Review of Egbert, Biber & Gray (2022): Designing and Evaluating Language Corpora: A Practical Framework for Corpus Representativeness

References

1. Aston, G., & Burnard, L.
   (1998) The BNC handbook. Edinburgh University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Becker, K., & Gray, B.
   (2018) A situational and linguistic analysis of evaluative and primary research articles: Exploring academic journal registers. Paper presented atAmerican Association for Applied Linguistics 2018 Conference. Chicago, IL.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Biber, D.
   (1993a) Representativeness in corpus design. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 8(4), 243–257. 10.1093/llc/8.4.243
   https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/8.4.243 [Google Scholar]
4. Biber, D.
   (1993b) Using register-diversified corpora for general language studies. Computational Linguistics, 19(2), 219–242.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Biber, D., & Egbert, J.
   (2018) Register variation online. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316388228
   https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316388228 [Google Scholar]
6. Davies, M.
   (2010) The Corpus of Contemporary American English as the first reliable monitor corpus of English. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 25(4), 447–464. 10.1093/llc/fqq018
   https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqq018 [Google Scholar]
7. Egbert, J., Biber, D., & Gray, B.
   (2022a) Designing and evaluating language corpora: A practical framework for corpus representativeness. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316584880
   https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316584880 [Google Scholar]
8. Egbert, J., Biber, D., Gray, B., & Keller, D.
   (2022b) Corpus design and representativeness in practice. InJ. Egbert, D. Biber, & B. Gray, Designing and evaluating language corpora: A practical framework for corpus representativeness (pp.177–219). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316584880.007
   https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316584880.007 [Google Scholar]
9. Goulart, L., & Wood, M.
   (2021) Methodological synthesis of research using multi-dimensional analysis. Journal of Research Design and Statistics in Linguistics and Communication Science, 6(2), 107–137. 10.1558/jrds.18454
   https://doi.org/10.1558/jrds.18454 [Google Scholar]
10. Gray, B.
    (2015) Linguistic variation in research articles: When discipline tells only part of the story. John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.71
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.71 [Google Scholar]
11. Hashimoto, B., & Nelson, K.
    (2024) Recent trends in corpus design and reporting: A methodological synthesis. Research in Corpus Linguistics, 12(1), 59–88. 10.32714/ricl.12.01.03
    https://doi.org/10.32714/ricl.12.01.03 [Google Scholar]
12. Kruskal, W., & Mosteller, F.
    (1979) Representative sampling, III: The current statistical literature. International Statistics Review, 47(3), 245–265. 10.2307/1402647
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1402647 [Google Scholar]
13. Larsson, T., Egbert, J., & Biber, D.
    (2022) On the status of statistical reporting versus linguistic description in corpus linguistics: A ten-year perspective. Corpora, 17(1), 137–157. 10.3366/cor.2022.0238
    https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2022.0238 [Google Scholar]
14. Leech, G.
    (1992) 100 million words of English: The British National Corpus (BNC). Language Research, 281, 1–13.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Mizumoto, A., Plonsky, L., & Egbert, J.
    (2021) Meta-analyzing corpus linguistic research. InM. Paquot and S. Th. Gries (eds.). A Practical Handbook of Corpus Linguistics (pp.663–688). Springer.
    [Google Scholar]