Linguistica Silesiana 34, 2013

ISSN 0208-4228

IRENEUSZ KIDA
University of Silesia

INTRODUCTION TO CORPUS LINGUISTICS

The paper aims at presenting selected notes and remarks on corpora and corpus
linguistics. It starts with a brief history of corpus linguistics. It occurs that although
corpus linguistics is a relatively young branch of linguistics, it managed to revo-
lutionise all branches of linguistics. Afterwards, the notion of corpus and different
types of corpora are discussed . In general, we can say that, on the one hand, there
are annotated and unannotated corpora, and, on the other, diachronic and synchronic
ones. In the following sections of the article the notions of corpus composition,
annotation, size and representativeness are discussed, and towards the end of the
paper a list of the advantages of corpus linguistics is presented and some further
conclusions drawn.

1. Corpus linguistics

Corpus linguistics is a relatively young branch of linguistics and Lindquist

(2009: 1) defines it as “a methodology, comprising a large number of related
methods, which can be used by scholars of many different theoretical leanings.”
However, Aarts and McMahon (2006: 44) observe that “corpus linguistics
may be viewed as a methodology, but the methodological practices adopted by
corpus linguists are not uniform.” McEnry et al. (2006: 3) note that “although
the term corpus linguistics first appeared only in the early 1980s, corpus-based
language study has a substantial history [and] the basic corpus methodology was
widespread in linguistics in the early twentieth century.” Moreover, they say that
although linguists at that time did not use computers as a means of data storage,
their methodology was essentially corpus-based in the sense that it was empirical
and based on observed data. However, as they further observe, in late 1950s the
corpus methodology was severely criticised and it became marginalised, but with
the developments in computer technology the exploitation of massive corpora
became possible, and the marriage of corpora with computer technology revived
the interest in the corpus methodology.
134 IRENEUSZ KIDA

McEnry and Wilson (2001: 24) also note that “although the methodology
went through a period of relative neglect for two decades, it was far from
abandoned. Indeed, during this time essential advances in the use of corpora
were made. Most importantly of all, the linking of the corpus to the computer
was completed during this era. Following these advances, corpus studies boomed
from 1980s onwards, as corpora, techniques and new arguments in favour of the
use of corpora became more apparent.” This boom, they say, continues currently
and corpus linguistics is becoming more and more mature methodologically, and
the range of languages that are addressed by corpus linguists is growing annually.
Lindquist (2009) notes that the first electronic collection of English texts to be
used for linguistic research, was compiled by the pioneers in corpus linguistics
Nelson Francis and Henry Kučera in the early 1960’s at Brown University, US.
This electronic collection of English texts is referred to as the Brown Corpus,
and it is regarded as the first non-diachronic computer corpus ever developed.
Soon after computers started becoming more and more powerful, which caused
that the field of corpus linguistics was developing faster and faster. It gained
a phenomenal momentum in the 2000s, and in recent years one can observe that
it is more and more popular, not only among scholars1.

2. Definition of a corpus

In the past, as Lindquist (2009) observes, the word corpus (Lat. ‘body’) was
used about the total works written by an individual author or a certain mass of
texts, as for example “The Shakespeare corpus”. These were the so-called pre-
electronic corpora. Nowadays, the term corpus is almost always associated with
electronic corpus, which is a collection of texts stored on some kind of digital
medium to be used by linguists with the purpose of retrieving linguistic items
for research or by lexicographers in making dictionaries. According to Renouf
(1987) the term ‘corpus’ refers to a collection of written or spoken texts which is
stored and processed on computer for the purposes of linguistic research. Sinclair
(1991: 171) says that “a corpus is a collection of naturally-occurring language
text, chosen to characterize a state or variety of a language. In modern com-
putational linguistics, a corpus typically contains many millions of words: this
is because it is recognized that the creativity of natural language leads to such
immense variety of expression that it is difficult to isolate the recurrent patterns
that are the clues to the lexical structure of the language.”
Sinclair (1991) distinguishes two types of corpora, namely sample corpus and
monitor corpus. The former is a finite collection of texts, often chosen with great
care and studied carefully. On establishing a sample corpus, one cannot add any-
thing to it or change in any way. As for the latter, it is a continually-growing one

1 See McEnry and Wilson (2001).

 INTRODUCTION TO CORPUS LINGUISTICS 135

and it re-uses language text which has been prepared in machine-readable form
for other purposes, like for typesetters of newspapers, magazines, books and also
word-processors; and the spoken language basically for legal and bureaucratic
reasons. McEnery and Wilson (2001: 32) also distinguish two kinds of corpora,
namely, unannotated and annotated2. Unannotated corpora are characterised by
being in their existing raw states of plain text, whereas annotated corpora are
enhanced with various types of linguistic information and they are a very useful
tool for a large scale analysis of different aspects of language. Some of the most
common types of corpus annotation are textual mark-up, part-of-speech (POS)
tagging, syntactic annotation (parsing), semantic annotation, prosodic annotation,
pragmatic annotation, discourse annotation, phonetic annotation and stylistic
annotation (Leech 2004).
Since corpus linguistics is a relatively young field of study, the method-
ologies applied in the process of text annotation vary, and one cannot speak of
any uniform and universal way of annotation of texts for electronic analyses.
However, Leech (2004) notes that more recently there has been a far-reaching
trend to standardise the representation of all phenomena of a corpus, including
annotations, by means of a standard mark-up language – usually one of the series
of related languages SGML, HTML, and XML. One of the advantages of using
these languages for encoding features in a text is that they allow the interchange
of documents, including corpora, between one user, or research site, and another.
In this sense, Leech says, SGML/HTML/XML have developed into a world-
wide standard which can be applied to any language, both spoken and written,
as well as to languages of different historical periods.
Finally, Nesselhauf (2011) distinguishes the following kinds of corpora:
general/reference corpora which aim at representing a language or a language
variety as a whole and they contain both spoken and written language (e.g.
The British National Corpus or The Bank of English), historical corpora (vs.
corpora of present-day language) which aim at representing an earlier stage or
earlier stages of a language (e.g. The Helsinki Corpus or the ACHER), regional
corpora which aim at representing one regional variety of a language (e.g. The
Wellington Corpus of Written New Zealand English), learner corpora (vs. native
speaker corpora) which aim at representing the language as produced by learners
of this language (e.g. The International Corpus of Learner English), multilingual
corpora (vs. one-language corpora) which aim at representing several, at least
two, different languages, often with the same text types to enable contrastive
analysis (e.g. The PROIEL Corpus, a parallel corpus of New Testament texts
from different languages like Greek, Latin, Gothic, Old Church Slavonic and
Classical Armenian), and spoken corpora (vs. written vs. mixed corpora) which

2 Curzan and Palmer (2006) use the terms unprincipled (or non-systematic) vs. principled corpora
to mean unannotated and annotated corpora respectively.
136 IRENEUSZ KIDA

aim at representing spoken language (e.g. The London-Lund Corpus of Spoken

English).3

3. Corpus composition

Sinclair (2005) discusses some instructions that should be followed in the

composition of a corpus and in the compilation of language samples. Below are
the ten principles that he considers as fundamental:

1. The contents of a corpus should be selected without regard for the language
they contain, but according to their communicative function in the community
in which they arise.
2. Corpus compilers should strive to make their corpus as representative as
possible of the language from which it is chosen.
3. Only those components of corpora which have been designed to be indepen-
dently contrastive should be contrasted.
4. Criteria for determining the structure of a corpus should be small in number,
clearly separate from each other, and efficient as a group in delineating
a corpus that is representative of the language or variety under examination.
5. Any information about a text other than the alphanumeric string of its words
and punctuation should be stored separately from the plain text and merged
when required in applications.
6. Samples of language for a corpus should, wherever possible, consist of entire
documents or transcriptions of complete speech events, or should get as close
to this target as possible. This means that samples will differ substantially in
size.
7. The design and composition of a corpus should be documented fully with
information about the contents and arguments in justification of the decisions
taken.
8. The corpus compiler should retain, as target notions, representativeness
and balance. While these are not precisely definable and attainable goals,
they must be used to guide the design of a corpus and the selection of its
components.
9. Any control of subject matter in a corpus should be imposed by the use of
external, and not internal, criteria.
10. A corpus should aim for homogeneity in its components while maintaining
adequate coverage, and rogue texts should be avoided.

3 More information on the different types of corpora and corpus linguistics can be found in

Rissanen (2012), Facchinetti and Rissanen (2006), Haug et al. (2009), Kennedy (1998), Meyer
(2002), Rizzo (2010), Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (2007), Bermudez-Otero et al. (2000), as well as
at http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng
 INTRODUCTION TO CORPUS LINGUISTICS 137

4. Corpus annotation
As far as annotation is concerned, McEnry et al. (2006: 33) say that “corpus
annotation can be achieved fully automatically, by a semi-automatic interaction
between human being and the machine, or entirely manually by human analysts”.
They also say that the annotation of a corpus may have many forms and it can
be undertaken at different levels:

1. At the phonological level; where corpora can be annotated for syllable

boundaries (phonetic/phonemic annotation) or prosodic features (prosodic
annotation).
2. At the morphological level; where corpora can be annotated in terms of
prefixes, stems and suffixes (morphological annotation).
3. At the lexical level; where corpora can be annotated for parts of speech (POS
tagging), lemmas (lemmatisation), and semantic fields (semantic annotation).
4. At the syntactic level; where corpora can be annotated to show anaphoric
relations (coreference annotation), pragmatic information like speech acts
(pragmatic annotation) or stylistic features such as speech and thought
presentation (stylistic annotation).

They observe that out of the different types of annotation POS tagging is the
most widespread type of annotation, and that syntactic parsing is also developing
quite fast. However, such types of annotation as discoursal annotation and
pragmatic annotation are presently relatively underdeveloped. Kvĕtoň and Oliva
(2002:19) observe that “the quality of corpus annotation is certainly among the
pressing problems in current corpus linguistics. This quality, however, is a many-
faceted problem in itself, comprising both issues of a rather theoretical nature
and also quite practical matters”4.
In the light of the lack of uniform annotated corpora and the different
research needs that the researchers have with respect to language, Kvĕtoň and
Oliva (2002: 255) encourage linguists to write their own computer programs for
the construction of their own corpora. They say that there are several concrete
advantages to writing one’s own computer programs rather than relying on
available concordancing software. Below I enumerate the arguments that they
provide to support their claim:

1. Perhaps most importantly, writing programs allows one to conduct analyses

that are not possible with concordances.
2. One can do many analyses more quickly and accurately.
3. One can tailor the output of the analysis to fit one’s research needs.
4. When one writes one’s own programs, there is no limit to the size of the
corpus that can be analysed.

4 See also Sinclair (2004b).

138 IRENEUSZ KIDA

Generally speaking, writing one’s own computer program for the construction
of one’s own corpus and its analysis “opens up a wider variety of options in the
research questions that you can investigate” (Kvĕtoň and Oliva 2002: 256).
I could also provide my own arguments in favour of the idea of creating
one’s own corpus that result from our experience5 with diachronic annotated
corpus linguistics:

1. One can freely choose texts to be annotated. This means that one can even
analyse texts, or fragments of texts, that have not yet been annotated by
anyone.
2. One can make the annotation simpler and more user-friendly.
3. One does not feel the limits and imperfections imposed on one by the existing
annotated corpora.
4. One can find one’s own solutions to the problems that might occur during
the annotation process.
5. One can make use of simple and widely accessible computer programs for
the construction of one’s annotated corpora; for example the Microsoft Word.
6. One can construct one’s own corpus the way that it can be modified and
adapted to the needs of one’s present and future research.
7. One can construct a corpus that will reflect one’s own ideas about language
8. One can construct a corpus that will allow one a dual/multiple approach
to ambiguous/ambivalent structures in language instead of a rigid one-way
approach.

Furthermore, McEnery and Wilson (2001: 32) observe that “unannotated

corpora have been, and are, of considerable use in language study, but the
utility of the corpus is considerably increased by the provision of annotation.
The important point to grasp about an annotated corpus is that it is no longer
simply a body of text in which the linguistic information is implicitly present.
[Moreover,] a corpus, when annotated, may be considered to be a repository of
linguistic information, because the information which was implicit in the plain
text has been made explicit through concrete annotation”. According to Leech
(1993; after Dash 2005: 5) there are seven maxims that should be applied strictly
in the annotation of texts:

1. It should always be easy to dispense with annotation, and revert to the raw
corpus. The raw corpus should be recoverable.
2. The annotations should correspondingly be extractable from the raw corpus,
to be stored independently, or stored in an interlinear format.
3. The scheme of analysis presupposed by the annotations – the annotation
scheme – should be based on principles or guidelines accessible to the user.

5 Cf. Kida (2007a, 2007b, 2009, 2010a, 2010b, 2011 and 2012).
 INTRODUCTION TO CORPUS LINGUISTICS 139

4. It should be made clear beforehand about how and by whom all the annota-
tions were applied.
5. The user must be made aware that the annotation applied in the corpus is not
infallible, but simply a potentially useful tool.
6. Annotation schemes should preferably be based as far as possible on
‘consensual’, theory-neutral analyses of the corpus data.
7. No one annotation scheme can claim authority as a standard, although as
a matter of fact interchange ‘standards’ may arise, through widening avail-
ability of annotated corpora, and perhaps should be encouraged.

Dash (2005) observes that in annotated corpus linguistics there are basically
three important criteria that are usually considered as important in any kind of
annotation. These criteria are: consistency, accuracy and speed. Firstly, as regards
consistency, it concerns the uniformity in annotation throughout the whole text
of a corpus. Secondly, accuracy is about the freedom from any kind of error in
the tagging to adhere to the definitions and guidelines concerning the scheme of
annotation. Thirdly, the automatic implementation of the scheme of annotation
should be possible on a very large data quantity within a very short span of time.

5. Corpus size and reprsentativeness

Above I mentioned the problem of the lack of uniformity in annotated corpus

linguistics. However, it is not the only problem that corpus linguists are facing.
Among others, there is also the problem of how representative a given corpus is,
and the problem of what size it should have in order to be representative. Kohnen
(2007) notes that a first major difficulty in corpus linguistics is connected with
corpus size as it is not known exactly how large corpora must be in order to
qualify for valid linguistic research. Moreover, He says that on surveying the field
one can get the impression that even in the age of so-called second-generation
mega corpora, researchers seem to be less confident about the ‘definite’ size that
corpora should have. Kohnen also notes that the problem of representativeness
is another central concern in corpus linguistics and corpus linguists should aim
at building such corpora that would be representative. However, he admits that
when we are dealing with representativeness, many researchers are very reserved.
According to Biber et al. (1998), a corpus is not a mere collection of texts.
A corpus should rather seek to represent a language or some part of language.
Therefore the appropriate design for a corpus is dependent upon what it is
going to represent and the kinds of research questions that can be addressed,
and the generalisability of the results of the research, in turn, is determined
by the representativeness of the corpus. They conclude that “it is important to
realize up front that representing a language – or even part of a language – is
a problematic task. We do not know the full extent of variation in languages
or all the contextual variables that need to be covered in order to capture all
140 IRENEUSZ KIDA

variation in texts” (p. 246). Mukherjee (2004) admits pessimistically that it is not
possibile to attain absolute representativeness. Furthermore, according to Römer
(2005: 41), “a large corpus can generally be regarded more representative of
the type of language it consists of than a small corpus which contains the same
kind of language. Of course, any small corpus is better than no corpus at all,
but if the choice is between a small and a large corpus of the same (or similar)
kind of material, I would always go for the latter.” Leech (2007: 138) observes
that “there is one rule of thumb that few are likely to dissent from. It is that
in general, the larger a corpus is, and the more diverse it is in terms of genres
and other language varieties, the more balanced and representative it will be.”
According to Leech (1991: 27) we can say that a corpus is representative when
“the findings based on its contents can be generalized to a larger hypothetical
corpus.” He moreover observes that the issue of corpus representativeness must
be considered largely as an act of faith because at present there is no way of
ensuring it or evaluating it in an objective way, although a great deal of research
is carried out with respect to this issue6.

6. Corpus application
As McEnry et al. (2006: 4) note, “nowadays, the corpus methodology enjoys
widespread popularity. It has opened up or foregrounded many new areas of
research [… and…] corpora have revolutionised nearly all branches of linguis-
tics.” Ezquerra and Hurtado (1996: 41; after Endres and Wagner 1992) mention
the following disciplines in which corpora find their application:

– Theoretical linguistics: traditional linguistics disciplines such as syntax,

morphology, phonetics, etc.
– Lexicology and lexicography.
– Computational linguistics and related fields: language processing, computer
analysis, language recognition, speech synthesis, information sciences,
knowledge acquisition, expert systems, automated translation, text processing,
language statistics, etc.
– Theory and practice of communication, including publishing.
– Psycholinguistics and related fields: neuropsychology, language philosophy,
discourse analysis, text linguistics, etc.
– Computer assisted teaching: learning, stylistics, orthography, etc.

Lindquist (2009) notes that compiling corpora can be very time-consuming

and expensive, therefore there must be considerable gains for the linguists to

6 For more discussion concerning this issue, as well as the issue of size, authenticity, sampling, etc.
see for example Tognini-Bonelli (2001), Sánchez et al. (1995), McEnry and Wilson (2001), Sinclair
(2005), and Wynne (2005).
 INTRODUCTION TO CORPUS LINGUISTICS 141

justify the effort. He says that the major advantages of corpora are speed and
reliability, as by using a corpus the linguist can investigate more material than in
manual investigation, and within a shorter time too, and moreover he can obtain
more exact results. Lindquist (2009:9) also presents a list of the advantages of
corpus linguistis that can be found in Svartvik (1992: 8-10), one of the founding
fathers of ICAME, the International Computer Archive of Modern and Medieval
English, that was started in 1977 in Oslo. I will mention only some of the
advantages given:

– Corpus data are more objective than data based on introspection.

– Researchers can share the same corpus data instead of always compilig their
own.
– Corpora provide the possibility of total accountability of linguistic features.
– Computerised corpora give researchers all over the world access to the data.
– Corpus data are ideal for non-native speakers of the language.
– Corpus data are excellent for studies of language variation.
– Corpus data provide frequency of occurrence of linguistic items.
– Corpus data give essential information for a number of applied areas, like
language teaching and language technology (machine translation, speech
synthesis, etc.)

These and many other advantages of corpora over manual investigation not
mentioned here are the reasons for the fact that corpora are constantly being
developed and there is a growing interest in corpus linguistics.

7. Conclusion

Corpus linguistics and corpora have been with us starting from the early
1960’s, when linguistic research for the first time started to be assisted by means
of computers. The first computer corpus, namely the Brown Corpus, was com-
piled by the pioneers in corpus linguistics Nelson Francis and Henry Kučera at
Brown University, US. Since then on more and more corpora started to appear.
However, in the twenty first century there has been an unprecedented boom in
the compilation of corpora all over the world. Although languages like English
and Spanish, and some other major languages of the world, have been enjoying
most attention on part of corpus linguists, corpora have also been constructed for
minor languages, like Polish, Czech, Croatian, Greek, and many other. There are
different types of corpora. The earliest corpora were basically unannotated text
corpora consisting only of pure texts, or samples of texts, but afterwards more
and more annotated corpora began to appear. Annotated corpora are designed
not so much for the analysis of pure texts, as for the analysis of text structure
involving the analysis of word order, parts of speech, grammatical and phono-
logical structure of words etc. However, annotated corpora are much more dif-
142 IRENEUSZ KIDA

ficult to construct, are more challenging and usually involve many language
experts, much financial means and are more time-consuming. This is the reason
why there are fewer annotated corpora than unannotated ones, and why they are
usually smaller. Nevertheless, in recent years annotated corpora are proliferating
and soon, due to technological advances, the speed at which they are constructed
might be equal to the speed at which uannotated corpora are. Both annotated and
unannotated corpora have greatly facilitated the work of linguists working in
practically all areas of linguistics, and fields related to linguistics and not only.
Owing to the existence of corpora, which nowadays are becoming bigger and
bigger, and the most recent ones contain many millions of words, it is possible
to do a large-scale research, which leads to more objective results, than a small-
scale research, based on a small number of texts or text samples, which is now
a thing of the past.

References

Aarts, B. and A. McMahon 2006. The handbook of English linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing Ltd.
Bermúdez-Otero, R. et al. (eds) 2000. Generative theory and corpus studies: a dialogue from
10ICEHL. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Biber, D., S. Conrad and R. Reppen 1998. Corpus linguistics. Investigating language clause and
use. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Curzan, A. and C. Palmer 2006. The importance of historical corpora, reliability and reading. In
R. Facchinetti and M. Rissanen (eds) Corpus-based studies of diachronic English, 17-34.
Bern: Peter Lang.
Dash, N.S. 2005. Corpus linguistics and language technology. New Delhi: Krishan Mittal for
Mittal Publications.
Endres, B. and F. Wagner 1992. Synoptic report on the needs of corpus users. In Technical
Report (II) prepared in the Institut für Deutsche Sprache, Mannheim, december 1992, for
the WP2 of the project NERC, number 119.
Ezquerra, M.A. and L.L. Hurtado 1996. Las industrias de la lengua y las aplicaciones de los
corpora. In Scripta philological in memoriam Manuel Taboada Cid. A Coruña: Servicio de
publicaciones, Universidade da Coruña.
Facchinetti, R. and M. Rissanen (eds). 2006. Corpus-based studies of diachronic English. Bern:
Peter Lang.
Haug, D.T. et al. 2009. Computational and linguistic issues in designing a syntactically annotated
parallel corpus of Indo-European languages. TAL 50(2): 17-45.
Kennedy, G. 1998. An introduction to corpus linguistics. London: Longman.
Kida, I. 2007a. The construction of a tagged corpus and the investigation of the change from
OV to VO in English. Academic Papers of College of Foreign Languages 4: 77-86.
Wydawnictwo Wyższej Szkoły Lingwistycznej, Częstochowa.
Kida, I. 2007b. Word order tendencies in Mediaeval English against the Indo-European
background. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.
 INTRODUCTION TO CORPUS LINGUISTICS 143

Kida, I. 2009. Syntactic differences between Gothic and Greek in Wulfila’s translation of the
Bible. In Studia językoznawcze dedykowane Profesorowi Kazimierzowi Polańskiemu.
W kręgu teorii, 117-124. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.
Kida, I. 2010a. The emergence of subordinate (hypotactic) clauses in Old English from
paratactically conjoined structures. Linguistica Silesiana 31: 115-122.
Kida, I. 2010b. Construction of an annotated corpus of Polish mediaeval texts for the analysis
of word order configurations. Research on Slavic Languages 14-2: 157-166. Korean
Association of Slavic Linguistics (KASL).
Kida, I. 2011. Hebrew, Latin and Greek word order of the Genesis in comparison. Zeszyty
naukowo-dydaktyczne. Nauczycielskie Kolegium Języków Obcych w Zabrzu, 21-31.
Kida, I. 2012. Problem syntaktycznej ambiwalencji w anotowanym językoznawstwie korpu-
sowym. Linguistica Posnaniensia 54(1): 57–63. ISSN (Online) 2083-6090, ISSN (Print)
0079-4740, DOI: 10.2478/v10122-012-0005-1.
Kohnen, Th. 2007. From Helsinki through the centuries: the design and development of English
diachronic corpora. In P. Pahta, I. Taavitsainen, T. Nevalainen, and J. Tyrkkö, (eds) Studies
in variation, contacts and change in English volume 2. Towards multimedia in corpus
studies. Research Unit for Variation, Contacts and Change in English (VARIENG),
University of Helsinki. http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/journal/volumes/02/kohnen/
Kvĕtoň, P. and K. Oliva 2002. Achieving an almost correct PoS-tagged corpus. In Text, speech
and dialogue. 5th international congress, TSD 2002, 19-26. Berlin: Springer.
Leech, G. 1991. The state of the art in corpus linguistics. In K. Aijmer and B. Altenberg (eds)
English corpus linguistics: studies in honour of Jan Svartvik. London: Longman.
Leech, G. 1993. Corpus annotation schemes. Literary and Linguistic Computing 8: 275-81.
Leech, G. 2004. Adding linguistic annotation. In M. Wynne (ed.) Developing linguistic corpora:
a guide to good practice. Available at: http://www.ahds.ac.uk/guides/linguistic-corpora/
index.htm
Leech, G. 2007. New resources, or just better old ones? The Holy Grail of representativeness.
In M. Hundt, N. Nesselhauf and C. Biewer (eds.). Corpus linguistics and the web, 133-150.
Amsterdam: Editions Rodopi B.V.
Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. (ed.) 2007. Corpus linguistics, computer tools, and applications
– state of the art: PAIC 2007 (Lodz Studies in Language). Peter Lang.
Lindquist, H. 2009. Corpus linguistics and the description of English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press Ltd.
McEnery, T., R. Xiao and Y. Tono 2006. Corpus-based language studies: an advanced resource
book. New York: Routledge.
McEnry, T. and A. Wilson 2001. Corpus linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd.
Meyer, Ch.F. 2002. English corpus linguistics. An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Mukherjee, J. 2004. The state of the art in corpus linguistics: three book-length perspectives.
English Language and Linguistics 8(1):103-119.
Nesselhauf, N. 2011. Corpus linguistics: a practical introduction. An electronic publication,
accessible at: http://www.as.uni-heidelberg.de/personen/Nesselhauf/files/Corpus%20
Linguistics%20Practical%20Introduction.pdf
Renouf, A. 1987. Corpus development. In J. Sinclair (ed.) Looking up. London: Collins.
Rissanen, M. 2012. Corpora and the study of English historical syntax. In M. Kytö (ed.) English
corpus linguistics: crossing paths, 197-220. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
144 IRENEUSZ KIDA

Rizzo, C.R. 2010. Getting on with corpus compilation: from theory to practice. ESP World,
Issue 1(27), Vol. 9. Available at: http://www.esp-world.info.
Römer, U. 2005. Progressives, patterns, pedagogy: a corpus-driven approach to English
progressive forms, functions, contexts and didactics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins B.V.
Sánchez, A., P. Cantos, R. Sarmiento and J. Simón 1995. Corpus lingüístico del español con-
temporáneo. Fundamentos, metodología y análisis. Madrid: SGEL.
Sinclair, J. 1991. Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sinclair, J. 2004b. Intuition and annotation – the discussion continues. In K. Aijmer and
B. Altenberg (eds). Advances in corpus linguistics. Papers from the 23rd International
Conference on English Language Research on Computerized corpora (ICAME 23), 39-59.
Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.
Sinclair, J. 2005. Corpus and text – basic principles. In M. Wynne (ed.) Developing linguistic
corpora: a guide to good practice. Oxford: Oxbow Books. Available at: http://www.ahds.
ac.uk/creating/guides/linguistic-corpora/chapter1.htm
Svartvik, J. (ed.) 1992. Directions in corpus linguistics. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Tognini-Bonelli, E. 2001. Corpus linguistics at work. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Wynne, M. (ed.). 2005. Developing linguistic corpora: a guide to good practice. Oxford: Oxbow
Books. Available at: http://www.ahds.ac.uk/creating/guides/linguistic-corpora/index.htm

Websites:
http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng