Exploring variability within and between corpora: some methodological considerations1

Corpora

Volumn 1, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 109-151

  Gries, Stefan Th ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85050785962     PISSN: 17495032     EISSN: 17551676     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3366/cor.2006.1.2.109     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Benedetto, D., E. Caglioti and V. Loreto. 2002. Language trees and zipping , Physical Review Letters 88, 048702.
2. Berglund, Y. 1997. Future in present-day English: corpus-based evidence on the rivalry of expressions , ICAME Journal 21, pp. 7-19.
3. Biber, D. 1990. Methodological issues regarding corpus-based analyses of linguistic variation , Literary and Linguistic Computing 5 (4), pp. 257-69.
4. Biber, D. 1993. Representativeness in corpus design , Literary and Linguistic Computing 8 (4), pp. 243-57.
5. Biber, D., S. Johansson, G. Leech, S. Conrad and E. Finegan. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education.
6. Bock, J.K. 1986. Syntactic persistence in language production , Cognitive Psychology 18, pp. 355-87.
7. Church, K.W. 2000. Empirical estimates of adaptation: the chance of two Noriegas is closer to p/2 than p2 , Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pp. 180-86.
8. Crawley, M.J. 2002. Statistical Computing: An Introduction to Data Analysis Using S-Plus. Second printing with corrections (2004). Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.
9. Denoual, E. 2006. A method to quantify corpus similarity and its application to quantifying the degree of literality in a document , International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction 2 (11), pp. 51-66.
10. DeRoeck, A., A. Sarkar and P.H. Garthwaite. 2004. Defeating the homogeneity assumption: some findings on the distribution of very frequent terms , Technical Report 2004/7, The Open University.
11. Dubois, B.L. 1972. The meaning and the distribution of the perfects in present-day American English writing. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of New Mexico.
12. Egan, T. 2002. Let, allow, stop and cease: a corpus study , Paper presented at the International Conference on Construction Grammar. Helsinki, Finland, 6-8 September 2002.
13. Elsness, J. 1997. The Perfect and the Preterite in Contemporary and Earlier English. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
14. Evert, S. and B. Krenn. 2005. Using small random samples for the manual evaluation of statistical association measures , Computer Speech and Language 19 (4), pp. 450-66.
15. Facchinetti, R. 2001. Can and could in contemporary British English: a study of the ICE-GB Corpus in P. Peters, P. Collins and A. Smith (eds.) New Frontiers of Corpus Research, Proceedings from the 21st International Conference on English Language on Computerized Corpora, pp. 229-46. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
16. Goldberg, A.E. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
17. Gries, St. Th. 2003. Multifactorial Analysis in Corpus Linguistics: A Study of Particle Placement. London, New York: Continuum Press.
18. Gries, St. Th. 2005a. Syntactic priming: a corpus-based approach , Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 34 (4), pp. 365-99.
19. Gries, St. Th. 2005b. Null-hypothesis significance testing of word frequencies: a follow-up on Kilgarriff , Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1 (2), pp. 277-94.
20. Gries, St. Th. Forthcoming. Corpus data in usage-based linguistics: What s the right degree of granularity for the analysis of argument structure constructions?
21. Gries, St. Th. and A. Stefanowitsch. 2004. Extending collostructional analysis: a corpus-based perspectives on "alternations" , International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9 (1), pp. 97-129.
22. Gries, St. Th., B. Hampe and D. Schönefeld. Forthcoming. Converging evidence II: More on the association of verbs and constructions in J. Newman and S. Rice (eds.) Empirical and Experimental Methods in Cognitive/Functional Research. Stanford, CA: CSLI.
23. Herzlík, B. 1976. Some notes on the Present Perfect , Brno Studies in English 12, pp. 57-83.
24. Hofland, K. and S. Johansson. 1982. Word frequencies in British and American English. Bergen: Norwegian Computing Centre for the Humanities / London: Longman.
25. Johansson, C. 2001. Pied piping and stranding from a diachronic perspective in P. Peters, P. Collins and A. Smith (eds.) New Frontiers of Corpus Research. Proceedings from the 21st International Conference on English Language on Computerized Corpora, pp. 147-62. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
26. Johansson, S. and K. Hofland (eds.). 1989. Frequency Analysis of English Vocabulary and Grammar, Based on the LOB Corpus. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
27. Kaufman, L. and P.J. Rousseeuw. 1990. Finding Groups in Data. New York: John Wiley.
28. Kennedy, G. 1991. Between and through: the company they keep and the functions they serve in K. Aijmer and B. Altenberg (eds.) English Corpus Linguistics, pp. 95-110. London: Longman.
29. Kilgarriff, A. 2001. Comparing corpora , International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 6 (1), pp. 1-37.
30. Kilgarriff, A. 2005. Language is never, ever, ever, random , Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1 (2), pp. 263-76.
31. Kilgarriff, A. and T. Rose. 1998. Measures for corpus similarity and homogeneity . Proceedings of the Third Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 46-52.
32. Leech, G. and R. Fallon. 1992. Computer corpora: What do they tell us about culture? ICAME Journal 16, pp. 29-50.
33. Manning, C.D. and H. Schütze. 2000. Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing. Second printing with corrections. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.
34. Mindt, D. 2000. An Empirical Grammar of the English Verb System. Berlin: Cornelsen.
35. Mukherjee, J. 2003. Corpus data in a usage-based cognitive grammar in K. Aijmer and B. Altenberg (eds.) The Theory and Use of Corpora, pp. 85-100. Amsterdam: Rodopi
36. Newman, J. and S. Rice. 2006. Transitivity Schemas of English EAT and DRINK in the BNC in St. Th. Gries and A. Stefanowitsch (eds.) Corpora in cognitive linguistics: corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis, pp. 225-60. Berlin, Heidelberg and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
37. Oakes, M.P. 2003. Text categorisation: automatic discrimination between US and UK English using the chi-square test and high ratio pairs Downloaded on 5 April 2006, from: http://www.cet.sunderland.ac.uk/IR/oakesRL2003.pdf
38. Pedersen, T., M. Kayaalp and R. Bruce. 1996. Significant lexical relationships , Proceedings of the 13th National Conference on AI (AAAI-96), pp. 455-60.
39. Peterson, B. 1970. Towards understanding the "perfect" construction in spoken English , English Teaching Forum 8, pp. 2-10.
40. R Development Core Team. 2005. R 2.2 - A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, http://www.R-project.org
41. Rayson, P.E. 2003. Matrix: a statistical method and software tool for linguistic analysis through corpus comparison. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Computing Department, Lancaster University.
42. Rayson, P.E. and R. Garside. 2000. Comparing corpora using frequency profiling , Proceedings of the Workshop on Comparing Corpora, pp. 1-6.
43. Rayson, P.E., G. Leech and M. Hodges. 1997. Social differentiation in the use of English vocabulary: some analysis of the conversational component of the British National Corpus , International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 2 (1), pp. 133-52.
44. Rose, T.G., N.J. Haddock and R.C.F. Tucker. 1997. The effects of corpus size and homogeneity on language model quality , Proceedings of the ACL SIGDAT Workshop on Very Large Corpora, pp. 178-91.
45. Sahlgren, M. and J. Karlgren. 2005. Counting lumps in word space: density as a measure of corpus homogeneity , Proceedings of the Twelfth Edition of the Symposium on String Processing and Information Retrieval, pp. 151-54.
46. Schlüter, N. 2002. Present Perfect: Eine korpuslinguistische Analyse des englischen Perfekts mit Vermittlungsvorschlägen für den Sprachunterricht. Tübingen: Narr.
47. Schlüter, N. 2005. How reliable are the results? Comparing corpus-bases studies of the present perfect , Paper presented at the workshop The scope and limits of corpus linguistics - empiricism in the description and analysis of English ; Free University, Berlin.
48. Sekine, S. 1997. The domain dependence of parsing , Proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Applied Natural Language Processing, pp. 96-102.
49. Stefanowitsch, A. and St. Th. Gries. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction between words and constructions , International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8 (2), pp. 209-43.
50. Summers, D. 1996. Computer lexicography - the importance of representativeness in relation to frequency in J. Thomas and M. Short (eds.) Using Corpora for Language Research, pp. 260-66. New York: Longman.
51. Summers, D. 1996. Corpus lexicography - the importance of representativeness in relation to frequency , Longman Language Review 3, pp. 6-9.
52. Szmrecsanyi, B. 2005. Language users as creatures of habit: a corpus-based analysis of persistence in spoken English , Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1 (1), pp. 114-50.
53. Wikipedia contributors. 2006. Resampling (statistics). Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Date of last revision: 27 April 2006 19:49 UTC. Date accessed: 13 May 2006 20:58 UTC. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resampling_%28statistics%29&oldid=50468841
54. Xiao, Z. and A. McEnery. 2005. Two approaches to genre analysis: three genres in Modern American English , Journal of English Linguistics 33 (1), pp. 62-82.