Cover not available
Part of
The Corpus Linguistics Discourse: In honour of Wolfgang Teubert
Edited by Anna Čermáková and Michaela Mahlberg
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 87] 2018
► pp. 35–75

Modes of analysis

An autoergography of corpus linguistics from lexis to discourse

| Aston University
Throughout history, the study of language has involved looking for units, their patterns of combination, the functions they serve, and the processes involved; and construing the relationships between these features and the meanings which arise from them. Developments in technology inevitably revolutionise ideas, innovate methods, and transform the fields in which they are implemented. So, just as the invention and development of writing systems, and the advent of printing, did in the distant past, computers have had a similarly revolutionary effect on linguistics in recent decades. This paper looks at some of the ways in which corpus linguistics has used the latest technologies to embark on a substantial re-investigation and re-appraisal of the elements of language, their roles within the language system, and their relationships within the wider social context of human beings, their environments, and their activities. The structuring of the paper owes much to recent retrospection, but the pieces of research consist mainly of my early explorations of corpus linguistics, hence ‘auto (self) + ergo (work) + graphy (description)’ in the title.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Ancient and modern linguistics
  • 3.Corpus linguistics
  • 4.Character mode
  • 5.Morpheme mode
  • 6.Word mode
  • 7.Lemma mode
  • 8.Concordance mode
  • 9.Collocation mode
    • 9.1Adjacent collocations: N-grams
    • 9.2Non-adjacent collocations: Span and statistics
    • 9.3Collocation and phraseology
    • 9.4Collocation and grammar
    • 9.5Collocation and evaluation: Semantic prosody
  • 10.Text and corpus mode
  • 11.Discourse mode
  • 12.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 December 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.87.03kri
References (154)
References
Abramova, E., Fernández, R. & Sangati, F. 2013. Automatic labeling of phonesthemic senses. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, M. Knauff, M. Pauen, N. Sebanz & I. Wachsmuth (eds), 1696–1701. Austin TX: Cognitive Science Society. <[URL]> (1 July 2017).
Abuczki, A. & Ghazaleh, E. B. 2013. An overview of multimodal corpora, annotation tools and schemes. Argumentum 9: 86–98. <[URL]> (1 July 2017))
Adamic, L. A. & Huberman, B. A. 2002. Zipf’s law and the Internet. Glottometrics 3: 143–150.Google Scholar
Aijmer, K. & Rühlemann, C. (eds). 2014. Corpus Pragmatics. A Handbook. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Allwood, J. 2008. Multimodal corpora. In Corpus Linguistics. An International Handbook, A. Lüdeling & M. Kytö (eds), 207–225. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Atkins, B. T. S. & Rundell, M. 2008. The Oxford Guide to Practical Lexicography. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Atkinson, Q. D. 2011. Phonemic diversity supports a serial founder effect model of language expansion from Africa. Science 332(6027): 346–349.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, M. 1993. Corpus linguistics and translation studies: Implications and applications. In Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair, M. Baker, G. Francis & E. Tognini-Bonelli (eds), 233–250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, P. & McEnery, A. 2015. Corpora and Discourse Studies: Integrating Discourse and Corpora. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barnbrook, G., Mason, O. & Krishnamurthy, R. 2013. Collocation: Applications and Implications. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baroni, M. 2003. Distribution-driven morpheme discovery: A computational/experimental study. In Yearbook of Morphology, G. Booij & J. van Marle (eds), 213–228. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Baroni, M. & Lenci, A. 2010. Distributional memory: A general framework for corpus-based semantics. Computational Linguistics 36(4): 673–721.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barton, D. & Lee, C. 2013. Language Online: Investigating Digital Texts and Practices. London: Routledge.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Basham, A. L. 1967. The Wonder That Was India, 3rd ed. London: Sidgwick and Jackson.Google Scholar
Bateman, J. A. 2012. Multimodal corpus-based approaches. In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, C. A. Chapelle (ed.), 3983–3991. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bergen, B. K. 2004. The psychological reality of phonaesthemes. Language 80: 290–311. <[URL]> (1 July 2017).
Biber, D. 2009. A corpus-driven approach to formulaic language in English: Multi-word patterns in speech and writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14(3): 275–311.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, L. 1933. Language. New York NY: Holt.Google Scholar
Bolinger D. 1968. Aspects of Language. New York NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Bradbury, J. (ed.). 1991. Cobuild English Guides, 2: Word Formation. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Bullon, S. & Lane, T. 1991. The main points of the news: World service data for a world service dictionary. Listed but unpublished in Using Corpora, Proceedings of the 7th Annual Conference. Waterloo: UW Centre for the New OED and Text Research/Oxford: OUP.
Caldas-Coulthard, C. R. & Coulthard, M. (eds). 1996. Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Carstens, W. A. M. 1999[2001]. Text linguistics: Relevant linguistics? In Poetics, Linguistics and History: Discourses of War and Conflict. PALA Conference Papers 1999, I. Bierman & A. L. Combrink (eds), 588–595. Potchefstroom: Potchefstroom University. <[URL]> (1 July 2017).
Carter, R. & McCarthy, M. 2006. Cambridge Grammar of English. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Celce-Murcia, M. 2002. Why it makes sense to teach grammar in context and through discourse. In New Perspectives on Grammar Teaching in Second Language Classrooms, E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (eds), 121–136. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1968. Language and Mind. New York NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. <[URL]> (1 July 2017). (One of the six lectures is reproduced here; transcribed in 1998 by A. Blunden; proofed and corrected February 2005). DOI logo
Church, K. 2011. A pendulum swung too far. Linguistic Issues in Language Technology 6(5): 1–27.Google Scholar
Clear, J. 1995. Corpora: T-score in collocational analysis. Posted to Corpora-List on 12 December 1999. <[URL]> (the link no longer valid).
Clear, J., Fox, G. L., Francis, G., Krishnamurthy, R. & Moon, R. 1996. Cobuild: The state of the art. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 1(2): 303–314.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collins Cobuild Dictionary of Phrasal Verbs. 1989. J. Sinclair (ed.). London: Collins ELT.Google Scholar
Cowan, N., Morey, C. C. & Chen, Z. 2007. The legend of the magical number seven. In Tall Tales about the Mind & Brain: Separating Facts from Fiction, S. Della Sala (ed.), 45–59. Oxford: OUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cruden, A. 1769. A Complete Concordance to the Old and New Testament (1891 ed.). London: Frederick Warne and Co.Google Scholar
De Beaugrande, R. 1991. Linguistic Theory: The Discourse of Fundamental Work, Section 8: John Rupert Firth. <[URL]> (1 July 2017).
De Borba, M. C. S. 1997. Two Brazilian-Portuguese translations of wordplay in Alice’s Adventures In Wonderland. Cadernos de Tradução 2: 115–126. Florianópolis: Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina.Google Scholar
1999. Text diversity, intertextuality and parodies in Wonderland. Fragmentos 16: 15–22. Florianópolis: Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina.Google Scholar
Deignan, A. 2005. Metaphor and Corpus Linguistics [Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research 6]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deignan, A. & Potter, L. 2004. A corpus study of metaphors and metonyms in English and Italian. Journal of Pragmatics 36: 1231–1252.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Firth, J. R. 1930. Speech. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
1957a. Papers in Linguistics (1934–1951). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
1957b[1951]. Modes of Meaning. In Papers in Linguistics 1934–1951, J. R. Firth, 190–215. London: OUP.Google Scholar
Fowler, H. N. 1921. Volume 12 of Plato in Twelve Volumes. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. <[URL]> (1 July 2017).
Fowler, R. 1991. Language in the News. Discourse and Ideology in the Press. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
1996. On critical linguistics. In Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis, C. R. Caldas-Coulthard & M. Coulthard (eds), 3–14. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Foster, M. E. & Oberlander, J. 2007. Corpus-based generation of head and eyebrow motion for an embodied conversational agent. Language Resources and Evaluation 41(3–4): 305–323.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Francis, G., Hunston, S. & Manning, E. 1996. Collins COBUILD Grammar Patterns, 1: Verbs. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
1998. Collins COBUILD Grammar Patterns, 2: Nouns and Adjectives. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Francis, W. N. & Kucera, H. 1979. Brown Corpus Manual. Manual of information to accompany A Standard Corpus of Present-Day Edited American English, for use with digital computers. Providence RI: Brown University. <[URL]> (17 September 2018).
Godart-Wendling, B. 2014. L’hypothèse de Firth: Wittgenstein, héritier de Malinowski? Historiographia Linguistica 41(1): 79–108. <> (1 July 2017).DOI logo
Grundmann, R. & Krishnamurthy, R. 2010. The discourse of climate change: A corpus-based approach. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis Across Disciplines (CADAAD) Journal 4(2): 125–146.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1961. Categories of a theory of grammar. Word 17(3): 241–292.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1966. Lexis as a linguistic level. In In Memory of J.R. Firth, C. E. Bazell, J. C. Catford, M. A. K. Halliday & R. H. Robins (eds), 150–161. London: Longman.Google Scholar
1978. Language as Social Semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
2006. Language of Early Childhood. London: A & C Black.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hanks, P. 2013. Lexical Analysis: Norms and Exploitations. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, R. 1987. The Language Machine. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Henry, F. & Tator, C. 2002. Discourses of Domination. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ho, Y. 2011. Corpus Stylistics in Principles and Practice: A Stylistic Exploration of John Fowles’ The Magus. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Hoey, M. 2007. Text, Discourse and Corpora: Theory and Analysis. London: A & C Black.Google Scholar
Holden, C. 2004. The Origin of Speech. Science 303: 1316–1319.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hunston, S. & Francis, G. 2002. Pattern Grammar [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 4]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jaworska, S. & Krishnamurthy, R. 2012. On the F-word: A corpus-based analysis of the media representation of feminism in English and German newspapers, 1990–2009. Discourse & Society 23(4): 401–431.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kehoe, A. & Gee, M. 2009. Weaving web data into a diachronic corpus patchwork. In Corpus Linguistics: Refinements and Reassessments, A. Renouf & A. Kehoe (eds), 255–279. Amsterdam: Rodopi.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kenny, D. 2014. Lexis and Creativity in Translation: A Corpus Based Approach. Abingdon: Routledge.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Knight, D. 2011. The future of multimodal corpora. Revista Brasileira de Linguistica Aplicada 11(2): 391–415.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kress, G. 1985. Linguistic Processes in Sociocultural Practice. Victoria: Deakin University Press.Google Scholar
Krishnamurthy, R. 1987. The process of compilation. In Looking Up: An Account of the COBUILD Project in Lexical Computing, J. M. Sinclair (ed.), 62–85. London: Collins ELT.Google Scholar
1992a. Introductory Workshops on Dictionaries. <[URL]> (1 July 2017).
1992b. Data collection. NERC-WP6/WP7-57, Working Paper for EC Project: Network of European Reference Corpora. Pisa: ILC.
1995. The macrocosm and the microcosm: The corpus and the text. In Linguistic Approaches to Literature: Papers in Literary Stylistics, J. Payne (ed.), 1–17. Birmingham: University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
(1996a). Ethnic, racial and tribal: The language of racism? In Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis, C. R. Caldas-Coulthard & M. Coulthard (eds), 129–149. London: Routledge. (Reprinted in Teubert, W. & Krishnamurthy, R. (eds). 2007. Corpus Linguistics: Critical Concepts in Linguistics, 179–200. London: Routledge).Google Scholar
1996b. The data is the dictionary: Corpus at the cutting edge of lexicography. In Papers in Computational Lexicography, COMPLEX’96, F. Kiefer, G. Kiss & J. Pajzs (eds), 117–144. Budapest: Hungarian Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
2000. Collocation: From silly ass to lexical sets. In Words in Context: A Tribute to John Sinclair on his Retirement, C. Heffer & H. Sauntson (eds). Birmingham: University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
2001a. Language corpora: How can teachers and students use these valuable new resources? In Selected Papers from the 10th International Symposium on English Teaching, 59–65. Taipei: ETA/ROC.Google Scholar
2001b. Learning and teaching through context – a data-driven approach. TESOL Spain Newsletter 24, 9–10. <[URL]> (1 July 2017).
2001c. The science and technology of corpus, and corpus for science and technology. In La Investigacion en Lenguas Aplicadas: Enfoque Multidisciplinar, G. A. De Cea & P. D. Escribano (eds), 79–114. Madrid: Fundacion Gomez Pardo & Universidad Politecnica de Madrid.Google Scholar
2002a. The corpus revolution in EFL dictionaries and Appendix: Analysis of sexy in the 450-million-word Bank of English corpus. Kernerman Dictionary News 10. <[URL]> (1 July 2017).
2002b. The Bank of English past, present, and future: Corpus size, composition, annotation, and software. Presented at the 2nd ILASH Half-Day Workshop on Computational Language Resources, University of Sheffield. <[URL]> (1 July 2017).
2002c. Pragmatics and the EFL Dictionary. Presentation at the 22nd ThaiTESOL conference, ‘Inspiring Change In ELT’, in Chiangmai. <[URL]> (1 July 2017).
2003. Freeze-frame pictures: micro-diachronic variations in synchronic corpora. In Studies in English Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, J. Andor, J. Horvath & M. Nikolov (eds), 15–31. Pécsi Tudományegyetem: Lingua Franca Csoport.Google Scholar
2005a. Grammar and Lexis of English. MA module for Aston University. <[URL]> (1 July 2017).
2005b. Teaching and learning English metaphors. Presentation at JALT Conference, Shizuoka. <[URL]> (1 July 2017).
2008. ACORN in USE: CASE STUDIES. Talk given in research seminar at Aston University. <[URL]>
2013a. Corpus linguistics: From lexis to discourse. Presentation at Hildesheim University, Germany<[URL]> (1 July 2017).
2013b. 2013-Corpus Workshop III: Introduction to WordSmith Tools 6 [version 2: Using UK news articles on “UK Riots” as data]. Presentation given at ‘Towards Operationalizing Corpus Development Plan’, University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. <[URL]> (1 July 2017).
Forthcoming. Collocations and lexicography: Sinclairian theory in practice. In International Handbook of Lexis and Lexicography, Section 2: Lexical Theory and Lexicography, P. Hanks & G-M. de Schryver (eds). Heidelberg: Springer.
Larrivée, P. & Krishnamurthy, R. 2009. La créativité et la conventionnalité de groupes nominaux atypiques déterminant + pronom indéfini et leurs contextes communicatifs. La langue en contexte. Actes du colloque «Représentations du sens linguistique IV». Société Néophilologique de Helsinki, 93–106.Google Scholar
Li, C. 2010. Unity and Variety: A Study of the Chinese Language and Its Cultural Implications. PhD dissertation, UCSD. <[URL]> (1 July 2017))
Louw, B. 1993. Irony in the text or insincerity in the writer? The diagnostic potential of semantic prosodies. In Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair, M. Baker, G. Francis & E. Tognini-Bonelli (eds), 157–176. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000. Contextual prosodic theory: Bringing semantic prosodies to life. In Words In Context: A Tribute to John Sinclair on His Retirement, C. Heffer & H. Sauntson (eds), Birmingham: University of Birmingham. <[URL]> (1 July 2017).
Lukin, A. 2014. The study of “living language”: The SFL conception of text/context relations, 2. Firth: J.R. Firth and renewal of connection with the processes and patterns of life. <[URL]> (1 July 2017).
Macarro, A. S. & Peñuelas, A. B. C. (eds). 2014. New Insights into Gendered Discursive Practices: Language, Gender and Identity Construction. Valencia: Valencia University Press.Google Scholar
Mahlberg, M. 2013. Corpus Stylistics and Dickens’s Fiction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Malinowski, B. 1922[1978]. Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An Account of Native Enterprise and Adventure in the Archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea [Studies in Economics and Political Science 65]. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. <[URL]> (1 July 2017).
Martin, D., Krishnamurthy, R., Bhardwaj, M. & Charles, R. 2003. Language change in young Panjabi/English children: Implications for bilingual language assessment. Child Language Teaching and Therapy 19(3): 245–265.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matilal, B. K. 1990. The Word and The World. India’s Contribution to the Study of Language. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Mautner, G. 2012. Corpora and critical discourse analysis. In Contemporary Corpus Linguistics, P. Baker (ed.), 32–46. London: A & C Black.Google Scholar
McEnery, T. & Hardie, A. 2011. Corpus Linguistics: Method, Theory and Practice. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McEnery, T. & Wilson, A. 2001. Corpus Linguistics. An Introduction. Edinburgh: EUP.Google Scholar
McKeon, R. 1946. Aristotle’s conception of language and the arts of language. Classical Philology 41(4): 193–206.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, G. A. 1956. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review 63: 81–97.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mindt, D. 1991. Syntactic evidence for semantic distinctions in English. In English Corpus Linguistics: Studies in Honour of Jan Svartvik, K. Aijmer & B. Altenberg (eds), 182–196. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Montemurro, M. A. 2001. Beyond the Zipf–Mandelbrot law in quantitative linguistics. Physica A 300: 567–578.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moon, R. 1987. The analysis of meaning. In Looking Up. An Account of the COBUILD Project in Lexical Computing, J. Sinclair (ed.), 86–103. London: Collins ELT.Google Scholar
Müller, F. M. 1860. A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature. <[URL]> (1 July 2017).
OALD. 2000. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English, 6th ed., A. S. Hornby & S. Wehmeier (eds). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
OALD4. 1989. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of English, 4th ed., A. S. Hornby & A. P. Cowie (eds). Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
OED. 1971. Oxford English Dictionary, compact edition. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Otis, K. & Sagi, E. 2008. Phonaesthemes: A corpora-based analysis. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, B. C. Love, K. McRae & V. M. Sloutsky (eds), 65–70. Austin TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Palmer, H. 1933. Second Interim Report on English Collocations. Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. (ed.). 1968. Selected Papers of J.R. Firth. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Payne, J. 1995. Collins Cobuild English Guides, 8: Spelling. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Piantadosi, S. T. 2014. Zipf’s word frequency law in natural language: A critical review and future directions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 21: 1112–1130.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pustejovsky, J., Bergler, S. & Anick, P. 1993. Lexical semantic techniques for corpus analysis. Computational Linguistics 19(2): 331–358.Google Scholar
Richens, T. 2011. Lexical Database Enrichment Through Semi-Automated Morphological Analysis. PhD dissertation, Aston University. <[URL]> (1 July 2017).
Robins, R. H. 1964. General Linguistics. An Introductory Survey. Harlow: Longman, Green.Google Scholar
2013. A Short History of Linguistics. Abingdon: Routledge.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Saferstein, B. 2004. Digital technology and methodological adaption: Text on video as a resource for analytical reflexivity. Journal of Applied Linguistics 1(2): 197–223.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmandt-Besserat, D. 1977. The earliest precursor of writing. Scientific American 238(6): 50–58. <[URL]> (1 July 2017).
1991. Two precursors of writing: plain and complex tokens. In The Origins of Writing, W. M. Senner (ed.), 27–41. Lincoln NE: University of Nebraska Press. <[URL]> (1 July 2017).
Sinclair, J. M. 1965. When is a poem like a sunset? A Review of English Literature 6(2): 76–91.Google Scholar
1966. Beginning the study of lexis. In In Memory of J.R. Firth, C. E. Bazell, J. C. Catford, M. A. K. Halliday & R. H. Robins (eds), 410–430. London: Longman.Google Scholar
(ed.). 1987a. Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary. London: Collins.Google Scholar
(ed.). 1987b. Looking Up. An Account of the COBUILD Project in Lexical Computing. London: Collins ELT.Google Scholar
1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
1996. The search for units of meaning. Textus 9: 75–106.Google Scholar
2004. Trust the Text: Language, Corpus and Discourse. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2007. Preface. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 12(2): 155–157.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sinclair J., Jones, S. & Daley, R. 1970[2004]. English Lexical Studies: Report to OSTI on Project C/LP/08. Re-published as Krishnamurthy, R. (ed.). 2004. English Collocation Studies: The OSTI Report. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. & Gries, S. T. (eds). 2008. Corpus-Based Approaches to Metaphor and Metonymy. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Stubbs, M. 1995. Collocations and semantic profiles: On the cause of the trouble with quantitative studies. Functions of Language 2(1): 23–55. (Reprinted in Teubert, W. & Krishnamurthy, R. (eds). 2007. Corpus Linguistics: Critical Concepts in Linguistics, 166–193. London: Routledge).Google Scholar
2001. Words and Phrases: Corpus Studies of Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tagg, C. 2014. Translanguaging as an addressivity strategy for identity and relational work on Facebook. Talk given at ‘Superdiversity: Theory, Method and Practice in an Era of Change’ held by IRiS, University of Birmingham, 23–25 June. <[URL]> (1 July 2017).
Teubert, W. 2001. A province of a federal superstate ruled by an unelected bureaucracy: Keywords of the Euro-Sceptic discourse in Britain. In Attitudes Towards Europe, C. Good, A. Musolff, P. Points & R. Wittlinger (eds), 45–86. Abingdon: Ashgate. (Reprinted in Teubert, W. & Krishnamurthy, R. (eds). 2007. Corpus Linguistics: Critical Concepts in Linguistics, 142–178. London: Routledge).Google Scholar
2003. Writing, hermeneutics, and corpus linguistics. Logos and Language 42: 1–17. (Reprinted in Teubert, W. & Krishnamurthy, R. (eds). 2007. Corpus Linguistics: Critical Concepts in Linguistics, 134–159. London: Routledge).Google Scholar
2007. General introduction. In Corpus Linguistics: Critical Concepts in Linguistics, W. Teubert & R. Krishnamurthy (eds), 1–38. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
2010. Meaning, Discourse and Society. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tognini-Bonelli, E. 2001. Corpus Linguistics at Work [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 6]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toury, G. 1980. In Search of a Theory of Translation. Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics, Tel Aviv University.Google Scholar
1995. Descriptive Translation Studies – and Beyond [Benjamins Translation Library 4]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, T. A. 1996. Discourse, power and access. In Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis, C. R. Caldas-Coulthard & M. Coulthard (eds), 84–106. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
van Dijk, T. 2001. Critical discourse analysis. In Handbook of Discourse Analysis, D. Tannen, D. Schiffrin & H. Hamilton (eds), 352–371. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Vaughan, E. & Clancy, B. 2013. Small corpora and pragmatics. In Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics, Vol. 1, J. Romero-Trillo (ed.), 53–73. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Wallis, J. 1699. Grammar of English Language (5th Ed.). Oxford: L. Lichfield.Google Scholar
Wang, Q. E. 2008. Beyond East and West: Antiquarianism, evidential learning, and global trends in historical study. Journal of World History 19(4): 489–519.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weisser, M. 2016. Practical Corpus Linguistics: An Introduction to Corpus-Based Language Analysis. Hoboken NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Werlich, E. 1976. A Text Grammar of English. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer.Google Scholar
Wilkins, D. 1972. Linguistics in Language Teaching. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Willis, D. 2003. Rules, Patterns and Words. Grammar and Lexis in English Language Teaching. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wyllys, R. E. 1981. Empirical and theoretical bases of Zipf’s Law. Library Trends 30(1): 53–64.Google Scholar
Xiao, R. & McEnery, T. 2006. Collocation, semantic prosody, and near synonymy: A cross-linguistic perspective. Applied Linguistics 27(1): 103–129.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zethsen, K. K. 2006. Semantic prosody: Creating awareness about a versatile tool. Tidsskrift for Sprogforskning 4(1–2): 275–294.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhu, L. 2013. Historical Chinese phonology as a Meeting Ground for the Indian, the Chinese, and the Western Linguistic Tradition. <[URL]> (1 July 2017).