Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-6kn8j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T05:55:41.416Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Corpus-Based Investigations of Language Use

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2008

Douglas Biber ,
Susan Conrad  and
Randi Reppen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On a basic level, there are two main areas of study within linguistics: language structure and language use. Language practioners as well as theoreticians must be concerned with both areas; that is, they need a full understanding of the structural resources available in a language as well as analyses of what speakers and writers actually do with those resources. Investigations of a representative text corpus—a principled collection of texts stored on computer—provide important insights into both of these domains and open new avenues of inquiry.

Information

Type
Technology and Language Analysis
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 16 , March 1996 , pp. 115 - 136
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

UNANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aarts, B. and Meyer, C. (eds.) 1995. The verb in contemporary English: Theory and description. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Aarts, J. 1991. Intuition-based and observation-based grammers. In Aijmer, K. and Altenberg, B. (eds.) English corpus linguistics. London: Longman. 44–62.Google Scholar
Aijmer, K. 1986. Why is actually so frequent in spoken English? In Tottie, G. and Bäcklund, I. (eds.) English in speech and writing: A symposium. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell. 119–129. [Studia Anglistica Upsaliensia 60.]Google Scholar
Altenberg, B. 1991. Amplifier collocations in spoken English. In Johansson, S. and Stenström, A.-B. (eds.) English computer corpora: Selected papers and research guide. Berlin: Mouton. 127–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altenberg, B. 1993. Recurrent word combinations in spoken English. In D'Ary, J. (ed.) Proceedings from the 5th Nordic Association for English Studies. Reykjavik, 1992.Google Scholar
Altenberg, B. 1994. On the functions of such in spoken and written English. In Oostdijk, N. and de Haan, P. (eds.) Corpus-based research into language. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 223–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, S. (ed.) 1994. Using large corpora. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Atkinson, D. 1992. The evolution of medical research writing from 1735 yo 1985: The case of the Edinburgh Medical Journal. Applied Linguistics. 13.337–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besnier, N. 1988. The linguistic relationships of spoken and written Nukulaelae registers. Language. 64.707–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. 1988. Variation across speech and writting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, 1990. Methodological issues regarding corpus-based analyses of linguistic variation. Literary and Linguistic Computing. 5.257–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, 1993a. Co-occurrence patterns among collocations: A tool for corpusbased lexical knowledge acquisition. Computational Linguistics. 19.549–556.Google Scholar
Biber, . Conard, S. and Reppen, R.. 1994. Corpus-based approaches to issues in applied linguistics. Applied Linguistics. 15.169–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, and Finegan, E.. 1989. Drift and the evoultion of English style: A history of three genres. Language. 65.487–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, and Finegan, E.. 1994a. Intra-textual variation within medical research articles. In Oostdijk, N. and de Haan, P. (eds.) Corpus-based research into language. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 201–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, and Finegan, E.. (eds.) 1994b. Sociolinguistic perspectives on register. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, and Hared, M.. 1992. Literacy in Somali: Linguistic consequences. In Grabe, W. et al. , (eds.) Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 12. Literacy. New York: Cambridge University Press. 260–282.Google Scholar
Church, K. and Hanks, P.. 1990. Word association norms, and mutual information, and lexicography. Computational Linguistics. 16.122–29.Google Scholar
Church, K., Gale, W., Hanks, P. and Hindle, D.. 1991. Using statistics in lexical analysis. In Zernik, U. (ed.) Lexical acquisition: Exploiting on-line resources to build a lexicon. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 115–164.Google Scholar
Coates, J. 1983. The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Collins, P. 1991a. The modals of obligation and necessity in Australian English. In Aijmer, K. and Altenberg, B. (eds.) English corpus linguistics. London: Longman. 145–165.Google Scholar
Collins, P. 1991b. Cleft and pseudo-cleft constructions in English. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Conrad, S. 1996. Academic discourse in two disciplines: Professional texts and student development in history and biology. Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona University. Ph.D. diss.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. 1979. Neglected grammatical factors in conversational English. In Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., and Svartvik, J. (eds.) Studies in English linguistics for Randolph Quirk. London: Longman. 153–167.Google Scholar
de Hann, P. 1989. Postmodifying clauses in the English noun phrase: A corpusbased study. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flowerdew, L. and Tong, A. (eds.) 1994. Entering text. Hong Kong: The Language Centre.Google Scholar
Fries, U., Tottie, G. and Schneider, P. (eds.) 1994. Creating and using English corpora. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geisler, C. 1995. Relative infinitives in English. Uppsala: Uppsala University.Google Scholar
Ghadessy, M. (ed.) 1988. Registers of written English: Situational factors and linguistic features. London: Printer.Google Scholar
Granger, S. 1983. The be+past participle construction in spoken English with special emphasis on the passive. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.Google Scholar
Grishman, R. and Kittredge, R. (eds.) 1986. Analyzing language in restricted domains: Sublanguage description and processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Johansson, C. 1995. The relativizers whose and of which in present-day English: Description and theory. Uppsala: Uppsala University.Google Scholar
Kennedy, G. 1991. Between and through: The company they keep and the functions they serve. In Aijmer, K. and Altenberg, B. (eds.) English corpus linguistics. London: Longman. 95–127.Google Scholar
Kim, Y. and Biber, D.. 1994. A corpus-based analysis of register variation in Korean. In Biber, D. and Finegan, E. (eds.) Sociolinguistic perspectives on register. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 157–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kittredge, R. and Lehrberger, J.. 1982. Sublanguage: Studies of language in restricted semantic domains. Berlin: DeGruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kjellmer, G. 1991. A mint of phrases. In Aijmer, K. and Altenberg, B. (eds.) English corpus linguistics. London: Longman. 111–127.Google Scholar
Leech, G. 1991. The state of the art in corpus linguistics. In Aijmer, K. and Alterberg, B. (eds.) English corpus linguistics. London: Longman. 8–29.Google Scholar
Meyer, C. 1992. Apposition in contemporary English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nattinger, J. and DeCarrico, J.. 1992. Lexical phrases and language teaching. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Oostdijk, N. and de Hann, P. (eds.) 1994. Corpus-based research into language. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renouf, A. and Sinclair, J.. 1991. Collocational frameworks in English. In Aijmer, K. and Altenberg, B. (eds.) English corpus linguistics. London: Longman. 128–143.Google Scholar
Reppen, R. 1994. Variation in elementary student language: A multi-dimensional prespective. Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona University. Ph. D diss.Google Scholar
Ross, D. and Brink, D. (eds.) 1994. Research in humanities computing 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. (ed.) 1987. Looking up. London: Collins.Google Scholar
Stenström, A.-B. 1986. What does really really do? Strategies in speech and writing. In Tottie, G. and Bäcklund, I. (eds.) English in speech and writing: A symposium. Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell. 149–163. [Studia Auglistica Upsaliensia 60.]Google Scholar
Stenström, A-B. and Svartvik, J.. 1994. Imparsable speech: Repeats and other non-fluencies in English. In Oostdijk, N. and de Hann, P. (eds.) Corpusbased research into language. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 241–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strubbs, M. 1995. Collocations and semantic profiles: On the cause of the trouble with quantitative studies. Functions of Language. 2.23–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svartvik, J. (ed.) 1990. The London-Lund corpus of spoken English: Description and research. Lund, Sweden: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Swales, J. 1990. Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Varantola, K. 1984. On noun phrase structures in engineering English. Turku: University of Turku.Google Scholar