 2004. A linguistic test battery for support verb constructions. Lingvisticae Investigationes 27(2): 171–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laporte, S. 2012. Mind the gap! Bridge between World Englishes and Learner Englishes in the making. English Text Construction 5(2): 265–292. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, D. 2001. Cognitive linguistics: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, K. 1996. Getting at the meaning of make. In Cognitive Linguistics in the Redwoods, E. H. Casad (ed.), 389–422. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, T. 2009. Singapore. In Encyclopedia of Journalism, C. Sterling (ed.), 1291–1293. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leech, G. 1992. Corpora and theories of linguistic performance. In Directions in Corpus Linguistics: Proceedings of Noberl Symposium 82, J. Svartvik (ed.), 105–122. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Legallois, D. 2005. Du 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. 2006. Autour des grammaires de constructions et de patterns. Cahier Du CRISCO 21.Google Scholar
Leimgruber, J. R. E. 2009. Modelling Variation in Singapore English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2013. Singapore English: Structure, Variation, and Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, B. 1993. English Verb Classes and Alternations: A Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
2013. Argument structure. In Oxford Bibliographies in Linguistics, M. Aronoff (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levin, B. & Hovav, M. R. 2005. Argument Realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. 2007. Polysemy, prototypes, and radial categories. In Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics, D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (eds), 139–169.
Li., C. & Thompson, S. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Li, D. C. S. 1999. The functions and status of English in Hong Kong: A post-1997 update. English World-Wide 20(1): 67–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000. Cantonese-English code-switching research in Hong Kong: A Y2K review. World Englishes 19(3): 305–322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. When 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. 2010. Migrants 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001. Ethnic 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.) 2004. Singapore English: A Grammatical Description. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lim, L. & Foley, J. A. 2004. English in Singapore and Singapore English. In Singapore English: A Grammatical Description, L. Lim (ed.), 1–18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lim, L., Pakir, A. & Wee, L. 2010. English 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ling, L. E. 2010. English 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. 2001. Investigating 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lowenberg, P. H. 1986. Sociolinguistic context and second-language acquisition: Acculturation and creativity in Malaysian English. World Englishes 5(1): 71–83. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luke, K. K. & Richards, J. C. 1982. English in Hong Kong: Functions and status. English World-Wide 3(1): 47–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mair, C. 2002. Three 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. Varieties of English around the world: Collocational and cultural profiles. In Phraseology and Culture in English, P. Skandera (ed.), 437–468. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016. Englishes 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017. Crisis 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Makkai, A. 1972. Idiom Structure in English. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McArthur, T. 1987. The English languages? English Today 3(3): 9-11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003. World English, Euro-English, Nordic English? English Today 19(1): 54-58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McLuhan, M. 1962. The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
McMahon, A. M. S. 1994. Understanding Language Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mehl, S. 2016. Corpus Onomasiology: A Study in World Englishes. PhD dissertation, University College London.Google Scholar
2018. What 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. DOI logo
Mehrotra, R. R. 1998. Indian English: Texts and Interpretation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Melchers, G. & Shaw, P. 2003. World Englishes: An Introduction. Great Britain: Hodder Education.Google Scholar
2011. World Englishes: An Introduction (2nd edition). Great Britain: Hodder Education.Google Scholar
Mel’cuk, I. A. 2006. The explanatory combinatorial dictionary. In Open Problems in Linguistics and Lexicography, S. Giandomenico (ed.), 225–355. Monza: Polimetrica.Google Scholar
Mesthrie, R. 1993. South African Indian English. English Today 9(2): 12-16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006. Anti-deletions in an L2 grammar: A study of Black South African English mesolect. English World-Wide 27(2): 111–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mesthrie, R. & Bhatt, R. M. 2008. World Englishes: The Study of New Linguistic Varieties. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meyer, D., Zeileis, A. & Hornik, K. 2017. vcd: Visualizing categorical data. R package version 1.4 4. [URL] (20 April 2020)Google Scholar
Meyers, A., Macleod, C. & Grishman, R. 1996. Standardization 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. 2004. Type shifting in Construction Grammar: An integrated approach to aspectual coercion. Cognitive Linguistics 15(1): 1–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moag, R. F. 1982. The 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. 1999. Standard English(es) and educational practices for the world’s lingua franca. English Today 15(4): 3-13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mollin, S. 2006. Euro-English: Assessing Variety Status. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Moody, A. 2010. The Englishes of popular cultures. In The Routledge Handbook of World Englishes, A. Kirkpatrick (ed.), 535–549. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Moon, R. 1998. Fixed Expressions and Idioms in English: A Corpus-based Approach. Oxford, New York: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Mufwene, S. S. 1993. African 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
2001. The Ecology of Language Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mukherjee, J. 2007. Steady states in the evolution of New Englishes: Present-day Indian English as an equilibrium. Journal of English Linguistics 35(2): 157–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004. Corpus 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005. English Ditransitive Verbs: Aspects of Theory, Description and a Usage-based Model. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. Corpus-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. 2015. Cultural 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mukherjee, J. & Hoffmann, S. 2006. Describing verb-complementational profiles of New Englishes: A pilot study of Indian English. English World-Wide 27(2): 147–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mukherjee, J. & Hundt, M. (eds). 2011. Exploring Second-Language Varieties of English and Learner Englishes: Bridging a Paradigm Gap. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mukherjee, J. & Schilk, M. 2008. Verb 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. Exploring 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. 2006. Discussion note: Phrasal or lexical constructions? Language 82(4): 850–883. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nam, C. F. H., Mukherjee, S., Schilk, M. & Mukherjee, J. 2013. Statistical analysis of varieties of English. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) 176(3): 777–793. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nehls, D. 1991. English 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nelson, G. & Hongtao, R. 2012. Particle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nesselhauf, N. 2004. Collocations in a Learner Corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. Exploring 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nihalani, P., Tongue, R. K. & Hosali, P. 1979. Indian and British English. A Handbook of Usage and Pronunciation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nihalani, P., Tongue, R. K., Hosali, P. & Crowther, J. 2004. Indian and British English. a Handbook of Usage and Pronunciation (2nd edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ninio, A. 1996. Pathbreaking 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. 1994. Idioms. Language 70(3): 491–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olavarría de Ersson, E. & Shaw, P. 2003. Verb complementation patterns in Indian Standard English. English World-Wide 24(2): 137–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ong, H. T. 2016. Singapore 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. 2018. Ontologies of language, Second Language Acquisition, and World Englishes. World Englishes 37(1), 64–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pang, A. & Shankar, R. (eds). 2015. UNION: 15 Years of Drunken Boat, 50 Years of Writing from Singapore. Singapore: Ethos Books.Google Scholar
Papafragou, A. 2010. Source-goal asymmetries in motion representation: Implications for language production and comprehension. Cognitive Science 34(6): 1064–1092. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paquot, M. 2010. Academic Vocabulary in Learner Writing: From Extraction to Analysis. London & New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Parés, R. 1961. The 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. 2017. Omission 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paul, P. 2003. The 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. 1983. Two 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
Perek, F. 2009. Distributional characterization of constructional meaning. Paper presented at the Corpus Linguistics 2009 conference, Liverpool.
2018. Recent change in the productivity and schematicity of the way-construction: A distributional semantic analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 14(1): 65–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perek, F. & Lemmens, M. 2010. Getting at the meaning of the English at-construction: The case of a constructional split. CogniTextes 5. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Platt, J. T. 1975. The Singapore English speech continuum and its basilect ‘Singlish’ as a ‘creoloid.’ Anthropological Linguistics 17: 363–374.Google Scholar
1977. The 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
1991. Social 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Platt, J. T. & Weber, H. 1980. English in Singapore and Malaysia: Status, Features, Functions. Oxford: Oup.Google Scholar
Platt, J. T., Weber, H. & Ho, M. L. 1984. The New Englishes. London & Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Proctor, L. M. 2014. English and globalization in India: The fractal nature of discourse. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 24(3): 294–314. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Proshina, Z. G. 2007. The ABC and controversies of World Englishes. Хабаровск: ДВИИЯ. [URL] (20April 2020)Google Scholar
Pullum, G. 2015. English and its undeserved good luck. [URL] (20 April 2020)
Quirk, R. 1990. Language varieties and standard language. English Today 6(1): 3-10. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. 1972. A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2013. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. [URL] (20 April 2020)
Radden, G. & Dirven, R. 2007. Cognitive English grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radford, A. 1988. Transformational Grammar: A First Course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, M. & Levin, B. 1998. Building verb meaning. In The Projection of Arguments, M. Butt & W. Geuder (eds), 97–134. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Rayson, P. 2009. Wmatrix: A web-based corpus processing environment. Computing Department, Lancaster University. Accessible at [URL] (20 April 2020)
Rice, S., Sandra, D. & Vanrespaille, M. 1999. Prepositional 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Richards, J. C. 1979. Rhetorical and communicative styles in the new varieties of English. Language Learning 29(1): 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rickheit, G. & Sichelschmidt, L. 2007. Valency 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. 1998. Highfrequency 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. 1998. The top-down strategy for building eurowordnet: Vocabulary coverage, base concepts and top ontology. Computers and the Humanities 32(2–3): 117–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Römer, U. 2009. The inseparability between lexis and grammar: Corpus linguistic perspectives. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 7: 141–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ronan, P. & Schneider, G. 2015. Determining light verb constructions in contemporary British and Irish English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 20(3): 326–354. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E. 1999. Principles of categorization. In Concepts: Core Readings, E. Margolis & S. Laurence (eds), 189-206. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rosen, A. 2016. The fate of linguistic innovations: Jersey English and French learner English compared. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 2(2): 302–322. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Röthlisberger, M. 2018. Syntactic variation, constructional entrenchment and World Englishes: Inside the English dative alternation. Paper presented at the 51th annual meeting of the SLE, 29 August – 01 September 2018, Tallin, Estonia.
Röthlisberger, M., Grafmiller, J. & Szmrecsanyi, B. 2017. Cognitive indigenization effects in the English dative alternation. Cognitive Linguistics 28(4): 673-710. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rubdy, R. 2001. Creative destruction: Singapore’s Speak Good English movement. World Englishes 20(3): 341–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ruppenhofer, J. & Michaelis, L. A. 2010. A constructional account of genre-based argument omissions. Constructions and Frames 2(2): 158–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sahgal, A. 1991. Patterns 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sand, A. 2004. Shared morpho-syntactic features in contact varieties of English: Article use. World Englishes 23(2): 281–298. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005. The 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. 2010. The Relocation of English: Shifting Paradigms in a Global Era. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiffmann, H. F. 2005. Bilingualism 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. 2011. Structural Nativization in Indian English Lexicogrammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schilk, M., Bernaisch, T. & Mukherjee, J. 2012. Mapping 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schilk, M., Mukherjee, J., Nam, C. & Mukherjee, S. 2013. Complementation of Ditransitive verbs in South Asian Englishes: A multifactorial analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 9(2): 187-225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmied, J. 1996. Second-language corpora. In Comparing English Worldwide: The International Corpus of English, S. Greenbaum (ed.), 182–196. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Schneider, E. W. 2003. The Dynamics of New Englishes: From identity construction to dialect birth. Language 79(2): 233–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004. How to trace structural nativization: Particle verbs in world Englishes. World Englishes 23(2): 227–249. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. Postcolonial English: Varieties around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. Exploring 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014. New reflections on the evolutionary dynamics of world Englishes. World Englishes 33(1): 9–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schneider, E. W., Burridge, K., Kortmann, B., Mesthrie, R. & Upton, C. (eds). 2004. A Handbook of Varieties of English. Vol. I: Phonology. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Schneider, G. & Gilquin, G. 2016. Detecting innovations in a parsed corpus of learner English. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research 2(2): 177–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schneider, G. & Zipp, L. 2013. Discovering 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. [URL] (20 April 2020)Google Scholar
Scott, M. 2004. WordSmith Tools Version 4. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Seargeant, P. 2012. Exploring World Englishes: Language in a Global Context. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sedlatschek, A. 2009. Contemporary Indian English Variation and Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seoane, E. 2016. World Englishes Today. In World Englishes: New Theoretical and Methodological Considerations, E. Seoane & C. Suárez-Gómez (eds), 1–16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Setter, J., Wong, C. S. P. & Chan, B. H.-S. 2010. Hong Kong English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Shahrokny-Prehn, A. & Höche, S. 2011. Rising through the registers: A corpus-based account of the stylistic constraints on light verb constructions. Corpus 10: 239–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sharma, D. 2005. Language transfer and discourse universals in Indian English article use. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27: 535–566. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. Typological diversity in New Englishes. English World-Wide 30(2): 170–195. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. Shared features in New Englishes. In Areal Features of the Anglophone World, R. Hickey (ed.), 211–232. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shatz, C. J. 1992. The developing brain. Scientific American 267(3): 60–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sheskin, D. 2011. Handbook of Parametric and Nonparametric Statistical Procedures (5th edition). Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Siemund, P., Schulz, M. E. & Schweinberger, M. 2014. Studying the linguistic ecology of Singapore: A comparison of college and university students. World Englishes 33(3): 340–362. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simpson, J. 1983. Resultatives. In Papers in Lexical-Functional Grammar, L. Levin, M. Rappaport & A. Zaenen (eds), 143-157. Bloomington: Indiana University/Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
1996. The search for units of meaning. TEXTUS IX(1): 75–106.Google Scholar
1998. The lexical item. In Constrastive Lexical Semantics, E. Weigand (ed.), 1–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004. The search for units of meaning. In Trust the Text: Language, Corpus and Discourse, 24–48. London & New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, Adam. 2009. Light 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spencer, B. 2011. International sporting events in South Africa, identity re-alignment, and Schneider’s EVENT X. African Identities 9(3): 267–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sridhar, K. K. & Sridhar, S. N. 1986. Bridging the paradigm gap: Second language acquisition theory and indigenized varieties of English. World Englishes 5(1): 3–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sridhar, S. N. 1986. Sociolinguistic Contexts and Non-native Varieties of English.
1994. A reality check for SLA theories. TESOL Quarterly 28(4): 800–805. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Staples, S. & Biber, D. 2015. Cluster analysis. In Advancing quantitative methods in second language research, L. Plonsky (ed.), 243–274. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. 2001. Constructing Causation: A Construction Grammar Approach to Analytic Causatives. PhD dissertation, Rice University.Google Scholar
2003. A construction-based approach to indirect speech acts. In Metonymy and Pragmatic Inferencing, K.-U. Panther & L. L. Thornburg (eds), 105–126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. Argument structure: Item-based or distributed? Zeitschrift Für Anglistik Und Amerikanistik 59(4): 369–386. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries, S. Th. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8(2): 209–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. Channel 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stubbs, M. 2009. Technology 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B., Grafmiller, J., Bresnan, J., Rosenbach, A., Tagliamonte, S. & Todd, S. 2017. Spoken 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B., Grafmiller, J., Heller, B. & Röthlisberger, M. 2016. Around the world in three alternations: Modeling syntactic variation in varieties of English. English World-Wide 37(2): 109–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B. & Kortmann, B. 2011. Typological 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talib, I. S. 1994. Responses 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. 2008. What is Corpus Linguistics? What the data says. ICAME Journal 32: 179–200.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. R. 2002. Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2012. The Mental Corpus: How Language is Represented in the Mind. Oxford: Oup. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Terziev, A., Kiryakov, A. & Manov, D. 2005. D1.8.1 Base Upper-level Ontology (BULO) Guidance. [URL] (20 April 2020)
Teubert, W. 2005. My version of corpus linguistics. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 10(1): 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomason, S. 2007. Language contact and deliberate change. Journal of Language Contact 1(1): 41–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(fc.). Can rules be borrowed? In Festschrift for Terrance Kaufman, T. Smith-Stark & R. Zavala (eds).
Thompson, S. & Hopper, P. 2001. Transitivity, 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. 2003. Constructing a Language: A Usage-based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Trotta, J. 2000. Wh-clauses in English: Aspects of Theory and Description. Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trousdale, G. 2008. Constructions 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015. Multiple 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, P. 2003. A Glossary of Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tuggy, D. 1993. Ambiguity, polysemy, and vagueness. Cognitive Linguistics 4(3): 273–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tummers, J., Heylen, K. & Geeraerts, D. 2005. Usage-based approaches in Cognitive Linguistics: A technical state of the art. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1(2): 225–261. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Uhrig, P. 2015. Why the principle of no synonymy is overrated. Zeitschrift Für Anglistik Und Amerikanistik 63(3): 323–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van der Auwera, J. & Gast, V. 2011. Categories 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. 2012. The 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Rooy, B. 2010. Social and linguistic perspectives on variability in World Englishes. World Englishes 29(1): 3–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. A 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014. Convergence 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Rooy, B. & Terblanche, L. 2010. Complexity in word-formation processes in New Varieties of South African English. Southern African linguistics and applied language studies 28(4): 357–374. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Viberg, A. 1996. Cross-linguistic lexicology: the case of English go and Swedish gå . In Languages in Contrast: Papers from a Symposium 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
2002. Basic verbs in Second Language Acquisition. Revue Française de Linguistique Appliquée 7(2): 51–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vogel, R. 2016. Optimal 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wee, L. 2014. Linguistic chutzpah and the Speak Good Singlish movement. World Englishes 33(1): 85–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weinreich, U., Labov, W. & Herzog, M. 1968. Empirical 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. 2012. Highly 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Werner, V. 2013. Temporal adverbials and the present perfect/past tense alternation. English World-Wide 34(2): 202–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016. Overlap 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wickham, H., Chang, W., Henry, L., Pedersen, T. L., Takahashi, K., Wilke, C., Woo, K. 2019. ggplot2: Create Elegant Data Visualisations Using the Grammar of Graphics, R package version 3.1.0. [URL] (20 April 2020)
Widdowson, H. G. 1994. The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly 28(2): 377. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. 1972. Semantic Primitives. Frankfurt: Athenäum-Verl.Google Scholar
1982. Why can you have a drink when you can’t have an eat? Language 58(4): 753–799. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. 1987. Non-native varieties of English: A special case of language acquisition. English World-Wide 8(2): 161–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Winford, D. 2013. Substrate 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. 2007. Fixed 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. World Englishes: A Cognitive Sociolinguistic Approach. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wong, J. 2014. The Culture of Singapore English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wong, M. L.-Y. 2014. Verb-preposition constructions in Hong Kong English: A cognitive semantic account. Linguistics 52(3): 603-635. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wray, A. 2002. Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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
2008. Rethinking Idiomaticity: A Usage-based Approach. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Wulff, S., Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries, S. Th. 2007. Brutal 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xi, X. & Ingham, M. (eds). 2003. City Voices: Hong Kong Writing in English, 1945 to the Present. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.Google Scholar
Yamaguchi, T. & Deterding, D. 2016. English in Malaysia: Background, status and use. In English in Malaysia: Current Use and Status, T. Yamaguchi & D. Deterding (eds), 3–24. Leiden & Boston: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yano, Y. 2001. World Englishes in 2000 and beyond. World Englishes 20(2): 119–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yao, X. 2016. Cleft constructions in Hong Kong English. English World-Wide 37(2): 197–220. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yuen-Ying, C. 2000. The English-language media in Hong Kong. World Englishes 19(3): 323–335. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zeileis, A., Meyer, D. & Hornik, K. 2007. Residual-based shadings for visualizing conditional independence. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 16(3): 507–525. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ziegeler, D. 2015. Converging Grammars: Constructions in Singapore English. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zipf, G. K. 1945. The meaning-frequency relationship of words. The Journal of General Psychology 33(2): 251–256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zipp, L. 2014. Educated Fiji English: Lexico-Grammar and Variety Status. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar