Diehr, Bärbel. 2020. Kohärenz und Korrespondenz: Die fachdidaktische Perspektive auf die universitäre Englischlehrerbildung. In Michaela Heer & Ulrich Heinen (eds.), *Die Stimmen der Fächer hören: Fachprofil und Bildungsanspruch in der Lehrerbildung*, 325–342. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh.

Diepenbroek, Lori G. & Tracey M. Derwing. 2014. To What Extent Do Popular ESL Textbooks Incorporate Oral Fluency and Pragmatic Development. *TESL Canada Journal* 30(7). 1. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v30i7.1149.

Dinh, Thuy Ngoc & Fenty Lidya Siregar. 2021. Intercultural Competence and Parsnip: Voices From Teachers of English in Australia. In María Dolores López-Jiménez & Jorge Sánchez-Torres (eds.), *Intercultural Competence Past, Present and Future: Respecting the Past, Problems in the Present and Forging the Future* (Intercultural Communication and Language Education), 255–274. Singapore: Springer.

Dirven, René. 1990. Pedagogical grammar. *Language Teaching* 23(01). 1. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444800005498.

Dirven, René & Günter Radden. 1977. *Semantische Syntax des Englischen*. Vol. 13. Wies: Athenaion.

Diwersy, Sascha, Stephanie Evert & Stella Neumann. 2014. A weakly supervised multivariate approach to the study of language variation. In Benedikt Szmrecsanyi & Bernhard Wälchli (eds.), *Aggregating dialectology, typology, and register analysis: Linguistic variation in text and speech*, 174–204. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter.

Diz-Otero, Mario, Iago Portela-Pino, Sara Domínguez-Lloria & Margarita Pino-Juste. 2022. Digital competence in secondary education teachers during the COVID-19-derived pandemic: comparative analysis. *Education + Training* ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print). https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-01-2022-0001.

Dörnyei, Zoltán, Valerie Durow & Khawla Zahran. 2004. Individual differences and their effects on formulaic sequence acquisition. In Norbert Schmitt (ed.), *Formulaic sequences: acquisition, processing, and use* (Language Learning and Language Teaching v. 9), 87–106. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Duffley, Patrick J. 2006. *The English Gerund-Participle: A Comparison with the Infinitive* (Berkeley Insights in Linguistics and Semiotics). Vol. 61. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

Dumont, Amandine. 2018. *Fluency and disfluency: A corpus study of non-native and native speaker (dis)fluency profiles*. Louvain: Université catholique de Louvain PhD dissertation. http://hdl.handle.net/2078.1/198393.

Eckhardt, Suzanne. 2001. *Reported speech: empirical corpus findings compared with EFL/ESL textbook presentations*. Ames: Iowa State University Unpublished M.A. thesis. https://doi.org/10.31274/rtd-180813-8333. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd/17551/ (30 January, 2020).

Edwards, Alison. 2014. *English in the Netherlands: Functions, forms and attitudes*. University of Cambridge PhD dissertation.

Edwards, Alison. 2016. *English in the Netherlands: Functions, forms and attitudes* (Varieties of English Around the World). Vol. G56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/veaw.g56. http://www.jbepi-platform.com/content/books/9789027267207 (28 January, 2022).

Egbert, Jesse & Douglas Biber. 2018. Do all roads lead to Rome?: Modeling register variation with factor analysis and discriminant analysis. *Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory* 14(2). 233–273. https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2016-0016.
Egbert, Jesse, Douglas Biber & Mark Davies. 2015. Developing a bottom-up, user-based method of web register classification. *Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology* 66(9). 1817–1831. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23308.

Egbert, Jesse, Tove Larsson & Douglas Biber. 2020. *Doing Linguistics with a Corpus: Methodological Considerations for the Everyday User*. 1st edn. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108888790. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/9781108888790/type/element (5 November, 2020).

Egbert, Jesse & Michaela Mahlberg. 2020. Fiction – one register or two?: Speech and narration in novels. *Register Studies* 2(1). 72–101. https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.19006.egb.

Egbert, Jesse & Shelley Staples. 2019. Doing Multi-Dimensional Analysis in SPSS, SAS, and R. In Tony Berber Sardinha & Marcia Veirano Pinto (eds.), *Multi-Dimensional Analysis: Research Methods and Current Issues*, 125–144. Bloomsbury Academic. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350023857.

Elio, Renee & John R Anderson. 1981. The Effects of Category Generalizations and Instance Similarity on Schema Abstraction. *journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory* 7(6). 397–417.

Elio, Renee & John R. Anderson. 1984. The effects of information order and learning mode on schema abstraction. *Memory & Cognition* 12(1). 20–30. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196994.

Ellis, N. C. & D. Larsen-Freeman. 2006. Language Emergence: Implications for Applied Linguistics--Introduction to the Special Issue. *Applied Linguistics* 27(4). 558–589. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml028.

Ellis, Nick C. 1998. Emergentism, Connectionism and Language Learning. *Language Learning* 48(4). 631–664. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00063.

Ellis, Nick C. 2002. Frequency effects in language processing. *Studies in second language acquisition* 24(2). 143–188.

Ellis, Nick C. 2006. Language Acquisition as Rational Contingency Learning. *Applied Linguistics* 27(1). 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami038.

Ellis, Nick C. 2008. Usage-based and form-focused language acquisition: The associative learning of constructions, learned attention, and the limited L2 endstate. In Peter Robinson & Nick C. Ellis (eds.), *Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition*, 372–405. London: Routledge.

Ellis, Nick C. 2019. Essentials of a Theory of Language Cognition. *The Modern Language Journal* 103(S1). 39–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12532.

Ellis, Nick C. & Fernando Ferreira-Junior. 2009a. Constructions and their acquisition: Islands and the distinctiveness of their occupancy. *Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics* 7(1). 188–221.

Ellis, Nick C. & Fernando Ferreira-Junior. 2009b. Construction Learning as a Function of Frequency, Frequency Distribution, and Function. *The Modern Language Journal* 93(3). 370–385. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00896.x.

Ellis, Nick C. & Diane Larsen-Freeman. 2009. Constructing a Second Language: Analyses and Computational Simulations of the Emergence of Linguistic Constructions From Usage. *Language Learning* 59. 90–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2009.00537.x.
Ellis, Nick C., Ute Römer & Matthew Brook O'Donnell. 2016. *Usage-based approaches to language acquisition and processing: Cognitive and corpus investigations of construction grammar* (Language Learning Monograph Series). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Ellis, Rod. 1989. Are classroom and naturalistic acquisition the same?: A study of the classroom acquisition of German word order rules. *Studies in second language Acquisition* 11(3). 305–328.

Ellis, Rod. 1997. The empirical evaluation of language teaching materials. *ELT journal* 51(1). 36–42.

Elman, Jeffrey L, Elizabeth A Bates, Mark H Johnson, Annette Karmiloff-Smith, Domenico Parisi & Kim Plunkett. 1996. *Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on development*. Vol. 10. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.

European Commission, EACEA, & Eurydice. 2017. *Key data on teaching languages at school in Europe: Eurydice Report*. Luxemburg: Publications Office of the European Union. http://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2797/839825 (15 October, 2018).

Evert, Stephanie. 2005. *The statistics of word cooccurrences: word pairs and collocations*. Institut für maschinelle Sprachverarbeitung, University of Stuttgart PhD thesis.

Evert, Stephanie. 2009. Corpora and collocations. In Anke Lüdeling & Merja Kytö (eds.), *Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science*. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110213881.2.1212.

Evert, Stephanie. 2018. Statistics for Linguists with R – A SIGIL Course: Unit 7: A multivariate approach to linguistic variation. FAU Erlangen-Nürnberg. http://www.stephanie-evert.de/SIGIL/sigil_R/ (4 November, 2021).

Fankhauser, Anna. forthcoming. Suggestions for a new model of functional phraseme categorization for applied purposes. In Johanna Monti, Ruslan Mitkov & Gloria Corpas Pastor (eds.), *Recent Advances in Multiword Units in Machine Translation and Translation Technology*. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Fankhauser, Anna. in preparation. *Formulaic Language in the EFL Classroom: A Corpus-Based Study of Phraseological Items in British English and American English Conversation with Implications for EFL Teaching*. Osnabrück University.

Feierabend, Sabine, Thomas Rathgeb, Hediye Kheredmand & Stephan Glöckler. 2020. *JIM-Studie 2020: Jugend, Information, Medien. Basisuntersuchung zum Medienumgang 12- bis 19-Jähriger*. Medienpädagogischer Forschungs- verbund Südwest (mpfs). https://www.mpfs.de/fileadmin/files/Studien/JIM/2020/JIM-Studie-2020_Web_final.pdf (20 January, 2022).

Fogal, Gary G. & Marjolijn H. Verspoor. 2020. *Complex Dynamic Systems Theory and L2 Writing Development*. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Fominykh, Mikhail, Elizaveta Shikhova, Maria Victoria Soule, Maria Perifanou & Daria Zhukova. 2021. Digital Competence Assessment Survey for Language Teachers. In Panayiotis Zaphiris & Andri Ioannou (eds.), *Learning and Collaboration Technologies: New Challenges and Learning Experiences*, vol. 12784, 264–282. Cham: Springer. (17 February, 2022).

Forsberg, Julia, Susanne Mohr & Sandra Jansen. 2019. “The goal is to enable students to communicate”: Communicative competence and target varieties in TEFL practices in Sweden and Germany. *European Journal of Applied Linguistics* 7(1). 31–60. https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2018-0006.
Fournier, Yann, Anne Gaudry-Lachet & DEPP-MIREI. 2017. *L'apprentissage des langues vivantes étrangères dans l'Union européenne: parcours des élèves*. Note d'information. Ministère de l'Éducation Nationale. https://www.education.gouv.fr/l-apprentissage-des-langues-vivantes-etrangeres-dans-l-union-europeenne-parcours-des-eleves-2588 (1 August, 2018).

Frazier, Stefan. 2003. A Corpus Analysis of Would-Clauses without Adjacent If-Clauses. *TESOL Quarterly* 37(3). 443–466. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588399.

Freeman, David & Susan Holden. 1986. Authentic listening materials. *Techniques of Teaching*. London: Modern English Publications 67–69.

Freudenstein, Reinhold. 2002. Was morgen geschah... Schulischer Fremdsprachenunterricht gestern, heute - und in Zukunft? In Christiane Neveling (ed.), *Perspektiven für die zukünftige Fremdsprachendidaktik*, 45–62. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.

Friederici, Luisa. 2019. Vorschlag für eine pluriperspektivische Analyse der Zielgruppe zur Auswahl eines neuen Lehrwerks oder: Vergesst die Lehrer nicht! *Pandaemonium Germanicum* 22. 281–301. https://doi.org/10.11606/1982-88372237281.

Friginal, Eric. 2018. *Corpus linguistics for English teachers: new tools, online resources, and classroom activities*. New York, NY: Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315649054.

Friginal, Eric & Jack A. Hardy. 2014. Conducting Multi-Dimensional Analysis Using SPSS. In Tony Berber Sardinha & Douglas Biber (eds.), *Multi-Dimensional Analysis, 25 Years on: A Tribute to Douglas Biber* (Studies in Corpus Linguistics (SCL) 60), 297–316. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Friginal, Eric & Sara Weigle. 2014. Exploring multiple profiles of L2 writing using multi-dimensional analysis. *Journal of Second Language Writing* 26. 80–95.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.007.

Fuchs, Robert & Ulrike Gut. 2015. An apparent time study of the progressive in Nigerian English. In Peter Collins (ed.), *Grammatical Change in English World-Wide*, 373–387. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Fuchs, Robert & Valentin Werner. 2018. The use of stative progressives by school-age learners of English and the importance of the variable context: Myth vs. (corpus) reality. *International Journal of Learner Corpus Research* 4(2). 195–224.
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.17010.fuc.

Fujimoto, Kazuko. 2017. Do English Textbooks Reflect the Actual Use of English?: The Present Perfect and Temporal Adverbials. Presented at the The 9th International Corpus Linguistics Conference, University of Birmingham.
https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/Documents/college-artslaw/corpus/conference-archives/2017/general/paper117.pdf (9 January, 2017).

Gabrielatos, Costas. 1994. *Collocations: Pedagogical Implications, and Their Treatment in Pedagogical Materials*. Research Centre for English and Applied Linguistics, Cambridge University, UK. Unpublished PhD thesis.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261708736_Collocations_Pedagogical_i Berkowitz, S. A. (ed.). 1994. *Collocations* (2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gabrielatos, Costas. 2003. Conditional Sentences: ELT Typology and Corpus Evidence. Presented at the BAAL 36th Annual Meeting.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261708834_Conditional_Sentences_ELTTypology_and_corpus_evidence.
Gabrielatos, Costas. 2006. Corpus-Based Analysis of Pedagogical Materials: If-Conditionals in ELT Coursebooks and the BNC. Presented at the 7th Teaching and Language Corpora Conference. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228880683_Corpus-based_evaluation_of pedagogical_materials_If-conditionals_in ELT coursebooks and the BNC (6 February, 2020).

Gabrielatos, Costas. 2013. If-conditionals in ICLE and the BNC: A success story for teaching or learning? In S. Granger, F. Meunier & G. Gilquin (eds.), *Twenty Years of Learner Corpus Research: Looking back, moving ahead*, 155–166. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.

Gabrielatos, Costas. 2019. If-Conditionals and Modality: Frequency Patterns and Theoretical Explanations. *Journal of English Linguistics* 47(4). 301–334.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424219875994.

Gardner, Dee & Mark Davies. 2007. Pointing Out Frequent Phrasal Verbs: A Corpus-Based Analysis. *TESOL Quarterly* 41(2). 339–359. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00062.x.

Gardner, Sheena, Hilary Nesi & Douglas Biber. 2019. Discipline, Level, Genre: Integrating Situational Perspectives in a New MD Analysis of University Student Writing. *Applied Linguistics* 40(4). 646–674. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amy005.

Garinger, Dawn. 2002. Textbook selection for the ESL classroom. *Center for Applied Linguistics Digest*. Retrieved from
http://www.mcael.org/uploads/File/provider_library/Textbook_Eval_CALC.pdf (12 January, 2017).

Garton, Sue & Kathleen Graves (eds.). 2014. *International Perspectives on Materials in ELT*. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137023315.
http://link.springer.com/10.1057/9781137023315 (8 April, 2020).

Gass, Susan M. 1997. *Input, Interaction, and the Second Language Learner*. New York: Routledge. (11 January, 2022).

Geeraerts, Dirk. 2006. *Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings*. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Gehring, Wolfgang. 2013. Can't judge a book by its cover: An analytical approach to textbook innovations. In Maria Eisenmann & Theresa Summer (eds.), *Basic Issues in EFL Teaching and Learning*, 357–370. Second Edition. Heidelberg: Winter.

Gezelter, Dan. 2009. Being Scientific: Falsifiability, Verifiability, Empirical Tests, and Reproducibility | The OpenScience Project. *The OpenScience Project*. https://openscience.org/being-scientific-fasifiability-verifiability-empirical-tests-and-reproducibility/ (21 August, 2021).

Ghanbari, Nasim, Fatemeh Esmaili & Mohammad Reza Shamsaddini. 2015. The Effect of Using Authentic Materials on Iranian EFL Learners' Vocabulary Learning. *Theory and Practice in Language Studies* 5(12). 2459–2468.
https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0512.05.

Ghosn, Irma K. 2013. Talking like Texts and Talking about Texts: How Some Primary School Coursebook Tasks are Realized in the Classroom. In *Developing materials for language teaching*, 291–305. Second edition. London; New York: Bloomsbury.

Gießing, Jürgen. 2004. Zankapfel “Lehrbuch”: für und wider ein etabliertes Unterrichtsmittel. *PRAXIS Fremdsprachenunterricht* (2). 82–84.

Gilmore, Alex. 2004. A Comparison of Textbook and Authentic Interactions. *ELT Journal* 58(4). 363–374. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/58.4.363.
Gilmore, Alex. 2007. Authentic materials and authenticity in foreign language learning. *Language Teaching* 40(02). 97. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444807004144.

Gilmore, Alex. 2011. "I Prefer Not Text": Developing Japanese Learners' Communicative Competence with Authentic Materials. *Language Learning* 61(3). 786–819. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00634.x.

Gilmore, Alex. 2019. Materials and authenticity in language teaching. In Steve Walsh & Steve Mann (eds.), *The Routledge Handbook of English Language Teacher Education*, 299–318. 1st edn. London; New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315659824-21.

Gilquin, Gaëtanelle. 2012. Lexical infelicity in causative constructions. Comparing native and learner collostructions. In Jaakko Leino & Ruprecht von Waldenfels (eds.), *Analytical causatives: from ‘give’ and ‘come’ to ‘let’ and ‘make’*, 41–64. München: Lincom Europa.

Gilquin, Gaëtanelle. 2015a. Contrastive Collostructional Analysis: Causative Constructions in English and French. *Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik* 63(3). https://doi.org/10.1515/zaa-2015-0022.

Gilquin, Gaëtanelle. 2015b. The use of phrasal verbs by French-speaking EFL learners. A constructional and collostructional corpus-based approach. *Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory* 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2014-0005.

Gilquin, Gaëtanelle. 2016a. Input-dependent L2 acquisition: Causative constructions in English as a foreign and second language. In Sabine De Knop & Gaëtanelle Gilquin (eds.), *Applied Construction Grammar*, 198–259. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter.

Gilquin, Gaëtanelle. 2016b. Discourse markers in L2 English: From classroom to naturalistic input. In Olga Timofeeva, Anne-Christine Gardner, Alpo Honkapohja & Sarah Chevalier (eds.), *Studies in Language Companion Series*, vol. 177, 213–249. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.177.09gil.

Gilquin, Gaëtanelle. 2018. American and/or British influence on L2 Englishes – Does context tip the scale(s)? In Sandra C. Deshors (ed.), *Varieties of English Around the World*, vol. G61, 187–216. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Gilquin, Gaëtanelle & Samantha Laporte. 2021. The use of online writing tools by learners of English: Evidence from a process corpus. *International Journal of Lexicography* 34(4). 472–492. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/ecab012.

Gnutzmann, Claus (ed.). 1999. *Teaching and learning English as a global language: native and non-native perspectives* (ZAA Studies 8). Tübingen: Stauffenburg-Verl.

Gnutzmann, Claus & Frauke Intemann (eds.). 2008. *The Globalisation of English and the English Language Classroom*. Tübingen: Narr Francke.

Goldberg, Adele. 1996. Making one's way through the data. In Masayoshi Shibatani & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), *Grammatical constructions: their form and meaning*, 29–53. 2nd edn. 1999. Oxford [England]: New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press.

Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. *Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure*. University of Chicago Press.

Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. *Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language*. Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, Adele E., Devin M. Casenhiser & Nitya Sethuraman. 2004. Learning argument structure generalizations. *Cognitive Linguistics* 15(3).
https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2004.011.

Gorsuch, Richard L. 2014. *Factor Analysis*. 2nd edn. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315735740.

Götz, Sandra. 2013. *Fluency in Native And Nonnative English Speech* (Studies in Corpus Linguistics volume 53). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Goulart, Larissa, Bethany Gray, Shelley Staples, Amanda Black, Aisha Shelton, Douglas Biber, Jesse Egbert & Stacey Wizner. 2020. Linguistic Perspectives on Register. *Annual Review of Linguistics* 6(1). 435–455. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011718-012644.

Goulart, Larissa & Margaret Wood. 2021. Methodological synthesis of research using multi-dimensional analysis. *Journal of Research Design and Statistics in Linguistics and Communication Science* 6(2). 107–137. https://doi.org/10.1558/jrds.18454.

Gouverneur, Céline. 2008a. The Phraseological Patterns of High-frequency Verbs in Advanced English for General Purposes: A Corpus-driven Approach to EFL Textbook Analysis. In Fanny Meunier & Sylviane Granger (eds.), *Phraseology in Foreign Language Learning and Teaching*, 223–243. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Gouverneur, Céline. 2008b. The phraseological patterns of high-frequency verbs in advanced English for general purposes: A corpus-driven approach to EFL textbook analysis. In Fanny Meunier & Sylviane Granger (eds.), *Phraseology in foreign language learning and teaching*, 223–243.

Grabowski, Łukasz. 2015. Keywords and lexical bundles within English pharmaceutical discourse: A corpus-driven description. *English for Specific Purposes* 38. 23–33.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j esp.2014.10.004.

Granger, Sylviane. 1998. Prefabricated Patterns in Advanced EFL Writing: Collocations and Formulae. In A. P. Cowie (ed.), *Phraseology: Theory, Analysis, and Applications*. Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press.

Granger, Sylviane. 2004. Computer learner corpus research: current status and future prospects. *Language and Computers* 52(1). 123–145.

Granger, Sylviane. 2015. The contribution of learner corpora to reference and instructional materials design. In Sylviane Granger, Gaetanelle Gilquin & Fanny Meunier (eds.), *The Cambridge Handbook of Learner Corpus Research*, 485–510. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139649414.022.

Granger, Sylviane. 2018. Has Lexicography Reaped the Full Benefit of the (Learner) Corpus Revolution? In Simon Krek, Jaka Čibej, Vojko Gorjanc & Iztok Kosem (eds.), *Proceedings of the XVIII EURALEX International Congress: Lexicography in Global Contexts*, 17–24. Ljubljana: Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana.
https://doi.org/10.4312/9789610600961.

Granger, Sylviane, Estelle Dagneaux, Fanny Meunier & Magali Paquot. 2009. *International Corpus of Learner English*. Louvain-la-Neuve: UCL Presses Universitaires de Louvain.

Granger, Sylviane, Joseph Hung & Stephanie Petch-Tyson (eds.). 2002. *Computer Learner Corpora, Second Language Acquisition, and Foreign Language Teaching*.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Grau, Maike. 2009. Worlds apart? English in German youth cultures and in educational settings. *World Englishes* 28(2). 160–174. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.2009.01581.x.

Graves, Kathleen & Sue Garton. 2019. Materials use and development. In Steve Walsh & Steve Mann (eds.), *The Routledge Handbook of English Language Teacher Education*, 417–431. 1st edn. London; New York, NY: Routledge.

Gray, Bethany. 2015. *Linguistic Variation in Research Articles: when discipline tells only part of the story* (Studies in Corpus Linguistics 71). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Gray, Bethany. 2019. Tagging and counting linguistic features for multi-dimensional analysis. In Tony Berber Sardinha & Marcia Veirano Pinto (eds.), *Multi-Dimensional Analysis: Research Methods and Current Issues*, 43–66. London: Bloomsbury Academic. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350023857.

Gray, Bethany & Jesse Egbert. 2019. Editorial: Register and register variation. *Register Studies* 1(1). 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.00001.edi.

Gray, Bethany & Jesse Egbert. 2021. Register in L1 and L2 language development. *Register Studies* 3(2). 177–179. https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.21010.gra.

Gray, John. 2000. The ELT coursebook as cultural artefact: how teachers censor and adapt. *ELT Journal* 54(3). 274–283. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/54.3.274.

Gray, John. 2002. The global coursebook in English language teaching. In D. Block & D. Cameron (eds.), *Globalization and language teaching*, 151–167. Routledge.

Gray, John. 2010. *The Construction of English: Culture, Consumerism and Promotion in the Elt Global Coursebook*. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Gries, Stefan Th. 2005. Null-hypothesis significance testing of word frequencies: a follow-up on Kilgarriff. *Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory* 1(2). https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt.2005.1.2.277.

Gries, Stefan Th. 2012. Frequencies, probabilities, and association measures in usage-/exemplar-based linguistics: Some necessary clarifications. *Studies in Language* 36(3). 477–510.

Gries, Stefan Th. 2013. Statistical tests for the analysis of learner corpus data. In Ana Díaz-Negrillo, Nicolas Ballier & Paul Thompson (eds.), *Studies in Corpus Linguistics*, vol. 59, 287–310. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.59.17gri.

Gries, Stefan Th. 2015a. More (old and new) misunderstandings of collostructional analysis: On Schmid and Küchenhoff (2013). *Cognitive Linguistics* 26(3). https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0092.

Gries, Stefan Th. 2015b. The most under-used statistical method in corpus linguistics: multi-level (and mixed-effects) models. *Corpora* 10(1). 95–125. https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2015.0068.

Gries, Stefan Th. 2018. On over- and underuse in learner corpus research and multifactoriality in corpus linguistics more generally. *Journal of Second Language Studies* 1(2). 276–308. https://doi.org/10.1075/jsls.00005.gri.

Gries, Stefan Th. 2019a. 15 years of collostructions: Some long overdue additions/corrections (to/of actually all sorts of corpus-linguistics measures). *International Journal of Corpus Linguistics* 24(3). 385–412. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.00011.gri.

Gries, Stefan Th. 2019b. *Coll: Analysis 3.5 package for R*. http://www.stgries.info/teaching/groningen/ (14 February, 2019).
Gries, Stefan Th. & Sandra C. Deshors. 2020. Statistical analyses of learner corpus data. In Nancy Tracy-Ventura & Magali Paquot (eds.), *Routledge Handbook of SLA and Corpora*, 119–132. New York: Routledge.

Gries, Stefan Th., Beate Hampe & Doris Schönefeld. 2005. Converging evidence: Bringing together experimental and corpus data on the association of verbs and constructions. *Cognitive Linguistics* 16(4). 635–676.

Gries, Stefan Th., Beate Hampe & Doris Schönefeld. 2010. Converging evidence II: More on the association of verbs and constructions. In John Newman & Sally Rice (eds.), *Empirical and Experimental Methods in Cognitive/Functional Research*, 59–72. CSLI Publications, Center for the Study of Language and Information.

Gries, Stefan Th. & Anatol Stefanowitsch. 2004a. Extending collostructional analysis: A corpus-based perspective on “alternations.” *International Journal of Corpus Linguistics* 9(1). 97–129. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri.

Gries, Stefan Th. & Anatol Stefanowitsch. 2004b. Covarying Collexemes in the Into-causative. *International Journal of Corpus Linguistics* 1(9). 97–129.

Grieve, Jack, Douglas Biber, Eric Friginal & Tatiana Nekrasova. 2010. Variation Among Blogs: A Multi-dimensional Analysis. In Alexander Mehler, Serge Sharoff & Marina Santini (eds.), *Genres on the Web*, vol. 42, 303–322. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9178-9_14.

Grieve-Smith, Angus B. 2007. The envelope of variation in multidimensional register and genre analyses. In Eileen Fitzpatrick (ed.), *Corpus Linguistics Beyond the Word: Corpus Research from Phrase to Discourse*, 21–42. Amsterdam: Brill Rodopi.

Griffiths, Roger. 1990. Speech Rate and NNS Comprehension: A Preliminary Study in Time-Benefit Analysis. *Language Learning* 40(3). 311–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1990.tb00666.x.

Griffiths, Roger. 1991. Language Classroom Speech Rates: A Descriptive Study. *TESOL Quarterly* 25(1). 189. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587050.

Gurzynski-Weiss, Laura, Kimberly L Geeslin, Danielle Daidone, Bret Linford, Avizia Yim Long, Ian Michalski & Megan Solon. 2018. Examining multifaceted sources of input. Variationist and usage-based approaches to understanding the L2 classroom. In *Usage-Inspired L2 Instruction: Researched Pedagogy*, vol. 49, 291–311. Amsterdam: Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Gut, Ulrike & Robert Fuchs. 2013. Progressive Aspect in Nigerian English. *Journal of English Linguistics* 41(3). 243–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424213492799.

Hahn, Angela, Sabine Reich & Josef Schmied. 2000. Aspect in the Chemnitz Internet Grammar. In Christian Mair & Marianne Hundt (eds.), *Papers from the Twentieth International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 20)*, Freiburg im Breisgau 1999, 131–139. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Hair, Joseph F., William C. Black, Barry J. Babin & Rolph E. Anderson. 2019. *Multivariate data analysis*. Eighth edition. Andover, Hampshire: Cengage.

Hall Christopher J, Wicaksono Rachel, Liu Shu, Qian Yuan & Xu Xiaoqing. 2017. Exploring teachers’ ontologies of English: Monolithic conceptions of grammar in a group of Chinese teachers. *International Journal of Applied Linguistics* 27(1). 87–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12107.
Hallet, Wolfgang & Michael K Legutke. 2013. Task-approaches Revisited: New Orientations, New Perspectives. *The European Journal of Applied Linguistics and TEFL* 2(2). 139–159.

Halliday, Michael A. K. 1993. *Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning*. 1. publ. in paperback, 8. impr. London: Arnold.

Halliday, Michael AK. 1988. On the language of physical science. In M. Ghadessy (ed.), *Registers of written English: Situational factors and linguistic features*, 162–172.

Hardie, Andrew. 2014. Modest XML for Corpora: Not a standard, but a suggestion. *ICAME Journal* 38(1). 73–103.

Harel, Idit & Seymour Papert. 1991. *Constructionism: Research Reports and Essays, 1985-1990*. Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Harwood, Nigel. 2005. What do we want EAP teaching materials for? *Journal of English for Academic Purposes* 4(2). 149–161.

Hausmann, Franz Josef. 2005. Isotopie, scénario, collocation et exemple lexicographique. In Michaela Heinz (ed.), *L'exemple lexicographique dans les dictionnaires français contemporains*, 283–292. De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110924466.283.

Henry, Alastair. 2014. Swedish students' beliefs about learning English in and outside of school. In David Lasagabaster, Aintzane Doiz & Juan Manuel Sierra (eds.), *Language Learning & Language Teaching*, vol. 40, 93–116. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.40.05hen.

Henson, Robin K. & J. Kyle Roberts. 2006. Use of Exploratory Factor Analysis in Published Research: Common Errors and Some Comment on Improved Practice. *Educational and Psychological Measurement* 66(3). 393–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282485.

Herbst, Thomas. 1996. What are collocations: Sandy beaches or false teeth? *English Studies* 77(4). 379–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/00138389608599038.

Herbst, Thomas. 2016. Foreign language learning is construction learning-what else? Moving towards Pedagogical Construction Grammar. In Sabine De Knop & Gaëtanelle Gilquin (eds.), *Applied Construction Grammar*, vol. 32, 56–96. Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.

Herbst, Thomas, David Heath & Ian F Roe. 2013. *Valency Dictionary of English: a Corpus-Based Analysis of the Complementation Patterns of English Verbs, Nouns and Adjectives*. Tubingen: De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110892581.

Herbst, Thomas, Hans-Jörg Schmid & Susen Faulhaber (eds.). 2014. *Constructions, collocations, patterns* (Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs 282). Berlin; Boston: Walter De Gruyter.

Hermes, Liesel. 2009. “Reading can be fun if...”: Lektüren in der Sekundarstufe I. In Jan Hollm (ed.), *Literaturdidaktik und Literaturvermittlung im Englischunterricht der Sekundarstufe I*, 7–22. Trier: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.

Hessisches Kultusministerium. 2010. Lehrplan Englisch - Gymnasialer Bildungsgang - Jahrgangsstufen 5G bis 9G. https://kultusministerium.hessen.de/sites/kultusministerium.hessen.de/files/2021-06/g8-englisch.pdf (6 February, 2022).

Hoey, Michael. 2005. *Lexical Priming: A New Theory of Words and Language*. Routledge.

Holliday, Adrian. 2005. *The Struggle to teach English as an international language*. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
Holmes, Janet. 1988. Doubt and Certainty in ESL Textbooks. *Applied Linguistics* 9(1). 21-44. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/9.1.21.

Honnibal, Matthew & Mark Johnson. 2015. An improved non-monotonic transition system for dependency parsing. In *Proceedings of the 2015 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing*, 1373-1378. Lisbon, Portugal: Association for Computational Linguistics.

Honnibal, Matthew & Ines Montani. 2017. spacy 2: Natural language understanding with bloom embeddings, convolutional neural networks and incremental parsing. To appear 7.

Hu, Chieh-Fang & Cheyenne Maechtle. 2021. Construction Learning by Child Learners of Foreign Language: Input Distribution and Learner Factors. *The Modern Language Journal* 105(1). 335-354. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12698.

Huang, Pingping. 2019. Textbook interaction: A study of the language and cultural contextualisation of English learning textbooks. *Learning, Culture and Social Interaction* 21. 87-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2019.02.006.

Hughes, Rebecca. 2010. What a corpus tells us about grammar teaching materials. In Anne O'Keeffe & Michael McCarthy (eds.), *The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics*, 401-412. Abingdon, Oxon; New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203856949.ch29.

Hundt, Marianne. 2004. The passival and the progressive passive: A case study of layering in the English aspect and voice systems. In Hans Lindquist & Christian Mair (eds.), *Corpus Approaches to Grammaticalization in English* (Studies in Corpus Linguistics 13), 79-120. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Hundt, Marianne, Andrea Sand & Rainer Siemund. 1998. Manual of information to accompany the Freiburg-LOB Corpus of British English ('FLOB'). Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg. http://korpus.uib.no/icame/frown/ (23 January, 2022).

Hundt, Marianne, Andrea Sand & Paul Skandera. 1999. Manual of information to accompany the Freiburg-Brown Corpus of American English. Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg. http://korpus.uib.no/icame/flob/ (23 January, 2022).

Hundt, Marianne & Katrin Vogel. 2011. Overuse of the progressive in ESL and learner Englishes - fact or fiction? In Joybrato Mukherjee & Marianne Hundt (eds.), *Exploring second-language varieties of English and learner Englishes: Bridging a paradigm gap*, 145-165. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Hunston, Susan. 2002. *Corpora in Applied Linguistics* (The Cambridge applied linguistics series). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hunston, Susan & Gill Francis. 2000. *Pattern Grammar: A Corpus-driven Approach to the Lexical Grammar of English* (Studies in Corpus Linguistics 4). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Husson, François, Pierre-André Cornillon, Arnaud Guyader, Nicolas Jégou, Julie Josse, Nicolas Klutchnikoff, Erwan Le Pennec, Eric Matzner-Løber, Laurent Rouvière & Benoît Thieurmel. 2018. *R pour la statistique et la science des données*. Rennes: Presses universitaires de Rennes.

Husson, François, Sébastien Lê & Jérôme Pagès. 2017. *Exploratory Multivariate Analysis by Example Using R*. 2nd edn. Boca Raton: Chapman and Hall/CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/b21874.
Hyland, Ken. 1994. Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks. *English for Specific Purposes* 13(3). 239–256.

Hyland, Ken. 2013. Materials for Developing Writing Skills. In Brian Tomlinson (ed.), *Developing Materials for Language Teaching*, 391–406. Second Edition. London; New York: Bloomsbury.

Hymes, Dell. 1984. Sociolinguistics: Stability and consolidation. *International Journal of the Sociology of Language*. Mouton Publishers 45. 39–45.

Ide, Nancy. 1996. *Corpus Encoding Standard*. Expert Advisory Group on Language Engineering Standards (EAGLES). https://www.cs.vassar.edu/CES/ (2 January, 2022).

Israel, Michael. 1996. The Way Constructions Grow. In Adele Goldberg (ed.), *Conceptual structure, discourse and language*, 217–230. Stanford: CSLI.

Jablonkai, Reka R. & Eniko Csomay. 2022. *The Routledge Handbook of Corpora and English Language Teaching and Learning*. London: Routledge.

Jacobs, G. M. & J. Ball. 1996. An investigation of the structure of group activities in ELT coursebooks. *ELT Journal* 50(2). 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/50.2.99.

Jansen, Sandra, Susanne Mohr & Julia Forsberg. 2021. Standard language ideology in the English language classroom: Suggestions for EIL-informed teacher education. In Marcus Callies, Stefanie Hehner, Philipp Meer & Micahel Westphal (eds.), *Glocalising Teaching English as an International Language*. Routledge.

Jenkins, Jennifer. 1998. Which pronunciation norms and models for English as an International Language? *ELT Journal* 52(2). 119–126. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/52.2.119.

Jenkins, Jennifer. 2000. *The phonology of English as an international language*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jenkins, Jennifer. 2003. *World Englishes: a resource book for students* (Routledge English Language Introductions). New York: Routledge.

Jiang, Xiangying. 2006. Suggestions: What Should ESL Students Know? *System* 34(1). 36–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2005.02.003.

Johansson, Stig, Geoffrey N Leech & Helen Goodluck. 1978. *Manual of information to accompany the Lancaster-Oslo/Bergen Corpus of British English, for use with digital computer*. Department of English, University of Oslo.

Johns, Tim. 1986. Micro-concord: A language learner's research tool. *System*. Elsevier 14(2). 151–162.

Johns, Tim. 1993. Data-driven learning: An update. *TELL & CALL* 3. 23–32.

Johns, Tim. 2002. Data-driven learning: The perpetual challenge. In Bernhard Kettemann & Georg Marko (eds.), *Teaching and Learning by Doing Corpus Analysis*, 105–117. Leiden: Brill.

Johns, Tim. 2014. Contexts: The background, development and trialling of a concordance-based CALL program. In Anne Wichmann & Steven Fligelstone (eds.), *Teaching and Language Corpora*, 100–115. Axon: Routledge.

Jolliffe, I. T. 2002. *Principal Component Analysis* (Springer Series in Statistics). 2nd ed. New York: Springer.

Kachru, Yamuna & Larry E. Smith. 2008. *Cultures, contexts and world Englishes* (ESL & Applied Linguistics Professional Series). New York: Routledge.
Kaiser, Henry F & John Rice. 1974. Little Jiffy, Mark IV. *Educational and psychological measurement*. Sage Publications Sage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA 34(1). 111–117.

Kaszubski, Przemek. 1998. Enhancing a writing textbook: a national perspective. In *Symposium proceedings of the First International Symposium on Computer Learner Corpora, Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching*, 172–185.
The Chinese University of Hong Kong: Hong Kong.

Kerres, Michael. 2020. Against All Odds: Education in Germany Coping with Covid-19. *Postdigital Science and Education* 2(3). 690–694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-020-00130-7.

Kheovichai, Baramee. 2017. A Corpus-Based Analysis of BE + Being + Adjective in English from the Appraisal Framework Perspective. *Silpakorn University Journal of Social Sciences, Humanities, and Arts* 17(2). 97–132.

Kilgarriff, Adam, Vít Baisa, Jan Bušta, Miloš Jakubíček, Vojtěch Kovář, Jan Michelfeit, Pavel Rychlý & Vít Suchomel. 2014. The Sketch Engine: Ten Years On. *Lexicography* 1(1). 7–36.

Kim, Daejin & Joan Kelly Hall. 2002. The role of an interactive book reading program in the development of second language pragmatic competence. *The Modern Language Journal* 86(3). 332–348.

Knowles, Jared E. & Carl Frederick. 2020. *merTools: Tools for analyzing mixed effect regression models*. Manual. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=merTools (12 July, 2020).

Koch, Peter & Wulf Oesterreicher. 1985. Language of Immediacy - Language of Distance: Orality and Literacy from the Perspective of Language Theory and Linguistic History. In Claudia Lange, Beatrix Weber & Göran Wolf (eds.), *Communicative Spaces. Variation, Contact, and Change: Papers in Honour of Ursula Schaefer*, 441–473. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Koch, Peter & Wulf Oesterreicher. 2011. *Gesprochene Sprache in der Romania: Französisch, Italienisch, Spanisch* (Romanistische Arbeitshefte 31). 2., aktualisierte und erw. Aufl. Berlin; New York: De Gruyter.

Koprowski, M. 2005. Investigating the usefulness of lexical phrases in contemporary coursebooks. *ELT Journal* 59(4). 322–332. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci061.

Koprowski, Mark. 2005. Investigating the Usefulness of Lexical Phrases in Contemporary Coursebooks. *ELT Journal* 59(4). 322–332. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci061.

Kosmas, Panagiotis, Antigoni Parmaxi, Maria Perifanou & Anastasios A. Economides. 2021. Open Educational Resources for Language Education: Towards the Development of an e-Toolkit. In Panayiotis Zaphiris & Andri Ioannou (eds.), *Learning and Collaboration Technologies: New Challenges and Learning Experiences. 8th International Conference, LCT 2021, Held as Part of the 23rd HCI International Conference, HCII 2021, Virtual Event, July 24–29, 2021, Proceedings, Part I* (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), 65–79. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Krashen, Stephen. 1982. *Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition* (Language Teaching Methodology Series). Oxford; New York: Pergamon.

Krashen, Stephen. 1985. *Second language acquisition and second language learning* (Language Teaching Methodology Series). Reprinted. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Kuckartz, Udo. 2014. *Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung.* Weinheim: Beltz Juventa.

Kuhl, Patricia K. & Andrew N. Meltzoff. 1996. Infant vocalizations in response to speech: Vocal imitation and developmental change. *The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America* 100(401). 2425–2438.

Kultusministerkonferenz. 2003. Bildungsstandards für die erste Fremdsprache (Englisch/Französisch) für den Mittleren Schulabschluss. Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. https://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/veroeffentlichungen_beschluesse/2003/2003_12_04-BS-erste-Fremdsprache.pdf (21 January, 2017).

Kultusministerkonferenz. 2012. Bildungsstandards für die fortgeführte Fremdsprache (Englisch/Französisch) für die Allgemeine Hochschulreife. Beschluss der Kultusministerkonferenz vom 18.10.2012. Sekretariat der Ständigen Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. http://www.kmk.org/bildung-schule/qualitaetssicherung-in-schulen/bildungsstandards/dokumente.html (26 November, 2018).

Kurtz, Jürgen. 2019. Lehrwerkgestütztes Fremdsprachenlernen im digitalen Wandel. In Eva Burwitz-Melzer, Claudia Riemer & Lars Schmelter (eds.), *Das Lehren und Lernen von Fremd- und Zweitsprachen im digitalen Wandel: Arbeitspapiere der 39. Frühjahrskonferenz zur Erforschung des Fremdsprachenunterrichts* (Gießener Beiträge zur Fremdsprachendidaktik), 114–125. Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto.

Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 2003. *Metaphors we live by*. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Landesregierung Nordrhein-Westfalen. 2016. Lernen im digitalen Wandel. Unser Leitbild 2020 für Bildung in Zeiten der Digitalisierung. https://www.land.nrw/sites/default/files/asset/document/leitbild_lernen_im_digitalen_wandel.pdf (22 January, 2022).

Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. *Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical prerequisites*. Stanford University Press.

Langacker, Ronald W. 2001. Cognitive linguistics, language pedagogy, and the English present tense. In Martin Pütz, Susanne Niemeier & René Dirven (eds.), *Applied Cognitive Linguistics. I: Theory and Language Acquisition*., 3–39. Berlin; New York: De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110866247.

Langacker, Ronald W. 2008. *Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Larsen-Freeman, Diane. 1997. Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. *Applied linguistics*. Oxford University Press 18(2). 141–165.

Larsen-Freeman, Diane. 2006. The Emergence of Complexity, Fluency, and Accuracy in the Oral and Written Production of Five Chinese Learners of English. *Applied Linguistics* 27(4). 590–619. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml029.

Larsen-Freeman, Diane. 2018. Looking ahead: Future directions in, and future research into, second language acquisition. *Foreign Language Annals* 51(1). 55–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12314.

Lavi-Rotbain, Ori & Inbal Arnon. 2022. The learnability consequences of Zipfian distributions in language. *Cognition* 223. 105038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105038.
Le Foll, Elen. 2016. *Collocational competence in English as a B language. A case study of potential conference interpreting students*. Technische Hochschule Köln Unpublished M.A. thesis.

Le Foll, Elen. 2017. Textbook English: A corpus-based analysis of language use in German and French EFL textbooks. Presented at the Corpus Linguistics 2017 Conference, University of Birmingham. https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/Documents/college-artslaw/corpus/conference-archives/2017/general/paper230.pdf (20 October, 2017).

Le Foll, Elen. 2018a. "They were walking in a corridor when suddenly the mummy appeared." A Corpus-based Study of Narrative Texts in Secondary School EFL Textbooks. Presented at the 13th Teaching Language and Corpora (TaLC) Conference, Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.31141.81124. http://rgdoi.net/10.13140/RG.2.2.31141.81124 (8 February, 2022).

Le Foll, Elen. 2018b. Raising, *discovering and *exploiting awareness: Using the Internet as a source of collocational knowledge. Presented at the OLLReN Annual Online Conference: Research into using Technology for Language Learning. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328368290_Raising_discovering_and_exploiting_awareness_Using_the_Internet_as_a_source_of_collocational_knowledge.

Le Foll, Elen. 2020a. Exploring the Registers of School EFL Textbooks Using Multi-Dimensional Analysis. Presented at the Paper presented at the ICAME41, Heidelberg University.

Le Foll, Elen. 2020b. Development and Evaluation of a Corpus Linguistics Seminar in Pre-Service Teacher Training. Presented at the Teaching and Language Corpora Conference (TaLC) 2020, Perpignan.

Le Foll, Elen. 2020c. Issues in Compiling and Exploiting Textbook Corpora. Presented at the Japanese Association for English Corpus Studies 2020, Tokyo. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.32006.60487.

Le Foll, Elen. 2021a. *A New Tagger for the Multi-Dimensional Analysis of Register Variation in English*. Osnabrück University: Institute of Cognitive Science Unpublished M.Sc. thesis.

Le Foll, Elen. 2021b. Register Variation in School EFL Textbooks. *Register Studies* 3(2). https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.20009.lef.

Le Foll, Elen. 2021c. *Creating Corpus-Informed Materials for the English as a Foreign Language Classroom: A step-by-step guide for (trainee) teachers using online resources* (Open Educational Resource). 3rd edn. https://elenlefoll.pressbooks.com (30 July, 2021).

Le Foll, Elen. 2021d. Learning by doing: ein Online-Projektseminar zur Vermittlung von digitalen Medien- und Datenkompetenzen für den Fremdsprachenunterricht. Presented at the DigiRom - Fremdsprachliche Lehrer*innenbildung digital?, Osnabrück University.

Le Foll, Elen. 2021e. *Introducing the Multi-Feature Tagger of English (MFTE)*. Perl. Osnabrück University. https://github.com/elenlefoll/MultiFeatureTaggerEnglish (5 January, 2022).

Le Foll, Elen. forthcoming. Textbooks and Corpus Linguistics: the case of causative constructions. In Kieran Harrington & Patricia R. Ronan (eds.), *Corpus Linguistics*
*in the English Language Teaching Classroom - Research and Practice.* Palgrave
MacMillan.

Lê, Sébastien, Julie Josse & François Husson. 2008. *FactoMineR: An R Package for Multivariate Analysis.* *Journal of Statistical Software* 25(1).
https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v025.i01.

Leacock, Claudia, Martin Chodorow, Michael Gamon & Joel Tetreault. 2010. *Automated Grammatical Error Detection for Language Learners* (Synthesis Lectures on Human Language Technologies). Vol. 10. San Rafael: Morgan & Claypool.
https://doi.org/10.2200/S00275ED1V01Y201006HLT009.

Lee, David YW. 2001. Genres, Registers, Text Types, Domain, and Styles: Clarifying the Concepts and Navigating a Path through the BNC Jungle. *Language Learning & Technology* 5(3). 37–72.

Lee, Hansol, Mark Warschauer & Jang Ho Lee. 2019. The Effects of Corpus Use on Second Language Vocabulary Learning: A Multilevel Meta-analysis. *Applied Linguistics* 40(5). 721–753. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amy012.

Lee, Yong Wey David. 2000. *Modelling variation in spoken and written language : the multi-dimensional approach revisited*. Lancaster: Lancaster University Unpublished PhD thesis.

Leech, G, P Rayson & A Wilson. 2001. *Word Frequencies in Written and Spoken English*. Harlow: Longman.

Leńko-Szymańska, Agnieszka. 2017. Training teachers in data-driven learning: Tackling the challenge. *Language Learning & Technology* 21(3). 217–241.

Leńko-Szymańska, Agnieszka & Alex Boulton. 2015. Introduction: Data-driven learning in language pedagogy. In Agnieszka Leńko-Szymańska & Alex Boulton (eds.), *Studies in Corpus Linguistics*, vol. 69, 1–14. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Lennon, Paul. 1996. Getting ‘easy’ verbs wrong at the advanced level. *IRAL - International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching* 34(1). 23–36.

Lenth, Russell. 2020. *emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means*. Manual. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans (12 July, 2020).

Leroy, Michel. 2012. *Les manuels scolaires : situation et perspectives*. Inspection générale de l'éducation nationale. https://www.education.gouv.fr/les-manuels-scolaires-situation-et-perspectives-6017 (1 August, 2018).

Levshina, Natalia. 2015. *How to do linguistics with R: Data exploration and statistical analysis*. Amsterdam; Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.

Lewis, Michael. 1993. *The Lexical Approach*. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.

Lewis, Michael. 1997. *Implementing the Lexical Approach: Putting Theory into Practice*. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.

Lewis, Michael. 2009. *The lexical approach: the state of ELT and a way forward*. 6. [print.]. London: Heinle.

Liedke, Martina. 2013. Mit Transkripten Deutsch lernen. In Sandro M. Moraldo & Federica Missaglia (eds.), *Gesprochene Sprache im DaF-Unterricht: Grundlagen – Ansätze – Praxis*, 243–266. Heidelberg: Winter.

Lier, Leo van. 2013. *Interaction in the Language Curriculum: Awareness, Autonomy and Authenticity*. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.

Limberg, Holger. 2016. “Always remember to say Please and Thank You”: Teaching Politeness with German EFL Textbooks. *Pragmatics & Language Learning* 265.
Little, David, Sean Devitt & David Singleton. 1989. *Learning foreign languages from authentic texts: Theory and practice*. Dublin: Authentik.

Little, David, Seán Devitt & David Singleton. 2002. The communicative approach and authentic texts. In *Teaching modern languages*, 51–55. London: Routledge.

Littlejohn, Andrew. 2011. The analysis of language teaching materials: Inside the Trojan Horse. In Brian Tomlinson (ed.), *Materials development in language teaching*, 179–211. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Liu, Dilin. 2011. The most frequently used English phrasal verbs in American and British English: A multicorpus examination. *Tesol Quarterly* 45(4). 661–688.

Liu, Eric T.K. & Philip M. Shaw. 2001. Investigating learner vocabulary: A possible approach to looking at EFL/ESL learners' qualitative knowledge of the word. *International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching* 39(3). 171–194. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.2001.001.

Ljung, Magnus. 1990. *A study of TEFL vocabulary* (Stockholm Studies in English 78). Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International.

Ljung, Magnus. 1991. Swedish TEFL meets reality. In Stig Johansson & Anna-Brita Stenström (eds.), *English Computer Corpora: Selected Papers and Research Guide*, 245–256.

Loewen, Shawn & Talip Gonulal. 2015. Exploratory Factor Analysis and Principal Components Analysis. In Luke Plonsky (ed.), *Advancing quantitative methods in second language research* (Second Language Acquisition Research Series), 182–211. New York: Routledge.

Love, Robbie, Claire Dembry, Andrew Hardie, Vaclav Brezina & Tony McEnery. 2017. The Spoken BNC 2014. *International Journal of Corpus Linguistics* 22(3). 319–344. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.22.3.02lov.

Love, Robbie, Abi Hawtin & Andrew Hardie. 2018. The British National Corpus 2014: User manual and reference guide. http://corpora.lancs.ac.uk/bnc2014/doc/BNC2014manual.pdf (15 November, 2018).

Lüdecke, Daniel. 2020. *sjPlot: Data visualization for statistics in social science*. Manual. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=sjPlot (12 July, 2020).

Luke, Steven G. 2017. Evaluating significance in linear mixed-effects models in R. *Behavior Research Methods* 49(4). 1494–1502. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0809-y.

MacWhinney, B. 2006. Emergentism--Use Often and With Care. *Applied Linguistics* 27(4). 729–740. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml035.

Madlener, Karin. 2018. Do findings from artificial language learning generalize to second language classrooms? In Andrea Tyler, Lourdes Ortega & Mariko Uno (eds.), *Usage-inspired L2 instruction: researched pedagogy* (Language Learning & Language Teaching 49), 211–234. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Maechler, Martin. 2019. *Rmpfr: R MPFR - Multiple Precision Floating-Point Reliable*. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=Rmpfr.

Mair, Christian. 2012. Progressive and Continuous Aspect. In Robert Binnick (ed.), *The Oxford Handbook of Tense and Aspect*, 803–827. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195381979.013.0028.

Mair, Christian & Marianne Hundt. 1995. Why is the Progressive Becoming More Frequent in English? A Corpus-Based Investigation of Language Change in Progress. *Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik* 43. 111–122.
Manning, Christopher D. 2011. Part-of-Speech Tagging from 97% to 100%: Is It Time for Some Linguistics? In Alexander F. Gelbukh (ed.), *Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing* (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), vol. 6608, 171–189. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19400-9_14.

Manning, Christopher D. & Hinrich Schütze. 1999. *Foundations of statistical natural language processing*. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Martin, James R. & David Rose. 2008. *Genre relations: mapping culture* (Equinox Textbooks and Surveys in Linguistics). London; Oakville, CT: Equinox Pub.

Martin, J.R. 2009. Genre and language learning: A social semiotic perspective. *Linguistics and Education* 20(1). 10–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2009.01.003.

Martinez, Ron & Norbert Schmitt. 2012. A Phrasal Expressions List. *Applied Linguistics* 33(3). 299–320. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams010.

Matthiessen, Christian M.I.M. 2019. Register in Systemic Functional Linguistics. *Register Studies* 1(1). 10–41. https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.18010.mat.

Mauranen, Anna. 2003. The Corpus of English as Lingua Franca in Academic Settings. *TESOL Quarterly* 37(3). 513–27.

Mauranen, Anna. 2004a. Speech corpora in the classroom. In Guy Aston, Silvia Bernardini & Dominic Stewart (eds.), *Corpora and language learners* (Studies in Corpus Linguistics v. 17), 195–211. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Mauranen, Anna. 2004b. Spoken corpus for an ordinary learner. In John McHardy Sinclair (ed.), *How to Use Corpora in Language Teaching* (Studies in Corpus Linguistics), 89–108. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Mauranen, Anna, Niina Hynninen & Elina Ranta. 2010. English as an academic lingua franca: The ELFA project. *English for Specific Purposes* 29(3). 183–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2009.10.001.

Mayring, Philipp. 2010. *Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken* (Beltz Pädagogik). Weinheim: Beltz.

McCarthy, Michael. 1998. *Spoken language and applied linguistics*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McCarthy, Michael & Ronald Carter. 1995. Spoken grammar: what is it and how can we teach it? *ELT journal* 49(3). 207–218.

McCarthy, Michael & Ronald Carter. 2001. Size isn't everything: spoken English, corpus, and the classroom. *Tesol Quarterly* 35(2). 337–340.

McEnery, Tony & Andrew Hardie. 2011. *Corpus Linguistics: Method, Theory and Practice*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511981395.

McEnery, Tony & Richard Xiao. 2011. What Corpora Can Offer in Language Teaching and Learning. In Eli Hinkel (ed.), *Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning* (ESL & Applied Linguistics Professional Series), 364–380. New York, NY: Routledge.

McManus, Kevin. 2021. Are Replication Studies Infrequent Because of Negative Attitudes? *Insights from a Survey of Attitudes and Practices in Second Language Research*. *Studies in Second Language Acquisition* 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263121000838.
Meriläinen, Lea. 2018. The progressive form and its functions in spoken learner English: Tracing the effects of an exposure-rich learning environment. *International Journal of Learner Corpus Research* 4(2). 164–194. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.17002.mer.

Meunier, Fanny & Céline Gouverneur. 2007. The treatment of phraseology in ELT textbooks. In *Encarnación Hidalgo, Luis Quereda & Juan Santana (eds.), Corpora in the Foreign Language Classroom*, 119–139. Amsterdam, New York: Brill Rodopi. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789401203906_009.

Meunier, Fanny & Céline Gouverneur. 2009. New types of corpora for new educational challenges: Collecting, annotating and exploiting a corpus of textbook material. In Karin Aijmer (ed.), *Studies in Corpus Linguistics*, vol. 33, 179–201. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.33.16meu.

Meunier, Fanny & Randi Reppen. 2015. Corpus versus non-corpus-informed pedagogical materials: grammar as the focus. In Douglas Biber & Randi Reppen (eds.), *The Cambridge handbook of English corpus linguistics* (Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics), 498–514. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Meurers, Detmar. 2015. Learner corpora and natural language processing. In Sylviane Granger, Gaetanelle Gilquin & Fanny Meunier (eds.), *The Cambridge Handbook of Learner Corpus Research*, 537–566. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Meurers, Detmar, Kordula De Kuthy, Florian Nuxoll, Björn Rudzewitz & Ramon Ziai. 2019. Scaling Up Intervention Studies to Investigate Real-Life Foreign Language Learning in School. *Annual Review of Applied Linguistics* 39. 161–188. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190519000126.

Meurers, Detmar, Ramon Ziai, Luiz Amaral, Adriane Boyd, Aleksandar Dimitrov, Vanessa Metcalf & Niels Ott. 2010. Enhancing Authentic Web Pages for Language Learners. In *Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications*, 9. Los Angeles. http://www.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/~dm/papers/meurers-ziai-et-al-10.pdf (21 January, 2022).

Miekley, Joshua. 2005. ESL textbook evaluation checklist. *The Reading Matrix* 5(2).

Miller, Don. 2011. ESL Reading Textbooks vs. University Textbooks: Are We Giving Our Students the Input They May Need? *Journal of English for Academic Purposes* 10(1). 32–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.12.002.

Milroy, James & Lesley Milroy. 2012. *Authority in language: investigating standard English* (Routledge Linguistics Classics). Abingdon, Oxon; New York: Routledge.

Mindt, Dieter. 1987. *Sprache, Grammatik, Unterrichtsgrammatik: futurischer Zeitbezug im Englischen* (Schule und Forschung). Frankfurt am Main: Diesterweg.

Mindt, Dieter. 1992. *Zeitbezug Im Englischen: Eine Didaktische Grammatik Des Englischen Futurs* (Tübinger Beiträge Zur Linguistik). Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.

Mindt, Dieter. 1995a. *An Empirical Grammar of the English verb: Modal Verbs*. Berlin: Cornelsen.

Mindt, Dieter. 1995b. Schulgrammatik vs. Grammatik der englischen Sprache. In Claus Gnutzmann & Frank G. Königs (eds.), *Perspektiven des Grammatikunterrichts*, 47–68. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.

Mindt, Dieter. 1996. English corpus linguistics and the foreign language teaching syllabus. In J. Thomas & M. Short (eds.), *Using Corpora for Language Research*, 232–247. Harlow: Longmann.
Mindt, Dieter. 1997a. Corpora and the Teaching of English in Germany. In Anne Wichmann (ed.), *Teaching and language corpora* (Applied Linguistics and Language Study), 40–50. 1. publ. London: Longman.

Mindt, Dieter. 1997b. Complementary distribution, gradience and overlap in corpora and in ELT: Analysing and teaching the progressive. In *From Ælfric to the New York Times. Studies in English Corpus Linguistics Age and Computers*, vol. 19, 227–238. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Mishan, F. 2005. *Designing Authenticity Into Language Learning Materials* (Play Text Series). Portland, Oregon: Intellect Books.

Mishra, Punya & Matthew J. Koehler. 2006. Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. *Teachers College Record* 108(6). 1017–1054.

Mohr, Susanne, Sandra Jansen & Julia Forsberg. 2019. European English in the EFL classroom?: Teacher attitudes towards target varieties of English in Sweden and Germany. *English Today* 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078419000403.

Möller, Stefan. 2016. Sourcebook Rather Than Coursebook. Lernerorientiert mit dem Lehrwerk arbeiten. *Der fremdsprachliche Unterricht Englisch* 50(143). 12–18.

Möller, Verena. 2017. A statistical analysis of learner corpus data, experimental data and individual differences: Monofactorial vs. multifactorial approaches. In Pieter de Haan, Rina de Vries & Sanne van Vuuren (eds.), *Language, learners and levels: Progression and variation*, 409–439. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.

Möller, Verena. 2020. From pedagogical input to learner output: Conditionals in EFL and CLIL teaching materials and learner language. *Pedagogical Linguistics* 1(2). 95–124. https://doi.org/10.1075/pl.00001.mol.

Moreno, Ana I. 2003. Matching Theoretical Descriptions of Discourse and Practical Applications to Teaching: The Case of Causal Metatext. *English for Specific Purposes* 22(3). 265–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(02)00021-2.

Moyer, Alene. 2008. Input as a Critical Means to an End: Quantity and Quality of Experience in L2 Phonological Attainment. In Thorsten Piske & Martha Young-Scholten (eds.), *Input Matters in SLA*, 159–174. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847691118-011.

Moyer, Alene. 2013. *Foreign Accent: The Phenomenon of Non-Native Speech*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mukherjee, Joybrato. 2004. Bridging the Gap between Applied Corpus Linguistics and the Reality of English Language Teaching in Germany. In U. Connor & T. Upton (eds.), *Applied Corpus Linguistics: A Multidimensional Perspective*, 239–250. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Mukundan, Jayakaran. 2010. Retrotext- E 1.0: The Beginnings of Computer-based ELT Textbook Evaluation. *Advances in Language and Literary Studies* 1(2). 270–280. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.1n.2p.270.

Mukundan, Jayakaran & Touran Ahour. 2010. A review of Textbook Evaluation Checklists across Four Decades (1970–2008). In Brian Tomlinson & Hitomi Masuhara (eds.), *Research for Materials Development in Language Learning: Evidence for Best Practice*, 336–352. London: Bloomsbury.

Mukundan, Jayakaran, Amelia Leong Chiew Har & Vahid Nimehchisalem. 2012. Distribution of Articles in Malaysian Secondary School English Language
Textbooks. *English Language and Literature Studies* 2(2). 62–70.
https://doi.org/10.5539/ells.v2n2p62.

Mukundan, Jayakaran & Norwati Roslim. 2009. Textbook Representation of Prepositions. *English Language Teaching* 2(4). 13–24. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v2n4p13.

Müller, Simone. 2005. *Discourse Markers in Native and Non-native English Discourse* (Pragmatics & Beyond New Series). Vol. 138. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.138.

Mundry, Roger & Christina Sommer. 2007. Discriminant function analysis with nonindependent data: consequences and an alternative. *Animal Behaviour* 74(4). 965–976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2006.12.028.

Munro, Murray J. & Tracey M. Derwing. 1998. The Effects of Speaking Rate on Listener Evaluations of Native and Foreign-Accented Speech. *Language Learning* 48(2). 159–182. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00038.

Murphy, M. Lynne. 2003. *Semantic Relations and the Lexicon: Antonymy, Synonymy and other Paradigms*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Murphy, Raymond, Brigit Viney, Miles Craven & Diane Cranz. 2009. *English grammar in use: a self-study reference and practice book for intermediate students of English; with answers*. 3. ed., 14. print. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nakagawa, Shinichi, Paul C. D. Johnson & Holger Schielzeth. 2017. The coefficient of determination *R*² and intra-class correlation coefficient from generalized linear mixed-effects models revisited and expanded. *Journal of The Royal Society Interface* 14(134). 20170213. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2017.0213.

Nelson, Mike. 2022. Corpus-based evaluation of English language learning textbooks. In Reka R. Jablonkai & Eniko Csomay (eds.), *The Routledge Handbook of Corpora and English Language Teaching and Learning* (Routledge Handbooks in Applied Linguistics). London: Routledge.

Nesselhauf, Nadja. 2004. How learner corpus analysis can contribute to language teaching: A study of support verb constructions. In Guy Aston, Silvia Bernardini & Dominic Stewart (eds.), *Corpora and Language Learners* (Studies in Corpus Linguistics), vol. 17, 109–124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.17.08nes.

Nesselhauf, Nadja. 2005. *Collocations in a Learner Corpus*. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Nesselhauf, Nadja & Ute Römer. 2007. Lexical-grammatical patterns in spoken English: The case of the progressive with future time reference. *International journal of corpus linguistics* 12(3). 297–333.

Neumann, Stella & Stephanie Evert. 2021. A register variation perspective on varieties of English. In Elena Seoane & Douglas Biber (eds.), *Corpus-based approaches to register variation* (Studies in Corpus Linguistics volume 103), 144–178. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Niemeier, Susanne. 2017. *Task-based grammar teaching of English: Where cognitive grammar and task-based language teaching meet*. Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto Verlag.

Nini, Andrea. 2014. *Multidimensional Analysis Tagger (MAT)*. http://sites.google.com/site/multidimensionaltagger (18 September, 2019).
Nini, Andrea. 2019. The Multi-Dimensional Analysis Tagger. In Tony Berber Sardinha & Marcia Veirano Pinto (eds.), *Multi-Dimensional Analysis: Research Methods and Current Issues*, 67–96. New York: Bloomsbury.

Ninio, Anat. 1999. Pathbreaking verbs in syntactic development and the question of prototypical transitivity. *Journal of child language*. Cambridge University Press 26(3). 619–653. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0305000999003931.

Nold, Günter. 1998. Die Arbeit mit dem Lehrwerk. In Johannes P. Timm (ed.), *English lernen und lehren – Didaktik des Englischunterrichts*, 127–136. Berlin: Cornelsen.

Nordlund, Marie. 2016. EFL Textbooks for Young Learners: A Comparative Analysis of Vocabulary. *Education Inquiry* 7(1). 47–68. https://doi.org/10.3402/edui.v7.27764.

Novakova, Iva & Dirk Siepmann (eds.). 2020. *Phraseology and Style in Subgenres of the Novel: A Synthesis of Corpus and Literary Perspectives*. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23744-8.

Oelkers, Jürgen. 2008. Lehrplanentwicklung, Lehrmittel und Bildungsstandards. Presented at the Klausurtagung der Leitungskonferenz des Staatsinstituts für Schulentwicklung und Bildungsforschung, St. Quirin. https://www.ife.uzh.ch/research/emeriti/oelkersjuergen/vortraegeprofoelkers/vortraege2008/339_StQuirin.pdf (8 February, 2022).

O’Keeffe, Anne, Michael McCarthy & Ronald Carter. 2007. *From corpus to classroom: Language use and language teaching*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Papert, Seymour A. 2020. *Mindstorms: Children, Computers, And Powerful Ideas*. New York: Hachette.

Paquot, Magali & Luke Plonsky. 2017. Quantitative research methods and study quality in learner corpus research. *International Journal of Learner Corpus Research* 3(1). 61–94. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.3.1.03paq.

Peacock, Matthew. 1997. The effect of authentic materials on the motivation of EFL learners. *ELT journal* 51(2). 144–156.

Pedersen, Ted. 1996. Fishing for Exactness. *arXiv:cmp-lg/9608010*. http://arxiv.org/abs/cmp-lg/9608010 (11 February, 2020).

Pérez-Paredes, Pascual & Malena Abad. forthcoming. Integrating language teachers’ voices in the design and exploitation of Spanish corpora in the UK. In Henry Tyne & Stefania Spina (eds.), *Applying corpora in teaching and learning Romance languages*. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Pérez-Paredes, Pascual & Geraldine Mark (eds.). 2021. *Beyond Concordance Lines: Corpora in Language Education* (Studies in Corpus Linguistics 102). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Pérez-Paredes, Pascual, Geraldine Mark & Anne O’Keeffe. 2020. *The impact of usage-based approaches on second language learning and teaching*. Cambridge Education Research Reports. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/partnership/research/impact-usage-based-approaches-second-language-learning-and-teaching (9 July, 2021).

Phakiti, Aek & Luke Plonsky. 2018. Reconciling Beliefs about L2 Learning with SLA Theory and Research. *RELC Journal*. SAGE Publications Ltd 49(2). 217–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688218781970.

Piaget, Jean. 2013. *The Construction Of Reality In The Child*. Oxon: Taylor & Francis.
Picoral, Adriana, Shelley Staples & Randi Reppen. 2021. Automated annotation of learner English: An evaluation of software tools. *International Journal of Learner Corpus Research* 7(1). 17–52. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.20003 pic.

Pienemann, Manfred. 1984. Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages. *Studies in second language acquisition* 6(2). 186–214.

Popescu, Marius. 2011. Studying Translationese at the Character Level. In *Proceedings of Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing*, 634–639. Hissar, Bulgaria.

Popper, Karl R. 1959. *The logic of scientific discovery*. New York: Basic Books.

Posner, Michael I. & Steven W. Keele. 1968. On the genesis of abstract ideas. *Journal of Experimental Psychology* 77(3, Pt.1). 353–363. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025953.

Posner, Michael I. & Steven W. Keele. 1970. Retention of abstract ideas. *Journal of Experimental Psychology*. American Psychological Association 83(2, Pt. 1). 304–308.

Prabhu, Nagore Seshagiri. 1989. Materials as Support; Materials as Constraint. Guidelines: A Periodical for Classroom Language Teachers. ERIC 11(1). 66–74.

Prodromou, Luke. 1992. What culture? Which culture? Cross-cultural factors in language learning. *ELT journal* 46(1). 39–50.

Prodromou, Luke. 1996. Correspondence. *ELT Journal* 50(1). 88–89.
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/50.1.88.

Prodromou, Luke. 2003. In search of the successful user of English How a corpus of non-native speaker language could impact on EFL teaching. *Modern English Teacher* 12(2). 5–15.

Prowse, Philip. 1998. How writers write: testimony from authors. In Brian Tomlinson (ed.), *Materials Development in Language Teaching*, 130–145. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Quaglio, Paulo. 2009. *Television Dialogue: The sitcom Friends vs. natural conversation* (Studies in Corpus Linguistics 36). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Quetz, Jürgen. 1999. Welche Normen muss ein Lehrwerk erfüllen? In Klaus Vogel & Wolfgang Börner (eds.), *Lehrwerke im Fremdsprachenunterricht: lernbezogene, interkulturelle und mediale Aspekte* (Fremdsprachen in Lehre und Forschung 23), 10–24. Bochum: AKS-Verl.

Quirk, Randolph. 1995. *Grammatical and Lexical Variance in English*. London: Routledge.

Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. *A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language*. London; New York: Longman.

R Core Team. 2020. *R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing*. Manual. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/ (29 January, 2021).

Ramjattan, Vijay A. 2019. The white native speaker and inequality regimes in the private English language school. *Intercultural Education* 30(2). 126–140.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2018.1538043.

Ranalli, James M. 2003. *The treatment of key vocabulary learning strategies in current ELT course books: repetition, resource use, recording*. U.K.: University of Birmingham M.A. thesis. http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/documents/college-artslaw/cels/essays/matefltesldissertations/ranallidiss.pdf (10 August, 2017).

Rankin, Tom. 2010. Advanced Learner Corpus Data and Grammar Teaching: Adverb Placement. In Mari Carmen Campoy Cubillo, Begoña Bellés-Fortuño & Maria
Lluüsa Gea-Valor (eds.), *Corpus-Based Approaches to English Language Teaching*, 205–2015. London; New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Rasch, Björn, Malte Friese, Wilhelm Hofmann & Ewald Naumann. 2014. Einfaktorielle Varianzanalyse. In Björn Rasch, Malte Friese, Wilhelm Hofmann & Ewald Naumann (eds.), *Quantitative Methoden 2: Einführung in die Statistik für Psychologen und Sozialwissenschaftler* (Springer-Lehrbuch), 1–34. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-43548-9_1. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-43548-9_1 (6 January, 2021).

Rautionaho, Paula. 2014. *Variation in the progressive a corpus-based study into world Englishes*. Tampere: Tampere University Press PhD thesis. https://tampub.uta.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/96287/978-951-44-9636-3.pdf?sequence=1 (14 June, 2019).

Rautionaho, Paula & Sandra C. Deshors. 2018. Progressive or not progressive?: Modeling the constructional choices of EFL and ESL writers. *International Journal of Learner Corpus Research* 4(2). 225–252. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijlcr.16019.rau.

Rautionaho, Paula, Sandra C. Deshors & Lea Meriläinen. 2018. Revisiting the ENL-ESL-EFL continuum: A multifactorial approach to grammatical aspect in spoken Englishes. *ICAME Journal* 42(1). 41–78. https://doi.org/10.1515/icame-2018-0004.

Rayson, Paul. 2018. USAS English Wmatrix3 web tagger. http://ucrel-api.lancaster.ac.uk/usas/tagger.html (7 December, 2019).

Reda, Ghsoon. 2003. English Coursebooks: Prototype Texts and Basic Vocabulary Norms. *ELT Journal* 57(3). 260–268. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/57.3.260.

Reder, Stephen, Kathryn Harris & Kristen Setzler. 2003. The multimedia adult ESL learner corpus. *TESOL Quarterly*. JSTOR 37(3). 546–557.

Reinders, Hayo & Rod Ellis. 2009. The Effects of Two Types of Input on Intake and the Acquisition of Implicit and Explicit Knowledge. In Rod Ellis, Shawn Loewen, Catherine Elder, Hayo Reinders, Rosemary Erlam & Jenefer Philp (eds.), *Implicit and Explicit Knowledge in Second Language Learning, Testing and Teaching*, 281–302. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.

Rencher, Alvin C. 1992. Interpretation of Canonical Discriminant Functions, Canonical Variates, and Principal Components. *American Statistical Association* 46(3). 217–225.

Reppen, Randi. 1994a. *Variation in Elementary Student Writing*. Northern Arizona University Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation.

Reppen, Randi. 1994b. *Variation in elementary student writing*. Northern Arizona University Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation.

Reppen, Randi. 2013. Register variation in student and adult speech and writing. In Susan Conrad & Douglas Biber (eds.), *Variation in English: Multi-dimensional studies*, 187–199.

Revelle, William. 2020. *psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research*. Evanston, Illinois. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych (20 April, 2021).

Révész, Andrea & Tineke Brunfaut. 2013. Text Characteristics of Task Input and Difficulty in Second Language Listening Comprehension. *Studies in Second Language Acquisition* 35(1). 31–65. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263112000678.
Richards, Jack C. 2001. *Curriculum Development in Language Teaching*. 1st edn.
Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667220.

Richards, Jack C. 2015. *Key Issues in Language Teaching*. Cambridge University Press.

Richardson, Leonard. 2015. Beautiful Soup 4.4.0 documentation. https://beautiful-soup-4.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ (7 January, 2022).

Rinker, Tyler W. 2018. *textstem: Tools for stemming and lemmatizing text in R*. Buffalo, New York. http://github.com/trinker/textstem (1 February, 2019).

Rinvolucri, Mario. 1999. The UK, EFLese sub-culture and dialect. *Folio* 5(2). 12–14.

Roberts, Celia & Melanie Cooke. 2009. Authenticity in the Adult ESOL Classroom and Beyond. *TESOL Quarterly* 43(4). 620–642. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2009.tb00189.x.

Robinson, Peter J. & Nick C. Ellis (eds.). 2008. *Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition*. New York: Routledge.

Rohde, Ada Ragna. 2001. *Analyzing PATH: The interplay of verbs, prepositions and constructional semantics*. Houston, TX: Rice University.

Rohleder, Bernhard. 2019. Smart School - Auf dem Weg zur digitalen Schule. Presented at the Bitkom Research GmbH, Berlin.
https://www.bitkom.org/sites/default/files/2019-03/Pr%C3%A4sentation%20Bitkom-PK%20Bildungskonferenz%2012.03.2019_final.pdf (29 September, 2020).

Römer, Ute. 2004a. Comparing real and ideal language learner input: The use of an EFL textbook corpus in corpus linguistics and language teaching. In Guy Aston, Silvia Bernardini & Dominic Stewart (eds.), *Studies in Corpus Linguistics*, vol. 17, 151–168. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Römer, Ute. 2004b. A Corpus-Driven Approach to Modal Auxiliaries and Their Didactics. In John McH. Sinclair (ed.), *How to Use Corpora in Language Teaching* (Studies in Corpus Linguistics), vol. 12, 185–199. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.12.14rom.

Römer, Ute. 2005. *Progressives, Patterns, Pedagogy: A Corpus-Driven Approach to English Progressive Forms, Functions, Contexts, and Didactics* (Studies in Corpus Linguistics 18). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Römer, Ute. 2006a. Pedagogical applications of corpora: Some reflections on the current scope and a wish list for future developments. *Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik* 54(2). 121–134.

Römer, Ute. 2006b. Looking at *looking*: Functions and contexts of progressives in spoken English and ‘school’ English. In Antoinette Renouf & Andrew Kehoe (eds.), *The Changing Face of Corpus Linguistics. Papers from the 24th International Conference on English Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 24)*, 231–242. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Römer, Ute. 2007. Learner Language and the Norms in Native Corpora and EFL Teaching Materials: A Case Study of English Conditionals. In S. Volk-Birke & J. Lippert (eds.), *Proceedings of the Anglistentag 2006*, 355–363. Halle: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Trier.

Römer, Ute. 2010. Using general and specialized corpora in English language teaching: Past, present and future. In Mari Carmen Campoy Cubillo, Begoña Bellés Fortuño
& Maria Lluïsa Gea-Valor (eds.), *Corpus-based approaches to English language teaching*, 18–38. London: Continuum.

Römer, Ute & Cynthia M. Berger. 2019. Observing the Emergence of Constructional Knowledge: Verb Patterns in German and Spanish Learners of English at Different Proficiency Levels. *Studies in Second Language Acquisition* 41(5). 1089–1110. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263119000202.

Rooy, Bertus van. 2006. The extension of the progressive aspect in Black South African English. *World Englishes* 25(1). 37–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0083-2919.2006.00446.x.

Rose, David & James R. Martin. 2012. *Learning to Write, Reading to Learn: Genre, Knowledge and Pedagogy in the Sydney School*. London: Equinox.

Rühlemann, Christoph. 2008. A Register Approach to Teaching Conversation: Farewell to Standard English? *Applied Linguistics* 29(4). 672–693. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amn023.

Rundell, Michael. 2008. The corpus revolution revisited. *English Today* 24(1). 23–27. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078408000060.

Runte, Maren. 2015. *Lernerlexikographie und Wortschatzerwerb*. Berlin; Boston: Walter de Gruyter.

Rüschoff, Bernd & Dieter Wolff. 1999. *Fremdsprachenlernen in der Wissensgesellschaft: zum Einsatz der neuen Technologien in Schule und Unterricht*. Hueber Verlag.

Scales, Julie, Ann Wennerstrom, Dara Richard & Su Hui Wu. 2006. Language Learners’ Perceptions of Accent. *TESOL Quarterly* 40(4). 715. https://doi.org/10.2307/40264305.

Schaer, Ursula. 2007. Source books rather than course books – Die Bildungsreform im Fremdsprachenunterricht und die neue Rolle für die Lehr-mittel. *Beiträge zur Lehrerbildung* 25(2). 255–267.

Schäfer, Werner. 2003. „Unterrichten ohne Lehrbuch? Einige unzeitgemäße Bemerkungen. *Praxis des neusprachlichen Unterrichts* 50(3). 305–311.

Schauer, Gila A. & Svenja Adolphs. 2006. Expressions of Gratitude in Corpus and DCT Data: Vocabulary, Formulaic Sequences, and Pedagogy. *System* 34(1). 119–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2005.09.003.

Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1993. Reflections on Quantification in the Study of Conversation. *Research on Language & Social Interaction* 26(1). 99–128. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi2601_5.

Scheiwe, Lisa. in preparation. *Accents of English in ELT in Germany: A Corpus-Phonological Approach to Textbook Analysis*.

Schildhauer, Peter, Marion Schulte & Carolin Zehne. 2020. Global Englishes in the Classroom: From Theory to Practice. *PraxisForschungLehrer*\*innenBildung. *Zeitschrift für Schul- und Professionsentwicklung*. 2(4). 26–40. https://doi.org/10.4119/pflb-3435.

Schlüter, Norbert. 2002. *Present perfect: eine korpuslinguistische Analyse des englischen Perfekts mit Vermittlungsvorschlägen für den Sprachunterricht* (Language in Performance 25). Tübingen: Narr.

Schmid, Hans-Jörg & Helmut Küchenhoff. 2013. Collostructional analysis and other ways of measuring lexicogrammatical attraction: Theoretical premises, practical problems
and cognitive underpinnings. *Cognitive Linguistics* 24(3).
https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2013-0018.

Schmitt, Norbert & Ronald Carter. 2004. Formulaic sequences in action. In Norbent Schmitt (ed.), *Formulaic Sequences: Acquisition, Processing and Use*, 1–22.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Schönbrodt, Felix D. 2016. *p-hacker: Train your p-hacking skills!*
https://shinyapps.org/apps/p-hacker/ (28 January, 2022).

Scott, Mike. 2011. *WordSmith Tools*. Stroud: Lexical Analysis Software.

Segermann, Krista. 2000. Eine neue Lehrwerk-Konzeption: Lehrbuch für Lehrer–
Lernmaterialien für Schüler. *Praxis des neusprachlichen Unterrichts* 47(4). 339–348.

Seidlhofer, Barbara. 2001. Closing A Conceptual Gap: The Case For A Description Of
English As A Lingua Franca. *International Journal of Applied Linguistics* 11(2).
133–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/1473-4192.00011.

Séré, Alain & Alain-Marie Bassy. 2010. *Le manuel scolaire à l'heure du numérique : Une « nouvelle donne » de la politique de ressources pour l'enseignement*. Inspection générale de l'éducation nationale. https://www.education.gouv.fr/le-manuel-scolaire-l-heure-du-numerique-1310 (6 January, 2022).

Shakir, Muhammad. 2020. *A corpus based comparison of variation in online registers of Pakistani English using MD analysis*. University of Münster PhD thesis.
https://repositorium.uni-muenster.de/document/miami/1054a19c-abef-4d71-a324-c99ba7473da3/diss_shakir.pdf.

Siegel, A. 2014. What should we talk about? The authenticity of textbook topics. *ELT Journal* 68(4). 363–375. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccu012.

Siepmann, Dirk. 2004. *Discourse Markers Across Languages: A Contrastive Study of Second-Level Discourse Markers in Native and Non-Native Text with Implications for General and Pedagogic Lexicography*. 1st edn. London: Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203315262.

Siepmann, Dirk. 2007. Wortschatz und Grammatik: zusammenbringen, was zusammengehört. *Beiträge zur Fremdsprachenvermittlung* 46. 59–80.

Siepmann, Dirk. 2011. „Any Chance of a Bloody Drink Sometime This Century? Generische Strukturen einer Gesprächssituation analysieren. *Der fremdsprachliche Unterricht Englisch* 45(114). 22–26.

Siepmann, Dirk. 2014. Zur Repräsentation von Mehrwortausdrücken in deutschen
Lehrwerken des Englischen. In Dirk Siepmann & Christoph Bürgel (eds.),
*Sprachwissenschaft und Fremdsprachenunterricht: Spracherwerb und Sprachkompetenzen im Fokus*. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren.

Siepmann, Dirk. 2018a. *Volume Five: Prepositions* (A Grammar of Spoken and Written French). Leipzig: Amazon Distribution.

Siepmann, Dirk. 2018b. Zum Verhältnis von Fachwissenschaften, Fachdidaktik und Sprachpraxis in der universitären Lehrerausbildung: theoretische Überlegungen und Anregungen für eine kohärentere Praxis. In Bärbel Diehr (ed.), *Universitäre Englischlehrerbildung: Wege zu mehr Kohärenz im Studium und Korrespondenz mit der Praxis*, 103–121. Berlin: Peter Lang.

Siepmann, Dirk. 2019. *Band 3: Das Adjektiv* (Grammatik des gesprochenen und geschriebenen Französisch Band 3). Leipzig: Amazon Distribution.
Siepmann, Dirk & Christoph Bürgel. 2022. *Band 2: Das Nomen* (Grammatik des gesprochenen und geschriebenen Französisch). Leipzig: Amazon Distribution.

Siepmann, Dirk, John D. Gallagher, Mike Hannay & J. Lachlan Mackenzie. 2011. *Writing in English: A Guide for Advanced Learners*. 2nd, revised and extended edition edn. Tübingen Basel: Francke Verlag.

Sigley, Robert J. 1997. Text Categories and Where You Can Stick Them: A Crude Formality Index. *International Journal of Corpus Linguistics* 2(2). 199–237.
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.2.2.04sig.

Sinclair, John McH. 1983. Naturalness in Language. In Jan Aarts & Willem Meijs (eds.), *Corpus Linguistics: Recent Developments in the Use of Computer Corpora in English Language Research* (Costerus 45), 203–210. Leiden: Brill.

Sinclair, John McH. 1991. *Corpus, Concordance, Collocation*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sinclair, John McH. 1992. The automatic analysis of corpora. In Jan Svartvik (ed.), *Directions in Corpus Linguistics*, 379–400. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110867275.379.

Sinclair, John McH. (ed.). 2004. *How to Use Corpora in Language Teaching* (Studies in Corpus Linguistics). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Sinclair, John McH., Gwyneth Fox, Stephen Bullon, Ramesh Krishnamurthy, Elisabeth Manning & John Todd (eds.). 1990. *Collins Cobuild English grammar: Helping learners with real English*. Glasgow: Harper Collins.

Sinclair, John McH. & Antoinette Renouf. 1988. A Lexical Syllabus for Language Learning. In Ronald Carter & Michael McCarthy (eds.), *Vocabulary and Language Teaching*, 140–158. Harlow: Longman.

Singapore Wala, Duriya Aziz. 2013. The Instructional Design of a Coursebook Is As It Is Because of What It Has To Do-An Application of Systemic Functional Theory. In Brian Tomlinson (ed.), *Developing Materials for Language Teaching*, 119–138. Second Edition. London; New York: Bloomsbury.

Skehan, Peter. 2014. *Individual Differences in Second-Language Learning*. London: Taylor & Francis.

Smith, Christopher Arnold. 2020. *A Triangulated Accounting of Top Notch 2: Negotiating Ideologies in the Multimodal Discourse of an EFL Textbook in Korean University Classrooms*. Carleton University PhD thesis. https://curve.carleton.ca/00125d56-bc4c-4500-ab9a-d1fd4d8ccc02 (13 February, 2022).

Smith, Matthew. 2018. Dinner time or tea time? It depends on where you live. *YouGov*. https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/05/22/dinner-time-or-tea-time-it-dependsto-where-you-live (29 September, 2020).

Smith, Nicholas. 2005. *A Corpus-based Investigation of Recent Change in the Use of the Progressive in British English*. Lancaster University PhD thesis.
https://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.594241 (1 March, 2019).

Smith, Nicholas & Paul Rayson. 2007. Recent change and variation in the British English use of the progressive passive. *ICAME Journal* (31). 129–160.

Smitterberg, Erik. 2005. *The Progressive in 19th-Century English: A Process of Integration* (Language and Computers 54). Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Sommer, Roy. 2020. Lehrerbildung aus fachwissenschaftlicher Perspektive: Beispiel Anglistik. In Michaela Heer & Ulrich Heinen (eds.), *Die Stimmen der Fächer hören*:
*Fachprofil und Bildungsanspruch in der Lehrerbildung*, 307–324. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh.

Spada, Nina & Patsy M. Lightbown. 1999. Instruction, First Language Influence, and Developmental Readiness in Second Language Acquisition. *The Modern Language Journal* 83(1). 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00002.

Spoustová, Drahomíra, Jan Hajič, Jan Raab & Miroslav Spousta. 2009. Semi-supervised training for the averaged perceptron POS tagger. In *Proceedings of the 12th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics on - EACL '09*, 763–771. Athens, Greece: Association for Computational Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.3115/1609067.1609152. http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=1609067.1609152 (12 August, 2021).

Spring, Ryan. 2018. Teaching Phrasal Verbs More Efficiently: Using Corpus Studies and Cognitive Linguistics to Create a Particle List. *Advances in Language and Literary Studies*. ERIC 9(5). 121–135.

Starkey, Louise, Miri Shonfeld, Sarah Prestridge & Mercè Gisbert Cervera. 2021. Special issue: Covid-19 and the role of technology and pedagogy on school education during a pandemic. *Technology, Pedagogy and Education*. Routledge 30(1). 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2021.1866838.

Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2013. Variation and change in English path verbs and constructions: Usage patterns and conceptual structure. In Juliana Goschler & Anatol Stefanowitsch (eds.), *Human Cognitive Processing*, vol. 41, 223–244. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.41.10ste.

Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2020. *Corpus Linguistics: A Guide to the Methodology* (Textbooks in Language Science 7). Berlin: Language Science Press.

Stefanowitsch, Anatol & Stefan Th. Gries. 2003. Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. *International Journal of Corpus Linguistics* 8(2). 209–243.

Stein, Marcy, Carol Stuen, Douglas Carnine & Roger M Long. 2001. Textbook evaluation and adoption. *Reading & Writing Quarterly* 17(1). 5–23.

Stranks, Jeff. 2013. Materials for the Teaching of Grammar. In *Developing Materials for Language Teaching*, 337–350. Second edition. London: New York: Bloomsbury.

Sun, Zhuomin. 2010. Language Teaching Materials and Learner Motivation. *Journal of Language Teaching and Research* 1(6). 889–892. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.1.6.889-892.

Svartvik, Jan & Randolph Quirk. 1980. *A Corpus of English Conversation*. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

Swaffar, Janet K. 1985. Reading Authentic Texts in a Foreign Language: A Cognitive Model. *The Modern Language Journal* 69(1). 15–34.

Syndicat national de l'édition. 2021. Chiffres clés de l'édition. *Syndicat national de l'édition*. https://www.sne.fr/economie/chiffres-cles/ (2 January, 2022).

Tabachnick, Barbara G. & Linda S. Fidell. 2014. *Using Multivariate Statistics* (Always Learning). Pearson new international edition, sixth edition. Harlow: Pearson.

Tan, Melinda. 2003. Language corpora for language teachers. *Journal of Language and Learning* 1(2). 98–105.

Tateyama, Yumiko. 2019. Pragmatics in a Language Classroom. In Naoko Taguchi (ed.), *The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Pragmatics*, 400–413.
1st edn. London; New York, NY: Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351164085-1.

Taylor, Charlotte. 2008. What is corpus linguistics? What the data says. *ICAME journal* 32. 179–200.

Tesch, Felicitas. 1990. *Die Indefinitpronomina Some Und Any Im Authentischen Englischen Sprachgebrauch Und in Lehrwerken: Eine Empirische Untersuchung*. Vol. 345. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.

Thompson, Paul, Susan Hunston, Akira Murakami & Dominik Vajn. 2017. Multi-Dimensional Analysis, text constellations, and interdisciplinary discourse. *International Journal of Corpus Linguistics* 22(2). 153–186.
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.22.2.01tho.

Thompson, Paul & Alison Sealey. 2007. Through children’s eyes?: Corpus evidence of the features of children’s literature. *International Journal of Corpus Linguistics* 12(1). 1–23.

Thornbury, Scott. 2000. Plenary: Deconstructing grammar. In Alan Pulverness (ed.), *IATEFL 2000: Dublin Conference Selections*, 59–67.

Thornbury, Scott. 2002. Training in instructional conversation. In Hugh Trappes-Lomax & Gibson Ferguson (eds.), *Language in Language Teacher Education* (Language Learning and Language Teaching 4), 95–106. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Timmis, Ivor. 2003. *Corpora, classroom and context: the place of spoken grammar in English language teaching*. University of Nottingham PhD thesis.

Timmis, Ivor. 2013. Corpora and Materials: Towards a Working Relationship. In Brian Tomlinson (ed.), *Developing Materials for Language Teaching*, 461–474. Second Edition. London; New York: Bloomsbury.

Timmis, Ivor. 2015. *Corpus Linguistics forelt: Research and Practice* (Routledge Corpus Linguistics Guides). London; New York: Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315715537.

Timmis, Ivor. 2016. Humanising coursebook dialogues. *Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching* 10(2). 144–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2015.1090998.

Tognini-Bonelli, Elena. 2001. *Corpus linguistics at work* (Studies in Corpus Linguistics v. 6). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: J. Benjamins.

Tomasello, Michael. 2005. *Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition*. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Tomlinson, Brian. 2001. Materials development. In David Nunan & Ronald Carter (eds.), *The Cambridge Guide to Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages*, 66–71. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tomlinson, Brian (ed.). 2008. *English Language Learning Materials: A Critical Review*. London; New York: Continuum.

Tomlinson, Brian. 2012. Materials development for language learning and teaching. *Language Teaching* 45(02). 143–179. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444811000528.

Tomlinson, Brian (ed.). 2013a. *Applied Linguistics and Materials Development*. London; New York: Bloomsbury.

Tomlinson, Brian (ed.). 2013b. *Developing Materials for Language Teaching*. Second Edition. London; New York: Bloomsbury.

Tomlinson, Brian, Bao Dat, Hitomi Masuhara & Rani Rugdy. 2001. Survey review. EFL courses for adults. *ELT Journal* 55(1). 80–101. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/55.1.80.
Tono, Yukio. 2004. Multiple Comparisons of IL, L1 and TL Corpora: The Case of L2 Acquisition of Verb Subcategorization Patterns by Japanese Learners of English. In *Guy Aston, Silvia Bernardini & Dominic Stewart (eds.), *Studies in Corpus Linguistics*, vol. 17, 45–66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.17.05ton.

Tony, Bex. 1999. *Standard English: The Widening Debate*. Hove: Psychology Press.

Torres-Martínez, Sergio. 2019. *Applied Cognitive Construction Grammar: A Cognitive Guide to the Teaching of Phrasal Verbs*. Medellín: Lulu.com.

Toutanova, Kristina, Dan Klein, Christopher D. Manning & Yoram Singer. 2003. Feature-rich part-of-speech tagging with a cyclic dependency network. In *Proceedings of the 2003 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics on Human Language Technology-Volume 1*, 173–180. Association for Computational Linguistics.

Toutanova, Kristina & Christopher D. Manning. 2000. Enriching the knowledge sources used in a maximum entropy part-of-speech tagger. In *Proceedings of the 2000 Joint SIGDAT conference on Empirical methods in natural language processing and very large corpora held in conjunction with the 38th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics*, vol. 13, 63–70. Hong Kong: Association for Computational Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.3115/1117794.1117802. http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=1117794.1117802 (18 August, 2020).

Trabelsi, Soufiane, Brian Tomlinson & Hitomi Masuhara. 2010. Developing and trialling authentic materials for business English students at a Tunisian university. In *Research for Materials Development in Language Learning: Evidence For Best Practice*, 103–120.

Tracy-Ventura, Nicole & Magali Paquot. 2020. *The Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Corpora*. London: Routledge.

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Graeme Trousdale. 2013. *Constructionalization and constructional changes* (Oxford Linguistics 6). First edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tsaroucha, Efthymia. 2018. *A Cognitive Linguistics Approach to English Phrasal Verbs*. Thessaloniki, Greece: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Unpublished PhD Thesis. http://ikee.lib.auth.gr/record/299055.

Tyler, Andrea. 2012. *Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Learning: Theoretical Basics and Experimental Evidence*. London: Routledge.

Tyler, Andrea E. & Lourdes Ortega. 2018. Usage-inspired L2 instruction: An emergent, researched pedagogy. In Andrea E. Tyler, Lourdes Ortega, Mariko Uno & Hae In Park (eds.), *Usage-Inspired L2 Instruction: Researched Pedagogy*, vol. 49, 3–26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.49.01tyl.

Tyler, Andrea, Lourdes Ortega & Mariko Uno (eds.). 2018. *Usage-inspired L2 instruction: researched pedagogy* (Language Learning & Language Teaching 49). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

UNESCO Institute for Statistics. 2012. *International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 2011*.

UNESCO Institute for Statistics/OECD/Eurostat. 2015. *ISCED 2011 Operational Manual: Guidelines for classifying national education programmes and related qualifications*. UNESCO Institute for Statistics/OECD/Eurostat. https://doi.org/10.15220/978-92-
9189-174-0-en. http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/isced-2011-operational-manual-guidelines-for-classifying-national-education-programmes-and-related-qualifications-2015-en_1.pdf (15 October, 2018).

Ur, Penny. 2011. Research, Theory, and Practice. In Eli Hinkel (ed.), *Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning. Vol. 2* (ESL & Applied Linguistics Professional Series), 507–522. New York, NY: Routledge.

Usó-Juan, Esther. 2008. A Pragmatic-Focused Evaluation of Requests and Their Modification Devices in Textbook Conversations. In Eva Alcón Soler (ed.), *Learning How to Request in an Instructed Language Learning Context*, 65–90. Bern: Peter Lang.

Usó-Juan, Esther & Alicia Martínez-Flor. 2010. The teaching of speech acts in second and foreign language instructional contexts. In *Pragmatics across Languages and Cultures*, 423–442. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Valero Garcés, Carmen. 1998. Some pedagogical and practical implications of contrastive studies in ELT. *Revista española de lingüística aplicada* (13). 27–36.

Van Rossum, Guido & Fred L. Drake. 2009. Python 3 Reference Manual. Python Software Foundation. https://docs.python.org/3/reference/ (4 January, 2019).

Various users of neoprofs.org. 2016. [Anglais] La question des manuels : les utilisez-vous? Vous appuyez-vous sur celui de votre établissement? www.neoprofs.org. https://www.neoprofs.org/t103210-anglais-la-question-des-manuels-les-utilisez-vous-vous-appuyez-vous-sur-celui-de-votre-etablissement (6 January, 2022).

Varmiş Kiliç, Zerhan & Binnur Genç İlter. 2015. The effect of authentic materials on 12th grade students’ attitudes in EFL Classes. *ELT research journal* 4(1). 2–15.

Veirano Pinto, Marcia. 2019. Using Discriminate Function Analysis in Multi-Dimensional Analysis. In Tony Berber Sardinha & Marcia Veirano Pinto (eds.), *Multi-Dimensional Analysis: Research Methods and Current Issues*, 217–230. Bloomsbury Academic. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350023857.

Vellenga, Heidi. 2004. Learning Pragmatics from ESL & EFL Textbooks: How Likely? *TESL-EJ Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language* 8(2). n. p.

Verspoor, Marjolijn. 2017. Complex dynamic systems theory and L2 pedagogy. In Lourdes Ortega & Han ZhaoHong (eds.), *Complexity Theory and Language Development: In Celebration of Diane Larsen-Freeman*, 143–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Verspoor, Marjolijn, Wander Lowie & Marijn Van Dijk. 2008. Variability in Second Language Development From a Dynamic Systems Perspective. *The Modern Language Journal* 92(2). 214–231. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00715.x.

Vielau, Axel. 2005. Lehrwerk, quo vadis? Einflüsse auf die Lehrwerkentwicklung. In Eva Burwitz-Melzer & Gert Solmecke (eds.), *Niemals Zu Früh und Selten Zu Spät: Fremdsprachenunterricht in Schule und Erwachsenenbildung. Festschrift für Jürgen Quetz*, 137–147. Berlin: Cornelsen.

Vine, Elaine W. 2013. Corpora and Coursebooks Compared: Category Ambiguous Words. In *Twenty Years of Learner Corpus Research. Looking Back, Moving Ahead: Proceedings of the First Learner Corpus Research Conference (LCR 2011)*, vol. 1, 463–478. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.

Virtanen, Tuija. 1997. The progressive in NS and NNS student compositions: evidence from the International Corpus of Learner English. In Magnus Ljung (ed.), *Corpus-based studies in English: Papers from the Seventeenth International conference on English*
*Language Research on Computerized Corpora (ICAME 17).* Stockholm, May 15–19, 1996, 299–309. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Vogt, Karin. 2011. *Fremdsprachliche Kompetenzprofile: Entwicklung und Abgleichung von GeR-Deskriptoren für Fremdsprachenlernen mit einer beruflichen Anwendungsorientierung.* 1st edn. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.

Volansky, Vered, Noam Ordan & Shuly Wintner. 2015. On the features of translationese. *Digital Scholarship in the Humanities* 98–118. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqt031.

Volkmann, Laurenz. 2010. *Fachdidaktik Englisch: Kultur und Sprache*. Tübingen: Narr.

Vyatkina, Nina. 2020. Corpora as open educational resources for language teaching. *Foreign Language Annals* 53(2). 359–370. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12464.

Wain, Kenneth. 1992. Evaluating history and social studies textbooks. Whose criteria really does matter? In K. Peter Fritzche (ed.), *Schulbücher auf dem Prüfstand: Perspektiven der Schulbuchforschung und Schulbuchbeurteilung in Europa*, 23–31. Frankfurt: Moritz Diesterweg.

Wajnryb, Ruth. 1996. Death, taxes and jeopardy: Systematic omissions in EFL texts, or life was never meant to be an adjacency pair. Presented at the 9th Educational Conference, Sydney.

Wallis, Sean. 2020. *Statistics in Corpus Linguistics Research: A New Approach*. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429491696.

Weninger, Csilla & Tamas Kiss. 2013. Culture in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) Textbooks: A Semiotic Approach. *TESOL Quarterly* 47(4). 694–716. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.87.

Werfhorst, Herman van de, Emma Kessenich & Sara Geven. 2020. The digital divide in online education. Inequality in digital preparedness of students and schools before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. pre-print published on OSF. https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/58d6p/ (1 February, 2022).

Werner, Valentin. 2021. Text-linguistic analysis of performed language: revisiting and re-modeling Koch and Oesterreicher. *Linguistics*. De Gruyter Mouton 59(3). 541–575. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2021-0036.

West, Michael. 1953. *A General Service List of English Words with Semantic Frequencies and a Supplementary Word-List for the Writing of Popular Science and Technology*. London: Longman.

Westergren Axelsson, Margareta & Angela Hahn. 2001. The use of the progressive in Swedish and German advanced learner English – a corpus-based study. *ICAME Journal* (25). 5–30.

Whitelaw, Casey & Shlomo Argamon. 2004. Systemic Functional Features in Stylistic Text Classification. *AAAI Technical Report* (7).

Widdowson, H. G. 1978. *Teaching Language as Communication*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Widdowson, H. G. 1984. *Explorations in Applied Linguistics 2*. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Widdowson, H. G. 2003. *Defining Issues in English Language Teaching* (Oxford Applied Linguistics). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Widdowson, Henry G. 1989. *Knowledge of Language and Ability for Use. Applied Linguistics* 10(2). 128–137. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/10.2.128.
Wieling, Martijn, Josine Rawee & Gertjan van Noord. 2018. Reproducibility in Computational Linguistics: Are We Willing to Share? *Computational Linguistics* 44(4). 641–649. https://doi.org/10.1162/coli_a_00330.

Wiese, Heike, Katharina Mayr, Philipp Krämer, Patrick Seeger, Hans-Georg Müller & Verena Mezger. 2017. Changing teachers' attitudes towards linguistic diversity: effects of an anti-bias programme. *International Journal of Applied Linguistics* 27(1). 198–220. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12121.

Wild, Kate, Adam Kilgarriff & David Tugwell. 2013. The Oxford Children's Corpus: Using a Children's Corpus in Lexicography. *International Journal of Lexicography* 26(2). 190–218. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/ecs017.

Wilkinson, Mark D., Michel Dumontier, IJsbrand Jan Aalbersberg, Gabrielle Appleton, Myles Axton, Arie Baak, Niklas Blomberg, et al. 2016. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. *Scientific Data*. Nature Publishing Group 3(1). 160018. https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18.

Willis, Dave. 2003. *Rules, Patterns and Words: Grammar and Lexis in English Language Teaching*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Winter, Bodo. 2019. *Statistics for Linguists: An Introduction Using R*. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315165547.

Winter, Tatjana & Elen Le Foll. forthcoming. Testing the Pedagogical Norm: Comparing *If-Conditionals* in EFL Textbooks, Learner Writing and English Outside the Classroom. *International Journal of Learner Corpus Research*.

Wolff, Dieter. 1984. Lehrbuchtexte und Verstehensprozesse in einer zweiten Sprache. *Neusprachliche Mitteilungen aus Wissenschaft und Praxis* 37(1). 4–11.

Wolk, Christoph, Sandra Götz & Katja Jäschke. 2021. Possibilities and Drawbacks of Using an Online Application for Semi-automatic Corpus Analysis to Investigate Discourse Markers and Alternative Fluency Variables. *Corpus Pragmatics* 5. 7–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-019-00072-x.

Wong, S.C. 1983. Overproduction & Unidiomatic Usage in the Make Causatives of Chinese Speakers: A Cause for Flexibility in Interlanguage analysis. *Language Learning & Communication* 2(2). 151–165.

Wood, David. 2010. Lexical clusters in an EAP textbook corpus. In David Wood (ed.), *Perspectives on formulaic language: acquisition and communication*, 88–106. London; New York: Continuum.

Wood, David & Randy Appel. 2014. Multiword constructions in first year business and engineering university textbooks and EAP textbooks. *Journal of English for Academic Purposes* 15. 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2014.03.002.

Wulff, Stefanie, Nick C. Ellis, Ute Römer, Kathleen Bardovi-Harlig & Chelsea J. Leblanc. 2009. The Acquisition of Tense-Aspect: Converging Evidence From Corpora and Telicity Ratings. *The Modern Language Journal* 93(3). 354–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00895.x.

Wulff, Stefanie & Stefan Th. Gries. 2021. Exploring Individual Variation in Learner Corpus Research: Methodological Suggestions. In Bert Le Bruyn & Magali Paquot (eds.), *Learner Corpus Research Meets Second Language Acquisition* (Cambridge Applied Linguistics), 191–213. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108674577.010.
Wulff, Stefanie & Ute Römer. 2009. Becoming a proficient academic writer: Shifting lexical preferences in the use of the progressive. *Corpora* 4(2). 115–133.
https://doi.org/10.3366/E1749503209000276.

Xiao, Richard. 2009. Theory-driven corpus research: Using corpora to inform aspect theory. In Anke Lüdeling & Merja Kytö (eds.), *Corpus linguistics: an international handbook* (Handbücher Zur Sprach- Und Kommunikationswissenschaft = Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science), vol. 2, 987–1007. Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Yoo, Isaiah WonHo. 2009. The English Definite Article: What ESL/EFL Grammars Say and What Corpus Findings Show. *Journal of English for Academic Purposes* 8(4).
267–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2009.07.004.

Zarifi, Abdolvahed & Jayakaran Mukundan. 2012. Phrasal Verbs in Malaysian ESL Textbooks. *English Language Teaching* 5(5). 9–18.
https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n5p9.

Zipf, George Kingsley. 1935. *The Psycho-biology of Language: An Introduction to Dynamic Philology*. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Zipf, George Kingsley. 1949. *Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort: An Introduction to Human Ecology*. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Zuppardo, Maria Carolina. 2013. A linguagem da aviação: um estudo de manuais aeronáuticos baseado na Análise Multidimensional [Aviation Language: A Study of Aeronautical Handbooks Based on Multi-Dimensional Analysis]. *Revista Virtual de Estudos da Linguagem* 11. 6-25.
# Appendices

The **Online Appendix** can be found on:
https://elenlefoll.github.io/TextbookEnglish.

It is linked to the project's GitHub repository:
https://github.com/elenlefoll/TextbookEnglish
<table><thead><tr><th>Category</th><th>Feature</th><th>Code/Tag</th><th>Examples</th><th>Operationalisation</th><th>Normalisation unit</th><th>As coded by</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="7" style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;">Features for which there are no tags in the tagged texts</td></tr><tr><td>General text properties</td><td>Total number of words</td><td>Words</td><td>It's a shame that you'd have to pay to get that quality. (= 14)</td><td>The number of tokens as tokenised by the Stanford Tagger, but excluding punctuation marks, brackets, symbols, genitive 's (POS), and filled pauses and interjections (FPUH). Contractions are treated as separate words, i.e., it's is tokenised as it and 's. Note that this variable is only used to normalise the frequencies of other linguistic features.</td><td>NA</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr><tr><td>General text properties</td><td>Average word length</td><td>AWL</td><td>It's a shame that you'd have to pay to get that quality. (42/12 = 3.50)</td><td>Total number of characters in a text divided by the number of words in that same text (as operationalised in the Words variable above, hence excluding filled pauses and interjections, cf. FPUH).</td><td>Words</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr><tr><td>General text properties</td><td>Lexical diversity</td><td>TTR</td><td>It's a shame that you'd have to pay to get that quality. (12/14 = 0.85)</td><td>Following Biber (1988), this feature is a type-token ratio measured on the basis of, by default, the first 400 words of each text only. It is thus the number of unique word forms within the first 400 words of each text divided by 400. This number of words can be adjusted in the command used to run the script (see instructions at the top of the MFTE script).</td><td>Words (by default first 400)</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr><tr><td>General text properties</td><td>Lexical density</td><td>LDE</td><td>It's a shame that you'd have to pay to get that quality. (3/14 = 0.21)</td><td>For this feature, tokens which are not on the list of the 352 function words from the {qdapDictionaries} R package, nor individual letters, or any of the fillers listed in FPUH are identified as content words. Lexical density is calculated as the ratio of these content words to the total number of words in a text.</td><td>Words</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr><tr><td>General text properties</td><td>Finite verbs</td><td>FV</td><td>He discovered that the method involved imbibing copious amounts of tea. Ants can survive by joining together to morph into living rafts. Always wanted to experience the winter wonderland that Queen Elsa created?</td><td>This feature is not directly listed in the MFTE output tables; however, it is used as a normalisation basis for many other linguistics features (see Normalisation column). It is calculated by tallying the number of occurrences of the following features: VPRT, VBD, VIMP, MDCA, MDCO, MDMM, MDNE, MDWO and MDWS.</td><td>NA</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr><tr><td colspan="7" style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;">Features for which there are tags in tagged version of the texts processed by the MFTE</td></tr><tr><td>Adjectives</td><td>Attributive adjectives</td><td>JJAT</td><td>I've got a fantastic idea! I didn't sleep at all last night. Cheap, quick and easy fix!</td><td>Whereas the Biber Tagger and the MAT first identify predicative adjectives and then consider all remaining J.* tags from the Stanford Tagger to be attributive adjectives, the MFTE proceeds the other way around because it is considerably easier to reliably identify attributive adjectives than it is predicative adjectives. Thus, all adjectives (J.*, as tagged by the Stanford Tagger) followed by another adjective, a noun or a cardinal number, or preceded by a determiner are tagged as attributive adjectives. Once these first attributive adjectives have been identified, an additional loop is run to capture any additional attributive adjectives found in lists of attributive adjectives.</td><td>Nouns</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td>Adjectives</td><td>Predicative adjectives</td><td>JJPR</td><td>That's <strong>right</strong>. One of the main advantages of being <strong>famous</strong> ... It must be <strong>absolutely wonderful</strong>.</td><td>Once attributive adjectives have been identified (see JJAT) and tagged as JJAT, all remaining JJ, JJS and JJR tags are overwritten as JJPR. In addition, <strong>ok</strong> and <strong>okay</strong> in the construction <strong>BE ok(ay)</strong> are also tagged as JJPR. These words are otherwise identified as foreign words (FW) by the Stanford Tagger.</td><td>Finite verbs</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr><tr><td>Adverbials</td><td>Frequency references</td><td>FREQ</td><td>We should <strong>always</strong> wear a mask. But he had found his voice <strong>again</strong>.</td><td>Assigned to all occurrences of the frequency adverbs listed in the COBUILD (Sinclair et al. 1900: 270): <strong>usually</strong>, <strong>always</strong>, <strong>mainly</strong>, <strong>often</strong>, <strong>generally</strong>, <strong>normally</strong>, <strong>traditionally</strong>, <strong>again</strong>, <strong>constantly</strong>, <strong>continually</strong>, <strong>frequently</strong>, <strong>ever</strong>, <strong>never</strong>, <strong>infrequently</strong>, <strong>intermittently</strong>, <strong>occasionally</strong>, <strong>often</strong>, <strong>periodically</strong>, <strong>rarely</strong>, <strong>regularly</strong>, <strong>repeatedly</strong>, <strong>seldom</strong>, <strong>sometimes</strong> and <strong>sporadically</strong>.</td><td>Finite verbs</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr><tr><td>Adverbials</td><td>Place references</td><td>PLACE</td><td>It's not <strong>far</strong> to go. I'll get it from <strong>upstairs</strong>. It's <strong>downhill</strong> all the way. It's <strong>there</strong> not here.</td><td>Biber's (1988: 224) list of place adverbials was taken from Quirk et al. (1985:514ff) but inexplicably excludes many from this list. Those that do not fulfil other major functions were therefore added: downwind, eastward(s), westward(s), northward(s), southward(s), upwards, downwards, elsewhere, everywhere, here, offshore, nowhere, somewhere, thereabout(s) and there (but occurrences of there tagged as existential there (EX) by the Stanford Taggers were ignored). Only occurrences of far which have not previously identified as TIME references (e.g., so far, thus far) or emphatics (e.g., far better, far more) are tagged as PLACE references.</td><td>Finite verbs</td><td>Le Foll, adapted from Biber (1988)</td></tr><tr><td>Adverbials</td><td>Time references</td><td>TIME</td><td>It will <strong>soon</strong> be possible. <strong>Now</strong> is the time. I haven't come across any issues <strong>yet</strong>.</td><td>All occurrences of <strong>afterwards</strong>, <strong>again</strong>, <strong>earlier</strong>, <strong>early</strong>, <strong>eventually</strong>, <strong>forever</strong>, <strong>formerly</strong>, <strong>immediately</strong>, <strong>initially</strong>, <strong>instantly</strong>, <strong>late</strong>, <strong>lately</strong>, <strong>later</strong>, <strong>momentarily</strong>, <strong>now</strong>, <strong>nowadays</strong>, <strong>once</strong>, <strong>originally</strong>, <strong>presently</strong>, <strong>previously</strong>, <strong>recently</strong>, <strong>shortly</strong>, <strong>simultaneously</strong>, <strong>subsequently</strong>, <strong>today</strong>, <strong>to-day</strong>, <strong>tomorrow</strong>, <strong>to-morrow</strong>, <strong>tonight</strong>, <strong>to-night</strong>, <strong>yesterday</strong>. Following Nini (2014: 18), the word <strong>soon</strong> was not tagged as a time adverbial when followed by the word <strong>as</strong>. <strong>Ago</strong>, <strong>already</strong>, <strong>beforehand</strong>, <strong>prior to</strong>, and <strong>far</strong> (the latter only when proceeded by <strong>so</strong> or <strong>thus</strong> and not followed by an adjective or adverb), and <strong>am</strong> and <strong>pm</strong> as adverbs were added to the list, as well as <strong>yet</strong> tokens that have not previously been identified as concessives (CONC).</td><td>Finite verbs</td><td>Le Foll, adapted from Nini (2014)</td></tr><tr><td>Adverbials</td><td>Other adverbs</td><td>RB</td><td><strong>Unfortunately</strong> that's the case. <strong>Exactly</strong> two weeks. He could <strong>so easily</strong> but he knows <strong>better</strong>. He's <strong>still</strong> gonna come back.</td><td>Corresponds to all the tokens tagged as RB, RBS, RBR or WRB by the Stanford Tagger apart from those identified as adverbs of frequency (FREQ), place (PLACE) or time (TIME), amplifiers (AMP), emphatics (EMPH), hedges (HDG) and downtoners (DWNT).</td><td>Words</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr><tr><td>Determinatives</td><td>s-genitives</td><td>POS</td><td>the world's two most populous country, my parents' house</td><td>As identified by the Stanford Tagger: the possessive endings on nouns ending in 's or '. Note that these tokens are not counted as Word in the computation of the lexical diversity (TTR) and average word length variables (AWL) features.</td><td>Nouns</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr><tr><td>Determinatives</td><td>Determiners</td><td>DT</td><td>Is that a new top? The first line has to be interesting. Are they <strong>both</strong> Spice Girls? On either side of the page. To another room. They're five pounds <strong>each</strong>.</td><td>As tagged by the Stanford Tagger (DT) (Santorini 1990: 2), with the exception of <strong>that</strong>, <strong>this</strong>, <strong>these</strong> and <strong>those</strong> which are counted as demonstratives (DEMO). Note that this Stanford Tagger category also includes pronouns such as <strong>another</strong> in <strong>Shall I choose another?</strong></td><td>Nouns</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Determinatives</td><td>Quantifiers</td><td>QUAN</td><td>Such a good time in like half an hour. She's got all these great ideas. It happens each and every time.</td><td>All occurrences of pre-determiners as tagged by the Stanford Tagger, which includes the following "determiner-like elements when they precede an article or possessive pronoun" (Santorini 1990: 4): nary, quite, rather and such (e.g., quite a mess, rather a nuisance, many a moon), as well as all instances of all (unless immediately followed by right, cf. DMA), any, a bit, both, each, every, few, half, many, much, several, some, lots, a lot (of), load(s) of, heaps of, wee, less and more (as adjectives only).</td><td>Nouns</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr><tr><td>Determinatives</td><td>Numbers</td><td>CD</td><td>That's her number one secret. Two eyes glowed just above the surface. It happened on 7 February, 2019.</td><td>All cardinal numbers as identified by the Stanford Tagger. This includes dates written in numbers, e.g., 1994. In addition, numbers listed as list markers (LS) by the Stanford are overwritten as CD and strings of the type \b[0-9]+th_ / \b[0-9]+nd_ / \b[0-9]+rd_ are also tagged as numbers (CD).</td><td>Words</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr><tr><td>Determinatives</td><td>Demonstratives</td><td>DEMO</td><td>What are you doing this weekend? I love that film. Whoever did that should admit it.</td><td>Assigned to all occurrences of that, this, these and those identified by the Stanford Tagger as determiners (DT).</td><td>Words</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr><tr><td>Discourse organisation</td><td>Elaborating conjunctions</td><td>ELAB</td><td>Similarly, you may, for example, write bullet points insomuch as it helps you to focus your ideas.</td><td>Assigned to such that (not followed by a determiner), such as, inasmuch as, insofar as, insomuch as, in that, to the extent that, in particular, in conclusion, in sum, in summary, to summarise, to summarize, for example, for instance, in fact, in brief, in any event, in any case, in other words, e(.)g(.), in summary, viz(.), cf(.), i.e., namely, etc(.), likewise, namely, as well as similarly and accordingly when followed by a comma.</td><td>Finite verbs</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr><tr><td>Discourse organisation</td><td>Coordinating conjunctions</td><td>CC</td><td>Instead of listening to us, he also told John and Jill but at least his parents don't know yet.</td><td>This category takes the coordinating conjunctions (CC) tagged by the Stanford Tagger as its basis which include and, but, nor, or, yet, "as well as the mathematical operators plus, minus, less, times (in the sense of 'multiplied by') and over (in the sense of 'divided by'), when they are spelled out" (Santorini 1990: 2). However, conjunctions already captured by other variables are excluded from this count: yet is assigned to concessive (CONC). In addition, the following (multi-word) conjunctions are also included in this category: also, besides, moreover, further (when tagged as an adverb), furthermore, in addition, additionally, as well (as) (except when preceded by least), however (provided it is preceded or followed by a punctuation mark), ibid, on the one hand, on the other hand, instead, besides, conversely, by/in contrast, on the contrary, in/by comparison, whereas, whereby, whilst.</td><td>Finite verbs</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr><tr><td>Discourse organisation</td><td>Causal conjunctions</td><td>CUZ</td><td>He was scared because of the costume. Yeah coz he hated it.</td><td>Assigned to all occurrences of because, 'cause, cos, cuz and coz. The latter four were not included in Biber's (1988) original variable. According to Biber (1988: 236) because "is the only subordinator to function unambiguously as a causative adverbial". Whilst it is true that many subordinators, e.g., as, for, and since, can fulfil a range of functions, including causative, and were therefore not included in this category, the following adverbs and multi-word conjunctions were added since they mostly fulfil a causative function: as a result, on account of, for that/this purpose, thanks to, to that/this end, consequently, in consequence, hence, so that, therefore, thus.</td><td>Finite verbs</td><td>Le Foll, adapted from Biber (1988)</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Discourse organisation</td><td>Concessive conjunctions</td><td>CONC</td><td>Even though the antigens are normally hidden...</td><td>Assigned to all occurrences of although, though, tho, despite, except that, in spite of, albeit, granted that, nevertheless, nonetheless, notwithstanding, whereas, no matter + WH-word, (ir)regardless of, and granted. Also assigned to still and yet when preceded by any punctuation mark or followed by a comma. Multi-word units are only counted as one occurrence of CONC.</td><td>Finite verbs</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr><tr><td>Discourse organisation</td><td>Conditional conjunctions</td><td>COND</td><td>If I were you... Even if the treatment works...</td><td>Assigned to all occurrences of if, as long as, unless, lest, in that case, otherwise, whether.</td><td>Finite verbs</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr><tr><td>Discourse organisation</td><td>Discourse/pragmatic markers</td><td>DMA</td><td>Well no they didn't say actually. Okay I guess we'll see how things go right?</td><td>Assigned to "interactional signals and discourse markers" (as listed in Stenström 1994: 59 and cited in Aijmer 2002: 2): actually, all right, anyway, God, goodness, gosh, OK, okay, right (if tagged as an interjection by the Stanford Tagger), well (only if identified by the Stanford Tagger as an adverb or adjective and not if preceded by as, how, very, really, quite, a verb, an adjective or an adverb), yes, yeah, yep, sure (unless it is preceded by the verb MAKE, for, not or you). Verbal phrases such as you know and I mean were excluded from this variable since literal occurrences could not be automatically disambiguated occurrences as discourse markers. A number of markers from Stenström's list are also not assigned this tag because they are captured by other variables: now (TIME), please (POLITE), really (EMPH), quite and sort of (HDG). The following items were added: lol, IMO, omg, wtf, nope, mind you, of course, whatever and damn (unless tagged as a verb, or followed by an adjective; in the latter case it is an emphatic, cf. EMPH).</td><td>Words</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr><tr><td>Discourse organisation</td><td>Filled pauses and interjections</td><td>FPUH</td><td>Oh noooooo, Tiger's furious! Wow! Hey Tom! Er I don't know. Hmm.</td><td>Assigned to all occurrences of ah+, aw+, oh+, eh+, er+, erm+, mm+, ow+, um+, huh+, uhu+, uhuh, mhm+, hm+ (but not HM), oo+ps woo+ps, hi, hey, and interjections identified by the Stanford Tagger and not assigned to another category. The plus sign (+) signifies that the preceding letter can appear multiple times, i.e., ahh and errrr are also assigned this tag.</td><td>Words</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr><tr><td>Discourse organisation</td><td>Like</td><td>LIKE</td><td>Sounds like me. And just like his father. And he was like this isn't true. I wasn't gonna like do it.</td><td>Occurrences of like tagged as a preposition (IN) or adjective (JJ) by the Stanford Tagger are assigned this tag because, in spoken English, like typically fulfils a range of different functions, e.g., fillers and softeners, and attempts to disambiguate like as a preposition or conjunct proved too error-prone. This category excludes occurrences of like identified as the quotative BE + like (QLIKE) if the QLIKE feature is included (which, by default, it is not, cf. tagger evaluation).</td><td>Words</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr><tr><td>Discourse organisation</td><td>So</td><td>SO</td><td>She had spent so many summers there. So there you go.</td><td>Occurrences of so tagged as IN by the Stanford Tagger and not previously identified as either an emphatic (so + J.*/much/many/little; EMPH) or an adverbial subordinator (so that + NN.*/J.*/; OSUB) are assigned this tag.</td><td>Words</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr><tr><td>Discourse organisation</td><td>Direct WH-questions</td><td>WHQU</td><td>What's happening? Why don't we call the game off? How? And who is Dinah, if I might venture to ask the question?</td><td>Assigned to what, where, when, how, why, who, whom, whose and which followed by a question mark within 15 tokens.</td><td>Finite verbs</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Discourse organisation</td><td>Question tags</td><td>QUTAG<br/>Do they? Were you? It's just it's repetitive, isn't it?</td><td>Assigned to question marks preceded by (1) <b>innit</b>, <b>init</b>; (2) a modal verb (MD) or <b>did</b> or <b>had</b>, and a personal pronoun (P.+); (3) a modal verb or <b>did</b> or <b>had</b>, a negation (XX0), and a personal pronoun; (4) <b>is</b>, <b>does</b>, <b>was</b> or <b>has</b>, followed by <b>it</b>, <b>she</b> or <b>he</b>; (5) <b>is</b>, <b>does</b>, <b>was</b> or <b>has</b>, followed by a negation, and <b>it</b>, <b>she</b> or <b>he</b>; (6) <b>do</b>, <b>were</b>, <b>are</b> or <b>have</b>, followed by <b>you</b>, <b>we</b> or <b>they</b>; (7) <b>do</b>, <b>were</b>, <b>are</b> or <b>have</b>, followed by a negation, and <b>you</b>, <b>we</b> or <b>they</b>. In addition, the above patterns are not considered question tags if a question word occurs within six words to the left of the question mark; consequently, <b>Why did you do it?</b> is not assigned this tag but rather WHQU.</td><td>Finite verbs</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr><tr><td>Discourse organisation</td><td>Yes/no questions</td><td>YNQU<br/>Have you thought about giving up? May I take a seat? Do you mind?</td><td>Assigned to any form of the verbs BE, HAVE, DO or a modal verb (MD) followed by a personal pronoun (P.+), a noun (NN.*), a negation (XX0) or determiner (DT) and then a question mark within three to 15 tokens, as long as no WH-question (WHQU) or yes/no question tag (YNQU) is present one or two tokens before the auxiliary verb. Note that this variable should not overlap with question tags (QUTAG).</td><td>Finite verbs</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr><tr><td>Discourse organisation</td><td>that relative clauses</td><td>THRC<br/>You must be very clever to find a use for something that costs nothing. I'll just run a cable that goes from here to there.</td><td>Assigned to that identified as introducing a relative clause by the Stanford Tagger (WDT), unless it is immediately followed by a punctuation mark. Any remaining that_WDT tokens are typically mistagged demonstratives and are thus assigned to the DEMO category, e.g., <b>I don't think that's a problem that is.</b></td><td>Finite verbs</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr><tr><td>Discourse organisation</td><td>that subordinate clauses (other than relatives)</td><td>THSC<br/>Did you know that the calendar we use today was started by Julius Caesar? She represented being told constantly that she was ignorant and stupid.</td><td>Assigned to that tokens which have been tagged as IN by the Stanford Tagger and are not immediately followed by a punctuation mark. Remaining that_IN tokens are assigned to the demonstrative category (DEMO): these are end-of-sentences/utterances tokens which are typically misidentified by the Stanford Tagger, e.g., <b>Who was that?</b></td><td>Finite verbs</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr><tr><td>Discourse organisation</td><td>Subordinator that omission</td><td>THATD<br/>I mean [THATD] you'll do everything. I thought [THATD] he just meant our side. You don't think [THATD] he's a drug dealer? I know [THATD] that's not his thing.</td><td>The THATD tag is assigned to the following patterns: (1) a public, private or suasive verb followed by a demonstrative pronoun (DEMO) or I, we, he, she, it, they and then a verb (V.* or MD); (2) a public, private or suasive verb followed by I, we, he, she, it, they or a noun (N.*), and then by a verb (V.* or MD); (3) a public, private or suasive verb followed by an adjective (J.*), an adverb (RB), a determiner (DT, QUAN, CD) or a possessive pronoun (PRPS), and then a noun (N.*), and then a verb (V.* or MD), with the possibility of an intervening adjective (J.*) between the noun and its preceding word. This tag corresponds to Biber's (1988: 244) category but its operationalisation has been improved to avoid the algorithm erroneously tagging constructions such as <b>Why would I know that?</b> and <b>He didn't hear me thank God.</b></td><td>Finite verbs</td><td>Le Foll, adapted from Biber (1988)</td></tr><tr><td>Discourse organisation</td><td>WH subordinate clauses</td><td>WHSC<br/>I'm thinking of someone who is not here today. Do you know whether the banks are open?</td><td>Assigned when the words <b>what</b>, <b>where</b>, <b>when</b>, <b>how</b>, <b>whether</b>, <b>why</b>, <b>whoever</b>, <b>whomever</b>, <b>whichever</b>, <b>wherever</b> and <b>whenever</b> have not been previously identified as part of a WH question (WHQU). Though many attempts were made, it proved impossible to reliably disambiguate between relative and other subordinate WH-clauses, which is why they are pooled together in this category.</td><td>Finite verbs</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Lexis</td><td>Total nouns (including proper nouns)</td><td>NN</td><td>a cut, my coat, the findings, cruelty, comprehension, on Monday 6 Aug, the U.S., on the High Street</td><td>Assigned to all singular (NN) and plural nouns (NNS) identified by the Stanford Tagger including proper nouns (NNP and NNPS). This variable differs from the Biber Tagger in that it includes nominalisations.</td><td>Words</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr><tr><td>Lexis</td><td>Noun compounds</td><td>NCOMP</td><td>Surely this stone must be the last one to cover the dungeon entrance! Experts say that the rare winter phenomenon is a natural occurrence.</td><td>Assigned when two or more nouns follow each other without any intervening punctuation. The algorithm allows for the first noun to be a proper noun but not the second thus allowing for Monday afternoon and Hollywood stars but not Barack Obama and Los Angeles. It is also restricted to nouns with a minimum of two letters to avoid OCR errors (dots and images identified as individual letters and which are usually tagged as nouns by the Stanford Tagger) producing too many erroneous NCOMPs. Note that this feature works best with fully punctuated texts (see per-register recall and precision rates in the tagger documentation).</td><td>Nouns</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr><tr><td>Lexis</td><td>Emoji and emoticons</td><td>EMO</td><td>:-) :DD XD &lt;3 :/</td><td>Assigned to all emojis as of December 2018 (cf. https://unicode.org/emoji/charts/full-emoji-list.html) and to a range of emoticons, in particular three-character emoticons such as :-). The source code also includes three lines which are by default commented out but can be uncommented for texts where short emoticons are expected. It is not recommended to use these lines for general English because they lead to a sharp decrease in precision: many of the shorter emoticons, e.g., :D :3, are too easy to confuse with poorly scanned texts that are missing spaces, or with the punctuation styles of specific academic journals.</td><td>Words</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr><tr><td>Lexis</td><td>Hashtags</td><td>HST</td><td>#phdlife #Buy1Get1Free</td><td>Assigned to any string starting with a hashtag followed by at least three letters, digits or underscores.</td><td>Words</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr><tr><td>Lexis</td><td>URL and e-mail addresses</td><td>URL</td><td>www.faz.net<br>https://twitter.com<br>elefoll@uos.de</td><td>Assigned to all strings resembling a URL or an e-mail address (without claiming to only include valid URLs or e-mail addresses since this is not the aim). Regex for this feature was inspired by: https://mathiasbynens.be/demo/url-regex</td><td>Words</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr><tr><td>Negation</td><td>Negation</td><td>XX0</td><td>Why do n't you believe me?<br>There is no way that's happening any time soon.<br>Nor am I.</td><td>Biber's (1988) analytic and synthetic negation features were merged into one negation variable since the latter is too infrequent to be of use in the context of this study. This unique negation tag is assigned to the tokens not RB, n't RB, all occurrences of the words nor and neither, and no when followed by an adjective (J.*) or noun (NN.*).</td><td>Finite verbs</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr><tr><td>Prepositions</td><td>Prepositions</td><td>IN</td><td>The Great Wall of China is the longest wall in the world.<br>There are towers along the wall. I prefer to go to an art gallery. The objects on display are from all over the world.</td><td>All items tagged as IN by the Stanford Tagger other than those assigned to CAUS, CONC, COND, OSUB, SO and LIKE.</td><td>Words</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Pronouns</td><td>Reference to the speaker/writer</td><td>FPP1S</td><td>I don't know. It isn't my problem.</td><td>All occurrences of me, myself and mine and I if tagged by the Stanford Tagger as a pronoun, a list symbol (LS) or a foreign word (FW).</td><td>Finite verbs</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr><tr><td>Pronouns</td><td>Reference to the speaker/writer and other(s)</td><td>FPP1P</td><td>We were told to deal with it ourselves.</td><td>All occurrences of us, we, our, ourselves and ours, as well as the contracted form of us (e.g., in let's). All these terms are case insensitive but an exception for US was added as this usually refers to the United States of America.</td><td>Finite verbs</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr><tr><td>Pronouns</td><td>Reference to the addressee</td><td>SPP2</td><td>If your model was good enough, you'd be able to work it out.</td><td>Following Biber (1988), all occurrences of you, your, yourself, yourselves. Following Nini (2014: 18), also includes thy, thee and thyself. In addition, the forms ur, ye, y'all, ya, thine and the nominal possessive pronoun yours were also added.</td><td>Finite verbs</td><td>Le Foll, adapted from Nini (2014)</td></tr><tr><td>Pronouns</td><td>it pronoun reference</td><td>PIT</td><td>It fell and broke. I implemented it. Its impact has not yet been researched.</td><td>All occurrences of the pronoun it. An exception was added for the all capital form IT which most frequently refers to Information Technology. Following Nini (2014: 18), also includes all occurrences of itself and its.</td><td>Finite verbs</td><td>Le Foll, adapted from Nini (2014)</td></tr><tr><td>Pronouns</td><td>One as a personal pronoun</td><td>PRP</td><td>One would hardly suppose that your eye was as steady as ever.</td><td>This tag consists of the remaining personal pronouns not yet tagged as either first (FPP1S and FPP1P), second (SPP2) or third (TPP3) person pronouns. In practice, this should only leave one.</td><td>Finite verbs</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr><tr><td>Pronouns</td><td>Reference to one non-interactant</td><td>TPP3S</td><td>He is beginning to form his own opinions. She does tend to keep to herself.</td><td>Following Biber (1988), all occurrences of she, he, her, him, his, himself, herself and themself. Note that the singular they form can only be accounted for with the possessive pronoun: themself.</td><td>Finite verbs</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr><tr><td>Pronouns</td><td>Reference to more than one non-interactant</td><td>TPP3P</td><td>The text allows readers to grapple with their own conclusions. I wouldn't trust them.</td><td>All occurrences of they, them, themselves, theirs and em when tagged by the Stanford Tagger as a pronoun.</td><td>Finite verbs</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr><tr><td>Pronouns</td><td>Quantifying pronouns</td><td>QUPR</td><td>said Alice aloud, addressing nobody in particular.</td><td>All occurrences of anybody, anyone, anything, each other, everybody, everyone, everything, nobody, none, no one, nothing, somebody, someone and something.</td><td>Finite verbs</td><td>Nini (2014)</td></tr><tr><td>Stance-taking devices</td><td>Politeness markers</td><td>POLITE</td><td>Can you open the window, please? Would you mind giving me a hand? I was wondering whether you could help.</td><td>Assigned to all occurrences of thanks, thank you, cheers, ta (unless it is preceded by got to avoid the confusion with gotta), please, sorry, apology, apologies, all forms of the verbs excuse, I/we wonder, I/we + BE + wondering, and the multi-word units you mind and don't mind. No exception was made for please as a verb because the Stanford Tagger frequently misidentifies please as a verb, e.g., I was like please_VPRT just please_VB just get there.</td><td>Words</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Stance-taking devices</td><td>Amplifiers</td><td>AMP</td><td>I am <b>very</b> tired. They were both <b>thoroughly</b> frightened.</td><td>Assigned to the amplifiers from Biber's (1988) list: <b>absolutely</b>, <b>altogether</b>, <b>completely</b>, <b>enormously</b>, <b>entirely</b>, <b>extremely</b>, <b>fully</b>, <b>greatly</b>, <b>highly</b>, <b>intensely</b>, <b>perfectly</b>, <b>strongly</b>, <b>thoroughly</b>, <b>totally</b>, <b>utterly</b>, <b>very</b>. Especially was added.</td><td>Words</td><td>Le Foll, adapted from Biber (1988)</td></tr><tr><td>Stance-taking devices</td><td>Downtoners</td><td>DWNT</td><td>These tickets were <b>only</b> 45 pounds. It's <b>almost</b> time to go.</td><td>Assigned to all occurrences of <b>almost</b>, <b>barely</b>, <b>hardly</b>, <b>merely</b>, <b>mildly</b>, <b>nearly</b>, <b>only</b>, <b>partially</b>, <b>partly</b>, <b>practically</b>, <b>scarcely</b>, <b>slightly</b>, <b>somewhat</b>. In Biber (1988) <b>almost</b> is listed as both a hedge and a downtoner. Following Nini (2014), it is only considered a downtoner here.</td><td>Words</td><td>Nini (2014)</td></tr><tr><td>Stance-taking devices</td><td>Emphatics</td><td>EMPH</td><td>I <b>do</b> wish I hadn't drunk quite <b>so</b> much. Oh <b>really</b> ? I <b>just</b> can't get my head around it.</td><td>Following Biber (1988), assigned to all occurrences of <b>just</b>, <b>really</b>, <b>most</b>, <b>more</b>, <b>real</b> + ADJ, <b>so</b> + ADJ, <b>for</b> sure, <b>such a</b>. The algorithm was improved by adding <b>so</b> + <b>much/little/many</b>, <b>such a</b>/an (whilst excluding <b>such a</b>/an if proceeded by <b>of</b>), and ensuring that only <b>DO</b> + verb in base form (VB) are tagged. <b>Least</b> and <b>far</b> + J.*/RB were added (the latter only when not proceeded by <b>so</b> or <b>thus</b>). To account for recent language change (Aijmer 2018), <b>bloody</b>, <b>dead</b> + ADJ, <b>fucking</b> and <b>super</b> were also added. Multi-word units are counted as one EMPH tag but several Words.</td><td>Words</td><td>Le Foll, adapted from Biber (1988)</td></tr><tr><td>Stance-taking devices</td><td>Hedges</td><td>HDG</td><td>There seemed to be no <b>sort</b> of chance of getting out. I wish that <b>kind</b> of thing never happened. She's <b>maybe</b> gonna do it.</td><td>Following Biber (1988: 240) assigned to all occurrences of <b>maybe</b>, <b>at about</b>, <b>something like</b>, and <b>more or less</b>, as well as <b>sort of</b> and <b>kind of</b> as long as they are not preceded by a determiner (DT), quantifier (QUAN), cardinal number (CD), adjective (J. *), possessive pronoun (PRPS) or WH word. The condition that <b>kind</b> must have been tagged as a noun (NN) by the Stanford Tagger was added to exclude phrases such as <b>it's very kind of you</b>. <b>Kinda</b> and <b>sorta</b> was added as colloquial alternatives to <b>kind of</b> and <b>sort of</b> and the adverbs <b>apparently</b>, <b>conceivably</b>, <b>perhaps</b>, <b>possibly</b>, <b>presumably</b>, <b>probably</b>, <b>roughly</b> and <b>somewhat</b> were also added to the list.</td><td>Words</td><td>Le Foll, adapted from Biber (1988)</td></tr><tr><td>Stative forms</td><td>Existential there</td><td>EX</td><td><b>There</b> are students. And <b>there</b> is now a scholarship scheme.</td><td>As tagged by the Stanford Tagger: "Existential <b>there</b> is the unstressed <b>there</b> that triggers inversion of the inflected verb and the logical subject of a sentence" (p. 3).</td><td>Finite verbs</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr><tr><td>Stative forms</td><td>Be as main verb</td><td>BEMA</td><td>It was nice to just <b>be</b> at home. She's irreplaceable. It's best I think. How <b>was</b> your mum on Sunday? It's not long.</td><td>Following Biber (1988), this tag is assigned to the all forms of the verb <b>be</b> when followed by a determiner (DT), a possessive pronoun (PRPS) a preposition (IN), or an adjective (JJ). In addition, Nini (2014: 20) improved the Biber Tagger "by taking into account that adverbs or negations can appear between the verb BE and the rest of the pattern. Furthermore, the algorithm was slightly modified and improved: (a) the problem of a double-coding of any Existential there followed by a form of BE as a BEMA was solved by imposing the condition that there should not appear immediately before or two before the pattern; (b) the cardinal numbers (CD) tag and the personal pronoun (PRP) tag were added to the list of items that can follow the form of BE." This latter improvement by Nini, however, resulted in tag questions also being assigned to BEMA. The present algorithm therefore further excludes any occurrences of BE found one or two to the left of a question tag (QUTAG), as well as BE occurrences one or two to the left of a present participle form tagged as PROG or past participle form tagged as PASS.</td><td>Finite verbs</td><td>Le Foll, adapted from Nini (2014)</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Syntax</td><td>Split auxiliaries and infinitives</td><td>SPLIT</td><td>I would actually <strong>drive</strong>. You can just so <strong>tell</strong>. I can't ever <strong>imagine</strong> arguing with Jill.</td><td>This category merges Biber's (1988) split auxiliaries and split infinitive categories and follows Nini's (2014: 30) operationalisations. Hence, this tag is assigned every time the infinitive marker to (TO) is followed by one or two adverbs and a verb base form, and every time an auxiliary (any modal verb MD, or any form of DOAUX, or any form of BE, or any form of HAVE) is followed by one or two adverbs and a verb form. Nini's algorithm was improved to ensure that negated split auxiliaries would also be identified, e.g., They have not yet developed cancer.</td><td>Finite verbs</td><td>Le Foll, adapted from Nini (2014)</td></tr><tr><td>Syntax</td><td>Stranded prepositions</td><td>STPR</td><td>We've got more than can be accounted <strong>for</strong>. Open the door and let them <strong>in</strong>. Where is it <strong>from</strong>? It's not the sort of music we're <strong>into</strong>.</td><td>As in Biber (1988), assigned to the prepositions <strong>against</strong>, <strong>amid</strong>, <strong>amidst</strong>, <strong>among</strong>, <strong>amongst</strong>, <strong>at</strong>, <strong>between</strong>, <strong>by</strong>, <strong>despite</strong>, <strong>during</strong>, <strong>except</strong>, <strong>for</strong>, <strong>from</strong>, <strong>in</strong>, <strong>into</strong>, <strong>minus</strong>, <strong>of</strong>, <strong>off</strong>, <strong>on</strong>, <strong>onto</strong>, <strong>opposite</strong>, <strong>out</strong>, <strong>per</strong>, <strong>plus</strong>, <strong>pro</strong>, <strong>than</strong>, <strong>through</strong>, <strong>throughout</strong>, <strong>thru</strong>, <strong>toward</strong>, <strong>towards</strong>, <strong>upon</strong>, <strong>versus</strong>, <strong>via</strong>, <strong>with</strong>, <strong>within</strong> and <strong>without</strong> followed by any punctuation mark. Following Nini (2014: 30), <strong>besides</strong> was removed from Biber's original list since it also frequently serves as a conjunct and, in this function, is usually followed by a punctuation mark. Note that Nini's (2014:30) operationalisation tagged all occurrences of these word forms as prepositions regardless of how they were tagged by the Stanford Tagger. Here, it was decided to improve accuracy by restricting the query to tokens tagged as IN by the Stanford Tagger (thus excluding many RB and RP tokens, e.g., <em>Don't take it <u>away</u>! Tie her <u>up</u>! He roared <u>out</u>: "Come <u>away</u>!"</em>).</td><td>Finite verbs</td><td>Le Foll, adapted from Nini (2014)</td></tr><tr><td>Verb features</td><td>Verbal contractions</td><td>CONT</td><td>I do <strong>n't</strong> know. It is <strong>n't</strong> <strong>my</strong> problem. You <strong>'ll</strong> have to deal with it.</td><td>Following (Nini 2014: 29), all occurrences of an apostrophe followed by a word identified as a verb (V.*, MD) by the Stanford Tagger and all occurrences of the token <strong>n't_XX0</strong>.</td><td>Finite verbs</td><td>Nini (2014)</td></tr><tr><td>Verb features</td><td>Particles</td><td>RP</td><td>I'll look it <strong>up</strong>. It's coming <strong>down</strong>. When will you come <strong>over</strong>? Some of the birds hurried <strong>off</strong> at once.</td><td>As tagged by the Stanford Tagger (RP) (Santorini 1990: 9-10).</td><td>Finite verbs</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr><tr><td>Verb features</td><td>BE-passives</td><td>PASS</td><td>He must have been <strong>burgled</strong>. They need to be <strong>informed</strong>. He was <strong>found</strong> out. When were they <strong>arrested</strong>?</td><td>Assigned to past participles (here: VBN or VBD) preceded by the following patterns: 1) any form of the verb BE; 2) BE followed by one or two adverb(s) (RB) and/or a negation (XX0); 3) BE followed by a noun (NN.*) or personal pronoun (PRP); 4) BE followed by a noun (NN.*) or personal pronoun, and an adverb (RB) or negation (XX0). Unlike Biber (1988), no subdivision is made for by-passives and agentless passives. This choice is a) theoretically motivated because passives are too infrequent to be robustly measured at this level of granularity in most texts and b) for practical reasons because the algorithm proposed to identify by-passives resulted in too many false positives (e.g., looking for things that have been made by hand).</td><td>Finite verbs</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr><tr><td>Verb features</td><td>GET-passives</td><td>PGET</td><td>He's gonna get <strong>sacked</strong>. She'll get me <strong>executed</strong>. It gets <strong>done</strong> all the time.</td><td>Assigned to past participles (here: VBN or VBD) preceded by the following patterns: 1) any form of the verb GET; 2) GET followed by a noun (NN.*) or personal pronoun (PRP); 3) GET followed by a determiner (DT) or a noun (NN.*) plus a noun (NN.*).</td><td>Finite verbs</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Verb features</td><td>Going to<br>constructions</td><td>GTO</td><td>I'm not gonna go. You're going to absolutely love it there! Gonna come along?</td><td>Assigned to all occurrences of going to and gonna followed by a base form verb (VB), allowing for up to one intervening word between going to or gonna and the infinitive. GTO constructions are excluded from the progressive (PROG) count.</td><td>Finite<br>verbs</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr><tr><td>Verb features</td><td>Past tense</td><td>VBD</td><td>It fell and broke. I implemented it. If I were rich.</td><td>As tagged by the Stanford Tagger, except where VBD tags are assumed to have been misassigned by the Stanford Tagger and are instead attributed to the perfect aspect (PEAS), passives (PASS, PGET) or USEDTO categories.</td><td>Finite<br>verbs</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr><tr><td>Verb features</td><td>Non-finite<br>verb -ing<br>forms</td><td>VBG</td><td>He texted me saying no. He just started laughing. I remember thinking about that.</td><td>All verb forms ending in -ing as tagged by the Stanford Tagger, except those identified as progressives (PROG) or going to constructions (GTO). This category also includes "putative prepositions" ending in -ing such as according to and concerning your request (Santorini 1990: 11).</td><td>Finite<br>verbs</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr><tr><td>Verb features</td><td>Non-finite -<br>ed verb<br>forms</td><td>VBN</td><td>These include cancers caused by viruses. Our content is grouped into sections called topics. Have you read any of the books mentioned in the blog?</td><td>As tagged by the Stanford Tagger except for the exclusion of tokens identified as instances of the perfect aspect (PEAS), passives (PASS, PGET) and used to constructions (USEDTO). Note that according to the Stanford Tagger rules, this category includes "putative prepositions" ending in -ed such as granted that and provided that (Santorini 1990: 11).</td><td>Finite<br>verbs</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr><tr><td>Verb features</td><td>Imperatives</td><td>VIMP</td><td>Let me know! Read the website and write the names of the characters. In groups, share your opinion. Always do as you're told!</td><td>This tag is first assigned to any verb in base form (VB) occurring 1) immediately after a punctuation mark except a comma (e.g., Okay: do it!), an emoji or emoticon (EMO), a symbol (SYM), hashtag (HST), foreign word (FW) or a list marker (LS), or 2) after a punctuation mark and an adverb (e.g., 1A. Then practice the dialogue), unless the VB token is please or thank or has previously been identified as a DO auxiliary (DOAUX). In a second loop, the VIMP tag is assigned to VB verb tokens (except thank or please) when preceded by an imperative as identified above, with up to two optional intervening tokens, and the tokens and or (e.g., Describe or draw, Listen carefully and repeat, Read the text and answer the questions). In addition, a number of verbs frequently found in instructions are listed as exceptions (e.g., Complete, Choose, Check) and are always assigned to this category when they are found at the beginning of a sentence regardless of their tag because these were found to be frequently erronously identified by the Stanford Tagger as nouns (NN).</td><td>Finite<br>verbs</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr><tr><td>Verb features</td><td>Present tense</td><td>VPRT</td><td>It's ours. Who does n't love it? I know.</td><td>Subsumes the VBP (present tense other than third-person singular) and VBZ (third-person singular present tense) tags assigned by the Stanford Tagger. The MFTE also corrects systematic errors in the Stanford Tagger output by adding VPRT tags in strings such as I dunno and there's.</td><td>Finite<br>verbs</td><td>Le Foll,<br>adapted<br>from Nini<br>(2014)</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Verb features</td><td>Perfect aspect</td><td>PEAS<br>Have you <b>been</b> on a student exchange? She'd already seen it. He has been <b>told</b> before. Is this the last novel you've <b>read</b>?</td><td>Assigned to past participles (VBN, VBD) preceded by the following patterns: 1) any form of the verb HAVE; 2) HAVE followed by one or two adverb(s) (RB) and/or a negation (XX0); 3) HAVE followed by a noun (NN.*) or personal pronoun (PRP); 4) HAVE followed by a noun (NN.*) or personal pronoun, and an adverb (RB) or negation (XX0); 5) HAVE followed by a participle tagged as a passive (PASS); 6) HAVE followed by one or two adverb(s) (RB) and/or a negation (XX0), and a passive participle (PASS); 7) HAVE followed by a noun (NN.*) or personal pronoun (PRP), and a passive participle (PASS); 8) 's as a verb (VBZ) followed by been, had, done or a stative verb; 9) 's as a verb (VBZ) followed by an adverb (RB) or negation (XX0), and been, had, done or a stative verb (as listed under JJPR).</td><td>Finite verbs</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr><tr><td>Verb features</td><td>Progressive aspect</td><td>PROG<br>He wasn't <b>paying</b> attention. I'm <b>going</b> to the market. I'm <b>guessing</b> you're not going to be alone. I must be <b>getting</b> home.</td><td>Assigned to any form of BE followed by an -ing form of any verb (VBG). The algorithm allows for an intervening adverb (RB), emphatic (EMPH) and/or negation (XX0). The interrogative form is captured as BE followed by a noun (N.*) or personal pronoun (PRP) followed by the VBG token. As for the affirmative version, the latter algorithm also accounts for an intervening adverb (RB) and/or negation (XX0). Going to constructions are excluded from this category and are tagged separately (GTO).</td><td>Finite verbs</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr><tr><td>Verb features</td><td>HAVE got constructions</td><td>HGOT<br>He's <b>got</b> some. I haven't <b>got</b> any.</td><td>Assigned to the word <b>got</b> preceded by the following patterns: 1) any form of the verb HAVE; 2) HAVE followed by one or two adverb(s) (RB) and/or a negation (XX0); 3) HAVE followed by a noun (NN, NNP) or personal pronoun (PRP); 4) HAVE followed by a noun (NNP, NNP) or personal pronoun, and an adverb (RB) or negation (XX0). Note that this algorithm overwrites the perfect aspect (PEAS) and passive (PASS) tag.</td><td>Finite verbs</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr><tr><td>Verb semantics</td><td>DO auxiliary</td><td>DOAU<br>X<br>Should take longer than it <b>does</b>. Ah you <b>did</b>. She needed that house, <b>did</b> n't she? You <b>don't</b> really pay much attention, <b>do</b> you? Who <b>did</b> not already love him.</td><td>Assigned to do, does and did as verbs in the following patterns: (a) when the next but one token is a base form verb (VB) (e.g., <b>did it work</b>?, <b>didn't hurt</b>?); (b) when the next but two token (+3) is a base form verb (VB) (e.g., <b>didn't it work</b>); (c) when it is immediately followed by an end-of-sentence punctuation mark (e.g., <b>you did</b>?); (d) when it is followed by a personal pronoun (PRP) or <b>not</b> or <b>n't</b> (XX0) and an end-of-sentence punctuation mark (e.g., <b>do you</b>? He <b>didn't</b>!); (e) when it is followed by <b>not</b> or <b>n't</b> (XX0) and a personal pronoun (PRP) (e.g., <b>didn't you</b>?); (f) when it is followed by a personal pronoun followed by any token and then a question mark (e.g., <b>did you really</b>? <b>did you not</b>?); (g) when it is preceded by a WH question word. Additionally, all instances of DO immediately preceded by <b>to</b> as an infinitive marker (TO) are excluded from this tag.</td><td>Finite verbs</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr><tr><td>Verb semantics</td><td>Activity verbs</td><td>ACT<br>I got up and <b>ran</b> out. <b>Bring</b> your CV. Where have you <b>worked</b> before? I <b>go</b> to school.</td><td>Assigned to all forms of the verbs: <b>buy</b>, <b>make</b>, <b>give</b>, <b>take</b>, <b>come</b>, <b>use</b>, <b>leave</b>, <b>show</b>, <b>try</b>, <b>work</b>, <b>move</b>, <b>follow</b>, <b>put</b>, <b>pay</b>, <b>bring</b>, <b>meet</b>, <b>play</b>, <b>run</b>, <b>hold</b>, <b>turn</b>, <b>send</b>, <b>sit</b>, <b>wait</b>, <b>walk</b>, <b>carry</b>, <b>lose</b>, <b>eat</b>, <b>watch</b>, <b>reach</b>, <b>add</b>, <b>produce</b>, <b>provide</b>, <b>pick</b>, <b>wear</b>, <b>open</b>, <b>win</b>, <b>catch</b>, <b>pass</b>, <b>shake</b>, <b>smile</b>, <b>stare</b>, <b>sell</b>, <b>spend</b>, <b>apply</b>, <b>form</b>, <b>obtain</b>, <b>arrange</b>, <b>beat</b>, <b>check</b>, <b>cover</b>, <b>divide</b>, <b>earn</b>, <b>extend</b>, <b>fix</b>, <b>hang</b>, <b>join</b>, <b>lie</b>, <b>obtain</b>, <b>pull</b>, <b>repeat</b>, <b>receive</b>, <b>save</b>, <b>share</b>, <b>smile</b>, <b>throw</b>, <b>visit</b>, <b>accompany</b>, <b>acquire</b>, <b>advance</b>, <b>behave</b>, <b>borrow</b>, <b>burn</b>, <b>clean</b>, <b>climb</b>, <b>combine</b>, <b>control</b>, <b>defend</b>, <b>deliver</b>, <b>dig</b>, <b>encounter</b>, <b>engage</b>, <b>exercise</b>, <b>expand</b>, <b>explore</b> and <b>reduce</b> (cf. Biber 2006: 246, based on the LGSWE, pp. 361–362, 367–368, 370). <b>Do</b> is only included when it has not previously been tagged as an auxiliary (DOAUX). <b>Get</b> and <b>go</b> were removed from Biber’s (2006) list due to their high polysemy. Like Biber (2006), for practical reasons, no phrasal verbs were included in this variable.</td><td>Finite verbs</td><td>Le Foll, based on Biber (2006)</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Verb semantics</td><td>Aspectual verbs</td><td>ASPECT</td><td>You should just <b>keep</b> talking. I <b>started</b> early today.</td><td>Following Biber (2006: 247, based on the LGSWE, pp. 364, 369, 371), assigned to all forms of the verbs: <b>start</b>, <b>keep</b>, <b>stop</b>, <b>begin</b>, <b>complete</b>, <b>end</b>, <b>finish</b>, <b>cease</b> and <b>continue</b>.</td><td>Finite verbs</td><td>Biber 2006</td></tr><tr><td>Verb semantics</td><td>Facilitation and causative verbs</td><td>CAUSE</td><td>He <b>helped</b> her escape. I pleaded with her to <b>let</b> me go.</td><td>Following Biber (2006: 247, based on the LGSWE, pp. 363, 369, 370), assigned to all forms of the verbs: <b>help</b>, <b>let</b>, <b>allow</b>, <b>affect</b>, <b>cause</b>, <b>enable</b>, <b>ensure</b>, <b>force</b>, <b>prevent</b>, <b>assist</b>, <b>guarantee</b>, <b>influence</b>, <b>permit</b> and <b>require</b>.</td><td>Finite verbs</td><td>Biber 2006</td></tr><tr><td>Verb semantics</td><td>Communication verbs</td><td>COMM</td><td><b>Describe</b> it to your partner and say why. <b>Write</b> a list. <b>Say</b> what these words mean.</td><td>Following Biber (2006: 247, based on the LGSWE, pp. 362, 368, 370), assigned to all forms of the verbs: <b>say</b>, <b>tell</b>, <b>call</b>, <b>ask</b>, <b>write</b>, <b>talk</b>, <b>speak</b>, <b>thank</b>, <b>describe</b>, <b>claim</b>, <b>offer</b>, <b>admit</b>, <b>announce</b>, <b>answer</b>, <b>argue</b>, <b>deny</b>, <b>discuss</b>, <b>encourage</b>, <b>explain</b>, <b>express</b>, <b>insist</b>, <b>mention</b>, <b>offer</b>, <b>propose</b>, <b>quote</b>, <b>reply</b>, <b>shout</b>, <b>sign</b>, <b>sing</b>, <b>state</b>, <b>teach</b>, <b>warn</b>, <b>accuse</b>, <b>acknowledge</b>, <b>address</b>, <b>advise</b>, <b>appeal</b>, <b>assure</b>, <b>challenge</b>, <b>complain</b>, <b>consult</b>, <b>convince</b>, <b>declare</b>, <b>demand</b>, <b>emphasize</b>, <b>excuse</b>, <b>inform</b>, <b>invite</b>, <b>persuade</b>, <b>phone</b>, <b>pray</b>, <b>promise</b>, <b>question</b>, <b>recommend</b>, <b>remark</b>, <b>respond</b>, <b>specify</b>, <b>swear</b>, <b>threaten</b>, <b>urge</b>, <b>welcome</b>, <b>whisper</b> and <b>suggest</b>. British spellings and the verbs <b>agree</b>, <b>assert</b>, <b>beg</b>, <b>confide</b>, <b>command</b>, <b>disagree</b>, <b>object</b>, <b>pledge</b>, <b>pronounce</b>, <b>plead</b>, <b>report</b>, <b>testify</b>, <b>vow</b> and <b>mean</b> were added. The latter was on Biber's (2006) list for mental verbs but, in most contexts encountered in the present study, it was found to be more likely to be a communication verb.</td><td>Finite verbs</td><td>Le Foll, based on Biber (2006)</td></tr><tr><td>Verb semantics</td><td>Existential or relationship verbs</td><td>EXIST</td><td>Weren't they <b>representing</b> Jamaica? It encouraged young athletes to <b>stay</b>.</td><td>Following Biber (2006: 247, based on the LGSWE, pp. 364, 369, 370-371), assigned to all forms of the verbs: <b>seem</b>, <b>stand</b>, <b>stay</b>, <b>live</b>, <b>appear</b>, <b>include</b>, <b>involve</b>, <b>contain</b>, <b>exist</b>, <b>indicate</b>, <b>concern</b>, <b>constitute</b>, <b>define</b>, <b>derive</b>, <b>illustrate</b>, <b>imply</b>, <b>lack</b>, <b>owe</b>, <b>own</b>, <b>possess</b>, <b>suit</b>, <b>vary</b>, <b>deserve</b>, <b>fit</b>, <b>matter</b>, <b>reflect</b>, <b>relate</b>, <b>remain</b>, <b>reveal</b>, <b>sound</b>, <b>tend</b> and <b>represent</b>. This variable does not include the copular <b>be</b>. <b>Look</b> was removed from Biber's original list because it frequently acts as an activity verb, too, e.g., <b>I was looking for my glasses</b>.</td><td>Finite verbs</td><td>Le Foll, based on Biber (2006)</td></tr><tr><td>Verb semantics</td><td>Mental verbs</td><td>MENTAL</td><td>We <b>want</b> to <b>see</b> you tomorrow. Did you never <b>hear</b> back? I don't <b>recognize</b> any.</td><td>Following Biber (2006: 246-247, based on the LGSWE, pp. 362-363, 368-369, 370), assigned to all forms of the verbs: <b>see</b>, <b>know</b>, <b>think</b>, <b>want</b>, <b>need</b> (unless identified as a necessity modal; cf. MDNE), <b>feel</b>, <b>like</b>, <b>hear</b>, <b>remember</b>, <b>believe</b>, <b>read</b>, <b>consider</b>, <b>suppose</b>, <b>listen</b>, <b>love</b>, <b>wonder</b>, <b>understand</b>, <b>expect</b>, <b>hope</b>, <b>assume</b>, <b>determine</b>, <b>agree</b>, <b>bear</b>, <b>care</b>, <b>choose</b>, <b>compare</b>, <b>decide</b>, <b>discover</b>, <b>doubt</b>, <b>enjoy</b>, <b>examine</b>, <b>face</b>, <b>forget</b>, <b>hate</b>, <b>identify</b>, <b>imagine</b>, <b>intend</b>, <b>learn</b>, <b>mind</b>, <b>miss</b>, <b>notice</b>, <b>plan</b>, <b>prefer</b>, <b>prove</b>, <b>realize</b>, <b>recall</b>, <b>recognize</b>, <b>regard</b>, <b>suffer</b>, <b>wish</b>, <b>worry</b>, <b>accept</b>, <b>appreciate</b>, <b>approve</b>, <b>assess</b>, <b>blame</b>, <b>bother</b>, <b>calculate</b>, <b>conclude</b>, <b>celebrate</b>, <b>confirm</b>, <b>count</b>, <b>dare</b>, <b>detect</b>, <b>dismiss</b>, <b>distinguish</b>, <b>experience</b>, <b>fear</b>, <b>forgive</b>, <b>guess</b>, <b>ignore</b>, <b>impress</b>, <b>interpret</b>, <b>judge</b>, <b>justify</b>, <b>observe</b>, <b>perceive</b>, <b>predict</b>, <b>pretend</b>, <b>reckon</b>, <b>remind</b>, <b>satisfy</b>, <b>solve</b>, <b>study</b>, <b>suspect</b> and <b>trust</b>. British spellings were added. <b>Afford</b> and <b>find</b> which can be found on Biber's original list, were removed for being too polysemous. Note that the phrase <b>dunno</b>, which is incorrectly parsed by the Stanford Tagger, was also retagged as <b>du_VPRT</b> <b>n_XX0</b> <b>no_VB</b> and that <b>no_VB</b> tokens are also assigned to this category.</td><td>Finite verbs</td><td>Le Foll, based on Biber (2006)</td></tr></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Verb semantics</th><th>Occurrence verbs</th><th>OCCUR</th><th>Couldn't have happened at a busier time! The cricket lasts all day.</th><th>Following Biber (2006: 247, based on the LGSWE pp. 364, 369, 370), assigned to all forms of the verbs: become, happen, change, die, grow, develop, arise, emerge, fall, increase, last, rise, disappear, flow, shine, sink, slip and occur.</th><th>Finite verbs</th><th>Biber 2006</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Verb semantics</td><td>Necessity modals</td><td>MDNE</td><td>I really must go. Should n't you be going now? You need not have worried. Everybody needed to be needed.</td><td>As in Biber (1988), all occurrences of ought, should and must. Contrary to Nini's operationalisation (2014: 27), only occurrences tagged as modals (MD) by the Stanford Tagger were included. In addition, need when tagged as a modal by the Stanford Tagger (mostly when followed by not or n't) or when immediately followed by to not tagged as a preposition (IN) was also added to this variable.</td><td>Finite verbs</td><td>Le Foll, adapted from Biber (1988)</td></tr><tr><td>Verb semantics</td><td>Modal can</td><td>MDCA</td><td>Can I give him a hint? You can not. I ca n't believe it!</td><td>All occurrences of can and ca tagged as modals by the Stanford Tagger (MD). Ca was included because the Stanford Tagger parses can't as ca + n't.</td><td>Finite verbs</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr><tr><td>Verb semantics</td><td>Modal could</td><td>MDCO</td><td>Do you think someone could have killed her? Well, that could be the problem. Could you do it by Friday?</td><td>All occurrences of could tagged as a modal by the Stanford Tagger (MD).</td><td>Finite verbs</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr><tr><td>Verb semantics</td><td>Modals may and might</td><td>MDM M</td><td>May I have a word with you? But it might not be enough.</td><td>All occurrences of may and might tagged as modals by the Stanford Tagger (MD).</td><td>Finite verbs</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr><tr><td>Verb semantics</td><td>will and shall modals</td><td>MDWS</td><td>It wo n't do. Yes it will. Shall we see?</td><td>The tokens will and shall and their contractions 'll, wo and sha when tagged as modals by the Stanford Tagger (MD).</td><td>Finite verbs</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr><tr><td>Verb semantics</td><td>modal would</td><td>MDWO</td><td>Would n't you like to know? If I could afford to buy it I would. I 'd like to think it works.</td><td>The tokens will and shall and their contractions 'll, wo and sha when tagged as modals by the Stanford Tagger (MD).</td><td>Finite verbs</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr><tr><td>Verb semantics</td><td>be able to</td><td>ABLE</td><td>It should be able to speak back to you. Would you be able to?</td><td>Assigned to occurrences of the bigram (un)able to, whenever (un)able has previously been identified as a predicative adjective (JJPR). These occurrences of (un)able are subsequently excluded from the JJPR count.</td><td>Finite verbs</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr><tr><th colspan="7">Tags not counted by MFTE but important to understand the operationalisation of other features</th></tr><tr><td>Lexis</td><td>Foreign words</td><td>FW</td><td>I chose turkish delight and panna cotta. Merry christmasss! Yo im gonna love it!</td><td>All remaining words tagged by the Stanford Tagger as foreign words and not identified as other variables by the MFTE. Frequently includes words spelt with non-standard spellings, missing apostrophes, and poorly OCR'ed due to unusual fonts. Note that this feature is not counted by the MFTE.</td><td>NA</td><td>Stanford Tagger</td></tr><tr><td>Lexis</td><td>Symbols</td><td>SYM</td><td>â 2 € a go. I hope so †. That's * all * they said!</td><td>All remaining non alphanumeric tokens tagged by the Stanford Tagger as symbols (SYM) or list markers (LS) and not identified as other variables by the MFTE. Also frequently includes words poorly OCR'ed due to unusual fonts or poorly encoded text. Note that this feature is not counted by the MFTE.</td><td>NA</td><td>Stanford Tagger</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><th>Verb features</th><th>to</th><th>infinitives</th><th>TO</th><th>They were trying to find a solution. We like to think it's doable. I went in there to kinda like celebrate.</th><th>Following Nini (2014: 21), all occurrences of to except when followed by another _IN token, a number (CD), determiner (DT), adjective (J.*), possessive pronoun (PRPS), WH-word (WPS, WDT, WP, WRB), pre-determiner (PDT), noun (N.*) or pronoun (PRP). Note that, unlike Nini (2014), this feature is only used to identify other linguistic features. All occurrences of to are counted as prepositions (IN) in the MFTE output tables.</th><th>NA</th><th>Nini (2014)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Verb features</td><td>Verb base form</td><td>VB</td><td>She would sit and read most afternoons. What do you use it for? Ask your parents to drive you to your friend's house.</td><td>As tagged by the Stanford Tagger, except those identified as imperatives (VIMP). This feature is not included in the tables of counts outputted by the MFTE because it overlaps with other features (e.g., all the modal verb features). However, it is used to identify many other linguistic features.</td><td>NA</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr><tr><td>Verb semantics</td><td>Private verbs</td><td>NA</td><td>I don't think this should be assumed. I suspect he can't even remember it.</td><td>As in Biber (1988, based on 1985: 1181), all forms of the verbs accept, anticipate, ascertain, assume, believe, calculate, check, conclude, conjecture, consider, decide, deduce, deem, demonstrate, determine, discern, discover, doubt, dream, ensure, establish, estimate, expect, fancy, fear, feel, find, foresee, forget, gather, guess, hear, hold, hope, imagine, imply, indicate, infer, insure, judge, known, learn, mean, note, notice, observe, perceive, presume, presuppose, pretend, prove, realize, reason, recall, reckon, recognize, reflect, remember, reveal, see, sense, show, signify, suppose, suspect, think and understand. Note that this category is only used to identify that-omissions (THATD).</td><td>NA</td><td>Biber 1988</td></tr><tr><td>Verb semantics</td><td>Public verbs</td><td>NA</td><td>She promised she'd write back.</td><td>As in Biber (1988, based on 1985: 1181), all forms of the verbs acknowledge, add, admit, affirm, agree, allege, announce, argue, assert, bet, boast, certify, claim, comment, complain, concede, confess, confide, confirm, contend, convey, declare, deny, disclose, exclaim, explain, forecast, foretell, guarantee, hint, insist, maintain, mention, object, predict, proclaim, promise, pronounce, prophesy, protest, remark, repeat, reply, report, retort, say, state, submit, suggest, swear, testify, vow, warn and write. Note that this category is only used to identify that-omissions (THATD).</td><td>NA</td><td>Le Foll, adapted from Biber (1988)</td></tr><tr><td>Verb semantics</td><td>Suasive verbs</td><td>NA</td><td>They were determined to make this work. I'd prefer to do it that way.</td><td>As in Biber (1988, based on 1985: 1182-3), all forms of the verbs agree, allow, arrange, ask, beg, command, concede, decide, decree, demand, desire, determine, enjoin, ensure, entreat, grant, insist, instruct, intend, move, ordain, order, pledge, pray, prefer, pronounce, propose, recommend, request, require, resolve, rule, stipulate, suggest, urge and vote. Note that this category is only used to identify that-omissions (THATD).</td><td>NA</td><td>Biber 1988</td></tr><tr><th colspan="8" style="text-align: center;">Features removed from the MFTE feature portfolio post-evaluation of v.2.9<br>(Note that the corresponding lines are commented out in v.3.0+ and may still be run, if wished)</th></tr><tr><td>Verb semantics</td><td>Quotative BE + like</td><td>QLIKE</td><td>I was like oh this is really good. And everyone is like let's do this.</td><td>Assigned to any form of BE followed by like tagged as a preposition (IN) by the Stanford Tagger and not followed by a noun (NN.*), adjective (J.*), determiner (DT), preposition (IN) or a full stop, comma, exclamation or question mark. This feature is deactivated by default but can be uncommented in the script.</td><td>Finite verbs</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td>Verb features</td><td>Used to constructions</td><td>USEDTO</td><td>You'll get <strong>used to</strong> it in time. It works but not like it <strong>used to</strong>.</td><td>Assigned to all occurrences of the bigram <strong>used to</strong>. These occurrences of <strong>used</strong> are excluded from the VBN/VBD counts. This feature is deactivated by default but can be uncommented in the script.</td><td>Finite verbs</td><td>Le Foll</td></tr><tr><td>Discourse organisation</td><td>Phrasal coordination</td><td>PHC</td><td><strong>read and write, positive or negative, nouns and adjectives</strong></td><td>All occurrences of <strong>and, &amp;, or</strong> and <strong>nor</strong> in the following patterns: adverb + <strong>and/or/nor</strong> + adverb, adjective + <strong>and/or/nor</strong> + adjective, verb + <strong>and/or/nor</strong> + verb, noun + <strong>and/or/nor</strong> + noun. This feature was removed post-evaluation and these occurrences of <strong>and</strong> and <strong>or</strong> are now all included in coordinating conjunctions (CC).</td><td>NA</td><td>Biber 1988</td></tr></table>
Versicherung an Eides statt über die Eigenständigkeit der
erbrachten wissenschaftlichen Leistung<fnref n="63" />

Ich versichere hiermit an Eides statt, dass ich die vorliegende Arbeit ohne unzulässige Hilfe Dritter und ohne Benutzung anderer als der angegebenen Hilfsmittel angefertigt habe. Die aus anderen Quellen direkt oder indirekt übernommenen Daten und Konzepte sind unter Angabe der Quelle gekennzeichnet.

Weitere Personen oder Organisationen waren an der inhaltlichen materiellen
Erstellung der vorliegenden Arbeit nicht beteiligt. Insbesondere habe ich hierfür
nicht die entgeltliche Hilfe von Vermittlungs- bzw. Beratungsdiensten,
Promotionsberaterinnen oder Promotionsberatern oder anderen Personen in
Anspruch genommen.

Die Arbeit wurde bisher weder im In- noch im Ausland in gleicher oder ähnlicher
Form einer anderen Prüfungsbehörde vorgelegt.

Osnabrück, am 7. März 2022

(Ort, Datum)

<figure><img src="image_100.png" /></figure>

(Unterschrift)

§ 156 StGB: Falsche Versicherung an Eides Statt

Wer vor einer zur Abnahme einer Versicherung an Eides Statt zuständigen Behörde eine solche Versicherung falsch abgibt oder unter Berufung auf eine solche Versicherung falsch aussagt, wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu drei Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe bestraft.

§ 161 StGB: Fahrlässiger Falscheid, fahrlässige falsche Versicherung an Eides Statt:

(1) Wenn eine der in den §§ 154 bis 156 bezeichneten Handlungen aus Fahrlässigkeit begangen worden ist, so tritt Freiheitsstrafe bis zu einem Jahr oder Geldstrafe ein.

(2) Straflosigkeit tritt ein, wenn der Täter die falsche Angabe rechtzeitig berichtigt. Die Vorschriften des § 158 Abs. 2 und 3 gelten entsprechend.

<footnote n="63">63 Nach § 9 Absatz 3 Satz 3, § 7 Absatz 4 Satz 2 NHG darf die Universität von den Doktorandinnen und Doktoranden eine Versicherung an Eides statt verlangen und abnehmen, wonach die Promotionsleistung von ihnen selbständig und ohne unzulässige fremde Hilfe erbracht worden ist.
Die Abgabe einer falschen eidesstattlichen Versicherung ist strafbar. Bei vorsätzlicher, also wissentlicher, Abgabe einer falschen Erklärung droht eine Freiheitsstrafe bis zu 3 Jahren oder eine Geldstrafe. Eine fahrlässige Abgabe (obwohl hätte erkannt werden müssen, dass die Erklärung nicht den Tatsachen entspricht) kann eine Freiheitsstrafe bis zu einem Jahr oder eine Geldstrafe nach sich ziehen.</footnote>