Volume 8, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1877-7031
  • E-ISSN: 1877-8798



This paper investigates the most frequent lexical bundle (LB) (to-you-say) (KLK), in an 18.5-hour Taiwanese Southern Min conversation corpus. The analysis focuses on the discourse-pragmatic functions of KLK, the role it plays in the speaker’s management of information in talk-in-interaction, and the collocations that are employed. The results show that the speaker utilizes KLK to imply epistemic authority regarding the veracity of the predication. Meanwhile, it expresses the speaker’s stance or functions as a discourse organizer to initiate a narrative that is newsworthy. Prosodically, it is always processed as a holistic chunk with great phonological reduction. Along with the low transitivity of the verb demonstrated by the type of object it takes, we argue that KLK is developing into a discourse marker. Collocation of KLK with the marker further triggers the grammaticalization of the four-word bundle (TKLK) to encode an extreme stance.

Available under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license.

Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Altenberg, Bengt
    1998 “On the Phraseology of Spoken English: Recurrent Word-Combinations.” InPhraseology: Theory, Analysis, and Applications, ed. by Anthony Paul Cowie , 101–122. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bannard, Colin , and Elena Lieven
    2009 “Repetition and Reuse in Child Language Learning.” InFormulaic language: Vol. 2. Acquisition, Loss, Psychological Reality, Functional Explanations, ed. by R. Corrigan , E. Moravcsik , H. Ouali , and K. Wheatley , 297–321. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/tsl.83.04ban
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.83.04ban [Google Scholar]
  3. Bannard, Colin , and Danielle Matthews
    2008 “Stored Word Sequences in Language Learning: The Effect of Familiarity on Children’s Repetition of Four-word Combinations.” Psychological Science19: 241–248. doi:  10.1111/j.1467‑9280.2008.02075.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02075.x [Google Scholar]
  4. Bardovi-Harlig, Kathleen
    1999 “Exploring the Interlanguage of Interlanguage Pragmatics: A Research Agenda for Acquisitional Pragmatics.” Language Learning49: 677–713. doi:  10.1111/0023‑8333.00105
    https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00105 [Google Scholar]
  5. Biber, Douglas , and Susan Conrad
    1999 “Lexical Bundles in Conversation and Academic Prose.” InOut of Corpora, ed. by Hilde Hasselgård , and Signe Oksefjell , 181–190. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Biber, Douglas , Stig Johansson , Geoffrey Leech , Susan Conrad , and Edward Finegan
    1999Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow, UK: Pearson.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Biber, Douglas , Susan Conrad , and Viviana Cortes
    2003 “Lexical Bundles in Speech and Writing: An Initial Taxonomy.” InCorpus Linguistics by the Lune: A Festschrift for Geoffrey Leech, ed. by Andrew Wilson , Paul Rayson , and Tony McEnery , 71–92. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 2004 “If You Look at …: Lexical Bundles in University Teaching and Textbooks.” Applied Linguistics25 (3): 371–405. doi:  10.1093/applin/25.3.371
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.3.371 [Google Scholar]
  9. Biq, Yung-O.
    1991 “The Multiple Uses of the Second Person Singular Pronoun Ni in Conversational Mandarin.” Journal of Pragmatics16 (4): 307–321. doi: 10.1016/03782166(91)90084B
    https://doi.org/10.1016/03782166(91)90084B [Google Scholar]
  10. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana , Juliane House , and Gabriele Kasper
    1989Cross-cultural Pragmatics: Requests and Apologies. New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Co.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Brinton, Laurel J.
    1996Pragmatic Markers in English: Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. doi:  10.1515/9783110907582
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110907582 [Google Scholar]
  12. Butler, Christopher S.
    1997 “Repeated Word Combinations in Spoken and Written Text: Some Implications for Functional Grammar.” InA Fund of Ideas: Recent Development in Functional Grammar, ed. by Christopher S. Butler , John H. Connolly , Richard A. Gatward , and Roel M. Vismans , 60–77. Amsterdam: IFOTT, University of Amsterdam.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Bybee, Joan
    2007Frequency of Use and the Organization of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:  10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195301571.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195301571.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  14. Carter, Ronald , and Michael McCarthy
    2006Cambridge Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Chafe, Wallace
    1994Discourse, Consciousness, and Time: The Flow and Displacement of Conscious Experience in Speaking and Writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Chang, Miao-Hsia
    2008 “Discourse and Grammaticalization of Contrastive Markers in Taiwanese Southern Min: A Corpus-based Study.” Journal of Pragmatics40: 2114–2149. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2008.04.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.04.009 [Google Scholar]
  17. Chen, Li-jun
    2010 “Huayu Biaoji “Wo Gei Ni Shuo” de Yanbian Guocheng [Grammaticalization of the Discourse Marker “Wo Gei Ni Shuo” in Chinese].” Zhejiang Shifan Daxue Xuebao (Shehui Kexue) [Journal of Zhejiang Normal University (Social Sciences)] 171: 84–87.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Cheng, Robert L. , and Susie S. Cheng
    1977Taiwan Fujian Hua de Yuyin Jiegou Ji Biaoyin Fa [Phonological Structure and Romanization of Taiwanese Hokkian]. Taipei: Student Book Co.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Cheng, Winnie , Chris Greaves , and Martin Warren
    2006 “From N-gram to Skipgram to Congram.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics11 (4): 411–433. doi:  10.1075/ijcl.11.4.04che
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.11.4.04che [Google Scholar]
  20. Chentsova-Dutton, Yulia E. , and Alexandra Vaughn
    2012 “Let Me Tell You What to Do: Cultural Differences in Advice-Giving.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology43 (5): 687–705. doi:  10.1177/0022022111402343
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022111402343 [Google Scholar]
  21. Clift, Rebecca
    2006 “Indexing Stance Reported Speech as an Interactional Evidential.” Journal of Sociolinguistics10 (5): 569–595. doi:  10.1111/j.1467‑9841.2006.00296.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2006.00296.x [Google Scholar]
  22. Conrad, Susan , and Douglas Biber
    2004 “The Frequency and Use of Lexical Bundles in Conversation and Academic Prose.” InThe Corpus Approach to Lexicography, ed. by W. Teubert , and M. Mahlberg (Eds. of Thematic Part), Lexicographica: International Annual for Lexicography20: 56–71.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Cortes, Viviana
    2004 “Lexical Bundles in Published and Student Disciplinary Writing: Examples from History and Biology.” English for Specific Purposes23: 397–423. doi:  10.1016/j.esp.2003.12.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2003.12.001 [Google Scholar]
  24. Cortes, Viviana , and Eniko Csomay
    2007 “Positioning Lexical Bundles in University Lectures.” InSpoken Corpora in Applied Linguistics, ed. by Mari Carmen Campoy , and Maria Jose Luzon , 57–76. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Cowie, Anthony Paul
    1998 “Introduction.” InPhraseology: Theory, Analysis, and Applications, ed. by Anthony Paul Cowie , 1–20. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Coxhead, Averil , and Pat Byrd
    2007 “Preparing Writing Teachers to Teach the Vocabulary and Grammar of Academic Prose.” Journal of Second Language Writing16: 129–147. doi:  10.1016/j.jslw.2007.07.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.07.002 [Google Scholar]
  27. De Smet, Hendrik
    2017 “Entrenchment Effects in Language Change.” InEntrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning: How we Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge, ed. by Hans-Jörg Schmid , 75–99. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH. doi:  10.1037/15969‑005
    https://doi.org/10.1037/15969-005 [Google Scholar]
  28. Dong, Xiufang
    2010 “Laiyuan yu Wanzheng Xiaoju de Huayu Biaoji “Wo Gaosu Ni” [A Discourse Marker Derived from Clausal Form: Wo Gao Su Ni].” Yuyan Kexue [Linguistic Sciences] 46: 279–286.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Du Bois, John , Stephan Schuetze-Coburn , Susanna Cumming , and Danae Paolino
    1993 “Outline of Discourse Transcription.” InTalking Data: Transcription and Coding in Discourse Research, ed. by Jane Anne Edwards , and Martin D. Lampert , 45–89. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Ellis, Nick C.
    2012 “Formulaic Language and Second Language Acquisition: Zipf and the Phrasal Teddy Bear.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics32: 17–44. doi:  10.1017/S0267190512000025
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190512000025 [Google Scholar]
  31. Erman, Britt , and Beatrice Warren
    2000 “The Idiom Principle and the Open-choice Principle.” Text20: 29–62. doi:  10.1515/text.1.2000.20.1.29
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.2000.20.1.29 [Google Scholar]
  32. Feng, Bo , and Eran Magen
    2016 “Relationship Closeness Predicts Unsolicited Advice Giving in Supportive Interactions.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships33 (6): 751–767. doi:  10.1177/0265407515592262
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407515592262 [Google Scholar]
  33. Feng, Hairong
    2015 “Understanding Cultural Variations in Giving Advice among Americans and Chinese.” Communication Research42: 1143–1167. doi:  10.1177/0093650213486668
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650213486668 [Google Scholar]
  34. Foster, Pauline
    2001 “Rules and Routines: A Consideration of Their Role in the Task-based Language Production of Native and Non-native Speakers.” InResearching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching, and Testing, ed. by Martin Bygate , Peter Skehan , and Merrill Swain , 75–93. Harlow: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Gan, Min
    2012 “ Zuo Wei Huayu Biaoji de “Wo Gen Ni Shuo ” [ Wo Gen Ni Shuo as a Discourse Marker].” Wenxue Jiaoyu [Literature Education] 2012 (3): 148–50.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Goffman, Erving
    1967Interaction Ritual: Essays in Face to Face Behavior. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Granger, Slviane
    1998 “Prefabricated Patterns in Advanced EFL Writing: Collocations and Formulae.” InPhraseology: Theory, Analysis, and Applications, ed. by Anthony Paul Cowie , 145–160. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Greenbaum, Sidney , and Jan Svartvik
    1990 “The London-Lund Corpus.” InThe London-Lund Corpus of Spoken English: Description and Research (Lund Studies in English 82), ed. by Jan Svartvik , 11–45. Lund: Lund University Press
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Hayano, Kaoru
    2011 “Claiming Epistemic Primacy: Y-marked Assessments in Japanese.” InThe Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, ed. by Tanya Stivers , Lorenza Monda , and Jakob Steensig , 58–81. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511921674.004
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.004 [Google Scholar]
  40. Heritage, John
    2002 “ Oh-prefaced Responses to Assessments: A Method of Modifying Agreement/Disagreement.” InThe Language of Turn and Sequence, ed. by Cecilia Ford , Barbara Fox , and Sandra A. Thompson , 196–224. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 2013 “Turn-initial Position and Some of Its Occupants.” Journal of Pragmatics57: 331–337. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.025
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.025 [Google Scholar]
  42. Heritage, John , and Geoffrey Raymond
    2005 “The Terms of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic Authority and Subordination in Talk-in-Interaction.” Social Psychology Quarterly68 (1): 15–38. doi:  10.1177/019027250506800103
    https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250506800103 [Google Scholar]
  43. Hopper, Paul
    1991 “Dispersed Verbal Predicates in Vernacular Written Narrative.” Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session and Parasession on The Grammar of Event Structure, 402–413. Berkeley: University of California. doi:  10.1075/slcs.36.04hop
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.36.04hop [Google Scholar]
  44. House, Juliane
    1996 “Developing Pragmatic Fluency in English as a Foreign Language: Routines and Metapragmatic Awareness.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition18 (2): 225–252. doi:  10.1017/S0272263100014893
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100014893 [Google Scholar]
  45. Hrisonopulo, Katherine
    2008 “Beyond Reference and Designation: On Interactive Implications of the Pronoun I in English.” Lodz Papers in Pragmatics4 (2): 277–292. doi:  10.2478/v10016‑008‑0006‑2
    https://doi.org/10.2478/v10016-008-0006-2 [Google Scholar]
  46. Huang, Shuanfan
    1999 “The Emergence of a Grammatical Category Definite Article in Spoken Chinese.” Journal of Pragmatics31 (1): 77–94. doi:  10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00052‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00052-6 [Google Scholar]
  47. 2013Chinese Grammar at Work. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/scld.1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scld.1 [Google Scholar]
  48. Hyland, Ken
    2008 “As Can Be Seen: Lexical Bundles and Disciplinary Variation.” English for Specific Purposes27: 4–21. doi:  10.1016/j.esp.2007.06.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2007.06.001 [Google Scholar]
  49. 2012 “Bundles in Academic Discourse.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics32: 150–169. doi:  10.1017/S0267190512000037
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190512000037 [Google Scholar]
  50. Jucker, Andreas H. , and Yael Ziv
    1998 “Discourse Markers: Introduction.” InDiscourse Markers: Description and Theory, ed. by Andreas H. Jucker , and Yael Ziv , 1–12. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/pbns.57.03juc
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.57.03juc [Google Scholar]
  51. Kaltenböck, Gunther
    2015 “Processibility.” InCorpus Pragmatics: A Handbook, ed. by Karin Aijmer , and Christoph Rühlemann , 117–142. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2016.06.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.06.001 [Google Scholar]
  52. Kim, YouJin
    2009 “Korean Lexical Bundles in Conversation and Academic Texts.” Corpora4 (2): 135–165. doi:  10.3366/E1749503209000288
    https://doi.org/10.3366/E1749503209000288 [Google Scholar]
  53. Labov, William , and David Fanshel
    1977Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Langacker, Ronald W.
    1987Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. 2017 “Entrenchment in Cognitive Grammar.” InEntrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning: How we Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge, ed. by Hans-Jörg Schmid , 39–56. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH. doi:  10.1037/15969‑003
    https://doi.org/10.1037/15969-003 [Google Scholar]
  56. Leech, Geoffrey
    1983Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Li, Ing C.
    1999Utterance-Final Particles in Taiwanese: A Discourse-Pragmatic Analysis. Taipei: The Crane Publishing Co.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Lin, Min-ching
    1996Discourse Functions of TOH and CHIAH in Taiwanese. Unpublished M. A. Thesis. National Taiwan Normal University.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Lindemann, Stephanie , and Anna Mauranen
    2001 “It’s Just Real Messy: The Occurrence and Function of Just in a Corpus of Academic Speech.” English for Specific Purposes20 (Supplement): 459–475. doi:  10.1016/S0889‑4906(01)00026‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(01)00026-6 [Google Scholar]
  60. Liu, Dilin
    2012 “The Most Frequently-used Multi-word Constructions in Academic Written English: A Multi-corpus Study.” English for Specific Purposes31: 25–35. doi:  10.1016/j.esp.2011.07.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.07.002 [Google Scholar]
  61. Ma, Guanghui
    2009 “Yingyu Zhuanye Xuesheng Eryu Xianshi Xiezuo Zhong de Cikuai Yanjiu [Lexical Bundles in L2 Timed Writing of English Majors.]” Waiyu Jiaoxue yu Yanjiu [Foreign Language Teaching and Research] 41 (1): 54–60.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Nattinger, James
    1988 “Some Current Trends in Vocabulary Teaching.” InVocabulary and Language Teaching, ed. by Ronald Carter , and Michael McCarthy , 62–82. London and New York: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Nesi, Hilary , and Helen Basturkmen
    2006 “Lexical Bundles and Discourse Signalling in Academic Lectures.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics11 (3): 283–304. doi:  10.1075/bct.17.03nes
    https://doi.org/10.1075/bct.17.03nes [Google Scholar]
  64. Östman, Jan-Ola
    1981‘You Know’ : A Discourse-Functional Study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/pb.ii.7
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pb.ii.7 [Google Scholar]
  65. Partington, Alan , and John Morley
    2004 “From Frequency to Ideology: Investigating Word and Cluster/bundle Frequency in Political Debate.” InPractical Applications in Language and Computers – PALC 2003, ed. by Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk , 179–192. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Pawley, Andrew , and Frances Hodgetts Syder
    1983 “Two Puzzles for Linguistic Theory: Native-like Selection and Native-like Fluency.” InLanguage and Communication, ed. by Jack C. Richards , and Richard W. Schmidt , 191–226. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Polio, Charlene
    2012 “Editor’s Introduction.” Annual Review of Applied Linguistics32: vi–vii. doi:  10.1017/S0267190512000116
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190512000116 [Google Scholar]
  68. Pomerantz, Anita
    1984 “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/dispreferred Turn Shapes.” InStructures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, ed. by J. Maxwell Atkinson , and John Heritage , 57–101. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Quan, Tong , and Yu Guo-dong
    2014 “Zhong Ri “Zhishi Youxian” Pingjia Bijiao Yanjiu – Yi Huayu Biaji “Wo Gen Ni Jiang” han “Yo” Wei Li” [Comparative Study on Epistemic Primacy” in the Chinese and Japanese Language – Case Study of“I’m telling you” and “you”].” Studies in the Philosophy of Science and Technology31(3): 38–44.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Quirk, Randolph , Sidney Greenbaum , Geoffrey Leech , and Jan Svartvik
    1985A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. R Core Team
    R Core Team 2016R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URLhttps://www.R-project.org/.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Salazar, Danica
    2014Lexical Bundles in Native and Non-native Scientific Writing: Applying a Corpus-based Study to Language Teaching (Vol.65). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/scl.65
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.65 [Google Scholar]
  73. Scheibman, Joanne
    2002Point of View and Grammar: Structural Patterns of Subjectivity in American English Conversation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/sidag.11
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sidag.11 [Google Scholar]
  74. Schiffrin, Deborah
    1987Discourse Markers. New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511611841
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841 [Google Scholar]
  75. Schmid, Hans-Jörg
    2017 “A Framework for Understanding Linguistic Entrenchment and Its Psychological Foundations.” InEntrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning: How We Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge, ed. by Hans-Jörg Schmid , 9–38. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter GmbH. doi:  10.1037/15969‑002
    https://doi.org/10.1037/15969-002 [Google Scholar]
  76. Simpson-Vlach, Rita , and Nick C. Ellis
    2010 “An Academic Formulas List: New Methods in Phraseology Research.” Applied Linguistics31: 487–512. doi:  10.1093/applin/amp058
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp058 [Google Scholar]
  77. Sinclair, John
    1991Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Sorhus, Helen B.
    1977 “To Hear Ourselves – Implications for Teaching English as a Second Language.” English Language Teaching Journal31 (3): 211–221. doi:  10.1093/elt/XXXI.3.211
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/XXXI.3.211 [Google Scholar]
  79. Stenström, Anna-Brita
    2004 “What Is Going on between Speakers.” InCorpora and Discourse, ed. by Alan Partingon , John Morley , and Louann Haarman , 259–283. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Stivers, Tanya , Lorenza Monda , and Jakob Steensig
    2011 “Knowledge, Morality and Affiliation in Social Interaction.” InThe Morality of Knowledge in Conversation, ed. by Tanya Stivers , Lorenza Monda , and Jakob Steensig , 3–24. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511921674.002
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511921674.002 [Google Scholar]
  81. Stubbs, Michael
    1983Discourse Analysis: The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural Language. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Tao, Hongyin
    2003 “Cong Yuyin Yufa han Huayu Tezheng Kan “Zhidao” Geshi Zai Tanhua Zhong de Yanhua [Phonological, Grammatical, and Discourse Evidence for the Emergence of Zhidao Constructions].” Zhongguo Yuwen [Chinese Language] 295: 291–302.
    [Google Scholar]
  83. 2015 “Profiling the Mandarin Spoken Vocabulary Based on Corpora.” InOxford Handbook of Chinese Linguistics, ed. by Chaofen Sun , and William S-Y Wang , 336–347. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Taylor, John R.
    2012The Mental Corpus: How Language Is Represented in the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:  10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199290802.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199290802.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  85. Thompson, Sandra A. , and Paul Hopper
    2001 “Transitivity, Clause Structure, and Argument Structure: Evidence from Conversation.” InFrequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure, ed. by Joan Bybee , and Paul Hopper , 27–56. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi:  10.1075/tsl.45.03tho
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.45.03tho [Google Scholar]
  86. Thompson, Sandra A. , and Hongyin Tao
    2010 “Conversation, Grammar, and Fixedness: Adjectives in Mandarin Revisited.” Chinese Language and Discourse1 (1): 25–52. doi:  10.1075/cld.1.1.01tho
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cld.1.1.01tho [Google Scholar]
  87. Traugott, Elizabeth C. , and Richard B. Dasher
    2002Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Tseng, Chin-chin
    1997 “Taiyu Duanci Yuanze Taolun [Discussion of Taiwanese Word Segmentation Principles].” InTaiyu Wenxue Chubanwu Shouji, Mulu, Xuandu, Bianji Jihua Jiean Baogao [Project Report of the Collecting, Cataloging, and Editing of Taiwanese Literature Publications], 45–72. Taipei: Council for Cultural Affairs.
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Van Lancker, D.
    1987 “Nonpropositional Speech: Neurolinguistic Studies.” InProgress in the Psychology of Language, VolIII, ed. by Andrew W. Ellis , 49–118, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Wei, Naixing
    2007 “Zhongguo Xuesheng Yingyu Kouyu de Duanyuxue Tezheng Yanjiu – COLSEC Yuliaoku de Cikuai Zhengju Fenxi [Phraseological Characteristics of Chinese Learners’ Spoken English: Evidence of Lexical Chunks from COLSEC.]” Xiandai Waiyu [Modern Foreign Languages] 30 (3): 281–291.
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Whalen, Jack , and Don H. Zimmerman
    1998 “Observations on the Display and Management of Emotion in Naturally Occurring Activities: The Case of “Hysteria” in Calls to 9-1-1.” Social Psychology Quarterly61 (2): 141–159. doi:  10.2307/2787066
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2787066 [Google Scholar]
  92. Wray, A.
    2002Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511519772
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519772 [Google Scholar]
  93. Wray, A. , and M. R. Perkins
    2000 “The Functions of Formulaic Language: An Integrated Model.” Language and Communication20: 1–28. doi:  10.1016/S0271‑5309(99)00015‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(99)00015-4 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error