1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
  4. Online First Articles
  5. Online First Article
image of Reproducibility and transparency in interpretive corpus pragmatics
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

In this paper we extend the discussion about reproducibility in corpus linguistics from quantitative to qualitative corpus-based approaches and argue that concerns about reproducibility can be addressed in interpretive research paradigms like corpus pragmatics. We first suggest that in interpretive research traditions, transparency is more important than reproducibility. We then argue that interpretive research can be made more transparent and accessible by using notebooks to share analytical procedures. We support these claims through a case study in which we analyse responses to information-seeking utterance-final questions in spoken Australian English data. We use a qualitative, discourse analytic approach to systematically examine examples of these utterances from selected corpora. We show how corpus linguistic research can draw on existing infrastructures and tools for ensuring transparency, reproducibility, and replicability of interpretive analyses of the pragmatic functions of linguistic tokens in situated contexts.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.23033.sch
2025-06-12
2025-07-19

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.23033.sch
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aijmer, K., & Rühlemann, C.
    (Eds.) (2015) Corpus pragmatics: A handbook. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139057493
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139057493 [Google Scholar]
  2. Anthony, L.
    (2024) AntConc (Version 4.3.1) [Computer software]. Waseda University. https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Archer, D., & Culpeper, J.
    (2018) Corpus annotation. InA. H. Jucker, K. P. Schneider, & W. Bublitz (Eds.), Methods in pragmatics (pp.–). De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110424928‑020
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110424928-020 [Google Scholar]
  4. Archer, D., & Malory, B.
    (2017) Tracing facework over time using semi-automated methods. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, (), –. 10.1075/ijcl.22.1.02arc
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.22.1.02arc [Google Scholar]
  5. Austin, J. L.
    (1975) How to do things with words (2nd ed.) (J. O. Urmson & M. Sbisà, Eds.). Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1962). 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198245537.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198245537.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  6. Baker, M.
    (2016) 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature, , –. 10.1038/533452a
     https://doi.org/10.1038/533452a [Google Scholar]
  7. Bednarek, M., Schweinberger, M., & Lee, K. K. H.
    (2024) Corpus-based discourse analysis: From meta-reflection to accountability. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, (), –. 10.1515/cllt‑2023‑0104
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2023-0104 [Google Scholar]
  8. Beg, M., Taka, J., Kluyver, T., Konovalov, A., Ragan-Kelley, M., Thiéry, N. M., & Fangohr, H.
    (2021) Using Jupyter for reproducible scientific workflows. Computing in Science & Engineering, (), –. 10.1109/MCSE.2021.3052101
     https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2021.3052101 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bem, D. J.
    (2011) Feeling the future: Experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, (), –. 10.1037/a0021524
     https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021524 [Google Scholar]
  10. Berez-Kroeker, A., Gawne, L., Kung, S. S., Kelly, B., Heston, T., Holton, G., Pulsifer, P., Beaver, D., Chelliah, S., Dubinsky, S., Meier, R., Thieberger, N., Rice, K., & Woodbury, A.
    (2018) Reproducible research in linguistics: A position statement on data citation and attribution in our field. Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/ling‑2017‑0032
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2017-0032 [Google Scholar]
  11. BNC Consortium
    BNC Consortium (2007) British National Corpus. Oxford Text Archive Core Collection.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Bolibaugh, C., Vanek, N., & Marsden, E. J.
    (2021) Towards a credibility revolution in bilingualism research: Open data and materials as stepping stones to more reproducible and replicable research. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, (), –. 10.1017/S1366728921000535
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728921000535 [Google Scholar]
  13. Borge, S.
    (2013) Questions. InM. Sbisà & K. Turner (Eds.), Pragmatics of speech actions (pp.–). De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110214383.411
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214383.411 [Google Scholar]
  14. Bradshaw, J., Burridge, K., & Clyne, M.
    (1997) Monash Corpus of English (MCE). Monash University. 10.26180/25222952.v1#
     https://doi.org/10.26180/25222952.v1# [Google Scholar]
  15. (2010) The Monash corpus of spoken Australian English. InL. de Beuzeville & P. Peters (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2008 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society. Australian Linguistic Society. https://hdl.handle.net/2123/7099
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Carroll, S. R., Garba, I., Figueroa-Rodríguez, O. L., Holbrook, J., Lovett, R., Materechera, S., Parsons, M., Raseroka, K., Rodriguez-Lonebear, D., Rowe, R., Rodrigo, S., Walker, J. D., Anderson, J., & Hudson, M.
    (2020) The CARE principles for Indigenous data governance. Data Science Journal, (), –. 10.5334/dsj‑2020‑043
     https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2020-043 [Google Scholar]
  17. Chamberlin, D.
    (2002) XQuery: An XML query language. IBM Systems Journal, (), –. 10.1147/sj.414.0597
     https://doi.org/10.1147/sj.414.0597 [Google Scholar]
  18. Coveney, P. V., Groen, D., & Hoekstra, A. G.
    (2021) Reliability and reproducibility in computational science: Implementing validation, verification and uncertainty quantification in silico. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, (). 10.1098/rsta.2020.0409
     https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2020.0409 [Google Scholar]
  19. Davies, M.
    (2010) The Corpus of Contemporary American English as the first reliable monitor corpus of English. Literary and Linguistic Computing, (), –. 10.1093/llc/fqq018
     https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqq018 [Google Scholar]
  20. Docker, Inc
    Docker, Inc (2013) Docker: Open-source containerization platform [Computer software]. Docker, Inc.https://www.docker.com
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Drake, V.
    (2015) Indexing uncertainty: The case of turn-final or. Research on Language and Social Interaction, (), –. 10.1080/08351813.2015.1058606
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2015.1058606 [Google Scholar]
  22. (2021) Alternative questions and their responses in English interaction. Pragmatics, (), –. 10.1075/prag.19011.dra
     https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.19011.dra [Google Scholar]
  23. Drew, P.
    (1997) ‘Open’ class repair initiators in response to sequential sources of troubles in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, (), –. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(97)89759‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(97)89759-7 [Google Scholar]
  24. Enfield, N. J., Stivers, T., Brown, P., Englert, C., Harjunpää, K., Hayashi, M., Heinemann, T., Hoymann, G., Keisanen, T., Rauniomaa, M., Raymond, C. W., Rossano, F., Yoon, K.-E., Zwitserlood, I., & Levinson, S. C.
    (2019) Polar answers. Journal of Linguistics, (), –. 10.1017/S0022226718000336
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226718000336 [Google Scholar]
  25. Flanagan, J.
    (2017) Reproducible research: Strategies, tools, and workflows. InT. Hiltunen, J. McVeigh, & T. Säily (Eds.), Big and rich data in English corpus linguistics: Methods and Explorations. VARIENG. https://varieng.helsinki.þ/series/volumes/øð/ýanagan/
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Freese, J., Rauf, T., & Voelkel, J. G.
    (2022) Advances in transparency and reproducibility in the social sciences. Social Science Research, , Article 102770. 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2022.102770
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2022.102770 [Google Scholar]
  27. Goodman, S. N., Fanelli, D., & Ioannidis, J. P. A.
    (2016) What does research reproducibility mean?Science Translational Medicine, (), Article 341ps12. 10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf5027
     https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.aaf5027 [Google Scholar]
  28. Granger, B. E., & Pérez, F.
    (2021) Jupyter: Thinking and storytelling with code and data. Computing in Science & Engineering, (), –. 10.1109/MCSE.2021.3059263
     https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2021.3059263 [Google Scholar]
  29. Gries, S. Th.
    (2021) Statistics for linguistics with R: A practical introduction. De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110718256
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110718256 [Google Scholar]
  30. Haugh, M.
    (2011) Practices and defaults in interpreting disjunction. InK. M. Jaszczolt & K. Allan (Eds.), Salience and defaults in utterance processing (pp.–). De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110270679.189
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110270679.189 [Google Scholar]
  31. (2014) Jocular mockery as interactional practice in everyday Anglo-Australian conversation. Australian Journal of Linguistics, (), –. 10.1080/07268602.2014.875456
     https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2014.875456 [Google Scholar]
  32. (2016) Griffith Corpus of Spoken Australian English (GCSAusE). Griffith University. 10.4225/01/4F3DB08617645
     https://doi.org/10.4225/01/4F3DB08617645 [Google Scholar]
  33. Haugh, M., & Chang, W.-L. M.
    (2013) Collaborative creation of spoken language corpora. InT. Greer, D. Tatsuki, & C. Roever (Eds.), Pragmatics and language learning (Vol., pp.–). National Foreign Language Resource Center, University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Haugh, M., & Musgrave, S.
    (2019) Conversational lapses and laughter: Towards a combinatorial approach to building collections in conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, , –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.09.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.09.005 [Google Scholar]
  35. Heritage, J., & Raymond, C. W.
    (2021) Preference and polarity: Epistemic stance in question design. Research on Language and Social Interaction, (), –. 10.1080/08351813.2020.1864155
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1864155 [Google Scholar]
  36. Ilie, C.
    (2021) Questions we (inter)act with: Interrelatedness of questions and answers in discourse. InC. Ilie (Ed.), Questioning and Answering Practices across Contexts and Cultures (pp.–). John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.323.01ili
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.323.01ili [Google Scholar]
  37. In’nami, Y., Mizumoto, A., Plonsky, L., & Koizumi, R.
    (2022) Promoting computationally reproducible research in applied linguistics: Recommended practices and considerations. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, (), Article 100030. 10.1016/j.rmal.2022.100030
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmal.2022.100030 [Google Scholar]
  38. Jaszczolt, K., Savva, E., & Haugh, M.
    (2016) The individual and the social path of interpretation: The case of incomplete disjunctive questions. InA. Capone & J. Mey (Eds.), Interdisciplinary Studies in Pragmatics, Culture and Society (pp.–). Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑12616‑6_9
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12616-6_9 [Google Scholar]
  39. Jennings, R. E.
    (1994) The genealogy of disjunction. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Jucker, A. H.
    (2013) Corpus pragmatics. InJ.-O. Östman & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Handbook of pragmatics (pp.–). John Benjamins. 10.1075/hop.17.cor3
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hop.17.cor3 [Google Scholar]
  41. (2018) Apologies in the history of English: Evidence from the Corpus of Historical American English (COHA). Corpus Pragmatics, , –. 10.1007/s41701‑018‑0038‑y
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-018-0038-y [Google Scholar]
  42. Kirk, J. M.
    (2016) The pragmatic annotation scheme of the SPICE-Ireland corpus. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, (): –. 10.1075/ijcl.21.3.01kir
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.21.3.01kir [Google Scholar]
  43. Landert, D., Dayter, D., Messerli, T. C., & Locher, M. A.
    (2023) Corpus pragmatics. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781009091107
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009091107 [Google Scholar]
  44. Lee Kraus, W.
    (2014) Do you see what I see?: Quality, reliability, and reproducibility in biomedical research. Molecular Endocrinology, (), –. 10.1210/me.2014‑1036
     https://doi.org/10.1210/me.2014-1036 [Google Scholar]
  45. Levinson, S.
    (1983) Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813313
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813313 [Google Scholar]
  46. McEnery, T., & Brezina, V.
    (2022) Fundamental principles of corpus linguistics. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781107110625
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107110625 [Google Scholar]
  47. Moravscik, A.
    (2019) Transparency in qualitative research. InP. Atkinson, S. Delamont, A. Cernat, J. W. Sakshaug, & R. A. Williams (Eds.), SAGE research methods foundations. Sage. 10.4135/9781526421036863782
     https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526421036863782 [Google Scholar]
  48. Mullan, K.
    (2002) LaTrobe Corpus of Spoken Australian English (LTCSAusE). La Trobe University. 10.26181/23089559.v1
     https://doi.org/10.26181/23089559.v1 [Google Scholar]
  49. Musgrave, S., & Haugh, M.
    (2020) The Australian National Corpus (and beyond). InL. Willoughby & H. Manns (Eds.), Australian English reimagined: Structure, features and new directions (pp.–). Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Open Science Collaboration
    Open Science Collaboration (2015) Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, (). 10.1126/science.aac4716
     https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716 [Google Scholar]
  51. Peels, R.
    (2019) Replicability and replication in the humanities. Research Integrity and Peer Review, (). 10.1186/s41073‑018‑0060‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0060-4 [Google Scholar]
  52. Peters, P.
    (2006) Australian Radio Talkback corpus (ART). Macquarie University. 10.25949/24769434.v1
     https://doi.org/10.25949/24769434.v1 [Google Scholar]
  53. Pomerantz, A.
    (1984) Pursuing a response. InJ. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp.–). Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Popper, K. R.
    (1994) Zwei Bedeutungen von Falsifizierbarkeit [Two meanings of falsifiability]. InH. Seiffert & G. Radnitzky (Eds.), Handlexikon der Wissenschaftstheorie (pp.–). Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Posit team
    Posit team (2024) RStudio: Integrated development environment for R [Computer software]. Posit Software. https://www.posit.co/
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Project Jupyter, Bussonnier, M., Forde, J., Freeman, J., Granger, B., Head, T., Holdgraf, C., Kelley, K., Nalvarte, G., Osheroff, A., Pacer, M., Panda, Y., Perez, F., Ragan-Kelley, B., Willing, C.
    (2018) Binder 2.0 — Reproducible, interactive, shareable environments for science at scale. InF. Akici, D. Lippa, D. Niederhut, & M. Pacer (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th Python in science conference (pp.–). 10.25080/Majora‑4af1f417‑011
     https://doi.org/10.25080/Majora-4af1f417-011 [Google Scholar]
  57. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J.
    (1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Longman. 10.1177/007542428702000108
     https://doi.org/10.1177/007542428702000108 [Google Scholar]
  58. R Core Team
    R Core Team (2023) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Raymond, G.
    (2003) Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, (), –. 10.1177/000312240306800607
     https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240306800607 [Google Scholar]
  60. Robinson, J. D.
    (2020) Revisiting preference organization in context: A qualitative and quantitative examination of responses to information seeking. Research on Language & Social Interaction, (), –. 10.1080/08351813.2020.1739398
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2020.1739398 [Google Scholar]
  61. Robinson, J. D., & Kevoe-Feldman, H.
    (2010) Using full repeats to initiate repair on others’ questions. Research on Language and Social Interaction, (), –. 10.1080/08351813.2010.497990
     https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2010.497990 [Google Scholar]
  62. Romero-Trillo, J.
    (Ed.) (2008) Pragmatics and corpus linguistics: A mutualistic entente. De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110199024
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199024 [Google Scholar]
  63. Rühlemann, C.
    (2020) Turn structure and inserts. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, (), –. 10.1075/ijcl.19098.ruh
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.19098.ruh [Google Scholar]
  64. Rühlemann, C., & Clancy, B.
    (2018) Corpus linguistics and pragmatics. InC. Ilie & N. R. Norrick (Eds.), Pragmatics and its interfaces (pp.–). John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.294.11ruh
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.294.11ruh [Google Scholar]
  65. Rühlemann, C., & Gries, S. Th.
    (2021) How do speakers and hearers disambiguate multi-functional words? The case of well. Functions of Language, (), –. 10.1075/fol.18050.ruh
     https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.18050.ruh [Google Scholar]
  66. Sacks, H.
    (1987) On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. InG. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organisation (pp.–). Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781800418226‑004
     https://doi.org/10.21832/9781800418226-004 [Google Scholar]
  67. Sadock, J. M., & Zwicky, A. M.
    (1985) Speech act distinctions in syntax. InT. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (Vol., pp.–). Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Schegloff, E. A.
    (1984) On some questions and ambiguities in conversation. InJ. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action (pp.–). Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. (1997) Practices and actions: Boundary cases of other-initiated repair. Discourse Processes, (), –. 10.1080/01638539709545001
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539709545001 [Google Scholar]
  70. (2007) Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis (Vol.). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511791208
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511791208 [Google Scholar]
  71. Schweinberger, M.
    (forthcoming). Implications of the replication crisis for corpus linguistics — some suggestions to improve reproducibility. InM. Laitinen & P. Rautionaho Eds. Broadening horizons: Data-intensive approaches to English. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Searle, J.
    (1969) Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  73. Spinellis, D.
    (2012) Git. IEEE Software, (), –. 10.1109/MS.2012.61
     https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2012.61 [Google Scholar]
  74. Stivers, T.
    (2005) Modified repeats: One method for asserting primary rights from second position. Research on Language and Social Interaction, (), –. 10.1207/s15327973rlsi3802_1
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327973rlsi3802_1 [Google Scholar]
  75. (2010) An overview of the question-response system in American English conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, (), –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.011
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.04.011 [Google Scholar]
  76. Stivers, T., & Hayashi, M.
    (2010) Transformative answers: One way to resist a question’s constraints. Language in Society, (), –. 10.1017/S0047404509990637
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404509990637 [Google Scholar]
  77. Sönning, L., & Werner, V.
    (2021) The replication crisis, scientific revolutions, and linguistics. Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/ling‑2019‑0045
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2019-0045 [Google Scholar]
  78. van Rossum, G.
    (1995) Python reference manual. CWI. https://ir.cwi.nl/pub/5008
     [Google Scholar]
  79. van Rossum, G., & Drake Jr, F. L.
    (2011) The Python language reference manual. Network Theory Ltd.
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Verdonik, D.
    (2023) Annotating dialogue acts in speech data. Problematic issues and basic dialogue act categories. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, (), –. 10.1075/ijcl.20165.ver
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.20165.ver [Google Scholar]
  81. Weisser, M.
    (2020) Speech acts in corpus pragmatics: Making the case for an extended taxonomy. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, (), –. 10.1075/ijcl.19023.wei
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.19023.wei [Google Scholar]
  82. Wilkinson, M. D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I. J., Appleton, G., Axton, M., Baak, A., Blomberg, N., Boiten, J.-W., Bonino da Silva Santos, L., Bourne, P. E., Bouwman, J., Brookes, A. J., Clark, T., Crosas, M., Dillo, I., Dumon, O., Edmunds, S., Evelo, C. T., Finkers, R. … Mons, B.
    (2016) The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data, , Article e160018. 10.1038/sdata.2016.18
     https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.18 [Google Scholar]
  83. Winter, B.
    (2019) Statistics for linguists: An introduction using R. Routledge. 10.4324/9781315165547
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315165547 [Google Scholar]
  84. Xie, Y.
    (2015) Dynamic documents with R and knitr (2nd ed.). Chapman and Hall/CRC. 10.1201/9781315382487
     https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315382487 [Google Scholar]
  85. Center for Open Science
    Center for Open Science: https://cos.io/
  86. Initiative for Open Citations
    Initiative for Open Citations: https://i4oc.org/
  87. Open Science MOOC
    Open Science MOOC: https://opensciencemooc.eu/
  88. European Commission
    European Commission. (n.d.). Open science. RetrievedApril 17, 2025, fromhttps://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/strategy/strategy-research-and-innovation/our-digital-future/open-science_en
     [Google Scholar]
  89. National Institutes of Health (NIH)
    National Institutes of Health (NIH) (2024, September9). Enhancing reproducibility through rigor and transparency. RetrievedApril 17, 2025, fromhttps://grants.nih.gov/policy-and-compliance/policy-topics/reproducibility
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Wellcome Trust
    Wellcome Trust. (n.d.). Data, software and materials management and sharing policy. RetrievedApril 17, 2025, fromhttps://wellcome.org/research-funding/guidance/policies-grant-conditions/data-software-materials-management-and-sharing-policy
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Nature
    Nature. (n.d.). Reporting standards and availability of data, materials, code and protocols. RetrievedApril 17, 2025, fromhttps://www.nature.com/nature-portfolio/editorial-policies/reporting-standards
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Science
    Science. (n.d.). Research standards. Science journals: Editorial policies. RetrievedApril 17, 2025, fromhttps://www.science.org/content/page/science-journals-editorial-policies#research-standards
  93. PLOS ONE
    PLOS ONE (2019, December5). Data availability policy. RetrievedApril 17, 2025, fromhttps://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Bishop, D.
    (2015, August28). Psychology research: Hopeless case or pioneering field?The Guardian. RetrievedApril 18, 2025, fromhttps://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2015/aug/28/reproducibility-project-psychology-research-hopeless-case-or-pioneering-field
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Haelle, T.
    (2021, December7). A massive 8-year effort finds that much cancer research can’t be replicated. Science News. RetrievedApril 18, 2025, fromhttps://www.sciencenews.org/article/cancer-biology-studies-research-replication-reproducibility
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Yong, E.
    (2018, November19). Psychology’s replication crisis is running out of excuses. The Atlantic. RetrievedApril 18, 2025, fromhttps://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/11/psychologys-replication-crisis-real/576223/
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Common Language Resources and Technology Infrastructure (CLARIN)
    Common Language Resources and Technology Infrastructure (CLARIN): https://www.clarin.eu/
  98. Dryad
    Dryad: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/project/dryad/
  99. figshare
    figshare: https://figshare.com/
  100. GitHub
    GitHub: https://github.com/
  101. GitLab
    GitLab: https://about.gitlab.com/
  102. Language Data Commons of Australia (LDaCA)
    Language Data Commons of Australia (LDaCA): https://www.ldaca.edu.au/
  103. Language Technology and Data Analysis Laboratory (LADAL)
    Language Technology and Data Analysis Laboratory (LADAL): https://ladal.edu.au/
  104. Mendeley Data
    Mendeley Data: https://data.mendeley.com/
  105. Open Science Framework (OSF)
    Open Science Framework (OSF): https://osf.io/
  106. Zenodo
    Zenodo: https://zenodo.org/
/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.23033.sch
Loading
Reproducibility and transparency in interpretive corpus pragmatics
John Benjamins ; https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.23033.sch
/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.23033.sch
/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.23033.sch
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: trailing-off conjunctions ; answers ; questions ; Australian English ; corpus pragmatics

Most Cited

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