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

Cited by 1 other publications

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 0:0 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 march 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.