References
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 October 2022
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Discourse SyntaxEnglish Grammar Beyond the Sentence, pp. 302 - 319Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
References
Aijmer, Karin. 2011. Well I’m not sure I think … The use of well by non-native speakers. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 16(2), 231–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aijmer, Karin. 2013. Understanding Pragmatic Markers in English: A Variational Pragmatic Approach. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Allen, Cynthia. 2016. Typological change: Investigating loss of inflection in early English. In Kytö, Merja & Pahta, Päivi, eds., The Cambridge Handbook of English Historical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 444–59.Google Scholar
Ameka, Felix A., Dench, Alan & Evans, Nicholas. 2006. Catching Language: The Standing Challenge of Grammar Writing. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
American Dialect Society. 2014. “Because” is the 2013 word of the year. Online. Accessed August 8, 2021. https://bit.ly/because_2013wordoftheyearGoogle Scholar
American Dialect Society. 2015. 2014 Word of the year is “#blacklivesmatter”. Online. https://bit.ly/blm_2014wordoftheyearGoogle Scholar
American Dialect Society. 2020. 2019 Word of the year is “(My) Pronouns,” Word of the decade is singular “they”. Online. https://bit.ly/they_2019wordoftheyearGoogle Scholar
Andersen, Gisle. 2001. Pragmatic Markers and Sociolinguistic Variation: A Relevance-theoretic Approach to the Language of Adolescents. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aravind, Athulya, Hackl, Martin & Wexler, Ken. 2018. Syntactic and pragmatic factors in children’s comprehension of cleft constructions. Language Acquisition, 25(3), 284–314.Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 2001. Accessibility theory: An overview. In Schilperoord, Joost, Sanders, Ted & Spooren, Wilbert, eds., Text Representation: Linguistic and Psycholinguistic Aspects. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 29–87.Google Scholar
Ariel, Mira. 2013. Centering, accessibility and the next mention. Theoretical Linguistics, 39(1–2), 39–58.Google Scholar
Arnold, Jennifer E. & Tanenhaus, Michael K.. 2011. Disfluency effects in comprehension: How new information can become accessible. In Gibson, Edward & Pearlmutter, Neal J., eds., The Processing and Acquisition of Reference. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 197–218.Google Scholar
Atkinson, Dwight. 1992. The evolution of medical research writing from 1735 to 1985: The case of the Edinburgh Medical Journal. Applied Linguistics 13(4), 337–74.Google Scholar
Bazerman, Charles. 1988. Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Beeching, Kate. 2016. Pragmatic Markers in British English: Meaning in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Behaghel, Otto. 1909. Beziehungen zwischen Umfang und Reihenfolge von Satzgliedern. In Streitberg, Wilhelm, ed., Indogermanische Forschungen: Zeitschrift für Indogermanistik und Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft. Strasbourg: Karl J. Truebner, pp. 110–42.Google Scholar
Bell, David M. 2007. Sentence-initial And and But in academic writing. Pragmatics, 17(2), 183–201.Google Scholar
Berlage, Eva. 2014. Noun Phrase Complexity in English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1992. Using computer-based corpora to analyze the referential strategies of spoken and written texts. In Svartvik, Jan, ed., Directions in Corpus Linguistics: Proceedings of Nobel Symposium 82 Stockholm, 4–8 August 1991. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 213–52.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 2006. University Language: A Corpus-based Study of Spoken and Written Registers. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 2012. Register as a predictor of linguistic variation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 8(1), 9–37.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Conrad, Susan. 2019. Register, Genre, and Style, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Egbert, Jesse. 2018. Register Variation Online. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Gray, Bethany. 2010. Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(1), 2–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Gray, Bethany. 2011. Grammatical change in the noun phrase: The influence of written language use. English Language and Linguistics, 15(2), 223–50.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Gray, Bethany. 2016. Grammatical Complexity in Academic English: Linguistic Change in Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Susan Conrad & Geoffrey Leech. 2002. Longman Student Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Conrad, Susan, Finegan, Edward, Johansson, Stig & Leech, Geoffrey. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 2021. Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birner, Betty J. 1994. Information status and word order: An analysis of English inversion. Language, 70(2), 233–59.Google Scholar
Birner, Betty J. & Ward, Gregory. 1998. Information Status and Noncanonical Word Order in English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bloom, Lois, Hafitz, Jeremie & Lifter, Karin. 1980. Semantics of verbs and the development of verb inflection in child language. Language, 56(2), 386–412.Google Scholar
Bohmann, Axel. 2016. Grammatical change because Twitter? Factors motivating innovative uses of because across the English-speaking Twittersphere. In Squires, Lauren, ed., English in Computer-Mediated Communication: Variation, Representation, and Change. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 149–78.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit & Wexler, Kenneth. 1987. The maturation of syntax. In Roeper, Thomas & Williams, Edwin, eds., Parameter Setting. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 123–72.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit & Wexler, Kenneth. 1992. Bi-unique relations and the maturation of grammatical principles. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 10(2), 147–89.Google Scholar
Bosch, Peter. 1983. Agreement and Anaphora: A Study of the Role of Pronouns in Syntax and Discourse. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bowie, Jill & Popova, Gergana. 2020. Grammar and discourse. In Aarts, Bas, Bowie, Jill & Popova, Gergana, eds., The Oxford Handbook of English Grammar, 1st edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 554–80.Google Scholar
Branco, António, McEnery, Tony & Mitkov, Ruslan, eds. 2005. Anaphora Processing: Linguistic, Cognitive and Computational Modelling. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Brezina, Vaclav. 2018. Statistics in Corpus Linguistics: A Practical Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1996. Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2010. Discourse markers. In Jucker, Andreas H. & Taavitsainen, Irma, eds., Historical Pragmatics, Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 285–314.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 2011. The Comment Clause in English: Syntactic Origins and Pragmatic Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J., ed. 2017. English Historical Linguistics: Approaches and Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Burridge, Kate. 2014. Cos – a new discourse marker for Australian English? Australian Journal of Linguistics, 34(4), 524–48.Google Scholar
Buysse, Lieven. 2012. So as a multifunctional discourse marker in native and learner speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(13), 1764–82.Google Scholar
Buysse, Lieven. 2015. ‘Well it’s not very ideal …’ The pragmatic marker well in learner English. Intercultural Pragmatics, 12(1), 59–89.Google Scholar
Buysse, Lieven. 2020. ‘It was a bit stressy as well actually’. The pragmatic markers actually and in fact in spoken learner English. Journal of Pragmatics, 156, 28–40.Google Scholar
Carusillo, Claire. 2014. “Actually” is the most futile, overused word on the internet. The New Republic. March 17. Online. https://bit.ly/carusillo_nrGoogle Scholar
Chambers, Craig G. & Smyth, Ron. 1998. Structural parallelism and discourse coherence: A test of centering theory. Journal of Memory and Language, 39(4), 593–608.Google Scholar
Clift, Rebecca. 2001. Meaning in interaction: The case of actually. Language, 77(2), 245–91.Google Scholar
Çokal, Derya, Sturt, Patrick & Ferreira, Fernanda. 2018. Processing of it and this in written narrative discourse. Discourse Processes, 55(3), 272–89.Google Scholar
Cooper, William E. and Ross, John R.. 1975. World order. In Grossman, Robin E., San, L. James and Vance, Timothy J., eds., Papers from the Parasession on Functionalism. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 63–111.Google Scholar
Cowles, Wind H. & Garnham, Alan. 2011. Noun-phrase anaphor resolution: Antecedent focus, semantic overlap, and the Informational Load Hypothesis. In Gibson, Edward & Pearlmutter, Neal J., eds., The Processing and Acquisition of Reference. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 297–322.Google Scholar
Crompton, Peter. 2006. The effect of position on the discourse scope of adverbials. Text & Talk, 26(3), 245–79.Google Scholar
Crystal, David. 1995. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crystal, David. 2007. Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cuenca, Maria J. & Crible, Ludivine. 2019. Co-occurrence of discourse markers in English: From juxtaposition to composition. Journal of Pragmatics, 140, 171–84.Google Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary & Nikolaeva, Irina. 2011. Objects and Information Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dant, Doris. 2012. Using COCA to evaluate the Chicago Manual of Style’s usage prescriptions. In Mukherjee, Joybrato & Huber, Magnus, eds., Corpus Linguistics and Variation in English: Theory and Description. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 29–39.Google Scholar
D’Arcy, Alexandra. 2007. Like and language ideology: Disentangling fact from fiction. American Speech, 82(4), 386–419.Google Scholar
D’Arcy, Alexandra. 2017. Discourse-Pragmatic Variation in Context: Eight Hundred Years of LIKE. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dehé, Nicole. 2002. Particle Verbs in English: Syntax, Information Structure, and Intonation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2004. The Acquisition of Complex Sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2005. Competing motivations for the ordering of main and adverbial clauses. Linguistics, 43(3), 449–70.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger & Tomasello, Michael. 2005. Particle placement in early child language: A multifactorial analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1(1), 89–112.Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 2011. Grammaticalization and pragmaticalization. In Heine, Bernd & Narrog, Heiko, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 450–61.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar, Part 2: Complex and Derived Constructions. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Dorgeloh, Heidrun. 1997. Inversion in Modern English: Form and Function. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Dorgeloh, Heidrun. 2005. Patterns of agentivity and narrativity in early science discourse. In Skaffari, Janne, Peikola, Matti, Carroll, Ruth, Hiltunen, Risto & Wårvik, Brita, eds., Opening Windows in Discourse and Texts from the Past, Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 83–94.Google Scholar
Dorgeloh, Heidrun. 2006. Inversion in descriptive and narrative discourse: A text-typological account following functional principles. Cahiers de Recherche, 9, 101–14.Google Scholar
Dorgeloh, Heidrun & Kunter, Gero. 2015. Modelling adjective phrase inversion as an instance of functional specialization in non-locative inversion. In Sanchez-Stockhammer, Christina, ed., Building Bridges into the Future: Can We Predict Linguistic Change? Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English, Vol. 16. https://varieng.helsinki.fi/series/volumes/16/dorgeloh_kunter/.Google Scholar
Dorgeloh, Heidrun & Wanner, Anja. 2003. Too abstract for agents? The syntax and semantics of agentivity in abstracts of English research articles. In Härtl, Holden & Tappe, Heike, eds., Mediating between Concepts and Grammar, Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 433–56.Google Scholar
Dorgeloh, Heidrun & Wanner, Anja. 2009. Formulaic argumentation in scientific discourse. In Corrigan, Roberta, Moravcsik, Edith A., Ouli, Hamid and Wheatley, Kathleen M., eds., Formulaic Language. Vol. 2: Acquisition, Loss, Psychological Reality, and Functional Explanations. Typological Studies in Language 83. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 523–44.Google Scholar
Dorgeloh, Heidrun & Wanner, Anja. 2020. Genre variation. In Aarts, Bas, Bowie, Jill & Popova, Gergana, eds., The Oxford Handbook of English Grammar, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 654–72.Google Scholar
Dupont, Maïté. 2021. Conjunctive Markers of Contrast in English and French: From Syntax to Lexis and Discourse. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ehrlich, Kate. 1980. Comprehension of pronouns. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32(2), 247–55.Google Scholar
Erteschik, Nomi & Lappin, Shalom. 1979. Dominance and the functional explanation of island phenomena. Theoretical Linguistics, 6(1–3), 41–86.Google Scholar
Fontaine, Lise. 2013. Analysing English Grammar: A Systemic-Functional Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara A. 1986. Local patterns and general principles in cognitive processes: Anaphora in written and conversational English. Text – Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 6(1), 25–52.Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara A. 1987. Anaphora in popular written English narratives. In Tomlin, Russel S., ed., Coherence and Grounding in Discourse: Outcome of a Symposium, Eugene, Oregon, June 1984. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 157–73.Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara A., ed. 1996. Studies in Anaphora. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Fox Tree, Jean E. 2015. Discourse markers in writing. Discourse Studies, 17(1), 64–82.Google Scholar
Fox Tree, Jean E. & Schrock, Josef C.. 2002. Basic meanings of you know and I mean. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(6), 727–47.Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 2006. Towards a theory of discourse markers. In Fischer, Kerstin, ed., Approaches to Discourse Particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 189–204.Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 2009. An account of discourse markers. International Review of Pragmatics, 1(2), 293–320.Google Scholar
Gao, Xia. 2016. A cross-disciplinary corpus-based study on English and Chinese native speakers’ use of linking adverbials in academic writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 24, 14–28.Google Scholar
Gardelle, Laure & Sorlin, Sandrine, eds. 2015. The Pragmatics of Personal Pronouns. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Geluykens, Ronald. 1992. From Discourse Process to Grammatical Construction. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerrig, Richard J., Horton, William S. & Stent, Amanda. 2011. Production and comprehension of unheralded pronouns: A corpus analysis. Discourse Processes, 48(3), 161–82.Google Scholar
Gibbons, Alison & Macrae, Andrea, eds. 2018. Pronouns in Literature: Positions and Perspectives in Language. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Gledhill, Chris. 1995. Collocation and genre analysis. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 43(1/1), 11–35.Google Scholar
Gregory, Michelle L. & Michaelis, Laura A.. 2001. Topicalization and left-dislocation: A functional opposition revisited. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(11), 1665–706.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan T. 2003. Multifactorial Analysis in Corpus Linguistics: A Study of Particle Placement. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Gross, Alan G., Harmon, Joseph & Reidy, Michael. 2002. Communicating Science: The Scientific Article From the 17th Century to the Present. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grosz, Barbara, Joshi, Aravind & Weinstein, Scott. 1995. Centering: A framework for modeling the local coherence of discourse. Computational Linguistics, 21, 202–25.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K., Hedberg, Nancy & Zacharski, Ron. 1993. Cognitive status and the form of referring expressions in discourse. Language, 69(2), 274–307.Google Scholar
Gundel, Jeanette K., Hedberg, Nancy & Zacharski, Ron. 2001. Definite descriptions and cognitive status in English: Why accommodation is unnecessary. English Language and Linguistics, 5(2), 273–95.Google Scholar
Gunraj, Danielle N., Drumm-Hewitt, April M., Dashow, Erica M., Upadhyay, Sri S. N. & Klin, Celia M.. 2016. Texting insincerely: The role of the period in text messaging. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 1067–75.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1985. The get-passive and Burzio’s generalization. Lingua, 66(1), 53–77.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane & Ihsane, Tabea. 1999. Subject ellipsis in embedded clauses in English. English Language and Linguistics, 3(1), 117–45.Google Scholar
Haselow, Alexander. 2011. Discourse marker and modal particle: The functions of utterance-final then in spoken English. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 3603–23.Google Scholar
Haselow, Alexander. 2012. Subjectivity, intersubjectivity and the negotiation of common ground in spoken discourse: Final particles in English. Language & Communication, 32(3), 182–204.Google Scholar
Haselow, Alexander. 2019. Discourse marker sequences: Insights into the serial order of communicative tasks in real-time turn production. Journal of Pragmatics, 146(1), 1–18.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1994. A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 2004. Efficiency and Complexity in Grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hedberg, Nancy. 1990. Discourse Pragmatics and Cleft Sentences in English. Dissertation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Hedberg, Nancy & Fadden, Lorna. 2007. The information structure of it-clefts, wh-clefts and reverse wh-clefts in English. In Hedberg, Nancy & Zacharski, Ron, eds., The Grammar–Pragmatics Interface: Essays in Honor of Jeanette K. Gundel. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 49–76.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Kaltenböck, Gunther, Kuteva, Tania & Long, Haiping. 2021. The Rise of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Narrog, Heiko, eds. 2011. The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hellermann, John & Vergun, Andrea. 2007. Language which is not taught: The discourse marker use of beginning adult learners of English. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(1), 157–79.Google Scholar
Herring, Susan C., ed. 1996. Computer-Mediated Communication: Linguistic, Social, and Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Herring, Susan C. 2019. The coevolution of computer-mediated communication and computer-mediated discourse analysis. In Bou-Franch, Patricia & Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, Pilar, eds., Analyzing Digital Discourse: New Insights and Future Directions. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 25–67.Google Scholar
Heyd, Theresa & Puschmann, Cornelius. 2017. Hashtagging and functional shift: Adaptation and appropriation of the #. Journal of Pragmatics, 116, 51–63.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Christian R. 2012. Cohesive Profiling: Meaning and Interaction in Personal Weblogs. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Holler, Anke & Suckow, Katja, eds. 2016. Empirical Perspectives on Anaphora Resolution. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K.. 2005. A Student’s Introduction to English Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hundt, Marianne, Röthlisberger, Melanie & Seoane, Elena. 2018. Predicting voice alternation across academic Englishes. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 17(1), 189–222.Google Scholar
Iyeiri, Y., Yaguchi, M. & Baba, Y.. 2010. Coordinating and subordinating conjunctions in spoken American English. In Askedal, O. J., Roberts, I. & Matsushita, T., eds., Noam Chomsky and Language Descriptions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 179–96.Google Scholar
Johansson, Stig. 1997. A corpus study of English existential clauses: Register variation and discourse function. In Nevalainen, Terttu, Rissanen, Matti & Kahlas-Tarkka, Leena, eds., To Explain the Present: Studies in the Changing English Language in Honour of Matti Rissanen. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique, pp. 303–18.Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. & Ziv, Yael. 1998. Discourse Markers: Descriptions and Theory. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kaiser, Elsi. 2011. Focusing on pronouns: Consequences of subjecthood, pronominalisation, and contrastive focus. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(10), 1625–66.Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther. 2000. It-extraposition and non-extraposition in English discourse. In Mair, Christian & Hundt, Marianne, eds., Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory: Papers from the Twentieth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 20). Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 157–75.Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther. 2004. Using non-extraposition in spoken and written texts. In Aijmer, Karin & Stenström, Anna-Brita, eds., Discourse Patterns in Spoken and Written Corpora. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 219–42.Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther. 2005. It-extraposition in English: A functional view. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 10(2), 119–59.Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther, Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania. 2011. On thetical grammar. Studies in Language, 35(4), 852–97.Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther, Keizer, Evelien & Lohmann, Arne, eds. 2016. Outside the Clause: Form and Function of Extra-Clausal Constituents. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kehler, Andrew & Rohde, Hannah. 2013. A probabilistic reconciliation of coherence-driven and centering-driven theories of pronoun interpretation. Theoretical Linguistics, 39(1–2), 1–37.Google Scholar
Keizer, Evelien. 2015. A Functional Discourse Grammar for English. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Keizer, Evelien. 2018. Modal adverbs in FDG: Putting the theory to the test. Open Linguistics, 4(1), 356–90.Google Scholar
Koch, Peter and Oesterreicher, Wulf. 1985. Sprache der Nähe – Sprache der Distanz. Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgeschichte. Romanistisches Jahrbuch, 36, 15–43.Google Scholar
Koops, Christian & Lohmann, Arne. 2015. A quantitative approach to the grammaticalization of discourse markers: Evidence from their sequencing behavior. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 20(2), 232–59.Google Scholar
Kreyer, Rolf. 2006. Inversion in Modern Written English: Syntactic Complexity, Information Status and the Creative Writer. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Kytö, Merja & Pahta, Päivi, eds. 2016. The Cambridge Handbook of English Historical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2013. The Language of Life and Death: The Transformation of Experience in Oral Narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, Knud. 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lange, Claudia & Tanja, Rütten. 2017. Non-canonical grammar!? Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik, 65(3), 243–7.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey & Smith, Nicholas. 2006. Recent grammatical change in written English 1961–1992: Some preliminary findings of a comparison of American with British English. In Renouf, Antoinette & Kehoe, Andrew, The Changing Face of Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 186–204.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, Hundt, Marianne, Mair, Christian & Smith, Nicholas. 2009. Change in Contemporary English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lenker, Ursula. 2010. Argument and Rhetoric: Adverbial Connectors in the History of English. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Leuckert, Sven. 2019. Topicalization in Asian Englishes: Forms, Functions and Frequencies of a Fronting Construction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lindquist, Hans & Levin, Magnus. 2018. Corpus Linguistics and the Description of English, 2nd edn. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Lohmann, Arne & Koops, Christian. 2016. Aspects of discourse marker sequencing: Empirical challenges and theoretical implications. In Kaltenböck, Gunther, Keizer, Evelien & Lohmann, Arne, eds., Outside the Clause: Form and Function of Extra-Clausal Constituents. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 417–46.Google Scholar
Lohse, Barbara, Hawkins, John A. & Wasow, Thomas. 2004. Domain minimization in English verb-particle constructions. Language, 80(2), 238–61.Google Scholar
Macaulay, Monica. 2011. Surviving Linguistics: A Guide for Graduate Students, 2nd edn. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian. 2006. Twentieth-Century English: History, Variation and Standardization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian & Hundt, Marianne, eds. 2000. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory: Papers from the Twentieth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 20). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Mair, Christian & Leech, Geoffrey. 2020. Current changes in English syntax. In Aarts, Bas, McMahon, April & Hinrichs, Lars, eds., The Handbook of English Linguistics. Malden, MA: Wiley, pp. 249–76.Google Scholar
McCulloch, Gretchen. 2019. Because Internet: Understanding the New Rules of Language. New York: Riverhead.Google Scholar
McEnery, Tony & Hardie, Andrew. 2012. Corpus Linguistics: Method, Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McWhorter, John. 2013. Txtng is killing language. JK!!! [Video]. TED Conferences. https://bit.ly/mcwhorter_tedtalkGoogle Scholar
Megherbi, Hakima, Seigneuric, Alix, Oakhill, Jane & Bueno, Steve. 2019. Children’s understanding of pronouns that differ in scope of reference. Journal of Child Language, 46(5), 1012–24.Google Scholar
Müller, Simone. 2005. Discourse Markers in Native and Non-Native English Discourse. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nariyama, Shigeko. 2004. Subject ellipsis in English. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(2), 237–64.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2001. The Prague School and North American functionalist approaches to syntax. Journal of Linguistics, 37(1), 101–26.Google Scholar
Newmeyer, Frederick J. 2003. Grammar is grammar and usage is usage. Language, 79(4), 682–707.Google Scholar
Ogden, Charles K. & Richards, Ivor A.. 1972. The Meaning of Meaning: A Study of the Influence of Language Upon Thought and of the Science of Symbolism, 10th edn. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
O’Grady, William D. 1997. Syntactic Development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Oh, Sun-Young. 2000. Actually and in fact in American English: A data-based analysis. English Language and Linguistics, 4(2), 243–68.Google Scholar
Oh, Sun-Young. 2005. English zero anaphora as an interactional resource. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 38(3), 267–302.Google Scholar
Oh, Sun-Young. 2006. English zero anaphora as an interactional resource II. Discourse Studies, 8(6), 817–46.Google Scholar
Patten, Amanda L. 2014. The historical development of the it-cleft: A comparison of two different approaches. In Gisborne, Nikolas & Hollmann, Willem, eds., Theory and Data in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 87–114.Google Scholar
Pennebaker, James W. 2011. The Secret Life of Pronouns: What Our Words Say About Us. New York: Bloomsbury Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven, Lebeaux, David S. & Frost, Loren A.. 1987. Productivity and constraints in the acquisition of the passive. Cognition, 26(3), 195–267.Google Scholar
Polat, Brittany. 2011. Investigating acquisition of discourse markers through a developmental learner corpus. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(15), 3745–56.Google Scholar
Prado-Alonso, Carlos & Acuña-Fariña, J. Carlos. 2010. A comprehensive account of full-verb inversion in English. Folia Linguistica, 44(2), 509–54.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen F. 1978. A comparison of wh-clefts and it-clefts in discourse. Language, 54(4), 883–906.Google Scholar
Prince, Ellen F. 1981. Toward a taxonomy of given-new information. In Cole, Peter, ed., Radical Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, pp. 223–54.Google Scholar
Puschmann, Cornelius. 2010. The Corporate Blog as an Emerging Genre of Computer-Mediated Communication: Features, Constraints, Discourse Situation. Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Göttingen.Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rasinger, Sebastian M. 2013. Quantitative Research in Linguistics: An Introduction, 2nd edn. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Renkema, Jan & Schubert, Christoph. 2018. Introduction to Discourse Studies: New Edition. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kalajahi, Rezvani, Seyed, A., Neufeld, Steve & Abdullah, Ain Nadzimah. 2017. The discourse connector list: A multi-genre cross-cultural corpus analysis. Text & Talk, 37(3), 283–310.Google Scholar
Rohdenburg, Günter & Mondorf, Britta, eds. 2003. Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Rosenbach, Anette. 2014. English genitive variation – the state of the art. English Language and Linguistics, 18(2), 215–62.Google Scholar
Sanders, Ted. 1997. Semantic and pragmatic sources of coherence: On the categorization of coherence relations in context. Discourse Processes, 24(1), 119–47.Google Scholar
Sanders, Ted J. M. & Gernsbacher, Morton A.. 2004. Accessibility in text and discourse processing. Discourse Processes, 37(2), 79–89.Google Scholar
Sarda, Laure, Carter-Thomas, Shirley, Fagard, Benjamin & Charolles, Michel, eds. 2014. Adverbials in Use: From Predicative to Discourse Functions. Louvain-La-Neuve: UCL, Presses Universitaires de Louvain.Google Scholar
Schaub, Steffen. 2016. The influence of register on noun phrase complexity in varieties of English. In Schubert, Christoph & Sanchez-Stockhammer, Christina, eds., Variational Text Linguistics. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 251–70.Google Scholar
Schilk, Marco & Schaub, Steffen. 2016. Noun phrase complexity across varieties of English: Focus on syntactic function and text type. English World-Wide, 37, 58–85.Google Scholar
Schourup, Lawrence. 1999. Discourse markers: Tutorial overview. Lingua, 107(3–4), 227–65.Google Scholar
Schubert, Christoph & Sanchez-Stockhammer, Christina. 2016. Variational Text Linguistics. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Seoane, Elena. 2006. Changing styles: On the recent evolution of scientific British and American English. In Dalton-Puffer, Christiane, Kastovsky, Dieter, Ritt, Nikolaus & Schendel, Herbert, eds., Syntax, Style and Grammatical Norms: English from 1500–2000. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 191–211.Google Scholar
Shaw, Philip. 2009. Linking adverbials in student and professional writing in literary studies: What makes writing mature. In Charles, Maggie, Pecorari, Diane & Hunston, Susan, eds., Academic Writing: At the Interface of Corpus and Discourse. London: Continuum, pp. 215–35.Google Scholar
Short, Mick. 1996. Exploring the Language of Poems, Plays and Prose, 1st edn. Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar
Smith, Sara W. & Jucker, Andreas H.. 2000. Actually and other markers of an apparent discrepancy between propositional attitudes of conversational partners. In Hedberg, Nancy & Zacharski, Ron, eds., The Grammar–Pragmatics Interface: Essays in Honor of Jeanette K. Gundel. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 207–38.Google Scholar
Spooren, Wilbert & Sanders, Ted. 2008. The acquisition order of coherence relations: On cognitive complexity in discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(12), 2003–26.Google Scholar
Squires, Lauren, ed. 2016. English in Computer-Mediated Communication: Variation, Representation, and Change. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2020. Corpus Linguistics: A Guide to the Methodology. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Strunk, Jr., William & E. B. White. 2000. The Elements of Style. Fourth edition. New York: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Swales, John M. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Swales, John M. 2004. Research Genres. Exploration and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali. 2005. So who? Like how? Just what? Discourse markers in the conversations of young Canadians. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(11), 1896–915.Google Scholar
Teddiman, Laura & Newman, John. 2007. Subject ellipsis in English: Construction of and findings from a diary corpus. Paper presented at the 26th International Conference on Lexis and Grammar, Bonifacio, France. 2–6 October. Online. https://bit.ly/3JtNKTIGoogle Scholar
Tenbrink, Thora. 2020. Cognitive Discourse Analysis: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. 2000. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Online. www.ahdictionary.comGoogle Scholar
Thornton, Rosalind, Kiguchi, Hirohisa & D’Onofrio, Elena. 2018. Cleft sentences and reconstruction in child language. Language, 94(2), 405–31.Google Scholar
Tieken-Boon van Ostade, Ingrid. 2014. In Search of Jane Austen: The Language of the Letters. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tizón-Couto, David. 2012. Left Dislocation in English: A Functional-Discoursal Approach. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Toolan, Michael. 2013. Language in Literature: An Introduction to Stylistics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth C. & Dasher, Richard B.. 2009. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Travis, Catherine E. & Lindstrom, Amy M.. 2016. Different registers, different grammars? Subject expression in English conversation and narrative. Language Variation and Change, 28(1), 103–28.Google Scholar
Turkle, Sherry. 2015. Reclaiming Conversation: The Power of Talk in a Digital Age. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Turner, Elizabeth A. & Rommetveit, Ragnar. 1967. Experimental manipulation of the production of active and passive voice in children. Language and Speech, 10(3), 169–80.Google Scholar
van Dijk, Chantal N., Merel, van Witteloostuijn, Vasić, Nada, Avrutin, Sergey & Blom, Elma. 2016. The influence of texting language on grammar and executive functions in primary school children. PLoS ONE, 11(3), e0152409.Google Scholar
van Silfhout, Gerdineke, Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline & Sanders, Ted. 2015. Connectives as processing signals: How students benefit in processing narrative and expository texts. Discourse Processes, 52(1), 47–76.Google Scholar
Verstraete, Jean-Christophe. 2004. Initial and final position for adverbial clauses in English: The constructional basis of the discursive and syntactic differences. Linguistics, 42(4), 819–53.Google Scholar
Virtanen, Tuija. 1992. Given and new information in adverbials: Clause-initial adverbials of time and place. Journal of Pragmatics, 17(2), 99–115.Google Scholar
Virtanen, Tuija, ed. 2004. Approaches to Cognition Through Text and Discourse. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Virtanen, Tuija. 2008. Adverbials of ‘manner’ and ‘manner plus’ in written English: Why initial placement? SKY Journal of Linguistics, 21, 271–93.Google Scholar
Virtanen, Tuija. 2010. Variation across texts and discourses: Theoretical and methodological perspectives on text type and genre. In Dorgeloh, Heidrun & Wanner, Anja, eds., Syntactic Variation and Genre. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 53–84.Google Scholar
Virtanen, Tuija. 2014. Sentence-initial adverbials in written texts: On discourse functions and cognitive motivations. In Sarda, Laure, Carter-Thomas, Shirley, Fagard, Benjamin & Charolles, Michel, eds., Adverbials in Use: From Predicative to Discourse Functions. Louvain-La-Neuve: UCL, Presses Universitaire de Louvain, pp. 103–32.Google Scholar
Vonk, Wietske, Hustinx, Lettica G. & Simons, Wim H.. 1992. The use of referential expressions in structuring discourse. Language and Cognitive Processes, 7(3–4), 301–33.Google Scholar
Wanner, Anja. 2009. Deconstructing the English Passive. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Ward, Gregory & Birner, Betty J.. 2006. Information structure and non-canonical syntax. In Horn, Laurence R. & Ward, Gregory L., eds., The Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 153–74.Google Scholar
Wårvik, Brita. 1995. The ambiguous adverbial/conjunctions þa and þonne in Middle English: A discourse-pragmatic study of then and when in Early English Saints’ Lives. In Jucker, Andreas H., ed., Historical Pragmatics: Pragmatic Developments in the History of English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 345–57.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas & Arnold, Jennifer. 2003. Post-verbal constituent ordering in English. In Rohdenburg, Günter & Mondorf, Britta, eds., Determinants of Grammatical Variation in English. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter Mouton, pp. 119–54.Google Scholar
Waters, Cathleen. 2009. Actually, it’s more than pragmatics, it’s really grammaticalization. Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics. Online. https://bit.ly/3vYHzRoGoogle Scholar
Webber, Bonnie L. 1991. Structure and ostension in the interpretation of discourse deixis. Language and Cognitive Processes, 6(2), 107–35.Google Scholar
Weir, Andrew. 2012. Left-edge deletion in English and subject omission in diaries. English Language and Linguistics, 16(1), 105–29.Google Scholar
Wiechmann, Daniel & Kerz, Elma. 2013. The positioning of concessive adverbial clauses in English: Assessing the importance of discourse-pragmatic and processing-based constraints. English Language and Linguistics, 17(1), 1–23.Google Scholar
Wulff, Stefanie & Gries, Stefan T.. 2019. Particle placement in learner language. Language Learning, 69(4), 873–910.Google Scholar
Xiao, Richard, McEnery, Tony & Qian, Yufang. 2006. Passive constructions in English and Chinese: A corpus-based contrastive study. Languages in Contrast, 6(1), 109–49.Google Scholar
Yáñez-Bouza, Nuria. 2015. Grammar, Rhetoric and Usage in English: Preposition Placement 1500–1900. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Yates, Simeon J. 1996. Oral and written linguistic aspects of computer conferencing. In Herring, Susan C., ed., Computer-mediated Communication: Linguistic, Social, and Cross-cultural Perspectives. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 29–46.Google Scholar
Yuill, Nicola & Oakhill, Jane. 2010. Children’s Problems in Text Comprehension: An Experimental Investigation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zappavigna, Michele. 2015. Searchable talk: The linguistic functions of hashtags. Social Semiotics, 25(3), 274–91.Google Scholar
Zhang, Guiping. 2015. It is suggested that … or it is better to …? Forms and meanings of subject it-extraposition in academic and popular writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 20, 1–13.Google Scholar
Andželika, . 2019. This dog was trained to respond to Harry Potter spells and he’s probably the cutest Hogwarts student ever. boredpanda.com. Online. https://bit.ly/3xT39JEGoogle Scholar
Axon, Rachel. 2013. Air apparent: Ayumu Hirano might challenge Shaun White. USA Today Sports. Online. https://bit.ly/axon_usatodayGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 2020. Blackbirds and blue whales: Stress in English A+N constructions. English Language and Linguistics, 25(3), 581–600.Google Scholar
Bruni, Frank. 2020. How to go to college during a pandemic. The New York Times. August 1. Online. https://bit.ly/bruni_nytGoogle Scholar
Carroll, Lewis. 1991 [1865]. Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. Project Gutenberg. Online. https://bit.ly/3se4sizGoogle Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2008–. Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). www.english-corpora.org/coca/Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2010–. Corpus of Historical American English (COHA), 1810–2009. www.english-corpora.org/coha/Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2013. Corpus of Global Web-Based English (GloWbE). www.english-corpora.org/glowbe/Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2016–. Corpus of Online Registers of English (CORE). www.english-corpora.org/core/Google Scholar
Easton, Lauren. 2017. Making a case for a singular “they”. AP Style Blog. Online. www.apstylebook.com/blog_posts/7Google Scholar
Garunay, Melanie. 2016. President Obama speaks on the results of the election: “We are Americans first”. The White House. Online. https://bit.ly/3LF974VGoogle Scholar
Geiger, A.W. & Graf, Nikki. 2019. About four-in-ten U.S. adults say forms should offer more than two gender options. Pew Research Center. Online. https://bit.ly/pewresearch2019Google Scholar
Grieve, Jack, Nini, Andrea & Guo, Diansheng. 2017. Analyzing lexical emergence in Modern American English online. English Language and Linguistics, 21(1), 99–127.Google Scholar
Grimm, Jacob & Grimm, Wilhelm. 2001. “The Frog-Prince” in Grimms’ Fairy Tales. [Kinder und Hausmärchen]. Translated by Edgar Taylor and Marian Edwardes. Project Gutenberg. Online. https://bit.ly/project_gutenberg_the_frog_princeGoogle Scholar
Helsinki Corpus TEI XML Edition. 2011. First edition. Designed by Honkapohja, Alpo, Kaislaniemi, Samuli, Kauhanen, Henri, Kilpiö, Matti, Marttila, Ville, Nevalainen, Terttu, Nurmi, Arja, Rissanen, Matti and Tyrkkö, Jukka. Implemented by Kauhanen, Henri and Marttila, Ville. Based on The Helsinki Corpus of English Texts (1991). Helsinki: The Research Unit for Variation, Contacts and Change in English (VARIENG), University of Helsinki. Online. https://helsinkicorpus.arts.gla.ac.ukGoogle Scholar
Imperial War Museum. 2021. The peace treaties that ended the first world war. Online. https://bit.ly/3F24MWTGoogle Scholar
Lata, Ramina, Conway, James F., Naiqian Cheng et al. 2000. Maturation dynamics of a viral capsid: visualization of transitional intermediate states. Cell, 100(2), 253–63.Google Scholar
Lewis, Carolyn Herbst. 2018. At home, you’re the most important thing: The Chicago maternity center and medical home birth, 1932–1973. Journal of Women’s History, 30(4), 35–59.Google Scholar
Maduku, Richard. 2018. Logos on my mind. The Guardian (Nigeria). Online. January 1. https://bit.ly/maduku_theguardianGoogle Scholar
Martin, Jeff. 2020. John Lewis mourned as “founding father” of better America. The Washington Post. July 30. Online. https://bit.ly/martin_wspGoogle Scholar
Martínez, Ignacio Palacios. 2015. Variation, development and pragmatic uses of innit in the language of British adults and teenagers. English Language and Linguistics, 19(3), 383–405.Google Scholar
Merriam-Webster. 2019. “They” is Merriam-Webster’s word of the year 2019. Online. https://bit.ly/they_MW2019wordoftheyearGoogle Scholar
Rosa, Amanda. 2020. Finally, N.Y.C. beaches are open for swimming. Thank god. The New York Times. July 7. Online. https://bit.ly/rosa_nytGoogle Scholar
Rouse, W. H. D. 2019. The Crocodile and the Monkey. The Story Hut. Online. https://bit.ly/the_crocodile_and_the_monkeyGoogle Scholar
Schitt’s Creek. 2020. Season 6, Episode 2: The incident transcript. Online. https://bit.ly/3y92fc1Google Scholar
Shakespeare, William. 2003 [1597]. Romeo and Juliet. Online. https://bit.ly/shakespeare_romeo_and_julietGoogle Scholar
Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft. 1993 [1818]. Frankenstein. Project Gutenberg. Online. https://bit.ly/3kGYL8AGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali & Smith, Jennifer. 2005. No momentary fancy! The zero ‘complementizer’ in English dialects. English Language and Linguistics, 9(2), 289–309.Google Scholar
van den Heuvel, Cor. 2000. The Haiku Anthology: Haiku and Senryu in English, 3rd edn. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Andželika, . 2019. This dog was trained to respond to Harry Potter spells and he’s probably the cutest Hogwarts student ever. boredpanda.com. Online. https://bit.ly/3xT39JEGoogle Scholar
Axon, Rachel. 2013. Air apparent: Ayumu Hirano might challenge Shaun White. USA Today Sports. Online. https://bit.ly/axon_usatodayGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Laurie. 2020. Blackbirds and blue whales: Stress in English A+N constructions. English Language and Linguistics, 25(3), 581–600.Google Scholar
Bruni, Frank. 2020. How to go to college during a pandemic. The New York Times. August 1. Online. https://bit.ly/bruni_nytGoogle Scholar
Carroll, Lewis. 1991 [1865]. Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. Project Gutenberg. Online. https://bit.ly/3se4sizGoogle Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2008–. Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). www.english-corpora.org/coca/Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2010–. Corpus of Historical American English (COHA), 1810–2009. www.english-corpora.org/coha/Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2013. Corpus of Global Web-Based English (GloWbE). www.english-corpora.org/glowbe/Google Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2016–. Corpus of Online Registers of English (CORE). www.english-corpora.org/core/Google Scholar
Easton, Lauren. 2017. Making a case for a singular “they”. AP Style Blog. Online. www.apstylebook.com/blog_posts/7Google Scholar
Garunay, Melanie. 2016. President Obama speaks on the results of the election: “We are Americans first”. The White House. Online. https://bit.ly/3LF974VGoogle Scholar
Geiger, A.W. & Graf, Nikki. 2019. About four-in-ten U.S. adults say forms should offer more than two gender options. Pew Research Center. Online. https://bit.ly/pewresearch2019Google Scholar
Grieve, Jack, Nini, Andrea & Guo, Diansheng. 2017. Analyzing lexical emergence in Modern American English online. English Language and Linguistics, 21(1), 99–127.Google Scholar
Grimm, Jacob & Grimm, Wilhelm. 2001. “The Frog-Prince” in Grimms’ Fairy Tales. [Kinder und Hausmärchen]. Translated by Edgar Taylor and Marian Edwardes. Project Gutenberg. Online. https://bit.ly/project_gutenberg_the_frog_princeGoogle Scholar
Helsinki Corpus TEI XML Edition. 2011. First edition. Designed by Honkapohja, Alpo, Kaislaniemi, Samuli, Kauhanen, Henri, Kilpiö, Matti, Marttila, Ville, Nevalainen, Terttu, Nurmi, Arja, Rissanen, Matti and Tyrkkö, Jukka. Implemented by Kauhanen, Henri and Marttila, Ville. Based on The Helsinki Corpus of English Texts (1991). Helsinki: The Research Unit for Variation, Contacts and Change in English (VARIENG), University of Helsinki. Online. https://helsinkicorpus.arts.gla.ac.ukGoogle Scholar
Imperial War Museum. 2021. The peace treaties that ended the first world war. Online. https://bit.ly/3F24MWTGoogle Scholar
Lata, Ramina, Conway, James F., Naiqian Cheng et al. 2000. Maturation dynamics of a viral capsid: visualization of transitional intermediate states. Cell, 100(2), 253–63.Google Scholar
Lewis, Carolyn Herbst. 2018. At home, you’re the most important thing: The Chicago maternity center and medical home birth, 1932–1973. Journal of Women’s History, 30(4), 35–59.Google Scholar
Maduku, Richard. 2018. Logos on my mind. The Guardian (Nigeria). Online. January 1. https://bit.ly/maduku_theguardianGoogle Scholar
Martin, Jeff. 2020. John Lewis mourned as “founding father” of better America. The Washington Post. July 30. Online. https://bit.ly/martin_wspGoogle Scholar
Martínez, Ignacio Palacios. 2015. Variation, development and pragmatic uses of innit in the language of British adults and teenagers. English Language and Linguistics, 19(3), 383–405.Google Scholar
Merriam-Webster. 2019. “They” is Merriam-Webster’s word of the year 2019. Online. https://bit.ly/they_MW2019wordoftheyearGoogle Scholar
Rosa, Amanda. 2020. Finally, N.Y.C. beaches are open for swimming. Thank god. The New York Times. July 7. Online. https://bit.ly/rosa_nytGoogle Scholar
Rouse, W. H. D. 2019. The Crocodile and the Monkey. The Story Hut. Online. https://bit.ly/the_crocodile_and_the_monkeyGoogle Scholar
Schitt’s Creek. 2020. Season 6, Episode 2: The incident transcript. Online. https://bit.ly/3y92fc1Google Scholar
Shakespeare, William. 2003 [1597]. Romeo and Juliet. Online. https://bit.ly/shakespeare_romeo_and_julietGoogle Scholar
Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft. 1993 [1818]. Frankenstein. Project Gutenberg. Online. https://bit.ly/3kGYL8AGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali & Smith, Jennifer. 2005. No momentary fancy! The zero ‘complementizer’ in English dialects. English Language and Linguistics, 9(2), 289–309.Google Scholar
van den Heuvel, Cor. 2000. The Haiku Anthology: Haiku and Senryu in English, 3rd edn. New York: Norton.Google Scholar